Senate
19 August 1976

30th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 30th Parliament
  3. 1976

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Condor Laucke) took the chair at 11 a.m., and read prayers.

page 171

PETITIONS

Family Planning

Senator COLEMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 985 citizens of Australia:

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

That the Family Planning Association and similar organizations throughout Australia contribute to the welfare and well-being of a great proportion of the Australian people both in family planning and in an advisory capacity on the prevention and control of social diseases.

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Medibank

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 58 citizens of Australia:

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

The proposed legislation amending the Health Insurance Act 1973-75 leaves Medibank contributors disadvantaged with regard to cover for hospital treatment.

Your petitioners humbly pray that the proposed legislation be amended to allow Medibank to compete on equal terms with the private health insurance organisations.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Medibank

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 96 citizens of Australia:

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

That Medibank has proved to be the cheapest and most efficient means of bringing health care to Australian citizens and that the citizens of Australia have received Medibank as a great and valued social reform.

That Medibank has proved itself to be a far superior system of health care than was offered by the private funds prior to July 1975.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will observe the promise made by the Prime Minister in his policy speech that ‘We will maintain Medibank and ensure the standard of health care does not decline’.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Metric System

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 24 citizens of Australia:

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

Objection to the Metric system and request the Government to restore the Imperial system.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Australian Heritage Commission

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 1 1 citizens of Australia:

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

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

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

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

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Social Security Matters

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 1 1 citizens of Australia:

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

That distress is being caused to social security recipients by the delay in adjusting pensions to the Consumer Price Index months after goods and services have risen, and that many medications, formerly a pharmaceutical benefit, must now be paid for.

In addition, State Housing Authority waiting lists for low rental dwellings for pensioners become never less, and funeral costs increase ever greater.

Your petitioners call on the Australian Government as a matter of urgency to:

Adjust social security payments instantly and automatically on announcement of increases in the quarterly Consumer Price Index.

Restore pharmaceutical benefits deleted from the free list.

The State Grants (Dwellings for Pensioners) Act 1974, eroded by inflation, be updated and increased to overcome the back-log.

The funeral benefit be updated to 60 per cent of a reasonable funeral cost. This benefit, when introduced in 1943 at 200 shillings ($20.00), was seven times the pension at that time of 27 shillings ($2.70) per week, or more than twice the basic wage of 97 shillings ($9.70).

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Social Security Matters

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

-I present the following petition from 327 citizens of Australia:

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

That distress is being caused to social security recipients by the delay in adjusting pensions to the Consumer Price Index months after goods and services have risen, and that many medications, formerly a pharmaceutical benefit, must now be paid for.

In addition, State Housing Authority waiting lists for low rental dwellings for pensioners become never less, and funeral costs increase ever greater.

Your petitioners call on the Australian Government as a matter of urgency to:

Adjust social security payments instantly and automatically on announcement of increases in the quarterly Consumer Price Index.

Restore pharmaceutical benefits deleted from the free list.

The States Grants (Dwellings for Pensioners) Act 1974, eroded by inflation, be updated and increased to overcome the back-log.

The funeral benefit be updated to 60 per cent of a reasonable funeral cost. This benefit, when introduced in 1943 at 200 shillings ($20.00), was seven times the pension at that time of 27 shillings ($2.70) per week, or more than twice the basic wage of 97 shillings ($9.70).

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Lauriston Centre

Senator COLSTON:
QUEENSLAND

-I present the following petition from 193 citizens of Australia:

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

That the removal of the grant of $173,000 from the Lauriston Centre for the sick aged is totally unjustified.

That the removal of the grant will cause unnecessary hardship to those Citizens of Australia resident there.

That the removal of the grant will cause unnecessary unemployment in the area.

That the decision to remove the grant is a ruthless political one taken without due consideration for the lives and welfare of those citizens dependent upon the care provided at the Lauriston Centre.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That the Government should reconsider its decision to cut the budget of the Centre, and immediately restore the grant to enable the Centre to continue its high standard of dedicated and unselfish care for the aged and infirm in the community.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Social Security Matters

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 269 citizens of Australia:

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

That distress is being caused to social security recipients by the delay in adjusting pensions to the Consumer Price Index months after goods and services have risen, and that many medications, formerly a pharmaceutical benefit, must now be paid for.

In addition, State Housing Authority waiting lists for low rental dwellings for pensioners become never less, and funeral costs increase ever greater.

Your petitioners call on the Australian Government as a matter of urgency to:

Adjust social security payments instantly and automatically on announcement of increases in the quarterly Consumer Price Index.

Restore pharmaceutical benefits deleted from the free list.

The States Grants (Dwellings for Pensioners) Act 1974, eroded by inflation, be updated and increased to overcome the back-log.

The funeral benefit be updated to 60 per cent of a reasonable funeral cost. This benefit, when introduced in 1943 at 200 shillings ($20.00), was seven times the pension at that time of 27 shillings ($2.70) per week, or more than twice the basic wage of 97 shillings ($9.70).

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Family Planning

Senator MELZER:

– I present a petition from 1 80 citizens of Australia:

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

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Australian Broadcasting Commission

Senator MELZER:

– I present the following petition from 49 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate, in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government:

Subscribe to the view that the Australian Broadcasting Commission belongs to the people and not to the government of the day whatever political party.

Eschew all means, direct or indirect, of diminishing the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Commission.

Reject all proposals for the introduction of advertising into ABC programs.

Develop methods for publicly funding the Commission which will prevent the granting or withholding of funds being used as a method of diminishing its independence.

Ensure that any general enquiries into broadcasting in Australia which may seem desirable from time to time shall be conducted publicly and that strong representation of the public shall be included within the body conducting the enquiry.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Social Security Matters

Senator PRIMMER:

– I present the following petition from 3 1 4 citizens of Australia:

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

That distress is being caused to social security recipients by the delay in adjusting pensions to the Consumer Price Index months after goods and services have risen, and that many medications, formerly a pharmaceutical benefit, must now be paid for.

In addition, State Housing Authority waiting lists for low rental dwellings for pensioners become never less, and funeral costs increase even greater.

Your petitioners call on the Australian Government as a matter of urgency to:

Adjust social security payments instantly and automatically on announcement of increases in the quarterly Consumer Price Index.

Restore pharmaceutical benefits deleted from the free list.

The States Grants (Dwellings for Pensioners) Act 1974, eroded by inflation, be updated and increased to overcome the back-log.

The funeral benefit be updated to 60 per cent of a reasonable funeral cost. This benefit when introduced in 1 943 at 200 shillings ($20.00), was seven times the pension at that time of 27 shillings ($2.70), per week or more than twice the basic wage of 97 shillings ($9.70).

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Medibank

Senator PRIMMER:

– I present the following petition from 47 citizens of Australia:

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

That Medibank has proved to be the cheapest and most efficient means of bringing health care to Australian citizens and that the citizens of Australia have received Medibank as a great and valued social reform. That Medibank has proved itself to be a far superior system of health care than was offered by the private funds prior to July 1973.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will observe the promise made by the Prime Minister in his policy speech that ‘We will maintain Medibank and ensure the standard of health care does not decline ‘.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

St Luke’s Hospital

Senator COLSTON:

-I present the following petition from 33 citizens of Australia:

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

That there is a great concern and alarm of the removal of some Government support for St Luke’s Hospital, Garden Settlement and for other institutions providing care for the aged within Queensland.

That the removal of grants is causing unnecessary hardship to those aged citizens of Australia who are dependent upon continued care and accommodation.

That the removal of grants has caused unnecessary unemployment and hardship for those who were previously employed in duties caring for the aged in those centres where reduction in grants have been made.

That the aged, and others within Australian Society who are least able to defend themselves against the arbitrary acts of Governments should be spared from these unnecessary cuts.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That the Government should reconsider its decision to cut the budgets of these institutions and immediately restore the grants to enable these institutions to continue their high standard of dedicated and unselfish care for the aged and infirm in the community.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Medibank

Senator COLSTON:

-I present the following petition from 524 citizens of Queensland:

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

That Medibank was established to bring to every Australian the opportunity to attend the doctor of his or her own choice and to provide hospital insurance to all Australian’s irrespective of their means:

That Medibank provides substantial financial assistance to the free hospital system in Queensland which has never been given under any previous government;

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should ensure that the agreements entered into between the Commonwealth and the State of Queensland should be maintained and that Medibank should not be so altered either in cost or complexity so that it may no longer be available to all people of Australia as a universal health insurance scheme.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Cow’s Milk Substitutes

Senator COLSTON:

-I present the following petition from 455 citizens of Australia:

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

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

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

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Medibank

Senator COLEMAN:

– I present the following petition from 27 citizens of Australia:

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

That we deplore the confusion generated by the Government’s proposals to radically modify the system of health insurance in Australia;

That we believe the changes will destroy the concept . of universality previously incorporated in Medibank;

That the Government’s actions will lead to a two-class system of health care and thereby creating a division in Australian society;

That the unnecessary duplication of health insurance funds created by Medibank and private organisations both operating will lead to gross administrative inefficiency, waste and increased costs.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government retain at least the original Medibank scheme.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Australian Heritage Commission

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

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

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

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

That technical assistance grants and administrative support grants to community organisations are needed to partially redress the gross imbalance in technical expertise and resources suffered by community groups in pressing the community’s case against the exploiter.That a proper balance between the Government programme of public austerity and the need for action in conservation would be a modest increase in the budget allocations in these areas over that of 1975-76.

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

Petition received.

Pensions

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 those who have retired and those who are about to retire, are being severely and adversely affected by inflation and Australian economic circumstances.

The continuance of the means test on pensions causes undue hardship to them.

We call on the Government to immediately abolish the means test on all aged pensions.

To ensure a pension for all on retirement, and a guarantee that all Australian citizens will retire with dignity.

Acknowledge that a pension is a: Right and not a Charity.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sim and Senator Withers.

Petition received.

Nursing Homes

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

The purpose of this petition is to bring to your notice the mounting financial burden being thrust upon patients and/or relatives of nursing home patients.

Fee levels are controlled by the Government but increases in Government subsidies have not been sufficient to cover the spiralling fees in nursing homes.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should take immediate steps to apply a major increase in patient subsidies.

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

Petition received.

Social Security Matters

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

That distress is being caused to social security recipients by the delay in adjusting pensions to the Consumer Price Index months after goods and services have risen, and that many medications, formerly a pharmaceutical benefit, must now be paid for.

In addition, State Housing Authority waiting lists for low rental dwellings for pensioners become never less, and funeral costs increase ever greater.

Your petitioners call on the Australian Government as a matter of urgency to:

Adjust social security payments instantly and automatically on announcement of increases in the quarterly Consumer Price Index.

Restore pharmaceutical benefits deleted from the free list.

The State Grants (Dwellings for Pensioners) Act 1974, eroded by inflation, be updated and increased to overcome the back-log.

The funeral benefit be updated to 60 per cent of a reasonable funeral cost. This benefit, when introduced in 1943 at 200 shillings ($20.00), was seven times the pension at that time of 27 shillings ($2.70) per week, or more than twice the basic wage of 97 shillings ($9.70).

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Missen (2 petitions).

Petitions received.

page 175

AUSTRALIAN ASSISTANCE PLAN

Notice of Motion

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

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

That the Senate is of the opinion that the Government should introduce legislation to provide for the statutory establishment and funding of the Australian Assistance Plan.

page 175

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 175

QUESTION

FEDERALISM

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

-Does the Minister assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs recall a question asked by Senator Walsh on 27 April in which he asked whether the federalism policy of the Government meant a more generous financial deal for the States than existed under the previous Labor Government? Does the Minister recall answering with an unqualified ‘Yes’ and adding the words ‘The arrangements under federalism will be more generous for the States’ and then repeating that assertion on the following day? In view of the fact that the Budget now reveals that total payments to the States will increase by less than 9 per cent- 13 per cent, of course, according to the Treasurer’s hypothetical figures- does the Minister still claim that in the next 2 years payments to the States will have increased sufficiently to maintain the increase in total payments which occurred in the 3 years 1972 to 1975?

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

– Yes, I recall the question. Indeed, I re-read the question and answer recently. The Budget reveals that stage 1 of revenue sharing under the federalism policy will provide the States with substantially more money at both the State level and the local government level than the Whitlam Government provided.

The facts are that stage 1 revenue sharing for the States provides a guarantee that for the next 4 years the States can never get less than the Whitlam Government’s new formula, including the 3 per cent betterment tax, would have provided. It so happens that on the formula of 33.6 per cent the States will get approximately $8 9m more in revenue sharing this year than they would have got under the Whitlam Government. That is an unqualified fact, and the amount will escalate as the years pass. Next year and in the years afterwards, as revenue from income tax increases, as productivity grows, so the States will continue to grow. For the first time, they will grow at the same rate as the Commonwealth and they will therefore have expanded revenues. As to local government, the facts speak for themselves. This year local government will get $140m in untied grants, compared with $79.9m last year. That is an increase of 75 per cent. The answer therefore is that the statements I made in reply to the April question have been proven, both in the Budget and at the Premiers Conferences, to be fundamentally correct.

Senator WRIEDT:

-I wish to ask a supplementary question. Again I draw to the attention of the Minister the fact that I am referring to total payments to the States. I am not talking about one sector- general grants- as I think the Minister realises. I ask him to answer the question on the basis of total payments.

Senator CARRICK:

– The question asked of me in April related to the federalism policies that were discussed at the Premiers Conference and, as such, it was answered specifically. I invite the honourable senator to look at the relevant Hansard. I will now direct myself to the total payments to the States. This year the total payments to the States will enable the States to increase their overall revenues by more than the erosion of inflation.

Senator Wriedt:

– Answer the question.

