Senate
4 June 1976

30th Parliament · 1st Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Condor Laucke) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2391

QUESTION

OFFICIAL PHOTOGRAPHS IN THE SENATE CHAMBER

The PRESIDENT:

– Honourable senators, with your concurrence, some official photographs of the Senate will be taken at the conclusion of question time.

page 2391

PETITIONS

Cambodia

Senator LAJOVIC:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 79 citizens of Australia:

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

That whereas all people should have the right to life, liberty, and political and religious freedom and whereas there are increasing reports on human slaughter and repression by the Communist-led government in Cambodia, your petitioners humbly pray, that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should:

Send a joint Parliamentary team to visit Cambodia and assess the situation.

Support the admission of news teams to visit Cambodia.

Support the sending of a Red Cross team to assist with relief work.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

The Clerk:

– The following petitions have been lodged for presentation:

Metric System

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the Metric system and request the Government to restore the Imperial system.

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

Petition received.

Australian Assistance Plan

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 since the Australian Assistance Plan is making it possible for citizens to help themselves, thereby ensuring best possible use of limited Government resources, as shown by the stimulus and support given to community groups through the Australian Assistance Plan in the Albury Wodonga Region.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament will take immediate steps to continue the Australian Assistance Plan as recommended in the Report tabled by the

Honourable the Minister for Social Security, Senator Margaret Guilfoyle in Parliament on 4 March 1976.

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

Petition received.

Overseas Development Assistance

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that many Australians are concerned at the announced decision by the Australian Government to reduce the 1975-76 Overseas Development Assistance vote by $21m, and by the abolition of the Australian Development Assistance Agency.

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

  1. 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;
  2. reaffirm Australia’s commitment of Overseas Development Assistance being a minimum of 0.7 per cent of GNP, and
  3. establish a fully independent statutory authority to administer Australia’s offiical Overseas Development Assistence.

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

Petition received.

page 2391

ABORIGINES AND ISLANDERS

Notice of Motion

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

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

That leave be given to bring in a Bill for an Act relating to the admissibility as evidence of confessions by Aborigines and Islanders, and for purposes connected therewith.

page 2391

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2391

QUESTION

EDUCATION VOUCHERS

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

-I ask the Minister for Education: Is it a fact that the Government is considering the introduction of education vouchers? Is this despite the fact that voucher schemes have been generally abandoned in the United States and that they increase educational inequalities and are administratively very difficult?

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

– The Government’s policy is to investigate the voucher systems as they might apply or as they function throughout the world. That investigation has not yet commenced. 1 am unaware that in fact the voucher systems have failed overseas. I am aware that in certain cases there have been some considerable successes. As to their increasing inequality, the main claim that is made for the voucher system is that it establishes equality for all children throughout the community. Nevertheless, as yet we have nothing authoritative to report because we have not commenced the investigation.

page 2392

QUESTION

UNION BALLOTS

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I preface my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations by saying that I touched fleetingly on the subject of my question in the debate on the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill last night but I do not think that the Minister referred to it when replying to the debate. Will the Minister examine the existing situation in regard to trade union ballots conducted by the Commonwealth Electoral Office wherein a late nomination attributed to mail delivery malfunctions cannot be accepted as a valid nomination after the deadline whereas, in ballots conducted by the trade union, with mutual agreement by all the parties such a nomination can be accepted? Will the Minister have a look at that anomaly?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I think Senator Mulvihill raises a very real problem. This happens throughout postal transactions, including postal voting in ordinary elections. Many ballot papers are held up in the mail. I shall draw the attention of my colleague the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to the matter and suggest that he have a look at it.

page 2392

QUESTION

OZONE LAYER

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, concerns widespread publicity given today to a report from the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment concerning the effects of supersonic aircraft on the ozone layer. I ask the Minister: Will he arrange to have this matter referred to the Minister for Transport for report and is he able to give the Senate any information relating to the matter?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have not as yet read the report. I shall do so in detail at the earliest date and I shall discuss it with the Minister for Transport at the earliest date. Any suggestion of any threat to human health, in whatever degree and however minor might be the threat, is worth investigating. But I think that the problem must be put in perspective. A view is being put around that the introduction to commercial flying of Concorde aircraft raises a new factor in the world and a new threat to health. Nothing could be more wrong than this. For more than a decade now, and increasingly every day, supersonic aircraft in their hundreds are flying throughout the world, over all continents. It is well to keep in perspective that in Australia we have. 100 Mirage fighter aircraft and some 24 Fill fighterbomber aircraft, all of them supersonic, all of them flying at high altitudes and all of them, therefore, having a potential to affect the ozone by pollution. I want to draw the attention of honourable senators also to the fact that in western Europe- and no doubt in eastern Europemany hundreds of military aircraft, flying out of countries such as the United Kingdom, France etcetera, are flying intercontinentally continuously daily, and that the total of these and the total experience militarily day by day, week by week, over the years- and indeed over the decade- has been quite massive. I do not say that as any total -

Senator Georges:

– In other words, you want to add more to the overload?

Senator CARRICK:

- Mr President, if Senator Georges had been listening he would have heard me say at the beginning exactly the reverse of that. I said that if there is any possible threat, however minor, to the health of people it ought to be investigated. When the honourable senator interrupted I was about to say, as I had said, that we should put the matter in perspective- the half a dozen Concorde flights compared with the many thousands of daily military flights- but that we would have this matter investigated. I wanted to say that there was no new experience to the world in terms of potential threat to health in the flight of supersonic aircraft and that, in perspective, the military aircraft, if there is a threat, must constitute a much greater threat to the ozone. No suggestion of this has been raised. Of course we shall have the Senate committee’s report examined, and shall have it examined by scientists.

page 2392

QUESTION

ABORIGINES

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs: Has the Department of Aboriginal Affairs sent telegrams in the last few days to all regional offices of the Department requesting information on the expenditure of Aboriginal organisations on items such as capital works, plant and equipment, wages, dwellings and contents, buildings and vehicles? Has the Department asked for a breakdown of wages in terms of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal? is this breakdown in terms of white and black another step towards the cutting of Aboriginal staff and is the purpose of this exercise another money saving device? Can the Minister advise also if the result of this will be an attempt to bulk purchase on insurance for all Aboriginal organisations?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · VICTORIA · LP

– I am unaware of whether telegrams have been sent to regional offices requesting details of expenditure relating to capital works, plant and equipment, motor vehicles or anything of the nature that has been mentioned by the honourable senator. I think the assumptions that he has drawn from any such telegrams, if he has knowledge of them, could be inaccurate. It would be understood that a breakdown of expenditure at this time would be required for a variety of reasons. I shall check with the Minister as to whether such telegrams have been sent. It could be that in the normal course of departmental work information is required. I doubt very much whether any such information is required to do any of the things that were suggested in the question directed to me.

page 2393

QUESTION

UNIVERSITY STUDENTS: FAILURE RATE

Senator COLSTON:
QUEENSLAND

-Is the Minister for Education aware that the principal of John Flynn College at James Cook University, Mr James Martin, in a report debated in Brisbane on Wednesday, blamed the Radford scheme for an increase in the failure rate of first year university students? Can the Minister advise whether the Universities Commission or the Australian Department of Education has undertaken any research on the effect the Radford scheme is having on first year university students, particularly with regard to study techniques and the evaluation of lecture material? Finally, has the Queensland Government sought any assistance or guidance from the Minister relating to the announcement last Tuesday that it intends establishing a committee to inquire into the standards of primary, secondary and tertiary education in that State?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– My recollection is that I did see some such comment arising out of the failure rates. I do not know the detail of it. My own Department and its subsidiaries- the Education Research and Development Committee, the Curriculum Development Committee and other elements of the Department- are enormously interested in all reports that come forward, including the Radford committee report and other material. We are particularly interested in matters of research which could identify reasons for matriculants not succeeding as they move further. To my knowledge, we have not been asked by the Queensland Government for assistance in relation to its own inquiry. We will be tremendously interested to watch the progress of any investigation that is made on this matter by the Queensland Government or any other government. I should add that I think it is timely, both in the States and in the Commonwealth, to open up one’s mind from time to time to the whole question of the success or failure of our education systems at all levels and, I think the honourable senator will agree, to challenge existing beliefs and orthodoxies to see whether we can do better. In that regard, I certainly will be directing all elements of my Department and the commissions towards such evaluations.

page 2393

QUESTION

STATE GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the statements made by various State Premiers expressing concern at the Prime Minister’s statement that State governments, as well as the Australian Government, have a responsibility to cut back public spending? When was that view first expressed to the State Premiers and does it not contradict the federalist policy of the Government? Is not the new policy an attack on the sovereignty and rights of States and why was this change of policy not raised first in the Senate, which is supposed to be the States House? Can the Minister inform me whether the same restriction is to apply also to local government and semi-government authorities, as it seems to represent an expression of centralist philosophies?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have seen reports, but not actual statements by Premiers, suggesting that Premiers have some concern that the Commonwealth is asking for good housekeeping in all spheres of government in Australia. I would be surprised- nay, astonished- if there were any suggestion by even the Labor Party that a Commonwealth government at a time of economic stringency, at a time of severe inflation and unemployment, should not have the right and the duty to say to State governments and to local governments: ‘It is your duty, equal with ours, to put your house in order, to get efficiencies, to cut out waste, to use your money to better advantage when the need for money is pressing upon all. ‘ Not only is this not against the federalism policies; it is fundamental to federalism that there should be teamwork, a working dialogue in all 3 spheres. It is fundamental that the Commonwealth should be inviting the States and local government to co-operate in economic management. If the honourable senator were to look at the Commonwealth’s policy statement on federalism he would observe that we have said that it is the moral responsibility of all spheres of government to co-operate in the economic management of the country at a time when even the Australian Labor Party has agreed in a recent debate that there should be restraints on spending. Who more has a moral responsibility than the States and local government to look to saving costs, to eliminating duplication and to putting their money towards re-employment and the abatement of inflation.

Senator GIETZELT:

– I have a supplementary question. Of course, I do not have any disagreement with the statement that there should be good housekeeping at all levels of government but I do not think the Minister has properly replied to my question. Statements have been made by the Premiers of Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria regretting any suggestion that there should be cutbacks in public works and/or housing funds. That is an area on which I feel the Minister should give us a more definitive statement.

Senator CARRICK:

– Just as last year when the Whitlam Government in its Budget announced major cutbacks in public welfare programs and education programs, including a $105m cutback in the programs of the 4 education commissions, so when this Government exerts its duty and responsibility to make alterations in its own programs there will be some public comment. That is natural. However, to suggest -

Senator Gietzelt:

– But not in austerity programs, Senator.

Senator CARRICK:

– Last year I did not hear Senator Gietzelt suggest austerity when his own Government cut education programs by $ 105m and the Schools Commission program by $43 m. He sees austerity now where he saw great joy last year. The simple fact is that in the debate in recent days in this Senate all Labor senators admitted that Mr Hayden ‘s doctrine last year was right- when you have an intolerable deficit you must cut it in half and cut $2,600m from it. The Federal Government is seeking to do that and to achieve good housekeeping throughout Australia. However, in doing that it has guaranteed the State governments a buoyant general purpose revenue and has guaranteed local government the most buoyant general purpose revenue it has ever had. So in those circumstances both State and local government have cause to be happy.

page 2394

QUESTION

JAPANESE NUCLEAR WASTE

Senator DURACK:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate who represents the Minister for National Resources, I refer to the proposed visit to Australia by a group of Japanese businessmen to discuss development of uranium resources and, in particular, the alleged proposal that Japanese nuclear waste should be stored in remote parts of Australia. Has any approach been made to the Commonwealth Government to receive any Japanese mission to discuss such matters? Is the Government aware of any similar approach to a State government? Would the Commonwealth Government be prepared to entertain any proposal for the storage of nuclear waste from Japan in any parts of Australia?

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

-There were newspaper reports some weeks ago that there was to be a visit by a Japanese group. From my recollection it proposed to have discussions on this matter with the Premier of Western Australia. At that time the Commonwealth Government made it very clear to the Japanese Government that we would not receive a visit of such a mission and did not wish it to come to Australia. The Commonwealth Government maintains that position and does not withdraw from it. As to the other part of the honourable senator’s question in respect of nuclear waste facilities, I point out to the Senate that in view of Australia’s constitutional powers and responsibilities under the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, any question relating to the establishment of nuclear waste facilities in Australia is a matter for the Commonwealth Government alone. Press reports in early June stated that the Japanese Prime Minister, Mr Miki, had indicated that the Japanese Government was not giving any thought to nuclear waste facilities in Australia. I re-emphasise: Neither is the Commonwealth Government.

page 2394

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE STAFF CUTS

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, refers to reports of another round of Public Service cuts, including proposals for cuts in all staff ceilings with some mention of selective reductions. Is the Minister able to advise whether there will be any sackings in connection with the new proposals which follow the announcement in January? In view of the fact that there have been complaints from the Department of Foreign Affairs and also, I see, from union delegations in relation to the statutory authority Telecom Australia that the present ceilings are hampering necessary developmental work, will the Minister consider holding discussions with staff associations in the same way as talks were consummated in February?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-The procedures will be basically the same as those which occurred before. There will be no dismissals; there will be no sackings. Most likely, natural wastage through resignations and retirements will be sufficient to achieve the ceiling cuts. The honourable senator mentioned the Department of Foreign Affairs and Telecom Australia in particular. The Prime Minister has made it quite clear on a number of occasions, certainly to Ministers, that if there is any trouble in any department in providing services for the community we should come back and the ceiling will be reviewed. It is not the intention in imposing staff ceilings that any services to the community shall be disrupted or delayed, or be of less quality. As to consultations with staff organisations, I am quite certain that the Ministers for the departments concerned are always quite willing to see members of union staff associations or anybody connected with the particular departments.

page 2395

QUESTION

TELEPHONE MIGRANT INTERPRETER SERVICE

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question which is directed to the Minister for Social Security follows an answer she gave to Senator Bishop a few days ago on the telephone migrant interpreter service. What is the position regarding the use of this service? Has there been any growth in the use of the service since its inception? Are any recent statistics available which show the use made of the service, particularly in Adelaide?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

- Senator Bishop asked me a question on this matter towards the end of last month. I am in the course of preparing a reply for him on some specific matters. In answer to Senator Young’s question today, I am able to give information. As at April this year, as far as Adelaide is concerned, there were 822 calls by users of the telephone interpreter service. In relation to the growth in the use of the service, there has been a change in the use of languages. For instance, in Adelaide there has been a growth in the use of the Italian language by migrants. This is not surprising when we know of the proportion of migrants of Italian origin who are in that city. For the information of honourable senators I have a table which shows statistics as at April this year. With the concurrence of honourable senators I am prepared to incorporate the table in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

page 2396

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL SPECIAL WORKS PROJECT

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs: In view of the recommendations of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs that the Aboriginal special works project should be greatly expanded, does the Government adopt this recommendation? Will there be an increased allocation of money for the Aboriginal special works program? If the Minister is unable to supply the information at this stage, could it be supplied by the time we discuss the Supply Bills?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am unable to give an answer at the moment with regard to the special works program that was the subject of a recommendation of the House of Representatives Standing Committee but I will undertake to have that information available when we are discussing the Supply Bills.

page 2396

QUESTION

OZONE LAYER

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Can the Minister for Science verify that according to scientific information there has been an increase in ozone in the upper atmosphere during recent years and that only a marginal decrease in ozone has been demonstrated at the North and South Poles? Is it a fact that the ozone level at the Poles has always been marginally lower than elsewhere? Does the Minister agree with the main thrust of the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment tabled yesterday that the Australian Government should maintain a continuing attack on air pollution in Australia and that it should co-operate with other countries in order to keep a close watch on upper atmosphere pollution on a global basis?

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

-The answer to the honourable senator’s question generally is yes. I noted with interest the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment. The news report that I read this morning which connected the Concorde aircraft with any comments in the report seemed to me to be entirely inconsistent. I noted that Senator Jessop spoke on a radio broadcast this morning in an attempt to right that misunderstanding. Honourable senators would know that the Australian Academy of Science produced a report on climatic change in March of” this year. The comment made in that report certainly supports the honourable senator’s view that there should be greater research into the upper atmosphere. The report makes the following comment on page 45 in relation to jet exhaust:

The effects of stratospheric jet exhaust on ozone concentrations are still the subject of active investigation. Effects to date are certainly minor. The Academy has reported on this earlier. Its recommendations for stratospheric research and monitoring have now become more urgent due to the emergence of other dangers.

The report indicates the greater danger of fluorocarbons. I believe that Australia, while maintaining its own climatic investigations, should become increasingly involved in international scientific programs aimed at measuring, monitoring and interpreting the characteristics of atmosphere, ozone and ice masses. I believe that this will follow in the early days ahead of us.

page 2397

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE CUTS

Senator WRIEDT:

– My question, which is directed to the Minister assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs, flows from an answer he gave earlier this morning to Senator Gietzelt and also from answers given by Senator Withers and Senator Cotton. If my understanding of Senator Withers’ answer is correct, he gave an undertaking that there will not be dismissals from the Commonwealth Public Service as a result of cuts in expenditure. Senator Carrick indicated that the Commonwealth expects the States to reduce their expenditure. Presumably, that means in the administrative field. In view of Senator Withers’ undertaking, I suggest to Senator Carrick that if it is good enough for the Commonwealth to give an undertaking that it will not dismiss members of the Commonwealth Public Service, presumably that same standard would apply to the State public services. Therefore, if the States are not expected to engage in dismissals of staff, can he indicate in what areas he anticipates the States are to reduce their expenditures?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Senator Wriedt ‘s question discloses a continuing lack of understanding of what federalism is all about.

Senator Gietzelt:

– You are the only one who seems to understand it.

Senator CARRICK:

-Senator Gietzelt says that nobody seems to understand it. I commend Labor Party senators to the Federal body of the Local Government Association and its unqualified acceptance of federalism programs. I commend them to the Premiers Conference in this regard -

Senator Button:

- Mr Hamer does not understand it either.

Senator Gietzelt:

– We have some good allies.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!*

Senator CARRICK:

-One would think there might be a Premiers Conference coming up next Thursday which accounts for the restlessness of the natives. The situation is simply that the States are sovereign States within themselves. How they effect their good housekeeping is a matter for themselves. One would hope that they would give consideration to the maintenance of their permanent public service, which is a basic principle. All that the Commonwealth is doing is saying that the nation itself has a major economic management problem- I take it that that is not argued- and that each of the 3 spheres has a responsibility in that regard and should look to good housekeeping. How they achieve their good housekeeping is a matter for them.

page 2397

QUESTION

POSTAL COMMISSION

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. Has the Minister seen a report that the Postal Commission will end the year with a surplus estimated at between $10m and $ 14m? Can the Minister verify the report? If it is correct, is he in a position to state that no further increases in postal charges will be approved by the Government for the coming financial year?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have seen newspaper reports suggesting that a profitability of that order will be achieved. The second part of the question relates to budgetary problems and policy matters and is something on which I cannot comment. The profitability of the institution and its effect therefore on future rates and charges are matters for consideration in the Budget. I will draw the question to the attention of the Minister.

page 2397

QUESTION

COMMERCIAL FISHING POTENTIAL OF THE TORRES STRAIT AREA

Senator GEORGES:

-Is the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry aware that in 1974 the Queensland Government sponsored an extensive research survey of the commercial fishing potential of the Torres Strait area at a cost of more than $250,000? Did the Queensland Government have this report classified as confidential in a deliberate attempt to conceal important information on the Torres Strait area at a time when the border question was under consideration? Is the Fisheries Division of the Australian Department of Primary Industry now engaged on a similar study? Is this study being unreasonably hampered by the nonavailability of the Queensland results? Will the Minister, in the interests of economy, suggest to his Queensland counterpart that the results of the State survey be made available to those with a legitimate research interest in the fisheries potential of the Torres Strait islands area?

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

– I am quite sure that this unwarranted suggestion of a tribal war over fish in Queensland is very largely incorrect. What I would suggest to the honourable senator is that this is an appropriate question for the notice paper and an appropriate area for me to try to find out from the Minister whether what the honourable senator has said is correct. I think it is also worth recording that Australia does have a substantial resource of fish which could well be enlarged with the expansion of the opportunity if our sea zone expands. This is an area about which we ought to know a great deal more. Equally it would seem to me to be regrettable if areas of knowledge which are held in Australia are denied from one body to another.

page 2398

QUESTION

PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS: CHEMISTS’ REMUNERATIONS

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. I know that the Minister will be aware of some concern among chemists in relation to chemists’ remunerations for the supply of pharmaceutical benefits. I leave aside the proceedings that are currently before the courts. Has the Pharmacy Guild of Australia put proposals to the Government as to how it would see the determination of chemists’ rates of remuneration, including professional fees, being carried out in the future, including a suggestion that these matters be decided by a fees tribunal or some other form of arbitration? Will the Government give consideration to the Guild ‘s proposals?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am aware that the Pharmacy Guild has made representations to the Minister for Health with regard to the remuneration paid to its members for the supply of pharmaceutical benefits. Some of its recommendations already have been considered by the Government. It will be recalled that in April the Minister for Health, on behalf of the Government, made an offer to the Pharmacy Guild of an increase of 5c a prescription in chemists’ professional fees retrospective to 1 July 1973 to wipe the slate clean for the past and to pave the way for agreement on a further review of chemists’ remunerations. The Government was not prepared to take these matters to arbitration. The result of that was the Pharmacy Guild’s taking out of a High Court writ against the Commonwealth to test the Government’s powers to determine the chemists’ rates. Nevertheless, in order to facilitate a review of chemists’ remunerations in the future, on 2 1 April the Minister for Health invited Guild representatives to meet with the Government as soon as possible and to provide him with joint recommendations on several matters. Two meetings have been held- one on 19 May and one on 2 June. Consideration of these matters is continuing. I assume that the matters that have been mentioned by Senator Knight in his question are the subject of discussion at the meetings that are being held.

page 2398

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ASSISTANCE PLAN

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security. Under the Australian Assistance Plan such schemes as the handyman services for pensioners and the home help schemes organised with the Country Women’s Association were established with very modest funding. Will the Minister reconsider Commonwealth Government involvement in such projects, now that they have been started, if the State governments prove unwilling to take up such financial commitments?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– As far as the services that have been mentioned are concerned, I believe them to be very important indeed in giving independence to many older people who wish to remain in their own homes. I would be looking at those services, particularly the handyman services, as an alternative to aged persons homes and hostels in relation to the responsibilities of my Department. But, as far as the Australian Assistance Plan is concerned, the Minister concerned in the State of Victoria has already mentioned that he hopes further to develop the Plan. I assume that, in the way in which the Plan works, the services that have been of benefit to the community will be continued by the State Government. It will be understood that for the next 12 months we will be funding those officers involved in the Australian Assistance Plan and the transition to the State Government is one matter which 1 am sure will have the attention it deserves.

page 2398

QUESTION

CHILD CARE

Senator SCOTT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address a question to the Minister for Social Security. There is a view that the Child Care Act 1972 does not adequately meet all the needs for early childhood services in Australia. Will the Minister indicate whether new legislation may be brought down to replace those parts of the Children’s Commission Act relating to children’s services in this country?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– As the proposed Children’s Commission has now been transferred to the Department of Social Security and as we are anxious to develop services for children, we will be looking to whatever needs there are for legislation to enable a very comprehensive service to be developed. If it is found that the Child Care Act is inappropriate or inadequate steps will be taken to have the required legislation for the child care services to be developed through the Department of Social Security.

page 2399

QUESTION

UNITED KINGDOM SCHOOL TEACHERS

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Education. The Minister will recall a question I asked him on Wednesday last, which in part was relative to reports that 100 school teachers from the United Kingdom will arrive in Australia on 1 September. Will the Minister consult with his counterpart in Victoria and, if it is a fact that there is now a surplus of teachers in that State, will he ask the Minister for Immigration to curtail the issue of visas to the teachers from the United Kingdom?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-It is true that last Wednesday I gave to Senator Primmer a detailed answer in which I explained that as a result of a series of investigations and decisions made by the previous Government, permission was given for the visas to be issued. I have taken the view- I am sure that my Government also takes the view- that the question of the need for teachers in a particular State is one for the State government concerned since, I think everyone must agree, sovereignty regarding primary and secondary education in Australia lies with the State governments. Therefore, it is for the Victorian State Government to make a value judgment as to whether there is a need for these teachers, particularly in terms of specialties and mobility. Apparently there is some demonstration of the fact that although there are some unemployed teachers in that State, they are neither willing to be mobile nor able to be specialists.

In my judgment it would not be a proper thing for the Commonwealth Government to use a visa system to override the States. A visa should not be, and I hope will not be, a political policy weapon. A visa gives a right of entry for a decent wholesome person to this country. The question of whether that person ought to be brought to this country depends upon the State Government of Victoria and not upon some punitive weapon concerning a visa. Of course, I will transmit to my colleague in Victoria, Mr Lindsay Thompson, the substance of Senator Primmer’s remarks. It would not be our intention, as I understand it, to use visas for punitive purposes.

page 2399

QUESTION

STUDENTS AT PRIVATE SECRETARIAL COLLEGES

Senator STEELE HALL:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Education whether he has been able to take action to remedy any of the anomalies that exist between the support provided to students attending private secretarial colleges, and whether he has been able to assist the particular college that

I mentioned in an adjournment debate some weeks ago.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Senator Steele Hall raised with me some weeks ago a question concerning the Government’s policy in providing funds to non-government tertiary institutions. In fact, he drew my attention to one specific institution. I made it clear to the Senate at that stage that this Government, faced with the position, as the previous Government was, of placing limitations on the amount of money available for various programs of education, had placed a limitation on the program to which Senator Steele Hall has referred and advised all nongovernment tertiary institutions, before December of last year and before the recruitment of students for this year, that the amount of money available to them for this calendar year would be the same as the amount available last year and no greater. They were given a guarantee that they would get the same amount of money but no escalation in the amount of money.

The question of how an institution should use the money depends entirely upon the policy of the institution and its policy for the recruitment of students. Clearly, if” an institution saw fit to maintain the same number of students as last year, no problem would exist as to the per capita amount per student. But if an institution saw fit to recruit substantially more students, the per capita amount per student would decline. That in fact occurred in the institution concerned. Due to economic stringencies my Government has found it necessary to maintain those ceilings. I have checked and found that there was an unequivocal statement to all such institutions that the quantum of money would be available. If there is less money available per student that arises out of the private policies of the individual institutions in their recruitment of the number of students. I am afraid that I cannot offer or foreshadow relief for that situation in the future.

page 2399

QUESTION

ECONOMIC MEASURES

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-My decent, wholesome question is addressed to Senator Carrick in all of his manifold and confused capacities. The honourable senator will recall that the constant theme of Liberal criticism of the Whitlam Government -

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– I take a point of order, Mr President. The honourable senator is offending against the Standing Orders by addressing the Minister in a role which he does not occupy. The question should be addressed to the

Minister, through you, Mr President, in his official and political capacity.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator James McClelland will continue.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I repeat: The Minister will recall that the constant theme of Liberal criticism of the Whitlam Government last year and indeed this year has been that it was prodigal in the expenditure of public moneys. Yet this morning, in answer to a question the Minister was at pains, as he is almost every day in answers to questions and in debates generally, to point to cuts in public expenditure introduced by the Hayden Budget and use these cuts as justification for cuts in public expenditure by his Government. Will the Minister tell us what his charge is against the Whitlam Government? Is it that it was too prodigal with public funds or that it set an example of responsible public expenditure to his Government?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-In the spirit of good fellowship at the break-up of term and in a good, wholesome, honest answer to Senator James McClelland, I shall explain the mystery to him. Mr Hayden said in his Budget Speech that there would be a deficit of some $5,000m- that is an extrapolated figure- if he continued with expenditure outlined in the forward estimates. He said that he proposed to reduce the deficit to something like $2,600m. He said he would do that but he did not do it. In fact he said that $5, 000m -

Senator Georges:

– You would not let him do it.

Senator CARRICK:

-Is it not strange that as soon as ‘the truth is revealed the natives get angry, restless and irritable? The simple fact is that Senator James McClelland asked me a question concerning the difference between the 2 Governments. The difference is that Mr Hayden diagnosed the problem and then did not cure it. He said that a Budget deficit of $5,000m would cripple the community. He said that it must be cut by half otherwise it would cause grave inflation and unemployment. He did not cut it, and the Budget deficit, when we inherited it, was about $5,000m. The difference is that we have set out to cut expenditure. I have pointed to a number of cuts. Senator James McClelland acknowledges these. The other night in debate he acknowledged that it was proper for a government facing a deficit to make substantial cuts, so we are as one on this.

Senator Gietzelt:

– Then why did you criticise?

Senator CARRICK:

-I criticised profoundly because it is one thing to know the truth, to know that a deficit of $5,000m will create untold chaos and unemployment and to do nothing about it -which was the course of the Labor Party- but vastly different to diagnose the truth and to take action as we have done.

page 2400

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL SPECIAL WORKS PROJECT

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

-My question to the Minister for Social Security is along the lines of Senator Cavanagh’s question concerning funds for the Aboriginal special works scheme. In view of the recommendations of the House of Representatives Standing Committee in regard to funds for the Aboriginal special works project, will the Minister in liaison with the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs give due regard to the recommendations rather than assist Aboriginal people through unemployment benefits and other assistance, except for giving these benefits in circumstances which are considered necessary? .

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and I have had meetings with regard to the employment of Aborigines. I shall refer the question to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, but I assure the honourable senator that what is implicit in the question is something that has received our consideration and certainly would have our support.

page 2400

QUESTION

BLAND COMMITTEE REPORT

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Administrative Services: Has the Government received the report of the Bland Committee which was scheduled for delivery by 31 May last? Is it the intention of the Government to make the report available to the Parliament before the Parliament adjourns for the winter recess?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I think that will be revealed in due course by the Prime Minister.

page 2400

QUESTION

STATES GRANTS

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

-In directing my question to Senator Carrick, in his capacity as Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs, I refer to a report in the Daily News of Wednesday last in which Sir Charles Court was reported to have said that he had received an assurance from the Prime Minister that Western Australia would be free to determine the proportion of Commonwealth funds to be distributed on what the Government somewhat quaintly calls a weighted per capita basis. Is this statement correct? Is this assurance a manifestation of this Government’s belief that power should be transferred to the

States? If so, why is his Government by centralist decree imposing a per capita formula instead of making simple grants, without strings attached, to the States?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– If the honourable senator had read the report from the Commonwealth Grants Commission which was tabled in this Senate some days ago he would have found a considerable amount of information to his advantage. What happened is that this Government went to the people of Australia on a federalist policy that was adopted. Included in that policy was in fact a parallel series of policies to those of the local government associations of Australia, which asked that there ought to be a growth revenue supplementary to rating revenues for local government. We said that we would do this and give a percentage of personal income tax and that it would have 2 characteristicspart of it per capita to all municipalities and shires and part of it equalisation. It is no centralist thing to say that we will give a supplementary revenue to another sphere of government.

Senator Walsh:

– With strings attached.

Senator CARRICK:

-With no strings attached at all. Unlike the Labor Party, we are giving to all municipalities and shires, and untied as grants, supplementary revenue.

Senator Gietzelt:

-$70m less than last year.

Senator CARRICK:

– An interjection suggests that there will be less money than last year. I remind honourable senators of the facts. Last year is was $79.9m and this coming year it will be $140m. Although the degree of the ability in numeracy and consistency of the Labor Party is low, in fact it is 75 per cent -

Senator Grimes:

– You are a fraud.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honourable senator will withdraw the statement: ‘You are a fraud’.

Senator Grimes:

– With respect to you, Mr President, I withdraw it.

Senator CARRICK:

– Because there have been some interjections I shall repeat what I said. We are relating the quantum of money to the amount that the Commonwealth Grants Commission gave last year in untied grants. Does anybody in the Labor Party deny that those grants totalled $79.9m? The answer is no. We are relating an amount of $ 140m as the parallel of money to be passed to the States and Grants Commission in untied grants. That is 75 per cent more than last year. There is no fraud whatever. All the cards are on the table. The Premiers Conference at its last meeting discussed the percentage by which the money should be divided as between per capita and equalisation. Lest anyone think it is centralist, for the first time the 6 Premiers were invited to give their views. A quaint thing is that the Labor Premiers said: ‘This is the first time we have ever been asked our views on anything’. So rather than being centralist, it was federalist. We said we would ask the Grants Commission to give a viewpoint on this, and the Grants Commission has done so. We said it may be that there could be variations between States; we may put a minimum on the per capita grant and have the States vary it. I am aware that the local Government Association in Western Australia has agreed with Sir Charles Court on what ought to be the percentage of local government grant per capita. So in what he is saying, Sir Charles Court has the full support of the Local Government Association in Western Australia, which I visited last week.

Senator WALSH:

-Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. In his 5 -minute reply, Senator Carrick did not answer the central point of my question, which I repeat: Is it correct, as Sir Charles Court has stated, that the States will be free to determine that proportion of the grant which will be paid on the weighted per capita basis determined by the Federal Government?

Senator CARRICK:

– What I said, and it was a direct answer, was that the Premiers had had a discussion. The general tenor of the Premiers’ discussion at the Premiers Conference in April was that there would be differences between the States as to the percentage per capita. Sir Charles Court had asked for a high per capita rate. The Local Government Association in Western Australia supports Sir Charles Court in the precise percentage. It told me so at first hand last weekend. The matter is to be determined next Thursday. There is a general view, and Sir Charles Court would be right in interpreting it, that there might well be freedom by the individual States to increase the per capita rate. If Sir Charles Court said that, he was reflecting what the Premiers Conference said and was reflecting what the honourable senator from Western Australia apparently is opposed to, that is, the policy of the Local Government Association in his State.

page 2401

QUESTION

CHILD CARE PROGRAMS

Senator BAUME:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Child Care Matters. Is the Minister aware that adolescent and teenage Australians are included in very few

Government programs of assistance and community development? With the announcement of new arrangements related to child care, some community groups have expressed concern that the situation in relation to adolescents may continue. Will the Minister undertake to examine areas of special un-met need affecting teenage and adolescent Australians as a first step towards possible initiatives which might help meet some of the problems of those groups?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am prepared to examine any areas of work that are consistent with my responsibilities for social security. As programs for children are now included within those responsibilities, I am prepared to examine any gaps which exist in services with a view to overcoming some of the social difficulties being experienced.

page 2402

QUESTION

PRIORITY PAID MAIL

Senator COLEMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications and relates to the additional charges for priority paid mail, particularly priority paid mail to members of Parliament while they are in Canberra. Is the Minister aware that if an article is sent priority paid it is supposed to be delivered as soon as practicable after arrival? That is not quite the case here in Parliament House. An article could arrive in Canberra by 9.30 in the morning and sit at the Canberra Post Office until the mail is collected again at 2 o’clock. As additional charges have been paid, and as that service would have been made available normally by ordinary air mail, will the Minister examine the situation and see whether priority paid mail could be hand delivered by the post office in Canberra?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I am aware of the general nature and function of priority paid mail. I am not aware of the situation which the honourable senator asserts exists here. Equally, and this may concern you, Mr President, I am not aware of the responsibilities of the post office and of the Parliament when the mail moves one step out of the actual containment area of the post office. It may well be that the question of delivery within the Parliament is a matter for the Joint House Department. That I do not know, so may I simply say to the honourable senator that since it is an important matter I will refer it in 2 ways- one to my colleague in the other place and perhaps one to you, Mr President, and to Mr Speaker.