Senator CARRICK:

-I can fully understand the irritation of the honourable senator, who yesterday tried a stunt and fell on his face and now does not want to hear the unpleasant facts. The simple fact of the matter is that the Commonwealth, having itself initiated major economies to set the lead in the public sector of the economy, nevertheless has been extremely generous to the States. In total, the States will have substantially more funds this year than last year, quite apart from their federalism content of revenue sharing and local government finance. Allowing for inflation, which happily is falling, they will in fact be able to expand their programs and not contract them. That takes into account all programs. It takes into account revenue sharing for the States, and for local government, the borrowing programs at government and semigovernment levels, and the moneys that go back to the States in specific purpose grants. That is quite unqualified. The fact is that, on the figures in the Budget, the States will get more money in real terms than they got last year under the Whitlam Government, and of course that is very unpleasant news for the Whitlam Party.

page 176

QUESTION

FEDERALISM

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs whether the drift of policy of Senator Wriedt ‘s Party was wholly to extinguish the States, and whether that policy came from a Prime Minister who said that the only function of State parliamentarians was to abolish themselves. What accounts for this new-found interest in State prosperity?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-It is a fact, documented in many written addresses by the former Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, that the stated policy of the Leader of the Federal Labor Party and his colleagues is to destroy the States. In fact, this has never been denied. When I was at the Federal Anniversary Seminar on the Constitution held at the University of Melbourne I stated these things when Mr Whitlam and his colleagues were present. Mr Whitlam made no alteration to what was said when I recited what had been his policies and invited a rebuttal of those policies from him. The simple fact of the matter is that the Federal Labor Party set out to destroy the States. Mr Whitlam, in his statements to the local government authorities, said that he wanted to abolish the States. He said he wanted to amalgamate the 900 local government bodies into some 60 or 70 regions subservient to Canberra.

Mr Whitlam said that his blueprint for the Australian Labor Party was the abolition of the Senate, the destruction of the States and the amalgamation of local government so that there would be one Australian House of Representatives with no check or balance on it and, in fact, with local government totally responsive to the government in power. Now, for the Labor Party suddenly to discover the States is tantamount to Satan rebuking sin. During the Labor Party’s 3 years of office the specific purpose grants- the tied grants- to the States moved from 3 1 per cent in 1 972 to over 52 per cent in 1 975, proof that the Federal Labor Party wanted to strangle the States and make them puppets of a Federal Labor government.

page 176

QUESTION

PAYMENTS TO THE STATES

Senator WRIEDT:

-Now that Senator Carrick and Senator Wright have had their little bit of rhetoric, we will look at the facts. I direct this question to Senator Carrick, the Minister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs. Will he confirm or deny the figures that I shall now read from page 6 of Budget Paper No. 7? Will he confirm that total payments to the States under the Labor Governmentnot a new-found interest but a demonstrated, real interest- in 1973-74 increased by 21 per cent? Does he deny that those total payments increased by 53 per cent in the second year of the Labor Government’s term, that they increased by 32 per cent in the third year and that this year- the first year of the so-called federalism policy- according to Mr Lynch, they increased by 7 per cent? Does he agree with those figures?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I do not have the figures for the various years before me. I will have a look at them. My understanding, quite clearly, from a statement in the Budget Papers is that the payments to the States all told this year, which I think amount to $9,077m, represents an increase over the payments made last year of approximately 1 3 per cent. I will look at the figures that the honourable senator has suggested and I will have the Treasurer supply a written answer to -

Senator Keeffe:

– Next year.

Senator CARRICK:

-Unlike the Australian Labor Party, which left questions upon notice stand on the notice paper for years, I am happy to inform the honourable senator that all the old questions upon notice from the previous session which were directed to me have been discharged. The honourable senator probably will be unhappy to know that I will obtain an early reply to his question.

page 176

QUESTION

REPATRIATION PATIENTS

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister for Repatriation aware that the policy announced on 20 May 1976 concerning the admission of repatriation patients to non-repatriation hospitals which applies mainly in country areas is causing many problems in its application and has created widespread concern among veterans and veterans’ organisations? Will he give urgent consideration to these problems?

Senator DURACK:
Minister for Repatriation · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I am aware of the problems in this area mentioned by Senator Maunsell and have been giving some very earnest consideration to them. It was certainly never the intention of the Government, by way of the policy change announced on 20 May, that there should be any withdrawal of the benefits of veterans. The Government, of course, stands at all times by its obligation to provide a very high standard of medical care for those who have served their country. However, some problems have arisen in the application of this policy. As a result of that, and of a review of its administration which I have been making, I have now decided that in any case where an eligible repatriation patient wishes to continue to be treated by his local medical officer- as honourable senators will know that is his general practitioner- or by a particular specialist acceptable to the Department, and that admission to a non-departmental hospital as a hospital service patient would preclude this, the admission will be arranged as a private patient in shared accommodation as was the practice before.

page 177

QUESTION

KATHERINE MEATWORKS

Senator KEEFFE:

– I preface my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry by reminding him of the numerous problems that have beset the Katherine meatworks in the Northern Territory in the last few years. Is the Minister aware that automation of the meatworks would greatly increase the capacity and efficiency of this operation? Would this increased capacity lead to an increased export quota for the meatworks? Would not such a result be of great benefit to the Territory graziers and the Territory as a whole? Will the Minister undertake to investigate (his matter as soon as possible.

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

-That is a useful suggestion and I will have it looked into by the responsible department. Let me observe that one of the things commented on by the Committee to Advise on Policies for Manufacturing, chaired by Mr Gordon Jackson, was that the meat processing industry in Australia left a fair bit to be desired in technical equipment, the updating of general processing plants and the conditions for those who work in them. This is one of the areas that my Department is currently studying. I am grateful to the honourable senator and I shall process the matter further.

page 177

QUESTION

FAMILY ALLOWANCES

Senator LAJOVIC:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for Social Security aware that there has been concern in the community that people have not yet received their family allowance cheques? Can the Minister explain to the Senate the way in which the payments of family allowances are being made and assure me that payments are being made on time without any delay?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · VICTORIA · LP

– I assure the honourable senator that family allowance payments are not being delayed. It should be understood that under the previous child endowment scheme payments could be made in 3 ways to those who had entitlement. Payments could be made by way of a 4-weekly cheque, a 4-weekly credit to a credit union or building society or a 12-weekly credit to a bank account. Those 3 ways are still in existence. People who elect now not to have a 12- weekly credit to a bank account can simply elect to receive a 4-weekly cheque or a 4-weekly credit to a credit union. That can be arranged and expedited. Families which receive the allowance for children received the first cheques on 13 July. Similar families which receive allowances by bank credit will receive their payments on 7 September if they have not elected to change the method which they chose for the payments to be made.

It is interesting to cite some figures on the way in which people have chosen to have these payments made. Those who have chosen to have a 4- weekly cheque approximate 43 per cent of the people who are entitled to family allowances, a 4-weekly credit has been elected by about 3 per cent and the 12-weekly credit, which will be due on 7 September, has been the way in which 54 per cent of the people have elected to have their payments made. It is quite likely that people who had 12-weekly credits to their bank accounts will choose to have 4-weekly payments and we will be pleased to expedite this change without any delay at all.

page 177

QUESTION

REPATRIATION PENSIONS

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– My question is directed to the Minister for Repatriation. Have pension increases been given recently to Papua New Guinea service personnel who receive repatriation pensions as a result of service with the Australian forces? Can the Minister give details of these increases?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-That is a matter which has been very much in my mind. I am not in a position at present specifically to answer the question. There have to be some discussions with the Papua New Guinea Government before the matter is finalised. I am not sure what stage they have reached. I will make inquiries and probably will be in a position to give the honourable senator a more definite answer next week.

page 178

QUESTION

INCOME EQUALISATION DEPOSIT SCHEME

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. During the Budget Speech on Tuesday it was announced that an income equalisation deposit scheme would be introduced. This measure already has been welcomed by the farming community. It was announced that the scheme could commence with income from the 1975-76 year. This could be of great benefit to those farmers who had a large taxable income last year and are suffering from a drought this year. Could the Minister explain how the scheme would be administered and, in particular, how farmers can take advantage of it in respect of the 1975-76 year?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-The general answer is yes, it will be available this year. The basic details were put into the Budget Speech. Legislation is necessary and further details will be available once the legislation moves forward. I will get further information for the honourable senator as quickly as I can.

page 178

QUESTION

BUILDING AND METAL INDUSTRIES: PRODUCTIVITY

Senator MCAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce: In view of the low productivity in the building and metal industries, and as low productivity is one of the main causes of inflation and unemployment, will the Government undertake to encourage prosperity sharing schemes between employers and employees in an attempt to increase productivity?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-In the 2 industries mentioned it is true that there has been in the past a fairly sorry industrial record in lots of areas. It is equally true that improvement in productivity in Australia across the scene is an essential factor in getting real economic recovery moving. Anything that brings that about is highly desirable. I have found in the course of both my private and government life that one of the ways to achieve this result is to get the people who are working together talking together. That is one of the reasons we have industry advisory councils in the Department- to assist manufacturers, consumers, retailers, unions and parliamentarians to do precisely that. Anything that would lead in the direction of getting people talking together to improve the operation in which they are jointly engaged will have my support.

page 178

QUESTION

MEDIBANK STRIKE

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. It relates to the position of 1 1 members of the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union employed by M. B. John Ltd and John Valves Pty Ltd at Ballarat who were fined a maximum $20 each before a closed committee of the union for refusing to take part in a political strike in connection with Medibank despite the fact that their action in refusing to strike was supported by a two-thirds majority of employees at a lunchtime meeting. It appears that the provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, in particular sections 138, 140, 141 and 188, have been breached by the union in this matter. Will the Minister take urgent action to investigate the situation with a view to instituting prosecutions should the investigations disclose breaches of the Act and to protecting the individuals concerned from further victimisation?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– This question raises a matter of fundamental importance and I am sure my colleague the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations would share my concern about it. The sorry matters to which Senator Tehan refers arose out of the pathetic efforts to hold a national strike on Medibank, a political issue which, in the firm view of the Government, is a matter to be resolved according to democratic process in this Parliament and not by political strikes. We congratulate people such as the employees of M. B. John Ltd to whom Senator Tehan referred who endeavoured to stand up for their principles. I am sure the Minister, Mr Street, is looking at the matters to which the honourable senator referred. I certainly will draw his attention urgently to the question asked.

page 178

QUESTION

MEDIBANK

Senator MELZER:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. It appears that certain private health funds are setting out to confuse the people of Australia in advertisements placed in daily newspapers by misquoting the cost of Medibank Private and the benefits gained. For instance, in the Melbourne Age today the Australian Natives Association headed its advertisement Break the Medibank Barrier, and quoted its rates as $6 as against $6.90 for the same benefits from Medibank. In fact the position for a large number of Australians is that they can stay in Medibank, pay the levy and take out some extra cover for Medibank Private and achieve for a lot less than $6 the same cover as ANA offers. As this seriously misleads the people of Australia will the Minister have these advertisements suspended until he can have the matter of false and misleading advertising investigated?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I have not seen the advertisements to which the honourable senator refers. I will have the question and the advertisements referred to considered by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs.

page 179

QUESTION

COCOS (KEELING) ISLANDS

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate aware of a reported announcement by Mr Clunies-Ross that he intends to introduce his own currency on Cocos Island? As Cocos Island is a territory of Australia would such action contravene any Australian laws?

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

– My attention has been drawn to a Press report that Mr Clunies Ross intends to have some metal coins of certain denominations minted in Hong Kong. I have referred this matter to my colleagues the Treasurer and the Attorney-General for advice as to whether this contravenes the Currency Act and as soon as I receive their advice I shall decide on what action to take.

page 179

QUESTION

NORTHERN TERRITORY ARTS COUNCIL

Senator ROBERTSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

-My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory Arts Council is deeply concerned that there appears to be no grant for it in this year’s Budget for the Northern Territory. Will the Minister advise the Senate whether this is due to an oversight or to the fact that the Government has taken the decision to cease such funding, which has been made available by all governments since 1969 in order to enable the Council to make what has been a significant contribution to the cultural life of the Northern Territory?

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

– I do not have with me information about the level of support for the Arts Council. I shall secure it from the Minister for the Northern Territory and see that the honourable senator is supplied with it immediately.

page 179

QUESTION

OIL PLANT

Senator JESSOP:

– My question, which is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, refers to a report in the Age of 6 August this year concerning a recent visit to Australia by a delegation of businessmen from West Germany in connection with the establishment of an oil-from-coal plant in

Australia. Will the Minister inform the Senate of the outcome of this visit and of the Government’s attitude to the proposal?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-Senator Jessop was good enough to give me some notice of this question. I have obtained the following information from my colleague in the other place: The matter to which the honourable senator refers is a visit to Australia during July of a delegation of West German industrialists led by Professor KarlHeinz Imhausen of Imhausen International, one of the world ‘s leading companies in the field of coal conversion. In the course of the visit the delegation had discussions with the Minister for National Resources and officers of his Department, with State government departments and authorities in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland, and with private companies in those States. The basis for the discussions was a presentation prepared by the companies represented on the delegation at the request of the West German Ministry for Research and Technology.

In brief, the proposal is to undertake a joint Australian- West German study of the economic feasibility of establishing a plant to produce about 2 million metric tons of motor spirit per annum, plus associated basic chemicals. The capital investment involved is estimated by the West German companies to be about $900m for the conversion plant and $400m to $550m for the associated coal mine and infrastructure. It is intended that the study, if it proceeds, will be one of the major objectives to be carried out under the terms of a bilateral agreement on scientific and technological co-operation which is intended to be signed in the near future. I understand that the Minister for National Resources told the delegation that the Federal Government welcomed the proposal and would be happy to facilitate the making of the necessary arrangements on the Australian side. Contact has already been made with the State governments and private companies concerned.

The current situation is that the delegation has returned to West Germany where the companies concerned will update their original proposal as necessary in the light of their discussions in Australia. Senator Jessop, whose interest in energy matters is well known, will appreciate the need for Australia, with its limited known resources of naturally occurring petroleum, to investigate carefully proposals of this type. I can assure him that, in addition to the actions which the Government has taken to stimulate petroleum exploration and development, the

Minister for National Resources and his Department are maintaining a close watch upon all developments which offer potential alternative future sources of liquid fuels for Australia ‘s use.

page 180

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN INFORMATION SERVICE

Senator COLEMAN:

– I preface my question to the Minister for Administrative Services by commenting that the recent disbanding of the Australian Information Service which was formerly attached to the Australian Government Publishing Service has put tremendous pressure on the remaining staff at the AGPS, particularly the branch operating in Perth. Will the Minister say whether it is the intention of this Government to keep the Australian people in a state of ignorance? Is there an even more sinister reason or will the Government give serious consideration to the restoration of that essential service to the Australian people?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I think that the honourable senator is asking a loaded political question; otherwise she would not have worried about mentioning some sort of sinister plot to keep the Australian public in ignorance. The Government sees no reason to keep the Australian people in ignorance. After all, this is the best Government the country has seen in almost a generation. We are proud of what we are doing and will certainly do our best to inform the public of what is happening.

page 180

QUESTION

FEES FOR DEGREE COURSES

Senator MISSEN:

-Has the Minister for Education received representations from the Sydney University Postgraduate Representative Association claiming injustice or inconsistency in the introduction of fees for second or higher degree courses while pre-school teacher trainees are to be exempt from such austerity measures? Does he agree that modern technological society requires graduates with multi-disciplinary training? Does he feel that some injustice or hardship will be imposed on those graduates who had already entered upon second or higher degrees before the reintroduction of fees was announced?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I have received representations from a wide number of universities and colleges regarding the general proposal of the Government to reintroduce fees in the second or higher degree spheres. It may well be that I have received such a letter from Sydney University post-graduates. In all cases the letters are receiving very close consideration by both myself and my Department. An interdepartmental committee was established by the Cabinet to look at a number of matters, as has been outlined in the

Budget. One of those matters is the reintroduction or otherwise of second or higher degrees. I cannot relate the second part of the honourable senator’s question- the exempting of pre-school teachers- to the matter. It seems not to have any relationship. But if it has, I will examine it and let the honourable senator know.

The Government is thoroughly keen to ensure that post-graduate research should continue at a major pace at higher institutions. I remind the Senate that the very great impetus to tertiary and post-graduate education in the 1950s and 1960s came under governments of Liberal faith. I remind the Senate that until very recently- 2 years ago- the number of post-graduate scholarships was at the level that we have proposed for this year as a special year to hold them. So that the cutback, while significant, is not in proportion major. I am looking with my committee at the whole impact of this matter. It is abundantly clear that we need post-graduate research and to encourage it, but we need to offset the priorities. Equally we need to ensure that those people who might not, under a cutback by the Labor Government of last year, be able to get into first year places in primary degrees are not denied this opportunity in the future. I am happy to tell the Senate that a document that I will be tabling today- the report of the Commission on Advanced Education- signifies that the Commission will be able to take in some 10 per cent of the new first year enrolments next year. That should correct that injustice. So the matter is one of looking at priorities. The Government will keep in mind that as soon as it can it will increase its emphasis at the post-graduate level.

page 180

QUESTION

FEES FOR DEGREE COURSES

Senator WRIEDT:

– Flowing from that answer, I ask Senator Carrick for clarification. Am I to understand that the Government now has not made a final decision on assistance for second degrees which, if that is the case, is presumably a change in the stated position of the Government?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am not terribly sure what Senator Wriedt has said but if I do not understand him correctly he may seek to ask a supplementary question. The Government said in May that it would look towards the reintroduction of fees for second degree, higher degree and private foreign students, but that in so doing it would make absolutely sure that there would be no reintroduction of fees for primary degrees, combined primary degrees or end-on degrees, and that therefore it would be necessary for a considerable amount of research to be done to ensure that, in the introduction of such a policy, no hardship would arise. The simple fact of the matter is that a number of second degrees will conform to our exclusion as primary degrees because a considerable number of them, such as B.A.- LL.B or B.A., B.Ec. degrees, could be regarded as end-on degrees and therefore be excluded. The Government has been consistent in what it has said. We, with the interdepartmental committee, are now looking at the whole matter. I am hopeful that by the end of September or early in October we will be able to announce the position for next year. It will be announced quite clearly. I am extremely hopeful that no hardships will occur because of any action that the Government may take.

page 181

QUESTION

MIGRANT EDUCATION

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Education. I refer to the area of migrant education and to what appear to be cutbacks in the proposed program. I also refer to comments made today by such organisations as Good Neighbour Councils. I ask: Will the Minister give me some information on the migrant education program? Are these assumptions and statements correct? I further ask: Has his Department done any research on both the continuing needs and the changing new requirements which are evident in the migrant education field?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am happy to inform the Senate that all the reports which I have read or heard in the media suggesting a 50 per cent cutback in migrant education are based on a complete but natural misunderstanding of the Budget papers. The Budget papers suggest that a policy which required an expenditure of $20m has had that amount cut back to $ 10m. In fact, what the Budget papers do not disclose in that column is that in the past year there has been a transfer of child migrant education from the Department, which funded that program in the first half of last year to the extent of some $10m, to the Schools Commission program. I am able to tell the Senate that the program as recommended by the Schools Commission for child migrants in the document which was tabled yesterday, I think envisages some $2 1.6m as a recommendation.

In addition there is provision in the Department’s estimates in relation to the child program which amounts to $691,000 for the provision of materials, conferences, special arrangements for refugee children and the Australian Council for Educational Research test development project. I think it is true that yesterday the Canberra Times, probably by printer’s error, misrepresented that figure of $691,000 as $190,000.

Taken overall, the position is that a substantial amount of money will be made available by the Government to migrant education, particularly for the child migrant. As to the matter of special research, this is continuing. I would like the honourable senator to give me notice of the matter, perhaps by separate question, because it involves a fairly detailed answer.

page 181

QUESTION

NATIONAL COMPENSATION

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Social Security. On 9 May 1 976 Senator Guilfoyle stated that the primary objective of national compensation was to establish a right of long term income security benefits for wage earners who, because of injury or sickness, had either lost or had reduced their capacity to earn. What measures are being considered to provide equity to ensure that persons providing services without pay in the communityespecially housewives providing child carehave the right to the long term security of knowing that their children will not be disadvantaged should they be injured or sick?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– The matter of national compensation is at present under consideration between the Commonwealth Government and State governments. The proposals which have been discussed already have related to the wage earner rather than to the total population. At this stage I can say that no proposals have been under active consideration which would encompass the whole Australian population in a scheme of national compensation. Most matters concerning any proposed scheme which could be introduced are under consideration at officer level at the present time. I will take note of the matters which have been mentioned by the honourable senator but it is fair to say that they are not part of the matters under active consideration at the present time.

page 181

QUESTION

ASSISTANCE FOR THE HANDICAPPED

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

-Can the Minister for Social Security say when details of annual programs of assistance for the handicapped will be announced following the Budget announcements of the 3-year program? Can the Minister indicate also whether within these allocations assistance for the physically, visually and intellectually handicapped will be distinguished in separate programs?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I believe the beginning of the question concerned the announcement of the 3-year program. Is that so?

Senator Knight:

– Yes.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– The announcement of the 3-year program is to be released shortly. This morning I approved the allocation for the first year of the 3-year program. Some of that allocation did provide for some funds to be dealt with in the second year of the program. Subsequent details are at present in course of being processed in the Department and will be ready within the next 2 or 3 weeks. I propose to announce the first stage of the 3-year program within a matter of days. Organisations and others interested will then see the wide range of handicapped persons programs that are able to be developed.

I do not have at this stage a breakdown of the projects which I am funding for the first year with regard to physically, visually or intellectually handicapped persons. This could be undertaken to some degree, although it would be realised that some of the projects involve multihandicapped persons. I shall see whether there is any way in which I am able to identify the support that is given to the 3 categories that have been mentioned in the question.

page 182

QUESTION

CAPE BARREN ISLAND

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

-I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs: What stage has been reached in the provision of housing for the residents of Cape Barren Island, in the Furneaux Group in eastern Bass Strait? Are funds currently voted adequate to complete the present program? Is it proposed to continue with this housing program until the needs of the Island residents have been met?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I do not have here detailed information that would provide what has been requested by the honourable senator. I shall refer the question to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and see that the honourable senator receives an answer promptly.

page 182

QUESTION

CHILD ABUSE

Senator BAUME:

– I preface my question, which is directed to the Minister for Social Security, by reminding the Minister that in response to 2 written questions on notice, neither of which was directed to her, I was informed that child abuse is almost unknown, officially at least, in the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory, these being the 2 parts of Australia for which direct Commonwealth responsibility exists. The Minister would probably agree that any assessment suggesting that child abuse is rare is likely to be an under-assessment. The Minister has announced also that the new Office of Child Care will include within its ambit projects in connection with the prevention of child abuse. I therefore ask the Minister: Will special attention be given to the education of those departments and officials in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory who apparently either do not know of child abuse or else do not understand the need for proper community monitoring to detect the true incidence of the abuse by adults of defenceless children?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I agree with the honourable senator when he suggests that it is virtually impossible to obtain accurate figures on the incidence of child abuse. I think it would be agreed that it frequently does go undetected and even when it is identified by health or welfare officers or others it may not be reported to legal or other authorities. I therefore do feel that any figures that have ever been quoted on the incidence of child abuse are likely to be an underassessment of the problem. Last year funding was provided by the Commonwealth Government for a conference which related to the battered child. This brought to Australia some United Kingdom experts who were interested in the treatment of child abuse. I believe that much was learned at that conference and has been under consideration by those who are able to deal with these matters.

The Office of Child Care, of course, has programs that give assistance to parents and children and which would act towards the prevention of situations which might lead to child abuse. The sorts of services that can be funded, such as emergency care and services for the provision of accommodation for those who require it, may alleviate some of the battered children problems we have seen.

With regard to that part of the question relating to education of officials in the Departments of the Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, I can say only that where programs were able to be developed information would be given to officials of the departments concerned. Any specific program developed would need to be framed in co-operation with the relevant Commonwealth and, if necessary, State welfare, health and other authorities. Programs which might be of assistance in educating the whole community in relation to child abuse certainly would have support in any funding that the Government was able to direct to them, and I believe that officials in departments would benefit from any of the activities that might be undertaken.

page 183

QUESTION

ADELAIDE-CRYSTAL BROOK RAILWAY

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. The Minister will recall that on 18 May the Treasurer made a statement, later confirmed by the Prime Minister, that the Commonwealth Government had decided to ask an independent committee to inquire into the Adelaide-Crystal Brook railway project and the options available. Is the Minister aware that criticism from business and other leaders in South Australia suggests that that inquiry may result in a cancellation of the project? Is the Minister also aware that a previous Prime Minister, Mr McMahon, agreed with the view of the consultants? Firstly, is the Minister able to state when that committee of inquiry, which I understand comprises a representative of Commonwealth Railways and two other persons, will make its report to the Government? Secondly, does he consider that the criticism to which I referred might mean that the rail standardisation project will be cancelled?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– If the Senate will excuse me, I will make use of briefing notes because I want to be specific. I am aware that on 20 May the Government announced the establishment of an independent review committee to report on the Adelaide-Crystal Brook project as well as the Tasmanian rail system. That committee is at present investigating the matter. I am not aware of the criticisms the honourable senator has put forward. I accept that they were put forward in good faith and I will transmit them to the Minister for Transport so that they can be brought to the notice of the committee. My understanding is that the committee is working in good faith to make objective judgments on this matter.

page 183

QUESTION

RADIO AUSTRALIA

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. As Radio Australia, in the Cox Peninsula area of Darwin, was practically destroyed by cyclone Tracy some 20 months ago, what action has been taken to rebuild the aerials to enable Radio Australia once again to transmit to some SO million or 60 million people to the north in the Third World, where free communications in many cases have been totally blacked out or repressed? If it has been decided not to rebuild in the Darwin area, what site has been chosen and when is it expected that Radio Australia will once again ^transmit from a northern Australian site?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-The Senate will be aware that cyclone Tracy, in its path of damage, destroyed the transmitting equipment of Radio Australia situated on the Cox Peninsula near Darwin. The Senate might also be aware that in the interim period transmission has taken place from Carnarvon in Western Australia and Shepparton in Victoria but at a considerably reduced volume. The Senate may recall that the previous Government, the Whitlam Government, invited the then Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Sir Keith Waller, to look at the whole question of the development of Radio Australia. That in fact was done and a report is in hand. Recently an interdepartmental committee was set up and is working on possible courses of action which would give additional levels of service from Radio Australia in both the immediate and the long term future.

No decisions have been made as yet, but I understand that the committee’s report ought to be available in 6 or 8 weeks time. I accept that this is an important matter and that Radio Australia has functioned to bring Australia to the practical knowledge of many hundreds of millions of people. I will refer the honourable senator’s question to the relevant Minister.

page 183

QUESTION

PROGRAM STANDARDS FOR RADIO STATIONS

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications and refer to the radio stations licensed under the Wireless Telegraphy Act. What authority or department is responsible for the administration of program standards for these stations? Is there any authority, and if so what authority, monitoring such stations at the present time?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– This is a field which, of course, has been under investigation. In general it is possible under the Wireless Telegraphy Act for the government of the day to issue licences as distinct from the normal procedure of issuing licences as a result of a recommendation after investigation by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. In order to obtain an absolutely accurate answer for the honourable senator, I invite him to place his question on the notice paper and I will have a specific answer provided to him for the various points he has raised.

page 183

QUESTION

POSITION OF FORMER SENATORS

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. During last year leading newspaper headlines prominently featured the then Senators Field and Bunton as heroes during the time of the stacking of the Senate. In view of the report that ex-Senator

Field is living impoverished in a back room in Brisbane and the political neuter ex-Senator Bunton, has given up the ghost, in despair, for Albury-Wodonga, has the Government given any thought to the future of these 2 people who were so cynically exploited by the Government in its ruthless scramble for power last year and then dumped when they were of no further use to the Government?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-Mr President, I was wondering whether I ought to dignify that question with an answer.

Senator Gietzelt:

– Are you not interested in people?