The PRESIDENT:

– Very good.

page 2402

QUESTION

THE SENATE

Senator CHANEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

- Mr President, my question is directed to you. I note the fact that it is the last day of the session and that honourable senators are extremely tired but I draw your attention to the excellent attendance in the Senate at the moment. I ask whether you might arrange for photographs of the Senate to be taken from time to time, to assist me in keeping a quorum.

The PRESIDENT:

– It certainly would be a pleasure to have as the norm for assemblies in this chamber the numbers presently in the Senate.

page 2402

QUESTION

HANSARD

Senator HARRADINE:
TASMANIA

– My question is also directed to you, Mr President, in your capacity as being responsible jointly with the Speaker of the House of Representatives for the overall production of Hansard. Can you inform the Senate why the cover page for the Senate Hansard contains the words ‘Commonwealth of Australia’ underneath the crest and yet the House of Representatives Hansard does not? Is there some doubt whether the House of Representatives is part of the Commonwealth of Australia?

The PRESIDENT:

– It is so that on the Senate Hansard the title ‘Commonwealth of Australia’ has been retained through recent years. This practice still applies. There was a change on the House of Representatives Hansard which now has a different title from that appearing on the Senate Hansard. Senator Harradine has raised a very interesting point and I will look into it.

page 2402

QUESTION

COLLECTION OF TAX

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. It has come to my notice that out of the Supreme Court of Tasmania Hobart Registry in the month of May, 302 writs have been issued by the Commissioner of Taxation for collection of tax. It also has come to my notice that there is a feeling that the demands for collection are unduly severe and abrupt. Can the Minister assure me that no special instructions have been given for that sort of action, and that reasonable business cooperation will be extended by the Commissioner of Taxation as we would expect of other creditors, that is to say, due payment in the ordinary course of business? Will he also ascertain how many writs for the collection of income tax have been issued over the last 3 years out of that registry in the month of May so that I can make a comparison of the annual performance?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– That is most interesting and I would like to find out more about it. I shall certainly seek to do so. I do not suppose that the honourable senator would have available for me afterwards a dissection showing whether these are summonses based against corporations or against people because some extensions of time were given for company tax payment. It is the normal rule that tax is due to be paid before the end of June in most cases. This represents either extra amounts to be paid under the payasyouearn system or corporation tax in respect of which there has been a relaxation. It is my understanding that in bona fide cases the Commissioner has a discretion and an ability to help people where it is justified that they should be helped. If there has been a departure in practice or instruction one would like to know about it and I am glad to have had the matter drawn to my attention, and that of the Treasurer.

page 2403

QUESTION

COST OF GOVERNMENT INQUIRIES

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-On 28 April Senator Ryan asked me for details of the cost of inquiries established by the present Government. In addition during the sittings of Estimates Committee A I gave an undertaking to provide the most uptodate cost of royal commissions and similar inquiries established by the previous Government which come within the administration of the Department of Administrative Services. I have obtained what information I could get up till today. I do not say that it is complete because some of these commissions are still sitting. As further information comes to hand I will produce it in the Senate. The information concerned consists of tables of figures. Therefore I ask leave to incorporate the tables in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

page 2409

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

-I wish to make a personal explanation.

The PRESIDENT:

– Does the honourable senator claim to have been misrepresented?

Senator WALSH:

– Yes. In reply to a question yesterday Senator Withers referred to a question which I asked concerning a visit to Perth in February by Senator Knight. I wish to make it clear that my question contained no implication that Senator Kinght had improperly used his travel entitlements. I merely sought confirmation of the fact that Senator Knight arrived in Perth and proceeded to the home of the honourable member for Curtin ( Mr Garland) on 7 February, the day after it was announced that legal proceedings relating to allegations of bribery in the Australian Capital Territory Senate election would be initiated against Mr Garland.

page 2409

AUSTRALIA COUNCIL

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

– On behalf of the Prime Minister and pursuant to section 38 of the Australian Council Act 1975 I present the first report of the Australia Council, together with financial statements, for the period 13 March 1975 to 30 June 1975.

page 2409

UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON THE LAW OF THE SEA

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

– For the information of honourable senators I present the report of the Australian delegation to the fourth session of the third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea held in New York from 15 March 1976 to 7 May 1976.

page 2409

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE FLIGHTS

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

– For the information of honourable senators I present details of special Royal Australian Air Force flights for the period 9 February 1976 to 3 1 May 1976. Due to the limited number available, reference copies of this document have been placed in the Senate Records Office and the Parliamentary Library. During the Committee stage of the Appropriation Bills Senator McLaren asked for certain details as to costing. I hope to have that information here today and to put it in Hansard.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

- Mr President, I seek leave to move a motion.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator McLAREN:

– I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2409

INTERNATIONAL SUGAR AGREEMENT

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

– For the information of honourable senators, I present the resolution for the extension of the 1973 International Sugar Agreement.

page 2410

AUSTRALIAN TOBACCO BOARD

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

– Pursuant to Section 26 of the Tobacco Marketing Act 1965-73,I present the annual report of the Australian Tobacco Board for the calendar year 1975.

page 2410

VARIATIONS TO THE SUGAR AGREEMENT 1975

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

– For the information of honourable senators, I present an exchange of letters between the Prime Minister and the Premier of Queensland concerning variations to the Sugar Agreement, 1 975.

page 2410

INTERNATIONAL WHEAT AGREEMENT

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

– For the information of honourable senators, I present the protocols for the third extension of the Wheat Trade Convention and Food Aid Convention constituting the International Wheat Agreement, 1971.

page 2410

PAPERS

page 2410

MOTION TO TAKE NOTE

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-Mr President, I seek leave to move a motion in respect of the reports, the exchange of letters and the protocols which have just been presented by the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator KEEFFE:

– I move:

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

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2410

COMMONWEALTH NATIONAL FITNESS ACT

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– On behalf of the Acting Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, and for the information of honourable senators I present pursuant to section 6 of the Commonwealth National Fitness Act 1941 a report on the activities carried out under that Act for the year 1974-75.

page 2410

COMMONWEALTH BUREAU OF ROADS

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– On behalf of the Minister for Transport, and for the information of honourable senators I present a report by the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads entitled: National Highway Linking Sydney and Brisbane (Newcastle Area). Due to the limited number available, reference copies of this report have been placed in the Senate Records Office and the Parliamentary Library.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

- Mr President, I seek leave to move a motion.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator KEEFFE:

-I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2410

QUESTION

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE SYSTEM

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK (Victoria) (11.18)- Mr President, I ask for leave of the Senate to present a copy of the transcript of public evidence taken before the Joint Committee on the Parliamentary Committee System in the Twenty-ninth and Thirtieth Parliaments.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

-I present a copy of the transcript of the public evidence taken before the Joint Committee on the Parliamentary Committee System in the Twentyninth and Thirtieth Parliaments. I seek leave to make a very short statement.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK:

-I think that I should explain to honourable senators the reason for tabling these transcripts of public evidence which the Committee took and authorised at the time to be published. I do this not as the Chairman of a now defunct Committee of the Parliament but as a private senator who feels that this publicly available evidence should be drawn to the attention of the Parliament. When the report of the Joint Committee was tabled last week, a limited number of copies was available for circulation to senators and members. There has been considerable discussion of the report, discussion which I hope will be facilitated by a wide distribution of the report within the next 2 weeks and the availability of the transcript of evidence at the same time. Copies of the transcripts are available in the Senate Records Office and the Parliamentary Library. I shall address myself to that in a moment. Only a limited number is available at present but copies will be circulated to every senator, I hope prior to the resumption of the sittings next August.

I have not asked for leave to move for the printing of the report because this would cost a considerable sum of money and I think would attract frowns from the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Withers). We will use the domestic reproducing systems of both Houses of the Parliament to produce a limited number of the transcripts. I hope that at least a set may be available for the members of the committee that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has appointed so that they can sail some uncharted seas with some of the evidence taken by a prior committee at their disposal.

page 2411

SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE CORPORATIONS AND SECURITIES INDUSTRY BILL

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-Mr President, I ask for leave to move a motion for the tabling of the evidence of the Senate Select Committee on the Corporations and Securities Industry Bill.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator GEORGES:

– I feel obliged, in the way Senator Sir Magnus Cormack felt obliged, to nave the evidence of this Committee tabled. The Committee is now defunct. It ceased its hearings at the prorogation of the last Parliament. A large amount of evidence was taken by that Committee and that evidence, which I trust will be tabled, will assist considerably in their deliberations those who are at present engaged in preparing legislation of a similar nature and legislation to cover companies within Australia. A considerable amount of effort was put into the submissions to the Committee. Many of them were quite substantial. It is proper that the authors of those submissions have their work recognised and made available to other interested parties. This includes quite a few academics investigating in this field. To assist these people, the Committee secretariat has prepared a 43-page index of comments on the Committee’s terms of reference and the clauses of the Bill. This index as well as an alphabetical index appears in the front of the first of the 14 volumes to be tabled. It can therefore be made available to those working in this field. We would be doing a disservice if this evidence was not tabled.

Despite the fact that the Committee’s work was not completed, it had achieved the purpose of allowing a large number of organisations and individuals to express their views on the proposed securities legislation. The AttorneyGeneral’s Department followed the work of the Committee very closely. Those people who may be responsible for the drafting of any new legislation affecting this area will be well informed of the views of interested organisations as well as the views of senators who served on the Committee. Members of the Committee became more familiar with the various aspects associated with the introduction of uniform securities and corporations law at the national level. This will lead to a more informed debate and the saving of time if and when future securities legislation reaches the Senate.

May I say briefly that committees of the Senate have been looking at the securities industry closely for over 7 years now. Some recognition must be given to those who took part in that investigation. It must be understood that senators like Senator Durack, Senator Rae and senators on this side of the chamber in that period became most expert in the workings and very much aware of the needs of the securities industry. For that reason, it would be unfair not to recognise that work and it would be unfair also for the Government not to recognise this fact and not to take advantage of the expertise of these people in the Senate.

I merely mention that it would be of great advantage to the Government,, which is now again preparing legislation in this field after this lengthy period, to recognise that there is this expertise in the Senate and to acknowledge that any legislation that is proposed should come under some scrutiny by those members of the Senate who, in my experience, would have as much knowledge as most other people in the industry in this very complex area.

In particular, I wish to give recognition to the following members of this Committee: Senator Drury from South Australia who has retired from the Senate, Senator Durack, Senator Greenwood, Senator Walsh and Senator Wright. I pay tribute also to the staff of the Committee, including the Secretary, Mr Ducker, and the research officers, Messrs Mackey, Starr and Overton. The Committee achieved indirectly great advances in the securities industry. But the

Committee was achieving something more. I believe that towards the end it was achieving success in clearing the maze of legislation which attempts to supervise the securities market. I think the Committee was very much aware of the necessity not to over-regulate the industry. I must admit that some members of the Committee are smiling rather wryly at the fact that the States, and interests within the States that endeavoured to frustrate this legislation, now find themselves caught with legislation far more restrictive and regulations far more complex than perhaps the Committee of the Senate would have recommended.

The views of the Committee I, of course, cannot express. But my own views are that the securities industry does need to be regulated and that legislation needs to be brought forward as promptly as possible as the delays have been far too great, but that in the interests of the industry itself one should take care that the legislation which comes forward to control or to supervise the securities market and the companies market should not to the disadvantage of the industry; rather it should be to its advantage. I move:

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I second the motion.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2412

PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I present the fourth report of the Publications Committee.

Report- by leave- adopted.

page 2412

SOCIAL WELFARE COMMISSION (REPEAL) BILL 1976

Motion (by Senator Guilfoyle) agreed to:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to repeal the Social Welfare Commission Act 1973, and for related purposes.

Bill presented, and read a first time. Standing orders suspended.

Second Reading

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I move:

This Bill will give effect to the Government’s decision, as announced by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) on 2 February 1 976, to abolish the Social Welfare Commission. In reviewing the activities of over 50 bodies of various kinds which had been conducting inquiries for the Commonwealth, the Prime Minister said: the Government has decided that the Social Welfare Commission and the Australian Housing Corporation, should be abolished while the functions of the Australian Development Assistance Agency and the Road Safety and Standards Authority should be taken over by Government Departments. The Government has taken these decisions on the basis that the functions of the four bodies concerned can be carried out more efficiently and cheaply and more properly under Ministerial and Parliamentary control if conducted within a departmental framework.

The Social Welfare Commission was established as an Interim Committee by the Labor Government in early 1973, and the Social Welfare Commission Act received the royal assent in November of that year. In reaching its decision about the Social Welfare Commission the present Government was mindful of the fact that in June 1975 the then Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, had announced the Labor Government’s intention to abolish the Commission.

It is clear to the Government that the Social Welfare Commission is not required in a situation in which the Government, through its Ministers, will be determining priorities and maintaining direct communication on social welfare issues with State, local government and voluntary agencies and representatives of consumer groups. For example, there are many voluntary welfare organisations which are playing an important role in commenting on the formulation of social welfare policy. The Government will continue assistance to voluntary bodies and aim to upgrade mechanisms of communication with such groups in the voluntary sector. I will say a little more about our plans for improved consultation with the voluntary welfare sector in a few moments.

Funds are made available through my Department to three of the larger national voluntary organisations each year. The Australian Council of Social Service, ACOSS, the Australian Council on the Ageing, ACOTA, and the Australian Council for the Rehabilitation of the Disabled, ACROD, will receive in 1976-77 grants totalling $450,000. In addition to the funding of these national bodies the Government supports a variety of other organisations in the welfare field. For example, grants paid through my Department this year to the Good Neighbour Councils alone will total$ 1.037m.

The Social Welfare Commission did not directly administer any Commonwealth welfare programs. This is the role of the Department of Social Security and other relevant departments of State, which are under direct ministerial control. The Government fully recognises the importance of social welfare in the life of the Australian community. Accordingly, in order to ensure that adequate data is available for policy and planning purposes and that the best use is made of available resources, it is proposed to establish a social welfare research centre within the University of New South Wales. Preliminary negotiations have already taken place with the University which, since 1972, has had a family research unit funded through the Department of Social Security. Further details regarding the proposed centre will be announced in the near future.

As mentioned earlier, the Government is taking steps to fulfil its commitment to provide effective mechanisms for co-operation and interchange of ideas with interested groups in the social welfare field. A national consultative group on social welfare is to be established to meet with me and my officers to discuss and advise on current issues in social welfare which come within the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government. Matters such as gaps and deficiencies in programs, arrangements for service delivery, assessment and review of priorities, and the modification of programs in the light of research findings, changing needs and social and economic conditions will be among those on which I will consult with the group.

I envisage that the consultative group will have a membership of about 12 people comprising academics from relevant disciplines and other suitably qualified people active in the social welfare field, together with possibly one or two distinguished people with appropriate experience. It will include representatives of national welfare bodies and voluntary social welfare agencies, and will be serviced by the Department of Social Security. In establishing the consultative group the Government will ensure that there is no overlap or duplication between it and the more specialised advisory bodies such as the National Advisory Council for the Handicapped.

The basic welfare needs and problems of people are, in the main, similar throughout Australia but there are differences between States and, indeed, within the States. It is accordingly proposed to establish a social welfare consultative committee in each State. These committees will provide an input, in relation to the situation of people in each State, on problems or difficulties encountered in the administration of Commonwealth social security or social welfare programs at the State level. Arrangements are also being made to develop regular consultation between the Department of Social Security and organisations representative of women’s interests. This will ensure that the very valuable contribution which these groups can make in relation to the special needs of women is available to the Government in formulating its social welfare policies.

Further details of the consultative mechanisms proposed will be announced shortly, but at this stage I can assure honourable senators that our proposals will greatly strengthen our links with people and groups active in the welfare field. In addition to my Department’s continuing involvement in income security issues, routine monitoring and evaluation of welfare programs are being developed and upgraded within the Social Welfare Division of the Department. A variety of case-study, survey, experimental and cost analytic techniques will be utilised to augment regular program monitoring. This will be particularly relevant in the introduction of new programs and the review of existing programs.

More specialised evaluations are also conducted within the Department. An example of such an evaluation is the cost-benefit survey of the Australian Government Rehabilitation Service which was conducted over 5 years and reported on in 1975. Findings from studies such as these provide essential information for the formulation and development of policies and programs. The importance of independent evaluations conducted outside the Department, supplementary to departmental evaluation and monitoring, is recognised and will be supported. Such evaluations have been conducted in respect of departmental programs. For example, in a pilot program 2 work preparation centres for the mildly mentally retarded are being evaluated over a 3 year period by Macquarie University in Sydney and Monash University in Melbourne.

The Government will continue to’ support independent inquiries which examine various aspects of the social welfare field. These inquiries, of which the Poverty Inquiry and the National Superannuation Committee of Inquiry are examples, are particularly important in contributing to the development of social welfare policy. Honourable senators will recall that in 1972 the Liberal/Country Party Government commissioned, with the support of the State Ministers responsible for child and social welfare, a family research project within the University of New South Wales to undertake a series of studies directed towards understanding and documenting family disruption and breakdown and changing family patterns in Australia. I have given undertakings in the Parliament that an examination would be made of activities of the Social Welfare Commission to ascertain the extent to which existing research projects and tasks would be continued.

I have already announced the Government’s approval for the continuation of research projects initiated by the Commission and being undertaken by outside bodies and institutions. On abolition of the Commission these projects will be administered by the Department of Social Security. We have also agreed to the funding of two additional research projects and four fellowships in welfare studies. Two major areas into which a number of these projects have a substantial input are the development of services relating to families and social welfare manpower planning. In reference to the former, wide ranging research is being conducted on family services in each State and the Territories, to ascertain current and future service needs of families in Australia. These studies are complementary to the work of the Commission’s Family Services Committee on which is represented relevant departments at Federal and State levels, and the voluntary welfare sector. The Family Services Committee will continue in order to complete a major report in this area during 1 976-77.

In relation to social welfare manpower planning, present statistics concerning the workforce in the welfare field are not satisfactory. A continuing study of the changing roles of existing workers and the emergence of new needs in the community requiring new types of personnel, both professional and voluntary, is necessary. This work will be undertaken within the Department of Social Security. The meeting of State Social Welfare Ministers held in Darwin on 2 1 May 1976 identified social welfare manpower planning as of vital importance and I have agreed to the Minister’s request that the work initiated by the Social Welfare Commission in this area be continued, with more direct involvement of the States as they are major users of welfare manpower. Investigation will continue on the need for a national body to co-ordinate education in social welfare in Australia. This study is seeking information from a wide range of interests, including tertiary institutions, employers, practitioners in the field, professional associations, voluntary organisations and industrial groups.

At the Darwin conference of Ministers there was also strong support for standardisation of social welfare statistics. It was noted that there was great difficulty in arriving at priorities in social welfare or making any meaningful comparisons of welfare programs without having an adequate data base. I have agreed that the Department of Social Security should undertake work immediately in this area seeking the cooperation of the Australian Bureau of Statistics in setting up a working party, comprising representatives of relevant Commonwealth and State Government, departments, to examine questions of the standardisation and adequacy of social welfare statistics and the desirability of convening a national conference on these matters.

Members of the staff of the Social Welfare Commission now occupy Public Service Act positions which are included on the establishment of the Department of Social Security. Action will be taken to transfer Commission staff to the unattached list of the Department on repeal of the Social Welfare Commission Act. Some officers will be used in activities, such as administering research projects and fellowship awards, servicing the Family Services Committee and undertaking work in the area of social welfare manpower planning, responsibility for which will be absorbed by the Department. Others will be involved in other ongoing tasks in the Department of Social Security, either associated with former responsibilities of the Commission or with other responsibilities of the Department. A number of officers have already left the Commission; of those remaining some will be absorbed in the Department of Social Security, some will obtain positions in other Commonwealth departments, and some will seek employment outside the Australian Public Service.

The Government is mindful of the work which the Social Welfare Commission has undertaken but, for the reasons I have outlined, it is now considered opportune to consolidate advice on and research into social welfare matters within the appropriate departmental structures. As I have already indicated, consideration has been given to the existing commitments of the Commission so that wind-up action can proceed in an orderly and efficient manner. Mr President, I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned.

page 2414

SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE CORPORATIONS AND SECURITIES INDUSTRY BILL 1975

The Clerk:

– Pursuant to order of the Senate made this day, I lay on the table the transcript of public evidence taken before the Senate Select Committee on the Corporations and Securities

Industry Bill 1975 appointed during the previous session.

page 2415

FAMILY LAW 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 Withers) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– I move:

I seek 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 purpose of this Bill is to make amendments to the Family Law Act 1975. Honourable senators will be aware that the Family Law Act has replaced the old divorce, maintenance, custody and property laws contained in the Matrimonial Causes Act and to some extent in State and Territory legislation, and that it came into operation on 5 January this year. Honourable senators will also doubtless be aware that the basic provisions of the Act were subsequently challenged in the High Court which, on 1 1 May, delivered judgment substantially affirming the validity of the provisions.

While decision was substantially favourable to the Act- and was welcomed by the Governmentthe limited extent to which the Court held it to be beyond power does give rise to problems. I refer to the decision that, in the case of custody of children, the Act was valid only to the extent that it applied to proceedings between the parties to a marriage for the custody of the natural or adopted children of both of them. This means that disputes between one party to a marriage and, say, a grandparent of a child of the marriage would fall outside the jurisdiction of the Act and would therefore have to be resolved according to relevant State law. Likewise disputes between a husband and wife over a stepchild would be outside the Act.

In the case of matrimonial property, the High Court held that the Act is valid only where the property proceedings are related to pending or completed proceedings between the parties for divorce or other principal relief. Here again, the jurisdiction over resolution of disputes is therefore divided between the Act and the relevant State law.

A further regrettable consequence of the decision as to the Emits of jurisdiction under the Act is that the jurisdiction of the Family Court of Australia, a federal court created by the Act, is limited to the same degree. This means that a person who has taken proceedings under the Family Law Act in the Family Court, only to find that his case is beyond the limits of the jurisdiction under the Act, would have to start again in the appropriate State court under the relevant State legislation. It will be seen that the High Court decision has meant that the concept of a Family Court able to deal with matters relating to family law cannot be realised under a law of this Parliament. Under present constitutional limitations, this concept can only be realised through a system of State Family Courts exercising State and federal jurisdiction covering the whole area of family law.

One of the main purposes of the Bill now before the Senate is to amend the Act so as to bring it into line with the decision of the High Court. The definition of matrimonial cause in section 4, which governs the extent of jurisdiction created by the Act, has been narrowed in the areas of custody and property to the degree called for by the decision. In the areas of maintenance and injunctions, the definition has been confined to proceedings between the parties and, in the case of maintenance of a child, to proceedings by or on behalf of a child against one or both parents. The expression child of a marriage has been limited to the natural or adopted children of both parties to the marriage, although the existing, wider meaning has been retained for the purposes of section 63- which prevents a divorce becoming absolute unless the court is satisfied as to the welfare of children of the marriage.

The Attorney-General is concerned at the difficulties and hardships that may be encountered by people as a result of the incomplete extent of the jurisdiction under the Act in the areas of custody and matrimonial property. He therefore proposes to raise these matters with the States at the next meeting of the Standing Committee of Commonwealth and State AttorneysGeneral arranged for later this month. The Standing Committee is already examining proposals for uniform matrimonial property laws amongst the States and Territories, and the Attorney-General hopes that it will be able to come up with some firm proposals in the light of the High Court’s decision. As far as custody is concerned, the problem of the disputes beyond the reach of the Family Law Act is part of a wider need for uniform State and Territory laws as to custody, including custody and rights of exnuptial children. All these are matters on which there should be uniformity of law as far as possible. Being fairly clearly beyond the power of the Commonwealth, they should desirably be the subject of a uniform approach by the States.

Before leaving the decision of the High Court, I should mention that section 97(1), which requires proceedings under the Act to be held in closed court, was held to be invalid so far as it purported to apply to State Courts when exercising jurisdiction under the Act. The clear policy of Parliament, as expressed in section 97 ( 1 ), was that proceedings under the Act should be in closed court. As the High Court decision means that the closing of State courts when exercising federal jurisdiction is a matter for State law, the adoption of the principles of section 97 (1), so far as closing their courts when exercising jurisdiction under the Family Law Act is concerned, is a matter for the States. Although the jurisdiction pf the State Supreme Courts over new proceedings under the Act has now been terminated- at the request of the States- State courts of summary jurisdiction are expected to continue to exercise concurrent jurisdiction with the Family Court for some time to come. In the meantime, section 97 will remain unaltered, so that proceedings before the Family Court of Australia will continue to be in closed court.

The remainder of the amendments are mainly of a formal nature, with a few being of substance. None alters any of the main principles of the Act. For the benefit of new senators, I mention that these principles were debated at great length in both Houses of the last Parliament, and the Bill was extensively amended before being finally approved by a free vote of members on all sides. These remaining amendments include some that were foreshadowed, but not moved, by the Attorney-General in the previous Government during the debate on the Bill, and others for which the need has been disclosed by experience with the administration of the Act since its commencement. They amount to a miscellaneous collection, which I can best deal with in a general way by taking them in broad categories. Each of the amendments is explained briefly in the explanatory memorandum circulated in the Senate with the Bill, and can be further clarified in the committee stage if necessary.

One category comprises amendments included to ensure that State Family Courts established pursuant to section 41 of the Act can operate on the same basis as the Family Court of Australia.

In the grafting-on of the provisions for State Family Courts to the Family Law Bill during its passage through Parliament, a few oversights and omissions occurred which this Bill seeks to remedy. For instance, the Bill provides for transfers of proceedings from a Supreme Court to a State Family Court in the same way as the Act now provides for transfers to the Family Court of Australia. An omission in the provisions of the Act governing appeals from State Family Courts is also dealt with.

After Western Australia decided to establish its State Family Court, it became apparent that it would be preferable for the Court to have its own counselling staff rather than use that of the Family Court of Australia, as envisaged by section 4 1 of the Act. The Bill includes amendments to ensure that this can be achieved. At the request of Western Australia, a provision of the Bill will permit one person to hold simultaneously the offices of Judge of a State Family Court and Judge of the Family Court of Australia. Having in mind that double judicial commissions are not usually encouraged, the Attorney-General has given careful consideration to this matter and has accepted the Western Australian view that the holding by one person of commissions in both courts could be desirable in the special circumstances of this case.

The Bill also includes some amendments to the transitional provisions of the Act, which provide for the disposal of proceedings that were pending when the Act came into operation. In the case of pending divorce proceedings that have been continued under the repealed Matrimonial Causes Act, as permitted by the new Act, some uncertainty has arisen as to whether decrees granted after 5 January become absolute in 3 months, as under the old Act, or in 1 month, as under the new Act. The Bill seeks to make it clear that such decrees become absolute in the shorter period, consistently with decrees that had been granted but had not become absolute on 5 January. Also, the right to apply to have pending divorce proceedings dealt with under the new Act on the no-fault ground is extended to either party, provided they have been separated for the required period. At the moment the right is restricted to a petitioner or cross-petitioner.

The Bill contains some amendments to make the maintenance and custody provisions more effective. One amendment will enable an authority or officer of the Commonwealth or a State to take proceedings to obtain a maintenance order on behalf of a party or child. This would make sure, for example, that the Department for Community Welfare in South Australia may continue to take maintenance proceedings on behalf of persons to whom it pays pensions. The amendment will correspond to section 106 (b) of the Act, which enables proceedings for enforcement of maintenance orders to be taken on behalf of persons entitled to moneys under them. I might add that section 106 (b) has itself been redrafted as a formal amendment. The substance of the provision remains unchanged.

Other amendments made by the Bill are designed to clarify the powers of a person to whom a warrant is addressed to enforce a custody or access order. Doubts have been raised as to the extent of these powers, and the amendments spell out the powers under a court order that may be exercised, where necessary, to search places and to use force to take possession of a child.

Two amendments in the child welfare area have been included in the Bill at the request of the former New South Wales Government. One of these ensures that a child who is under the guardianship of a State or Territory Director of Child Welfare while awaiting adoption cannot be the subject of a maintenance or custody order except in special circumstances. At present the Act confines this exemption to children who are under the care and control of a Minister pursuant to State or Territory child welfare legislation. The other amendment would take away the jurisdiction that a court now has under the Act to order the continuance of a custody or access order relating to a child after the child has been adopted.

By an oversight when the original Bill was being amended during its passage through Parliament, provision was not included to enable appeals to be taken from Territory Supreme Courts to the Full Court of the Family Court, which is the court of appeal from State Supreme Courts under the Act. The only avenue of appeal from Territory Supreme Courts is therefore to the High Court. An amendment in the Bill provides for appeals from Territory Supreme Courts to the Full Court of the Family Court. To facilitate the determination of questions of law by the Full Court of the Family Court, a provision has been inserted to enable such questions that arise in any proceedings before the Family Court to be referred by way of a case stated procedure to the Full Court. An authoritative decision of the Full Court could thus be obtained without the need for a full scale appeal.

The remaining amendments in the Bill are consequential upon those already referred to, are relatively insubstantial or are of a formal drafting nature. Honourable senators will recognise the need to remedy promptly any defects in an area of law that is so important to so many people in the community as this law obviously is. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland) adjourned.

Motion (by Senator Withers) agreed to:

That the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour this day and that it be taken cognately with Order of the Day No. 6.

page 2417

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION 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:

This Bill provides for the validation until 31 December 1976 of duties collected in pursuance of Customs Tariff Proposals Nos 7 to 13 introduced into the Parliament during this session and not enacted to date. The Bill is essentially a holding measure pending the introduction, anticipated for the Budget Session, of a Customs Tariff Amendment Bill to enact the tariff changes contained in the Proposals. I commend the Bill. I suggest that perhaps the Bill could go straight through its remaining stages.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Opposition has no objection to the passage of this legislation.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2417

NORTHERN TERRITORY (ADMINISTRATION) 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 Webster) read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

I seek 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)-

Honourable senators on this side of the House will know that the aim of the Government, and a clear commitment in our election policy announcements, is to bring the Northern Territory to ultimate Statehood. This aim was reflected in the Governor-General’s speech on 17 February last, in the following words:

In line with its policy of developing governmental authority, the Government will progressively act to confer executive responsibility on the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory with the objective of advancing the Territory to Statehood.

The Northern Territory is poised on the threshold of an important period in its history. The Territory’s resources- particularly its minerals- are only just beginning to be tapped in a major way. In 1974-75, for example, mineral output was valued at $140m, an increase of 75 per cent over that of 1972-73. The more important minerals produced are manganese, gold, copper, bauxite and alumina and bismuth. Its uranium reserves are of world significance, as also is the McArthur River lead /zinc deposit. Oil has been discovered in the Mereenie Basin and offshore exploration is continuing. Mineral output from the Territory will become an important factor in the nation’s trading position during the 1980s.

In many ways, the Territory is in a position not dissimilar to that of several of the Australian States (or Colonies as they then were) in the latter half of the nineteenth century. Its population is now of the order of 100 000, including about 25 000 Aboriginal people. This population constitutes something less than 1 per cent of the total Australian population but those people inhabit approximately 17 per cent of the total Australian land mass. It is worth noting, that the State of Queensland, when it attained responsible government in 1859, had a population of a little over 30 000. South Australia had approximately 85 000, and Tasmania 81 000 inhabitants when they were granted responsible Government in 1856.

The unique nature of the Territory’s physical environment has bred in, or attracted to it, a special kind of people. Despite many hardships and disappointments they have established themselves and their families in the Territory on rural properties, isolated settlements and towns of great character and vitality. With its known natural resources guaranteeing it a secure economic base, allied with the strength, resourcefulness and initiative of its people and under the guiding hand of the Territory’s own fully elected legislature, the future of the Territory must surely be bright.

As promised, this Government, immediately on being elected, began moves towards executive responsibility for the Legislative Assembly based on the recommendations of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Constitutional Development of the Northern Territory- recommendations which were available to the previous government for twelve months. That report, which was presented to the Parliament by the honourable member for Hunter, as Chairman of the Committee, has made a valuable contribution to the Territory’s constitutional development. The Government will continue to have regard to many of the Committee’s recommendations as we proceed with the devolution of executive autonomy.

Our immediate aim is the transfer of executive responsibility for the Northern Territory Public Service and a large number of Northern Territory statutory authorities, broadly along the lines suggested in the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee. Since this Government took office, a number of discussions have been held with members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly on the transfer of executive responsibility. A Consultative Committee, consisting of the Minister for the Northern Territory and Members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, has been established to consider the issues involved in the transfer of executive powers. As the first step in this process, I have reached accord with the Executive of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly that the Northern Territory (Administration) Act be amended along the lines set down in this Bill. The provisions in the Bill are designed to enable the Government to progressively transfer administrative responsibility to a Northern Territory executive.

I want to emphasise that the passage of this Bill will represent one of the most significant events in the Northern Territory’s history. Whilst I welcome the action taken in 1 974 to establish a fully elected Legislative Assembly, there was little point in bringing that about without the transfer to the Assembly of real powers and responsibilities. Indeed, the previous Government promised that not only would a fully elected Legislative Assembly be established for the Territory, it also promised increasing autonomy to the Territory through that Assembly. However, when the ALP was absolutely rejected by Northern Territory electors, the promises and assurances where speedily forgotten and the Assembly ignored.

I turn now to the Bill. As I have said, it is directed principally at making the legislative changes necessary to facilitate the progressive transfer of executive responsibility to the Legislative Assembly for the Northern Territory by amending the Northern Territory (Administration) Act 1910-1974.

Clauses 1 and 2

These are formal provisions and cover citation and commencement. The Bill is to come into operation on a date to be fixed by Proclamation.

Clauses 3, 4 and 5

These are interpretive and technical and insert additional definitions and revise the headings to parts II and IV of the Principal Act.

Clause 6

This repeals sections 4ZA and 4ZB of the Principal Act dealing with the Administrator’s Council, its composition, appointments thereto and its functions. It renames the Council as the Executive Council of the Northern Territory of Australia, lays down its membership and provides for its procedures. It enables the Administrator to attend all meetings of the Council and to preside at meetings at which he is present. The clause sets down consequential interpretive provisions.

Clause 7

This inserts a new Part in the Principal Act enabling the Administrator, after consultation with the Minister, to determine the number of offices of executive member of the Legislative Assembly and their respective designations. It further enables the Administrator, after consultation with the Minister, to determine the matters in respect of which the holder of an executive office performs his functions as executive member. Those matters will be all matters arising under specified laws of the Territory- other than Commonwealth laws- and matters to which the function of a specified Department of the Public Service of the Territory relate. Determinations by the Administrator under this Part are to be published in the Government Gazette of the Territory. This Part further establishes the functions of an executive member as being to assist in the administration of the Government of the Territory with respect to the matters within his control but subject to the directions (if any) of the Administrator. In particular, an executive member is enabled to formulate policies and plans and proposals for expenditure in relation to such matters, to make recommendations to the Executive Council of the Northern Territory in relation to those matters, to administer specified laws within his control and to direct activities of a specified Department of the Public Service of the Territory. Directions by the Administrator under this Part are not to be given until the Council has had the opportunity to tender advice. Whilst the Administrator is not bound to accept such advice, if he does not he must cause a statement of his reasons to be laid before the Legislative Assembly within a specified period. This part further provides for the appointment of an executive member and the termination of such appointment. It also provides for the tenure of such office and an oath or affirmation of office.