Senator WITHERS:

– Yes, I am interested in people and I do not care much for senators in this place attacking people who are not here and who do not have the opportunity to answer back in their own right. I will go on and say that I think it is cowardly for Senator O ‘Byrne to indulge in such remarks about 2 former senators. They sat here in the Senate lawfully. Whatever may have been the politics of the matter, that is in the past. But I believe that it does a senator little credit to make some sort of cheap political stunt out of the personal problems of former senators.

page 184

QUESTION

VISAS

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Is the Minister now in a position to explain the reason for the apparent hardline work visa attitude adopted by the Government of the United States of America towards Australian boxers Paul Ferrerri and Lionel Rose when in comparison Australia has a remarkably flexible work visa policy for American nationals visiting this country, whether they be boxers, wrestlers or pop singers?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– This question follows a question that was asked by Senator Mulvihill yesterday. I promised I would obtain information for the honourable senator on the subject. I am now able to advise that, under the policy of the Australian Government, promoters seeking the entry of sports contestants from overseas are required to provide sponsorships and give certain guarantees. The same applies to the proposed entry of overseas entertainers. Each such sponsorship is considered on its merits. These arrangements are operating satisfactorily. This policy is kept under constant review. The entry policies applied by other departments are matters for decision by the other departments and other governments. Any complaints by Australians concerning problems of entry to other countries, whether as individuals or as a class of person, would not be matters to be dealt with by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I can only say that the entry policies which are applied by other governments are matters that concern them and are their own responsibility. I can add nothing further on the matter that has been raised.

page 184

QUESTION

VISAS

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question, Mr President. May I have an assurance, in view of the vagueness of the treatment accorded these boxers, that there will be some liaison between Mr Mackellar, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, and Mr Peacock, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, so that if necessary we can talk to Washington about this double standard that apparently is being applied by the United States?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am quite prepared to give an assurance that I will seek the cooperation of Mr Peacock, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and Mr MacKellar, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, on this matter. I understand the concern that has been stated by the honourable senator regarding our Australian boxers and others. I will draw his remarks to the attention of the Ministers to see whether some further action can be taken on behalf of our sporting people.

1976-77 BUDGET

Senator WRIGHT:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer because I have gathered the impression in public presentations of the Budget that the emphasis is on showing it to be a big business Budget. As I find balancing factors emphatically in favour of the low income earner, I ask the Treasurer whether I am correct in saying that 3 features are involved. The first is that there is no burden of increases in taxes on beer, petrol and cigarettes. Does that amount to a denial of about $ 1,000m in terms of Whitlam ‘s last Budget? The second refers to the redistribution in income tax scales in respect of deductions for children. The benefit goes from the high income earner to the low income earner with children. Do I understand that that involves a redistribution of about $ 1 ,000m? The third feature is the decision to index taxation. Will the operation of tax indexation lift the income scale so that increased tax is automatically escaped when wages are increased? Does that operate to relieve the lower income earner of the burden of about $ 1,000m? I just want to know whether my impression, which some people would credit as being quite right in the first place, has ministerial approval.

Senator COTTON:
LP

-The honourable senator’s insight and understanding do him great credit. I commend the knowledge that he possesses and his clear analysis of the position. Members of the Opposition could well profit by a study of it. Looking at this Budget in the broad and reducing it to the essential simplicity of the position, one will see that the Government set out to reduce Government waste and extravagance which had been a product of the Labor years; to stop money being thrown down the drain; to make money available to reduce personal income tax, as the honourable senator has said; to help in social security and social welfare, and to lead to economic recovery. Equally the Government set out to put no further burden on the people by way of taxation. There are no increases in indirect taxation whatsoever. There is a reduction in personal taxation and in areas of corporate taxation. The Budget is a social security and social welfare Budget designed to revive Australia. This is mostly achieved at a saving in Government waste and extravagance.

page 185

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH CAR POOL

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-Yesterday Senator McLaren asked me a question as follows:

The Leader of the Government in the Senate will recall my questioning during the autumn session on why the Government was using private taxis for Government work while Government cars were standing idle in the garage. The Leader will recall also that as a result of my questioning I was given an undertaking that a costing of the use of private taxis by the Government for the month of May would be carried out. When can I expect to be provided with details of this costing?

He will recall that I replied:

I apologise for not carrying out my undertaking. I will chase the matter up for the honourable senator and see whether I can get the information for him this week.

I thought, as he had asked me the question, that I had given the undertaking but I am informed by my office that the undertaking that a costing of the use of private taxis for the month of May would be carried out was given on 25 May 1976 by Senator Wright, Chairman of Estimates Committee F, as a result of Senator McLaren’s questioning. The Department concerned was the Department of the Capital Territory for which I have no responsibility in this place. Senator Webster was in attendance at that Committee hearing representing the Minister for the Capital Territory. Senator McLaren may also recall that he raised the matter again with Senator Webster during the debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 4) on 27 May 1976. Whilst I thought that I had given an undertaking, in fact I had not because the question was evidently never directed to me, but to either Senator Wright or Senator Webster.

I have discussed the matter with Senator Webster and he is looking into the matters which Senator McLaren raised on those 2 dates in May this year.

page 185

QUESTION

FEDERALISM

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Senator Wriedt asked me a question regarding the annual increases in payments to the States over the years. He quoted a table and directed my attention to it, asking if it was right. I now have before me pages 6 and 7 of the Budget document and am able to say that this document discloses an entirely different picture from that which Senator Wriedt put forward. Senator Wriedt did not read either the next paragraph or the next table which states that a representation of a figure of 7.2 per cent increase for this year would be wrong and, if properly adjusted, the figure should be 14.6 per cent. I place on record that the figures put forward by Senator Wriedt do not accord with the true picture disclosed on pages 6 and 7 of the Budget document while my own statement that the increase in percentage was something of the order of a modest 13-odd per cent is stated in the Budget documents as 14.6 per cent, substantially higher than the rate of inflation and, therefore, amounting to real total growth for the States.

Senator Webster:

– I rise on a point of order. In regard to the answer given by the Minister we now have a situation where in the rebroadcast of question time there will be an incorrect assertion made by the Leader of the Opposition. This will achieve publicity but the truth of the matter will not then be able to be given by the Minister. I ask: Is it possible to edit that particular question so that the truth also can be made available to the public?

Senator Keeffe:

– Speaking to the point of order, the advantage just taken by both Ministers is quite unfair. What has happened is that there has been a further laundering of figures by the Minister who has now brought in his adjusted figures. He claims that the figure he has just quoted is beyond the inflation rate. Unless he is quoting real figures, and he did not say so, obviously the inflation rate has been toned down by him. Let us face the facts. The inflation rate is still running at around 14 per cent which is higher, as I said yesterday in this chamber, than when the Labor Party went out of office.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Address yourself to the point of order and do not engage in debate.

Senator Keeffe:

– In answer to the interjection from Senator Sir Magnus Cormack, if Senator

Webster wants to draw the wrong inference I am entitled to defend the Leader of the Opposition in this place when figures are- I will not use the word ‘doctored ‘-slanted for political purposes. I think we ought to look at this in its right perspective. Maybe that clarifies the situation, I do not know, but I would like to hear more discussion.

Senator Wriedt:

– I understand that we are still dealing with the point of order. I am sorry I was out of the chamber for a few moments. I was not anticipating a reply from Senator Carrick -

Senator Keeffe:

– Until next year.

Senator Wriedt:

– Yes, that is right, until next year. The point of order was raised by Senator Webster in his usual style. After his speech last night I could expect that typical operation from him. Mr President, in making your ruling I ask you to consider the fact that I directed a question to Senator Carrick. I asked him to confirm or deny the figures I cited from the Budget papers. I am entitled, as is any other honourable senator, at any time to ask for confirmation of figures contained in Budget papers. I sought that information and that is the substance of the alleged point of order raised by Senator Webster. As for the arguments about the payments to the States, we will deal with that matter next week. We can all be assured of that. We will deal with them in detail. As for the point of order, I legitimately asked a question as I was entitled to do.

Senator Georges:

– Speaking to the point of order, the proposition that Senator Webster is putting is rather outrageous.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is preposterous.

Senator Georges:

– Yes, it is preposterous. It ought to be considered in that way and be dismissed.

The PRESIDENT:

– I refer honourable senators to the rules regarding the rebroadcast of questions and answers. When a member makes a personal explanation in rebuttal of misrepresentation contained in a question asked that day or an answer thereto the question and answer shall, subject to the next succeeding sub-paragraph in the rules, be excluded from the rebroadcast.

Senator CARRICK:

- Mr President, taking that into account along with the legalisms, whatever the reason it was inadvertent that I gave the ordinary reply when Senator Wriedt was not in the chamber and I apologise to him for that situation. Whatever the point of order may be or the legalisms involved, I am not seeking any reediting of the question. I acknowledge that Senator Wriedt had a right to ask me the question. I used the ordinary processes and I regret he was not in the chamber. I appreciate Senator Webster’s point but whatever the future ruling may be, for this time at least I acknowledge the goodwill of the presentation.

page 186

COMMISSION ON ADVANCED EDUCATION

Senator CARRICK:
Minister for Education · NSW · LP

– Pursuant to section 1 5 of the Commission on Advanced Education Act 1971-1973, I present the report of the Commission on Advanced Education for the Triennium 1977-79. I seek leave to make a brief statement relating to that report.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator CARRICK:

– Honourable senators will recall that on 20 May 1976 1 announced the guidelines for the triennial programs of the education commissions for the period 1 977-79. This report of the Commission on Advanced Education responds to those guidelines and, in accordance with the decision to establish Deakin University incorporating two colleges of advanced education, it recommends the transfer of funds to the university sector to facilitate the establishment of Deakin. It also recommends a transfer of funds to the Technical and Further Education Commission in respect of some courses in New South Wales and Victoria which were previously funded by the Commission on Advanced Education. The effect of these changes on amounts allocated in the Government’s guidelines is shown in the attached table.

The Commission recommends the distribution of $325. 5m in December 1975 prices, among colleges of advanced education for recurrent expenditure in 1 977. In relation to capital expenditure, the Commission has identified a priority program of $69.5m in 1977, with capital expenditure over the full triennium totalling $182. 5m in December 1975 prices. The recommended distribution of funds among the States for the year 1977 is shown in Attachment 2. The Government has yet to consider the report of the Commission and will announce its decisions as soon as possible. I seek leave to incorporate the tables in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I seek leave to move a motion.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move:

That the Senate take note of the paper.

I seek leave to make my remarks later.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Debate (on motion by Senator Carrick) adjourned.

page 187

STUDENT ASSISTANCE ACT

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– Pursuant to section 35 of the Student Assistance Act 1 973 I present the report on the operation of that Act in 1 975.

page 187

COMMONWEALTH TEACHING SERVICE ACT

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– Pursuant to section 52 of the Commonwealth Teaching Service Act 1972-1976 1 present the annual report on the operation of that Act for the year ended 31 December 1975.

page 187

DEFENCE SERVICE HOMES SCHEME

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present a review of the Defence Service Homes scheme: Its nature, history and operations.

page 187

SEAMEN’S COMPENSATION AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Motion (by Senator Guilfoyle) agreed to:

That leave be given to introduce a bill for an Act to increase certain amounts of compensation payable to and in respect of Seamen, and for other purposes.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Standing orders suspended.

Second Reading

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The main purpose of this Bill is to increase the rates and amounts of compensation payable under the Seamen’s Compensation Act to seamen and their dependants. The Bill will ensure that the monetary rates payable under the Act are kept in line with those contained in the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Amendment Bill 1976. I should mention, however, that the proposed amendments will not involve any cost to the Commonwealth Government as payments under the Seamen’s Compensation Act are the responsibility of the shipowners.

Increased Compensation

Under clause 7 of the Bill the weekly compensation for total incapacity for work is to be increased from $57.00 to $80.00 for a seaman without dependants. The additional weekly supplement for a dependent wife will be increased from $15.00 to $21.00 and that for each dependent child from $7.00 to $10.00. The ceiling which applies in certain circumstances in relation to the weekly payment for partial incapacity is to be increased from $57.00 to $80.00. In addition to the increases in weekly incapacity payments, the Bill provides for the lump sum death benefit, to which the lump sum benefits for specified injuries and maximum compensation are related, to be increased from $20,000 to $25,000. The weekly payment in respect of each dependent child of a deceased seaman will be increased from $7.00 to $10.00 and the maximum payable in respect of funeral costs will be increased from $450 to $650.

Other Amendments

Clause 3 removes the limit of $1,000 on the amount of compensation payable in respect of medical and ambulance services. This limit currently applies unless, in the opinion of the Minister, the exceptional circumstances of any case warrant payment of an amount in excess of $ 1,000. The same limit also applied in relation to Commonwealth Government employees but it was dispensed with in 1971 because the practical effect of the limit was to constitute a point of review and never a ceiling on the amounts paid. Similar considerations apply so far as the Seamen’s Compensation Act is concerned and this is the reason for this amendment.

Clause 6 of the Bill removes a restrictive provision contained in sub-section 10a (2) of the Act. The existing provision prevents a seaman, or his dependants in the case of his death, from proceeding against the employer to recover damages unless the proceedings are commenced within 1 2 months of the date of receipt of the first payment of compensation. The effect of this amendment will be that the ordinary time limits relating to actions for damages will apply. This has been the practice in relation to Commonwealth Government employees since 1971 and the Government considers that seamen should be placed in the same position.

Clause 7, in addition to providing for some of the increases in benefits already mentioned, also includes provisions relating to the weekly payments in respect of dependent children in both death and incapacity cases. Under these amendments such payments will be made in respect of children aged between 16 and 21 years who are full time students not ordinarily in employment. This will bring the Seamen’s Compensation Act into line with the Compensation (Australian Government Employees) Act and the workers’ compensation legislation of the States. The opportunity has also been taken to make some minor amendments of a formal or technical nature in keeping with current drafting practice. These amendments make no changes of substance.

Application of Amendments

The amending legislation is intended to come into operation on 1 September 1976. The Bill follows past practice in providing for the increased weekly payments to apply from that date, notwithstanding that the payments relate to an injury sustained or disease contracted before that date. Likewise, the increased lump sum payments for death and specified injuries will also apply from 1 September 1 976 in all cases where the death occurs or the final degree of injury becomes assessable after that date, even though the death or the specified injury may have resulted from an injury sustained or disease contracted before that date. Increases in other benefits will apply in a similar manner. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned.

page 188

COMPENSATION (COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES) AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Motion (by Senator Guilfoyle) agreed to:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to increase certain amounts of compensation payable to and in respect of Commonwealth Government employees and certain other persons, and for other purposes.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Standing orders suspended.

Second Reading

Senator GUILFOYLE (Victoria-Minister for

Social Security) ( 12.43)- I move:

The main purpose of this Bill is to provide for increases in benefits payable under the Compensation (Australian Government Employees) Act which provides workers’ compensation for employees of the Commonwealth Government and its statutory authorities. This legislation was last amended for this purpose during the 1974 Budget session of the Parliament. Since then there have been significant increases in the cost of living and in the benefits payable under the workers ‘ compensation legislation of most of the States. It is therefore necessary and indeed, only fair, that the benefits under the Compensation (Australian Government Employees) Act should again be increased.

Compensation for Total Incapacity

Employees who have been injured since 2 November 1972 are entitled to receive weekly compensation payments equal to their normal full sick pay rate during the first 26 weeks of total incapacity for work. For long term cases where total incapacity has exceeded 26 weeks, the compensation is based on fixed weekly rates that are specified in the Act. Under the Bill, the fixed weekly rate for a totally incapacitated employee without dependants will increase from $57 to $80. The additional weekly supplement for a dependent spouse will increase from $15 to $21 and the weekly supplement for each dependent child will increase from $7 to $ 10.

Compensation for Partial Incapacity

A similar increase, from $57 a week to $80 a week, will also apply to the ceiling which operates in relation to the compensation payable for partial incapacity for work.

Compensation for Death

The Bill also provides for increases in the amounts of compensation payable where an injury results in the death of an employee. The basic lump sum payable to dependants will increase from $20,000 to $25,000. The weekly amount payable in respect of each dependent child of a deceased employee will increase from $7 to $10 and the minimum total amount payable for each child will increase from $700 to $1,000. The maximum amount payable in respect of funeral expenses will increase from $450 to $650.

Compensation for Specified Losses

The lump sums payable under the Act for specified losses will also increase. The maximum lump sum payment for such a loss will increase from $20,000 to $25,000 and the lump sums for the less serious losses will increase in the same proportion. For example, payment for severe and permanent facial disfigurement will increase from $10,000 to $12,500 and compensation for loss of the sense of taste or smell will increase from $2,000 to $2,500.

Other Increases

The maximum amount payable for alterations to buildings or vehicles, or repair or replacement of certain aids and appliances, will go up from $500 to $700.

Provision of Vocational Training

The amendment in clause 5 of the Bill is consequential upon a 1974 amendment to the Social Services Act and requires a detailed explanation. Under section 38 ( 1 ) of the Compensation (Australian Government Employees) Act, the Commissioner for Compensation is empowered to arrange with the Director-General of Social Security for compensation cases to undertake rehabilitation vocational training using the rehabilitation service of the Department of Social Security. It is desirable that both compensation and social service beneficiaries undergoing this training be dealt with on a similar basis. In 1974, section 135D of the Social Services Act was amended to provide a training allowance for social service beneficiaries that equals the weighted average weekly minimum wage appropriate to the person’s age. It took the place of the rehabilitation allowance and a smaller training allowance that were payable before 1974.

This opportunity is being taken to amend the Compensation Act to take account of the 1974 amendment to section 135D of the Social Services Act. Because compensation cases undergoing training continue to receive compensation benefits, the amendment provides that the training allowance is an amount, if any, by which the person’s normal weekly compensation benefit is less than the weighted average minimum wage appropriate to his age. This will mean that no person receiving compensation payments and undergoing rehabilitation vocational training will receive less than the person receiving social services benefits undergoing similar training. Both will receive at least the weighted average weekly minimum wage appropriate to their age. It should be noted that no training allowance is payable where a person undergoing vocational training is receiving a compensation payment equal to or in excess of the weighted average weekly minimum wage. For both compensation and social service beneficiaries undergoing training, a living away from home allowance is also payable where appropriate. It is an amount determined by the Director-General of Social Security that does not exceed 25 per cent of the weighted average weekly minimum wage appropriate to the person ‘s age.

Other Amendments

The opportunity has also been taken to make some other amendments of a relatively minor nature. The first of these, in clause 3 of the Bill, is consequential upon the new form of citation proposed in the Acts Citation Act 1976. The amendment in clause 4 will clarify a provision regarding costs that was inserted in the Act in 1974. The amendment in clause 6 is consequential upon a change in other legislation referred to in the principal Act. The remaining amendments to the principal Act are set out in clause 8 and Schedule 2 and are of a formal or technical nature. They are in keeping with current drafting practice and make no changes of substance.

Application of Amendments

The Bill provides that the amendments will come into operation on 1 September 1976. The Bill contains the usual provisions for the increased weekly payments to apply from that date, notwithstanding that the payments relate to an injury sustained before that date. The increased lump sum payments for death and specified losses will also apply from 1 September 1976 in all cases where the death occurrs or the loss is suffered after that date, even though the death or the loss may have resulted from an injury sustained before that date. Increases in other benefits will apply in a similar manner.

Cost of Increased Benefits

The total cost of the increased benefits authorised by the Bill is estimated to be $ 1.77m in a full year. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned.

page 190

UNITED STATES NAVAL COMMUNICATION STATION (CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES) AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Motion (by Senator Guilfoyle) agreed to:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the United States Naval Communication Station (Civilian Employees) Act 1971.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Standing orders suspended.

Second Reading

Senator Guilfoyle (Victoria- Minister for

Social Security) ( 12.52)- I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The main purpose of this Bill is to make some necessary amendments to the United States Naval Communication Station (Civilian Employees) Act as a consequence of the change in citation of the Compensation (Australian Government Employees) Act, provided under clause 3 of the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Amendment Bill 1976. The Act is a companion piece of legislation which automatically extends the terms of the Compensation (Australian Government Employees) Act to civilians employed by the United States Navy at the Naval Communications Station at North West Cape. This Bill will ensure that the increased rates of compensation being introduced under the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Amendment Bill 1976 will be payable under the Act. I should mention, however, that the flow-on of increases in compensation to these employees will not result in any cost to the Commonwealth Government because, under arrangements with the United States Government, payments made under the Act are reimbursed by that Government. The amendments contained in clauses 3 to 7 of the Bill are of a formal nature and make no changes of substance. The amending legislation is intended to come into operation on 1 September 1 976.I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 12.54 to 2.15 p.m.

page 190

PLACING OF BUSINESS

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland) agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Wriedt moving a motion relating to the order of business on the notice paper.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– At the request of Senator Wriedt I move:

That after 3 p.m. intervening general business be postponed until after consideration of general business, Notice of Motion No. 2, relating to the release of certain Commonwealth land to the Government of New South Wales, and Notice of Motion No. 3, relating to the implication of the Government’s investment allowance policy.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion (by Senator Withers)- by leaveagreed to:

That standing order 127 be suspended to enable business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 1, to be proceeded with beyond 2 hours after the time fixed for the meeting of the Senate.

page 191

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Senator Withers)- by leaveagreed to:

That Senator Greenwood be granted leave of absence for 2 months on account of ill health.

page 191

QUESTION

SENATE ESTIMATES COMMITTEES

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

– I ask for leave to propose a motion for the reference of particulars of proposed expenditure to Estimates Committees.

The PRESIDENT:

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

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

– I move:

  1. 1 ) That the particulars of proposed expenditure for the service of the year ending on 30 June 1 977 and the particulars of certain proposed expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 1977 be referred herewith to Estimates Committees for examination and report.
  2. That, unless otherwise ordered, the Committees deal with departmental estimates as follows:

I have have asked my Department to try to circularise the particulars which are generally given to honourable senators. Subject to printing, they ought to be circulated this week, but it may be next week.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I think they have been received.

Senator WITHERS:

-The honourable senator has received it? I am delighted about that. I have asked my other ministerial colleagues to try to get out the particulars relating to their departments well before the Estimates Committees meet so that honourable senators will have an opportunity for themselves or for their research officers, if need be, to take some time to go through the particulars. Perhaps for the first time honourable senators will not be caught at the last moment with all this detailed information. I hope that because of this the Estimates Committees will work better than they have ever worked before.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Honourable senators will recall that at the time of the consideration by the Senate Committee of the Estimates Committees, Senate Estimate Committee A in its last report to the Senate suggested that the papers relating to the Estimates should be prepared and presented by the departments to the Senate at the time the Budget papers were brought down by the Treasurer. I understand from inquiries I have made from the Senate staff that that procedure is going on reasonably expeditiously as far as some departments are concerned. I have indicated that I have already received papers from Senator Withers’ department. I hope the Senate Committees will take into consideration the recommendation of Senate Estimates Committee A that they might sit and study the papers in advance before calling a great number of public servants as has been the case to date. We might be able to expedite the work of the Senate and do it much more efficiently.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 191

COCOS (KEELING) ISLANDS LANDS ACQUISITION (REPEAL) ORDINANCE 1976

Motion for Disallowance

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I move:

That the Lands Acquisition (Repeal) Ordinance 1976, as contained in Cocos (Keeling) Islands Ordinance No. 1 of 1976, and made under the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Aci 1955-1975, be disallowed.

As every honourable senator will observe from the notice paper, notice of that motion was given by me to the Senate on 1 8 May 1 976.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Let us be clear on this. This is the repeal of the ordinance.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-That is right. The Labor Government filed an ordinance on 10 September 1975. The Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances brought down a report suggesting disallowance of that ordinance. An undertaking was given by Senator Withers, as Minister for Administrative Services, to that Senate Committee. As a result an ordinance for repeal of the original ordinance was brought in. Now we are moving for disallowance of that repeal ordinance. No other part of the world has changed as little as the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. The original purpose of the introduction of the Lands Acquisition Ordinance by me when I was Special Minister of State in the Whitlam Labor Government on, I think, 10 September 1975 was to bring about some form of change on Cocos (Keeling) Islands. I shall say something about the history of the islands. They consist of some 27 small coral islands in 2 atolls. They are situated about 2800 kilometres northwest of Perth and some 3700 kilometres due west of Darwin. All told they have a total land mass of about 14 square kilometres.

Of the 27 islands only two are inhabited. Home Island is occupied by Mr Clunies Ross, the fifth generation Clunies Ross, and about 500 Cocos Malays. West Island is occupied by the Australian Administrator, the office of Administrator being established by the Labor Government, and by the Australian Administration employees and their families. From recollection the number of Australians living on West Island is about 130 or 140. The Cocos Islands were first settled in 1827 by the Clunies Ross family which imported labour mainly from North Borneo in order to improve the coconut trees which were already growing there. In 1857 following a number of representations from the Clunies Ross family the islands were formally declared part of the British dominions. In 1886, 90 years ago, Queen Victoria granted to Mr George Clunies Ross a freehold title on all land on the islands above the high water mark.

Australia’s administration of the islands has been relatively brief. Our direct interest started, I think, in the early 1950s when the then Australian Government discussed with the then British Government Australia’s interest in acquiring control of the airstrip which existed on West Island for the purpose of the Australian-South

African air link. As a result the Australian Government and the British Government agreed that sovereignty over the islands, which were then part of the colony of Singapore, should be transferred to the Australian Government.

The commercial economy of the Territory is based almost solely on the production and export of copra that is grown on the Clunies Ross Estate. At present the economy of Home Island, which is the island occupied by Mr Clunies Ross and the Cocos Malay workers, is interwoven with and almost totally dependent upon that of the Clunies Ross Estate. Within the limits of its present standards the Home Island community is basically self-sufficient but, depending on copra production and price levels at particular times on the international market, the Estate and therefore the Cocos Malay people- the Home Island community- place some reliance on contract work that is undertaken for and on behalf of the Australian Government to supplement their income. The Australian Government provided, and I understand still provides, significant finance and /or meets operational expenditure for education and health services, and the existence of the Territory Administration, the airfield and other related services on Cocos provide indirect benefits to the Home Island community and the Estate. The extent to which the Cocos Islanders on Home Island may benefit from the business interests of Mr Clunies Ross, other than copra production, cannot of course be stated.

In 1968 a cyclone destroyed a large number of coconut farms and an extensive replanting program is only now starting to come good. Over the years Mr Clunies Ross complained that the Australian Government did not provide him with financial assistance after that cyclone occurred. The copra produced on the Estate is of high quality but the price realised for copra on world markets over the last couple of years has suffered a sharp downturn. I think it is down now to about $250 a tonne, compared with about $1,000 a tonne some years ago. I thought that I should briefly outline that history of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands.

We are debating a motion, which stands in my name, that the Lands Acquisition (Repeal) Ordinance 1976 as contained in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Ordinance No. 1 of 1976 and made under the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act 1955-1975 should be disallowed. On 18 March this year Senator Wood, as Chairman of the Senate Standing Committing on Regulations and Ordinances, presented the 52nd report of that Committee to the Senate. That report related to the Ordinance to which I originally referred, namely, the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Lands Acquisition Ordinance of 1975, and which I introduced on 10 September last year when I was the Special Minister of State in the previous Government. In presenting the Committee’s report to the Senate, Senator Wood said:

The Committee is not concerned with the policy of the Ordinance, but is concerned to ensure that subordinate legislation, made by the executive, is not used to give effect to substantive matters of policy which ought to be the subject of parliamentary enactment. The Committee considers that, if the Executive is to have a general power to acquire and transfer all land in the Territory for unspecified purposes, this policy ought to be laid before the Parliament in the form of a proposed statute for the Parliament ‘s consideration.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– We may assume that that was the unanimous opinion of the Committee?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I do not know whether the honourable senator assumes correctly. I know it was a recommendation presented to the Senate by Senator Wood on behalf of the Committee.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– The Senate is entitled to have the information.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Then the honourable senator should dig the information out; he has as ready access to the papers as I have. It was a recommendation presented by Senator Wood on behalf of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. Generally speaking -

Senator Wright:

– Paragraph 3 of the report is material if you are stating the grounds for it.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I do not have the complete report, but if Senator Wright wants me to read paragraph 3 of the report presented by Senator Wood I shall do so. It states:

The Ordinance would allow the acquisition of all land in the Territory, and contains no restriction on the purposes for which land may be required and transferred to persons.