Clause 8

This provides for consequential technical amendments to the Schedules to the Act. The introduction of this Bill gives me great pleasure and satisfaction. The Bill represents a major step forward in the Territory’s progress towards executive autonomy. The authority and responsibility which this Bill bestows on the Territory’s Legislative Assembly reflects the Government’s confidence in the democratic process and its commitment to the Federal system of government. It is tangible evidence of the Government’s determination to give effect to its election undertakings on the constitutional development of the Northern Territory.

The transfer of authority which will flow from this measure will impose serious responsibilities on the Members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. For the first time in its history it will be a responsible legislature in the constitutional sense. The Government looks to, and is confident of the ability of, the Legislative Assembly to meet that responsibility.

It is appropriate and laudable that the people of the Northern Territory should, at this stage in their history, seek largely to control their own affairs. The Government is determined that this desire will be fulfilled as quickly and effectively as possible and this Bill is an important step towards the realisation of that aim. It is, most importantly, an indication that the Government intends to work in a spirit of amicable cooperation with the people of the Territory and their elected representatives in the task of giving birth to Australia’s seventh State. As such, I feel sure that it will command the support of all Senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– When the Northern Territory (Administration) Amendment Bill 1976 was introduced in the lower House I think it was intended to leave it there until the Budget session, but I understand that there is now a requirement to have the Bill passed in this chamber today so as to give the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly an opportunity to implement some of the measures contained in the Bill. A number of points in the Bill ought to be debated at length but because the session is about to come to an end we have reached a gentlemen’s agreement not to delay unduly the passage of the Bill through the Senate.

I want to make two or three brief remarks. First of all, the Opposition does not oppose the Bill. Many of the provisions included in the Bill are the result of recommendations made by the joint House all-party committee which was established by the previous Labor Government. The provisions could quite easily already have been incorporated into legislation for the Northern Territory had not the Country Party at that time held up the appointment of the Committee by delaying the appointment of its representatives to it. I do not propose to make an issue of this at this point of time as there will be other opportunities to debate some of the relevant matters.

I sincerely hope that the new House of Assembly will use with justice the powers that are now being gradually transferred to it and that it will use these powers in the interests of the Northern Territory people. The Treasurer (Mr Lynch), of course, has said certain requirements are going to be passed on to the new House of Assembly, particularly the introduction of a domestic double taxation system. I hope that the House of Assembly will be very lenient in any of these new taxes that may be imposed. I do not think that any honourable senator in this chamber expects at this time that this will lead to the establishment of the new State that has been promised by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). The procedural matters that have to be carried out are nearly all set out in the 2 reports- the original report that the Joint Committee submitted to the Parliament and the second report which was compiled as a result of further inspections and further evidence taken after the advent of Cyclone Tracy. The Opposition does not oppose the Bill.

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

– in reply-I thank Senator Keeffe for his comments. It is pleasing to know that both sides of the chamber support this Bill. I believe that there is an indication in this legislation that this Government intends to work in close and amicable co-operation with the people of the Northern Territory and their elected representatives to give birth to Australia’s seventh State.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2420

INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES BILL 1976

Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment.

page 2420

SUPPLY BILL (No. 1) 1976-77

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 3 June, on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

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

– As a courtesy to the Senate and in particular to the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt) I have one or two notes for the Leader of the Opposition that were obtained yesterday evening in answer to some questions he asked, in which he made some specific points.

Senator Wriedt:

– If they are lengthy you could incorporate them.

Senator COTTON:

– I seek leave of the Senate to incorporate them, Mr Chairman. They are quite straight forward. They contain details and figures, some of which would have to be incorporated anyway.

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

Briefing Note-Supply Bill No. 2, Division No. 842 -(1) Payments for the States for the Purposes of Urban and Regional Development (Financial Assistance) Act- $53,686,000

Senator Wreidt has stated that 5/12 of last year’s appropriation for the above purpose would be $1 14m compared with the amount of $54m contained in the Supply Bill for this purpose. The

Senator has asked whether this is another attempt to push expenditures back on the States.

Comments

The Senator can be assured that the provision in the Supply Bill reflects the decisions taken by the Government in its review of the forward estimates in 1976-77 and announced by the Treasurer in his speech of 20 May 1976 and in the Supplementary Statement of Mr MacKellar on that date.

It was clearly announced at that time that the sewerage, land commissions, and growth centres were to be the subject of detailed review on an urgent basis by an interdepartmental committee.

It was announced that final decisions would be reflected in the 1976-77 Budget. In the meantime, sufficient funds would be provided to meet the Government’s firm commitments, without prejudicing final decisions in these areas of expenditures.

This is not to say that the levels of expenditure will be maintained. The Treasurer in his speech of 20 May 1976 stated that:

Although the activities carried out under many of these programs are desirable, the programs do involve large and continuing expenditures.

If the Government is to adequately restrain the growth in total public spending, and at the same time to insulate as far as possible payments to needy individuals much of the restraint on expenditures must fall on these large and costly programs.

As regards Senator Wreidt ‘s arithmetic, it is not usual to apply it to Supply Bill No. 2 where provisions for supply are not systematically related to annual appropriations.

It is, for example, necessary to take account of the likely call for funds under ongoing contracts.

To repeat, especially in the light of the reviews under way, the $54m contained in the Supply Bill cannot be used to suggest any guess as to the likely amount to be provided in the Budget.

Children’s Commission

The funds provided in Supply Bill (No. 2) 1976-77 are:

Last year’s Appropriation Act provisions were:

Therefore this year’s provision in Supply is of the order of 5/12 of last year’s appropriations. (To be precise it is slightly higher).

Aboriginal Affairs

It is not a normal practice to apply a 5/12 formula to this appropriation. The estimate is normally arrived at by the department and the Treasury agreeing upon the sum of money necessary to give effect to approved programs of expenditure in the period 1 July to 30 November. That is how the estimate was arrived at on this occasion ($ 12.8m).

Department of Construction

The amount provided for the Capital Works and Services- $45m- is to finance works in progress at 30 June 1976. It is the amount that will be needed to meet commitments in the Supply period. It is not based on a proportion of the previous year’s expenditure- this is consistent with previous practice.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I do not want to take up the time of the Committee but in question time today I asked the Minister for Social Security, Senator Guilfoyle, a question on the Department of Aboriginal Affairs’ special works project. She promised me that she would have the answer at the time that we discussed the appropriations. I am unable to find in the appropriations an appropriation to carry on the special works program of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, unless it is included in the allocation for other services. I asked Senator Guilfoyle whether there is to be a reduction in this or whether it is to be increased in accordance with the recommendation of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. The honourable senator is arriving now and I presume that she has the answer, as agreed this morning.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I have been endeavouring to obtain some information for the honourable senator from the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I have not yet received the details. The question has been referred to the Minister and I hoped that I would have had some information to give. I have not yet received the Minister’s response in the terms of the questions that were put by Senator Cavanagh. I expect that I shall have some information later in the day. I wonder if Senator Cavanagh would be prepared to accept my undertaking that I shall give him later in the day whatever information I am able to give.

Senator Cavanagh:

-I have no alternative, do I?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

-Well, whilst the honourable senator says that he has no alternative, I hope that he will accept that his questions have gone to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and that his office is preparing some information for the honourable senator. In those terms, if the honourable senator would allow me to give him the information later in the day I think that that would satisy the interest that he has in the public works program for the Aborigines.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition in the Senate · Tasmania

– I just want to follow up very briefly a matter that I raised yesterday, I thank the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Cotton) for the information that he tabled this morning in respect of some other questions I asked. In raising a question yesterday I instanced the example of Western Australia possibly seeking the approval of the Loan Council to engage in overseas loan borrowings in its own right. During the course of the Minister’s reply he drew attention to the provisions of the National Debt Sinking Fund and the acceptance of the responsibility of guarantees and repayments of such loans by the States which may be authorised by the Loan Council. I appreciate the complexity of the operation of some of these Treasury mechanisms, which I think in many cases are largely drawn up to confuse politicians. That of course is not a reflection on the Treasury -

Senator Cotton:

– Perhaps it is a reflection on our ignorance.

Senator WRIEDT:

– We shall see whether it is or not. Specifically the matter I want to raise is the question of State borrowings in those circumstances. I shall read from a Treasury document which was circulated some time ago. Actually, I think it was circulated three or four years back but has since been updated, so it may be that the section that I shall read is no longer current, but I suspect that it would be. I seek clarification from the Minister- not now but perhaps if he could write to me after obtaining information from his advisers. The Treasury document states:

Subject to the decisions of the Loan Council, the Commonwealth arranges for all borrowings for or on behalf of the Commonwealth or any State and for all conversions, renewals, redemptions and consolidations of the Public Debts of the Commonwealth and of the States.

The document then states:

If the Loan Council unanimously decides, however, a State may borrow outside Australia in the name of the State, and may issue securities for the amount so borrowed. The Commonwealth then guarantees that the State will fulfil all obligations to bond-holders in respect of the money so borrowed and the money is deemed to be borrowed by the Commonwealth for and on behalf of the State.

A query has been raised in my mind after reading the reply given yesterday and this document. There appears to be an implication that, firstly, there has to be a unanimous decision by the’ Loan Council. Is it mandatory under the Financial Agreements Act that the approval of the Loan Council be obtained? If there is not a unanimous decision of the Loan Council, does that enable the State to act in its own right, outside the provisions of the National Debt Sinking Fund? If such is the case, or even if it is not the case, are there any circumstances whereby the Western Australian Government could seek overseas loans in its own right and thus bypass the provisions of the Loan Council? I do not seek an answer immediately to that question, but if the Minister could give me a considered reply in due course I would be appreciative.

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

- Mr Chairman, I shall comment, as I did yesterday, very briefly on the general question of the Loan Council, the loan agreement and the National Debt Sinking Fund. On behalf of the Treasurer, I will obtain for the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt) a studied reply to the query he has raised. It is a most important query in the operation of a sensible, economic and capital program in a Commonwealth which consists of a national government and a series of State governments. I think one could have a very interesting discussion about this matter. I can see the general concern of the honourable senator, and I should say to him that it is a concern I share. There is a very useful book written by a man called Gilbert called The Loan Council, issued by The Federal Financial Relations Group of the Australian National University, which I helped to get started. It is well worth reading in the general context of what the honourable senator has been talking about. In my view, the overall credit-worthiness of the Australian nation is properly in the custody of the central national government, and that is the general tenor of Senator Wriedt ‘s concern and something he very properly raises. It is something that ought to be answered very clearly and very definitely. I will ask my advisers to ensure that the honourable senator gets a letter from the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) clearing up the matter.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– There is one other matter I wish to raise very quickly. Could the Minister at the same time give the Senate a definition of what is meant by approved borrowing for temporary purposes?

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

-Yes, I shall do that. The Leader of the Opposition ( Senator Wriedt) would like a very clear definition of what is approved borrowing for temporary purposes within the general definition of the Loan Council, the loan agreement and the associated arrangements.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– Can the Minister or his advisers inform the Committee of the situation regarding Division No. 520 on page 32 of Supply Bill (No. 1), which relates to the appropriation of an amount of $3m for the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation? Can the Minister tell us whether that represents the total allocation for the Organisation or whether the process has developed in this country, as it has in the United States, where there are other items within the appropriations in which certain padding takes place which is not identifiable by the Parliament? I realise this is a difficult question to put to the Minister at this stage, but perhaps he might be able to discuss the matter with his advisers to ascertain whether that amount represents the total allocation for ASIO.

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

– It has been the practice of this Government and of previous governments, whether headed by Mr Chifley or Mr Whitlam or others, not to answer questions on the appropriation of funds for the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. I certainly shall not do that. I shall not ask the advisers about that matter, but I am prepared to direct the query in the proper way to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), who will make his own judgment. On behalf of the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Government, it is not a question I shall answer.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I take issue on that point.

Senator Cotton:

– You may well do so, but I am not going to answer the question.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-The Minister might not answer it because it has been the policy since the time of the Chifley Government not to answer questions on the activities of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. However, I have never heard of a ruling that questions about the Organisation’s expenditure could not be asked. If we are not going to get information on its expenditure, the amount that could be voted to ASIO without the knowledge of the

Parliament would be unlimited. We do not act in that way. As I understand this appropriation, it is for the carry over from the end of July until the next Budget. It is actually an appropriation for 5 months to continue to carry on the ASIO services. I hope some details on the expenditure on ASIO will be supplied. We do not know whether they involve secret information, but I think we are entitled to ask questions and receive a reply on the actual allocation to that Organisation.

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

– I never quarrel with anybody’s right to ask a question. All I am suggesting is that there is an obligation on me to stick to the procedure that has been established for a long time. Questions on ASIO are not answered.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Activities.

Senator COTTON:

-Wait a while, Senator. Do not tell me what I am to do. I have undertaken to direct this question to the Prime Minister, whose authority it is. It is then a matter for his judgment as to whether he will give any more detail, either now or later.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– All I want is an assurance that that represents the total allocation made to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and that in fact there is no other area within the appropriations, which we accept as being the barometer of expenditure from different departments and organisations. Does this allocation represent the basic allocation needed for the proper operation and bookkeeping, which we heard so much about this morning in question time, of the various departments and agencies? That is the only assurance I need. I am not attempting to pry into or in any way identify the activities of any person or group within the Organisation itself, but we are concerned with funding. In those circumstances, 1 ask the Minister to express a very firm view that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) will give to the Senate the assurance that in fact this represents the total allocation. If the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation requires $4m, for example, surely that can be shown. What concerns democratic-minded people throughout the world, and in the United States Senate particularly, where discussions have taken place, is that there have been departures from normal funding operations. One would hope that that situation has not crept into our accounting system in this country.

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

– In response to Senator Gietzelt, I simply observe that what I would always do in these circumstances is send to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) the text of the words used in the Senate which make it quite clear what it is the Senate is asking him to provide. I was trying to make it clear to all honourable senators that it is not within my capacity or authority to provide information on this area. That is clearly denied to me.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I do not want to labour the question, but I think I am singularly fitted to join with Senator Gietzelt on this issue. Together with other honourable senators, I had the opportunity on an earlier occasion to question the then Director of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, Mr Barbour. I do not think any of us abused that trust. Inefficiencies in that field were revealed which, with all due respect, if the Organisation had been subject to inquiry by a high level Senate committee, fully aware of its national responsibilities, would have been detected earlier. I am not being nasty about this. I am talking about their limited translatorinterpreter facilities in one area of political espionage. I say respectfully to Senator Cotton, and Senator Gietzelt has touched on this to a degree, that although nobody has a higher admiration than I for the former Prime Minister, Ben Chifley, conditions and attitudes change. Anybody who reads well to the centre publications like Time and Newsweek will know that in the United States Senator Church and a host of other senators are getting up now and saying: ‘We do not want the whole of the Senate to get everyone’s dossier, but we believe that three or four highly placed senators every year at least should talk to the security agencies on their principles and operations’. The best example of this I can give, and I know Senator Wright will not mind me doing this, was an occasion when he and I were on a committee. I found myself then defending a certain area of ASIO activities. He was arguing for the right to know more about how our money is spent. This is not the time for that debate but I hope to see the day when Senator Wriedt, his deputy and the leaders from the other side of the House, at least once a year talk to the Director of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. I can assure honourable senators that those of us on the Select Committee on the Civil Rights of Migrant Australians had intimate discussions with Mr Barbour and none of the information given to us got into the Press. This is not a pious dream as Senator

Cotton knows, but it is something that we never want to discount.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I again pose the question which I raised on the motion for the first reading of this Bill.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator DrakeBrockman) To which item are you referring?

Senator McLAREN:

– To the item relating to the Australian National Railways under the Department of Transport. I am referring to the Northern Territory section of the Australian National Railways. In my speech in the first reading debate I asked the Minister whether an in-depth cost study had been carried out before the decision was made to close the Larrimah to Darwin section of the railway line. I notice in the Bill that $30m is designated as a subsidy to meet operating losses. I would like to know whether Senator Cotton can give me the answer I sought in the first reading debate.

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

– I remember Senator McLaren making that request in the first reading debate. This matter does not really belong to me but to the Department of Transport which does not have advisers here. I know that Senator Carrick did direct Senator McLaren’s inquiry to the Department. The officers here now are from Treasury and they do not have specific details on the matter. I know, that the request went forward, but when I have finished this debate I will ask the Department of Transport which has responsibility for this to see that Senator McLaren gets a proper answer in writing. That is all I can offer the honourable senator.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– May I also ask the Minister, when he gets that reply for me, to supply a breakdown of this $30m subsidy showing whether it relates to the railway line being out from Alice Springs south because of excessive flooding, and what subsidy is paid to road cartage contractors from Alice Springs to Larrimah. If I could have those particulars I would be happy.

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

Senator McLaren properly seeks as complete a breakdown as he can get of that $30m into classifications and that is what I will ask for.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without requests; report adopted.

Third reading

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

page 2425

SUPPLY BILL (No. 2) 1976-77

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1 June on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2425

WOOL INDUSTRY AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1 June on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– The Opposition supports the Wool Industry Amendment Bill and the 5 Bills dealing with, the wool tax which flow substantially from the primary Bill. This means that in the life of this session of Parliament we have dealt with more than a score of Bills dealing with rural matters and, with the exception of the superphosphate legislation, the Australian Labor Party Opposition has given its assent to all of them. I hope that this will indicate to the rural communities our support for rational legislation and our desire to set straight the record in terms of the propaganda that the Labor Party is not interested in the problems besetting the rural communities, is not able to understand the problems and has adopted a policy of neglect of rural communities. That is not so. This Wool Industry Amendment Bill is just another of those Bills which were initiatives of the Labor Administration.

With some minor exceptions, the proposed legislation is substantially the same as was proposed by the Whitlam Labor Government. It is based on the needs of the industry and the interests of the Australian people. The present Liberal-National Country Party Government has elected to continue for one more year- that is, 1976-77- the operation of a floor price in the wool market. It must be stressed again that it was a Labor Government which responded to the needs of the wool growers by introducing the floor price scheme in a way in which no previous Liberal-Country Party Government was prepared to do. Whilst this legislation is largely machinery in nature it does provide the required guidelines for accounting procedures to be applied to the Australian Wool Corporation. These accounting procedures or guidelines are necessary in order to take into consideration the additional trading functions associated with any profit or loss during this year arising from the manufacture of and trading in woollen products. These expanded functions of the Corporation were not supported by the existing accounting arrangements.

The tax levy Bills to support this legislation deal with the grower funded market support scheme, a fund agreed to by the growers which permits them to pick up some of the losses, if any, which occur at the end of the operation of the floor price scheme. This market support fund is operated on a 5 per cent tax on all wool sales and collects some $45m to $50m a year. The Auditor-General has drawn attention to and certified a loss of $22m because of the accounting procedures which had been debited against the fund for the year 1974-75. In order to continue the operation of the fund, new tax Acts for this period have to be passed now, and we give our assent to them. The Wool Industry Amendment Bill amends section 20A of the principal Act by providing that the Minister consult with and have regard to the views of employer organisations, and not only appropriate trade union organisations, before taking action likely to affect the conditions of employment or demand for labour.

In the original Act the obligation was on the authority to consult with the appropriate trade unions and during the debate on 1 1 December 1974 Senator Wriedt, the then Minister for Agriculture in the Labor Government, discussed this matter in the Senate. He said that he was quite prepared to review the provision in the new year. There was not a great deal of difference between the views of the Opposition and of the Government at that time on this point so it is not a contentious issue for us now. In those circumstances, of course, we agree to add to the legislation that the employer organisations should be consulted because we want both points of view to be recognised and both sides to be consulted.

The complexity of the legislation only reflects the difficulty in drafting adequate legislation to cover machinery matters concerning accounting procedures of this nature. This legislation picks up a defect discovered in the Wool Amendment Act 1974. That was a drafting defect and not a deliberate defect on the part of the Labor Government. The drafters of the legislation saw fit to provide explicitly for accounting procedures in relation to the activities of the Wool Corporation in the processing, manufacture and trading of wool products. No opposition is given to the consummation of the power expressly provided in the legislation put forward by the Labor Government in the 1 974 amendments to the Bill. The power is subject to the Minister’s approval. The change of title of the Wool Scourers, Car.bonisers and Fellmongers’ Association of Australia, brings the legislation up to date with the latest change of title to that organisation.

The Wool Industry Amendment Bill 1976 also deals with existing policy and does not indicate what the Government’s future policy will be in relation to the industry, other than to state that it is the policy of this Government to continue the initiatives of the Labor Government for only one more year. I appreciate that that is not the public view but in terms of this legislation it does just that. It continues the initiative which we took. It makes no mention of whether the floor price for wool is to be altered from 250c a kilo for 21 micron wool- that is known as clean, average merino wool- and it does not in any way extend the financial strength of the Corporation to keep abreast with inflation. I draw attention to the fact that graziers and several organisations representing growers are pressing the Government to index the floor price scheme to take into account inflation. Of course, that is a matter with which one of my colleagues will be dealing in more detail. I hazard a guess that the industry must look very carefully at any proposal to index the floor price because it may well create a bottomless pit for the industry in the years to come.

Whilst it is hoped, and it has been predicted, that the outlook for the wool industry for 1976-77 is good, with clear indications of a revival for the wool industry based on Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development predictions of economic recoveries led by the United States and followed by other major trading partners, the situation is by no means certain. Recent transactions show that the Wool Corporation has not been obliged to buy in so extensively at the floor price. The market is showing those tenuous signs of recovery which will be welcomed, I am sure, not only by the rural communities but also by all Australians. We recognise the fundamental nature of the primary industry as part of our total economic scene. Notwithstanding this, the Government ought to make the firm commitment to stand by and to assist the wool industry and, in particular, the wool growers, at least as much as the Labor Government did when wool growers were confronted with the most severe economic recession since the Second World War. I think the industry needs the sort of assurance that in fact the Government is prepared to aid the industry and to stand by it whatever the vagaries of the market may be.

The floor price of 250c a kilo for 21 micron wool provided the security necessary to enable wool growers to hang on. It is perhaps indicative that the difficult decision of assessing what the floor price should be has stood the test of time. I think the more far-sighted members of the producers section of this market see the need to keep that situation while it is tempting to suggest that the price should be different. Assessed primarily by market trends and not by the cost of production, figures for which are unavailable because of the vast differences in the size of properties and the quality of wool, the floor price at 250c a kilogram has assisted wool growers when they most needed help without causing an unamanageable drain on the finances of the Corporation.

The very operation of the floor price system, guaranteed to an extent by the market support fund, illustrates the advantages of having a single marketing and promotional authority partly guaranteed by producers in the industry and supported by the Government. But in the evolution of time rural producers are coming to see the need for government promotional activity and government support schemes of a nature which will provide stability in the rural productions. One might digress for a moment to point out that the party to which I belong supports these general principles. It does not see the need always to involve itself in production incentives because production is now becoming an important negative factor in the whole rural scene. The statistics illustrate that only approximately 80 per cent of the wool market is guaranteed by the operation of the floor price scheme. This occurs not through any fault in this legislation but because of the constitutional constraints placed on any Australian government by the Federal Constitution.

The Australian Parliament, confined by section 51, and in particular section 51 (i), can only legislate in relation to the export of a commodity, not the mere sale or purchase of a commodity. Thus, until such time as the wool is ready for export the floor price scheme does not operate. Other marketing outlets for the wool growers are the private treaty merchants. It is true to say that these merchants are in a position to undercut the floor price scheme to the detriment of the grower. What is interesting is to assess why some growers are willing to sell their wool to these merchants, often for a lower price than would be received with the floor price operating at auction.

It seems that the grower is not just bound to the more traditional outlet of the private treaty merchants. Whilst most growers verbally support the existence of an alternative market for the sale of their wool, they do not actually sell to that source at a price lower than that guaranteed at auction unless the need forces them to do so. In many instances it is the very struggling farmer which the floor price was specifically designed to assist who is forced, because of liquidity problems, to accept the cash value of the wool off the sheep’s back offered by the private treaty merchant. Many of these farmers, especially mixed farmers, have their time taken up by other production lines on their farms. This is particularly so in Western Australia where it is said that onethird of the clip is sold by private treaty.

No firm proposal has emanated from the Government in relation to this problem. It is time that the co-operation of the State was required to deal effectively with this matter because the auction system is under State jurisdiction. The need for co-ordination and direction has come from one source. The Wool Corporation may be that very source, but without enabling legislation and the agreement of all the States to legislate concurrently on particular matters, the Corporation cannot be empowered to do so. The Australian Government should not abdicate its responsibility to achieve this consensus. It should offer the necessary leadership. No grandstanding of the new federalism policy and the handing back of taxing powers will compensate for the loss of a nationwide scheme which would benefit both producer and consumer. We suggest to the Government that this matter ought to be examined to see how we can assist those sections of the wool producers who are forced to deal with private treaty merchants. We should see how some other legislative process could be developed which would give the producers the opportunity of participation and benefit from the wool price scheme.

The wool industry, like so many of our agricultural industries as I have indicated, has been hit by the world recession. The prospect and indications, however tenuous, of the recovery of Australia’s major wool trading partners, particularly Japan and members of the Common Market who, for example, purchased 29.2 per cent and 35.9 per cent respectively of our total wool exports for the year 1974-75, are brighter than they were in the several preceding years. We are trusting that that optimism can be maintained. Production in Australia of approximately 790 million kilograms of greasy wool is well below the peak of 925 million kilograms achieved in 1969-70, although that is higher than the interceding years. Of course, even this industry is under-producing, when compared with its potential, because of market considerations. The problems of disposal of the wool are linked with overseas markets, Australia having a mammoth 60 per cent of the total world market. With the operation of the floor price the volume of exports dropped 3.7 per cent. The price level, however, was determined largely by the Wool Corporation which in order to support the price purchased 33.5 per cent of the season’s offering in 1974- 75 compared with 6 per cent for 1973-74. The stockpiling had reached 1.6 million bales compared with 176 000 bales for the previous season 1973-74.

The research and promotion activities of the Wool Corporation no doubt have helped the synthetic products which seriously threaten the wool market. In 1974-75, contribution by the Australian Government to approved programs of wool research was on a 50-50 basis with wool growers, who contribute by way of 3 per cent tax on sales, which taken with the 5 per cent for the market support fund makes a total of an 8 per cent tax on sales. It was decided that in the years 1975- 76 and 1976-77 the Government would contribute three-quarters of the cost of these programs. For this latter period, the Government contributed one-quarter of the projected wool promotion budgets leaving the balance to be paid for by the wool growers. It is to be hoped that this Government’s support to the industry will continue.

Whilst the Opposition does not oppose this Bill, it is clear that by merely extending the initiatives put forward by the Labor Government for only one year the Liberal-National Country Party Government has not indicated to the wool growers and to those members of the rural communities materially affected by the industry what the Liberal-National Country Party policy is or what the Government intends to do in the future. So whilst we support the extension of the program, we feel it is necessary to indicate publicly acceptance of the general principles of the original legislation. Veiled in this extension of what can only be described as holding-on provisions of the floor price, it is hoped that the tenuous signs of recovery in the wool market will blossom and return the industry to the prosperity of the 1950s and the 1960s. This would be welcomed by all Australians but the policies of the Government should not be to sit back and wait and hope.

The Labor Government, in its short 3 years, sprinkled with 3 election campaigns did not sit back. It instigated many research programs and reports. I think the rural community has not understood the value of the Industries Assistance Commission report and the rural policy Green Paper upon which many meaningful decisions can be made. We are not suggesting that this IAC report is the panacea or the total answer to all of the problems facing the rural communities. But we do believe that its relevance and authenticity in terms of its fundamental study and review of rural production provide the basis upon which a viable rural policy can be determined. In respect of the wool industry, that report went further than any previous LiberalNational Country Party government report in responding to the short term need and support that the industry required whilst it was in office. The Liberal-National Country Party Government before 1972 chose to continue to take ad hoc measures in regard to the wool industry. This Government is choosing at least to support that scheme which Labor introduced for another year. Whilst there is no objection to this, it is no substitute for policy decisions and long term planning. The rural communities and all Australians whose prosperity is still linked with the performance of our rural industries in overseas markets cannot afford the luxury of continued government piecemeal or ad hoc actions or inaction or a return to the hit-and-miss approach which we believe characterised the rural policies of previous Liberal and National Country Party governments in the 25 years since the second World War.

The 5 tax Bills are machinery in nature and deal with the tax on the sale of wool in order to continue the contribution by the producers to the market support fund. This fund is to underwrite any final loss in the operation of the floor price introduced by Labor in 1974. There are no new procedures to the operation or collection of the tax or with the carrying out of the operations of the fund. The tax is levied by 5 different Bills because of the interpretation of the Federal Constitution. The levy of 5 per cent on the sale of wool is designed to capture all transactions whether by auction, export or sale by private treaty merchants. At least all of those transactions make some contribution towards the activities and the financial viability of the Wool Corporation. As Labor supports the extension for one year of the floor price for wool it would be inconsistent for us not to support the extension for one year of the collection of the tax for the market support fund. In those circumstances we do not oppose the legislation. We support the 6 Bills that are currently before the Senate.

Senator MAUNSELL:
Queensland

– I support the Bills before the Senate which, as Senator Gietzelt said, are aimed at maintaining the floor price scheme for wool for a further 12 months and also to continue wool industry levies in order to supplement the market support fund which eventually the growers will take over. It is interesting to note that the levies have raised to date approximately $50m per annum. It is only a matter of time before there will be no government commitment in the fund. This is what the industry has been seeking. We certainly support the industry running its own affairs. Of course, as wool is sold at a profit, so more money will go into the fund and pay for the running costs and the interest involved. I noticed that Senator Gietzelt used the usual Labor Party tactic of saying that the Labor Government had done everything for the wool industry and that we had not. It is interesting to note that a former Liberal-National Country Party government introduced legislation for the Australian Wool Corporation which the Australian Labor Party opposed. The Australian Wool Corporation set up a flexible floor price scheme in which it was allowed to borrow money for the purpose of stockpiling wool or to purchase wool -

Senator Primmer:

– You refused to put a floor on the market.

Senator MAUNSELL:

-We had a flexible floor price at that stage. It was a procedure being developed at that time. Anyone associated with the wool industry will know that there are difficulties in getting the wool growers to agree. We had the spade work done. The Corporation was being prepared, as honourable senators well know, to undertake this work before the 1972 election. If we had won the 1972 election, the Wool Corporation would have been introduced by our government. The industry agreed to the imposition of a levy, which was the important part of the whole operation. All that can be said is that while the Labor Government did set a fixed floor price, it also imposed a tax of 5 per cent on the wool industry -

Senator Primmer:

– We put a floor on the market.

Senator MAUNSELL:

– I mentioned that. Besides putting a fixed floor price on the market, all that can be said of the Labor Government’s actions in 3 years was that it imposed a tax of 5 per cent on the industry, which I agree the industry eventually agreed to accept. Of course, there are other things which the Labor Government did to the wool industry during the 3 years it was in government. It did nothing about inflation.

Rampant inflation has been the biggest problem of the wool industry. Any industry that sells 90 per cent or more of its product overseas cannot put up its prices. It has no power to charge more for its products. Obviously, such an industry will be affected if rampant inflation exists in its costs.

Let me list a few more of the decisions made by the former Labor Government. What did the Labor Government do to the taxation deductions for farm improvements that were necessary to keep the industry going? They were taken away. The petrol price equalisation arrangement was also abolished. Postal charges were increased astronomically, as were telephone charges. Honourable senators know that in remote areas of Australia telephone charges are very costly. Nearly every call to a doctor or to a business house is a trunk line call. These are things that the Labor Government did for the wool industry. There was a proliferation of strikes which meant that a great number of producers were in difficulty in selling or transporting their wool. There is no justification for honourable senators opposite, to say that the former Labor Government did everything for the wool industry and this side of politics did nothing.

Senator Primmer:

– We did something when you largely deserted the industry for 25 years.

Senator MAUNSELL:

-AU that the Labor Government did was to implement something that we had organised prior to 1972. The honourable senator knows darned well that that is correct.

Let me return to the requirements of the wool industry and the problems facing that industry. Now that one problem has been resolved, let us deal with the current problems in the industry. I believe that what we must do is see that adequate wool stocks are maintained. It has been said that the Australian Wool Corporation will be able to pay back by next year all of the money it has borrowed from the Government. Whether that is right depends on what happens in the market. This is the estimate. I would hope that the Government would not be requiring that money so early as I think that a “need exists for adequate stocks not only in Australia but also overseas in those countries which purchase our wool. An example of why this action is necessary is the recent storemen and packers strike. Woolgrowers who sold wool in February and who probably had wool in store in December or January still have not received payment, because the wool has not been able to be moved from the storage areas.

Senator McLaren:

– Whose fault is that? It is the brokers.

Senator MAUNSELL:

-The honourable senator can have his say later. All I am saying is that we must maintain adequate stocks overseas in order to obviate a situation like that arising. The wool industry is a very sensitive industry. I am speaking now of the manufacturing side, the end result of the production of wool in this country. Problems experienced by the wool industry in the past have related to purchasers being unable to acquire quantities of wool when they need them and also the fluctuating prices which have created big disadvantages among different manufacturers.

Senator Primmer:

– Do you suggest that we need a new auction system or what?

Senator MAUNSELL:

-That is why we introduced the flexible floor price system which is operating today. It is approximately 280c for 2 1 micron wool clean. That means that the price will not drop sharply to 250c. It will come down in stages with the Wool Corporation buying any surplus wool when the demand is slow. In the interests of the industry we not only must have these stockpiles but also must try to maintain prices at a reasonably stable level.

I turn to other matters that I believe are necessary of consideration by the wool industry and particularly by the Wool Corporation. I say for the benefit of Senator Cotton that I hope that records have been kept of all payments made so far by growers. I suggested in the Senate last year when we were talking on the wool legislation that there will come a time when it is no longer necessary for growers to contribute to the fund or to buy from the stockpile. I have always believed that a revolving fund is necessary. This would result in not just one section which has been through hard times, as those presently engaged in wool growing have been, being the only section to pay the levy with those who receive the benefit of this levy later on not contributing to it. With a revolving fund, after 5 years or 6 years those who contributed in the earlier years will receive their money back and those who are coming into industry or who are new to the industry will continue to contribute to the fund by way of levy. I hope that that will be done as I think that such action will be necessary in the future.