The then responsible Minister -

I was the Minister- submitted to the Committee in October 1975:

Much attention was given, when the Ordinance was being prepared, to ways of defining the purposes for which acquisition might take place but no formula could be found that was entirely satisfactory to cover all the possible purposes for which a government may propose to acquire land in the Territory.

Then the part to which I have already referred continues:

The Committee is not concerned with the policy of the Ordinance but is concerned to ensure that subordinate legislation, made by the executive, is not used to give effect to substantive matters of policy which ought to be the subject of parliamentary enactment. The Committee considers that, if the executive is to have a general power to acquire and transfer all land in the Territory for unspecified purposes, this policy ought to be laid before the Parliament in the form of a proposed statute for the Parliament ‘s consideration.

For that reason the Committee recommends that the Ordinance be disallowed.

I was about to say, before I was interrupted, that generally speaking -

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– It was not an interruption. It is a matter of interest to the Senate. Your Party held a majority of members on that Committee.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I was interrupted. At the time that report was presented my Party did not hold a majority on the Committee. The report of the Committee was presented to the Senate in March 1976 when the present Government held a majority of members on that Committee. It would be greatly appreciated if Senator Sir Magnus Cormack would acquaint himself with the facts of the situation. Having made those remarks may I say that, generally speaking, I do not demur from the statement of the Senate Standing Committee except to say that in the circumstances under which the Parliament, and particularly the Senate, was operating last September it was virtually impossible for the Government to get any legislation of that nature accepted by the Opposition which, by its stealth -

Senator Withers:

– That is supposition.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– All right, let us say it was supposition. I go back to my earlier statement that nowhere else in the world has changed as little as Cocos. Certainly the Labor Government was anxious to secure change. Let us face it; the Opposition at the time, by stealth, had obtained the numbers in the Senate.

Senator Withers:

– Nonsense! Thirty were elected at the double dissolution.

Senator DOUGLAS McCLELLANDSenator Withers says ‘Nonsense’. The simple fact of the matter is that despite a unanimous resolution of this Senate that conventions should be maintained by all parties, conventions were not maintained. Certain senators were appointed to represent their States on the other side of the fence- one to replace a Labor senator who had retired and one to replace another Labor senator who, unfortunately, had died. We as a government at that time were engaged principally, as every honourable senator will remember, in endeavouring to get our Budget accepted by the

Parliament. Because of the urgency of the situation we decided to adopt the course that we followed. It was a matter of urgency because for so long undertakings had been given to the people of the Cocos Malay community-by the McMahon Government as well as by the Labor Government- and to the United Nations by governments, and apparently nothing had been done other than the introduction of primary school education on Home Island and the appointment of an administrator. So it was that on 4 May 1976 Senator Wood, as recorded at page 1484 of the Senate Hansard, advised the Senate:

This notice of motion is for the disallowance of the Lands Acquisition Ordinance 1975 of the Territory of Cocos (Keeling) Islands. In its 52nd report presented to the Senate on 18 March 1976 the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances recommended the disallowance of the ordinance on the ground that if the Executive Government is to be given a general power to acquire all land in the Territory for unspecified purposes, this ought to be done by Act of Parliament and not by subordinate legislation. The ordinance, however, has now been repealed in accordance with an undertaking given to the Committee by the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers). The repealing ordinance was made by the Governor-General yesterday. Accordingly, I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name.

I do not know what undertaking Senator Withers gave to the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. If he gave an undertaking that legislation would be introduced, the Opposition would be happy with that. But if the undertaking results in further delaying the adoption of reform proposals in Cocos and their implementation for the benefit of the people of the Cocos Malay community, as I suspect the situation to be, then the Opposition feels that it must oppose the repealing ordinance.

Senator Withers:

– Would you have opposed its disallowance?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– If the Labor Government had had an undertaking from the then Opposition that legislation to be introduced by it would be acceded to, then certainly we would not have had to worry about the disallowance. The Opposition is not concerned so much with the past as with the present.

Senator McAuliffe:

– And with the future.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-And, as my colleague says, with the future. The Lands Acquisition Ordinance, which I introduced originally in September 1975, was introduced after I had conversations in Sydney and Canberra with Mr Dickson, Mr Clunies Ross’s manager. Mr Dickson advised me that it would be in the interests of everyone concerned if I went to Cocos to negotiate with Mr Clunies Ross for the acquisition of the area. The legislation was introduced after I went to Cocos and, unfortunately and regrettably, after Mr Clunies Ross had retracted or withdrawn from statements that had been made to me by Mr Dickson and to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence by Mr Clunies Ross himself. The Committee has already tendered a report to the Senate. In my statement to the Senate on 10 September last year I pointed out that Australia’s representative in the Committee of Twenty-four, which had visited Cocos in August of that year and presented its report to the United Nations in November, had made a statement which indicated that the then Austraiian Government, the Whitlam Labor Government, endorsed the broad approach recommended by the Committee. In my ministerial statement of September 1975 I listed the following principal changes which the Government was seeking:

  1. 1 ) Ownership of a suitably agreed area of land on Home Island to be vested in the Home Island community, as a corporate entity. This would help to establish the community’s own identity, separate from that of the Clunies Ross estate;
  2. a local government type authority to be established, with legal and formal status, to manage and control the affairs of the community. This authority would comprise only members elected for a specific period, and would have powers which reflected the wishes of the Community;
  3. all future Australian Government contracts involving the Clunies Ross estate to provide for direct payment of appropriate sums in Australian currency to the Cocos community; a separate Cocos community fund to be established for this purpose, to be administered by, and for the sole benefit of, the community;
  4. the use of token money eventually to be discontinued and replaced by Australian currency, taking into account the complexities involved;
  5. provision to be made to issue local ordinances and establish better facilities for the administration of justice;
  6. health and education services to be extended;
  7. rates of pay and employment conditions on Cocos to be aligned progressively with Australian practice and International Labour Organisation conventions;
  8. provisions to be introduced to permit freedom of movement for members of the Cocos community; and
  9. provision for granting Australian citizenship to Cocos Islanders born there before 1955 and who did not apply for citizenship in the prescribed rime, to be reviewed with a view to making it easier for the citizens of Cocos to take out such citizenship, if they wish to do so.

I then indicated at page 724 of my statement:

In my discussions with members of the Cocos community in August it became evident that a significant proportion of them is dissatisfied with Mr Clunies Ross and the present position and look to the Australian Government to effect early changes.

I am reading this statement deliberately because of certain statements that have been made recently to the United Nations by the Australian representative dealing with these matters on behalf of the present Government:

True it is that some are said to join with Mr Clunies Ross in opposing any Government intervention. Others again, including some of the headmen, are cautiously waiting to see how matters develop. Each of these groups appears to me to represent about a third of the total community.

If I might interpolate, that is in line with what Senator Withers said to the Senate after he came back from the Cocos area in April. My statement went on:

There is also an influence from former residents of Home Island now living on Christmas Island or in Western Australiathis influence being strongly in favour of change. The situation prevailing in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands involves a denial of human rights to the indigenous people. The Australian Government is resolved that it must act firmly to introduce changes without further delay. Five hundred Island people are involved on this remote Australian Territory but it is far from a simple matter to effect changes. Mr Clunies Ross has his property rights and, as the fifth generation of a long dynastic line, his influence with the community naturally remains considerable. But the Government considers this should not deter it from effecting the changes that it believes are essential to the welfare and betterment of the Cocos community.

That ordinance was introduced and the Labor Treasurer, Mr Hayden, wrote to Mr Clunies Ross early in October last year stating that the use of token money, used by him for payment of his workers, was to cease. I appointed an interim advisory committee, and the Government was determined to enforce the existing laws relating to any aspect of the estate’s activities. Unfortunately, and sadly for the people of Cocos, the Labor Government was removed from office on 1 1 November last. All the customs and habits of the colonial era that existed on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands since 1827 have been allowed to continue ever since.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Feudalism.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is feudalism, as my colleague, Senator Mulvihill, says. Whether or not the Government likes it, a feudal system is operating there. As I said in my statement last September, some people want change! Some people are concerned about change; some people sit on the sidelines and wait to see which way they should go. But the fact is that the world is catching up with the situation on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and this Government cannot sit on the sidelines with Mr Clunies Ross much longer.

The Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence went to Cocos in June of last year. It was reported to me at that time by my then Department that the people seemed to have regarded the Senate Standing Committee on

Foreign Affairs and Defence more as a Government committee than as a parliamentary committee. Obviously, they did not quite understand the distinction between Parliament and Government. Indeed, a petition had been presented to the Administrator of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands at about that time from the Cocos Malay people seeking the establishment of an Australian administration office on Home Island itself. It was further reported to me as Minister at the time that if negotiations for the purchase of the estate were for any reason protracted there was a clear danger of serious disruption within the community. I was advised that the early establishment of a Government office on Home Island might well help stabilise the situation.

Of course, Home Island itself is territory vested in Mr Clunies Ross. Indeed, the all-Party Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence- Senator Sir Magnus Cormack was a member of that Committee- made recommendations in paragraphs 53 and 54 of its report under the heading ‘Economic Viability of Cocos’ that some action should be taken to acquire land on Cocos on just and reasonable terms. Since we went out of office in November 1975, Cocos, like grandfather’s clock, has stood still on the floor. Senator Withers, the Minister for Administrative Services, went there in April. He told us upon his return that he would be making a submission to Cabinet and that an announcement would be made in regard to Government policy. He told us that in the Senate on 27 April 1976, some 4 months ago. I do not know whether Senator Withers has put forward a Cabinet submission at this stage.

Senator Withers:

– I have no intention of telling you, either.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I would assume that the Minister has no intention of telling me, but I am going to tell him shortly that he has not done it. I know this because of certain statements that have been made elsewhere. Certainly no announcement has been made on the matter. Even if he has put forward a Cabinet submission, no decision has been made by the Government and the undertaking to put forward a Cabinet submission was given to the Parliament some 4 months ago.

I read, as was mentioned by Senator Sim this morning, that Mr Clunies Ross is now in Hong Kong in the course of making arrangements to replace his plastic tokens that are now used with some metal coins. Of course, they will not be Australian currency as they should be under section 22 of the Australian Currency Act. On 23

July 1976 a statement on Cocos (Keeling) Island was made by the Australian representative, Mr Geoffrey Forrester, in the Sub-Committee of Small Territories of the Committee of TwentyFour.

Senator Wright:

- Mr President, I rise to take a point of order. I submit that all these remarks as to history and the interest of the United Nations are irrelevant to the question before the Senate which is a motion for the disallowance of an ordinance. That ordinance repealed a previous ordinance, and that brings its contents into focus. It was simply a Government Executive ordinance authorising the compulsory acquisition of land on Cocos (Keeling) Islands. I submit that unless the honourable senator can connect the general international situation with the contents of a formal administrative Executive act- an ordinanceauthorising the acquisition of land, and nothing else, all this is irrelevant.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Young)- I ask Senator Douglas McClelland to direct his remarks to the matter before the Chair.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Mr Acting Deputy President, I submit that the comments I am making relating to the general situation on Cocos (Keeling) Islands are opposite to the circumstances concerning the proposed disallowance of the repeal of the lands acquisition ordinance, in view of undertakings that have been given to the Cocos Malay community by a previous government and in view of undertakings that have been given to the United Nations Committee of Twenty-four by a previous government and by this Government. They are all interrelated.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

- Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise to pursue Senator Wright’s point of order. The motion is -

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Mr Acting Deputy President, I was speaking to the point of order when Senator Sir Magnus Cormack rose to take a point of order.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– You should have made that clear. You ramble on for so long that nobody knows where it ends.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTOrder! I will hear Senator Douglas McClelland speaking to the point or order.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– As I was saying, the matters relating to the circumstances that exist on Cocos (Keeling) Islands, the reason for the introduction originally of the lands acquisition ordinance by the Labor Government in 1975 and the proposed repeal by the Senate now are all wrapped up and interwoven with the long history of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, which I am about to bring up to date by referring to statements that were made in the United Nations as recently as 24 July 1976 on behalf of the present Australian Government. I believe that these matters are very much interrelated to or interwoven with the subject of the repeal of the ordinance and therefore I believe that I am quite in order in speaking about them.

Senator Withers:

– I wish to speak on the point of order. I would imagine that if the honourable senator is arguing that the repeal of an ordinance ought not to have been made- that is what he is really arguing because he is arguing for the disallowance of that repealing ordinance- he ought to argue firstly that the conclusions to which the Regulations and Ordinances Committee came were wrong in principle or wrong in fact. He has made no attempt to do that. Secondly, he ought to be arguing that I was wrong in repealing the ordinance before it would have been disallowed by the Senate. As I understand the history of this matter before the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, there was a unanimous recommendation. There was not a recommendation merely that certain parts of the ordinance be disallowed. The recommendation was for the disallowance of the whole of the ordinance. It was an all-party recommendation. I, in my innocence, am not attempting to defend what I did in speaking to a point of order, but it would have been a very brave Minister who would have taken on in this place the Regulations and Ordinances Committee and said that the ordinance was valid when the Committee had condemned it.