I believe also that every encouragement should be given to research into reducing costs in the industry. This should not only relate to properties and the shearing of wool but should also be concerned with the marketing of wool by the Wool Corporation. Although we are inclined to believe that today prices are very high when compared with the prices prevailing a few years ago, the profitability of woolgrowers throughout Australia has probably never been lower. This is an unfortunate situation which results from costs escalating to such an extent. Most of the industry now finds itself in trouble. Certainly what those in the industry cannot do now but which they were able to do a few years ago is to withstand a recession in the price obtained at wool sales or the effects of droughts which a number of growing areas do experience from time to time. Costs still seem to continue to rise. Woolgrowers do not have the viability or the capital behind them to be able to withstand any big financial problems.

I hope that the Australian Wool Corporation will take into account and investigate these matters and also push forward as fast as it can with the introduction of modern methods of marketing. We have our objective measurement and sale by sample systems. I believe that in this area alone we could reduce to a large extent costs in the wool industry. Madam Acting Deputy President, time is moving on. I say in conclusion that I and members of my Party wholeheartedly support these Bills.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I shall not dwell for too long on commenting on Senator Maunsell ‘s remarks, but I do wish to make a couple of points. For as long as I can remember- in fact from 1951- the woolgrowers of Australia have with varying intensity been applying pressures to the Government to implement a floor price for the whole Australian clip. I can recall throughout much of the 1950s and all of the 1960s telling woolgrowers that such a scheme was unlikely to be implemented until a Labor Government was elected. That was precisely what happened. No such scheme was implemented until a Labor Government was elected. All the histrionics and the denials of the National Country Party cannot alter the historical fact that for more than 20 years despite the National Country Party’s claim to represent agricultural industries it failed to secure what most sections of primary industry had with varying levels of intensity demanded throughout that period. To achieve that end, the election of a government which was politically opposed to the National Country Party was required.

Two other points arise from Senator Maunsell ‘s address. Firstly, I wish to puncture the inflation myth- the myth that because inflation is running at any particular level in Australia it therefore, ipso facto, cripples exporting industries. That simplistic view may have been valid in the days when governments attempted to maintain rigid exchange rates. It is no longer valid when the Australian dollar is floating as it has been floating for the last 18 months. A rate of inflation in Australia significantly higher than the rate prevailing in relation to our trading partners will, granted with some time lag, ultimately be corrected by adjustments in the international exchange rate through the open market.

The third point that I make is that Senator Maunsell and the National Country Party are victims of the fact that once the National Country Party learns a new line it seems to keep on repeating it.

Senator McLaren:

– Like a parrot.

Senator WALSH:

– Yes. It seems to be unable to shed a line once it is learnt or unable to unlearn a line once learnt. Senator Maunsell was again plugging this line that the Labor Government had inflicted hardship upon the wool industry because what he euphemistically calls investment incentives were withdrawn in the 1973 Budget. At the risk of being tediously repetitiousand I regret that it is necessary to be tediously repetitious because the National Country Party in particular and the Liberal Party to a somewhat lesser extent still do not seem to have learnt this lesson- I put to the Liberal and National Country Parties this question: Do they really believe that investment in such industries as dairying, fruit growing, beef or wool would have been higher in 1 973 and 1 974 than in fact it was? Do they really believe that, if the Government of the day had provided some artificial stimuli to generate new investment and thereby increase productions in those industries, those industries would have been any better off? In case they have no idea of the current position of those industries, I remind them that their acute problem at the moment is one of surplus capacity. So what the National Country Party still claims would have been a sound and viable agricultural policy in 1973 would in fact have exacerbated the problems which exist today.

The Bills before the Senate, although they are concerned with striking levies and so on, are an integral part of the Labor Government’s major initiatives to apply a floor price from September 1974 onwards. This legislation continues the most significant innovation in the area of agricultural policy that came from the Whitlam Government. The level at which the floor price should be set has always been a contentious issue. My own view is that the level of 250c set in September 1974 was probably somewhat higher than the market realities justified and that the 250c floor price set for the 1975-76 season was the appropriate level- of course, we have empirical evidence to support this now- insofar as there has been some decline in stocks but substantial stocks are still being held. The appropriate level of the reserve price next year must remain a field for speculation. Nevertheless it need not be entirely ignorant or ill-informed speculation.

When in Opposition the members of the present governing Parties freely distributed their advice and made their assertions that the reserve price should be set at a higher level than whatever level the Australian Labor Party had allowed it to be set at. For example, as far back as 22 May last year, Mr Sinclair said: . . The Parties on this side of the House believe that that level of support should be at least at the present rate of 250c.

From time to time spokesmen for the Liberal and National Country Parties argued that the floor price should be indexed to either the consumer price index or the Bureau of Agricultural Economics index of farm costs or wool industry costs. The view was put forward- quite unrealistically in my opinion; I will return to that later- by those spokesmen that the floor price should automatically increase from year to year in accordance with increases in the BAE index of farm costs or wool industry costs. So those spokesmen will now have the opportunity to put the taxpayers’ money where their mouths were when they were in Opposition.

I do suggest- I offer this suggestion constructivelythat the current state of the wool market justifies the Government giving serious consideration to reviewing the level of the floor price for the coming season with some adjustment upwards. I do not accept the belief which has been irresponsibly promoted by some members of this Parliament and by some parliamentarians outside the federal sphere, particularly by the Premier of Western Australia, that the demand for wool- I use the word ‘demand’ in the sense of it being a composite of quantity sold and price- is determined by whatever floor price is set. That sort of nonsense was liberally promoted by the Premier of Western Australia, amongst others, in September 1974 when he had the audacity to assert that if the reserve price- the floor price- had been set at 300c instead of 250c the Wool Corporation would have sold more wool. That sort of view, of course, clearly reveals the monumental ignorance of the process of price formation to which Professor Lloyd referred at a conference in Perth in 1 970.

Senator Wright:

– Are you saying that Sir Charles Court knows nothing about it?

Senator WALSH:

-Senator Wright is about to give us his views on price determination and the process of price formation.

Senator Wright:

– I think that you should show respect for Sir Charles Court ‘s views.

Senator WALSH:

- Sir Charles Court’s views in this instance were that if one increases the price of a product the quantity sold will likewise increase. It is certainly an original view of the process of price formation and marketing reality. Senator Wright might respect that, with his immense knowledge in this area, but I have not struck anyone else in Australia who supports it, other than some irresponsible political propagandists who have an axe to grind. In the long term, of course, to anyone who has a rational or even a minimal appreciation of the true forces which determine prices in a market place- that obviously excludes Sir Charles Court and, by his own admission, Senator Wright- and the process of price formation the floor price in the long term must be set by the true market demand for wool. That sort of analysis, of course, does not exclude significant government intervention for the short term. There always remains the problem of determining the appropriate level at which the reserve price should be set in the short or medium term.

To return to the point of the level at which it ought to be set this year, there are certain objective facts which are relevant and which point in the direction of a higher floor price being justified. I refer firstly to what was, on the whole, a well considered submission that was sent to me and, I understand, to other members of Parliament by the Farmers Union of Western Australia. I trust the figure given is correct- I have not checked it- but it is claimed that there was a fall of 600 000 bales in the stocks held by the Wool Corporation between November and March and that 600 000 bales represented something very close to 40 per cent of the Corporation’s total stocks. Another objective fact is that the market for the last month or 6 weeks has held at a fairly consistent level at around 275c per kilogram clean. I think it is reasonable to say that the price of wool is likely to rise, although no one can be certain of these things, at something like the general increase in prices not only in Australia but also in the countries to which we sell and the general increase in price in the last year has still been in the vicinity of 10 per cent. Given those 3 facts and, in addition, the apparent economic recovery or the beginnings of an economic recovery in many of our trading partners, it does not seem unreasonable to suggest that the Government ought to review the level of the reserve price with a view to increasing it. The level to which it ought to be increased is, of course, highly debatable but it seems to me that an increase of the magnitude of 10 per cent would not be irresponsible and ought to be seriously considered.

I want quite clearly to dissociate myself from the view promoted in some sections of the industry, frequently with the backing and encouragement of the National Country Party, that the level of the floor price of wool ought to be set by something that they call the cost of production. The cost of production concept just does not have any viability unless governments are prepared to enter into open-ended and continuing commitments for price support, and that sort of policy no responsible government can contemplate. I concede all the difficulties that are involved in making a reasonable assessment, but in the long term the floor price must be set by the true market demand for wool and that does not exclude short term intervention. The Labor Government did intervene. It was an extremely costly exercise in the short term. The cost to the Budget in 1974-75 was in excess of $300m. There is not likely to be any net cost to government finances this year. I mention in passing that the non-expenditure of the $80m appropriated in the 1975-76 Budget for finance for the Wool Corporation is now claimed by some Government spokesmen as being a saving instituted by the superior housekeeping of this Government. It has even been predicted by Senator Maunsell and, I think, some others, that the great bulk of the outstanding advance currently owed by the Corporation of around $300m will be returned to the Government in the next financial year. If that should happen, I hope that the Government does not have the audacity to claim that its superior housekeeping has been responsible for that too. But I acknowledge the very possibility of that advance being repaid is a factor constraining the Government, a factor working against the Government allowing for an increase in the reserve price.

Finally, I want to give some figures in response to the belief promoted by political propagandists who are more concerned with saying what is popular than what is true, that is, the belief that the current problems in some sectors of agriculture have been caused by the Labor Government. The reality of the situation is that the Government in power has little influence over the aggregate level of farm income except in those sectors that suffer from chronic surplus capacity. It is in those sectors that governments have been culpable in the past. Governments, both State and Federal, have promoted surplus capacity in fruit growing and in dairying, in particular. I refer to the level of farm income on a calendar year basis- I have incorporated it in other ways before- for the years 1970 to 1972 under a Liberal-Country Party Government.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator WALSH:

- Mr President, before the suspension of the sitting I was saying that the government in power, no matter which party constitutes that government, has little influence on the aggregate level of farm income, except where government action induces or sustains chronic surplus capacity. This has been a factor in industries such as the dairy industry, the canned fruit industry and the apples and pears industry, and it is a factor in the current difficult situation. For example, in the calendar years 1970 to 1972 the average net farm income, in constant 1966-67 prices, was $982m. In the 3 calendar years from 1973 to 1975 the average net farm income, again in constant 1966-67 prices, was $ 1 ,430m. So the belief that in the 3 years of Labor rule things were very difficult down on the farm is quite clearly contradicted by the objective facts. In fact, in those 3 years net farm income in real terms was some 45 per cent higher than it had been in the preceding 3 years of Liberal-Country Party government.

Finally, if the Liberal and Country Parties really wish to do something to assist the people whom they purport to represent- normally they purport to represent the agricultural farmers more so than the Labor Party does- they would do these people a service if they paid more attention to saying what is true and less attention to saying what is popular. They would do these people a service if they paid more attention to the truth than to the popularisation of misleading analyses or to the promotion of false hopes.

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I will not go through the objectives of these five or six Bills that we are debating. Firstly, I should like to refer to a couple of matters that Senator Gietzelt discussed. He questioned the right of private wool buyers to operate in the wool market. I refer him to a report of the economic section of the Australian Wool Corporation into the question of private wool buying. That report recognised the value of private wool merchants and does not suggest the abolition of private wool buying. But it recognised that if the operation of private wool buying gets beyond its present level it could create some difficulties.

I refer honourable senators to the debate on these Bills which ensued in another place and also something that Senator Walsh and Senator Gietzelt mentioned regarding this Government’s so-called indecision in not giving the wool industry a lead as to what the future wool reserve price will be. I refer to the speech made by the honourable member for Blaxland, Mr Keating, which is reported on page 2659 of the House of Representatives Hansard of 28 May 1976. There he is reported to have said:

Now it is up to this Government to say where it stands but to date we have heard nothing except that it will do it at the end of the season. Let the Government give the industry some indication.

This would be a completely irresponsible and mischievous thing for the Government to do. Let us imagine the situation if the wool buyers of the world had advance warning of what the reserve price was to be. If the reserve price was to be higher there would be a rush for wool. Conversely, if the price was to be lower the buyers would hold off buying wool. As I have said, it would be completely irresponsible for the Government to indicate what the reserve price was to be.

I turn now to deal with some of the comments that Senator Walsh made. I respect his views on quite a number of things that he mentioned. He speaks with quite a lot of knowledge on economic affairs, but I suggest that his memory is rather lacking when he refers to the establishment of the reserve price program. For the illumination of Senator Walsh and other honourable senators opposite I point out that the Australian Wool Corporation was set up by the Liberal-Country Party Government. The suggestion was made to the wool growers that there should be a reserve price scheme. Governments of our political colour do not impose on people things that they do not want. It took many years to convince the growers that a reserve price scheme would work. So rather than there being indecision on our part, we were waiting for the growers to decide what they wanted us to do. Honourable senators will recall that when the Wool Corporation was established it set up its own flexible reserve price. Two of the most vehement opponents of” the establishment of the Corporation were Messrs Patterson and Whan. Sadly, they are no longer in this Parliament. But the Labor Party was strongly opposed to the establishment of the Wool Corporation which has done a tremendous amount of good for the industry. All growers throughout Australia have recognised that the Corporation is making a very important contribution.

These Bills refer to the imposition of a levy of 5 per cent on the sale of wool. I also remind honourable senators that in addition to this levy there is another levy of 3 per cent which has been imposed for many years and which is used for research and promotion. 1 believe that the way in which the wool industry levies itself is an example to other rural industries. Wool growers, by their tremendous support, have recognised the importance of research and promotion. Now they are financing the reserve price scheme. Although the present Bills set a minimum price for wool for this coming season, they do not prevent an increase from being made in the reserve price for the financial year beginning 1 July. I wish to make it quite plain that these Bills do not prevent an increase from being made in the reserve price.

I have received representations, as probably other honourable senators from rural areas have, to the effect that the reserve price should be increased to 300c per kilogram. Many wool growers, particularly in Western Australia, believe that if this increase were granted they would voluntarily provide a 10 per cent levy to allow the Wool Corporation to be controlled more and more by the growers and to have less dependence on governments. In response to that I indicate that I agree with what Senator Walsh said, that it would be completely irresponsible of this Government to recommend an increase in the reserve price beyond what we can rightfully expect the market level to be. I also must point out that the flexible reserve price is operating again. As other honourable senators have already mentioned, this price is operating substantially above 250c per kilogram.

In passing I should like to pay a tribute to the Australian Wool Corporation, and in particular to Pat Moore and John Bennison, the Corporation members from Western Australia, both of whom I know quite well. I also refer in particular to the staff, to Dr Arthur Farnworth, Malcolm Vawser and Morrie Pell whom I personally know. They have done a tremendous amount of work for the wool industry. Probably the work that they have done will never be completely recognised.

In 1974-75 the income received by the Corporation was $88m. Of that, $60m was received from growers through levies and $ 14.7m was contributed from Government funds specifically for wool promotion. In that year the main portion of the income was expended on the International Wool Secretariat. Very few people understand that the major portion of expenditure on wool promotion is incurred overseas. Unfortunately, very few growers in Australia have an opportunity of seeing the functioning of the International Wool Secretariat. I can assure them that it is doing a tremendously good job. It concentrates its work more in areas where wool is used.

We export 90 per cent of our wool and we export to some 38 countries. The countries are listed in the latest report of the Australian Wool Corporation. The report shows that Japan takes 29 per cent of our wool, France 1 1 per cent and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics 13 per cent. These figures refute some of the arguments that members of the Labor Party consistently put forward in trying to tie in diplomatic relations with international trade. The report shows that our exports to mainland China have actually fallen off quite substantially and that we export 5 times as much wool to Taiwan as we do to the People’s Republic of China. There is no significant difference in the percentages before and after we recognised the People’s Republic of China. At June 1975, 1.6 million bales of wool were in store in Australia as a result of the operations of the reserve price scheme. This is a third of our annual production and is rather an alarming amount. Currently 1.3 million bales of wool are held in store, conservatively valued at $250m.

The wool industry received tremendous competition from synthetics some years ago. One of the reasons given for this is that manufacturing wool from the raw state into the fabric is quite a lot more expensive than is the manufacture of synthetics. There are many reasons for that; I will not mention them all now. I pay a tribute to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation for its major innovation in the spinning process of wool. CSIRO has developed a self-twist machine which is currently being manufactured by the Repco company. Wool is being forced into the high cost market. Because of the factors I have mentioned we cannot compete with the cheap production of synthetics and we are being forced into the high quality, high fashion market. But things are improving and rather interestingly the high price of oil is forcing synthetic manufacturers to raise their prices, thus helping the natural fibres.

The advances in production techniques in the last few years are quite outstanding. Honourable senators will be aware that about 60 per cent of the Australian wool clip is sold by sample and objective measurement. I pay a tribute to my own State of Western Australia which took the lead in this field. I think some 80 per cent of wool in Western Australia is sold by objective measurement. Many other innovations are in the pipeline. Computer selling has been talked about a great deal and could save the cost involved in wool buyers travelling around the country from sale to sale. Also, tremendous advances have been made in the last 10 to 15 years particularly in sheep breeding programs. I would like to say how much I appreciate the help that CSIRO and various institutes and departments concerned with agriculture have given in this regard.

As everybody would realise, costs are increasing in the industry. This is its most serious problem. The Australian Wool Corporation completed a calculation recently comparing the years 1970 to 1976. It was able to show, quite conclusively, that the cost per kilogram of getting wool from the sheep’s back to the woollen mills has increased from 30.46c in 1970 to 74.75c in 1976. This is a 145 per cent increase and is far above any inflationary increases. I counsel the Government that a consideration of costs in the industry is our major priority.

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

– in reply- As we were told by Senator Gietzelt, who is the shadow Minister for Primary Industry, this Bill is not opposed by the Opposition. Therefore a long reply is not called for. Senator Gietzelt mentioned briefly the question of growers selling their wool by private treaty. Of course in the present market situation growers choose to sell their wool privately. It is open to them equally to sell at auction if they wish to do so. The floor price scheme is designed to operate within the auction system and there would be practical difficulties, I am informed- for example, methods of appraisal- in attempting to extend the scheme to private treaty selling. Senator Maunsell talked about the Australian Wool Corporation endeavouring to keep records of amounts paid by growers. In this activity the Corporation needs the co-operation of brokers and the many private treaty merchants who provide information of sales records. It is not easy to do, but the aim is a laudable one. Senator Walsh said a great deal but did not specifically leave anything to reply to. It was interesting to hear his observations on lots of matters and equally to disagree very strongly with a great number of them. Senator Thomas, who spoke from a considerable experience of wool growing and sheep breeding, said a couple of very interesting things. He referred to the immense rise in costs of production in the last five or six years which was much greater than I had imagined. He informed us quite properly that there are limits for the animal breeder to produce a commercial product by useful genetic and selection work in mating and programs to be able to achieve a result which will overcome the solid upward thrust of cost pressures such as the ones that he mentioned.

I am concerned about the great Australian wool industry, which began really with very few sheep and has a tremendous record of achievement. All the Australians involved throughout its history have produced a superb animal for the process of wool production. This has been done by very good mating programs, good classification work and good identity. I think it is a great tribute to the Australian primary producer that he has been able to do this and that our wool has reached its present position in the world. Equally, in passing, I suppose one might say the traditional Australian plant breeders made much the same sort of improvement with wheat. One might talk at great length about these areas in which Senator Thomas and I have a common interest but I shall refrain from doing so in the interests of getting our work through.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

WOOL TAX AMENDMENT BILLS (Nos 1-5) 1976

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 1 July, on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the Bills be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills together read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without requests or debate.

page 2435

PAPUA NEW GUINEA (STAFFING ASSISTANCE) TERMINATION BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 1 June on motion by Senator Withers:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-The Papua New Guinea (Staffing Assistance) Termination Bill is largely a machinery Bill. It is complementary to legislation of the Australian Labor Party Government establishing the Australian Staffing Assistance Group, which was provided for under the Papua New Guinea (Staffing Assistance) Act 1973. The Group came into being on 1 December 1973, which coincides with the date on which responsibility for the Papua New Guinea Public Service was transferred to the Papua New Guinea Government. A fairly large number of people were involved in the changeover and when that particular legislation was introduced it was decided that further recruitment to the Group would cease on 30 June 1975 and that the Australian Staffing Assistance Group arrangements would be wound up on 30 June 1976. So this virtually means that it was necessary to have this present legislation introduced to wind up the loose ends of the whole program. There is no need to talk at length on this matter. The Opposition does not oppose the Bill.

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

page 2435

DAIRY ADJUSTMENT AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 3 June, on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– As the Dairy Adjustment Amendment Bill, the Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Bill and the Dairying Industry Research and Promotion (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill are related, the Opposition suggests that the Government might take the 3 Bills together.

The PRESIDENT:

– I shall allow a cognate debate on the 3 measures.

Senator GIETZELT:

– The Opposition supports the legislation that is before the Senate. The first Bill- the Dairy Adjustment Amendment Bill- probably might be considered to be somewhat more contentious than the others. We recognise that this Bill was introduced into the Parliament in 1 974 by the Labor Government, lt replaced former assistance measures, such as bounties on butter, cheese and processed milk, which were then phased out. It is interesting to recall that at that stage the legislation had the support of all parties. When the Bill came before the Senate on 10 December 1974 the then Minister for Primary Industry, Senator Wriedt, summed the legislation up by saying that it assisted the persons whose needs were greatest in the dairying industry and who were likely to go out of dairying if assistance were not available. The dairying assistance program is designed to make dairying an economic proposition.

The Dairy Adjustment Amendment Bill proposes some minor amendments to the existing legislation. For example, it proposes to appropriate $3.5m for the purposes of the legislation $2m for selected short term adjustment for dairy farmers in financial difficulties and $1.5m which was previously made available to the States by the Labor Government. The legislation provides also for new proposals for carry on loans. These are for cases where dairy farms for the time being uneconomic would be economic if satisfactory market conditions were restored. The terms and conditions in the legislation providing for carry on loans, provide for maximum loans in individual cases of $4,000 for up to 7 years. The legislation also extends the provisions for diversification assistance where there are prospects of viability in some other form of rural production. The assistance available for reallocation is increased under this Bill from $3,000 to $5,000. The total amount payable is increased to $46.5m. Previously $25m was made available on a 4-year program. Assistance is given where there is a reasonable prospect of viability, which is judged by the States’ own administrative authorities.

The effect of the proposed legislation will be to widen the criteria in the original legislation on rural reconstruction and to extend the provisions for the marginal dairy farm reconstruction scheme. I think it has to be said that the dairying industry has been adjusting for a considerable number of years. Some people have suggested that this is a euphemism for going broke. The decline in the number of dairy farms in Australia in the last 10 years or so has been something like from 55 000 to 33 000 dairy farms. So already very considerable readjustment has been taking place virtually under our noses. A specific program of dairy reconstruction, build up and adjustment was needed 10 years ago. I draw the attention of the Senate to a parliamentary decision made in 1959 to conduct an inquiry into the dairying industry and a report of the dairying industry committee of inquiry was submitted to the Parliament in August 1 960.

That report was to take into consideration the developments which were to accrue and which subsequently did accrue as a result of the development of the European Economic Community and particularly as a result of the lucrative market of the United Kingdom going into the EEC. The tragedy is that this reportinterestingly enough the majority opinion was by Professor Downing and Professor Karmel, who subsequently did some very important work for the Australian Parliament- did make a number of recommendations based on what were then apparent trends and on what were considered to be potential trends in the event of England moving into the EEC. While the debate did rage over a number of years, it has to be said that very little was done by the Liberal and Country Parties when they were in government in Australia to exercise any influence on the English decision or to take the essential steps that were necessary if England were to make that decision subsequently. In the report, apart from a lot of other recommendations, it is stated:

During the transition period, special schemes to provide technical and capital assistance should be devised, in order to strengthen the position of marginal producers who remain in dairying, in order to help those who wish to leave the industry, and in order to help those who can neither establish themselves in the industry profitably nor move out of it.

Of course, they were the sorts of decisions that should have been planned in the 1960s. We have now reached the stage, I think, where no other industry in Australia is in a more chronic state than the dairying industry. Mr Sinclair, who is responsible for the presentation of this Bill, not only has that report to fall back on but he also has the report of the Industries Assistance Commission, which was presented to the Parliament in October 1975. 1 find it incomprehensible that he has taken the step of delaying the essential restructuring that is necessary in the dairying industry by calling for yet another report, which it is anticipated will not be received until August or September of this year. Of course, that will be post-Budget. Clearly, if we are in any way to take any meaningful steps towards the stabilisation of this very important industry, steps must be taken in the forthcoming Budget.

That prompts the criticism from the Opposition that waiting for the report is putting off the evil day. It is putting off the day of recognition of the problem which faces all of those in the dairying industry, State by State. We have the IAC report and we have the reports from that very important organisation, the Dairy Corporation, which has constantly advised governments, both past and present, of the difficulties in the industry. There is no doubt that the decision which faces this Government is a very difficult one. lt is a decision which, if delayed, will become even more difficult. The sooner the decision is made the sooner we will be able to solve the problem, if it is at all soluble.

Surely the Opposition is entitled to say that pan of the blame for the delay in decision making must fall on the shoulders of the Liberal and Country Parties. After all, they had 23 years to recognise the trends and to bring about a restructuring of the dairying industry. The first initiatives should have been taken in 1960, when the first moves were made and when it became apparent that there were going to be changes in our production of dairy products as a result of the report of 1960. However, those initiatives were not taken. The 1 960 report was designed primarily to advise the Government on developments which were going to be disastrous from the point of view of the 250 000 people who in some way or another were involved in the dairying industry.

After 14 or 15 years in which very little was done in the way of substantial thinking and forward planning, there is no doubt that we have reached an important stage for the dairying industry. It is D-day, it is a Disaster Day, it is Doomsday for those who comprise a very important section of our rural community. Most people have been shocked by the intensity of the problem, by the decision of the farmers in Victoria to kill cows in the way that was shown recently on television. Most members of Parliament will have received some letters indicating the community’s indignation- certainly I have and I know the Minister and other members haveabout such a callous waste of a very important resource caused by the state of the dairying industry.

I think it has to be said that the dairying industry cannot afford any longer the inaction of governments. The failure of governments generally to recognise the inevitable day, so far as the European Economic Community is concerned, has to be understood by the farmers themselves. There was no doubt that Australia was going to be denied our long term access to the European Economic Community and to the markets of Great Britain. In those circumstances, we say that the Government is largely responsible for the problem it currently faces because it did not take appropriate action at that dme which would have had the effect of minimising the hardship which occurred in subsequent years and which is occurring now. Markets were lost and there was a contraction of the industry, but given the existing markets it is clear to the Opposition that that contraction was not enough.

There is a clear case for Government intervention and Government leadership. When it is recognised that some 50 per cent of our total dairy production is for export, and that so much of this production which went to Great Britain was lost in 1972, clearly we have a responsibility as a Parliament to examine the reasons why there was no forward planning. We are now confronted with the very grave difficulty of trying to assess how to save a great percentage of those involved in the dairying industry. The question will be asked: What did the previous Government do? The previous Government phased out the bounties which were increasing production. Those bounties were increasing production when it was apparent that production was going to be the death knell of the industry. What did the previous Government do? It allocated S28m for restructuring the industry, to bring about essential changes which should have taken place 10 or 1 5 years before.

We knew what the economic aims of the EEC were. They were to attain self-sufficiency in the food market. Despite the fact that Europe has a most inefficient dairying industry in comparison with ours, and I am sure honourable senators will concede that Australia is at the top of the poll- I think it is a very close second to New Zealand in efficiency in dairy production- that is clearly not a factor in terms of our access to overseas markets. Of course, there are political reasons why these problems in Europe exist even today. The conservative forces in Europe prefer to maintain as a political base a small farm concept. The average farm in Europe which is involved in the dairying industry has only 14 cows, but it provides the political base for the Christian Democratic parties and Conservative parties in those countries.

Governments in Europe have been prepared to subsidise the dairying industry in those countries in order to maintain things as they are and to freeze out the more efficient milk producing countries like New Zealand and Australia. The demonstrations that we have started to see in Victoria and Tasmania will be mounted time and again as the very grave chronic crisis faced by the dairy industry seeps through. I am amazed that the industry has been as constrained as it has although I would imagine that if there had been a Labor Government those in the industry would have been marching on Canberra and placing the whole of the blame upon the Labor Government. As it is, at this stage they are having their protest rallies in the areas in which they live because they have been conned into believing that the last 3 years of Labor Government was the reason for the crisis developing within the industry.

This is what is being said by the Government’s spokesman on primary industry. Mr Sinclair, the Minister, is telling the farmers that they have a problem because of the Labor Government. For 3 years out of twenty-seven Labor has been in office. For almost 24 years the conservatives have been in government. Yet what does Mr Sinclair say in the Press release which he was kind enough to send to all members of the Parliament? He said that the Government was worried about rural poverty. He told a meeting in Launceston organised by the Tasmanian

Farmers Federation that he believed rural poverty to be the greatest problem facing Australia’s rural community. That is precisely what I have been saying in recent debates. Surely Senator Wright would acknowledge that. The Press release states:

Mr Sinclair told the meeting that recent market collapses for many major commodities such as beef, dairy and horticultural produce has accentuated the poverty problem in closely settled farming areas such as Tasmania and Victoria.

That is true and we do not take issue with him on that. It goes on to say:

The problem has also been aggravated by the lack of Government assistance to rural industry under the 3 years of the Labor Government.

This lack of assistance plus poor forward planning under the Labor Government means that we are facing a problem which should concern all Australians- not only the ones that live in country areas.

For heaven’s sake, we had to fight 3 elections in 3 years. We were beset with Senator Withers and Senator Guilfoyle admitting at the time we came into office that they would set about to undermine the Government and bring about its defeat. Fair enough; that is part of the political process. But in the time when we were struggling to survive it was difficult to do any forward planning or to look at things in an objective capacity. However, what we did for the dairy industry was phase out the bounties that were enabling the industry to produce more food because we knew the market was going to become the problem area. We went on the offensive by allocating $2 8 m for the restructuring of the dairy industry.

Senator Wright:

– Over what period?

Senator GIETZELT:

– This Bill which Senator Wright’s Government has introduced is designed to increase that amount by $3.5m. That is hardly a tangible major contribution to the problem, as was suggested by the Minister, so Senator Wright would be advised to listen to what I have to say. The Press release from Mr Sinclair goes on to say:

I believe that problem can only be solved by the taking of steps which will not be welcomed by all sections of the Australian community.

I know of Senator Wright’s strong love for Tasmania, and I know of the love of my colleague Senator Primmer for Victoria and their concern about the fate of the industries in their States. The Minister’s release states:

These steps include the rationalisation of production in rural industries faced with over-production, . . .

So really, Senator Wright, there will have to be a bit of socialisation, a bit of Government control and a bit of planning, all the things which you find anathema. The statement continues: the relocation of people in depressed rural industries into other farm or decentralised secondary industries which have a more viable future plus the extension of Government assistance.

That is exactly what the Minister in his statement said. I am quoting from Mr Sinclair’s Primary Industry Press Release of 3 1 May- several days ago. Of course, he had something similar to say when he addressed the farmers’ meeting in Warrnambool on Monday night the week before. What is the real position of Labor’s contribution to the real community in its 3 years of government? Is Mr Sinclair telling the truth when he says that the problem has been aggravated by a lack of Government assistance to rural industries in the 3 years of Labor Government? It is not true. It is a palpably untrue statement. In my brief access to records and statistics I have discovered that something between $900m and $ 1,000m was paid directly to rural industries in the 3 years of Labor Government. For example, in 1973 we allocated $30m under the States grants rural reconstruction scheme; in 1975 we allocated $56m for the construction of an animal health laboratory in Geelong; in 1 973 and 1974 we allocated over the 2 years $4.6m for a fruit growing reconstruction scheme; in 1975 we allocated $5.68m for the apple and pear stabilisation scheme; in May 1973 we made available in the form of 2 lots of rural credit allocations to farm development loan funds $104m at very favourable interest rates, and then a term loan fund allocation of $ 1 90m; on 4 December 1974 by way of financial assistance to the beef industry, which was at that stage apparently beginning to show signs of decline, we allocated $20m; in 1975-76 we added another $8m. Then we made available another $ 19.6m for matching loans with the States. On 30 June 1975 we allocated $3m to the Australian Meat Board to promote exports, and at the same time we made available another $ 19.6m for carry-on finance.

What did we do in 1974? We allocated $350m for the floor price support scheme for the wool industry. We made available for the dairy industry $28m to bring about part of the process that is essential for the survival of the dairy industry. In our last Budget we made available another $ 19.2m for the dairy industry. So we find it difficult to understand how Mr Sinclair can make those sorts of inflammatory statements to meetings of farmers when he should be concerned with the basic problem of the industry. Is the Government saying that the Industries Assistance Commission report which was presented in October last year is not relevant? Is that what it is seeking to say? If there had been a specific dairying reconstruction program built up and adjusted over the last 10 years, the crisis in the industry would have been at least partially avoided. The dairy industry is a classic case of the result of the failure of the conservatives to apply any forward planning principles to primary industry. Their attitude seems to be to wait until the farmers agree, but unfortunately they generally do not agree until it is too late, and in the meantime to subsidise them to keep them quiet. This invariably means subsidising the bigger farmer and the squeezing of the little farmer.

What is the attitude of the Liberal and National Country Parties to primary industry policy? They are still concerned with stimulating production. If honourable senators opposite who have interjected really analysed the industry in this country they would find that in practically every phase of primary production there is overproduction. Yet, when we look at the Government’s program and policy we see that it still wants to give emphasis to production. The Government seeks to create the impression that, if the farmers produce more, they will be more prosperous. The dairy industry in Australia is in a state of chronic crisis. It is facing the crisis not because of production problems but because of the lack of markets and over production. Nowhere is it a question of efficiency, of diversification or of doing more than trying to establish new markets for industry.

As has been stated by so many people, the facts are that the markets for dairy products are becoming less available than they have been in the past to countries like Australia. In these circumstances, because this is a minor step forward, all we can do is support the legislation. We suggest to the Government that the research programs and all the other programs which it has available to improve production should be maintained so that there will be improved efficiency. The Government should explore any avenue of improved marketing. It will have to give consideration to taking the disastrous step of changing the whole dairy industry structure. We recognise that the dairy industry is one of the most decentralised industries in Australia. If it were to collapse then tens of thousands of people, if not hundreds of thousands of people, would be thrown onto the already swollen labour market and into the swollen cities.

That means that if this problem is to be tackled it will not be tackled on the basis of cheap party political partisanship of the type in which Mr Sinclair engages. In fact, we will have to seek the co-operation of the main political trends and thoughts in our country to bring about the essential reallocation of resources in such a way that this will protect the livelihood and the future of the dairy industry. It is to this end that we give our limited but critical support to the legislation which is before the Senate.

Senator ARCHER:
Tasmania

-In view of the fact that most of the time which was allocated to this debate has already been used I shall be brief. I agree with the previous speaker. Senator Gietzelt, on one point and that is that the dairy industry is a tragedy. But having listened to the rest of the honourable senator’s manifesto 1 really could not find much to agree with. I could not agree with the collection of figures which were produced and which the honourable senator claimed represented the amount of money given to the rural industries. He included a figure which represented an advance to the Wool Corporation as if that money were going to the industry. That is deliberately untrue as the honourable senator well knows. The action in providing that sort of money with one hand and at the same time taking it away and multiplying it as it is taken away because of the results of inflation speaks for itself.