Therefore I put it to you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that the honourable senator ought to be arguing on 2 facts: Either that the Regulations and Ordinances Committee came to its decision incorrectly, on the wrong information or the wrong premise and that the ordinance ought to be disallowed or that I, as Minister, did something quite silly in repealing the ordinance prior to its being disallowed by this Parliament. After all, as the honourable senator has said, the Regulations and Ordinances Committee said that it was not concerned with the policy contained within the ordinance; it was concerned with some of the characteristics of the ordinance itself. Therefore the policy contained with the ordinance is not up for grabs; what is up for debate is what one might call the principles contained with the ordinance, and that is what the honourable senator ought to be arguing.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Young)- I ask Senator Douglas McClelland to confine himself more to the motion before the chamber.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– When Senator Wood addressed the Senate on behalf of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee on 4 May 1976 he stated:

The Ordinance, however, has now been repealed in accordance with an undertaking given to the Committee by the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers). The repealing ordinance was made by the Governor-General yesterday. Accordingly, I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name.

I have said that no indication has been given either by the Committee or by Senator Withers of the undertaking given to the Committee as to why the ordinance should be repealed. The whole gravamen of the case is that no repeal should be allowed until such time as we know all of the facts concerning the situation. As I was saying, on 23 July Mr Forrester, in the SubCommittee of Small Territories of the Committee of Twenty-Four, pointed out that a new Australian Government was elected to office last December. He said that on taking office the new Government had a general objective of reviewing important policy issues. The new Minister responsible for administering the territory, Senator Withers -

Senator Wright:

- Mr Acting Deputy President, I do not wish to take repeated points of order but Senator Douglas McClelland is deliberately proceeding exactly in the same vein as before I took the point of order. I submit therefore that under the proper and logical procedures of the Senate, so that we know the content of debate, the honourable senator should be confined to the terms of his motion and justify why he should disallow the repealing ordinance, and that is concerned with the reasons why Senator Withers gave an understanding to the Committee to repeal the Ordinance instead of the Senate’s disallowing it. That was clearly stated for the Senate in the Committee’s report of 18 March. Two grounds were stated in Senator Douglas McClelland ‘s opening remarks. The first one was made by himself and the second by my invitation. Paragraph 3 of the report states that the ordinance allowing for acquisition allowed the Governor-General of this country by compulsory acquisition to acquire any private land on Cocos Island for any purpose whatever with the right to transfer that land to any other person. The Committee’s principle is to protect private rights, protect property rights, protect individual rights, That is stated in paragraph 3. Paragraph 4 states the second situation. The

Lands (Acquisition) Act outlines the terms upon which land is to be acquired compulsorily. As I understand it, it is applicable to the external territories. Why therefore bring in a special ordinance with specific restrictions on people’s rights in derogation of the right of the public statute of this country? So we said that we were not concerned with policy but were concerned that ordinances made by the Executive were not used to give effect to substantive matters of policy which ought to be the subject of parliamentary enactment. Therefore if anybody has to be expropriated of their property on Cocos Island it should be in accordance with law. That is the content of this debate, I submit.

Senator Keeffe:

– Mr Acting Deputy President -

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTOrder! It is now 3 o’clock and under sessional orders the Senate will now proceed to general business.

Suspension of Standing Orders

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

– I do not want to take advantage of standing order 127 to prevent Senator Douglas McClelland concluding his speech. Because I think that it would be unfair to the honourable senator to have to return to this motion next week, I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senator Keeffe:

– I will be brief in my point of order. I submit that the points of order that have been raised from the other side of the House are not totally valid. It reminds one of a Press report which says: ‘Legal argument then took place while the jury was out and the court was cleared ‘. Two eminent lawyers and one eminent bush lawyer from the other side of the House have been endeavouring to raise these points of order. Senator Douglas McClelland, in order to do his job effectively on behalf of the Opposition, needs to give some of this background history. I hope that the debate will be allowed to continue along those lines.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTSenator Douglas McClelland is entitled to speak to the motion and make his case, but I ask turn to confine himself to the motion and not stray too far from it. The point of order is not upheld.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have just about completed the case that I wanted to put on behalf of the Opposition. We know that Senator Wright and Senator Cormack have always been interested in preserving the property rights and establishment concerns of people such as Mr Clunies Ross and preserving colonialism and the feudal system. We also have to consider the rights of the ordinary people on that Island, rights that have been denied them since 1 827 when the people were first imported into the territory by the Clunies Ross estate. For 5 generations these people have been exploited and plundered. It is about time that this Parliament, if it believes in humanity and the dignity of the Australian, undertook to do something to ameliorate the conditions under which these people live in a very servile state. It is for those reasons that we believe the repeal of this ordinance should be disallowed.

Debate (on motion by Senator Withers) adjourned.

page 198

QUESTION

RELEASE OF LAND TO GOVERNMENT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I move:

That the Minister for Administrative Services, in conjunction with his associated Ministers, should accelerate the release of the following land to the Government of the State of New South Wales which will provide essential sports arenas for Sydney to successfully enable that city to hold a future Olympic or Commonwealth Games, viz: (a) Moore Park Engineers’ Depot; and (b) upper foreshore reaches of the Parramatta River.

The gist of this motion is simple. I am endeavouring to accelerate the release of certain Australian Government occupied land in the city of Sydney and the picture I will paint relates to the period of time when the present Foreign Minister, Andrew Peacock, was Minister for the Army. It involves also the stewardship of the subsequent Defence Minister, Mr Barnard, and two Administrative Affairs Ministers, Mr Daly and the present occupant, Senator Withers. It is a very simple matter. In a city the size of Sydney the Australian Government should make a contribution of land. It should vacate a certain strategic area, the Moore Park Army Engineers Depot, to allow the Sydney Cricket Ground No. 2 and the Sports Ground to be amalgamted into a first class modern sports auditorium accommodating all codes of football on an international scale. It could also accommodate a Commonwealth or Olympic Games.

My association with this project began when the Honourable Andrew Peacock was Minister for the Army. At that time the question was finding an alternative site for Army use. I had a conversation with Brigadier Grenville, a very fine soldier and a man who is fairly realistic in these matters. It culminated in Eastern Command providing me, long before Senator Withers’ time, with a helicopter to survey the Holsworthy area near Sydney and also the Singleton area to see where the Army could go if it vacated the Moore Park area. I understand from Army people that in terms of strategic considerations it would not affect the Army if the Moore Park Engineering Depot were transferred to Holsworthy or even to Singleton. At the time that I had a look at these areas the then Minister for Army, Mr Peacock, was happy about the project and in a rather jesting mood said: ‘If you get what you want, Sydney then will have a ground comparable with the Melbourne Cricket Ground’. A former prominent senator, Senator Poyser, once told me where he thought the Melbourne Cricket Ground had faults and from a cricket aspect, possibly if a ground were completely surrounded, We would be more likely to get an appeal against the light than if the ground were open.

In a modern metropolis there is a need for a sports stadium that will seat in the vicinity of 100 000 people. It is a pity that Senator Lajovic is not here because when we argue about the capacity of a modern stadium I recall my visit to Europe in 1959. 1 think it would be agreed that the wartime devastation there was far greater than it was in the southern hemisphere but in those days there were soccer stadiums there from which 100 000 people could be cleared within a quarter of an hour at the most of the game ending. That was the dream that I have cherished since. That was the idea that the then Minister for the Army, Mr Peacock, assured me would take a bit of time. I am approaching this matter in a strictly bipartisan manner. It could be suggested, perhaps even by Senator Withers, that even if the Army gets out the Sydney Cricket Ground Trust may not have sufficient capital to undertake the project I have outlined. Whether the trust has a contingency fund I do not know, but I can assure honourable senators that the top echelon of the State parliamentary parties, such as former premiers Sir Robert Askin and the honourable J. B. Renshaw, have served on that trust. My view which I know is shared by a couple of my colleagues in the State Parliamentary Labor Party and by some in the Liberal Party is that there is a tendency to institutionalise things and one gets the idea that we must not change at all. I hesitate to quote him with Senator Cavanagh looking at me, but Paul Kruger the Leader of the Boers said: ‘You take the best of the past and you build on it’. This applies whether it was said by Kruger or anyone else. I think Senator Baume will agree with me that the present impasse in Sydney cannot continue. I do not say that the Treasurer, Mr Lynch, has to provide any money but this land is the people’s land whether the Australian Government or the State Government is the landlord and we should accelerate its transfer.

I come now to the next era involving former Minister for Defence Lance Barnard, and Senator Withers’ predecessor, the honourable F. M. Daly. I received a specific assurance from Mr Barnard that within about 2 years the Army would have moved out. I cannot see any indication of that. The position has been extremely complex. When I have raised this question in the Senate whether the present Government, the Whitlam Government or the Liberal Government of Mr McMahon was in office, we have got into a real old dog fight about whether I was asking for a single transfer operation, whether the Australian Government at the same time should be dealing with the question of a harbour side national park or whether part of the Holsworthy Army area should be available for housing. It is very hard to keep up with what is happening. The more one delves into it the more one runs into blind alleys. People like Ernie Christensen, the sporting editor of the Sun and a highly qualified sporting journalist, and his very able assistant in that field, David Jack, have taken up this matter. Possibly as an interim measure, the Whitlam Government through Mr Daly offered $500,000 to the Council of the City of Sydney to upgrade the E. S. Marks field primarily for athletics and soccer. The idea was that if the Australian Government gave half a million dollars the State Government would match it dollar for dollar.

In fairness to Senator Withers I should say that after this Government came into power I acquainted him with the agreement that was made by Mr Daly. I have a letter from Senator Withers saying that the agreement has been honoured. I have conveyed that information to people on the City Council and to Mr Ken Booth, the New South Wales Minister for Sport. In addition I have given it to the sporting journalists. I know that Mr Jack had lunch recently with Mr Booth but I do not know what took place at that lunch. I know that New South Wales senators would agree with me when I say that if we are looking at an Olympic or Commonwealth Games concept even an upgraded E. S. Marks field would not be sufficient unless we also had this other project. I should say to cricket lovers that this project will not in any way affect the Sydney

Cricket Ground No. 1. It simply involves the Sports Ground and Cricket Ground No. 2. The Sports Ground is a very good all weather ground for sport compared with other grounds, as Senator Baume well knows. There is the question of drainage and the question of whether it should be made into a rectangular area but the risk has to be taken.

As a person interested in urban affairs it seems to me that there may be some fears among local residents that if we increase potential capacity to 100 000 people we will have parking problems but there are grounds in Latin America and Eastern and Western Europe which seem to be able to accommodate this number. In comparison with some European countries we could argue that the magnitude of traffic here is more difficult to cope with but I have seen a ground occupied in Florida for gridiron football which can accommodate 80 000 people and with underground parking it is a goer. So I come back to my original argument. I do not believe that the Sydney Cricket Ground Trust will move until it is confronted with an accomplished fact.

Perhaps I could put it this way: Those people who have read the life of Ernest Bevin, a very distinguished English parliamentarian, would know that when he was on his way up after leaving the coal mining areas and valleys of Wales he always thought that the power existed in a local council. When he got up higher in the British Labour Party and in the British Government he still was not sure where the power was. I am making this plea now to the Minister for Administrative Services, Senator Withers. Senator, when I used this device on a previous occasion to ventilate a grievance during discussion of general business I made a plea to the Minister and his colleagues about the use of off-shore lighthouses when they were no longer needed by the Federal Government but I did not get an answer to my remarks; we went on to deal with other business.

On behalf of the people of Sydney and all the sporting writers who have plugged this theme, I hope we will get some tangible evidence that the Minister for Administrative Services has got in touch with the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development (Mr Newman) and said: ‘Eastern Command has to find another area for the Engineers depot at Moore Park’. I hope there will be an indication to the Sydney Cricket Ground Trust that it may take a slice of this area and include it in its blueprints.

Perhaps I should explain the position for nonNew South Wales senators. We could have an ideal ground if we took this portion of the Sydney Showground which is occupied by the Army. We could use that area plus the Sports Ground and Sydney Cricket Ground No. 2. Perhaps for a season or two Sheffield Shield cricketers who came to Sydney would not be able to loosen up at the nets at Sydney Cricket Ground No. 2 because work would be going on there. However, I think we could get over that problem. We would not make the cricketers go across to Kippax Lake and bat on malthoid wickets. We could put another wicket down there somewhere.

What I am advocating is not an impossible dream by any means. One of the problems we seem to have under our federal system is an inability to get things going. It might be argued, however, that ace sports administrators like Senator McAuliffe of Queensland were able to launch projects like Lang Park, but all areas are not the same. It is sometimes argued that sporting bodies should do their own thing. We might have reservations about the type of government we should have but I read an article in this morning’s Sydney Morning Herald about the East German college of athletics, anatomy and kindred other matters with which Senator Baume would be very familiar. I do not think we have to go ali the way but at least we want modern facilities. Ignoring for a moment the actual arena, nobody today is going to put up with ramshackle facilities. There are complaints about facilities from all codes operating in the outer suburbs. I suppose if we had a Treasury mentality we would say that a certain ground was not to be used every day of the week.

What I am talking about may be a status symbol but in the present economic situation I cannot see that what I propose would be a drain on the Treasury. For a number of years the Army has spent a considerable amount on its Singleton areas. I am singularly fortunate, thanks to the use of an Army helicopter, to have been able to get from the air a very clear impression of what could be done.

I am thinking ahead of future Olympic and Commonwealth Games; I am not merely considering the immediate fixtures. The venues for the Games have been up for grabs by various States. Somebody might say that the debt of the Olympic Games in Montreal is considerable. The former Lord Mayor of Sydney, Nick Shehadie, and people like him have been carrying the torch for something to be done. I am quite satisfied that irrespective of the mixed political complexion of the Sydney Cricket Ground Trust it will not move without a vigorous prod from Canberra. The situation is as simple as that and it is for that reason I make this plea to Senator Withers. If I appear today to be a sort of political Diogenes looking for the truth it is just that I am looking for progress and I would like to believe that something better can be done.

This may be a fragmentary approach. I remember telling Mr Daly, a former Minister, that it seemed to me that Service people were difficult to deal with. I know that Andrew Peacock did the same thing. I think we agreed. However, Brigadier Grenville had some reservations. I might say that I went into the lions’ den. I attended a military tattoo at Victoria Barracks and afterwards spoke to the officers about this matter. I did not take them on here; I went up there. They had some reservations about the matter. I spoke with Lieutenant-Colonel Brogan and people like him. They realised that this would be a good public relations exercise.