The dairy industry can be looked at by some with all the advantages of hindsight. The previous speaker gave us a lot of good advice in relation to what he could have done 20 years ago. He did not give us one good piece of advice as to what he will do for the next 20 years. It is the next 20 years that we are concerned about. The industry has to face a rationalisation period now. It is doing that and it will do that with government assistance. In the past it has been very difficult to plan a long way ahead because circumstances change from year to year. Those of us who came into the Senate at the beginning of this session well know that at that time there was really not one piece of authoritative information available to us which was relevant in the circumstances of January 1976. What had been prepared, even as late as the middle of 1 975, was no longer relevant. This is the sort of speed at which the situations in markets change.

Nobody at that stage foresaw what the price of skim milk powder would be today. Nobody can tell me what the price of skim milk powder will be at this time next year. Nobody can tell mc what the price of cheddar cheese will be. Nobody can foresee these things. At the time the last amount of money was put out to the industry world trends indicated that there would bc a good market. This was a product the market for which collapsed in 18 months. The $28m which was put out for dairy reconstruction did not reconstruct anybody. All that has done is to increase the debts of the industry by $28m. The problem of the dairy industry is that it has been through squeeze after squeeze spasmodically. It has kept on becoming more and more efficient. This drop in the number of farmers from 62 000 to 30 000 has, in itself, not solved the problem. While farms have been getting bigger and more efficient they have been keeping up production. The last lot of money which was injected into the industry only increased production by making people milk more cows. Right through it has been a struggle for viability. As farmers have increased their liabilities they have increased their personal work and, at the same time, suffered falling returns.

At meetings in Victoria in the last week there have been 20 000 of the farming community and in Tasmania they have had 2000-odd. This figure represents nearly 60 per cent of the dairy industry of Australia. All these people were at the meetings because they had been beaten by inflation. The farmer is not responsible for inflation. He is not responsible for the international politics which are involved. But he is the victim. The problems which are facing the dairy farmer are of national origin. The farmers need national support. They will need national support while the adjustments take place. The industry has been having many of these meetings. It has undertaken that it will voluntarily reduce production. It has voluntarily undertaken to improve the efficiency of the industry, particularly at manufacturing levels. It has undertaken that no new dairy licences will be issued for the present.

In spite of all this, whatever happens will not happen overnight. Changes will need to be made. It is not a case of saying we will close one factory and keep another one going, or anything of that sort, because so many of the rural communities depend very heavily on the involvement of the industry. The markets generally will have to be reassessed. I believe that this is where the Government must see about assisting with the creation of markets in new areas overseas and in new areas in Australia. We have to sponsor and to assist new products. I believe that we have to make every effort to form a proper trading agreement with New Zealand. Most of all, I think we have to settle down and to try to refinance the dairy industry which has put itself out on all sorts of long term, short term and mixed finance. When a financial squeeze hits an industry of this sort it immediately hits the younger groups and the more enterprising groups. Usually it leaves in the industry the older, hard core and the less efficient. This is where we have to try to make every effort to keep rationalisation ahead of us and to make sure that we keep the industry efficient both in the long and short term. The Bills provide for a very short term operation. They will do nothing to put the industry right but they will get us over the period immediately ahead. With that in mind, I support the Bills. I am still waiting for the results that will come from a proper, thorough in-depth investigation so that we can see how we can both keep the industry alive today and keep it viable so that as we reorganise for the future it will be able to prosper again.

Senator PRIMMER:
Victoria

– I rise to speak briefly on these 3 Bills before the Parliament in relation to the dairy industry and to give support to the Opposition shadow Minister for Primary Industry, Senator Gietzelt, who I believe has done his homework very thoroughly; I think he is to be commended for the arguments he has put forward in the Senate today. As has been pointed out already, the 3 Bills will appropriate $3.5m for dairy adjustment to follow the $28m provided by the Labor Government for the same purpose in 1 974. The second Bill, the Dairy Industry Research and Promotion Levy Bill, will repeal the existing butter fat levy legislation. The third Bill, the Dairy Industry Research and Promotion (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill will replace the existing Act with one allowing for a levy to be struck on whole or liquid milk as well as butter fat in order to finance the administration and promotion activities of the Australian Dairy Corporation.

It is not before time, in my humble assessment, that such legislation was introduced. For years the liquid milk section of the dairy industry has been exempt from a levy. From my knowledge of the political history of the dairy industry, I believe that the only reason why the liquid milk section of the industry has been exempt is that it has always been better organised, far more vocal and higher up in the chain of dairy politics than the manufacturing sector. The pity of the whole exercise, I suppose, is that as with most agricultural industries, it is only in times of crisis that some advances seem to be made. But that Bill will certainly overcome an anomaly that existed in the industry for a long time and break down some of the antagonisms that have developed in the industry on this question for a number of years.

As I have said, the Dairy Adjustment Amendment Bill will appropriate $3.5m for short term measures only. But I note also in the second reading speech of the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Cotton) that $ 1 .5m of that $3. 5m has to all intents and purposes been expended already by the States. That amount of money will be spent to pay back the States. I would suspect also, without knowing what the position is amongst the restructuring authorities in the States, that the applications are already in and that they will eat up the remaining $2m that is being appropriated. If one breaks down the figures, one finds that if every farmer applied for the maximum loan of $4,000 and were to receive it, only 500 farmers would benefit. If we take cognisance of the fact that on top of this money being appropriated by the Federal Government the State governments must also contribute a like amount, 1000 dairy farmers across Australia could receive the maximum loan. This means that roughly one dairy farmer in every forty in Australia at the present time would receive the loan. I think this indicates the short term nature and the paucity of the funds being appropriated.

The Minister noted in his second reading speech that the dairy industry was facing serious problems when this Government took office. In fact, the dairy industry had been facing serious problems when the previous Liberal-National Country Party Government was in office, as was noted in the speech of the Labor Party shadow Minister for Agriculture, Senator Gietzelt. We had 23 years of Liberal rule. During tha* whole period the fortunes of the dairy industry, like the rest of Australia’s agriculture, waxed and waned. No serious attempt was ever made to come to grips with the basic problems confronting those industries and the dairy industry in particular. As Senator Gietzelt said earlier, in 1960 the McCarthy Committee report was brought down. The Liberal and National Country Party governments sat on that report for 12 years. They did not even open the report to have a look at its recommendations. It was not until the advent of , a Labor Government in 1 972 that the report was brought out of the archives and action started to be taken on its recommendations. Of course, as the dairy industry realises now, had that report been consulted during the 12 years when it lay in . the pigeon-hole, the industry may well have been in a far better position today than it is currently.

Some criticism has been levelled at the Labor Government during the period 1972-75. I believe that Senator Gietzelt basically laid those untruths to rest. He said that the Whitlam Labor Government had started to face up to the basic problems confronting agriculture and the dairy industry in particular. It will be remembered that the Labor Government did not, in fact, have a 3-year term of office. It had two 1 8-month terms. It is asking a little too much for any government to overcome the residue of problems as a result of 23 years of mismanagement by another government. But, as I have said, the Labor Government when in office set out to restructure the industry by the implementation of some of the McCarthy Committee recommendations. As a basis for that move, it established the Australian Dairy Corporation in place of the old Australian Dairy Board. I think that those of us who were involved in politics of the industry knew pretty well that the old Australian Dairy Produce Board was a pretty political sort of operation. Unfortunately, there were members of the Board who perhaps could have been retired much earlier than they were. Thanks to Senator Wriedt, the then Minister for Agriculture, over those two 18-months periods, that Australian Dairy Corporation was established. For the first time in the history of the dairy industry there was an authority looking after it which contained men with marketing expertise. Of course, the pity of it all is that before the new Dairy Corporation could get under way, another crisis overcame the industry.

The dairy industry in my State of Victoria is- in my opinion, as one who has had over 40 years of experience in it- in the worst situation it has ever been in. The crisis in the industry, of course, is compounded by severe drought conditions right across the dairy areas of Victoria. It is compounded further by extremely low prices for chopper cattle. In fact, the current mode of operations is to give away stock or shoot stock. On top of all that, over quite large areas of Victoria there has been the worst cricket plague in living memory. Thousands of acres of pasture have been laid bare. Of course, there will be no recovery in those areas until perhaps mid or late spring. At the present time one of the other problems that is confronting the industry is the anomaly whereby factories, by virtue of their product, are paying different prices to farmers. The factory that my farm currently supplies is paying 60c per lb for refrigerated bulk milk. Adjoining farmers are receiving only 50c per lb for milk of the same quality. That situation again leads to stresses and strains among producers in the same industry.

The cost of production as assessed by the Victorian Department of Agriculture is approximately 54c per lb. 1 think that it is actually 54.5c per lb. But this did not stop the farmers at the meeting at Warrnambool addressed by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) asking for a Government support of 70c per lb. I might indicate to the Senate that that meeting was the only one in the State of Victoria which was not organised by the new dairy farmers organisation, the United Dairy Farmers of Victoria. It was sponsored and run by the local farmers themselves. That probably accounts for the difference between the guaranteed price which that meeting sought and the price that was asked for at the other meetings, which was 55c per lb.

Quite frankly, a Government guarantee of only 55c per lb will see thousands of dairy farmers walk off their properties. It will destroy the souls of those farmers and their families. If farmers are to remain viable in the industry I estimate that a guarantee of between 60c and 65c per lb is what is needed. As my colleague Senator Gietzelt said earlier, this problem is arising basically because of the extensive production of dairy products in the European Economic Community. I noted in statistical data presented in a paper some 6 weeks ago by the Dairy Corporation that in the EEC stocks of skim milk powder at 11 March this year were 1 157 681 tons or tonnes- I am not sure which-as against a holding at the same time last year of 398 937 tons or tonnes. That shows roughly a three-fold increase on stocks at hand in the past. When this sort of crisis has developed in the past- it has happened almost in the fashion of a miracle- one of the centrally planned economies has moved in and bought extensive stocks of skim milk powder at bargain or give away prices. It has cleared the market and allowed the Australian industry to export again at what was basically a paying price. Whether the same thing will happen again at this stage no one knows, but in the short term this is the only hope for the Australian dairy industry.

Again, as Senator Gietzelt, who has his finger right on the pulse, said, the problem in the EEC has been brought about because of the goals and the political aspirations of the Community itself for a common agricultural policy. The fact is that the governments of France and West Germany have been elected by virtue of the dairy vote. As politicians are the same all over the world, it is most unlikely that they will deprive those farmers of the high subsidy they are presently paying them and be kicked out of office for doing so. As far as one can see, perhaps for the next 5 years, we can expect this very inefficient dairy industry in the European Economic Community to be fostered by way of subsidy at the expense of the highly industrious and intense dairy farm areas of this country, particularly in Victoria and Tasmania, where the bulk of our export commodity is produced.

Let me deal again with the position in my State of Victoria. It seems to take a crisis situation before governments move and before farmers will get together and finally decide to agree, even if it is only to disagree, or to come together concerning their differences. In Victoria the authorities have at last- only momentarily, regrettablystopped issuing dairy licences. The recent announcement by the Victorian Minister for Agriculture, Mr Smith, was to the effect that the Victorian Government will be making moves to allow a wider spread of the liquid milk market over the whole of the industry rather than have it retained by what could only be termed the silvertails of the industry. Again, it took a crisis to bring that situation about.

Just over 5 years ago I was in a rather invidious position myself. I appeared before a Victorian Milk Board inquiry to advocate that very theory. I proposed that the liquid milk market should be spead right across the board and that every dairy farmer producing milk of the quality required should have equal access to that market. I can well remember the chairman of that inquiry threatening me with all sorts of dire consequences because I told the truth. Unfortunately, I was not able to prove my claims because, to do so, I would have had to dob in all my mates, and I have never been one to do that. I was threatened with all sorts of diabolical punishments because I told the truth. I detailed the facts about the rorts which were going on in the Victorian dairy industry at that time.

I suppose that if I had the time, the ability and the research facilities now available, I would have been able to go further and find out the very things which the Victorian dairy industry inquiry found out and published in a report which it produced either late last year or early this year. It pointed out the rorts and the rackets which were being perpetrated by certain vested interests in the dairy industry including certain industry factory managers and others in high positions who have used the knowledge that they have obtained from sources within the industry to line their pockets or to line the pockets of their factories with the attitude of letting those in the rest of the dairy industry go to hell. Again one hopes that the Victorian Government will take action in these areas to see that the industry is straightened out.

I conclude on this note: As has already been said, I do not think any question can arise in the mind of any person who has had a look at the Australian dairy industry in recent times and our declining export markets as to the options available. There are 2 options available to governments of the day. We are talking about the Australian Government. One is to continue to subsidise the present number of dairy farmers at the present or increased rates of production. The longer the present situation continues, the higher the subsidies will need to be to keep dairy farmers above some form of peasantry. The price of doing that must be offset against the other option which is to rationalise the industry to a stage where it is producing sufficient for the home market and for the better paying export markets such as cheese in Japan, with some surplus to allow for adverse seasons and for the possibility of new markets in other areas of the world which would pay for those dairy products. Those are the 2 options which are available to the Government today. I hope that the Liberal and National Country Parties will see the light and press on with one of those options.

Quite frankly, my option would be a pretty heavy rationalisation of the industry to remove dairy farmers from the form of peasantry in which they are currently. A number of them will not like it because this is the only life that they know. The problem must not be compounded by allowing young men to enter the industry, as thousands are doing at the moment, and finding themselves at the mercy of the money lenders of this country, with their wives and children being forced into work in the dairy and the cowyards Such a situation only brings the industry back to the state in which it was when I grew up. At that time it was a case of mum, dad and the kids all working in the dairy with mud up to their knees. Is was not very pleasant. But that is the future for the dairy industry in Australia unless this Government moves urgently, firmly and heavily.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– I rise to support the Bills. In doing so I hope to be brief. A great deal has been said already about this subject. These Bills are important to the survival of this very important Australian primary industry. Some things have been said about the concern that has been expressed in Victoria. I think I should begin my remarks by saying a few words about that, I attended two of the marches in Victoria last week when 20 000 rural Victorians took to the streets. Among the men, women and children who marched were dairy farmers who had travelled many miles to attend, trade unionists in their overalls and dust coats, and businessmen in smart suits and ties. As one newspaper report aptly put it, ‘while the curious looked on, the concerned marched in Leongatha, Maffra,

Camperdown, Colac, Shepparton and Wodonga’.

I think that for the first dme- in Victoria in any event- a fundamental fact of economic life has been realised, namely, that the prosperity of cities and towns in rural Australia depends greatly on the prosperity of the primary industries that surround those cities and towns. I think that there is now an acute awareness in Victoria of the gravity of the situation in this respect. We are not conducting a post mortem on the industry today, but we do have a rescue operation to carry out urgently. For that reason the introduction of this legislation is very timely.

I wish to reply, firstly, to the criticism- unfounded, of course- that has been levelled against the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) by Senator Gietzelt who complained about delays occurring while the Minister is grappling with this problem. Senator Gietzelt had a great deal to say about the LiberalCountry Party Government being inactive up to 1972. The honourable senator shares an abysmal ignorance of the problems of this industry with the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating), who led the debate on this legislation in the other place. They have not done their homework on the economics of the industry because the fact is that this was a healthy, prosperous industry in most areas of Australia till 1972, which is when Britain joined the European Economic Community. Then the problems started. If the debate today is on who is responsible, the Government that was in power in Australia in 1972 and the subsequent 3 years must take the blame.

As I have said, the introduction of this legislation is timely. I wish to deal very briefly with a few of its provisions. The $2m that is to be made available, in addition to the remedies that were available in the legislation passed in 1974, represents the provision of very important carry-on loans. A maximum of $4,000 is to apply in each case. These loans are very timely and reasonably generous in terms of the repayment and interest rates. They will materially assist in the short term a number of farmers whose asset position is sound but who, due to falling prices and circumstances entirely beyond their control, have temporary liquidity problems, such as the payment of rates, interest on mortgages and other regular outgoings. The States will be making a similar contribution.

The 1974 legislation has resulted in considerable progress being made in Victoria in that many people who are no longer viable have been taken out of the industry. The legislation provides finance on generous terms and at a low rate of interest to enable a dairy farmer who is viable to take over an adjoining or neighbouring property of a smaller dairy farmer and thus build them into one viable unit. I pay tribute to the work of the Rural Finance and Settlement Commission in Victoria in this respect. There is, of course, an urgent need for greater activity this year because the crisis has become much worse. Undoubtedly more people will have to be taken out of the industry. As I have said, this legislation provides short term assistance to the industry. he problems in the long term are grave.

As the Minister has said, first of all the industry will have to be buttressed and maintained until the end of August by the sort of assistance that is already being given of subsidising the price at the level of 50c per lb to enable the farmers to stay in business. That type of assistance will have to continue. I support the policy announced last week by the VDU and the survival figure of 55c per lb. It is true, of course, that until 1 8 months ago people were getting 70c per lb, but with the compounding of the markets and the general situation one must look to a survival figure that will enable the industry to carry on until the unprofitable farmers are taken out of it and those who are viable remain in it. All State governments have agreed to limit production.

I await the presentation of the Crawford report, which is due at the end of August. Without in any way anticipating what the report will say or pre-empting what its recommendations will be, I take the view that if the industry is to survive it must be placed on a federal basis like wheat, wool and our other great primary industries. State jealousies must be forgotten.

Senator O’Byrne:

– That is centralism.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– It is not centralism. I do not have time to digress. I have only a few minutes left in which to speak, so do not interrupt me. The situation is that stabilisation is wanted in this industry in place of the outdated and inadequate equalisation scheme. The price of milk is different in different cities. The price of milk in Sydney is 20c a pint, or something like that, more than it is in Melbourne. The High Court said recently that milk can be sold interstate. If the interstate barriers are not preserved in the short term this industry will collapse. I hope and trust that the Crawford report will provide some guidelines for putting the industry on a sound federal basis whereby everyone in the industry will receive the same price for his product. That will enable the more efficient dairy farmers to survive. Those who are inefficient will have to get out. We have to face the facts. I agree with the second option of Senator Primmer. The industry must be rationalised and stabilised. I have every confidence that within the relatively short term of two or three years it will come back to be one of the great primary industries of this nation.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

- Senator Tehan castigated my colleagues the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) and Senator Gietzelt for failing to do their homework. I think that he also used the word ‘ignorance’ with respect to their comments upon the dairy industry. I find it more than a little ironic that, having laid that charge against my colleagues, Senator Tehan then proceeded to display a monumental ignorance of the subject to which he was addressing himself. That was shown very clearly in, I think, his second last sentence when he referred to a difference in the price of liquid milk of 20c a pint or something like that, between Sydney and Melbourne. In fact, the difference in price is 7c for 600 millilitres. But that was a minor error compared with the other gross errors in the speech he has just delivered.

According to Senator Tehan a healthy, prosperous industry existed prior to 1972. Evidently Senator Tehan ‘s knowledge of the dairy industry suffers from the same gaps as the knowledge of a certain ecclesiastical gentleman who wrote a pontificial letter to the Melbourne Age a few weeks ago. I wonder whether Senator Tehan or the worthy canon whose name I have forgotten has ever heard of the report published by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics in 1967 that is commonly known as the Mackay report, which in fact showed that 27 per cent of the dairy farmers in the manufacturing sector of the industry had cash incomes of less than $1,000 and that something like 42 per cent had cash incomes of less than $2,000. If that fits Senator Tehan ‘s definition of a healthy and prosperous industry, his standards are certainly extremely low. It is a good example of the point that I was trying to drive home particularly to members of the National Country Party earlier today. They would do a great service to the people whom they claim to represent if they paid more attention to truth and less attention to popularity.

This healthy, prosperous industry was analysed very perceptively by the Dairy Industry Committee of Inquiry, the report of which was published in 1960. That Committee of Inquiry is commonly known as the McCarthy Inquiry. It elucidated all the problems of the industry which had existed for more than a decade prior to the report being published. Of course, that report was then promptly ignored by the Liberal and National Country Parties right up until 1970 when the force of circumstance became so intense and the reality became so obvious that they could no longer totally ignore the report. They introduced the marginal dairy farm reconstruction scheme which helped a little bit. Senator Tehan should have said that if the LiberalCountry Party Government had not been inactive up until 1972 the industry’s problems would not be quite so bad as they in fact are.

The conservative government in his own State of Victoria was far from inactive during the 1960s. After the publication of the Mackay report and of the report of the Dairy Industry Committee of Inquiry, the Victorian Government was still sponsoring land settlement and/or irrigation schemes in order to settle new farmers, to establish new dairy farms, to add to the chronic problem of surplus capacity in the industry. Indeed, as recently as this year- this is almost unbelievable- the Victorian Government placed dairy farmers, gullible and unfortunate individuals, on new dairy farms in the irrigation area at Rochester. As I mentioned last week when commenting on this particularly lunatic scheme, we have this absurd position where the Victorian Government, using money supplied by its own taxpayers and by the national Government, supplies irrigation water to dairy farmers at about half its economic cost. This Government then subsidises the fertilisers that the farmers use on the irrigated pastures, and the final product is butter which is extremely difficult to sell and skim milk powder which the Australian Dairy Corporation currently is trying to flog off to Japan at $150 a tonne as stock feed. That is the absurd position in which the activity rather than the inactivity of Liberal-Country Party government has placed the dairying industry. I will say no more about Senator Tehan ‘s particularly illinformed contribution to this debate except to repeat the advice that I offered to the Liberal and Country Parties earlier: They would do a great service to their constituents, to the people who misguidedly put their faith in them to represent them in this Parliament, if they were to pay more attention to the truth and less attention to conventional wisdom.

As I have said, the dairy industry’s problems go back a long way. The current crisis was partially unforeseen insofar as the catastrophic decline in the price of skim milk powder, to which I think other speakers in the debate have referred, was not entirely foreseeable. Nevertheless, that catastrophic decline should not be allowed to obscure the fact that the industry has chronic problems which extend back for more than Vh decades. The only permanent solution for the industrymost members of the Liberal and Country Parties have recognised this from 1970 inwardsis, firstly, an absolute reduction in the quantity of products supplied, in the volume of production, and, secondly, an amalgamation of the smaller and generally uneconomic units. Coincidental with those 2 matters is a tendency to move dairying from those areas where the physical environment is unfavourable.

It is difficult to assess the correct size of the dairy industry in the future because it depends on so many variables which are totally beyond the control of an Australian government. One of those variables is the climate, the seasonal factors. The second is the actions which foreign governments may take which may interfere with the free trading of dairy products. But it seems to be agreed by most people who have looked rationally at the industry- that probably excludes nearly every honourable senator opposite who has spoken in this debate- and by many of the more enlightened people within the industry that the most sensible objective of the policy would be for the industry to contract to something like the size of the domestic market, with some safety margin for exports and some safety margin for filling in the deficiencies in supply to the domestic market in bad seasons and also to that very limited export market which may return profitable prices. Indeed, the Australian Agricultural Council has announced its commitment to a policy like this. On the evidence available now that appears to be the most sensible policy for governments to pursue. Even this Government seems to be pursuing that policy, although it will have enormous difficulties coping with the parochial prejudices of various State governments. This is one area in which 1 agree with Senator Tehan. Probably it requires some strong action at a national level to ensure that the parochial interests of State dairy industries are not allowed to become operative to the detriment of the dairy industry as a whole.

Something else which is a concomitant of a sensible policy for the dairy industry is the proposition that people, including dairy farmers’ sons, must move out of the industry. Something which will handicap that proposition quite considerably is the sort of view which was expressed by the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh) in the House of Representatives on 1 August 1974. In criticising the Marginal Dairy Farms Agreement Bill, he said:

Firstly, there is no allowance under the proposal for a son to buy out his father and thus retain the family dairy farm. Sons of farmers are obviously the best dairy farmers of all. They have had instilled into them at the knee of practical experience the way that things are best done. They also have the typical love of the land. Provision should have been made in the scheme so that sons could take over the family farm and retain it.

That sort of primitive agricultural fundamentalism has no place in the formulation of a rational policy for the dairy industry.

The other point on which I wish to make a few comments concerns the 2-price scheme, as it is commonly known, which prevails in the industry throughout Australia; the marketing arrangements under which there is a preferred privileged class of dairy farmers who supply the liquid milk market and a victimised class of dairy farmers who supply the manufacturing market. Earlier I referred to the Dairy Industry Committee of Inquiry of 1960. The report of the Industries Assistance Commission on the dairy industry of 23 October 1975 refers to the report of the Dairy Industry Committee of Inquiry. It states:

The conclusions drawn by that Committee were that the high prices paid for fluid milk in some Milk Board areas . . do a great disservice to the dairy industry. They create a feeling of injustice in those sections of the industry that do not share them. They tend to raise the costs of cattle and land; adopted in one area they establish arguments for adoption in others; and most importantly of all they restrict the consumption of a nutritious food and cause an increase in the volume of surplus butter for export’. The Committee of Inquiry concluded that ‘There is only one answer to the problem of high prices for liquid milk and that is to reduce them’.

In that one passage the 4 most objectionable features of these discriminatory pricing arrangements are spelt out. They include the inequitability of arrangements between dairy farmers themselves, the fact that the market price of milk quotas represents capitalised monopoly profit. Let us be completely clear about that: If the price of milk was not excessively high, the right to supply milk in itself would not have a market value. Whatever the value of milk quotas may be- it appears to be between $300 and $350 in Western Australia, and it is alleged to be about $500 in New South Wales if quotas were freely traded- it represents capitalised monopoly profit. There are objectionable political side effects to this, such as Ministers in the previous coalition government in New South Wales holding quotas to supply 3000 gallons of milk a day, the market value of which, had they been freely negotiable, would have been in the vicinity of $150,000. That represents a gift from the milk consumers of New South Wales to Cabinet Ministers in the previous coalition Government in New South Wales.

The other points which were encompassed show that the quotas add to the surplus of manufactured milk products. Because the supplies of liquid milk obtain prices which are two are three times the prices obtained by producers of manufactured milk and because the producers probably fail to distinguish adequately between their average price and their marginal price they are given a buffer- an area within which they can significantly expand their marginal production which will be sold at manufacturing milk prices, whilst still retaining a very satisfactory average price for themselves. Apart from the probability that that does not even maximise the income for the individual it imposes additional pressures on those producers whose outlet is restricted to the market for manufactured products. It causes extra and unnecessary competition for struggling dairy farmers in that area and featherbeds regional inefficiency in production itself.

The survey conducted in my own State of Western Australia by the Department of Agriculture in 1975 showed- the figures varied a bit from region to region so I will quote round figures- the return on farm for liquid milk was 60c a gallon and the return for manufactured milk was 22c a gallon. The liquid milk market is supplied mainly from the region close to Perth, much of which is irrigated. The cost of production, as assessed by the departmental formulahowever fallible that formula may be, the same formula was used in all areas- was shown in this survey to have been in the vicinity of 60c a gallon in that region while in the Busselton zone, which was not irrigated and which had only just recently moved into the liquid milk market area, the cost of production was 40c a gallon. That was not accidental. The fact that traditional liquid milk producers had been featherbedded and had enjoyed the monopoly returns which accrued from the captive market for many years had led to the development of inefficiency in production, whereas the people who recently had been butterfat dairy farmers had to be very efficient to survive. The consequence of that efficiency was shown in the production costs of ex-butterfat dairy farmers being only two-thirds of those in the other sectors.

Senator Primmer:

– That would apply in Victoria too, Senator.

Senator WALSH:

– It applies also in Victoria, my colleague tells me. Of course, I am not as familiar with the regional situation in Victoria as he would be. I find it particularly disturbing, in view of the strong criticism of this discriminatory pricing arrangement which goes right back to the 1960s, that the present Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) in a speech to dairy farmers at Warrnambool, Victoria, on 24 May last proposed that an excise- although he did not call it an excise, conceptually it should be regarded as an exercise- ought to be applied to liquid milk sales which could then be redistributed among the manufacturing sector of the industry. I quote his words from a Press statement which was issued subsequent to that address:

Within Victoria there seems to be a strong case for the examination of milk price structures, particularly the contrast between market and manufacturing milk prices.

I would agree with that-

In an examination of the Sydney whole milk market I find milk sales at 24c per 600 ml to the customer and in contrast in Melbourne milk is sold at 17c per 600 ml.

Apparently Senator Tehan in his in-depth study of the matter did not even read the Press release his own Minister put out. Mr Sinclair continued:

It could perhaps be possible -

This is a crucial part-

Through some increase in returns in market milk to supplement prices paid for manufacturing milk within Victoria.

What Mr Sinclair is proposing in that sentence is that the price of milk to consumers in Victoria ought to be increased and the additional money spread around the poverty section of the industry, that is, the manufacturing sector.

Let it be very clear that what Mr Sinclair is proposing for Victoria is that people in Melbourne should pay up to 7c extra per 600 ml container for their milk. That is what Mr Sinclair is proposing. I hope the people of Melbourne and of the country towns throughout Victoria, where people also buy milk in 600 ml containers, realise precisely what Mr Sinclair is proposing and that they let Mr Sinclair know their reaction. Apart from that aspect, for the industry as a whole that is not a satisfactory arrangement. The IAC report commented that the demand for milk was not totally elastic in response for price changes. In other words, an increase in price in real terms will lead to reduced consumption of liquid milk. This is precisely what has happened throughout the last 10 years. Page 220 of the IAC report shows the apparent consumption of liquid milk in 1963 to have been 129 litres per capita. and in 1974 the figure had fallen to 122 litres per capita. I do not have any more recent figures than the 1974 figure.

History has shown us- and I think market surveys have shown the same thing- that the response to a significant increase in milk priceespecially if it is in one lump- will be a decline in the quantity purchased. Not only is Mr Sinclair’s proposition objectionable from the viewpoint of society as a whole but also it has serious defects even from within the narrow perspective of the industry. Mr Sinclair is proposing that dairy farmers should price themselves out of the most lucrative section of their market by price increases. Whatever the justification may be for price increases to these dairy farmers- I accept that the justification in the short term is considerable for providing either strictly welfare assistance, clearly delineated as welfare assistance, or finance for reconstruction within the industry, and the reality is that reconstruction also means contraction- the payment should come through the tax system from society as a whole and not from the people who purchase milk in Melbourne and in the other towns of Victoria as Mr Sinclair has proposed.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– If Senator Walsh could only match his wisdom with his arrogance the dairy herds of Australia would be chewing the cud very quietly tonight. I have heard these pseudo economists, these pastoral amateurs and these ranting farmers turned politic before, and have not heard any advice that is worth listening to. The plain fact is that when a primary industry gets into uneconomic circumstances there are all sorts of economic analyses to show why it should not be assisted. Let us look at the causes that the gentry from the other side have given us for the industry’s predicament today. Senator Primmer says that there is a drought in Victoria. Will that continue this year, next year or the year after? Then there are low prices being paid for chopper cows. Is that concomitant with the beef market? Will it continue. Then there is a cricket plague. I thought that one of its specimens had got into the chamber when I was listening to the speech. Then the factories are paying different prices. These are the causes of the economic depression in this area! Then another wiseacre comes forward and says that due to Britain’s going into the European Economic Market, the export market has turned against dairy products.

On the concession of the great agricultural analyst, Senator Walsh, a largely unforeseeable and sudden collapse took place in the overseas market for processed milk. What these gentlemen forget is that we have had rapid inflation of gigantic proportions fed and encouraged by a government for the past 3 years, so that the cost-price ratio sustained by the dairy farmer has gone bitterly against him. The prices of his products have gone down and his costs have gone up. We have had this illustrated by reference to the price of whole milk having gone down to 55c in some States and to 45c in some places. But that has not stopped a wholesale claim for complete indexation upwards for the wage earners of the country.

We are debating a miserable Bill to make available a minute sum- $3.5m- as extra assistance. I say that it is altogether insufficient. But we are debating it. What did the plateau indexation of wages cost? It cost $700m. What would full indexation of wages cost? It would cost $ 1 , 1 00 m . Yet we are debating the economics of an industry where the assistance for this year on an emergency basis is $3.5m.

Take this assistance in line with other dear babies of the socialist Opposition. Do honourable senators know what we are paying this year in pre-maternity leave to public servants? Just twice the proposed assistance to the milk industry $7m. Do honourable senators know the loss that we are making on the Canberra bus service which serves this little community? It is a loss of $4.2m-$700,000 more than the proposed increase. What are we paying for unemployment? As much as $500m. Yet these geniuses are advocating that, because of the present uneconomics of the dairy industry, the amount of assistance to the industry should be reduced. They say the sons of dairymen must get off the land. They conveniently forget the prices at which the properties would have to be sold, including plant and herds. Where are the farmers to go to? To the ranks of the unemployed who are already subtracting from the Treasury $500m this year due to an abysmal collapse of commonsense and a pathetic failure to understand what work and business is and of how money has to be kept to a value to equate it. This argument comes from those people who supported Mr Whitlam through the last 3 years of tragic misjudgment in the financial control of this country.

Then we notice that the price factor on our exports is most severe. Last year we paid just $8m to about 13 000 gentlemen on the waterfront and expect to pay about $ 12m this year for idle time- idle time, defended by Senator Primmer, defended by Senator Walsh, and, of course, by Senator Gietzelt, who led for the Opposition in this debate in his new found role, with that charm of novelty that a new proposition brings to him. He has even grown a little benign because some acquaintance with the farming features of a decent life where men work has given his otherwise class-pursuing attitude a little benificence. He defends the payment of $8m to 13 000 waterside workers for idle time. Just because the agricultural industries, which produce 50 per cent of our exports, are down to 6 per cent of the vote the Opposition wants to ignore them and give them only the pickings, or a bit of sour milk, or the crumb of cheesecake. We will be paying $3.5m as a supplement to dairy farmers and $8m for idle time for the waterfront workers.

I have been here for some time. I was here when the McCarthy report was presented. We have these people who have come into the Senate, whose avalanche of new experience, acquired so quickly, amazes me. They assume that the McCarthy report was not considered. They say it was pigeonholed for 12 years. I remember vividly its coming into our Party room. The proposition was put: ‘It is on the table for study. Next week, is anybody going to put forward a proposition in favour of this report?’ There was a deathly silence. Nobody would advocate such depressive measures. We rejected the report out of hand. Why? These wiseacres forget that at that time the mining wealth of Australia had not been discovered. Australia’s potential for exports to maintain the balance of payments depended upon primary production. Our policy then was insistent that we would have 2 blades of grass growing where one was growing then. It was imperative that the dairy farms should go on and expand, and the beef farms should expand, the wheat acres should expand, and the wool farms should expand.

Then we came to the experience of the European Economic Community getting under way in the early 1960s. We were told that the dairy industry of the EEC was such that it has a surplus of butter- it was not safe to go to Belgium lest a wall of sour cheese or curded milk should fall on you and overwhelm you. A delegation of this Parliament came back and said: Curtail your dairy products’. Two years later we were getting the best prices we have got in the postwar period. These are the gentlemen who ought to heed Thomas Jefferson’s words:

Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap we should soon want bread.

That is an illustration of Canberra telling this industry what to do.

There have been many absolutely erroneous figures quoted here today. An unpardonable exaggeration was made on the part of Senator Gietzelt when he referred to $350m being made available to primary industry for wool. He well knows that that is a banking loan which is only guaranteed by the Government- a loan lent to the wool industry on commercial terms. His Party, when previously in Opposition, was opposed to any assistance to the wool industry because the wool industry at the time was depressed. If we had succumbed to this melancholy, mildewed outlook instead of tiding an industry through its ups and downs and seeing it over a survey of 1 5 years we simply would have given nothing to the wool industry.

In order to correct these exaggerated figures, I have had prepared a table showing assistance given to the industry over the years from 1970 to 1975. I would be grateful if the table could be circulated to honourable senators. The figures have been prepared for me by the Department of Primary Industry, so they can be taken as correct. In 1970-71 the grand total of assistance was $60.4m, and of that $ 12.7m was devaluation compensation. Assistance by way of butter and cheese bounties amounted to $4 1.5m. Then we come to the 3 inflated Whitlam years and we find that in 1972-73 total assistance was reduced from $60.4m to $33. 1 m, and the bounty also was reduced. In 1 974-75, the last year of the Whitlam era, total assistance was reduced to $ 18.8m and the bounty almost disappeared. In the present year, the year in which Whitlam was kicked out constitutionally, to the great credit of the Constitution of this country, the bounty has almost disappeared at $1.3m. All through those years, instead of increased assistance based upon a bounty and devaluation to compensate for adverse export circumstances, assistance has been reduced from $60.4m in 1970 to the present figure of $20m for this year. If the $3.5m which is being voted under this Bill is included, the amount for this year is $23.5m.

In an era when wages increased by from 80 per cent to 100 per cent and the export and domestic prices of dairy products were reduced, government policy reduced assistance to an industry confronting those adverse economic circumstances from $60m to $23m. When it is considered that that $23m, at 1970 values, is today worth only about $1 lm, the extent of the downturn of government assistance to the industry becomes apparent. What is wanted for this industry is more money, in the same way as other items of beneficence have come from the exchequer to tide this industry over temporary economic circumstances. As surely as night follows day and as surely as summer follows winter, so too will the varied circumstances of our world provide markets for dairy products. They are a fundamental product for human consumption and for other purposes.

These little men, these miserable men, these socialist men who only give public money where they cannot multiply votes and in this area because the agriculture industries as a whole provided only 6 per cent of the votes, they ignored them, But they gave $8m for idle time on the waterfront, $500m for the unemployed, and all the rest of their squandermania. This subsidy of $23m should be at least $63m, and then the dairy farmers who are in such a plight economically would be able to exist through the trough of this depression and make their own decisions, with the aid of a rural bank and other proper mechanisms which ought to be introduced into the financial structure to assist them to make their own decisions. Then, according to the prosperity of the beef industry, the wheat industry, the fruit growing industry, according to other opportunities, they will be able to decide whether the dairy industry should be reduced or whether it should be destroyed, as the socialists here say.

Mr President, 1 do not pretend to know anything about, but I put forward those propositions because they do not depend upon economic analysis. They depend upon a long experience of politics and farming, and I suggest they will stand up to scrutiny. Mr President, I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard the table previously circulated.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

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

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

-I thank the Senate for its indulgence. In the speech I delivered in the Senate some time ago on this Bill I inadvertently used the figure 25c instead of 25 per cent. Senator Walsh quite properly drew attention to the inaccuracy, and 1 have sought leave to make that explanation because it is no longer possible to correct the Hansard record.

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

– in reply- It has not been possible for me to be here for the whole of the debate on this matter, for which I have some regret. However, I am very pleased that I was here to listen to Senator Wright, to see the table he presented and have a little time to look at it, and to hear his general views on the industry and its current problems. These Bills are not opposed. There is no point in my spending a long time developing various arguments when no arguments were developed against the Bill. People are very concerned about the industry, and they are genuinely concerned.

I have taken quite serious note of what Senator Wright said. My job here, representing the Minister, is to communicate to the Minister some of the comments made in this debate, particularly those of Senator Wright, and to submit the table he has produced. I add to that my own observation, which of course belongs entirely to me and not to the Government or anybody else, that what Senator Wright said about primary industry has been my own experience. Whatever else you do, you do not just give up and walk away. Historically, Australia has demonstrated that most of the industries that were thought to be no good are capable of reviving, given proper assistance and proper support.

Question resolved in the affirmative. -

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

page 2450

DAIRYING INDUSTRY RESEARCH AND PROMOTION LEVY BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 3 June, on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2450

DAIRYING INDUSTRY RESEARCH AND PROMOTION (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 3 June, on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2450

QUESTION

HANSARD

The PRESIDENT:

– This morning Senator Harradine asked me a question, without notice, concerning the line ‘Australia’ on the cover of the House of Representatives Hansard and the line ‘Commonwealth of Australia’ on the Senate Hansard. I inform the honourable senator that Commonwealth of Australia’ was used on Hansard covers for both Houses from 1901 to the end of 1972.

In 1973 the then Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, requested the President to use ‘Australia’ in lieu of ‘Commonwealth’ in the heading of Senate documents. The matter was referred by the then President to the Standing Orders Committee, which decided that any change in the heading of documents relating to the Senate should be authorised by the Senate itself. No change has been authorised by the Senate.

page 2451

STATES GRANTS (HOSPITAL OPERATING COSTS) BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 3 June, on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

-The Opposition opposes the States Grants (Hospital Operating Costs) Bill 1976. The superficial aim of this Bill is to provide funds from the Commonwealth to the States for hospital costs allegedly because the hospital agreements between the Commonwealth and the States negotiated last year are invalid. The Opposition, together with many others, does not accept that these agreements are invalid. Even if they were, we believe it would be better for the Commonwealth to introduce, and more appropriate for this Parliament to pass, validating legislation for those agreements. The true reason for this Bill is that the Government wishes to renege on the Commonwealth-State hospital agreements. It is using the opinion of 2 lawyers, one a Minister in the present Government, to dishonour the agreements and negotiate new ones. The Government is determined to opt out of its responsibility to fund public hospitals. It is already doing so in another sphere- repatriation. The Minister for Repatriation (Mr Newman) has announced that the Government will save $2.2m on repatriation costs by admitting repatriation pensioners to public hospitals as hospital service patients. What the Minister does not say is that in doing this the States will have to pay the $2.2m saved by the Commonwealth because the States pay 50 per cent of the cost of hospital service patients. This is the first Government in the history of this country to refuse to accept full responsibility for repatriation patients.

The history of this legislation is very interesting. The Government was determined for ideological reasons to dismantle the system of health funding we have in this country. First of all, it announced the new Medibank changes. The Opposition accepts that the Government has the numbers in this and the other chamber to pass legislation to force such changes through. The Government announced at the same time that the hospital funding system would have to change and that it would like to renegotiate the agreements which were negotiated last year between the States and the Commonwealth. However the State governments, including the conservative State governments led by Mr BjelkePetersen, Mr Hamer and Sir Charles Court, did not like this and they pointed out to the Commonwealth that they already had written agreements, and they made threatening noises and told the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) just where they stood. They said that they did not want these agreements torn up; they wanted them to continue. And so they should. Then and only then was it conveniently discovered that in the late night hours Mr Ellicott and the SolicitorGeneral gave opinions that the agreements were invalid and, in the words of the Prime Minister, the Auditor-General would not approve the paying of these funds. Mr Fraser said that this was very unfortunate and that the agreements now would have to be renegotiated.

These agreements between the various States and the Commonwealth were drawn up after hard, long and careful negotiation between the Commonwealth and the States. The legal officers of the Commonwealth and the States were involved. In Tasmania both Houses of Parliament looked at the agreement. The legal officers of the Queensland, Tasmanian, Victorian, Western Australian and New South Wales Governments still assert that the agreements are valid. It has been revealed that the Auditor-General has never questioned the payments and has not given the opinion that they should not be paid. We now have the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon), seeing a good thing going, I suppose, announcing that he is looking at the legal technicalities of the various transport agreements between the Commonwealth and the States that come under his jurisdiction, to see whether he can get out of his responsibilities. This is a sordid and shabby episode in government in this country.

The Government on advice conveniently coming just at the right time intends going back on negotiated agreements with the States in a vital area of national interest. It does not intend to introduce legislation to overcome the objections of its advisers but will use them instead to bargain with the States. As I said before, in Tasmania the agreements were looked at not only by the legal officers of the Tasmanian Government but by both Houses of the Parliament. They were passed by both Houses of Parliament. The present Government’s Liberal Party colleagues in the Tasmanian Parliament did not question the validity of these agreements at any stage. The Opposition believes that if in the future of this country Commonwealth and State agreements are to be upset on the views of 2 lawyers and then this discovery is to be used to negotiate previously agreed conditions, Commonwealth-State relations will be a shambles. Agreements will be utterly worthless.

We oppose the legislation, first of all, because we believe it is unnecessary. We oppose it because we believe it is an example of unscrupulous and dishonest behaviour by the Government. We suspect the way in which the alleged legal technicalities were discovered. We express our concern because if this sort of behaviour goes on the future of Federal-State relations in this country will be very dicey indeed. I believe that in those few short words I have summed up our disagreement with the Bill. We intend to vote against the motion that the Bill be read a second time but shall not continue the argument any more.

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

– in reply- We, in our few short words when this States Grants (Hospital Operating Costs) Bill was introduced, gave our view too. I suggest that the matter now go to the vote.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

AYES: 29

NOES: 22

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2452

ROAD SAFETY AND STANDARDS AUTHORITY (REPEAL) BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 3 June, on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-The Road Safety and Standards Authority (Repeal) Bill 1976 repeals the Road Safety Standards Authority Act 1975 which provided for the establishment of an independent statutory authority to spearhead a major drive for road safety in this country. I suppose this Bill is symbolic of a lot of other things which this Government is doing. For the major part of this session, inside and outside Parliament, the Government appears to have been wrecking the legislation instituted over 3 years of Labor Government. I feel that I should say many things but I propose to keep my remarks as short as possible. I believe a number of points ought to go on the record. As I mentioned earlier the Bill was initiated by the Labor Government, as were so many other facets of life in this country which were long overdue.

Reduction of the carnage on our roads is a major priority of the Australian Labor Party in government or out of government, even if that is not a priority as far as members of the coalition parties are concerned. Naturally we intend to oppose the Bill. The Australian Labor Party views this legislation as another nail in the coffin of the continued safety of motorists on Australian roads. This Bill is another example of redirection of expenditure by the conservative government from urbanised areas into rural areas. We do not criticise the suggestion that rural roads ought to be upgraded. But the general attitude of the Government appears to be that we look after a minority in the community at the expense of the very great majority. I have continually complained about this situation in relation to Queensland where, providing one has some friends in the National Country Party of Australia somewhere, roads are built or maintained at a reasonable standard. There are other areas where this sort of action does not take place. Already we have witnessed the transfer of $ 13.2m from the national highways and urban local roads to the rural roads. The bulk of this finance, interestingly of course, is going to the home State of the Minister. I suppose he has to protect the home State because that is where his votes come from.

This highlights the sectional attitude of the Government and of the Country Party tail wagging the Liberal Party dog. This rural vote buying by the Country Party dominated Government will be at the expense of many lives on Australian roads over the next 3 years. The abolition of the Road Safety and Standards Authority to save a mere $700,000 in the calendar year or, expressed in decimal points, .003 per cent of the total Budget outlay, at the expense of many lives can only be described as scandalous and callous. Road safety is one of the most distressing problems currently facing our society. This Government is now demolishing one of the means whereby that problem could have been efficiently and thoroughly analysed. During the period of the Labor Government, we consistently gave encouragement to road safety organisations. We endeavoured to introduce legislation to improve the standard of construction of motor vehicles. We endeavoured to introduce a lot of other measures that would have reduced the carnage on the roads. Some of the figures I am about to cite are nothing less than frightening.

The reasons given by the Minister for Transport for the abolition of the Road Safety and Standards Authority indicate his complete lack of understanding of the functions of the Authority. The small savings in administrative costs, the avoidance of unnecessary duplicationthose are his words- and the more efficient use of staff are irrelevant in terms of the lives saved by the concept of the Authority. When the Minister introduced the Bill he confined his remarks to approximately 5 minutes, indicating the scant regard of the conservatives for road safety and his smugness in their numbers. If the debate had been on the lives of cattle- this applies particularly to the National Country Party- we would no doubt have been subjected to a long winded speech and one of dubious value. It should be brought home to Government senators that the numbers in the Parliament will be changed in 3 years. It is the repeal of legislation like the Road Safety and Standards Authority legislation that will get them seriously off side with the people who elect governments. They expect a government to solve problems which they themselves are unable to solve. The road carnage is one of these problems.

It is obvious to everyone that road safety is a matter of great national concern. It has been estimated that the annual cost in monetary terms exceeds $ 1 billion. In other words, it is 2 per cent of the gross national product. In addition, during the 10-year period from 1965 to 1975- these are the latest figures available- 35 000 Australians were killed on roads. That figure represents more than the total population of a fairly large sized city. In 1974-75, 90 000 Australians were maimed or injured in road accidents. In the 12-month period ending April 1976, 3618 Australians were killed on our roads, yet the Government is so short-sighted as to repeal legislation that may have done something in the long term or in the short term to reduce this carnage. The figures I have cited represent the approximate voting power of four or five urban electorates or up to 10 country electorates. Since most deaths occur on urban roads, it is obvious that the deaths of urban voters stirs little regret or emotion in the members of the National Country Party which dominates this Government.

The scandal and outrage that the Opposition and the Australian people feel about the highhanded activities of the Government will be expressed over the next 3 years and most forcefully and finally in December 1978, or before then if an election is held before that date. This is consistent with what I have been saying in the Senate during the whole of this sessional period, namely, that the people in the community who have to suffer most are those who cannot defend themselves or speak for themselves. We have seen this attitude of the Government in just about every piece of legislation that has come before the Senate. We have seen the forecasts of expenditure cuts affecting those sections of the community who can least afford them. The people who are being deprived today of unemployment benefits and, in the long term, those who do not receive enough to sustain themselves, will be in exactly the same position as those who are now being deprived of the means of obtaining safety measures on the road. The Opposition opposes the Bill.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– in reply- I think that the record should be put straight. The Road Safety and Standards Authority Repeal Bill does not abolish any functions in terms of road safety and standards within the Government function, nor does it diminish them in any way. What it does is to transfer the administration from a separate authority to the Department. I repeat the assurance given by the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) in another place that there will be no diminution of effort in terms of road safety measures and standards. The functions will be carried out. By carrying them out in this way we will have them carried out at least equally as strongly. We have a total dedication to reducing accidents and of deaths on the road. At the same time, we will save public moneys in so doing.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2454

STATES GRANTS (AIR QUALITY MONITORING) BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 2 June, on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-The States Grants (Air Quality Monitoring) Bill provides for financial assistance to the States for purposes connected with the monitoring of the quality of the outdoor atmosphere. The Opposition does not oppose the Bill but I want to make a couple of comments, in particular with reference to statements made in the second reading speech of the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) as recorded on page 2210 of Senate Hansard of 2 June 1976. He said:

Air pollution levels in some of our cities are approaching, and on some occasions have already exceeded, safe community health levels set by the World Health Organisation. The need for monitoring of air pollution as a precursor to stricter controls in some locations is therefore urgent.

I pause there briefly to state that some of the monitoring of air around our major cities and the industrial areas of those cities in particular leaves a lot to be desired. Not only does this apply to the major capital cities. It applies also to many of the provincial areas, particularly in the inland areas where, apparently, air currents do not shift away the pollutants in the atmosphere as successfully as they are sometimes shifted in air currents in areas near the coast. There is a definite weakness in a lot of the State legislation. Alternatively, if there is not a weakness, the legislation is not observed in the way it ought to be observed. I refer particularly to those areas where mining activities are being carried on and specifically where there is some form of manufacturing process in operation.

In another part of his speech, the Minister said:

Current metropolitan air monitoring programs in each State differ in instrumentation and procedures.

This is an understatement of the facts and an over-simplification of the whole case. The fact is that money must come from the Australian Government as part of its contribution to the States so that they may set up the procedures for monitoring and, if necessary, insist by regulation that the local legislation be carried out. This is in itself a warning to the Australian Government that we ought to be taking a greater responsibility in this field. I would suggest that, on future occasions when legislation of this nature comes before the Parliament, the responsible Minister might go into greater detail in setting out the areas of responsibility for the State and in setting out the areas of responsibility of the Australian Government to ensure that, when money is granted to the States in this respect or when financial assistance is provided in any way, the States carry out the job for which those grants are being made. May I say with respect to the committees of this Parliament and legislation in those areas over which the Australian Government has control, we ought to be much stricter and we ought to bring down the type of legislation which totally and completely forces those people who pollute the air to carry out the control measures required of them properly and in accordance with the provisions of the appropriate legislation. We do not oppose the Bill.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– It seems quite prophetic that the Senate should be discussing this Bill today when yesterday the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment presented its report on air pollution in this chamber and also, as I understand, tomorrow is environment day- or e-Day- in the United States of America. The main thrust of the report presented by the Senate Committee yesterday was directed towards the need to develop a co-ordinated Commonwealth-State approach to air pollution. The report highlighted further measures which should be introduced without delay. Let me name a few of those. They include: Improved public transport systems with added incentive for their greater use; decentralisation of commercial and industrial activities with attendant planning controls to minimise local pollution; and improved urban traffic flow achieved through careful evaluation of improved secondary roads systems and traffic control.

I regret that some headlines in newspapers related to the report were grossly distorted and alarmist in their character, particularly with respect to the Concorde aircraft. This prompts me to quote very quickly a couple of sentences from 2 articles that I read on this type of alarmist headline. I quote first from an article in the New Scientist dated 26 June 1975 under the heading The Danger of Environmental Jitters. The article states:

Scientists who encourage public fears on the basis of incomplete or ill-digested evidence constitute a serious environmental problem.

It goes on to say:

People worry about things they do not understand because they do not understand them.

I refer also to another article in another science magazine called Science in which I noticed this sentence which I thought was quite significant:

The discovery of a new environmental problem unfortunately often brings with it both claims of imminent disaster and bland denials that the problem exists at all.

These are 2 examples of the points of view that one is faced with on any matter associated with pollution. One of the important aspects about the activities of Senate committees is that different thoughts are examined as are different points of view with the idea of arriving at some compromise which will satisfy the demands of conservationists on one hand and scientific progress on the other. The article from the magazine Science was concluded quite amusingly, I thought, by the journalist when he wrote:

Whether alarmist statements can be attributed to what one scientist described as ‘the smell of a Nobel Prize’ or simply to poor judgment, they have not served to increase the credibility of a serious problem.

I say that because too frequently we are confronted with alarmist headlines that cause unnecessary concern to the public. I now refer very quickly to the Bill and to the second reading speech. The Bill provides $200,000 for 1975-76. Appropriations for each subsequent year will be according to future needs and within the Budget context. I question whether this is sufficient to undertake an adequate monitoring system throughout Australia. I also question whether it is sufficient to provide the technological capacity to monitor the upper atmosphere. I conclude by asking the Government seriously to consider this very important aspect of its funding in future years.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I wish to direct a question to the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) relating to that part of the second reading speech which says:

The information will be collected centrally and made available to appropriate authorities for their use.

To illustrate the motive for that question- being a New South Welshman, Senator Carrick will appreciate this- let me remind him that in the central western suburbs of Sydney there was a long guerilla war between the citizens of east

Concord and Bushells Pty Ltd over the company’s failure to control the odours- I will not say that they were objectionable odours- of tea, coffee and other by-products. A local urban action committee found that reports were never made available to anyone except the State Pollution Control Commission and Bushells. What I am getting at is that if we believe in more people having a say in decisions, somewhere along the line these findings and these readings should be made public property. They should not merely be available to governments but also to bona fine groups of citizens.

My other point follows on what Senator Jessop had to say about the sharing of information on atmospheric pollution. I believe that there was a lack of liaison, whatever may have been our private and ultimate decision, about the Concorde aircraft. As honourable senators know, I received reports from the United Nations in Jamaica 2 months ago but there was no feedback to the States or to the Commonwealth Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development. I simply put my question to the Minister and say that there must be better communication. We can take consolation from the fact that both the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution and the Senate Select Committee on Air Pollution advocated a national body. We have a co-ordinated body. It is a shandygaff, but at least it is a start.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– in reply- I wish to respond very quickly to Senator Mulvihill. I am advised that within the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development, the information comes into a central computer and is available to be fed back to the States and to various bodies at the decentralised levels. So there is a complete central data bank with that capacity to feed out information. I think that Senator Keeffe raised the question of calibrations and uniform standards. At the Australian Environment Council and the National Health and Medical Research Council levels discussions are going on in order to achieve acceptance of minimum standards on both those questions. I commend the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2456

FAMILY LAW AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Second Readings

Debate resumed from 1 June and 3 June, on motions by Senator Withers:

That the Bills be now read a second time.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am taking both of these Bills on behalf of the Opposition. Might I say, firstly, in respect of the Family Law Amendment Bill that the Parliamentary Labor Party has considered this matter and decided, insofar as its members are concerned, that there should be a free vote on the Bill. Insofar as the Remuneration and Allowances Amendment Bill is concerned the Party, as a Party, does not offer any opposition to the Bill. The Bill puts into effect the decisions of the Remuneration Tribunal in respect of judges of the Family Court who at this stage, as I understand it, are being paid at a lower rate than they should be. The date on which the legislation is to be given effect is 5 January last. I assume that the level presently set out in this Bill, which I regard as being inadequate in comparison with the salaries paid to judges of some of the State Supreme Courts, will be reviewed when the Remuneration Tribunal presents its report to the Government later in the year. I understand that has to be done before 5 or 6 August.

As I have said, the Family Law Amendment Bill is a non-Party Bill and members of the Opposition are to be given a free vote on it. The Bill has arisen out of a High Court decision on 1 1 May last in the case of Russell v. Russell. As I understand it, the High Court held in its decision in that case that the Family Law Act is valid but that there are certain sections of it which are deemed to be invalid. As was explained by the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers) when he introduced the Bill, the amending legislation is aimed at writing down the Act in accordance with the Australian Constitution. Proceedings relating to property, for instance, are not valid if they are related only to property. Those matters then would have to be dealt with under the State Married Women’s Property Act, unless they relate to an ancillary matter where the normal divorce proceedings are concerned. There are other matters in the Bill relating to custody and, of course, closed courts, which were the subject of a question by Senator Wright during the course of the Senate’s proceedings this week. I have mentioned briefly the subjects of custody and matrimonial property.

All I can say is that I support the passage in the Minister’s second reading speech which states:

The Attorney-General is concerned at the difficulties and hardships that may be encountered by people as a result of the incomplete extent of the jurisdiction under the Act in the areas of custody and matrimonial property. He therefore proposes to raise these matters with the States at the next meeting of the Standing Committee of Commonwealth and State Attorneys-General arranged for later this month. The Standing Committee is already examining the proposals for uniform matrimonial property laws amongst the States and Territories and the Attorney-General hopes that it will be able to come up with some firm proposals in the light of the High Court’s decision.

As I have said, I speak personally, but I think I also speak on behalf of all members of the Opposition when I say that I do not oppose the legislation.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I strongly oppose the Remuneration and Allowances Amendment Bill which relates to the remunerations and allowances payable to judges of the Family Court. The Bill proposes that the Chief Judges salary be increased to $36,000 per annum together with an allowance of $2,250 per annum, that each senior judge- I think that is each senior judge in each State- should receive a salary of $35,000 per annum plus an allowance of $1,750 per annum, and that other judges of the Court should get $30,000 per annum and an annual allowance of $1,500. The present allowance fixed by law when the Family Law Bill was passed by the Parliament is, I think, about $7,500 less than that. It may be $5,000 to $7,500 less. This Bill not only proposes those increases but also makes them retrospective to 5 January. It is the cardinal principle of judicial independence in the Federal sphere that a judge should have a life tenure but that his emoluments should not be dependent in the slightest degree upon agreement with the Executive. His emoluments should be guaranteed by law and fixed by law. Due to the imbroglio in which this Family Court was brought into being- almost an abortion- in January -

Senator Georges:

– Oh!

Senator WRIGHT:

– It was. By reason of the difficulty of appointing judges the concept misfired. We have a situation in which judges have been appointed to a court and we have a proposal that their proposed increased allowances be made retrospective to a certain day by agreement with the Executive. Judges would never take a position on that basis in any court that I know of. It surprises me to be told that we have appointed to the judiciary people who for 5 months have been expecting, on Executive promise, increases of the order mentioned here.

As I was overseas when the Family Law Bill passed through this place, I just wish to observe that, vicious though it is I now regard the principle of the Family Law Bill as not in issue. I think we will have to have some little more ex- perience on an extended operation of the family aw legislation to see the true extent of the damage that it will do to this community. I think that then it will come up for wholesale review; but that will depend on the parliament of the day. I regard the measure, in providing as a basis for dissolution of marriage not some fault of the party against whom the divorce is claimed but the mere fact that the 2 parties have chosen to live apart for 12 months, as a socially obnoxious and unjust measure. I think that it will be completely subversive to family life, as we know it, and within the next quarter of a century will have revolutionised the whole social basis of our civilisation.

The measure is being abused. One of the provisions in the Bill is that in allowing maintenance of either party regard shall be had to the social service entitlements of the parties. Because these courts are secret, naturally one’s insight into them is very restricted indeed; but all my information leads me to believe that there is a wholesale attitude whereby, if the parties by agreement between themselves fix an amount of maintenance that entitles the other party to the full social benefit of, say, a widow’s pension or an age pension, agreement is reached upon a figure of maintenance to be payable by the party personally irrespective of means and much below the amount that party’s means would afford. I regard that as a complete abuse of the statute. The enormity of it can be shown by the fact that in this coming year the amount of public moneys that it is estimated will be payable in social services to divorcees is $5 5.8m. The amount of money paid to deserted wives and deserting wives, who are classified as widows for the purposes of pensions, is rising at an astronomical rate. The amount of money paid to divorcees is rising at an undreamed of rate. As 1 have said, the appropriation this year is $55. 8m. I regard that as the product of an abuse of the provision to which I have referred by the Court facilitating consent orders whereby the parties are exempted from their proper maintenance obligations which are then unloaded on to you, Mr President, on me and on other taxpayers. I regard that as just one further step towards the communal state.

We can provide all sorts of arrangements for the care of children on a proper basis, but once we get to the stage where the state not only cares for them but also maintains them, it will take only another few steps before we will be training them and guiding them in their occupations. I am thoroughly alarmed at that trend and I wish to register my complete rejection of it as a principle of this legislation.

The next point to which I wish to refer is one which I tried to put before the Senate when I returned from overseas last year and when we were involved in the Committee stage of the Family Law Bill. To my complete dismay 1 found that this Bill had provided for a Family Court especially set up to exercise jurisdiction in this field under the Family Law Act- an Act the very name of which offends me. It is called the Family Law Act, just as the communists call guerrilla activity a peace movement. This is an Act for the destruction and denigration of the family. It does not provide for the legal protection of the family. Section 97(1) of the Bill states:

Subject to sub-section (2) and to the regulations, all proceedings in the Family Court, or in another court when exercising jurisdiction under this Act, shall be heard in closed court.

The High Court, in the case of Russell v. Russell, has said that that provision is invalid insofar as it purports to extend to State courts invested with jurisdiction under this Act. If this Parliament is to invest State courts with that jurisdiction, it cannot alter their structure and essential qualities. Although I have not had an opportunity fully to peruse the judgment, as I read it the question as to the validity of this provision in relation to the Family Court, a Federal Court set up by this Parliament, was not in issue. But there are some observations in the judgment that seemed to assume the validity of that provision. I suggest that it is recognised that it is an essential part of the structure and quality of State Courts and English Courts to do their business, except in matters of infancy, lunacy or other matters of competence, in public, that is, they are open for any citizen to go in and observe the way in which the laws are administered. Although it is competent for State parliaments or the English Parliament to subtract that quality from one of their courts, in the judicature provisions of our Constitution we say that the judicial power of this Commonwealth shall be vested in the High Court and such other courts as Parliament provides. I want to know whether there is any authority to say that a court, a tribunal, which is required to sit in closed court, can, under the essential understanding of the British system of judicature, properly be called a court.

The matter is not without authority. I mean to say there is authority relevant to the matter but not deciding the matter. But I am dismayed and disappointed to find that although some of the High Court judges referred to the decision in Scott v. Scott in 1913 Appeal Cases, yet the very relevant passage that I want to bring to the attention of the Senate was not commented on or adverted to. I want to read a brief excerpt from Lord Shaw’s judgment where he was dealing with an attempt by the Court of Nullity in Great Britain to prevent the publication of proceedings of an order and when the matter came before the law Lords, Lord Shaw, dismayed to think that any judge of England would purport to imprison a person who published those proceedings contrary to the order, said:

I candidly confess, my Lords, that the whole proceeding shocks me. I admit the embarrassment produced to the learned judge of first instance and to the majority of the Court of Appeal by the state of the decisions; but those decisions, in my humble judgment, or rather- for it is in nearly all the instances only so- these expressions of opinion by the way, have signified not alone an encroachment upon and suppression of private right, but the gradual invasion and undermining of constitutional security. This result, which is declared by the Courts below to have been legitimately reached under a free Constitution, is exactly the same result which would have been achieved under, and have accorded with, the genius and practice of despotism.

He wenton:

What has happened is a usurpation, a usurpation which could not have been allowed even as a prerogative of the Crown, and most certainly must be denied to the judges of the land. To remit the maintenance of constitutional right to the region of judicial discretion is to shift the foundations of freedom from the rock to the sand.

It is needless to quote authority on this topic from legal, philosophical or historical writers. It moves Bentham over and over again. ‘In the darkness of secrecy, sinister interest and evil in every shape have full swing. Only in proportion as publicity has place can any of the checks applicable to judicial injustice operate. Where there is no publicity there is no justice.’ ‘Publicity is the very soul of justice. It is the keenest spur to exertion and the surest of all guards against improbity. It keeps the judge himself while trying under trial’. ‘The security of securities is publicity.’

Those are all quotations from Bentham. Lord Shaw continued:

But amongst historians the grave and enlightened verdict of Hallam, in which he ranks the publicity of judicial proceedings even higher than the rights of Parliament as a guarantee of public security, is not likely to be forgotten.

Lord Shaw continued, quoting Hallam:

Civil liberty in this kingdom has two direct guarantees; the open administration of justice according to known laws truly interpreted, and fair constructions of evidence; and the right of Parliament, without let or interruption, to inquire into, and obtain redress of, public grievances. Of these, the first is by far the most indispensable; nor can the subjects of any State be reckoned to enjoy a real freedom, where this condition is not found both in us judicial institutions and in their constant exercise’.

I forbear to quote at length but I wish to be permitted a further short quotation. Lord Shaw said:

I myself should be very slow indeed (I shall speak of the exceptions hereafter) to throw any doubt upon this topic.

The right of the citizen and the working of the Constitution in the sense which I have described have upon the whole since the fall of the Stuart dynasty received from the j judiciary-and they appear to me still to demand of it- a constant and most watchful respect. There is no greater danger of usurpation than that which proceeds little by little, under cover of rules of procedure, and at the instance of judges themselves. I must say frankly that I think these encroachments have taken place by way of judicial procedure in such a way as, insensibly at first, but now culminating in this decision most sensibly, to impair the rights, safety, and freedom of the citizen and the open administration of the law.

I have taken the liberty of reading to the Senate that quotation because I do not wish those who give me ear here or outside to misunderstand the fundamental nature of the proposition that a court can be properly classed as a court only so long as it does its business in public. That is one of the cardinal qualities that distinguishes it from an administrative tribunal. But before we would have confidence in administrative tribunals, unless they were adjudicating on matters of confidence we would require them to sit so as to operate as a tribunal openly under the scrutiny of the public.

Therefore it surprises me when I turn to the Bill to find that despite the fact that the High Court invalidated section 97 insofar as it referred to other courts in the sense of State courts, as I read the Bill there is no amendment put forward to section 97 although in other respects of custody and property there has been an attempt to alter the language of the Bill so as to come within the constitutional limits allowed by the High Court. Let me refer to the second reading speech of the Minister which was put in our hands for the first time this morning. If my understanding of it is inadequate I have some excuse because I have been doing a little other work during the day. The Minister stated that the provision requiring State courts to operate in closed court was invalid. He then said that the clear policy of Parliament as expressed by the section was that proceedings under the Act should be by closed court. If that means that the Attorney-General is going to sustain that policy as a matter before this Parliament I hear it with the greatest misgiving. The Minister went on to refer to other matters.

He goes on:

Although the jurisdiction of the State Supreme Courts over new proceedings under the Act has now been terminated- at the request of the States- State courts of summary jurisdiction are expected to continue to exercise concurrent jurisdiction with the Family Court for some time to come.

I am at a loss to know why, in view of that, the words ‘other courts’ have not been excised from section 97, because as I read what the High Court said, it is a clear statement that neither the State summary jurisdiction courts nor the State Supreme Courts can be required to sit in closed court. Therefore I wish to indicate that 1 am completely opposed to the maintenance of section 97 ( 1 ) of the Act and will seek to vote against it to register my opposition.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

-The President has known that I intended to speak on this Bill, and I certainly intend to do so because it is a matter of considerable importance. It was known to the Whip that I would be speaking on this Bill. Certainly after some things that have been said it is necessary to say something about the Bill. I support both Bills. I support the Remuneration and Allowances Amendment Bill which deals with the remuneration of the judges, because that was a matter which, in the long period that it took for the Bill to go through the 2 Houses of Parliament, was not amended. The small amounts, and well outdated amounts, remained, and they did not accord with the other payments that are made to federal judges. I support this updating to a proper level of the amounts which are to be paid to the judges in this Federal Court.

Senator Harradine:

– It was outside the guidelines.

Senator MISSEN:

-I imagine they would catch up anyway. I imagine that they have not. But, whatever happens, I consider that this measure provides no more than justice to judges who have worked extremely hard and in very difficult circumstances since the time that this Bill was introduced.

I now refer to 2 matters raised by Senator Wright. Neither is covered in this Bill, and therefore I will deal with them very shortly. However, they are matters which I think should not go without some answer. In the first place, he refers to the provisions of the Family Law Act which relate to social service entitlements and the taking into account of those entitlements in the fixing of maintenance orders. That, of course, was a deliberate policy of the original Bill and it is one which the Senate Committee advised, and on which, first, the Senate and subsequently the House of Representatives agreed; namely, that it was a provision which would stop what had previously been high orders made against husbands who disappeared so that the State finished up paying the whole amount. I have no doubt that when all the evidence is examined that this provision will remain. I am assured by judges that it has been found to be a just provision which is working well so far as the Act is concerned.

The second matter to which I draw attention is in regard to closed courts. That, of course, is not a matter which is covered by this Bill but which, as the Attorney-General (Mr Ellicott) has said, is one of the matters to be considered in discussion with the States to see whether some uniformity can be found in regard to both sorts of courts. That again was a matter of policy which was put into this Act with deliberate intent; namely, that we should not have, insofar as Mr Bentham is concerned, the sort of statement that where there is no publicity there is no justice. Anyone who has had a long experience with family law and its operations over the years would know that where there is all this publicity there is no justice, there is no fairness, there is the scarifying of children and innocent persons because of newspapers and others- I do not need to name them- which over the years made a lot of money out of the embarrassment of people; and that was a very deliberate thing. Whether courts be open with an option to close or whether they close with an option to open is a matter which can be discussed and considered by the State Attorneys-General in trying to find some uniformity.

Senator Harradine:

– What about the community’s interests in the social security aspects of settlements?

Senator MISSEN:

-The community, of course, has an interest in settlements. To say that a court is closed is not to suggest that these matters are not the subject of knowledge; it is not to say that they are not subject to appeal. It is not to say that if a judge misbehaves his actions will not be known on appeal. Of course, there are people who are allowed into the courts. There are people who, by permission, can be there. I do not want to take the time at this stage because of the fact that this matter is not covered by the Bill. Therefore, I want to turn to the Bill that is before us. But I shall argue that matter with anybodywith Senator Harradine or anyone else at any other time. So far as the running of the Act is concerned, I believe this was the greatest social achievement of the Twenty-ninth Parliament. I believe that the Act has been operating in a most effective way. But when one takes into account the diffculties under which the judges have had to operate, we see that some problems have been found. The amendments contained in this Bill are actually wider than I think was suggested by Senator Douglas McClelland, although, of course, they cover the matters that he raised.

They cover also the suggestions which the judges have made over the period that the Act nas operated. Many of the suggested amendments in this Bill are those that the judges have found necessary to overcome some obscurities. The amendments therefore cover matters in relation to the enforcement of maintenance orders. They cover important matters in regard to the enforcement of custody orders, where difficulties have been found. Of course, they also pick up some difficulties in regard to the appeals system which were not covered in the original Bill. The amendments cover another aspect- the facilitating of the formation of the State courts. A State court has been formed in Western Australia. It is desired to make several amendments in this Bill which relate to making State courts easier to operate- giving further facilities to the State courts and making it possible for State courts to operate in still other States should these States wish to have them.

Thirdly, the amendments, by reason of the cases of Russell v. Russell and Farrelly v. Farrelly, have come through the judgment of the High Court which demonstrated that there are limitations to the powers which the Commonwealth has to make these laws. Jagged edges are left by reason of those judgments. I return therefore to say that this Bill is a patchwork job. Necessarily it has had to be so. It is designed to reduce the definitions so that it only covers those things that are within the constitutional power at the present time. Any suggestion that this would be a satisfactory long term solution is, I think, another matter altogether. In reading the debate on this Bill in the House of Representatives I find that this aspect does not come out clearly except in the speech of the Attorney-General (Mr Ellicott). In fact, I think that there are three or four areas where we must make sure that efforts are made to overcome the anomalies and the unfairness which now exist, even under this Bill.

In regard to custody it has long been realised that it would only be with the support of the States that we could get a situation where exnuptial children would be treated in the same way and with the same facilities of the Family Court available to them as are enjoyed by children of a marriage. But it is worse than that when we consider who are illegitimate. They could be children of a wife and not the husband, but have been supported and treated as members of that family for years. Later, after the natural father has disappeared, we could find that the husband leaves the wife and he may not be responsible for the maintenance of the children. The wife may have difficulty and not be able to get an order for custody from the family court. She would have to go to another court. This means that there is a jagged edge in regard to the areas of custody and maintenance that needs to be smoothed in the interests of justice to all parties concerned.

A similar situation exists in regard to property. This Bill means that people will have to go through divorce proceedings and that property proceedings can take place in the family court only if they are ancillary to a divorce. When the original Family Law Bill went through it was one of the measures designed by this Parliament to get away from the necessity to jump from State courts and Federal courts and to avoid the tactics and the costs which are involved. I hope that this will be another matter which, in co-operation with the States, can be avoided.

Closed courts are another matter which calls for co-operation between States and Commonwealth. I believe that probably now more than ever it is essential that States should be persuaded to exercise the power to create State courts, or they should be persuaded to refer the power to the Commonwealth so that the gaps can be closed. This would prevent, for example, a situation where custody proceedings are undertaken and the family court can make no arrangements to give custody to an aunt or a grandparent.

It must concern itself only with parents, the 2 parties to the marriage. That is the limit of our jurisdiction, whereas we know that in many cases the proper person to have custody may be an aunt, a grandparent or someone else. This is obviously an unsatisfactory area. I welcome the fact that the Attorney-General is approaching the States to see whether this can be clarified.

I believe that in the 5 months that this Act has been operating we have seen a magnificent job done by too few judges. I believe that shortly more judges will be appointed, and they are obviously needed in a number of States. The j udges have worked diligently and worked overtime to minimise delays which would be most detrimental. I think the Parliament should pay them the credit they deserve.

Today in the Sydney Morning Herald Mr Malcolm D. Broun, President of the Family Law Practitioners Association of New South Wales pointed out the physical difficulties which judges have to undergo. He concluded by saying:

Against that background, the judges have notably succeeded in maintaining proper dignity and respect in their courts as a result of two important factors: the personal dignity and manifest integrity of the judges themselves; the cooperation of all but a few of the barristers and solicitors that practise in those courts, and the respect which is both due and given by those lawyers to those courts.

Senator Harradine:

– Who said that?

Senator MISSEN:

– This was said by Mr Malcolm D. Broun, President of the Family Law Practitioners Association of New South Wales. I know from what I hear in Victoria that judges in that State, men of calibre and excellent appointments, are doing a magnificent job.

The last thing I want to say in respect of this Bill which is concerned with the administration of family law is to pay a tribute to the AttorneyGeneral, Mr Ellicott, because since the beginning of this year I have seen the way in which he has taken an absorbed and constant interest in this very difficult area. I have seen his concern to see that the Act works as well as it possibly can. I believe that this is a useful Bill because it does in fact amend various matters which have come up in the course of practice. But I believe it is not the last word. We have to ensure that with the States justice is brought into all the areas I have mentioned. With those remarks, I support both of the Bills.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills read a second time.

Remuneration Allowances Amendment Bill 1976

In Committee

The Bill.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

Family Law Amendment Bill 1976

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-As time does not permit me to discuss this Bill adequately in Committee I propose to vote against the whole of the Bill to register my objection to clause 97 to which I earlier referred.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2461

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Senator Withers)- by leaveagreed to:

That leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the termination of sitting this day to the day on which the Senate next meets.

page 2461

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Withers) agreed to:

That the Senate at its rising adjourn until a day and hour to be fixed by the President, or in the event of the President being unavailable owing to illness or other cause, by the Chairman of Committees, and that the hour and day of meeting so determined shall be notified to each senator by telegram or letter.

page 2461

ADJOURNMENT

Valedictory

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Government · LP

– I move:

Before we adjourn, I should like to congratulate you, Mr President, on your first period of sittings in the chair. I should also like to thank all honourable senators for their co-operation, as well as the Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate, Senator Douglas McClelland, and the 2 Whips. I think they have done an absolutely magnificent job this session. We have known each Thursday what we would be doing in the following week. To them and all honourable senators I extend my thanks for what I think has been a fairly pleasant period of sittings.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-Mr President, I wish to express the appreciation of honourable senators on this side of the chamber for your co-operation. I think perhaps my final words should be to wish honourable senators a safe journey home and a safe trip back to Canberra in August.

The PRESIDENT:

– May I thank the Leader of the Government and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for their very kind and gracious words which I am sure are appreciated by all to whom they were directed. I should like to pay my tribute to the very splendid co-operation received by me in this chamber and from all members of the staffs which service this House and all of the departments.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

The PRESIDENT:

– The Senate stands adjourned until a day and an hour to be fixed in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day, which time of meeting shall be notified to each senator by telegram or letter.

Senate adjourned at 5.47 p.m.

page 2462

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Uranium (Question No. 445)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister had discussions with the New South Wales Minister for Mines and Energy, Mr Freudenstein, concerning an application for an exploration lease to search for uranium in New South Wales by the French Atomic Energy Commission.
  2. Will the Minister give an assurance that approval for the lease will not be forthcoming from the Australian Government until the recommendations of the inquiry being conducted by Mr Justice Fox are known.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The attitude of the Government is that it should not make final policy decisions on uranium development before the Report of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry, presently being conducted under Presiding Commissioner Mr Justice Fox, is received. Issue of exploration titles under State mining law is a matter for the State Government concerned.

Uranium (Question No. 481)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice:

  1. Has the Minister for National Resources recently announced that other countries may take by force the uranium they require from North Australian deposits unless this country negotiates contracts to sell uranium to Japan.
  2. Has Japan recently revised its projected nuclear energy requirements for 1985 from the 1972 prediction; if so, what are the relative figures.
  3. Is Japan likely to achieve its projected requirement by 1985.
  4. Does Japan require only 99 000 tonnes of uranium to produce the predicted energy of which 88 200 tonnes has already been covered by existing contracts.
  5. Do the following countries have contracts for the sale of uranium to Japan: (a) France, (b) Australia, (c) South Africa, and (d) Canada; if so, what quantities are involved.
Senator Withers:
LP

– The Minister for National Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1)I refer the honourable Senator to my speech on 3 1 March 1976 in the House of Representatives during the debate on ‘Australia: Political and Trading Relationships and Energy Reserves’ (Hansard, pages 1175 to 1 177).

  1. In December 1975 the Japanese Ministerial Council on General Energy Policy adopted a report which included an estimate for 1985 of 49 000 MW installed nuclear generating capacity. The 1972 estimate for 1985 was 60 000 MW. (3), (4) and (5) It is not appropriate for me to comment on what Japan is likely to achieve nor on specific tonnages which is a matter for commercial negotiation between Japanese and foreign organisations. As I indicated on 25 February 1976 in a statement on my visit to Japan, the Japanese made it clear to me that their concern is not for immediate supplies since they have already secured the bulk of their requirements of uranium until 1985; the Japanese desire is to be able to look with confidence to Australia as a major source of supply in the period after 1985. Existing ap- p roved contracts for the supply of Australian uranium to J apan are approximately 7000 tonnes uranium.

Cheese Imports (Question No. 586)

Senator Colston:

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

  1. Did the Department of Overseas Trade complain bitterly to the Department of Health over the Department of Health’s failure to adequately consult it over the new controls on cheese imports, as claimed in the Queensland Country Life dated 29 April 1976.
  2. Did the Department of Health adequately brief the Department of Overseas Trade on the new controls prior to their announcement.
  3. Has the European Economic Community officially compained about the new controls.
  4. Has the European Economic Community told the Australian Government that it believes the controls were invoked to assist the Australian dairy industry; if so, what was the Australian Government’s response to this suggestion.
  5. Has the European Economic Community threatened to tighten up quarantine regulations against Australian agricultural exports to member countries in retaliation against the new cheese import controls.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. The Department of Health did not brief the Department of Overseas Trade on the new controls prior to their announcement. Quarantine matters are dealt with by the Department of Health. The Department of Health provided adequate briefing to the Department of Overseas Trade shortly after the announcement.
  3. No. However, separate representations have been received from the Netherlands, Italy and the Federal Republic of Germany. Three of the nine member countries of the Community viz. U.K., Ireland and Denmark have been exempted from the proposed restrictions.
  4. No.
  5. No.

Aboriginal Hostels Ltd: Resignation of Mr M. Shegog (Question No. 594)

Senator Colston:

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

Has Mr M. Shegog resigned as General Manager of Aboriginal Hostels Limited; if so,

what is the official reason for Mr Shegog’s resignation,

was any such vacant position subsequently advertised; if so, how many applications were received,

was a panel of interviewers set up to interview any applicants,

what are the names of members of any such panel, and were they all Board Members of Aboriginal Hostels Limited,

when were any interviews held, and what was the cost of travel to Canberra and accommodation expenses incurred by the interview and the interviewees,

was a final decision not reached because of the absence of Senator Bonner,

why was this delay necessary, and

h ) when will a final decision be made.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

Mr Shegog resigned as General Manager on 2 1 July 1975.

a ) Mr Shegog gave no reason for his resignation.

Yes. 49 applications were received.

Yes.

(d) and (e) After preliminary interviews by Ferris Norton and Associates between 20-29 October, a panel comprising Board members, Messrs Perkins (Chairman), Bissaker, Bruce Brown and Mrs I. Clay interviewed applicants on 17 November 1975 in Sydney. A short list of 3 applicants were interviewed by the full board on 6 December. The costs involved were $ 1 37.00.

No.

Not applicable.

The Board decided the appointment on 17 December.

Aboriginal Organisations and Communities: Financial Guidelines (Question No. 640)

Senator Colston:

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

What is the full text of the financial guidelines under which organisations funded by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs currently operate.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

The full text of the financial guidelines under which organisations funded by the Department currently operate is contained in a booklet ‘Financial Rules for the Guidance of

Aboriginal Organisations and Communities Receiving Australian Government Funds’.

I have provided a copy for the honourable senator and further copies are available from my office.

United States-Australian Relations (Question No. 702)

Senator Colston:

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

  1. Has the Australian Ambassador to the United States of America, or any members of the Australian diplomatic staff stationed in the United States, contacted any of the current contenders for the Democratic Party or Republican Party nomination for the United States Presidency to ascertain details of those candidates’ stated policies on the subject of United States- Australian relations; if so, which candidates have been contacted, and will the Minister outline details of the policy statements provided by the candidates concerned?
  2. If no candidates have so far been contacted, will the Minister instruct the Australian Ambassador to the United States to do so at the earliest possible opportunity?
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. It would not be appropriate for the Australian Ambassador to the United States or members of his staff to make such contacts. For example, a leading contender for the Democratic Party nomination, Mr Jimmy Carter, is recently reported to have declined to meet foreign diplomats who had approached him for his views on foreign affairs. However, our Embassy in Washington is following closely political developments in the United States and is keeping the Government fully informed. I have no reason to believe that there will be any substantial change in the very close United States- Australian relationship, irrespective of who is elected as the next President of the United States.
  2. No.

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation: Australian Contributions (Question No. 704)

Senator Colston:

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

What funds has Australia provided through the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation in each year since 1970-71.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

Australia provides funds through the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation ( FAO) by contributions to the FAO regular budget and to the International Fertilizer Supply Scheme which is part of FAO.

Australia also contributes to the World Food Program which was established under the auspices of FAO and the United Nations. Australia contributes by making forward biennial pledges of cash (one third of the pledge) and commodities (two thirds). In addition, Australia contributes annually 8 000 tonnes of wheat from its Food Aid Convention allocation plus 25 per cent of the value of this wheat at its date of shipment as a contribution towards freight.

Australia’s monetary contributions are broken down as follows:

Passports (Question No. 708)

Senator Rae:
TASMANIA

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

  1. 1 ) How many persons of Australian birth applied for an Australian passport between 1972 and 1975 and were not granted one.
  2. How many of those so denied were given full, complete, and accurate reasons for the rejection of their application.
  3. How many Australian citizens had their passports withdrawn during the same period.
  4. How many of those persons referred to in (3) were given full complete and accurate reasons for the withdrawal.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. None.
  2. None. As the Minister responsible for the administration of the Passports Act, the Minister for Foreign Affairs has discretion to decide whether or not an application for a passport should be approved or a passport withdrawn. It has been the practice of successive Governments not to disclose the reason for a refusal of a passport.

Tertiary Education Commissions (Question No. 724)

Senator Primmer:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the current Government policy towards the proposition of the previous Government, favouring the amalgamation of the Australian University Commission and the Commission of Advanced Education.
  2. What are the new deadlines for the submission of amended recommendations of the Australian University Commission and the Commission of Advanced Education io the Australian Government for drafting the education segment of the Budget.
  3. Have any instructions been given to the funding Commission on the issue of triennial planning of education expenditure.
  4. Has the funding Commission been relieved from meeting its original deadline for the submission of reports.
  5. Is the Commission awaiting advice from the Government by way of guidelines for the preparation of an amended submission.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. The issue is still under consideration by the Government.
  2. to (5) I refer the honourable senator to my statement to the Senate on 20 May 1 976 ( Hansard pages 1811-1815).

Gold Mining Industry

Senator Withers:
LP

– On 18 February Senator Durack asked me the following question, without notice:

I refer to the applications for financial assistance which were made to the Government by several gold mining companies in Western Australia and which were refused by the Government. I ask: Is the Government considering alternative methods of assistance to the gold mining industry. In particular, will it give consideration to referring to the Industries Assistance Commission the question of whether special assistance is justified.

The Minister for National Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Industries Assistance Commission completed an inquiry into the gold industry in 1975 and a decision on the Commission’s recommendations has yet to be made. In considering requests earlier this year for direct financial assistance submitted by three gold mining companies, the Government had the benefit of and recourse to the views and information contained in the IAC’s report. The Government, however, could not see its way clear to accede to the requests for special assistance.

In view of the fact that the IAC examined the gold industry’s position last year, the Government at this stage secs no necessity for a further reference to the Commission.

Australian Law Reform Commission

Senator Withers:
LP

-On 19 May 1976 Senator Missen asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General the following question without notice in relation to 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?

The Attorney-General has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

I am aware of the need for the appointment of additional full-time commissioners to the Australian Law Reform Commission. I am presently considering three persons for appoinment as full-time commissioners and I hope to be in a position to recommend further appointments to the Commission in the near future. Notwithstanding that the salary level is less than that offered by the States for comparable positions the persons I am considering are of very high calibre.

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Senator Withers:
LP

-On 20 May 1976 Senator Durack asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General the following question without notice:

Does the Government intend to establish the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in accordance with the Act that was passed some time go by this Parliament? If the Government intends to do this, when is it likely to do so?

The Attorney-General has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 has been proclaimed to commence on 1 July 1976.

Unemployment Benefit: Termination of Payments (Question No. 715)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What were the reasons for the termination of unemployment benefit in 72 cases as a result of inquiries made by officers in the Minister’s Department in the KensingtonFlemington area of Melbourne from 4 May to 12 May 1976.
  2. When were those whose benefits were terminated informed of the decisions.
  3. What date did their benefits cease.
  4. Were the individuals concerned notified of their right of appeal.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

Taxation: Rebate Declaration Form (Question No. 635)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

How many people have had prosecutions launched against them for offences relating to the Concessional Tax Rebate Form.

Senator Cotton:
LP

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

The Declaration form became operative on 1 January 1976. As at 24 May 1976, the number of persons against whom prosecution proceedings for offences relating to the form had been heard was four. In respect of a further six persons summonses had been issued but the cases had not been heard.

Assistance for Isolated Children Scheme (Question No. 636)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

  1. Has the Isolated Childrens’ Parents Association requested the Minister to initiate an immediate upgrading of the means tested allowances covering fees and other costs for parents of high school children who board away from home in order to complete their education.
  2. Has the Minister also been asked to simplify forms of assistance for rural families who have school children living away from home at hostels and boarding schools.
  3. If the answer to ( 1 ) and (2) is in the affirmative, when does the Minister expect to give a decision on these two requests.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. If the honourable senator is referring to the degree of complexity of the application form which parents must complete in order to obtain benefits, the answer is yes.
  3. ) In relation to ( 1 ), proposals for increases in the allowances available under the Assistance for Isolated Children Scheme will be considered within the framework of the 1976-77 Budget. With regard to (2), the format of the application forms of the scheme is currently being reviewed by my Department. Every effort will be made to make them as simple as possible, but because of the wide ranging provisions of the scheme, the degree of simplification which can be achieved is limited. The forms must be adequate to obtain all essential information to establish clearly each applicant’s eligibility in view of the need to safeguard the expenditure of public funds. A decision on this matter will be reflected in the 1977 application forms, which will be available towards the end of the 1976 school year.

Assassination of President Kennedy (Question No. 637)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. l ) Is the Prime Minister aware of reports in the United States that the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the United States was involved in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963, and that the members of the Warren Commission which investigated the assassination were involved in a cover-up of certain aspects of the assassination: if so, will the Prime Minister personally ascertain from the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, the Joint Intelligence Organisation, the Australian Security Intelligence Service, the Commonwealth Police Force, and other Australian security organisations that may be relevant, whether those organisations have received any information on the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s involvement in the Kennedy assassination.

    1. If the Prime Minister does obtain any relevant information, will he agree to personally forward it to a reputable international organisation, such as the International Court of Justice or the Secretary-General of the United Nations, for attention.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. and (2) I do not intend to comment upon reports which make allegations concerning the internal affairs of another country.

Administrative Review Committee (Question No. 654)

Senator Ryan:
ACT

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the estimated cost of the Bland Committee of Inquiry into public expenditure.
  2. How many people are involved and what are their salaries and /or sitting fees.
  3. 3 ) What are the estimated administrative expenses.
  4. What are the total estimated travel costs and allowances.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. $126,000.
  2. The Committee, as well as its four Members, has a staff of eight full-time and six pan-time personnel. It is estimated that the cost of salaries and sitting fees will be $96,000.
  3. $1 1,000.
  4. $19,000.

Services for Aborigines Inquiry (Question No. 656)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the estimated total cost of the Hay inquiry into the effectiveness of the delivery of services financed by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs.
  2. How many people are involved in the inquiry and what are their salaries and/or sitting fees.
  3. 3 ) What are the estimated administrative expenses.
  4. What are the total estimated travel costs and allowances.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

I refer the honourable senator to the answer I gave to Question 166 on 5 May 1976 (House of Representatives Hansard page 1985). The estimate of $53,000 includes $37,000 for salaries, $6,000 for administrative expenses and $10,000 for travel costs.

Personal Income Tax Returns: Disclosure of Information (Question No. 671)

Senator Missen:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

To which Departments and for what purposes was information contained in personal income taxation returns supplied, by the Australian Taxation Office under authority of section 16 of the Income Tax Assessment Act, during the period 1 October 1975 to 31 March 1976.

Senator Cotton:
LP

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

The Commissioner of Taxation has advised that, depending upon the functions performed by the Departments concerned, information from personal income tax returns is supplied in conformity with the provisions of section 16 of the Income Tax Assessment Act. Information is provided only on receipt of an authorised written request and then only when it is established that the information being sought is necessary for the administration of laws for which those Departments are responsible.

Records covering the period 1 October 1975 to 31 March 1976 are not yet available but, for the year ended 30 June 1975, the principal Departments which obtained information in terms of section 16 and the broad purposes for which information was supplied are:

1 ) State authorities administering laws relating to land tax, stamp duties or succession duties: co-operation is extended to State authorities to assist in the imposition and collection of State revenue: a valuation service is also provided to enable the amount of duty payable to be finalised.

The Chief Collector of Taxes for Papua New Guinea: information is exchanged between the Commissioner of Taxation and the Chief Collector on a reciprocal basis in connection with the application of the laws of the two countries.

The Repatriation Commission: to provide information affecting the eligibility of claimants for repatriation pensions.

The Department of Social Security: to enable the examination of claims for entitlement to pensions, allowances, endowments or benefits payable by the Department.

The Department of Education: to facilitate the processing of claims for financial assistance to students.

Social Services: Payment by Cheque (Question No. 685)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that the power to issue cheques for unemployment benefits and similar payments is to be or has been withdrawn from regional offices such as that in northern Western Australia and that payments in future will be centralised in capital city offices.
  2. Will such a move lead to staff retrenchments in country offices; if not, for what reason should the payments system be centralised.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The facility to issue an immediate cheque in any emergency case that may arise has not been withdrawn from regional offices. However, the printing and dispatch of regular benefit cheques has been centralised in capital cities.

The centralisation of the printing and dispatch of payments from capital cities will not lead to staff retrenchments in the Department of Social Security’s country offices.

The payment of unemployment benefit from the capital city offices enables staff at regional offices to cencentrate on assessing claims by freeing them from the time-consuming, clerical tasks associated with the manual production and dispatch of benefit cheques.

The Commonwealth Employment Service office in Northam formerly acted on an agency basis for the Department of Social Security, both for the receipt and assessment of claims for unemployment benefit and for the regular payment of any approved claims. In line with other departmental regional offices in Western Australia, the Northam office of the Commonwealth Employment Service will, in future, continue to receive and assess claims and have the authority to make any emergency payments required. Regular payments of unemployment benefit for people in the Northam area will, however, be made from the State Headquarters of the Department of Social Security in Perth.

Social Services: Payment by Cheque (Question No. 744)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

Has the Department of Social Security, through the Reserve Bank of Australia, taken up the matter of anti-fraud regulations of the Commonwealth Savings Bank and Commonwealth Trading Bank as promised in Part 4 of the answer to Senate Question No. 448; if so, which action has resulted.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

The Reserve Bank of Australia was asked to take the matter up with the Commonwealth Banking Corporation to minimise inconvenience to welfare recipients seeking to cash cheques.

It is understood that arrangements for cashing cheques are currently being discussed by these two bodies and my Department expects to receive advice from the Reserve Bank in the near future.

Royal Visit

Senator Withers:
LP

-On 26 May 1976 (Hansard, page 1927), Senator Messner asked me, as Minister representing the Prime Minister, a question without notice whether The Queen’s itinerary for the proposed Royal Visit to Australia in 1977 is known to the Government. He also asked whether the South Australian Government has extended an invitation to The Queen to visit that State and whether she has expressed a wish to visit. The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

See my statement in the Senate on 6 April 1976 (page 1039).

Australian Assistance Plan (Question No. 730)

Senator Kilgariff:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. Which Department or organisation will assume responsibility for the Australian Assistance Plan in the Northern Territory.
  2. Where will the staff, presently engaged on Australian Assistance Plan matters in the Northern Territory, be employed.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– ( 1) and (2) See my answer to Senator Grimes’ question without notice on the Australian Assistance Plan on 3 June 1976.

Copyright (Question No. 28)

Senator Baume:

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

With whom does the copyright of videotaped material recorded on Australian Government equipment supplied through the Community Video Resources Centres remain, in those cases where the tapes are not purchased by the people making the tape.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

Copyright in videotaped films made by members of the public who use the resources and advice provided by the Community Video Resource Centres is owned by the makers of the films. The ownership of the copyright in the films does not depend upon the ownership of the tapes used to make the films and is therefore not affected by any change in ownership of the tapes. In the absence of a properly executed written assignment of copyright, the copyright in the films will remain vested in the makers of the films. A separate copyright may exist in the material included in the films, such as an original musical or dramatic work. The Community Video Resource Centres do not provide the material for inclusion in videotaped films nor do the centres undertake any responsibility for that material. In cases where the maker of a videotaped film wishes to include copyright material in the film, it is a matter for him to obtain the necessary authority from the owner of the copyright in the material to include the material in the film and. where the maker wishes to exhibit his film in public, to perform the material in public.

Telegrams: Messenger Delivery Charge (Question No. 574)

Senator Colston:

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

  1. 1 ) Does Telecom Australia now charge for the messenger delivery of telegrams; if so, what is the charge, and when did it come into force.
  2. If the answer to (a) is in the affirmative, why was it necessary to initiate a charge for this service.
  3. What is the form of delivery of telegrams on which no messenger delivery fee has been paid.
  4. Has there been a discernible decline in the number of telegrams dispatched since the new policy was introduced.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Post and Telecommunications has provided the following answer as advised by Telecom Australia, to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) A surcharge of 40c for delivery of a telegram by messenger during normal business hours was introduced with effect from 20 April 1976. At the same time, the charge of 15c previously applied for lodging a telegram through the phonogram service was abolished.
  2. To offset, to some extent, the high costs involved in manually delivering telegrams.
  3. Senders are encouraged to address telegrams to a telephone or telex number so that they can be delivered by these means. If the sender knows the addressee may be contacted by telephone or telex but does not know the number, delivery by telephone or telex will be attempted at the office of destination if the instruction ‘Telephone’ or ‘Telex’ is included in the address. In other cases where the messenger fee has not been paid prompt delivery cannot be guaranteed; nevertheless, in such cases efforts are made to effect delivery by telephone, telex or other means whenever practicable. Where no other alternative method of delivery is available the telegram is posted.
  4. lt is too early yet to assess the effect of these changes on the traffic. Telegram traffic has been declining steadily for a number of years. A similar trend is evident around the world.

Phonograms: Incorrect Charging (Question No. 493)

Senator Colston:

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

  1. 1 ) Is a report in the Sydney Sun-Herald of 18 April 1976 that telephone subscribers can be billed for phonograms they have never sent correct.
  2. What precautions does Telecom take to ensure that this does not occur.
  3. Does Telecom intend instituting additional controls to reduce the abuses which are apparently occurring.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Telecom Australia advises that the incidence of incorrect charging for phonograms is very small. Phonogram charges are a separate entry on the telephone account and thus readily identifiable by customers. There is also a written record which enables Telecom Australia to follow up with the addressee or sender in cases where any doubts arise.
  2. As a continuing safeguard against callers giving an incorrect telephone number when lodging phonograms, up to 10 per cent of the numbers are rung back by the operator. All queries concerning phonogram charges in telephone accounts are thoroughly investigated and where there is any doubt as to whether charges have been correctly billed the subscriber concerned is given the benefit of that doubt.
  3. The existing safeguards designed to detect and prevent abuse of the phonogram service have proved adequate over many years and Telecom Australia sees no need to introduce any additional measures.

Income Security Review (Question No. 655)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the estimated total cost to the Government of the Income Security Review.
  2. How many people are involved, and what are their salaries and/or sitting fees.
  3. What are the administrative expenses.
  4. What are the total estimated travel costs and allowances.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. $88,000 covering the period from September 1975. when the Income Security Review was established under the previous Government, to the end of 1976.
  2. At 19 May 1976 the Review secretariat numbered two full-time and two part-time staff. From time to time other staff have been attached to the secretariat for short terms. Total salaries are estimated to cost $82,000.
  3. $3,400.
  4. $2,600.

Arbitration Proceedings (Question No. 134)

Senator Colston:

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

What were the numbers of (a) proceedings before conciliators of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and (b) of these matters, how many were satisfactorily completed during the months of December 1975. January 1976 and February 1976.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The office of Conciliator was discontinued in 1 972 and the formal separation of the conciliation and arbitration functions as such ceased in 1973.

I have examined whether information could be readily provided on the number and outcome of proceedings heard by Presidential Members of the Commission and Commissioners during the nominated months. However. I am advised that the number of matters dealt with was more than 800 and that it would be necessary to examine each case separately to ascertain the outcome, work which I would not consider was justified at this time.

Commonwealth Employment Service (Question No. 657)

Senator Ryan:

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

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister instigated yet the review of the Commonwealth Employment Service which he promised recently; if so, what is the estimated total cost of this review.
  2. How many people are or will be involved, and what are their salaries and /or sitting fees.
  3. What are the estimated administrative expenses.
  4. What are the total estimated travel costs and allowances.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) to (4) The recently announced review of the Commonwealth Employment Service has not commenced, and the manner in which the proposed review will take place has not yet been finalised. I cannot, therefore, at this stage provide the honourable senator with the information she seeks. I can assure her, however, that the costs of the review will be kept to a minimum.

Aborigines: Unemployment (Question No. 583)

Senator Colston:

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

  1. 1 ) How many Aborigines were registered as unemployed in (a) January 1976, (b) February 1976, and (c) March 1976, in the following towns in Western Australia: (i) Wyndham, (ii) Derby, (iii) Port Hedland, (iv) Geraldton, ( v) Kalgoorlie, (vi) Northam, and (vii) Bunbury.
  2. What (a) staff and (b) transport facilities does the Aboriginal employment section of the Depanment of Employment and Industrial Relations have in each of the towns listed in ( 1 ).
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. l ) The number of Aborigines registered for employment at the Commonwealth Employment Service offices located in each of the following towns were:
  1. (a) The Aboriginal Vocational and Assistant Vocational Officers located in those areas are as follows: Wyndham- Nil; Derby-Nil;

Port Hedland- One Assistant Vocational Officer:

Geraldton- One Assistant Vocational Officer;

Kalgoorlie- One Vocational Officer, one Assistant Vocational Officer;

Northam- One Vocational Officer, one Assistant Vocational Officer;

Bunbury- One Vocational Officer.

  1. The Government has decided that special consideration should be given to the operations of the Commonwealth Employment Service, including the work of Aboriginal Vocational Officers and Assistant Vocational Officers, to ensure that the work of placement of people in employment is not restricted by lack of funds. Additional funds have now been made available and transport and travel facilities have largely been restored to the Aboriginal Employment Section in Western Australia.

Standing Committee of Attorneys-General

Senator Withers:
LP

-On 24 March 1 976, Senator Sir Magnus Cormack asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General in the Senate the following question, without notice:

I direct a question to the Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral. In order to make it clear to the Minister what 1 have in mind, I direct his attention to Press release No. 2 1 which was issued by the Attorney-General and which deals with the last meeting of the Standing Committee of AttorneysGeneral. Among those present was the Minister of Justice for Papua New Guinea. My question is: Is the Minister of Papua New Guinea a permanent member of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General? Will the Minister explain to the Senate, in any case, what the Minister of Justice of Papua New Guinea was doing at the meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General?

The Attorney-General has now provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Minister for Justice of Papua New Guinea attended the meeting of the Standing Committee of AttorneysGeneral on 5 March 1976 pursuant to an invitation extended to him by the Standing Committee and conveyed by mc on its behalf.

Sugar Industry: Federal Expenditure (Question No. 627)

Senator Keeffe:

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

  1. 1 ) How much has the Federal Government spent on the sugar industry for each of the 10 years to 3 1 December 1975.
  2. How have these monies been allocated annually.
  3. What percentage of these monies has been allocated to the Queensland sugar industry.
  4. How much has been annually allocated to research into and marketing of sugar.
  5. What system of quotas and subsidies have been applied to the industry over the period.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

  1. (a) Research Grants to Sugar Research Limited. Mackay-$2,024,543.

    1. Compensation for devaluation losses suffered on account of sterling currency devaluation on 18 November 1967, amounting to $20,0 1 9, 1 97.
    2. Grants for irrigation works, primarily for the sugar industry, of $ 1 9,380,06 1 paid under Queensland Gram (Bundaberg Irrigation Works) Aci 1970-74 and Queensland Grant (Kinchant Dam) Act 1973.
    3. Commonwealth Extension Services Grants of $68,036 paid to Queensland Department of Primary Industries in respect of Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations.
    4. Repayable grants totalling $23,327,590 paid under Sugar Marketing Assistance Agreement Act /967and Sugar Industry Assistance Act 1967; being repaid with interest in ten equal annual instalments each of $3,021,030 commencing 30 June 1971.
    5. A repayable grant of $ 1.75m was provided through the Queensland Government under the Stales Grants (Drought Assistance) Act 1966.

Non-repayable grants for the period amounted to $41,491,837 and repayable grants $25,077,590.

(2)

(3)

  1. The marketing of Australian sugar is carried out by CSR Limited as agents for the Queensland Sugar Board. No Commonwealth funds are involved. See also answer to ( 2 ).
  2. The Commonwealth applies an embargo on the importation of sugar. In recognition of the stabilising effect of this protection, the Queensland Government through the Sugar Board and the Central Sugar Cane Prices Board strictly controls production through a system of assigning lands for cane growing and setting farm and mill peaks.

Grants to Aboriginal Organisations (Question No. 140)

Senator Colston:

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

Will the Minister provide a list of all grants made to organisations and individuals in the State of Queensland provided by his Department or by any authorities under his control, in the months of December 1975, January 1976 and February 1976.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

Aboriginal and Islander Catholic Council-Total, 22. 1 .76. $1,500.

Aboriginal and Islander Community Health Service. Townsville-Partial, 29. 1 .76, $38,200.

Aboriginal and Islander Community Health Service. BrisbanePartial, 4. 1 2.75, $40,736; Partial, 18.12.75, $85,759.

Aboriginal Historic Places Trust-Partial, 22.1.76. $48,000.

Aboriginal and Islanders Legal Services (Queensland) Ltd-Partial, 8. 1 2.75, $ 120,000; Partial, 25.2.76, $4,000.

AyrShire Council -Partial, 9.1.76, $20,000.

Black Community Housing Service-Partial. 23.1.76. $47,353.

Borringa Shire Council-Partial, 9. 1 .76, $2,750.

Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development: Expenditure (Question No. 198)

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA · ALP

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

What was the expenditure by the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development 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 Acting Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

As the honourable senator will be aware, the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development was brought into being in December 1 975. This was done by combining together and rationalising elements of the former Departments of Environment, Tourism and Recreation. Housing and Construction, and Urban and Regional Development.

In preparing an answer to the Senator’s question, the assumption has been made that the Department existed in this configuration prior to December 1975. Figures given in the accompanying Table1 reflect this assumption as faras is practicable.

These figures show that expenditure by the Department would have been $377.0m in 1973-74 and $825.4 in 1974-75. Estimated expenditure provided for in the 1975-76 Budget is$848.82m.

Table 2 sets out a breakdown of the 1975-76 estimates by State and Territory. In summary form, this shows the following expected allocations of funds:

The unallocated items are mainly salaries and administrative expenses, and grants-in-aid to national organisations.

The 1975-76 estimates are, of course, higher than the actual expenditure that will be achieved. Following the Government’s overall review of 1975-76 expenditure it was announced that savings of at least $3 lm would be achieved from the Department’s programs. It is likely that further savings will have been achieved by the end of the financial year. It has not been possible, at this stage, to determine precisely how these reductions would be apportioned to the States and Territories.

National Aboriginal Consultative Committee (Question No. 305)

Senator Colston:

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

  1. 1 ) Is an election for the 41 members of the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee due to be held in September 1976.
  2. What preparations have so far been made for the election, and what has been the total cost incurred.
  3. Is there any move to postpone the election because of the inquiry currently being held into the future of the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

-The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question: ( 1 ), (2) and (3) The Committee of Inquiry into the role of the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee will consider, inter alia, the method of selection or election of members of the NACC; the Committee of Inquiry is due to make its recommendations to me before 31 August and the Government will decide whether further elections will be held after it considers these recommendations. No arrangements have therefore been made to hold an election, as previously proposed, in September 1976 and no costs have been incurred in respect of such an election.

Upper Level Wind Finding (Question No. 365)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Science, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What information is obtained by using radar equipment with upper level wind finding capability.
  2. What difficulties were experienced by the Bureau of Meteorology in February 1976 due to the upper level wind finding facility in Mackay being out of order and the facility in Coffs Harbour being intermittently faulty.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) By tracking radar reflecting targets suspended from balloons, winds in the upper levels of the atmosphere in the vicinity of the radar installation are determined. Winds are computed by measuring the motion of the balloon through successive layers of the atmosphere. By this means wind speed and direction are obtained for heights from about 150 metres above the surface to approximately 17 kilometres with occasional measurements to 30 kilometres. Information from a network of windfinding stations is necessary for three-dimensional analyses of the state of the atmosphere. From these analyses, predictions of the future state of the atmosphere are made, which are used as the basis of forecasts for general purposes, and in particular are applied directly in making forecasts for aviation of winds at flying levels.
  2. Without reliable high level wind data from Mackay and Coffs Harbour professional estimation, based on other available information including upper wind reports from other stations, was necessary to provide air route forecasts and general forecasts in the vicinities of these stations to a distance of approximately 300 kilometres. In particular, had the normal upper wind data from Coffs Harbour been available there would have been more factual data and less subjectivity in the analysis of the meteorological situation preceding heavy rain and floods on 27 and 28 February over portion of the Richmond River catchment.

Interdepartmental Committees (Question No. 472)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

On which Interdepartmental Committees is each Department of State represented at the present time.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

It has been the practice of successive governments not to authorise the expenditure of time and money involved in answering questions, such as this, which seek generalised information on interdepartmental committees. I do not intend to depart from that practice. However, if the honourable senator wishes to know the composition and function of any particular interdepartmental committee and for what period of time it has been active, I shall be happy to see if he can be provided with the necessary information.

Staff Members: Background (Question No. 484)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister for Post and Telecommunications or his predecessor been provided with a list purporting to be a list of Public Service members of the staff of the former Department of the Media who may have had connections with, or sympathies towards the Australian Labor Party.
  2. Did the list purport to provide the background of ALP sympathies of persons whose names were included.
  3. Was the list accompanied by a note that further details could be provided by a person in the employ of the Federation of Australian Commercial Broadcasters.
  4. Was the list referred to the Secretary of the Department.
  5. Will any of the persons whose names appear on the list be given an opportunity to see it and /or to comment on the accuracy of allegations made in it.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) A list of names has not been sent to me or my predecessor although some notes were sent to the former Minister, the Hon. R. V. Garland referring to three members of the former Department of the Media who may have had connections with or sympathies towards the Australian Labor Party.
  2. No.
  3. The notes mentioned that a former member of the Department of the Media now in the employ of the Federation of Commercial Broadcasters could provide details of the functioning of the Department.
  4. Yes.
  5. No action of any kind has been taken nor is any action contemplated as much of the information in the notes was incorrect. In the circumstances it is not intended to make it available to any person.

Airlink to Seychelles Islands (Question No. 516)

Senator Colston:

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

  1. I ) Did the Prime Minister recently discuss the possibility of a Qantas Airways Ltd airlink to the Seychelles Islands with the Prime Minister of the Seychelles, Mr Mancham; if so, what action has been taken as a result of those discussions.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Prime Minister of the Seychelles did raise the question of Qantas establishing an airlink between Australia and the Seychelles during his recent discussions with the Right Honourable Prime Minister; he also discussed the matter with the Minister for Transport and with Qantas. The Seychelles’ Prime Minister was advised that it was not economically possible at this time for Qantas to introduce services because of the very limited traffic flow between Australia and the Seychelles which can best be handled by present connecting services through Mauritius. Nevertheless, in looking at future services on Indian Ocean routes, both the Government and Qantas will bear in mind the interest expressed by the Seychelles’ Government in improved aviation links with Australia.

Aboriginal-Police Relations (Question No. 540)

Senator Keeffe:

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

Will the planned Royal Commission into AboriginalPolice relations which was initiated by the previous Australian Government be proceeded with; if not, will some other form of public inquiry be established.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

I have decided not to proceed with a Royal Commission in respect of Aboriginal-Police relations. I refer the honourable senator to my ministerial statement on the tabling of the Laverton Royal Commission on S May in which I mention action already in train or being considered in respect of Aboriginal-Police relations.

Aboriginal Housing Societies (Question No. 541)

Senator Robertson:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

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

Will the Government guarantee continued financial assistance to Aboriginal housing societies throughout Australia; if so what forms will the assistance take.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

An immediate investigation into the effectiveness of Aboriginal housing societies has been commissioned and pending the outcome of that investigation, grants to housing societies would be limited to that required to meet outstanding legal commitments.

Gas Exports (Question No. 557)

Senator McLaren:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice:

What is the Government’s policy on exports of liquefied natural gas and liquefied petroleum gas and how does this policy differ, if at all, from the previous Labor Government “s policy.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

It is this Government’s policy to encourage exploration for and development of more gas reserves by allowing the limited export of liquefied natural gas.

During my recent visit to Japan, a question repeatedly raised by the Japanese was the prospect of availability of LNG from Australia, and in particular Australia’s attitude towards its export from the North West Shelf.

I described the efforts we were making to reach early decisions on various options open to us, and assured the Japanese that Australia looked forward, when production commenced, to meeting some of their LNG requirements from this source.

The Labor Government, on the other hand, as far us I cun judge, procrastinated over offshore petroleum development throughout its term of office, preferring instead to engage in disputation with the States on questions of sovereign rights offshore with offshore development languishing in the meantime with the consequence that Australia has yet to produce any LNG.

Australia exports about 1.2 million tonnes of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) a year, most of which is exported under long term arrangements of some years standing. This gas is surplus to Australian domestic requirements.

While the Labor Government continued to supply to Japan, and our other major trading partners, whatever liquefied petroleum gas we could reasonably export, it was committed to the view that all natural gas produced from the North West Shelf would be purchased at the wellhead by the Pipeline Authority and any exports of LNG would thus become its responsibility. This Government prefers to sec such undertakings carried out by private enterprise and is currently engaged in discussions with the North West Shelf consortium to this end.

National Aboriginal Consultative Committee (Question No. 578)

Senator Colston:

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

Is every member of the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee entitled to an electorate office: if so. what is the electorate office address of each member of the Committee, and what was the total cost of maintaining each of the offices in 1975.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

All National Aboriginal Consultative Committee members are entitled to employ a part-time secretarial assistant and to have an electoral office and associated furniture and equipment. Not all members have taken up these entitlements and some operate from the premises of existing Aboriginal community organisations or from their own homes.

Addresses of NACC members are as follows:

New South Wales

Area I -Phillip Hall, 82 Arthur Street, Croydon, N.S.W. 2132.

Area 2- Thomas H. Williams, 8 Murrong Place, La Perouse, N.S.W. 2036. Tel. 2 1 2 3500, AH 66 1 736 1 .

Area 3-Mrs Valmai Mackay, 130 Whitton Street, Narrandera, N.S.W. 2700. Tel. Narrandera 59 1079. P.O. Box 84, Narrandera, N.S.W. 2700.

Area 4-Keith Smith, Suite 8, 48 Berry Street, Nowra, N.S.W.2540.Tel.2 4196.

Area 5- Rex Marshall, 19 P.G. Love Avenue, Armidale, N.S.W.2350.Tel.72 1163.

Area 6- Leonard S. Brown, 4 Margare Street/Crescent, South Grafton, N.S.W. 246 1 . Tel. 42 2 1 1 9.

Area 7-Harry Hall, 12 Coral Avenue, Walgett, N.S.W. 2385. Tel. Walgett 455, AH Walgett 415.

Area 8-Ray Nagas, el- Post Office, Wilcannia, N.S.W.

Victoria

Area 1-Bruce McGuinnes, (108 Smith Street), Collingwood, Vic. 3006. Tel. 41 4922.

Area 2- Mrs Nessie Skuta, 161 Princess Highway, Lucknow, Bairnsdale, Vic. Tel. H. 52 2358, W. 52 4536. P.O. Box 433, Bairnsdale. Vic. 3875.

Area 3- David R. Anderson, 125 Koorlong Avenue, Irymple, Vic. 3498.

South Australia

Area 1 -President/Acting Secretary, James Hudson Stanley, 4 Saint Alburn Place, Clearview, S.A. 5085. Tel. AH 332 2352,223 3809.

Area 2- Alfred Reginald Agius, 15 Hill Street, Hamley Bridge, S.A. 5401. Tel. 89.

Area 3- Glenmore Lyell Miller, 14 Ellen Street, Port Lincoln, S.A. 5606. Tel. 82 3030.

Area 4-Ivan Baker. Amata Reserve, Private Bag, via Alice Springs, N.T. 5750.

Tasmania

Area I -Morgan Alexander Mansell, 197 Charles Street, Launceston, Tas. 7250.

Queensland

Area I -George Mye, Darnley Island, Torres Strait, Qld.

Area 2-Ted Loban, Hastings Street, Thursday Island, Qld 4875. Tel. T.I. 167.

Area 3-Vice President, Keith Saunders. P.O. Box 1450, Cairns. Qld 4870.

Area 4-John Grainer, P.O. Box 436, Mareeba, Qld 4880. Tel. 5 1 3917,51 2045.

Area 5-Kevin Sayloy. 1 Sycamore Street, Pimlico, Townsville, Qld 4810.

Area 6-Anthony Assan, 12 Harban Street, Mt Isa, Qld 4825.

Area 7-Stanley Alberts, 166 Gain Street, North Rockhampton, Qld 470 1 . Tel. (urgent) 27 5711.

Area 8-James Patrick Hagan, 22 Bedford Street, Cunnamulla, Qld 4490. P.O. Box 258, Cunnamulla, Qld.

Area 9-Nugent A. Fisher, 154 White hill Road. Raceview, Qld 4305.

Western Australia

Area 1 -Thomas Edgar, P.O. Box 168, Broome, W.A. 6725.

Area 2-July Oakes, 783 Barantonia Street, Kununurra. W.A. 6743. Tel. Contact Jane Burridge, Kun. 8 1012.

Area 3-Herbert Parker, Community Centre, P.O. Box 8. Onslow, W.A. 67 10.

Area 4- Phillip Allen Counciller, 37 Morgan Way. Carnarvon, W.A. 6701. Tel. 41 1244.

Area 5-Benjamin Mason, 6 Addis Street, Kalgoorlie. W.A. 6430.

Area 6-Keith Riley, Kellerberrin, W.A. 6410. Tel. 123 (Mon.-Fri.).

Area 7- Ossie Miller, 74 North Wood Street, Narrogin, W.A.6312.

Area 8- Edward James Bennell, 188 Third Avenue. Kelmscott, W.A. 61 11.

Northern Territory

Area 1 -Walter Allan Fejo, c/o P.O., Batchelor, N.T. 5791.

Area 2-John Gwadbu, Goulburn Island, N.T.

Area 3-Alfred Wuyatiwuy, Galiwinku, Elcho Island, N.T.

Area 4- Mick Rangiari, c/o Libonangu Council, Wave Hill Centre, via Katherine, N.T. 5780.

Area 5- Jack Isaac, Borroloola, N.T. 5772.

Area 6- David Long, Warrabri, N.T.

Area 7-Milton Liddle, 20 Mills Street, Alice Springs. N.T. 5750.

Area 8- Phillip J. Lane, Papunya, via Alice Springs. N.T. 5750.

The total cost of maintaining NACC electorate offices in 1975 was $202,629.

Grants to Aboriginal Organisations (Question No. 622)

Senator Keeffe:

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

What various grants have been made to Aboriginal organisations over the past 4 years and what were the exact amounts allocated to each organisation annually and quarterly.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

The information sought by the honourable senator in respect of annual allocations made to Aboriginal organisations in the past 4 years is available as follows: financial years 1972-73 and 1973-74: Second Reading Speeches in respect of States Grants (Aboriginal Advancement) Bills given in the Senate on 7 March 1973 and 1 1 October 1973 respectively. financial years 1974-75 and 1975-76: for technical reasons, the details requested were not included in the Second Reading Speeches in respect of the States Grants (Aboriginal Assistance) Bills for these years, but the information was tabled in the Senate and is available in the Parliamentary Library.

The honourable senator is also referred to the annual reports of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs for any additional information in this regard.

The work involved in providing details of quarterly payments to Aboriginal organisations is considerable and I do not propose to direct my Department to undertake this task. 1 will, however, consider any request from the honourable senator for information in respect of specific organisations.

National Aboriginal Consultative Committee (Question No. 632)

Senator Colston:

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

What is the estimated cost to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs of providing administrative services to the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee each year.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

Direct staff costs to operate the Department’s Secretariat Section, which provides, among other duties, the Secretariat services for the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee total approximately $70,000 per annum.

General administrative services provided to the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee in addition to those provided by the Secretariat Section are not separated from the Department’s general administrative work and it is therefore not possible to cost these services.

Aboriginal Hostels Limited (Question No. 638)

Senator Colston:

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

  1. 1 ) Are any employees of Aboriginal Hostels Limited in Queensland provided with rent-free accommodation, as has been claimed in the January 1976 edition of the newsletter Aboriginal and Islander Forum; if so, what is the salary and entitlements of each of the employees concerned.
  2. 2 ) What is the total annual cost of providing rent-free accommodation to employees of Aboriginal Hostels Limited in each state of Australia, and the Northern Territory.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. I ) The following employees of Aboriginal Hostels Limited in Queensland receive rent-free accommodation as part of their conditions of service with the Company. Any family of the persons below are required to pay the Company tariff for accommodation.

There are no other special entitlements to the other positions.

  1. As part of the total remuneration package it is Aboriginal Hostels Limited policy in common with some other hostel organisations to provide rent-free accommodation to all its hostel managers/house parents. Other employees living in hostels are required to pay the respective State or Territory award tariff. The current total annual cost to the Company to provide rent-free accommodation under this policy in each State or Territory of Australia is as follows:

Gifted Children (Question No. 641)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

  1. Was Australia represented at the First World Conference on Gifted Children held in London in 1975: if so, what representation did Australia have at the Conference.
  2. Did any Australian Delegation to the Conference subsequently make any recommendations to the Australian Government: if so, have any of those recommendations been accepted by the Government, and which of them have been put into effect.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. The First World Conference on Gifted Children held in London in 1975, was attended by the Counsellor (Education) of the Australian High Commission, London and a senior officer of the Schools Commission. A number of other Australians from all States except Western Australia attended the conference for varying periods of time as private individuals.
  2. A summary of the conference was received by the Department of Education from the Counsellor (Education) til’ the Australian High Commission, London and the Schools Commission’s officer prepared a report for the Commission which included a number of recommendations. The Schools Commission is presently preparing its report to cover the period 1977-79 for the Government and will be considering all aspects of primary and secondary education, including the education of students with special aptitudes and talents.

Wannon: Unemployment (Question No. 647)

Senator Primmer:

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

Can the Minister supply the registered unemployment figures for the Electorate of Wannon over the past 3 years, including the number of unemployed in each town and the occupation of the same.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

Statistics of unemployed persons registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service are normally compiled according to individual Employment Office areas. They are not usually available in respect of parliamentary electorates. However, in connection with the Regional Employment Development Scheme, statistics of registered unemployed were compiled according to local government areas from September 1974 to February 1976. The relevant statistics for the period in respect of local government areas in the Electorate of Wannon are shown in the following table. No information was collected, however, in respect of the occupations of such persons in each locality.

National Aboriginal Consultative Committee (Question No. 662)

Senator Ryan:

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

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister established an inquiry to investigate the role of the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee, as he promised recently; if so, what is the estimated total cost of this review.
  2. How many people are or will be involved, and what are their salaries and/or sitting fees.
  3. 3 ) What are the estimated administrative expenses.
  4. What are the total estimated travel costs and allowances.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. The estimated total cost of the review is $ 127,000.
  2. The Committee comprises four members. Sitting fees are those prescribed by the Remuneration Tribunal for short-term committees, that is: Chairman of Committee $70 per silting day. Members of Committees $60 per sitting day.
  3. Estimated administrative costs are $87,000.
  4. Total estimated travel costs and allowances, including sitting fees are $40,000.

Gladstone -Industrial Estates (Question No. 666)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Have 1200 hectares of land in the Gladstone area been set aside as an industrial estate for the development of noxious industries under the control of the Queensland Department of Industrial Development; if so, is the Minister aware that the Department has refused three industries, sawmilling, chrome plating and asphalt production, part of this industrial zoned land, and as a result of that decision at least one of these industries will have to leave the area if the land remains unavailable.
  2. Will the Minister persuade the Queensland Government to have land made available for the industries listed as they offer job opportunities in a high unemployment area.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) There are two industrial estates in Gladstone. The Toolooa estate and the Clinton estate, are administered by the Queensland Department of Commercial and Industrial Development. The honourable senator will appreciate that the operation of these estates is a matter for the appropriate State and local government authorities and as such falls outside the sphere of direct Commonwealth responsibility.

I understand that the Gladstone City Council is anxious to avoid noxious industries on the Toolooa estate while the Clinton estate is primarily designed for large scale industries requiring heavy power inputs and sea board facilities. The industries to which the honourable senator has drawn attention do not fall within either of the latter two categories. However, I am advised that the Department of Commercial and Industrial Development has the question of finding suitable locations for these industries under active consideration and will be discussing the matter further with all the parties involved.

Australian Meat Board (Question No. 689)

Senator Colston:

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

  1. 1 ) Has the Queensland Minister for Primary Industries, Mr Sullivan, made an official request on behalf of the Queensland Government for the reconstruction and reorganisation of the Australian Meat Board.
  2. If the answer to ( 1 ) is in the affirmative (a) what was the request made, and what form did it take (b) what suggestions has the Queensland Government made concerning (i) the future structure of the Australian Meat Board and (ii) the powers of the Board, particularly with relation to export contracts; and (c) what response, if any, has been given to the Queensland Minister’s representations.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Queensland Minister for Primary Industries, Mr Sullivan, has advised me of recommendations made by the Queensland Beef Industry Committee for changes in the structure and powers of the Australian Meat Board. The Committee was established by the Queensland Government which has endorsed the Committee’s recommendations.
  2. (a) See (1) above

    1. b ) The Queensland Government is seeking:
    2. A reconstruction of the Australian Meat Board as the Australian Meat Marketing Authority to provide for a membership consisting of:

An independent chairman appointed by the Minister for Primary Industry

Eight ( 8 ) representatives of beef cattle and sheep producers on the basis of two each from New South Wales, Victoria, and Queensland; one representing Western Australia, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory; one representing South Australia and Tasmania: Provided that at least one of the representatives from each New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland shall be a specialist beef producer.

Two (2) with special qualifications- one with marketing expertise from the Department of Primary Industry and the second with experience and expertise in merchandising in private industry.

In addition, the federal bodies of both the Meat Exporters’ Association and the Meat and Allied

Trades Federation be invited to nominate accredited delegates whose services would bc available to the Authority in an advisor)’ capacity as required.

  1. Extension of the powers and functions of the reconstituted Australian Meat Board to provide: That the Australian Meat Marketing Authority may negotiate any export contract for meat with any country where appropriate; and may directly negotiate with other Governments or their instrumentalities, particularly with Japan, or private importers, when considered applicable. That the Authority shall approve the grades and classifications of meat which may be supplied to any country or against any export contract and the minimum prices at which such meat may be supplied to such country or against such export contract.

    1. I have informed Mr Sullivan that I presently have this matter under consideration and will certainly bear in mind Queensland’s request, and that when I have firmed up my own thinking on the various proposals which have been put to me, I plan to seek reaction from industry. At that time 1 would also be pleased to have further comments from the Queensland Government.

Posting of Package (Question No. 727)

Senator Cavanagh:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

  1. Did the Commonwealth Police Force discontinue inquiries when informed that a parcel sent through the post and addressed to the Brisbane Sunday Sun, referred to in answer to Senate Question No. 164, had been posted to test the system.
  2. Was any inquiry made as to who addressed the package.
  3. ) Why was the name of the person who posted the package not ascertained, and person interviewed, so as to determine whether such person had previously posted similar packages.
  4. Was the Chief of Staff of the Brisbane Sunday Sun, at the time of posting of both of the package and the third letter bomb, in Sydney.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. In conversation with the Chairman of the Australian Postal Commission, the Editor of the Sunday Sun, Mr Ron Richards, said that the letter had been prepared and posted on behalf of the newspaper to test the effectiveness of the postal system in detecting suspect packages. From inquiries made, the Police are satisfied that this incident is unconnected with the sending of three ‘live’ letter bombs. There was no offence under State or Commonwealth law.
  4. It is not known to the Commonwealth Police if the Chief of Staff of the Brisbane Sunday Sun was in Sydney when both the letter and the third letter bomb were posted.

Ministerial Staffs (Question No. 728)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

In relation to replies to Questions 2SS to 273 and Questions 79 to 84,

what alterations have occurred since those questions were answered in relation to each sub-section of those questions,

were electoral staff, for example, secretaries and research officers, included in the answers to the questions, and

if the answer to ( b) is in the negative, would the Minister provide details of such staff in a similar way as was done in the answers previously given.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. I am not prepared to update these details at intervals of less than six months.
  2. and (c) Electorate Assistants (research officers) were not included in the answers to Questions 255 to 273 and Questions 79 to 84. These positions were approved in February 1975 to assist senators and members. They are not part of a Minister’s personal staff establishment.

Electorate Secretaries are not strictly ministerial staff but for completeness they were included in the answer to Questions 79 to 84. As they were inadvertently omitted from the answer to Questions 255 to 273 the relevant details are now listed in the table below.

Australian Meat Board (Question No. 749)

Senator Colston:

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

Did the Australian Wool and Meat Producers’ Federation carry a motion at its recent meeting in Adelaide calling on the Minister to advertise the position of Chairman of the Australian Meat Board, rather than appoint the Chairman as has been done in the past: if so, is the Federation’s request under consideration, and when will a decision on the request be made.

Senator Cotton:
LP

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

I have received no advice from the Federation on this matter.

Airport Amenities (Question No. 774)

Senator Sibraa:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

  1. 1 ) Which companies, private or public, at present hold concessions for the operation of snack bars and other amenities at Australia’s international airports.
  2. What were the profits made by those organisations as a result of those operations in the financial year ended 30 June 1975.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The information sought by the honourable senator is being obtained from the Department’s respective Regional Offices and will be conveyed to him by letter as soon as it is received.

Social Service Benefits: Investigating Officers (Question No. 775)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many officers of the Department of Social Security have been permanently or temporarily appointed as field officers to investigate recipients of unemployment benefits.
  2. How many officers work on investigations of other social service beneficiaries.
  3. Are these their sole duties, or are they also engaged in the other work of the Department.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Of the 205 field officers employed by the Department at the present time, 84 officers are employed on routine inquiries associated solely with unemployment beneficiaries.
  2. The remaining 121 field officers are employed mainly on routine inquiries associated with other social service beneficiaries.
  3. Field officers are engaged on a wide range of field duties but mainly on duties involving obtaining information in connection with claims, from persons unable to attend before a Pensions Officer, the verification and ascertaining of information concerning earnings and circumstances generally, the valuation of properties and the locating of persons concerned.

Trade Practices Commission (Question No. 781)

Senator Coleman:

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

  1. 1 ) Have any actions been taken by the Trade Practices Commission under section 50 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 in (a) Victoria, (b) South Australia, (c) Tasmania, (d) Queensland, (e) New South Wales and (f) the Australian Capital Territory; if so, what were the outcome of such actions.
  2. How many complaints have been received by the Commission in each of these States and the Territory.
  3. Will the Minister provide a breakdown of complaints received by the Commission in each area.
  4. Is a legal officer attached to the Commission in each area.
  5. Have there been any prosecutions under the Trade Practices Act in each of these States and the Territory; if so, what was the nature of, and outcome of, such prosecutions.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) No action has yet been taken by the Trade Practices Commission in the Australian Industrial Court for alleged contraventions of section 50 of the Trade Practices Act 1 974.
  2. Between the date of commencement of the Act, 1 October 1974 and 31 May 1976, the following numbers of formal complaints have been received by officers of the

Trade Practices Commission located in the States and Territory referred to by the honourable senator

  1. The following table shows the break-up of the complaints referred to in (2) above:
  1. Legal professional services in relation to all legal proceedings except consumer protection prosecutions are provided to the Trade Practices Commission by the Crown Solicitor’s Trade Practices Sub-Office in Canberra. Consumer Protection prosecutions are referred to the Commonwealth Deputy Crown Solicitor’s Office in the State or Territory where the contravention occurred.
  2. The following prosecutions (in each case showing the nature and outcome of the matter) have been instituted by the Trade Practices Commission:

    1. Victoria

Mazda Motor Sales Pty Ltd- section 53 (c)- pending Southern Motors Pty Limited -section 53(a)- pending

  1. South Australia

No prosecution

  1. Tasmania

Spare Parts and Reconditioning Co. Pty Limitedsection 53 (a)- fined $500 plus costs

  1. Queensland

Sperry Rand (Aust.) Limited-section 53 (6)- fined $2,000

C.L.M. Holdings Pty Limited and Others-section 53(a)- pending

Metro Ford Pty Ltd and Others-section 53(e)- pending

  1. New South Wales

John R. Lewis (International) Pty Ltd and Phillip Robert Spanton-Section 64(3)- each defendant fined $2,500

Optional Extras Pty Ltd-section 53 (c)- fined $500 C. V. Holland Pty Ltd-section 53 ( a )-pending

  1. f) Australian Capital Territory

No prosecution

The following prosecution was instituted by the AttorneyGeneral:

New South Wales

Sharp Corporation of Australia Pty Ltdsection 53(c)-fines of $10,000 in respect of each of 10 charges plus costs

No other person has instituted a prosecution to date.

East Timor -Self Determination (Question No. 791)

Senator Wheeldon:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

Can the Minister explain how the contents of the following letter dated 1 June 1976 from the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs can be understood in the light of the Government’s decision made before the date of the letter to refuse to be represented at the recent ceremonies in Dili relating to the incorporation of East Timor into the Republic of Indonesia: 1 June 1976

Dear Senator Wheeldon,

I refer to the question which you directed to the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs on 19 May 1976:

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.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs has supplied the following answer to your question:

The ‘Provisional Government of East Timor’ has outlined the procedures they envisage for a process of self determination in East Timor. These are to entail the formation of a Peoples Assembly to be made up of representatives from each of East Timor’s thirteen administrative districts. It is understood that the nomination of representatives has begun and that the Assembly will meet in Dili within the next few weeks. According to the statement delivered by the representative of the ‘PGET’ to the United Nations Security Council on 12 April, the Assembly will be charged with determining the future political status of East Timor. Further elaboration has been provided by another ‘PGET’ representative, Mr Mario Carrascalao, at a press conference in Jakarta on 4 May. He indicated that, were the decision of the Peoples Assembly to favour integration with Indonesia, that decision, in the form of a petition, would be conveyed to the Indonesian Government and Parliament.

The procedures outlined by the ‘PGET’ have been generally confirmed by Indonesian officials. They have also stated that, in the event that a petition seeking integration is received, the Indonesian Parliament and Government would still need to conduct their own investigations amongst the people of East Timor to ascertain their wishes.

Both the Indonesian Government and the ‘PGET’ have stated their wish for United Nations participation in the process of self determination. It is understood that invitations have been or are soon to be conveyed to the United Nations Secretary-General’s special representative (Mr

Winspeare-Guicciardi) and to the United Nations Decolonisation Committee for this purpose.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

In a reply to a question without notice on 19 May the Minister for Foreign Affairs advised that the Indonesian Government and the ‘PGET’ had stated their wish for United Nations participation in the process of self determination in East Timor.

The Government is informed that a PGET delegation discussed the question of attendance at the Dili meeting of the people’ assembly’ by the United Nations Special Representative during a call on the United Nations Under SecretaryGeneral for Political Affairs on 26 May. We have no information of what response, if any, was conveyed by the United Nations Secretariat to the PGET delegation.

An invitation to attend the meeting in Dili was conveyed to the Acting Chairman of the Committee of Twenty-Four by the PGET delegation on 24 May. The Chairman of the Committee of Twenty-Four responded in a Note handed to the PGET delegation on 28 May. This response was to the effect that since the Committee of Twenty-Four had not been involved in the proceedings leading up to the announced meeting of the people’s assembly the Committee was not ‘in a position to dispatch a mission to attend that meeting’.

On 1 June, in answer to a question without notice in another place, the Minister for Foreign Affairs noted that no indication had been forthcoming from the United Nations that it would be involved in the meeting in East Timor and that accordingly the Government had ‘decided that it would be appropriate for us not to attend ‘.

Interest on Tax Refunds

Senator Cotton:
LP

-On 27 May 1976 Senator Townley addressed to me as Minister representing the Treasurer in the Senate a question without notice in which it was suggested that interest should be paid on taxation refunds. I undertook to refer the matter to the Treasurer who has provided the following answer:

Interest has never been paid on taxation refunds, whether made to PA YE taxpayers or other categories of taxpayer. The Government is not considering changing that situation.

Solar Energy

Senator Cotton:
LP

-On 20 May 1976 Senator Jessop addressed to me as Minister representing the Treasurer in the Senate a question without notice in which he suggested the granting of sales tax and/or income tax concessions to encourage the domestic and industrial use of solar heaters. I undertook to refer the matter to the Treasurer who has supplied the following answer:

Taxation concessions of the kind referred to by the honourable senator already exist.

Thus, as regards sales tax, solar water heaters of a kind installed as fixtures in houses already qualify for exemption, the exemption applying to the solar heating panels attached to the house exterior as well as to the components located within the house. Other solar heaters, including those of a kind used for industrial purposes, attract tax at15 per cent although in certain circumstances solar heaters used by manufacturers could qualify for exemption as being embraced by the definition of ‘aids to manufacture’ in the sales tax law.

On the income tax side, depreciation at the appropriate rate is allowable in respect of solar heaters installed in premises used for the purposes of producing assessable income. Again, subject to the relevant conditions being satisfied, such units could also attract the new investment allowance.

Whether the law should be amended to extend the scope of those concessions raises a number of issues. For one thing, energy is not the only resource that might be seen in need of conservation. Again, if there is a cost saving to be achieved by installing solar heaters, that might be thought a sufficient incentive in itself. But my immediate concern is with the budgetary implications of any such amendments.

I have noted the honourable senator’s suggestion and will bear it in mind during the forthcoming budgetary preparations.

Australian Broadcasting Commission

Senator Carrick:
LP

-On 19 May 1976 Senator Button asked the Minister for Post and Telecommunications the following question, without notice:

Is it a 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.’

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

No.

Mortgage Interest Payments Tax Deduction

Senator Cotton:
LP

– On 8 April 1976, Senator Donald Cameron sought from me as Minister representing the Treasurer in the Senate certain information in relation to the changes proposed to the home loan interest tax deduction scheme. I observed at the time that the same question had been raised that day in another place and undertook to obtain for the honourable senator the same reply. The Treasurer has supplied the following response, based on the reply he gave in another place on 8 April:

I cannot understand the crocodile tears wept by members of the Opposition over the Government’s recent package in relation to those people seeking homes and those who have homes and are paying interest at the present time. As the Prime Minister has made perfectly clear, the package which was recently brought down by the Minister for Environment. Housing and Community Development is one which commends itself to the Australian electorate because of the overall benefits it provides. For the Opposition to raise the question of housing reminds me that as a consequence of its policies when in government, because of inflation, because of industrial unrest in the housing industry generally, because of the totality of the Australian Labor Party’s policies in the housing field, this country increasingly became one of rentpayers, not home purchasers, and that is the simple fact. The former Government was discredited not least because of its housing policy. If one seeks projections, one obviously docs so against the background of historical facts. I simply say to the Opposition that they sold out the home building industry in this country, and they know it. They have no credibility on this subject. I reaffirm what the Prime Minister has said: The package which the Government has brought down is an attractive one for the home building industry. It will assist persons purchasing their own homes, and I believe that it has been well accepted by the great majority of Australians.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 4 June 1976, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1976/19760604_senate_30_s68/>.