I have always been interested in forms of demonstrations and have considered guerilla warfare in the various cities. I do not want to get on to the subject of effective movements but if honourable senators had read a military journal written by a gentleman who stood against Bill McMahon for the seat of Lowe they would have found out something about urban strategy. A garrison in a big city can be blocked up. However, if the garrison is outside a city it is more mobile. If I were talking to Brigadier Grenville now instead of Senator Withers I would roll that suggestion back to him in view of the views of Major Peter Young. I am sure Senator Baume has read his defence journal relating to military strategy.

I want to conclude my remarks because Senator Walsh is getting ready to raise another grievance. I simply say that I want a report. I would like to know whether the proposal is on Senator Withers’ desk or whether the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen), a Queenslander, has been pressured by Mr Newman, a former Army officer, to hold the line. I honestly believe that this will not be an immediate charge on the Australian Government. I do not think it is a question of centralism; I have said before and I say again that I am one of those people who believe that Canberra, whether we have a Labor Government or a Liberal Government, can give leadership and then it is up to the States to move a bit. I very strongly advocate some indication from this Government of where we are in regard to the phasing out of the Army from Sydney to Holsworthy or Singleton. Let Sydney have a sports stadium that could be a potential venue for a Commonwealth Games or an Olympic Games.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– In order that I will be able to obtain the facts and up to date information and reply to Senator Mulvihill I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 201

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT’S INVESTMENT ALLOWANCE POLICY

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

That the Senate expresses its concern about the implications of the Government’s investment allowance policy.

This notice of motion which I placed on the notice paper in February this year has been overtaken to some extent by events. The investment allowance of 40 per cent for 2Vi years and 20 per cent for the succeeding 5 years, which the Government had announced as its policy prior to February, has since been enacted. I think the legislation was passed on 1 June. Nevertheless there are several points arising from that investment allowance legislation and the irrational thinking which underpins it which ought to be restated. One hopes that if they are restated frequently enough they will penetrate the consciousness of the people currently in control of economic policy and taxation policy in this country. The Liberal Party’s document is entitled New Government Policies. I am not sure precisely when it was published but I think it was in December 1975. The document can be found in the Library and the reference is 329/407. On page 6 of that document the Liberal Party, then in Government, set out its economic policy. Under the heading ‘ Investment Revival ‘ it said:

The strategy for restoring full employment and economic growth is based on a revival of private investment.

That strategy, or wishful thought, was put into legislation on 1 June, the essential features of which I have already detailed. Common sense would have suggested that, at a time when industry was operating at well below capacity, when manufacturing industry, to which the allowance was presumably largely directed, was operating at capacities estimated at between 70 and 80 per cent, and when there was no sign of a resurgance of consumer demand, it would be extremely difficult to persuade private business to embark upon a new or expanded investment program. Of course, some private investment was made; some private investment will continue to be made The point, however, is that that level of investment almost certainly would have taken place with or without the investment allowance.

Superimposed on the improbability of private business embarking upon a new investment program when it already had surplus capacity and when there was no sign of a resurgence of* consumer demand was the fact that many private businesses also had liquidity problems and probably still have them. Regardless of their desires they were not, therefore, in a position financially to be able to embark upon a new investment program. The improbability of the investment allowance being effective in achieving the objectives stated in those circumstances was seriously aggravated by the fact that the Government announced that the 40 per cent rate would be available for 2 te years with an additional concession period of 12 months for plant not fully installed and a rate of 20 per cent would be available for a further 5 years.

The message was given to business very clearly that here was a massive taxpayerprovided subsidy for business investment. In effect the Government was saying: ‘We would like you to embark upon a major investment program immediately because we believe that it will stimulate an economic recovery but we will continue to make this concession available at the maximum rate for a further 2 Vi years. Therefore, there is really no hurry to rush into an investment program’. That was the ambivalent policy which was presented to private business by the Government. It said: ‘We want you to rush into a major investment program now, but if you do not feel like doing it it does not matter because you have 2Vi years to delay and to procrastinate and you can still reap the maximum benefit from the concession’.

Perhaps more important in the longer term than the absurdity of making the allowance available for such a long period and justifying it on the hypothesis of an investment-led recovery is that we have now been locked into an economic policy which may be totally inappropriate to the circumstances prevailing two, three or five years hence. To a significant degree, our options are closed for 7’/i years. No rational Government ought to make a decision to lock itself into a policy which may be inappropriate at a time so far ahead. Of course, there is the possibility that the legislation may be repealed or amended- remote though it is while the present managers are in control of the economy. I refer particularly to the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) and the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). The possibility that they may be replaced by people more literate in these matters perhaps justifies an attempt to convey a different view to the Government. To his great credit, Senator Gatton, a member of the present Government who clearly has considerably more comprehension of these matters than his Leader or his Treasurer, as early as 1 1 February publicly repudiated the notion that there would be an investment-led recovery or that it was a viable proposition when he said that he believed in a consumer-led recovery.

The investment allowance did not even achieve its primary objective of stimulating the level of private capital investment. The Australian Bureau of Statistics publication entitled New Capital Expenditure by Private Businesses in Australia for the March 1976 quarter showed that on a seasonally adjusted basis new capital investment for all industries, excluding agriculture, although marginally higher than for the December quarter, was only one per cent higher. It was lower than it had been in the June and September quarters of last year. For manufacturing industry the level of new investment in the March quarter, on a seasonally adjusted basis, was lower than it had been for more than 2 years. I attempted to obtain a copy of the June publication today but I was unsuccessful. I am not sure whether the figures for the June quarter have been published. There have been rumours in the Press that private new capital investment increased by 7 per cent in the June quarter but the reason for that is most certainly the desire to businesses to take advantage of the 20 per cent accelerated depreciation allowance for investment before 30 June rather than the continuing benefit of the investment allowance.

There is an important difference in principle between accelerated write-off and an investment allowance. That ought to suggest to the Government that, if it wants a particular taxation concession to be effective in terms of stimulating new investment, it will be much more effective if it is clearly stated that the time for its availablity is limited and unless private business undertakes investment within a short-term period the concession will no longer be available.

I confidently predict that private investment for the September quarter will fall below the level of the June quarter. That is not simply wild speculation or wishful thinking. The Melbourne Age of 1 6 August reported on a survey conducted by W. D. Scott and Co. which found that gloom and pessimism still prevail among the country’s business chiefs. The article states:

Less than 30 per cent expected a ‘definite economic recovery ‘ in the next year. The majority said they hoped for a real recovery late next year or early in 1 978.

For the immediate future about 40 per cent predicted they would cut their employment in the next 4 months.

The same number said their stocks would run down and more than 30 per cent predicted cutbacks in overtime.

At this stage there is certainly no decisive evidence that the investment allowance has succeeded. If in fact the assumption of a 7 per cent increase in the June quarter is correct, that will almost certainly be a temporary abberration and not an indication of a long term trend. It is not seriously suggested by anyone in the business community that the investment allowance, extremely costly though it is, has been effective in achieving its primary objective of inducing a greater volume of private capital investment. Indeed, it now seems to have been largely dropped from the political rhetoric of its architects, Messrs Fraser and Lynch.

The strategy of the present Government in December last year for restoring full employment and economic growth has been tacitly abandoned although legislatively enshrined. It is quite apparent from Tuesday night’s Budget Speech that there is no strategy for recovery. The Budget tacitly acknowledges that unemployment will be higher in the next 6 months and at least as high 12 months hence as it is now. It sets out a strategy of reducing real wages. It provides no stimulus to consumer demand. It gives no reason whatsoever for anyone to believe that there will be an economic recovery. The strategy that the Budget revealed with more clarity than any strategy for economic recovery is that it is this Government’s desire to make life more comfortable for selected businesses during a recession- a recession which, by the Government’s conscious and deliberate decision, will be both deepened and prolonged.

The objections to these investment allowances are not based simply on their cost. I have noted that the Budget documents estimate that there will be a cost to revenue this year of $200m and a cost to revenue next year of $600m arising from the investment allowance. Of course, there is a time lag of 12 months between the actual investment being made and the cost to revenue. Ideologically-based obsessions with balanced Budgets still dominate the thinking of this Government, notwithstanding the fact that it brought in a Budget which runs to a deficit which, when properly corrected, is just as great as the deficit was last year. I do not criticise the Government for doing that. I assume that it is some concession to reality that even the most case-hardened ideological prejudices have to pay some heed to reality. It must have become apparent to a majority of the members of the

Government anyway that this ideological commitment to a balanced Budget could not be achieved this year; nor, I forecast, will it be achieved next year. Grudgingly, no doubt, and unwillingly a certain amount of reality has intruded into the policies of this Government. .

Nevertheless, given that this obsession with having a balanced Budget is paramount in the Government’s thinking, the fact that a concession has been granted for a purpose- a purpose which was always questionable and a purpose which it has clearly failed to achieve but which has been so COStlY to revenue- automatically means that a commensurate sum will be cut off government expenditure somewhere else. Of course, the areas in which government expenditure has been cut back to finance this very costly and ineffective investment allowance are the specific purpose grants to the States, which have a very high employment generating potential, the direct capital expenditure on public works by the Federal Government, which likewise has a very high employment generating potential, and such other fields as Aboriginal affairs, which Senator Bonner was quite vocal about yesterday, noting that both the present Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) and the previous caretaker Minister had repudiated the undertakings that they gave to the Aboriginal community and to the Australian people as a whole not to cut expenditure on Aboriginal affairs. That probably does not have very much employment generating potential. Nevertheless it is still one of the consequences of this Government’s investment allowance policy.

In the longer term it just seems to be patently absurd to attempt to justify a policy of subsidising the substitution of capital for labour and then to attempt to justify that policy on the grounds of stimulating the level of employment. There is a fundamental contradiction in that proposition. It is theoretically possible to conceive that new capital investment in a particular industry which is technologically inefficient and therefore noncompetitive may make that industry more efficient and therefore more competitive and perhaps lead to a growth in output so great that it more than offsets the capital for labour substitution, and therefore the total employment in that industry may increase, even though the amount of labour required to produce a given level of production will fall. That is a theoretical possibility in specific industries. It might even be possible that it applies to the Australian shipbuilding industry, although that is pure speculation.

This policy, however, is not directed at specific industries which are actually technologically inefficient because their capital is too shallow. It is directed right across the board in areas in which it may have some use and in areas in which clearly its only effect will be to displace labour with capital. Any industry which is producing a commodity for which the demand is quantitatively limited must come into that category. To whatever degree that capital displaces labour- of course, if one subsidises capital one encourages that sort of displacement- total employment in that industry will decline. We had a fairly dramatic example of that in Western Australia last October when the Swan Brewery announced that it was proceeding with a $50m investment in a new plant at Canning Vale, I think it is. That decision was not affected by this Government’s investment allowance policy- it pre-dated that- but it illustrates the principle. The Swan Brewery announced the investment of $50m in this new plant and simultaneously stated that it would lead to the retrenchment of 300 of its staff. That is about 30 per cent of the brewery’s total employment.

Another area in which the cost to revenue will be quite significant this financial year is in the purchase of very large tractors. These tractors are usually imported. I may say more about that a little later. There is a pretty effective ceiling on the level of agricultural output in Australia which is marketable. There again, the effect of this sort of purchase, which is encouraged by the investment allowance, will be to displace labour from agriculture, which will therefore inevitably accelerate the drift in population from agricultural areas to the city about which the National Country Party of Australia does a lot of grandstanding but for which it appears to have no effective policies to overcome. Of course, the only policies which would effectively overcome the situation would be policies concerning things like growth centres and attempts to move manufacturing industry and tertiary industry into the country areas because the potential for employment in agriculture has been declining for 30 or 40 years and almost certainly will continue to decline.

In adopting this investment allowance policy as the linchpin of what the Government used to call its strategy for restoring full employment the Government has, of course, repudiated a recommendation of the Mathews Committee. In considering a choice between the indexation of company stocks and depreciation allowances as against an investment allowance policy as a means for assisting business, the Mathews Committee rejected the investment allowance policy and came down on the side of the indexation of company stocks and depreciation. I have noted that the Government has half-implemented now, or signified its intention to half-implement, the indexation of stocks held. It has thereby done 2 things, of course. It has given highest priority to the policy that the Mathews Committee rejected. It has enacted one and endorsed another, thereby rejecting the Mathews Committee’s assessment that these 2 measures should be seen not as a complementary measures but as alternatives.

Continuing a little further with the investment allowance policy and the interaction between the investment allowance policy and the other taxation measures announced in the Budget this week, clearly the major beneficiary from the Government’s policy will not be manufacturing industry which has the greatest employment generating potential, but mining. The Government will abolish the coal tax progressively. It has signified its intention, contrary to the recommendation of the Industries Assistance Commission, to allow the write-off of capital expenditure on mining development, ports, associated facilities and so on over a5-year period instead of the 15-year period which the LAC recommended. In addition to that, the 40 percent investment allowance will apply in relation to most expenditure by mining companies. The compound effect of all those measures will be that more than 50 per cent of the capital expended on new mining development will, in fact, be provided by the Government but it will secure no equity. From that I must assume that the Government has no objection to committing taxpayers’ funds to mining industry development. Its only objection is to taxpayers ‘ securing any equity in return.

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

– I really do not feel strong enough to enter the economic morass in which Senator Walsh has been involved. I have tried to listen in my room to his speech and I have come in here to listen to him. From time to time he does give utterance to the odd economic truth. It is not often, but when it happens it is all the more welcome. I listened to the honourable senator and I thought: That is some of the greatest confusion in thinking that I have heard for many years. What the honourable senator really came out with was a proposition that we go back to a country with handicraft industries employing lots and lots of people, adding practically no value. I think this debate ought to be continued on another day when we have a bit more time to expose some of the rubbish which has been talked this afternoon. Accordingly, I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 3.49 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 19 August 1976, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1976/19760819_senate_30_s69/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant