Senate
8 September 1976

30th Parliament · 1st Session



The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. T. C. Drake-Brockman) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 455

PETITIONS

Discrimination Against Croatians

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 539 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 the Ethnic Radio Hour in N.S.W. broadcast in Croatian is controlled and run by members of the Yugoslav community and that the Australian-Croatian ethnic community is given no say.

That Australian passports have been denied to some Australian citizens of Croatian origin without explanation or possibility of appeal.

That discrimination has been exercised in the granting of citizenship privileges to migrants of Croatian origin.

That discrimination is being exercised by the Australian Parliament in the negation and non-recognition of Croatian nationality.

That discrimination is being exercised by the Australian Government in Ethnic Schools and University courses when it permits only the teaching of Serbo-Croat and not of the Croatian language as an alternative.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will consider these facts in the light of justice toward a people who came as strangers to this land, and that appropriate action will be taken to remedy the present situation.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Building Activity

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– I present 2 petitions from 152 and 75 citizens of Australia respectively as follows:

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

Concerned at the record number of building workers registered for unemployment benefit in Australia;

Aware that the Federal Government’s Budget for 1976-77 does not include measures to restore full employment in the building and construction industry;

Alarmed at the fact that unemployment is at the highest level in New South Wales and Queensland since the depression years, with clear indications that the position will further deteriorate.

Aware that at the same time more and more people are being denied proper housing and other building needs of great social importance are not being carried out

Aware that the apprenticeship system is being seriously threatened and many apprentices are unable to complete their apprenticeship. This along with the fact that thousands of tradesmen have been driven out of the industry, will, in years to come create a chronic shortage of skilled workers to the detriment of the community and with enormous adverse economic repercussions.

We, the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia, by this our humble petition respectfully request that members of the Senate insist that the 1976-77 Budget provides specific measures to lift building activity particularly:

Government construction of homes, schools, hospitals and public works development projects, employment and training of unemployed young people, restoration of finance cuts in sewerage and urban development work, provide finance to land commission to provide cheaper land for home building, provide low interest home loans finance.

We request that the Budget be returned to the House of Representatives with instructions from the Senate to include such measures.

Petitions received and first petition read.

Australian Broadcasting Commission

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 1 79 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 A.B.C. programmes.

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.

Discrimination Against Croatians

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 300 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 the Ethnic Radio Hour in N.S.W. broadcast in Croatian is controlled and run by members of the Yugoslav community and that the Australian-Croatian ethnic community is given no say.

That Australian passports have been denied to some Australian citizens of Croatian origin without explanation or possibility of appeal.

That discrimination has been exercised in the granting of citizenship privileges to migrants of Croatian origin.

That discrimination is being exercised by the Australian Parliament in the negation and non-recognition of Croatian nationality.

That discrimination is being exercised by the Australian Government in Ethnic Schools and University courses when it permits only the teaching of Serbo-Croat and not of the Croatian language as an alternative.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will consider these facts in the light of justice toward a people who came as strangers to this land, and that appropriate action will be taken to remedy the present situation.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Medibank

Senator COLSTON:
QUEENSLAND

-I present the following petition from 380 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the. President and the Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia do humbly submit:

That the Government should withdraw its proposed changes to Medibank.

The United Nations has declared this decade ( 1 975-85 ) as the Decade of Action for the needs of women. It has also declared the health of all people is a basic human right.

Believing that women have a major need for adequate, low-cost health care, the undersigned declare their wholehearted opposition to the changes intended by the present Government to Medibank, and affirm that any changes should be designed to further liberalise the original scheme, not to weaken it.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Discrimination Against Croatians

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– I present the following petition from SOO 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:

1 ) That the Ethnic Radio Hour in N.S.W. broadcast in Croatian is controlled and run by members of the Yugoslav community and that the Australian-Croatian ethnic community is given no say.

That Australian passports have been denied to some Australian citizens of Croatian origin without explanation or possibility of appeal.

That discrimination has been exercised in the granting of citizenship privileges to migrants of Croatian origin.

That discrimination is being exercised by the Australian Parliament in the negation and non-recognition of Croatian nationality.

That discrimination is being exercised by the Australian Government in Ethnic Schools and University courses when it permits only the teaching of Serbo-Croat and not of the Croatian language as an alternative.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will consider these facts in the light of justice toward a people who came as strangers to this land, and that appropriate action will be taken to remedy the present situation.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Australian Broadcasting Commission

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

To the Honourable the Speaker 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 A.B.C. programmes.

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.

Discrimination Against Croatians

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

– I present the following petition from 242 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:

1 ) That the Ethnic Radio Hour in N.S.W. broadcast in Croatian is controlled and run by members of the Yugoslav community and that the Australian-Croatian ethnic community is given no say.

That Australian passports have been denied to some Australian citizens of Croatian origin without explanation or possibility of appeal.

That discrimination has been exercised in the granting of citizenship privileges to migrants of Croatian origin.

That discrimination is being exercised by the Australian Parliament in the negation and non-recognition of Croatian nationality.

That discrimination is being exercised by the Australian Government in Ethnic Schools and University courses when it permits only the teaching of Serbo-Croat and not of the Croatian language as an alternative.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will consider these facts in the light of justice toward a people who came as strangers to this land, and that appropriate action will be taken to remedy the present situation.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Medibank

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 1 74 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, as set up in July 1973, 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 the above-mentioned form of Medibank has proved itself to be a far superior system of health care, than was offered by the private funds prior to July 1 975.

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’. During the December 1975, election we believed that the Prime Minister was referring to the original form of Medibank.

We submit that the current changes to Medibank negate the original philosophy; they introduce and encourage a tiered form of health care which relates more to the wishes of health care providers than the needs of the consumers.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Medibank

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 268 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 do humbly submit:

That the Government should withdraw its proposed changes to Medibank.

The United Nations has declared this decade ( 1 975-85 ) as the Decade of Action for the needs of women. It has also declared the health of all people is a basic human right.

Believing that women have a major need for adequate, low-cost health care, the undersigned declare their wholehearted opposition to the changes intended by the present Government to Medibank, and affirm that any changes should be designed to further liberalise the original scheme, not to weaken it.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Medibank

Senator COLSTON:

-I present the following petition from 48 citizens of Australia:

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 Australians 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 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.

Child Care Matters

Senator KNIGHT:

– I present the following petition from 209 citizens of Australia:

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

That the 1976-77 Budget allocation of $73.3 million for child care amounts to less than $23 per child per year which is totally inadequate.

That in 39.4 per cent of married couple families, both parents work and of these 59 per cent have dependent children.

That 38.6 per cent of female heads of families work and of these 64 per cent have dependent children.

The present government child care programs are heavily biassed in favour or pre-school programs, 70 per cent of the funds being destined for pre-schools which only provide part-time services for children and do not cater for the needs of working parents.

That existing government childcare facilities, schools and other government buildings which could be used for childcare programs are underutilised.

Your petitioners humbly pray that urgent consideration will be given to:

an increase in funds for childcare services throughout Australia;

an equitable distribution of funds to cover all the childcare needs of the community:

the cessation of the wasteful useage of sessional preschool buildings, instead these buildings to be used also to cover the full range of childcare needs;

) the wider utilisation of government buildings or parts therof e.g. schools, hospitals and government offices for appropriate childcare facilities.

Petition received.

Family Planning

Senator RYAN:
ACT

– I present the following petition from 1 10 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.

Building Activity

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 13 citizens of Australia:

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

Concerned at the record number of building workers registered for unemployment benefits in Australia: - Aware that the Federal Government’s Budget for 1976-77 does not include measures to restore full employment in the building and construction industry; - Alarmed at the fact that unemployment is at the highest level in New South Wales and Queensland since the depression years, with clear indications that the position will further deteriorate; - Aware that at the same time more and more people are being denied proper housing and other building needs of great social importance are not being carried out; - Aware that the apprenticeship system is being seriously threatened and many apprentices are unable to complete their apprenticeship. This along with the fact that thousands of tradesmen have been driven out of the industry, will, in years to come create a chronic shortage of skilled workers to the detriment of the community and with enormous adverse economic repercussions.

We, the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia, by this our humble petition respectfully request that Members of the Senate insist that the 1976-77 Budget provides specific measures to lift building activity particularly:

Government construction of homes, schools, hospitals and public works development projects, employment and training of unemployed young people, restoration of finance cuts in sewerage and urban development work, provide finance to land commission to provide cheaper land for home building, provide low interest home loans finance.

We request that the Budget be returned to the House of Representatives with instructions from the Senate to include such measures.

Petition received.

Cows Milk Substitutes

Senator COLSTON:

-I present the following petition from 1 1 8 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.

Family Planning

Senator MELZER:

– I present the following petition from 124 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.

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Discrimination Against Croatians

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

  1. 1 ) That the Ethnic Radio Hour in N.S.W. broadcast in Croatian is controlled and run by members of the Yugoslav community and that the Australian-Croatian ethnic community is given no say.
  2. That Australian passports have been denied to some Australian citizens of Croatian origin without explanation or possibility of appeal.
  3. That discrimination has been exercised in the granting of citizenship privileges to migrants of Croatian origin.
  4. That discrimination is being exercised by the Australian Government in Ethnic Schools and University courses when it permits only the teaching of Serbo-Croat and not of the Croatian language as an alternative.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will consider these facts in the light of justice toward a people who came as strangers to this land, and that appropriate action will be taken to remedy the present situation.

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

Petition received.

Medibank

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

  1. That we deplore the confusion generated by the Government’s proposals to radically modify the system of health insurance in Australia;
  2. That we believe the changes will destroy the concept of universality previously incorporated in Medibank;
  3. That the Government’s actions will lead to a two-class system of health care and thereby creating a division in Australian society;
  4. 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, by Senator Walsh.

Petition received.

Omega Station

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

  1. That Omega is the only worldwide navigation system, whose continuous Very Low Frequency signals can be used by submarines to determine their position, while remaining completely submerged.
  2. That in particular the missile-firing submarines of the U.S.A. can improve their destructive potential by using Omega signals.
  3. That it represents a major escalation of the arms race, and directly involves Australia even further in nuclear war strategies.
  4. That therefore an Omega station built in Australia would be a prime nuclear target.

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

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

Petition received..

Discrimination Against Croatians

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

  1. 1 ) That the Ethnic Radio Hour in N.S.W. broadcast in Croatian is controlled and run by members of the Yugoslav community and that the Australian-Croatian ethnic community is given no say.
  2. That Australian passports have been denied to some Australian citizens of Croatian origin without explanation or possibility of appeal.
  3. That discrimination has been exercised in the granting of citizenship privileges to migrants of Croatian origin.
  4. That discrimination is being exercised by the Australian Parliament in the negation and non-recognition of Croatian nationality.
  5. That discrimination is being exercised by the Australian Government in Ethnic Schools and University courses when it permits only the teaching of Serbo-Croat and not of the Croatian language as an alternative.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will consider these facts in the light of justice toward a people who came as strangers to this land, and that appropriate action will be taken to remedy the present situation.

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

Petition received.

page 459

CHRISTMAS ISLAND AGREEMENT ACT 1958

Notice of Motion

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

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

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to approve an agreement entered into between the Government of Australia and the Government of New Zealand to amend the Christmas Island Agreement Act 1 958.

page 459

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 459

QUESTION

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Senator WRIEDT:

– I direct a question to the Minister for Administrative Services. In its special report on financial assistance for local government the Grants Commission stated in paragraphs 16, 17, 24 and 41 that it had insufficient time and data to make adequate recommendations. In view of those comments, will the Minister take steps to refer to the Commission at a sufficiently early point of time to enable the Commission to make a full examination of the issues the question of what each State’s proportion should be for 1 977-78?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I think that is a fair request which the honourable senator has made. I will endeavour to meet that request when the time arises.

page 459

QUESTION

COAL CONVERSION

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Minister for Science: Is it a fact that Australia has 200 000 million tonnes of known black coal reserves and 1000 million tonnes of brown coal? In view of these extensive deposits and the declining production from Australian oil fields, what research is being carried out into the conversion of coal into liquid and gaseous fuel?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-There is a great deal of interest in this particular matter at the present time. Indeed, after question time today I will be tabling a science agreement which has been entered into by the West Germans and Australia. In direct response to the honourable senator’s question, I inform him that Australia is doing a deal of research at the present time into the production of liquid fuel from coal. Those studies are currently being carried out by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Its studies are concentrating on a flash pyrolysis method of conversion- an area in which other large countries are not investigating.

This approach is for the rapid thermal decomposition of coal and the production, in the end, of an oil-forming product and a residual char which can be burned very much as coal is burned today. The method will result in a 25 per cent use of the 100 per cent of coal that is put into the process. Within the last few weeks I opened for CSIRO a plant designed to cater for its studies into this matter.

Opposition senators interjecting-

Senator WEBSTER:

-Undoubtedly the laughter from honourable senators opposite demonstrates their ignorance. That is not the case with Senator Jessop who is well alert to these problems which are of great importance to this country. I believe that the plant that was opened recently will, during the next year or so, prove invaluable in the proposed conversion and will result in a saving to Australia of heavy oil imports.

page 460

QUESTION

KATHERINE MEATWORKS

Senator KEEFFE:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. I preface it by drawing the Minister’s attention to the recent take-over of the Katherine meatworks. Is the Minister aware that the killing season started a number of weeks late? Will this restrict the number of head slaughtered for this season to a figure below that needed to satisfy the export quota? Has the Minister heard persistent rumours that the meatworks are not managed efficiently and may be forced to close down if this situation continues? Is the Minister aware that the company is dismissing personnel in one of the few efficient and profitable sections of the operation- the wholesale and retail section? Is the current close-down, which I understand commenced yesterday, likely to continue indefinitely? Apart from the official announcement that the close-down is for the purpose of maintenance, are other factors involved?

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

– It is as difficult to run a meatworks in the Northern Territory as a Minister acting in the Senate for another Minister. I shall try very hard to be helpful because Senator Keeffe asked me a question at an earlier date about the need to upgrade the capacity of the Katherine meatworks. He inquired whether, if it were upgraded, it could handle a larger quantity of export meat. As yet, I do not have an answer for that particular question. Perhaps I should again ask the responsible Minister for an answer to that question and also to the question Senator Keeffe raised today about the meatworks at Katherine. I think it is a fair assumption that if the meatworks is starting its killing season late it will have more trouble filling its quota.

page 460

QUESTION

ACCOMMODATION FOR THE AGED

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I direct a question to the Minister for Social Security. I read a Press statement this morning regarding funding arrangements for organisations providing accommodation for aged or disabled persons. Under this arrangement $225m will be available to provide an additional 15 000 beds for aged or disabled people during the next 3 years. My questions are: Firstly, what proportion of the total cost will each organisation be expected to contribute from its own resources; secondly, when will funds for the 1976-77 year be available; thirdly, will it be possible for organisations listed for funding in the 1977-78 year to borrow against their Commonwealth entitlement; and fourthly, will it now be possible for the 900 projects that were at a standstill last year because of lack of funds to proceed?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · VICTORIA · LP

– Shortly after question time I shall be making a statement with regard to the 3-year aged persons homes and hostels programs and I think that much of the information that has been requested will be announced in that statement.

page 460

QUESTION

TASMANIAN BUDGET SURPLUS

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

-Will the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs explain to the Senate why he claimed in rather extravagant if not insulting terms that the Premier of Tasmania was guilty of criminal negligence in having a surplus budget when the reason for the surplus was the taking over of the Tasmanian Government railway system by the Australian Government, thus relieving the Tasmanian Government of having to budget for a deficit? Have not the Minister and his colleague tried to renege on the Commonwealth agreement with the State of Tasmania but so far have failed to find the sought after loophole? Does not the Minister agree that the State Government was provident in not overspending during the time that the Australian Government was trying every possible method to welch on the agreement?

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

-I think that the people of Tasmania and the Australian people as a whole would regard it as bordering on criminal negligence- they were the words I used- if a State Government which had the funds to engender employment and to create job opportunities in the State nevertheless did not use those funds and allowed the highest unemployment in Australia to occur. I would regard it as such that a government having such unemployment and such a decline in its general living standards should end the year with a recurrent surplus of $4.1 m and an accumulated surplus in its loan funds of $ 1 7.3m. The Tasmanian Government knew during the whole of its journey that it had this money and it declined to use the money to put Tasmanian people to work. I say in, I think, plain Australianism, that borders on criminal negligence.

page 461

DISTINGUISHED VISITORS

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator DrakeBrockman) Order! I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the gallery of members of the Committee on Production and Exchange of the French National Assembly, led by Deputy Henri de Gastines. The Committee arrived in Sydney last Saturday and before departing from Australia on 17 September will tour through the Riverina to Melbourne and will visit the Pilbara district of Western Australia. On behalf of honourable senators I welcome our colleagues and trust that their visit will be both interesting and rewarding.

page 461

QUESTION

ONE-PARENT FAMILIES

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– In addressing my question to the Minister for Social Security I refer to representations made over a considerable period to the previous Government and the present Government, and to senators, by organisations seeking the alleviation of the hardships suffered by one-parent families, including motherless families, in Australia, with which problem I know the Minister is concerned. My question is related to the undertaking in the Government’s 1975 policy speech to introduce, as an urgent matter as economic circumstances allow, a benefit described in the following terms:

For single parent families, or families where one parent is an invalid, we will introduce a special child care rebate.

Will the Minister inform the Senate of the extent of inquiries made and the information received as to the need for this benefit and the progress that has been reached in implementing this undertaking?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– Some work has been done in the area that has been mentioned by the honourable senator in his question. I am not in a position to make a definitive statement on the work that has been cleared at this stage. In response to the question I can say only that the Government is aware of the needs of one-parent families for emergency funding, income and benefits including child care facilities and other supportive services. All these matters are under the attention of the Government at present.

page 461

QUESTION

MEDIBANK

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Social Security, and it is on Medibank. Where there are 2 wage and salary earners in a family- that is, husband and wifeand they choose to take out Medibank at standard rates, will the 2!£ per cent levy be deducted from each salary and partially refunded at the end of the taxation year? Will this mean that exemption from paying the levy will not apply to those choosing Medibank standard in contrast with those choosing Medibank Private or private health fund insurance?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I will refer the questions to the Minister for Health and obtain an answer for the honourable senator on the matters raised.

page 461

QUESTION

KATHERINE ABATTOIRS

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I ask a question of Senator Cotton as Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. Is it not a fact that because of continuing strikes the Katherine abattoirs is unable to carry out the killing program as planned for this season and, because of this situation, the economic operation of the meat works could be in jeopardy?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-It is quite likely that this question really is not within my representative responsibility, but I will pick up that part of it which seems to me to have an association with the portfolios I represent. If there are strikes, as it is said, in the Katherine meat works, no wonder the meat works cannot maintain its killing program.

page 461

QUESTION

MEDIBANK

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, which I direct to the Minister for Social Security, refers to an answer that she gave to Senator Donald Cameron on 24 August of this year to the effect that the Government intends that there will be provision to look after low income groups and especially disadvantaged groups with the idea of providing exemption from the Medibank levy for them. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government has decided on the guidelines as to who will be exempted from this levy and, if it has, will she make those guidelines public- or has this problem also been referred to the Income Security Review Committee?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– As a general answer, I am able to say that as previously announced those pensioners who hold pensioner medical service cards will be exempted from the Medibank levy. When the legislation which will refer to these matters is introduced, honourable senators will see that it contains a clause that will give power to make such exemptions. There are no other announcements that I wish to make at this stage. There will be an exemption power that will enable the Government to look at groups of people or certain people who need to have a special exemption or whose cases require special consideration. There will be such power in the legislation and the Government will look at these cases from time to time as the need arises.

Senator GRIMES:

- Mr Acting President, may I ask a supplementary question?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- 1 call Senator Grimes.

Senator GRIMES:

-I ask the Minister for Social Security: As the Medibank levy is to apply from 1 October, will the Minister tell us when we will have some guidelines as to just which groups in the community will be able to apply for this exemption?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I think it should be clear from the answer that I have given that the legislation will be dealt with in the Parliament and that the power about which we are speaking will be in that legislation for the Government to use in respect of those groups which are identified as having special needs. The power is similar to that in the legislation of the previous Government to deal with these groups of people who can be identified. Those involved could be a specific group of people or people in certain emergency circumstances. The power will be contained in the legislation, and it can be used. If the honourable senator will wait until the legislation is dealt with in the Senate, there may be further information which can be given at that time. But it is for the Government to determine the groups of people who will need special exemption or special consideration.

page 462

QUESTION

SIR HENRY BLAND

Senator MESSNER:

-My question is addressed to Senator Carrick in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. Has the attention of the Minister been drawn to an advertisement in this week’s National Times by persons claiming that the appointment of Sir Henry Bland as Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission is political in nature, based on allegations that he has affiliations with the Liberal Party? Is the Minister able to state whether this claim is true?

If not, will he request his colleague to make a clear statement to that effect?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I did see such an advertisement and I saw in it an allegation that Sir Henry Bland had been an active member of the Liberal Party. I want to say 2 things. First of all, Sir Henry Bland must be regarded by honourable senators on both sides of the Senate as one of the most distinquished and accomplished Australians of our generation. The memory of members of the Labor Party is short. I remind them that the Labor Party entrusted very important tasks to Sir Henry Bland quite frequently. The Labor Government paid tribute to his qualities. Sir Henry Bland is a great Australian and has been a great Australian. He has been recognised overseas, for example, and in Papua New Guinea was the Chancellor -

Opposition Senators- Ha, ha!

Senator CARRICK:

– I hope, Mr Deputy President, that the people of Papua New Guinea consider it a joke that they should be laughed and sneered at in this way. It is no mean tribute that Sir Henry was chosen as the Chancellor of their university. May I correct myself; I am confusing my departmental heads because that was Sir John Crawford. Quite right; the laugh is on me. But I do say that Sir Henry Bland has made a tremendously distinguished contribution to Australia as a Permanent Head and as a person. I have no knowledge of any involvement by Sir Henry Bland in the Liberal Party.

page 462

QUESTION

CHILEAN REFUGEES IN AUSTRALIA

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs whether she is aware that there are now living in Australia 86 Chileans who fled their country following the military coup in Chile in 1974. Is it a fact that these 86 persons are in danger of deportation having arrived here illegally this year, according to the immigration authorities? In view of the compassion shown by Australian governments generally to political refugees from Vietnam will the Government give urgent consideration to applying the same humane principles to these political refugees from Chile?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I will refer the matter to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs for his considerations.

A n incident having occurred in the gallery-

THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order ! Have those people removed.

page 463

QUESTION

APPLE AND PEAR INDUSTRY

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

-Can the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry inform the Senate when the assistance for the apple and pear industry for this season will be announced as growers for some time have been preparing for this year’s crop?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-I am unable to give the honourable senator the details which she needs, but I shall get them for her from the Minister for Primary Industry.

page 463

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE STAFF CEILINGS

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate in his capacity as Minister representing the Prime Minister. He will recall my questions about staff ceilings and the complaint of many staff associations representing departments and statutory authorities that the ceilings adopted by the Government are unreal. I draw the Minister’s attention to the report of the Public Service Board which supports that contention. As the Leader will know, the Board now suggests that such ceilings may affect the efficiency of the Public Service. Will the Minister draw the Prime Minister’s attention to these reports, including the reports from the unions, and suggest that a review be made of those ceilings to make sure that maximum employment opportunities will be available, particularly in the apprenticeship area?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I know the honourable senator has always had a great interest in these matters. He has asked me a number of questions on them. I will certainly pass on to the Prime Minister his request and obtain for him an answer at the earliest possible moment.

page 463

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL LEGAL AID SERVICE

Senator CHANEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I refer to the problems faced by the Aboriginal Legal Aid Service in Western Australia in providing adequate services across the very large area of the State. What is the attitude of the Government to the Aboriginal Legal Aid Service? Is this an area in which additional funds might be made available?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– The Government is committed to supporting the Aboriginal Legal Aid Service, which has demonstrated its ability to act responsibly and effectively on behalf of Aboriginal people. The budgetary allocation for Aboriginal legal aid has been held at the same level as last year, but there may be some scope for review of the use of the funds throughout the year. I understand that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs will be meeting shortly with representatives from legal aid services throughout Australia to discuss with them their future operations.

page 463

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH GRANT: ALLEGED MISUSE

Senator HARRADINE:
TASMANIA

– 1 preface my question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, by drawing attention to the article in the Australian of 27 August which reports that an imposter was recruited to the staff of Professor E. L. Wheelwright, at a very large salary, to work on a project which was funded by the Federal Government to the tune of $50,000. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to this article? In view of the fact that the project was funded in part by a grant of $50,000 from the Commonwealth Government, does the AuditorGeneral intend to investigate the matter with a view to determining whether the grant was used for the purpose for which it was given? If there has been improper use of the grant, is the Auditor-General able to institute proceedings for the recovery of money which may have been misused?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I ask that my colleague the Minister for Education answer this question because it is within his area of responsibility.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have information concerning the man, Mr Boyle. That information is that on 18 June 1975 Mr J. G. C. Boyle was appointed Research Fellow in the Department of Economics under the Multi-national Corporations Research Project Fund from 1 July 1 975 to 31 December 1975, at a salary of $15,075. In January 1976 he was rc-appointed for a further 6 months, and in July for a further 6 months. On 24 August 1976 the Vice-Chancellor asked the Deputy Registrar to investigate whether Mr Boyle was an honours arts graduate of the University of Sydney and an economics graduate of the University of London. It was found that Mr Boyle was not on the list of graduates of the University of Sydney or on the list of University of London graduates. On 25 August the Registrar interviewed Mr Boyle who claimed that he did have the degrees from Sydney and London. The Registrar gave him until the end of that day to produce documentary evidence of this claim. On the morning of 26 August the Registrar dictated a note to the Vice-Chancellor recommending the termination of Mr Boyle ‘s services. Before that note had been dispatched Mr Boyle submitted his resignation. His resignation was accepted and I understand that the police were notified.

It is true that in June 1974 XL Petroleum Pty Ltd made an unsolicited grant of $50,000 to the university for research into multinational corporations, under the direction of Associate Professor Wheelwright. Associate Professor Wheelwright later asked Dr Jim Cairns for a matching grant from the Australian Government. In January 1975 Dr Cairns notified Associate Professor Wheelwright that the matching grant had been approved. In May 1975 Associate Professor Wheelwright recommended the appointment of Mr Boyle and submitted a curriculum vitae which Mr Boyle had sent to him on 21 April 1975. That is the substance of the matter. It is true that, on the evidence, the man misrepresented his qualifications and has retired from the office. I do not know that there is any situation in which improper use of money can be alleged but I will look at the point which Senator Harradine has raised and, if there is any substance to it, I will have further investigations made.

Senator HARRADINE:

– I ask a supplementary question of the Minister representing the Prime Minister in this chamber. What procedures are adopted by the Auditor-General’s Office to ensure that the vast sums of public moneys made available to universities are spent in an authorised fashion?

Senator WITHERS:

-I will seek that information for the honourable senator.

page 464

QUESTION

USE OF PARLIAMENTARY STATIONERY

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Minister for Administrative Services whether he has received any complaints concerning a letter sent by a Miss Karen B. Rush in relation to the Women and Politics Conference held in Canberra last year and the possibility of holding such a conference in each State towards the end of this year. Is the Minister aware that these letters were sent out to addressees in at least 2 States in parliamentary pre-paid envelopes? Can the Minister advise who provided these envelopes to a private individual and whether it is in order for envelopes which are meant to be for the use of senators and members for their parliamentary work to be used by other people?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-The matters referred to by the honourable senator have been drawn to my attention. I have received a number of written complaints from recipients of those letters. My inquiries have established that a number of letters in pre-paid Parliament House envelopes have been sent out. They contained a letter purportedly I use that word advisedly- signed by a

Miss Rush, inviting women who attended the Women and Politics Conference to set up State committees to organise further conferences. I make it quite clear that it is none of my business whether or not Miss Rush wishes to organise such conferences, but I believe that the use of pre-paid envelopes by persons not members of the Parliament should be a matter of concern to all honourable senators and members.

Honourable senators will recall that the Remuneration Tribunal has laid down that each senator or member shall be entitled to be provided each month with 1000 pre-paid official Parliament House envelopes to be posted only from Parliament House. As I understand the Tribunal ‘s determination, it intended that these envelopes should be used only by senators and members, clearly to allow them to fulfil their parliamentary duties. I do not believe that they were provided to be distributed at large to anyone who wished to carry out what are really private activities. However, Mr Deputy President, as you are well aware, the control of these pre-paid envelopes rests with the Presiding Officers and accordingly I intend to refer the complaints to you and to Mr Speaker in the other place.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– You make no accusation about anyone?

Senator WITHERS:

-I have no information as to who may have supplied the envelopes. I know from which House the envelopes came. But this is a matter which I believe ought to be investigated by the Presiding Officers and not by me.

page 464

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN SECRET INTELLIGENCE SERVICE

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. The information on which it is based has just come to my notice and it is found in a number of papers which fell from the sky a few minutes ago. Is there any truth in the allegation that Australia had at least 2 members of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service in the Australian Embassy in Santiago before, during and after the coup in Chile and working directly under the Central Intelligence Agency?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

– Was that not during the period of the Whitlam Government? My history is a little bit vague as to just when the communist government of Chile was thrown out, but it was during the Whitlam Government’s regime. I therefore suggest that at the next Caucus meeting the honourable senator ask that question of his present Leader.

Senator CAVANAGH:

- Mr Deputy President, I ask a supplementary question. I want to know about the responsibility of the Government in this matter. Did Australia have 2 Australian Secret Intelligence Service members in Santiago at the time of the coup? Whoever was responsible will have to take the responsibility. I want to know whether this country had 2 Australian Secret Intelligence Service agents at the Australian Embassy during the period of the coup working under the Central Intelligence Agency.

Senator WITHERS:

-I can well understand why the honourable senator asks the question.

Senator Walsh:

– He wants an answer, that is why.

Senator WITHERS:

-I ask the honourable senator to contain himself. I know that honourable senators opposite are somewhat worried about the previous Prime Minister and the problems which he had over East Timor and the conduct which took place then. Perhaps the honourable senators are somewhat interested in what happened in another place, also under that Prime Minister. I still think that these are questions which Senator Cavanagh ought to direct to his present Leader at a Caucus meeting.

page 465

QUESTION

CANNING FRUIT INDUSTRY

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– The Minister representing the Treasurer will be aware of the depressed state of the canning fruit industry, particularly in relation to canning pears. With a view to assisting diversification in the industry will the Minister consider the exemption from sales tax of pear wines and pear ciders to bring them into line with apple wines and grape wines which are already exempt from sales tax?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-I do not know whether this case has been put to the Treasurer. Most of these matters usually are. I shall certainly check this matter for the honourable senator and see whether it has been raised with the Treasurer. If it has not I shall see what the Treasurer will do about it. If it has I shall find out his reaction.

page 465

QUESTION

LOCAL GOVERNMENT: UNEMPLOYMENT

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

-My question is directed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs. I refer to his answer to a question asked by Senator Walters yesterday and again during question time today in which he developed the new-found proposition that it is the responsibility of a State government with a Budget surplus to create employment opportunities in an effort to cure the current unemployment situation in Australia. I ask the Minister whether he will develop that proposition in relation to local government. Is it the responsibility of local government bodies with budget surpluses, as it apparently is now of State governments under the new federalism policy, to create on the same basis employment opportunities for people in their areas?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-It is well to remind the Senate of the basis of this matter. For the last 6 months the Australian Labor Party in the Senate has alleged that State governments did not have enough money to carry out their duties and that, as a result, they were not able to employ a sufficient number of people in their States. This has been the basic theme of the Labor Party in the Senate and the basis of its attack on federalism. In an attempt to weaken the federalism policies members of the Labor Party have said that not enough money has been made available to State governments. One by one the Labor Premiers have shown that this is not true. The Labor Premiers of Tasmania and South Australia have had not only sufficient money but also surpluses which they did not spend. Since the moneys are made available to governments to carry out policies, including constructive policies of employment, if in the knowledge that there was gross unemployment in his State a Premier deliberately withheld moneys which were available, then that Premier was creating and condoning gross unemployment in the State. That is beyond doubt. The funds available to local government bodies, whether by revenue from rates which they raise themselves or moneys from governments, are to be used to carry out policies. I am delighted to say that funds made available this year by my Government have increased from $79.9m to $140m, or by 75 per cent, in untied grants for local government bodies thereby enabling them to create many more employment opportunities and, of course, they will do so.

Senator BUTTON:

– I ask a supplementary question. I again ask the question I asked initially. What are Senator Carrick ‘s views on the responsibility of local government to use budget surpluses to create employment? If I might explain to the Minister, the question relates to the responsibility of each tier of government. He has now said that State governments have a responsibility. Does local government have a similar responsibility?

Senator CARRICK:

– It is the united or cooperative responsibility of Federal, State and local governments to use the funds that are available to them to create maximum employment.

Therefore, the moneys available to local government can be used to create employment opportunities.

page 466

QUESTION

SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-My question is directed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce and it follows a question that was directed to the Minister yesterday by my colleague, Senator Bishop, concerning the shipbuilding industry. The Minister will recall that yesterday he said that the Premier of New South Wales did talk to the Prime Minister about the industry and undertook to do all kinds of things but that nothing more had been heard from him. Will the Minister agree that the New South Wales Premier undertook to the Prime Minister to convey the Prime Minister’s proposals to a meeting of union delegates at Newcastle and that this in fact was done by the New South Wales Premier? Is the Minister further aware that the union delegates then referred the matter to a mass meeting of all workers at the Newcastle dockyard which in turn referred the matter to the Australian Council of Trade Unions shipbuilding committee which was to meet this morning? Will the Minister agree that the New South Wales Premier has done all within his power to make arrangements suitable to everyone in a genuine endeavour to ensure that the dockyard in Newcastle remains open?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-No, I will not. The Premier of New South Wales and, I think, Mr Ferguson currently are negotiating to buy overseas a huge dock that could be built in Newcastle.

page 466

QUESTION

MEDIBANK

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. Is the Minister aware that the pay section of Telecom Australia has stated that it has no authority to make deductions from employees’ pay for Medibank intermediate and private insurance yet it can make deductions for Hospital Benefits Association intermediate and private insurance? Will the Minister take whatever action is necessary to enable employees of Telecom Australia to have deductions taken from their pay for Medibank intermediate and private insurance?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I have no knowledge of the matter at all. I will bring it to the attention of my colleague in another place and ask him to give attention to it.

page 466

QUESTION

EDUCATION IN THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

Senator ROBERTSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

-My question is directed to the Minister for Education. The Minister will be aware that the Executive Member for Education in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly has called for an inquiry into all aspects of education in the Territory. Will the Minister please indicate to the Senate whether such an inquiry will be mounted?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am aware that the member concerned was contemplating recommending to her colleagues that such an inquiry be held. I am aware that under the powers of that body such an inquiry could be held. I have had no official approach as to the inquiry. I only know of it in an unofficial way. It may be that an official approach will be made to me. Such an approach has not been made as yet.

page 466

QUESTION

ETHNIC RADIO

Senator SIBRAA:

– I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. Does the Minister appreciate the deep and widespread concern that is held by members of the Ethnic Communities Council of New South Wales about the future organisation and funding of ethnic radio in that State? Is the Minister prepared to give an assurance that sufficient funds will be allocated not only to ensure the continued functioning of ethnic radio beyond 20 September 1976 but also to permit the Ethnic Communities Council to fulfil its policy aims in the years ahead with regard to radio programming?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am aware that there is great concern throughout the whole ethnic community that ethnic radio programming on a proper, objective and comprehensive basis should continue and develop. I am well aware of that and I have no doubt at all that the body mentioned by the honourable senator is concerned that this should be so. The matter of the future establishment and control of ethnic radio is now before the Government. I am sure that in the weeks ahead it will be possible for the Government to make its policy announcements. I am sure that Government policy will enable ethnic radio in Australia to continue and develop in a balanced and comprehensive way.

page 466

QUESTION

INTELLECTUALLY HANDICAPPED PEOPLE

Senator KNIGHT:

– I direct my question to the Minister for Social Security. I preface my question by saying that I know the Minister will be aware of proposals for the establishment of an

Australian institute on mental retardation and that a special group of interested persons has been formed to look into this proposal following the first joint national conference in Canberra recently of the Australian Association for the Mentally Retarded and the Australian Group for the Scientific Study of Mental Deficiency. Can the Minister indicate whether the Government has considered such measures as a means of coordinating and integrating services for the intellectually handicapped currently provided by voluntary and professional groups and governments? Can the Minister say whether the Government considers there is a need for better co-ordination of these services and related research and how the Government might be able to contribute to achieving this?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am aware of the recent conference in Canberra in which the 2 bodies connected with mental retardation participated. I am also aware of their proposal with regard to the establishment of an institute. It is fair to say that prior to the conference approaches were made to me by the Australian Association for the Mentally Retarded with regard to such an institute being formed at some time in the future. The Government is prepared to give consideration to any proposals that have originated from the conference. I have no further information which I can give at this stage with regard to what was proposed.

page 467

QUESTION

RICHLAND URANIUM PLANT

Senator McLAREN:

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Is the Minister aware of the explosion at the Richland uranium plant in the United States on 30 August this year as a result of which several workers were contaminated by radio active waste? Can the Minister say what steps have been taken by the Australian Government to obtain a full report on this accident? If no steps have been taken will the Minister undertake to obtain a report and make it available to the Senate?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I have no information on the matter. I will bring it to the attention of the Minister for Health and obtain a report for the honourable senator.

page 467

QUESTION

FINANCE: CAPITAL TRANSACTIONS

Senator WALSH:

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is it correct, as this morning’s Australian Financial Review states, that the Treasurer’s August statistical round-up does not include capital transactions. If so, is this omission without precedent? When will the Treasurer produce the capital movement figures and thereby refute or confirm the rumours that there was a substantial capital exodus from Australia during August?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I do not wish to take part in this game of devaluation yo-yo. But I do want to say this: In any case like this when I am asked a question I will get specific detail for an honourable senator from the Treasurer. I have some information but I shall not give it to the honourable senator. I shall get a precise answer for him.

page 467

QUESTION

DIPLOMATIC MISSION TO CHILE

Senator MELZER:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I preface it by saying that I am reminded by a recent demonstration that Saturday, 1 1 September is the third anniversary of the military coup in Chile. Therefore, I ask: Why has this Government found it necessary to upgrade the status of our diplomatic mission to Chile to that of a full ambassador, in view of the fact that the United Nations has condemned the Chilean regime for its violation of human rights?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I will seek the information for the honourable senator.

page 467

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer: Has the Australian Government recently acquired a loan of $300m from the International Monetary Fund? If so, does such a loan carry with it any conditions disallowing expanded social welfare programs and benefits to the Australian community such as have been laid down in the past to dictatorships such as Chile, which received funds from the IMF after the coup which overthrew the elected Allende Government in September 1973?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I should think it very unlikely that the International Monetary Fund would regard this country in the same style as a country like Chile, whose people throw things into the Senate chamber. Here again, I shall regard the question as being on notice and will seek a precise answer from the Treasurer.

page 467

QUESTION

WESTERN AUSTRALIA: BUDGET SURPLUS

Senator COLEMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs. Being mindful of his earlier derogatory remarks aimed at the Government of Tasmania for tolerating the co-existence of Budget surpluses and unemployment, I ask: In view of the Western Australian Government’s $8.5m declared surplus, the unemployment situation in

Western Australia, Sir Charles Court’s assertion late last year that 300 sewerage workers would have to be dismissed unless the Federal Government made $3m available, and the State Government’s decision to take away the rights to free travel for pensioners, would he agree that the Government of Western Australia should also be accused of criminal negligence or worse?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– My understanding is that the Government of Western Australia will end up with a revenue surplus of $0.6m.

Senator Coleman:

– That is not the figure that Sir Charles Court gave. He said there would be a $8. 5m surplus.

Senator CARRICK:

– The revenue surplus will be $0.6m and not the figure that Senator Coleman quoted. That is my understanding. I am very happy to say to Senator Coleman that in the coming year Western Australia will receive $ 10.4m more than it would have received from the Whitlam Government if a Labor federal government had been in power. Since the basis of the honourable senator’s question rests on a figure that is not known to me, I merely reaffirm that my advice is that the Budget surplus in Western Australia will be $0.6m.

page 468

QUESTION

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Senator COLSTON:

– I direct a question to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs. The Minister may recall stating in the Senate on 25 May, in reply to a question from Senator Gietzelt, that the federal body of the Local Government Association had strongly applauded the new federalism policies of the Fraser Government without qualification. In the light of this statement and the often reported claims by the Prime Minister that local government would be better off under a Liberal government, how does the Minister explain the comment by the President of the Local Government Association of Queensland, Mr F. A. Rogers, to the annual conference of that organisation in Cairns on 1 September when he said:

Local government is facing a worse financial situation under the Fraser Government ‘s ‘ new federalism ‘ policies.

Was Mr Rogers speaking without full knowledge of the facts or is it that now the 1976-77 Budget has been brought down the Local Government Association of Queensland and other similar bodies realise that they have been led up the garden path by Mr Fraser and his colleagues?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– As I stated in an answer to Senator Gietzelt on 25 May, it is a fact that representatives of the federal body of the Local Government Association- from memory, I think

Mr Rogers is a member of the federal body- said in the presence of the Prime Minister and myself that they applauded very strongly the federalism policies as being a major new reform for local government. So the answer to the first part of the honourable senator’s question is yes, it is a fact. Indeed, in a public statement made by the federal body it said that as a result of the funds it would get from the Federal Government rate increases in Australia should not be more than 5 per cent this year. That was a public statement made from Canberra by the Federal body at that time. I am not aware of the statement alleged to have been made by the Queensland President.

I simply state that the greatest single hardship that has been imposed upon local government over the past decade has been the record inflation brought about by the previous Labor Government. Under that record inflation local government throughout Australia was forced to put up its rates by between 30 per cent and 40 per cent. No amount of small handouts by the then Labor Government in any way palliated that fact. The simple fact was that with rates going up by some 30 per cent or 40 per cent they could barely keep up their basic services. The present Fraser Government has done 2 main things: It has started a downward turn in inflation and therefore is restoring the value of purchasing power and it has increased untied grants for this year from $79.9m to $ 140m, representing a 75 per cent increase. In addition, the Loan Council has made substantial borrowing arrangements for semi-governmentals and therefore local government this year should be confronting very major reforms indeed. But I make it clear that there can be no meaningful or really gainful reforms for local government until inflation has been brought fully under control.

page 468

QUESTION

PRINCE NORODOM SIHANOUK

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. He may remember that 2 weeks ago I asked him whether the Government had any information as to the fate or the whereabouts of Prince Norodom Sihanouk and members of his family, who it has been reported have been murdered by the present Cambodian Government. At the time the Minister said that he would try to obtain this information from the Department of Foreign Affairs. I wonder whether any information has yet been forthcoming?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I did give the information that day after question time but evidently the honourable senator was not here. I should have to look at the Hansard to refresh my mind as to what I said. As I recall it, the information was that as far as our Foreign Office knew the reports that Prince Sihanouk and his family had been murdered were not true and that as at a certain date, which was stated in my answer, he was still alive. If the honourable senator looks at Hansard I think that he will see my answer recorded later that day.

page 469

QUESTION

D-NOTICES

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister: Has the Government an arrangement with the media of Australia that if the Government issues what has become known as a D- notice, the media will make no public disclosure of the matter which is the subject of the notice?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I have no knowledge of this. I suggest that the honourable senator should place his question on the notice paper.

page 469

QUESTION

WESTON CENTRE LEASE

Senator KNIGHT:

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory aware that a major developer has purchased a substantial lease for development in the Weston Creek area of the Australian Capital Territory? Can he provide any details of the extent and nature of the proposed development?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I am informed by the Minister for the Capital Territory, Mr Tony Staley, that the Weston centre lease has been sold. I believe that the purchaser was the Lend Lease Corporation and the amount paid for the lease was $2.1m. I understand that there is some movement in the sale of commercial land in the Australian Capital Territory which, I believe, is being keenly sought at the present time. This should give the community and indeed the Government some confidence that there are healthy signs of improvement for the community and for the Australian Capital Territory construction industry. This is a positive indicator that business is picking up. I can assure Senator Knight that his representations on this and other matters are being closely followed by the business community.

page 469

QUESTION

SESSIONAL PRE-SCHOOLS

Senator SIBRAA:

– Is the Minister for Social Security aware of the concern that is being expressed by the Council of the Kindergarten Union of New South Wales about proposed cuts in the Australian Government recurrent subsidy for sessional pre-schools? Is the Minister aware, further, of the results of a survey taken on 27 July 1976 of the 6082 children attending the 78 Kindergarten Union centres in New South Wales which showed that only 37.42 per cent of children meet the Government’s criteria of need? Does the Minister accept that, if the federal subsidy is reduced, there is very real doubt that the New South Wales Government will be able to meet the differences and the majority of children attending Kindergarten Union centres will be withdrawn? Finally, will the Minister consider maintaining the subsidy at its present level?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am aware of the concern of many of the pre-school associations and organisations throughout Australia with regard to the future funding arrangements for pre-schools. The Government has announced that it will continue the funding at the present level until the end of this year and it is giving consideration to the level of funding which will operate from 1 January of next year. I am unaware of the exact statistics which have been mentioned by the honourable senator in his question. I simply wish to say that at present we are considering the funding arrangements for next year and, as has been previously announced by the Government, we wish to give some accent to the development of child care facilities in this country. We also need to know what the plans of the State governments are with regard to the future development of pre-schools. These are matters which are the subject of consideration. As early as possible- I hope quite soon- an announcement will be made with regard to future arrangements for the services for children through the Office of Child Care.

page 469

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ASSISTANCE PLAN

Senator McINTOSH:

– The Minister for Social Security will remember that, in her statement of 2 1 May 1976 on the future of the Australian Assistance Plan, she proposed that the Commonwealth should assist State governments in the transfer of AAP functions after the States had had consultations with local government. In subsequent statements, she made reference to Commonwealth-State discussions which were to take place on the funding and administration of the AAP. I therefore ask the Minister: Have discussions taken place at a ministerial or office level? In view of the suggestion by the Prime Minister that these programs were appropriate for local government, does this mean that the States have turned down the opportunity to take over the AAP without specific grants? If so, is it intended to hold discussions directly with State and country local governments?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

-Various statements have been made with regard to the Australian Assistance Plan. It is known that the Prime Minister wrote to the State Premiers on 7 June of this year pointing out the funding arrangements which we had determined- I think they are known to members of the Senate- and suggesting that the State governments give consideration to the future arrangements which they choose to instigate with regard to the further development and continuation of the Australian Assistance Plan. As the Prime Minister stated yesterday in answer to a question, it was considered that this plan was something that was appropriate for State governments to develop in their own way. When we wrote to the States in June, we asked the States to advise us whether they proposed a continuance of the regional councils of social development. We said we would appreciate hearing from them on that matter so that we could take early steps to arrange the transitional stage from the Federal Government to the State governments of those matters which they wished to negotiate in that way. We have had responses from a number of States. I am certainly awaiting with interest the budgets of the various State governments to see which of the State governments are finding funds in their State budgets this year to enable them to develop further the Australian Assistance Plan. With regard to officers being available to negotiate with States, I point out that our officers are available upon request from State governments to have discussions and to conduct negotiations to enable the transition to be reached smoothly.

page 470

QUESTION

PUNISHMENT OF ABORIGINAL

Senator YOUNG:

– Some time ago I asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General a question. I will repeat that question. I hope that the Minister will have an answer. I ask the Minister whether he had seen reports that an Aboriginal convicted in the South Australian Supreme Court for killing a woman had been handed back to his tribe for tribal law and justice to be applied for bis misdeed. Can the Minister say whether this Supreme Court decision will conflict in any way with the application of Australian law generally, particularly in relation to any future actions of Aborigines under their tribal laws which may be in direct conflict with Australian laws? Can the Minister now supply the answer?

Senator DURACK:
Minister for Repatriation · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

-Senator Young asked this question on 18 May last and it referred to events which had taken place in the Supreme Court of South Australia on 14 May 1976. 1 must apologise for the delay in providing the answer he sought. The Attorney-General has now provided me with this information:

Sydney Williams, an Aboriginal, was tried in the Supreme Court of South Australia on charges arising out of the death of an Aboriginal woman. The jury found him not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter.

On 14 May 1976 Mr Justice Wells sentenced Williams to two years’ imprisonment which was suspended upon his entering into a recognizance in the sum of $10 conditioned that Williams be of good behaviour for a term of two years and further:

He shall return forthwith to his tribe, the Korota tribe, and shall there submit himself to the Tribal Elders and shall, for a period of at least one year from this date, be ruled and governed by the Tribal Elders and shall in all things obey their lawful orders and directions.

In particular, he shall, while he is under the control of the Tribal Elders- and that means for at least that one year referred to- abstain from intoxicating liquor unless he is permitted to drink intoxicating liquor by the Tribal Elders and then only to the extent of any permission granted.’

The decision was made by a South Australian Court under State law and therefore is in no way the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government.

However, I would observe that the circumstances of the case clearly raise for consideration some general questions as to the practicability of the application of customary law in our judicial system.

In that context I think it proper to say that the press reports of the case assume that the order made by Well J. directed that Williams be returned to his tribe to receive tribal justice or punishment. In its terms, however, that order did not authorise the spearing of Williams or any other form of corporal punishment which would conflict with or be in breach of the laws applying in South Australia.

The case is only one of the many instances where courts in this country administering the criminal law have recognised or taken into account the existence of customary law or controls. It typifies the increasing awareness in the community of the role that can bc performed by customary laws and controls.

One of the problems to be met in any application of the customary law of Aboriginals is that some of the punishments provided under customary law may, by modern standards, be inhumane.

Senator Withers:

– I ask that further questions be placed on the notice paper. I understand that more than 40 questions have been asked and answered in the last hour.

page 470

QUESTION

LANGUAGES AND LINGUISTICS IN AUSTRALIAN UNIVERSITIES

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present a report of the Working Party on Languages and Linguistics to the Universities Commission entitled Languages and Linguistics in Australian Universities. I seek leave to make a brief statement relating to that report.

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

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The report arises from a request by the former Minister for Education, the Honourable Kim E. Beazley, that the Commission report to him on several matters relating to the teaching of migrant languages and cultures, and linguistics, particularly Aboriginal linguistics, in Australian universities. The Commission established a Working Party to examine these matters. After considering the Working Party’s advice the Commission, in its sixth report, recommended that 4 establishment grants of $75,000 each be offered to universities wishing to establish a teaching and research program in the languages and cultures of migrant groups. However, the Commission’s sixth report was not accepted by the former Government and this recommendation did not proceed. In its Report for 1977-79 Triennium the Commission has reviewed its earlier recommendations regarding languages and linguistics but has concluded that insufficient funds will be available to support new initiatives in this field in the 1977-79 triennium. A number of the Working Party’s comments and suggestions do not involve expenditure of funds and their implementation will be a matter for individual universities. The Commission will be keeping under review questions relating to the teaching of languages and linguistics in universities.

page 471

BUREAU OF TRANSPORT ECONOMICS: REPORT

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present a report by the Bureau of Transport Economics entitled The 2CM Freight Wagon Bogie- An Appraisal.

page 471

MEDICAL AND HEALTH BENEFITS ORGANISATIONS

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– Pursuant to section 76a of the National Health Act 1953 I present the annual report on the operations of the registered medical and hospital benefits organisations during the year ended 30 June 1976.

page 471

QUESTION

DARWIN CYCLONE TRACY RELIEF TRUST FUND

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

– For the information of honourable senators I present the monthly reports on the Darwin Cyclone Tracy Relief Trust Fund for February, March, April, May and June 1976, together with a review of activities for the year ended 30 June 1976. Due to the limited numbers available, reference copies of these papers have been placed in the Senate Records Office and the Parliamentary Library.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I seek leave to move a motion.

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

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– On behalf of Senator Robertson, I move:

That the Senate take note of the papers.

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 471

SCIENTIFIC, INDUSTRIAL AND TECHNOLOGICAL CO-OPERATION

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

– For the information of honourable senators I present an agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany on scientific, industrial and technological co-operation.

page 471

AGED AND DISABLED PERSONS ACCOMMODATION

Ministerial Statement

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– by leave- I am pleased to announce to the Senate that yesterday I approved phase 2 of the Government’s 3-year $225m aged or disabled persons accommodation program. As honourable senators are aware, the 3-year program involves the allocation of funds throughout Australia which will provide nearly 15 000 beds in 1976-79. It will ensure the building of more than 500 projects which will cost in the vicinity of $275m. Apart from the provision of accommodation for aged or disabled people, the capital works will, in a significant way, provide employment for many in the building industry.

The main thrust has been on the provision of nursing accommodation and hostel accommodation for the frail, aged and infirm. Included in this type of accommodation are day hospitals and day care centres to provide treatment and services for residents of aged persons homes and aged or disabled persons who are living independently in the community. The 3-year program will result in the provision of an additional 4098 nursing and 8033 hostel beds. Included in the approved projects are 12 projects that will provide accommodation specifically for ethnic groups. It is indeed pleasing to know that these groups have taken advantage of the provisions of the legislation.

I would like to explain to honourable senators the way in which the allocation of the funds under the 3-year program is being planned. The promise of $22 5 m for aged persons accommodation over 3 years is unprecedented and is a milestone in the history of this legislation. It is the first time that there has been the opportunity for organisations providing assistance to accommodate the aged and disabled, to receive forward commitments from the Government for funding. In discussions I have had with organisations in the course of the year, they have all stressed the assistance this would provide because it would allow them the possibility of proceeding with projects using their own funds or bridging finance. Organisations would be given a letter of approval from the Government which would be designed to facilitate the raising of bridging finance because it would provide firm commitments from the Government for future financing.

Honourable senators will recall the initial announcement by the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) on 20 May 1976, that $45m would be allocated in the Budget for 1976-77 and that it was the Government’s objective to provide $90m in each of the next 2 years, giving a total of $22 5 m over the 3 years of the program. While the full amount of $45m for 1976-77 has been allocated, and I announced on 29 July 1976 approvals for 111 projects for the 1976-77 year, the Government decided that only 90 per cent of the amounts allocated for 1977-78 and 1978-79 should be committed at this stage; making a total of $ 1 60m to be committed in these 2 years. The maximum the Government decided to commit at this stage is therefore $205m. In fact, I have to date approved the allocation of $200.3m made up of $ 184.3m on new projects and $ 16m in 1976-77 on projects still in the course of construction at this time. The remaining $4.7m has been kept in reserve to cover normal variations or escalations of building costs in these projects. The program will be reappraised at the end of the 1977-78 financial year and, on present indications, it may be possible with the remaining $20m to fund approvals which should provide in excess of 1000 additional beds.

It is interesting to note that in the 22-year period of the operation of the aged persons program since 1 954, 333 1 projects had been funded at a cost to the Commonwealth Government of almost $306m providing more than 62 530 elderly people with accommodation. This is made up of 29 146 self-contained units, 24 689 hostel beds and 8695 nursing beds. The projects approved in the next 3 years will provide approximately 1 5 000 beds- that is almost 25 per cent of the total number of beds provided in the previous 22 years. The 3-year program would bring the total beds provided under the aged persons program since 1954 to more than 77 500 and the total funds allocated to more than $530m. The Commonwealth Government places priority on meeting the needs of the elderly and the handicapped; in particular, the Government appreciates the need to recognise in policy development that old people or handicapped people often prefer to stay in their own homes among friends and familiar surroundings. The importance of developing adequate domiciliary care programs with support services to assist people who wish to live independently, will be recognised in future government programs.

The Commonwealth Government has recently formed 2 committees- one to inquire into federal programs for the care of aged and infirm people and the other to examine welfare services and community-based programs in the healthwelfarecommunity development area. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a list of projects which will receive funding under the 3-year program.

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

The document read as follows-

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

-by leave- I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

I would like to make a few remarks about the statement made by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) and about the program which she announced. My remarks will firstly be aimed at clarifying some things which were not mentioned in the statement. Secondly, I would like to say things which should have been mentioned in the statement but which were not mentioned. In doing so I believe that I will restore some sort of balance to the statement to counteract the bias which is apparent. The Minister said that in the last 22 years some 62 530 elderly people have been provided with accommodation under the Aged and Disabled Persons Homes Art and the Aged Persons Hostels Art. She also pointed out, correctly, that the 15 000 units of accommodation which will be made available in the next 3 years will be equal to about 25 per cent of that number of 62 530. What I think should be pointed out- it has been pointed out in reply to previous statements by the Minister and by others- is that in the 3-year period from 1973 to 1975 under the Austraiian Labor Party Government more than 16 000 units of accommodation, or almost 17 000 units, were built under this legislation. I think that that puts the claims made by the Minister a little more into perspective.

The second matter on which I would like to comment is the Minister’s statement that this is a milestone in the history of this legislation and that it is unprecedented. I agree that it is unprecedented that we have a 3-year plan of expenditure in this area. I do not believe that that is such a great advance for the people involved. As I have pointed out, in its 3 years of office the Labor Government funded and built in excess of 16 000 units under this legislation. It did so without a lot of fuss and without a lot of announcements about great trienniums. It did so without people having to provide bridging finance for future buildings. I would like the Minister to clarify at a later date or in a statement the situation of people who have to pay interest on this bridging finance. Is it to be included in the funds supplied by the Government or will it be an added cost and burden particularly on the charitable and religious organisations, which do not have a lot of funds, which build this sort of accommodation and which need all the funds they have? Another point will need clarification at some stage. In previous statements on this 3-year plan for funding from May up until now there has always been the proviso: ‘Provided budgetary considerations allow, this funding will be available’. Those words do not appear in this statement. I am happy that they do not appear but I want clarification from the Minister or from the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) that this is a firm commitment, that the Government is pre-empting this amount of expenditure in the next 3 years to provide accommodation for the aged people of this country.

Another point that comes to mind and which should not be forgotten when we are discussing aged people ‘s accommodation is that it is all very well to talk about a 3-year plan of funding and to say that over those 3 years that amount of money is the equivalent of what the Australian Labor Party spent or is a bit more or a bit less than what the Australian Labor Party spent. That does not get away from the fact- we deal in budgetary issues in this Parliament- that there has been a 36 per cent cut in funds available for accommodation in an area where there is a great shortage of accommodation and a great need for beds, hostels and self-contained units for aged people. I welcome the statement of the Minister that the Government considers it important to develop adequate domiciliary care programs and support services to assist these people. Many States, including my own State of Tasmania, have domiciliary programs of all sorts with the aim of keeping people in their homes when they desire to stay there and when this is possible. Even under the new federalism arrangement the States will need assistance to improve and maintain these programs. I hope that fairly soon the Government will announce what it intends to do.

We know that the Government has appointed 2 further committees of inquiry to look into aged people’s accommodation programs. There is a committee to look at the care of aged and infirm people and there is a committee to look at health, welfare, community developments and community based programs. The Opposition would like to know whether these committees will be like so many other government committeeswhether they will report their findings and the reasons for them to this Parliament and whether the Government will take up all the suggestions that the committees bring forward. I and many people on both sides of this Parlaiment are somewhat disturbed at the frequency with which we are told that something has been referred to a committee- either an income security review committee or some other committee. We are told that decisions arise out of the considerations of those committees- or of the Bland Committeeand we have no idea of what those committees recommended. We have no idea of what their findings were. Apparently their reports never see the light of day. Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later date.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 485

WAGES POLICY

Ministerial Statement

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation · LP

– by leave- I wish to inform the Senate of certain matters concerning wages policy. This statement was made in the other place yesterday afternoon by the Hon. A. A. Street, Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Honourable senators will therefore understand that when I use the first person singular it refers to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. It is of major concern not only to the Government, but also to individual rank and file workers and the community generally, that orderly methods of wage fixation are under attack by certain elements within the trade union movement. In its decision in the June quarter wage indexation case, the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission expressed apprehension that industrial action to obtain wage increases and other benefits outside the Commission’s wage indexation guidelines was placing the Commission’s orderly system of wage fixation in jeopardy. In its decision in the hearing in relation to the June quarter, the Commission said:

For the economy to recover, two inter-related matters, namely, inflation and unemployment must improve. The whole economic situation gives cause for grave disquiet but in particular we are concerned with the present level of unemployment which touches not only the economy but also industrial relations.

We have reached the same conclusion as was reached on 28 May that ‘. . . we should proceed cautiously in order to avoid, if possible, prolonging unduly by our decision the hardship to which a large section of the community including wage and salary earners have been exposed ‘.

Economic recovery and a return to full employment are dependent on a policy of wage restraint. The Government’s wages policy has been devised with these objectives very much in mind and the purpose of this statement is to explain the Government’s policy in this vital area and the reasons underlying it.

Wages Policy Considerations

I want to make it very clear that the Government ‘s objective is to create an economic climate that is conducive to the raising of living standards of all Australians. Its objective is very different from that of militant trade unionists. They are prepared to use their industrial muscle to win gains for their own members at the expense of everyone else. Most regrettably, they show no concern for the unemployed or, indeed, for their fellow trade union members who continue to be priced out of their jobs.

In order to improve living standards for all Australians economic stability has to be restored and the unacceptably high level of unemployment reduced. As the Government has stressed in wage indexation hearings for the December, March and June quarters, and as embodied in the coherent thrust of our policies since coming to office, the single most important step in creating more jobs and restoring stable conditions in which a sustainable improvement in living standards will occur is a reduction in the present rate of inflation.

The nexus between inflation and unemployment, although becoming increasingly understood, is not sufficiently appreciated by the trade union movement or, for that matter, the Opposition. Yet, the evidence of the existence of this nexus is all about us. In the 2 years to the December quarter 1974, real male award wage rates rose by the staggering figure of 16 per cent. Bearing in mind that the long-term annual average is approximately 3 per cent, it is evidence that the equivalent of a little over 5 years normal growth in real award wage rates was crammed into two.

Since there was no commensurate increase in the capacity of the economy to sustain such an accelerated growth, and since Government activity was not cut back- in fact the reverse was the case- business incomes and private investment bore the brunt of the phenomenal increase in real award wages. As a result, the last several years have been characterised by high levels of inflation, reduced profitability, uncertain business and consumer confidence and an unacceptably high level of unemployment.

As to measures needed for economic recovery, there is no disagreement between the Government on the one hand and the unions on the other that increased consumption will play a fundamental role. Clearly, however, there is disagreement as to how increased consumption is to be brought about. The unions’ and the Opposition’s recipe for economic recovery is to maintainperhaps even to increase- the level of real wages at the present time. In the Government’s view this is dangerously shortsighted and simply will not work. The Government wants to bring about a situation in which growth in real wages can be sustained.

In present circumstances, a 1 per cent increase in wages can be expected to add something like $10Om each quarter to the total wage and salary bill of the country. The employment effect of the higher unit labour costs resulting from such an increase will vary from employer to employer, but broadly speaking employers may respond in one or more of the following ways- by raising their prices, by accepting lower profit margins, or by restructuring production methods so that unit production costs do not rise.

There is every possibility that those employers who stand to gain most from a price rise are our overseas competitors, in which event any shift in sales certainly does have adverse employment effects as far as Australia’s labour force is concerned, which is what primarily concerns this Government. Evidence strongly suggests that kind of thing is already happening and Australian companies are being forced to export jobs overseas. This trend could accelerate if inflation is not brought down quickly and substantially. Local investment decisions tend to be adversely affected too. While these decisions necessarily have to include allowances for risks, high inflation introduces a new and additional type of hazard. As a result, in periods of high inflation all but the most favourable capital projects are apt to be deferred or abandoned altogether.

I have indicated a second way in which employers may respond to an increase in unit labour costs: They may accept lower profit margins. But this, it should be noted, will also have the effect of discouraging investment, both because the incentive to invest will diminish and also because, with depleted internal funds, there will be less ability to invest. Any lowering of investment will mean a decline in job opportunities, which brings us back again to the close causal connection between wage increases and unemployment.

Employers, admittedly, have one further way in which they may respond to an increase in unit labour costs. In an effort to keep unit production costs down, they may take steps to rationalise their labour requirements by restructuring production operations along less labour-intensive lines. In other words, they may do what they can to substitute capital for labour. But this too leads to unemployment- and, moreover, unemployment of a kind that is not going to be easy to remove when the economy recovers. In summary, irrespective of the reaction of employers to increased labour costs, in the current Australian environment increased labour costs will impede the availability of new employment opportunities.

Since the previous excessive increase in real wages contributed significantly to our present economic and unemployment problems, an unwinding of that excessive increase is a necessary condition for a return to full employment. I stress that there is no choice in this matter. If real wages are not temporarily reduced by the application of orderly wage fixing principles, the market place will do it more harshly and take longer, with continued unemployment at unacceptable levels. As the Commonwealth submitted to the Commission in the June quarter wage indexation hearing, once the unwinding of excessive real wage gains has occurred, there is no reason why real wages should not, once again, begin to increase in line with productivity increases as has always been the case for long periods, in a more or less fully employed economy. (Quorum formed) The short-term costs of a temporary reduction in real wages will be far outweighed by the benefits of a more rapid return to full employment and sustainable economic growth.

Overseas Developments

Wage and salary earners in many overseas countries are coming to realise the adverse effects which excessive wage increases are having on the economy in general and on unemployment in particular, and are taking positive steps to moderate the growth in wages. Let me cite a few examples. In Germany annual wage settlements struck in early 1976 average slightly less than S’A per cent. In the United States the Administration, on the basis of information available on forthcoming negotiations, has confidence that wages in the economy as a whole will rise by less than 10 per cent this year. In Japan, the 1976 spring wage offensive produced wage settlement averaging less than 9 per cent, compared with 13 per cent in 1 975 and 33 per cent in 1 974.

In New Zealand in June 1976 there was a wage increase of 7 per cent or $7.00- whichever was the less- with no further increases to be made for 12 months. On 17 August the New Zealand Prime Minister announced a price freeze to operate until the end of 1976 to complement the freeze on wages.

In the United Kingdom the Trade Unions Congress has agreed to a second year of voluntary pay restrictions. The TUC has accepted for the year beginning 1 June 1976 a pay limit equivalent to a wage and salary increase of about 4Vi per cent on average. This is against the prospect that within that period double figure inflation will continue, although at a much reduced rate. Taking account of tax reliefs, the overall effect of the agreement for someone on about average earnings and receiving a 4’/6 per cent pay increase would be equivalent to a money wage increase of approximately 8 per cent. Nevertheless, there will be a slight fall in real disposable incomes, the magnitude of which will depend on the rate at which prices do increase during the year. It is of interest that the United Kingdom White Paper The Attack on Inflation: The Second Year states:

Some further reduction in the real value of take-home pay (affecting single people more than families with children) is a necessary condition for reducing unemployment and setting the balance of payments right; but the reduction in the real value of the average pay packet should be a good deal less than that experienced in the first half of 1 975 before the 16 pay policy was introduced . . .

People in the countries I have mentioned, including the great majority of wage and salary earners, have come to realise that it is contrary to their interests to seek unsustainable rates of money wage increases. As a result of community acceptance of measures needed for economic recovery, including the creation of increased employment opportunities, rates of earnings and price increases in most of the countries are approaching a level which is consistent with economic and financial stability.

The Australian Situation

It is because of the desirability of a temporary reduction in real wages to hasten economic recovery and the return to full employment that the Commonwealth has argued in the 3 wage indexation hearings held so far this year that wages be adjusted only partially for increases in the consumer price index. In the hearing following the publication of the December quarter CPI the Government submitted that wages should be adjusted by about half the 6.4 per cent CPI increase in the combined September and December quarters. As the House will be aware, the Commission granted full wage indexation of 6.4 per cent covering the two quarters. In the hearing related to the March quarter CPI increase the Commonwealth put a number of options before the Commission, stating a preference for full indexation of the minimum wage and the addition of the resulting money amount to all wage rates. It is of interest that this was, in essence, the method of adjusting wages for prices before automatic wage indexation was discontinued in 1953. This method of wage indexation would have increased the national wages bill by a little more than a half of full wage indexation. The Commonwealth estimated that this level of wage indexation would have reduced inflation by mid-1977 to a level comparable with that of our major trading partners. In its decision, the Commission recognised the implications of indexing wages fully for increases in the CPI. The Commission said:

The evidence before us on this occasion that the distinct possibility that full indexation would keep the inflation rate close to 1 3 per cent for some time to come, with the prospect of economic stagnation at a high level of unemployment, makes it necessary for us to consider the urgency of making a more positive contribution to moderating cost increases . . .

After referring to the difficulty of making accurate projections of price movements, and of predicting the future course of the economy, the Commission went on to say:

  1. . But these expectations do suggest that we should proceed cautiously in order to avoid, if possible, prolonging unduly by our decision the hardship to which a large section of the community, including wage and salary earners, have been exposed.

In the event the Commission awarded a 3 per cent increase in wage rates up to $ 125 per week, which at the time was about the average male award wage rate and a $3.80 per week increase above that level. The effect of this decision was to increase the national wages bill by about 70 per cent of the increase that would have resulted had wages been indexed fully for the CPI movement.

In the hearing in relation to the June quarter the Commonwealth again put before the Commission various options for indexing wage rates for the June quarter CPI increase and expressed a preference for overall indexation of about 30 per cent of full indexation. The submission said this could be achieved in one of several ways:

Tapering percentage increases, cutting out at the level of $170 per week (approximately the current level of average wage earnings) with no adjustment for higher rates of pay;

A flat amount of $ 1 .20 per week up to $ 1 70 per week;

A flat increase of $1.00 to all wage and salary earners above the minimum wage.

In the event, the Commission applied the June quarter CPI increase of 2.5 per cent to the lowest wage in the Metal Industry Award for Melbourne, and the resulting $2.50 was payable to persons receiving up to $ 1 66 per week. For those earning more, the increase was 1.5 per cent. The effect of this decision was to increase the national wages bill, in percentage terms, by only a little less than the increase that resulted from its March quarter increase.

The Commission’s decisions in the March quarter and the June quarter wage indexation hearings were a step in the right direction. If continued long enough, indexing wages at this level would eventually wind down inflation to an acceptable level, but as the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) stressed in his Budget Speech, we need to move further and faster. The sooner wages and profits return to the more normal relationship the sooner will job prospects improve. The Treasurer pointed out that the community was faced with a choice: On the one hand, the required downward adjustment in the wages share could occur slowly via a high level of unemployment persisting for a long period; or, on the other hand, the same adjustment could take place more quickly, less painfully and with much less cost in terms of idle resources and production forgone, if the wage determining authorities continued to reject full indexation of wages for past price increases and if the Commission’s principles for determining other wage increases continued to be observed.

The Opposition’s Approach

When the Opposition was in Government it recognised the need for a reduction in real wages but, except for a brief period, it regrettably did not act with the courage of its convictions. In 1974, it submitted to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in national wage case proceedings that year that a system of wage indexation be introduced which would provide indexation as a flat amount across the board derived by application of the movement in the consumer price index to the minimum wage. This would be equivalent to indexing wages by approximately a half. In the proceedings which led to the indexation package of 1975 the Labor Government proposed a form of plateau indexation based on seasonally adjusted average weekly earnings. The effect of this would be approximately equivalent to indexing wages by 85 per cent of total indexation. In making its submission the then Federal Government told the Commission that the restoration and maintenance of full employment would be jeopardised if there was not a responsible moderation in the rate of wage increase.

In the subsequent case in respect of the June 1975 quarter the Labor Government pressed for full percentage indexation but also stated that savings in the wages and salaries bill deriving from forms of partial indexation would have the benefits of stimulating investment and increasing employment opportunities. The Labor Government noted that its previous scheme of plateau indexation at average weekly earnings would involve only marginal savings but went on to say: Of course, had the Government selected a plateau lower than average weekly earnings the potential economic advantages would have been greater still’. Despite a clear acknowledgement of the economic benefits, including an increase in employment opportunities, the former Government proceeded to argue for full percentage adjustment of wages and salaries in accordance with the consumer price index increase.

This then is the fundamental difference between the approach of the previous Government and the present Government’s attitude. The previous Government, even in the face of business recession and an alarmingly high rate of unemployment still opted for full percentage indexation. Regrettably the same is still true of some State governments, who seem blind to the consequences of their policies. The present Government has been prepared to take the action which it recognises and the previous Government recognised is in the interests of the economy.

The Trade Unions’ Approach

The trade unions’ approach to wage indexation has also undergone changes. For many years they fought for a return to automatic adjustments to the basic wage for price movements. To use modern terminology they sought plateau indexation. When the re-introduction of some form of indexation seemed a possibility, the Australian Council of Trade Unions in 1974 sought indexation as a full percentage up to the Statistician’s male average award rate and a flat money increase to award rates above that level. Since then the ACTU has sought full percentage indexation. Moreover, despite its recent acknowledgement that wage restraint is necessary in these times of economic difficulties, it has condemned the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for not awarding full percentage indexation across the board, irrespective of income; yet it says that this does not mean that the ACTU has abandoned the principles of egalitarianism.

Furthermore, in criticising the Commission’s decision in respect of the June 1976 quarter CPI increase the ACTU does not acknowledge the Commission’s statement that:

For the present quarter there is no doubt that consumers generally will have a higher disposable income and this will apply whatever we do with indexation as a result of this decision. The reason for this situation is the twin benefits applying from 1 July 1976 of full tax indexation and family allowances.

The family allowances will benefit low income families and, as the Commonwealth advised the Commission in the last wage indexation hearing, the implementation of full personal tax indexation will mean that disposable incomes in the community this financial year will be some $ 1,050m higher than would have been the case had last year’s rate scale and rebate allowances continued to apply.

Industrial Disputes

Nor does the ACTU acknowledge the Commission’s very strong and very direct comments on the level of industrial disputation and how the incidence of stoppages acted as a factor to reinforce the economic arguments for less than full indexation. The Commission’s concern over the current high level of industrial disputes is shared by the Government and I have no doubt by the community generally. I would hope that it is shared by the Opposition also. The latest statistics available indicate that in the first 5 months of this year 800 000 working days were lost in 925 industrial disputes. Although these figures are an improvement on the 1 200 000 working days lost in 1 106 disputes for the comparable period last year, they are alarmingly high. Even more disturbing from the point of view of the Commission ‘s wage fixing principles is the high proportion of working days lost attributable to stoppages over wage demands. For the March quarter 1976, 47 per cent of working days were lost because of disputes over wages compared with 33 per cent in the March quarter 1975. The ACTU Executive cannot attribute the rise in wage disputes in the March quarter 1976 to decisions of the Commission, since in wage indexation cases up to that time the Commission had indexed wages fully for movements in the CPI.

The small movement in wage rates outside wage indexation is often relied on in support of arguments that there has been substantial compliance with the Commission’s wage indexation guidelines. However, trade unions that make extravagant claims and attempt to coerce employers to concede to them, cannot take credit for compliance with the guidelines if their efforts are not successful. A would-be bank robber is not blameless just because he is not successful. Pay is not the only area subject to a high level of industrial disputation. There has also been a serious increase in the incidence of claims in the nonwage area. The most disturbing of these are those directed at achieving a reduction in working hours. Less than 2 weeks ago we witnessed people in the State of Victoria severely inconveniencedwith a huge wage loss and considerable personal discomfort- while electricity workers struck for 48 hours over claims for a 35-hour week. This was the culmination of overtime bans and other work limitations which had been in force since the beginning of June. (Quorum formed) I find it incredible how anyone can seriously support claims for a reduction in working hours at a time when we are faced with such serious economic difficulties. Such claims must be seen for what they are: They represent aggressive and selfish attempts by the militant few to gain advantages for themselves at the expense of the community and at the expense of workers not as strategically placed as themselves.

A no less alarming development in the present precarious economic situation is the incidence of disruptions to normal working, which appear deliberately designed, with callous disregard for the convenience and interests of the community, to cause damage to the economy. I refer here to the politically motivated stoppages such as those on Medibank and the stoppages we have experienced in the wool industry, on the waterfront and in the power industry.

Concluding Remarks

The Government, in seeking partial wage indexation in current economic circumstances, has acted entirely within the Commission’s wage fixing principles. The fact that the Commission awarded partial indexation in the last 2 cases clearly demonstrates the Commission accepts that partial wage indexation is in accordance with its guidelines. Charges of non-conformity with the Commission’s wage fixing principles can rightfully be laid at the door of those union leaders who threaten to abandon the principles if the Commission does not bow to their bidding. These leaders have, moreover, demonstrated a total lack of concern for their fellow workers and the community. It is they who must take responsibility if high unemployment persists. The Government, for its part, has never pretended that the task ahead would be easy. It will continue to act responsibly in the interests of all Australians, as it was elected to do. I present the following paper

Wages Policy-Ministerial Statement, 8 September 1 976- and move:

That the Senate take note of the statement.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-I seek leave to make a statement.

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

Senator BUTTON:

-The Minister for Repatriation (Senator Durack) has just put down a statement on what he is pleased to call the Government’s wages policy. I take it that it is regarded as a very important statement by the Government because it was read yesterday in the House of Representatives when the proceedings of the House of Representatives were being broadcast and it has now been read to the Senate 24 hours later when the proceedings of the Senate are being broadcast. It is clearly an important statement to the Government. But it was not very important to Liberal senators because there were only Vh. of them in the chamber when the Minister started to read the statement. Be that as it may, let us examine the contents of the statement. The opening paragraph of the statement makes the point in these words:

  1. . that orderly methods of wage fixation are under attack by certain elements within the trade union movement.

In fact, the statement is nothing more than a rather cynical rationalisation of the failure of the Government’s economic policies, an attempt to excuse broken election promises and, ultimately, an exercise in self-delusion about an industrial relations policy. It is not in any sense a wages policy at all but rather a policy to reduce real levels of wages in Australia. That, in our view, spells trouble. We would have hoped that the Minister might have described the statement in those terms instead of the terms in which it is described.

Insofar as the Government’s statement seeks to blame elements of the trade union movement for the economic failures of the Government it is as I said an absurd exercise in industrial relations. The essential industrial relations question is this: How can any responsible trade union official in Australia be asked to tell the members of his union to accept a real reduction in their level of wages? It is an industrial relations question. This Government, one suspects, is not particularly good at understanding those questions, but, of course, it is crucial to any statement on wages policy. How can a trade union official be asked to tell his members that they should take a real reduction in the value of their wages?

Senator Missen:

– It is a matter of political leadership.

Senator BUTTON:

-If Senator Missen will listen to me for a minute or two he will understand a little more about it.

Senator Durack:

– Your Government previously had a policy of plateau indexation.

Senator BUTTON:

– Our Government had a policy of reaching consensus with the trade unions about wage indexation. I will be telling you, Senator Durack, in a minute how your Government has broken that fragile consensus, if you will bear with me. More particularly, how can a trade union official say that to his members in the context of the Government’s promises made at the time of the last election or in the context of a government which, in Opposition in 1973, opposed a referendum to give power over prices and incomes to the Australian Parliament? There can be no such thing in our view as a viable wages policy in a capitalist society- in a mixed economy- without a degree of consensus. It is that important element of consensus which this statement completely ignores.

At page 10 of the Minister’s statement appears the extraordinary expression about profits and wages ‘returning to more normal relationships’. I would love to hear from an honourable senator opposite what a normal relationship is in relation to wages and profits. I would like to know what is normal in a competitive society. That, of course, is the real question. Will Senator Durack, in some subsequent statement, tell us what is a normal level of profits, what are normal salaries for doctors in Australian society, what are normal salaries for lawyers and what are normal salaries for members of Parliament? He is prepared to tell us here what is a normal level for wage earners. That, of course, is what the problem is all about. The statement completely fails to deal with it.

The whole problem, of course, is the Government’s chronic inability to accept responsibility for governing. Last year when we were in government and honourable senators opposite were in Opposition, unemployment was said to be our Government’s fault, inflation was said to be our Government’s fault, and industrial unrest was said to be our Government’s fault. This all comes back, of course, to the legitimacy of what happened in November and December of last year. Once again, it was implicit in what was done that honourable senators opposite would solve these problems because they would become members of the government and would accept responsibility for them. That was implicit in everything that happened then. We are told now, of course, that the problem is that orderly methods of wage fixation- for which honourable senators opposite assumed responsibility when they came to government- are under attack by certain elements within the trade union movement.

In assuming responsibility for government the Liberal and National Country Parties assumed responsibility for Australian society in which the trade unions, the corporations, profits and wages are integral parts of the system. The present Government assumed responsibility for that. It failed, as a government, to discharge that responsibility. In fact, in 1975 there was, in the context of Australian industrial relations history, a relatively stable order and system of wage fixation. It was based on one simple fact: The retention of the value of real wages for workers. It was accepted by the trade union movement because it was based on that fact. In 1975 it produced a reduction in the rate of increase in wages from 27 per cent for the year ending March 1975 and 13 per cent for the year ending March 1976- a reduction from 27 percent to 13 per cent in the real level of the rate of increase in wages. At the same time, from March 1975 to March 1976 it produced a reduction in the level of inflation from 18 percent to 12 per cent. More importantly, at the same time it maintained the real value of wages and it maintained a social contract- admittedly a fragile social contractwith the unions and a consensus on the question of wage fixation. That social contract has been broken in a very marked way by this Government with no consequent marked increase in economic activity, no increase in consumer demand and an increase in real unemployment.

Let us look at what the Government has done. When the present Government was seeking power in November and December of last year, it promised that it would slash unemployment if it were elected. We know what happened to that promise. It promised that it would decrease inflation rapidly and we know what has happened to that promise. But more importantly in the context of a wages statement, it promised that it would support wage indexation. Mr Fraser, in his election speech in November 1 975 said:

Our reforms will maintain the purchasing power of wages and ease the pressure for excessive wage demands.

That is what he was saying in November 1975. Honourable senators opposite are in government because their Leader was saying things like that. Later, in the course of the election campaign, he said:

The Government will support wage indexation.

That is what Mr Fraser said in November 1975. That is what he was saying right throughout the election campaign. It was on the basis of promises like that that honourable senators opposite are now in government. In September 1976 the Minister makes this extraordinary statement called ‘Wages Policy’ which is not a policy at all. It is an attempt to justify what has happened since those promises were made and an attempt to justify what has not happened since those promises were made. I ask honourable senators to examine the Government’s promise to maintain wage indexation. Look at the way the Government has dealt with that promise. In December 1975 the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission granted full wage indexation and the Government supported it. In February 1976 the Government’s submission sought 50 per cent of full indexation- that is, 50 per cent of the 6.4 per cent increase in the consumer price index. That was the first little variation from the promise of 2 months earlier. In May, the Government’s submission sought plateau indexation at the level of average weekly earnings.

That was the second step in the breaking of the promise made by this Government in November and December 1975. In August, the Government again changed its submission to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. It sought plateau indexation at the level of minimum wages. That was only a month ago. People now, in the context of this statement and in the context of the record of broken promises of this Government, will be beginning to ask: ‘What comes next when the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has to deal with this matter again in December?’ Well they might ask. These steps have been taken by the Government which is now pleased to announce a wages policy 9 months after its election in the context of a severe recession which is continuing; in the context of company profits which are well above the inflationary rate in respect of 83 per cent of companies which have published figures to date; in an economy which is described by Senator Durack in the statement as precarious- and one might well ask whose responsibility is that in the context of the promises which have been made; and in the context of a declining level of unemployment. That is the industrial reality; that is the situation with which the Government is now confronted.

It is in that situation that the Government seeks to make the unions the scapegoat for its failure to manage the economy, the scapegoat for its failure to keep its promises given in elections, the scapegoat for its continuing opposition to granting the Federal Parliament power over incomes and wages, and the scapegoat for its failure to deal with the incomes of people whose salaries and wages are not determined by boards of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. So the unions are now to be made the scapegoat for that just as in June, the Prime Minister experiencing some feeling that perhaps his economic policies were not working, for which there was then abundant evidence, sought to make the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission a scapegoat and responsible for the level of inflation which we now have; and just as in the Senate in the last 2 days the Minister for Education, Senator Carrick, in answer to questions, has sought to make State governments for the first time in Australian history responsible for the level of unemployment.

This is a responsibility which the Government accepted in November and December last year and said that it would deal with by slashing 200 000 off the unemployment figures. No doubt 200 000 or a few hundred thousand could be slashed off the unemployment figures by jiggering around with the figures, but that is not a very real and responsible exercise in terms of government. A few could be slashed off by messing about with the unemployment benefits but again that is not a real exercise in terms of the sort of responsible government we were promised.

It is the context of those assumptions of responsibility that this Government took upon itself that, as I said, it now introduces a so-called wages policy which is nothing more than an attempt to rationalise failures- failures in relation to the economy, failures in relation to industrial relations and so on. One suspects from time to time that the Government understands the failures in relation to the economy, even though it lacks the capacity to do anything about them. Reading this statement one cannot get the slightest suspicion that it understands the failures in relation to its industrial relations policies.

Another important aspect of the statement and another indication of self-delusion within the statement is the comparison that has been drawn with what has happened overseas. First of all Senator Durack very glibly made a comparison with New Zealand. There is no constitutional problem about the fixation of a wages policy or about profits in New Zealand. Those matters can be dealt with by a government. But the Government parties have assiduously over the years sought to evade those responsibilities in relation to the Constitution of this country.

The second comparison was made with the United States of America. It was said that inflation is on the down-turn in the United States and that that was due to wages policy. What a pity journals such as the Economic Review do not agree with the Government on those sorts of things. The recession in the United States and the upturn in economic activity is attributed by almost every international economic commentator to one thing- a growth in consumer demand which was stimulated in the United States by slashing indirect taxes. That is something which we have advocated since the end of last year and consistently in the Budget debate as something which should happen here. Every device has been sought to try to stimulate consumer demand, even personal encouragement from the Prime Minister for people to go and buy refrigerators, whether they needed them or not. This sort of advice has been tendered but nothing has happened in relation to consumer demand in Australia. It has happened in the United States and that is responsible for their climbing out of their economic problems. But nothing like that has been done in Australia.

The third country with which comparison was made is the United Kingdom where a consensus has been reached on the anticipated increase in the rate of wages for the next 12 months. I would have thought that that was a very dangerous example for this Government to give. After all, I would have thought that it might have remembered the experience of Mr Heath when he did exactly what this Government is doing in relation to the wages policy which was announced today. Mr Heath tried to blame everything on the trade unions and to avoid responsibility for government. He sought to make scapegoats of the trade unions for everything that was going on in the industrial relations field in Britain. He was thrown out of office as a result.

The point about the situation in the United Kingdom now is that a consensus on wages policy has been reached between the British Labor Government and the trade unions. That is why they have agreement on wages policy, that is why they have agreement on the question of the increase in the level of wages in the next 12 months and that is why there has been a contribution from the industrial relations arena in Great Britain to the general economic improvement which is taking place, admittedly at a very slow rate. That is the key element in what has happened in Britain and that is the key element which is missing from this wages policy which has been put down by the Government in the Senate today. The British Government recognises that there must be a consensus reached with the unions. In Australia the consensus which existed has been broken by the failure of this Government to fulfil its promises, broken by the submissions which have been made to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission by this Government and, more importantly, broken by an attack on the real level of wages of the Australian worker. That is something which, in an industrial relations context, the Government cannot ask trade unions to accept. It cannot ask them to accept it in a society where there is no similar restraint on the incomes of doctors, lawyers, politicians, company profits or anything of that kind. One section of society which the Government lays claim to be governing cannot be asked to accept a burden which it is not prepared to impose on others. So long as that situation exists the sort of statement that has been put down by the Minister and that has been called euphemistically a ‘wages policy’ will be nothing more than an attempt to gloss over the failures of the Government in the fields both of economic management and industrial relations. Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later date.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT-Is leave granted? There being no dissent, leave is granted.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

-Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek leave also to make a statement on the paper.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT-Is leave granted? There being no dissent, leave is granted.

Senator HARRADINE:

– I rise to make only a short statement in view of the fact that this paper is not intended for debate today. I thank the Senate for allowing me to make this short statement. The paper is an important paper and should not go without some comment further to that which has already been made. I refer particularly to the statement contained on page 6 of the document, which reads as follows:

If real wages are not temporarily reduced by the application of orderly wage fixing principles, the market place will do it more harshly and take longer, with continued unemployment at unacceptable levels.

I invite the Senate to examine those words very carefully and to see whether those words support the growing view that the Government may seek to attack the twin evils of inflation and unemployment by taking the easy way out for them and the harsh way out for the people of Australia. The problems of inflation and unemployment are well and truly recognised by the general trade union movement of Australia. It is quite wrong to say, as the Minister says in his statement, that:

The nexus between inflation and unemployment although becoming increasingly understood is not sufficiently appreciated by the trade union movement . . .

That statement is incorrect. Those who have to suffer the burdens of inflation, particularly the low income earners, do understand the problems of inflation in their own lives. They understand also that they are being denied opportunities for better employment or for any employment at all.

The problem of unemployment at present is greater than any similar problem that has faced this country since the Depression. Unfortunately, the public debate on this matter has been marked by the Opposition accusing the Government of doing little to reduce inflation and unemployment and the Government, for its part, responding that it is all the fault of the previous Government. At a time when the nation is faced with the spectre of the highest unemployment since the Depression, there is no room for cheap political point scoring. There is a need for a combined effort by both sides of the Parliament and by all people within the community to face the problem and to attempt to remedy it.

I am concerned that the Government may be taking the easy way out. It could be adopting the easy course of extending the pool of unemployment so as to create a market situation which, in its own words, will reduce real wages and thus reduce inflation. That is the easy way out. It is not tackling the real problems of unemployment. It is not tackling the problems of what the Government terms ‘union militancy’. In its own words, the Government has said, in the Ministerial statement:

If real wages are not temporarily reduced by the application of orderly wage fixing principles, the market place will do it more harshly and take longer . . .

That statement to me spells out the creation of a greater pool of unemployed in an attempt to reduce the inflation rate and to reduce stoppages and strikes. But that does not go to the central problem.

The central problem is not what are termed militant trade unionists’. If the Government seeks to name people, why does it not name those about whom it is talking. Do not call people ‘militant trade unionists’. I am a militant trade unionist. I would fight for the right to preserve the functions of the trade union movement which are to get the best deal with the least cost. Why does not the Government pinpoint the problem in respect of industrial disputes and name the organisations or at least the communist and pro-communist leaders who are creating the problems. Do not union-bash right across the board. There was a growing attempt within the then Government towards the end of last year to do just what I suggest. Unfortunately, that opportunity was taken away from the former Government.

I believe that this statement requires a deal of elaboration by the Minister. I believe that it requires the Minister to come out and say clearly and unequivocally to the Senate and to the nation which is listening that this statement is not designed to make an excuse for the Government’s reluctance to attack the real issues and solve the real problems by creating an industrial atmosphere by amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and in other ways, so that the moderate element within the trade union movement could restore the authority of the central trade union organisation.

The attacks which have been made on the central trade union organisation by the procommunist left are designed to weaken the power of the central trade union organisation in respect of the conduct and control of industrial disputes. They are designed also to ensure that the central trade union organisation cannot come to a proper compact with whatever government is in power. This Government made amalgamations much easier. The result has been a monster which is controlled by people like Halfpenny and Carmichael who take no notice of the Australian Council of Trade Unions when it deals with the Government on matters affecting the pay packets of the workers of this country.

I appeal therefore to the Minister and to the Government to give an assurance to the Senate at this time that the Government will tackle those problems and will not create a situation in which the pool of unemployed will grow and in which the Government can take the easy way out instead of facing the problems.

Debate (on motion by Senator Durack) adjourned.

page 494

BUDGET 1976-77

Debate resumed from 7 September, on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the Senate take note of the following papers:

Australia’s Official Development Assistance to Developing Countries 1976-77

Civil Works Program 1976-77

Estimates of Receipts and Summary of Estimated Expenditure for the year ending 30 June 1 977

Particulars of Proposed Expenditure for the Service of the year ending 30 June 1977

Particulars of Certain Proposed Expenditure in respect of the year ending 30 June 1977

Government Securities on Issue at 30 June 1976

Income Tax Statistics

National Accounting Estimates of Receipts and outlays of Commonwealth Government Authorities

National Income Tax and Expenditure 1975-76

Payments to or for the States and Local Government Authorities 1976-77

Upon which Senator Wriedt had moved by way of amendment:

Leave out all words after ‘That’ insert ‘the Senate condemns the Budget because:

1 ) it pursues a policy of unemployment as a weapon to reduce real wages and salaries;

2 ) it abdicates Federal Government responsibilities and forces the State governments and local governments either to reduce their services or to institute additional charges, or both;

it introduces an additional tax in the form of the Medibank levy, thus further reducing consumer spending;

it reduces the availability of services to the whole community but particularly to those most vulnerable to hardship notably aborigines, the unemployed and migrants; and

5 ) it fails to institute selective stimulatory expenditure to reduce unemployment and restore consumer confidence’.

Senator YOUNG:
South Australia

– When speaking in support of the Budget last night, I made reference to the fact that, when the Fraser Government came to power last year, Australia could be described only as being in a complete economic mess, with inflation at its highest and at that stage unemployment at its highest level ever. There was uncertainty generally in the community and a lack of confidence throughout industry and commerce. Among the many matters with which I dealt in my speech last night, I made reference to the mining industry and to the incentives and encouragements that had been given in the Budget to that industry which had shown such a downturn especially with respect to exploration in the last 2 years. One finds exactly the same position in the petroleum or oil industry. This has been a tragedy. In 1972 exploration in the oil industry in Australia was expanding rapidly. There were confidence and encouragement in the industry. One would have hoped that this would have continued.

It is interesting to note if we look at exploration activity in that industry that in 1 972 a total of 101 wells for exploration purposes were drilled. In the years 1973, 1974 and 1975 a progressive downturn occurred to the point where in 1975 only 21 wells were drilled for exploration purposes. In the first half of this year only 8 such wells have been drilled. I repeat those figures: The number drilled for exploration purposes has suffered a downturn from 101 wells in 1972 to 21 wells in 1975. This downturn occurred at a time when the energy crisis prevailed throughout the world and when a great need existed not only to continue such exploration but also for government to give incentive and encouragement in that area of exploration whose development was necessary not only because of the need to supply Australia’s needs but also because of the cost of oil imports with which I shall deal in a moment. If we look at the production of and demand for crude oil we find that last year domestic production totalled nearly 150 million barrels and that it is estimated that by 1985, provided that no new reserves have been discovered and developed, annual production will have fallen to less than 100 million barrels. If we relate these facts to imports and to the cost of oil it is interesting to note that in 1 970, just prior to the development of the Bass Strait field, Australia was importing nearly 137 million barrels of oil at a cost of $270m. In the next year, after Bass Strait oil was brought on stream, our imports dropped to some 98 million barrels. Last year, 1975, our imports of crude oil totalled only about 83 million barrels but the cost of the imported oil has escalated to some $846m.

One can appreciate what will happen in this country if we continue not to get new discoveries and increased production of crude oil in Australia. Not only will we lose the benefit of our indigenous supply; we will find that we will have to expend far more to buy oil from overseas. In 1975 our consumption of crude oil totalled 206 million barrels of which, as I have said, we produced some 150 million barrels. With the rapid decline of indigenous production after 1985 it is estimated that the consumption gap will widen from the current 50 million barrels to approximately 150 million barrels. It is estimated that Australia will have to import approximately two-thirds of its requirements. Let us consider what this will cost. There is one estimate that this could cost Australia some $2,2 50m annually. Some authorities go as far as saying that this could cost Australia some $4,000m per annum. Therefore we can see the need to encourage exploration to continue in this country as it did until 1 972.

It is most unfortunate that we have reached this tragic situation in an industry which was booming for so long. Because of the lack of incentives, the lack of encouragement- in fact the disencouragement- there has been this total downturn. Whilst dealing with self-sufficiency I should point out that it is said that to remain twothirds self-sufficient in petroleum, as we are at the moment, by 1 990 Australia will need to discover more than 3000 million barrels of oil in the next few years. This is equivalent to finding another 2 oil provinces the size of the Bass Strait field. Having said those things and having referred to the need for government encouragement and incentives for oil companies to get out and explore I should add that we should encourage companies to come back to Australia to explore for oil because many companies left our shores. They were not prepared to take risks and then find themselves screwed down by the previous Government and Mr Connor which was not only going to control them, their administration and their markets in many ways but go so far as to nationalise the industry.

I should refer to the risk factor involved in exploration and to the number of wells drilled before a productive well is found. It is estimated that for every 200 exploration wells drilled onshore in Australia one commercial well will be found. Off-shore the chance of success is increased, to one successful well for every 30 wells drilled. We should relate these things back to the costs involved, particularly in view of the rate of inflation in the last two or three years. Unfortunately the North West Shelf has not been brought into production although it is a gas field with a high potential. It was estimated in 1973 that it would cost a little over $ 1,000m to bring it into production but today it is estimated it would cost in the vicinity of $2 ,000m.

When we look to exploration itself we find how much drilling costs have risen. Today it costs approximately $50,000 or more a day to operate a drilling rig off-shore. Recently I visited an offshore rig at Barrow Island, Western Australia, which cost some $20,000 a day to operate and one well has cost $5m. Encouraging amounts of gas were found in that well but it cannot yet be declared a commercial proposition because it is necessary to drill further wells in the hope that they can get at least another two, three or four wells containing the same volume of gas. Then the field could become productive. But having become productive, what of the costs of development? The costs can be higher still. I have been given some figures relating to the cost of a platform. They show that a typical off-shore production platform located in 130 metres of water about 1 50 kilometres off-shore would cost about $200m and the pipeline to the shore would cost about another $200m.

One can realise the great amount of money involved in exploration and, having explored and been lucky enough to discover oil or gas, the great amount of capital that has to be invested before anything comes on stream and there is any return. Hence there is a need for the Government again to give incentives to an industry which can make such a contribution in looking for natural resources in Australia and in turn create so much revenue for this country and a position of independence in this important resource. A few years ago this industry was screwed down by a few oil producing countries which monopolised the situation and created such a inflationary position throughout the world through excessive crude oil prices and artificially created shortages of supplies.

Having said those things I commend the Government for this Budget generally. I commend the Budget for many of the specific things that the Government has done. I am delighted to see that it has done so much to give a bit more life and incentive to the mining and petroleum exploration field- a field of great potential and benefit to this country.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I rise to support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Wriedt. I want to make a couple of brief remarks about a speech made by an honourable senator on the Government side, Senator Martin, who spoke a few days ago. She complained at that time that the Labor Government indulged in a course of business bashing. That is not true. Thus far it would appear that any activities we engaged in compare more than favourably with the activities of the present Government because in the field of social security and a whole host of other areas this Government has indulged in all sorts of things apart, of course, from business bashing. It has indulged in pension bashing, the bashing of the blacks and the taking away of things to which our children are entitled. In other words this Government has spread its Budget so that business gets the best end of the financial stick and those people in the community least able to afford it have to pay for the so-called deficit.

I want to give a couple of facts in support of what I have said. It is significant that in the Budget the administrative expenses of the bankruptcy division of the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs have been increased by 60 per cent. Obviously we can look forward to a very bad year. My colleague in this chamber, Senator Robertson, asked a question the other day about policemen having number badges attached to their clothes. The Minister for the Northern Territory (Mr Adermann) said in reply to him that uniforms being issued to policemen in the Northern Territory did not have provision for displaying the officer’s number and that the question of whether police uniforms would include a name plate or a number was still under consideration. But Mr Adermann added that the review would take into account the costs involved in providing identity tags.

The Government must be really short of money, but it is picking up some things here and there. The Overseas Property Bureau’s earnings of $500,000 last year will increase to $3.2m this year. Construction and fitting of the Paris Embassy will cost something like $9.6m this year. That is the Government’s only major expenditure. I do not know who is going to Paris. Obviously the Government is preparing for that person.

Senator Missen:

– Who started this?

Senator KEEFFE:

-Senator Missen would have a fair show. The Government will probably tip him out any old tick of the clock. That would remove a thorn in its side. I do not think he will get Paris. I think he might get Christmas Island. The headlines in one of today’s Sydney afternoon papers are about a reshuffle of our people who are apparently worrying the Government. The Government will pick up a little more money by selling land and property in Hong Kong and Osaka for something like Sim. In Montreal 2 houses are for sale for $80,000. In California the Government has some $600,000 to pick up for 3 houses. That is balancing the budget at the other end.

Senator Jessop:

– What did it cost your Government to renovate the accommodation in Tokyo?

Senator KEEFFE:

– If Senator Jessop makes an intelligent interjection I will answer it, but I am not interested in others. I compare the Round-up of Economic Statistics for September 1976, which is paper No. 44, with the Round-up of Economic Statistics for August 1 976, which is paper No. 43. There is a very interesting revelation. Perhaps this accounts for the money that is now being raised on the West German money market and for the way in which we went cap in hand to another money market a few months ago. I quote from the August document. At the end of July the level of international reserves stood at $2,736m, which was $160m above the level at the end of the previous month. That rise was mere than accounted for by a purchase of $309m by Australia under the Compensatory Financing Facility of the International Monetary Fund. The September paper contains no reference to the balances or to what is happening. I wonder whether this is one of the reasons the Government has had to raise the money and one of the reasons for this great kerfuffle about whether the Government will or will not devalue. To my knowledge, this omission is the first omission of its kind in that sort of document for a very long time.

Senator Martin:

– Do we really have to listen to this?

Senator KEEFFE:

– One can understand Senator Martin’s attitude if one reads the resolutions carried at the recent National Party of Australia Conference held in north Queensland. I quote in particular a resolution from the Mulgrave Branch. I suppose it has something to do with the Cedar Bay commando raid. The resolution states:

That a drug squad be established in the Cairns/Tableland area with access to a plane suitably equipped for photography and with the authority to operate with undercover agents and that the penalties for drug offences be increased substantially.

I am not quailing about penalties for drug offences. I like that reference to undercover agents, particularly when one finds out the names of some of the people in that area who are propagating drugs. I quote a resolution from the Toowong-St Lucia Branch of the National Party at that conference. This area is a real stronghold of the Liberal Party and is an area in which Senator Martin is well known. It states:

That in framing the 1976 Budget presentation that the Treasurer gives positive consideration to ways and means of assisting the wage earner with family responsibilities. Positive consideration of such matters as child endowment and basic education costs (fares, books, clothes) need attention.

This comment is added to that resolution:

The family wage earner is Australia ‘s greatest asset and he should receive encouragement over and above people who receive unemployment benefits. This country and in particular the National Party should be facilitating ‘Family Population growth ‘not Zero Population Growth.

The moral of that resolution is that the unemployed are to be subjected to further bashing. It is not the fault of the unemployed that their numbers are increasing. It is the fault of the present Government. When Labor left office in 1975 the number of unemployed was decreasing. So was the rate of inflation. As I pointed out in a previous debate in this chamber, the rate of inflation has started to rise once again. It has gone up by some 2 per cent since the Liberal-Country Party coalition took over. The number of unemployed has reached a number unknown for very many years.

It is significant that the Country Party, of which you, Mr Deputy President, are a member, has most of the important portfolios, although its members constitute a very small percentage of the total number of members of Parliament. It has the portfolios of Health, Transport,

Science- we know it has Science because the Minister is in this chamber and he makes long speeches- Overseas Trade and National Resources. As if things are not bad enough, we have a government bringing down a budget which further exemplifies the priorities of this Government. It is most obvious that these priorities do not include the priorities of the Australian public generally. Members of the Liberal and Country Parties express concern at the inflation and unemployment rates while Labor was in office. During the 1975 election campaign we heard how they would cure all these ills and how they would rapidly restore the nation’s economy. Now they claim they will need a full 3 years. They would not give us the full 3 years. Twice in 3 years they forced us to an election because of the brutality of numbers that they were able to exercise in this chamber. There will be a time when the position will be reversed, and we will hear some squealing from honourable senators opposite. They will be on this side then.

Senator Withers:

– You will not be here. You will not live that long.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Do you think you will die early? I will still be here next year when we change over. We know the sequel to the inflation rate of approximately 14 per cent. That rate is a higher rate than the rate which existed when we went out of office. There were 315 000 unemployed as at 31 July. Now the Government is able to hide the fact to some extent by using only the raw figures. It is a splendid change so far as the hiding of facts by this Government is concerned. In the 1975 election campaign the Government said that it would not reduce expenditure in socially important areas. To date the Government has broken quite a few promises. I will name only a few, because of the limited time available to me. The Government has increased the pharmaceutical benefits charge from $1.50 to $2. That is a fairly steep increase. It has reduced the range of drugs available, particularly to pensioners and people who are entitled to repatriation benefits. It attempted to remove the $40 funeral benefit for pensioners. That would have been removed if a number of senators had not crossed the floor. The Government cancelled $200,000 for sporting organisations. It attempted to impose television and radio licence fees. If there had not been a revolution in the Party room, the Government would have got away with it. The Government broke its promise on wage indexation, within 2 months, when it opposed in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission an application for an increase based on indexation. The Government removed the restriction on the sale of natural gas abroad, thus prejudicing Australia’s future supplies. It said that the land which had been bought by the previous Australian Government for low cost housing was to be disposed of to its friends.

The motives behind the Budget are not clear. I am sure that there are people on the other side of the chamber who have not yet worked it out. I am doubtful that the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) has worked it out, in view of the backtracking that he has had to do in a number of sensitive areas. Presumably it was designed originally to improve business confidence and to bring down the inflation rate. It has done neither. We have heard this great old parrot cry about wanting people to spend. In times of economic uncertainty people will not spend. They will put their money into their savings accounts rather than run the risk of not having enough money to see their way clear to pay next week’s costs. It is significant that among the unemployed there is such a large number of young people, lt is true that some were left over because of the uncertainties of the last months of 1975. Probably 12 000 to 15 000 young people who would have left school at the end of the 1975 school year had to return to school at the beginning of the 1976 school year. The under 20 group represents only 12 per cent of the work force, but it represents 40 per cent of the unemployed. If the Government is proud of an achievement like that, it is high time it was changed.

Senator Martin:

– What did you do about the unemployed?

Senator KEEFFE:

– We were doing very well when we were there. The place started to go down the drain only after 13 December last year. You were not sure why you were in government; you were surprised because you got there. Now you have it, you do not know what to do with it. Mr Fraser, at the Father of the Year Award, with the Governor-General- splendid company he keeps- said: ‘There are many fathers around Australia who might well deserve the award more than I do’. There are thousands of men around Australia who deserve the award more than he does, who are more fitted to receive such an award and who should have received it.

I turn now to the health care system. During the 1 975 election campaign Mr Chipp who was then the shadow Minister for Social Securitythat was the last time he was shadowed- stated that Medibank should be disbanded. But during the Budget debate in 1975 Government supporters showed their real feelings. Mr Sullivan, an honourable member in another place, stated:

Let me emphasise . . . that the majority of people were adequately covered before Medibank. No one denies that there was a need for better care for a minority group of disadvantaged people. But why spend such enormous sums of money only to bring about an inferior un-needed scheme.

Senator Withers, who was Leader of the Opposition in the Senate at that time, said about Medibank:

That creation has given the average Australian no new benefits. It has merely replaced a system that offered freedom of choice with one of compulsion.

I ask honourable senators opposite now to look at the Medibank mess that they have created in this country. Every day thousands of people are asking: ‘What will I do?’ My colleague Senator Grimes, who is the Opposition’s spokesman in this area, has on several occasions been able to blow the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) to pieces over the types of pamphlets which are supposed to be supplying information to the public. The first leaflet that was brought out cost something like $100,000. 1 am not aware whether any copies were distributed, but most of them were destroyed. A new booklet brought out proved to be erroneous in the first couple of days after it was distributed.

Honourable senators opposite said that Medibank would be a rip-off for the patients. It has not been a rip-off for the patients but it has been a rip-off for a number of doctors. We saw an example of this in South Australia recently. As that case is sub judice I do not propose to mention it, but I will mention the names of a couple of other doctors whose cases are not sub judice. Medibank in its original form was ripped off by the doctors and not by the patients. I have named in this chamber before doctors who have fiddled around with the Medibank forms. In the old days when there was supposed to be a doctor-patient relationship, when a repeat prescription was needed there was usually a friendly phone call from the patient to the doctor. But that is not the case today because Medibank exists. A repatriation pensioner in the Charters Towers area complained to me recently that he was able to get fairly large numbers of sedative pills which he uses for a chronic condition but now Dr Digby Withers of Charters Towers, the doctor who is treating him at the moment, says that he must come back after every 50 tablets. The reason for that is easy to see. It means another Medibank charge on another repatriation form. Dr David Agnew- who in the early days of medicine in Townsville was very greatly respected and who, I might say, is a very good doctor- is doing the same sort of thing with his patients. Why does this have to happen? In one case the doctor is already a very wealthy man. Why does the taxpayer have to be ripped off in this way?

In New South Wales there is collusion between the insurance companies and the major employers. I have evidence of this from people who come to my office in the Australian Capital Territory, who have provided examples of the rip-off and the collusion between these 2 groups in the community. The big problem is that there is an all-out attempt to smash Medibank. I do not think that that will be successful. Even though the private health funds are able to offer bargain prices at the moment, they will not be able to do so when their reserves run out.

In essence the Budget reflects the traditional Liberal-National Country Party philosophy on economic matters- to decrease inflation it is necessary to create a large pool of unemployment. By doing so the Government is creating all the other social problems that go with unemployment. When in Opposition honourable senators opposite consistently criticised the Labor Government for moderate unemployment, which was caused by a world wide recession and which was common to a lot of other Western countries. This Government has had 8 months in which to cure the unemployment situation. Mr Lynch said when in Opposition that the Government would cure it in 6 months. Now he is saying that it needs 3 years.

Senator Missen:

– Who said that?

Senator KEEFFE:

- Mr Fraser and Mr Lynch. I think that they are the leaders of the honourable senator’s Party. They are certainly not leading this country out of trouble. I would like to cite some figures which indicate clearly what has happened in my State of Queensland. The current registered unemployment figures in four or five centres clearly indicate the mess which is developing in Queensland as a result of the combined policies of the present National Party State Government and the National Country Party dominated Federal Government. In Maryborough there are 505 males registered for employment and 32 1 females. There are respectively 25 vacancies for males and 1 1 for females. In Toowoomba there are 1145 males registered as unemployed and 649 females. The number of registered vacancies is respectively 49 and 20. In Atherton, on the tableland inland from Cairns, there are 490 unemployed males and 1 7 1 unemployed females. There are 3 vacancies for males and no vacancies for females. In Charleville, in the south-west, there are 220 males unemployed and 48 females. The respective number of vacancies is one for males and two for females. In

Townsville, my home city, there are 1435 males registered as unemployed and 759 females. There are 43 vacancies for males and 20 for females.

The so-called great upturn in the economy is not shown in the building industry- an area which the Government said that it would stimulate. I do not know what the Government is using to stimulate it, but it is not working. In Queensland the number of dwellings started in the last quarter- the Government must take full responsibility for this- decreased by 14 per cent and in the Northern Territory it decreased by a massive 71 per cent. Is that supposed to be a sign of great improvement in the economy? In the Government’s handling of the disadvantaged sections of the community it has dealt with repatriation people in a most inhumane way. It has taken away the hospital entitlements for people not living within reach of a repatriation hospital.

Senator Durack:

– You are out of date on that one.

Senator KEEFFE:

-The Government has restored a little bit, but it is conditional. The Minister ought to tell the truth about it. I am not out of date. I have had correspondence with the Minister which shows that it is a conditional restoration. Why does the Government not put it back to where it was before? If the Government is so keen to look after repatriation people why does it not look at the the means test on the general rate pension when people have to register for an age or Service pension? Those are 2 areas at which the Government should take a good look if it is really interested in what happens to people who are entitled to repatriation benefits.

I want to refer now to a number of other points in the limited time available to me. It is obvious that the Government will not be able to get out of the mess which it is in because whole sections of the community are now totally disenchanted. Let me quote briefly from a communication from the Australian Telecommunications Employees Association. The letter relates to Telecom Australia and Government imposed staff ceilings. The Association believes that this will lead to the following:

Lowering of standards of service.

Longer time delays on installation and maintenance of equipment.

Industrial action by union members in an endeavour to secure more realistic staff levels.

Those are the sorts of comments coming from a very moderate organisation. The Conference of Principals of Victorian Technical Colleges are complaining that 32 colleges in Victoria are providing courses for something like 1 50 000 students with an 8 per cent annual growth rate and they are finding that, of the total post-school population, 40 per cent are currently in this sector, calculated on an effective full time student basis. But of the total Federal and State funds available for post-secondary education this sector currently receives 25 per cent of the total funds available to meet recurrent costs and only 13.7 per cent of capital funds. Yet the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) who is a member of this chamber says that he is giving more money than ever to education. We all know that that is not true.

I quote a paragraph from the National Times which refers to the new Budget. It states:

And if the strategy fails? That will be because consumers have refused to spend and that will mean the recession continuing into 1977-78. It is indeed tough medicine and probably tougher than the economy deserves. The basic thrust of this Budget and this Government is to maintain high rates of unemployment with all their human and social costs and without much real guarantee of substantial reduction in inflation. We owe this situation to the unique conjunction of views of politicians and bureaucrats. Malcolm Fraser and the Treasury are as one.

Senator Messner:

– Who wrote that?

Senator KEEFFE:

– I think the honourable senator would be enlightened if he read the full story. It is in the issue of 23-28 August 1976. The heading is:

What Lynch Didn’t Tell You

If the honourable senator is able to understand some of the 2-syllable words, I suggest he read it. I refer to 2 areas for which I, as a member of the Opposition, have a basic responsibility. In the field of the Northern Territory there have been a number of substantial cutbacks in the money available for capital works. There has been the scaling-down of transport with the closure of the North Australian railway. There has been a reduction in the construction of housing, the nonconstruction of the all weather north-south road, an increase in unemployment until it is at one of the highest levels in Australia, the abolition of the arts grant- plenty of members of the National Country Party are complaining about that- and the abolition of funds for conservation, and plenty of members of the mining lobby are cheering about that. There has beeen a drastic reduction in the level of expenditure in a whole host of other areas.

The Tindal homes which could be used for cheap housing, will not be repaired. Instead of that the Government is going to undertake the costly exercise of carting them away to some other point. It has not been able to build a new and permanent police station at Oenpelli. Its construction has been deferred. There are 3 new swear words or phrases in the Liberal Party vocabulary, ‘deferred’, ‘constraint’ and ‘cannot afford it’. The field of Aboriginal affairs is the one which has been worst affected of all. There is no need for me to go through all the cuts because they have been fairly well publicised. But I ask: What will happen as a result of the reduction in support facilities, in the funding for Aboriginal medical services, in the cutbacks in funding for cultural, recreational and sporting facilities and in the reduction in Aboriginal employment? It does not matter what the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) or what the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) says. There is serious unemployment among Aboriginals. Today probably 50 per cent of the total number of those available for employment are unemployed. The figures are increasing daily. Unemployment hurts worst in the isolated areas of Australia where there is no alternative employment.

I asked in a letter and by way of a question some time ago what was happening to the $200,000 which one expected to find in the Budget for the supplementary feeding of 6000 youngsters in the Northern Territory. I have had no reply at all. I understand a great scrabble game is going on while the Government turns over moneyboxes and hauls out counters in musty offices. The Government has now been able to scratch up something like $130,000. None of this amount is provided for in the Budget. The Government is ashamed of the fact that this amount is not in the Budget. It does not know where the money is to come from but it is looking to all sort of musty bank accounts around the place.

The Government has said that Aboriginals cannot look after themselves. This is not true. If time permits- either now or during the adjournment debate tonight- I shall speak about a number of things which have gone wrong with Aboriginals as far as white people are concerned. Aboriginals can look after themselves. I have here 2 reports. One is from the East Gippsland Aboriginal Medical Service Co-operative Limited and the other is from the Aborigines Advancement League in Victoria. I do not want to read from these documents at length so I seek leave to have both of them incorporated in Hansard as an outstanding example of how Aboriginal organisations can set out their views, their costings and their balance sheets.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT-Is leave granted? There being no dissent, leave is granted.

The documents read as follows-

Elected Members of Parliament, Parliament House, Canberra

Dear Members,

The cut-backs in the amount of money allotted for Aboriginal Affairs in this year’s Budget is outrageous. The AAL of Victoria finds that the amount allotted for this financial year by the Department does not enable our organisation to provide adequate welfare assistance to the Aboriginal community. When we look at the whole assessment of funds that was allotted to the league, a total of $64,000, it would be impossible for the league to function efficiently in providing welfare and other assistance that the AAL caters for.

When you look at the transport operating costs for this year it would only enable us to venture no further than the metropolitan area. Furthermore our travelling allowance of $1,000 that is allocated to visit the Aboriginal community in Victoria is unrealistic especially for 1 2 months.

Money allowed for heating, fuel and power is $500, it would be impossible to operate on this amount.

Also, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs stated that there will be no retrenchment amongst Aboriginal organisations and yet we will have to put off one Aboriginal worker because his salary was not allotted. The salaries that we were allocated for the staff of 7 was $49,000 and yet our staff consists of 8 which means one of the Aboriginal persons on our staff will have to be retrenched if we do not get his wages. He is our gardener/general handyman, his duties involve cleaning the centre, and offices, any general cleaning to be done and also attends to the gardening at the league and at the Glady Nicholls Hostel.

We were seeking a total amount of $198,150 in our submission for1 976-77. This also includes the replacement of two cars which are both high up in mileage, a photo-stat machine, steel safe, new chairs to replace the old ones in the hall. Replacement of curtains in the office and centre.

Other sundries: 16 mm projector with speakers and screen (which would be used on speaking engagements to show films on Aboriginal people ).

We have urgent need to extend our office block which we find is too small for the number of staff, there is no storage room for our records. We have no where to store goods used for welfare: clothes, furniture, food, etc.

We have nolockers for our staff for their personal or valuable belongings. We have no lunch area for the staff and the kitchen is used for duplicating.

No privacy to interview people when they come in with personal problems. All these things are essential.

We held a public appeal for funds for our building requirements. The total amount received for this appeal was only $1,000.

The money we are looking at for these projects is $400,000, this includes extensions to the office and centre.

We find the centre is too small to run profitable functions to assist the AAL financially.

The kitchen in the centre is too small and there is no room for storage of chairs. If the centre was extended it could be let a lot more not only to the Aboriginal community but to other people.

We also need a library to benefit Aboriginals and nonAboriginals and a place to put our artifacts and this place would be known as a ‘ keeping place ‘.

When you look at the work we have to put in for a submission and especially when we look at the long hours it takes to prepare and it takes the Department of Aboriginal

Affairs and other official bodies only minutes to erase our projects and funds.

It would be impossible for the AAL and other Aboriginal organisations in the south eastern region to operate on small amounts of money that has been allotted to the Aboriginal people in this Budget.

We will also be including our submission for 1976-77 which you may consider a bit too late to produce at this stage.

We believe that the Treasury should increase the budget for Aboriginal organisations so that we can overcome the many problems that our people have. We believe if we are given the opportunity to be self-managed we could erase problems that arise when funds are not available. Also we are disheartened that the State Government departments have ben allotted more than Aboriginal organisations for the same programs that Aboriginal organisations are doing. We find this is unjustified, degrading and discriminating that we are still not given the benefit of the doubt, and an opportunity to prove ourselves.

We appeal to you as humans as Aboriginals are also human. To support our programs for more funds so that Aboriginal organisations will be able to continue with the work they have been doing since they have been established.

We base this letter upon the universal declaration of human rights and we Aborigines are also a part of United Nations declaration.

  1. McGUINNESS

Director

Aborigines Advancement League (Vic)

page 502

THE SIR DOUG NICHOLLS CENTRE

The Sir Doug Nicholls Centre at Northcote is just 10 years old. Since the Centre was in 1966, the centre has been used for social functions, meetings, seminars, black theatre classes, band practices, church services, weddings and funerals, etc.

When the centre was built they had in mind of later on extending it. The centre seats about 80 people and has a small kitchen. People who hire the hall for social functions find it impossible to do catering because they are hampered by the lack of space.

Extensions to the ventre would consist of enlarging it to seat 200, enlarging the kitchen to enable catering to be done on the premises. This would enable the centre to be used as reception rooms, another floor would enable us to have a library, keeping artifacts on show. At the present time all our artifacts are kept in the field officer’s office and in the reception area.

page 502

WELFARE 1975-76

Melbourne and Metropolitan Area

The AAL has helped 93 aboriginal families for this financial year with various things such as food, gas and light, rent, bond money, fares and petrol. (Please find listed below the amounts in various areas throughout Victoria and Interstate).

Interstate

The AAL helped 12 aboriginals from places such as South Australia, New South Wales, Western Australia, Tasmania, Sydney and Northern New South Wales with rent, food, petrol and bonds.

These people were stranded looking for work in Victoria.

We had to refuse many families with financial help, this is because of lack of funds. We get no money for welfare and this money has to be found by our organisation.

Funeral Fund Assistance has had to be kept to a minimum because of shortage of money and we have helped the following:

Funeral Assistance of $30 or $50

At times we have had to stop funeral assistance through lack of money.

To operate our services to a better advantage we require the following:

Reference No. 75/647 1 September 1976

Dear Sir,

I refer to your application for funding during the 1976-77 financial year.

The Department has now assessed the funds that may be made available to enable your organization to provide welfare assistance to the Aboriginal Community.

The program is as follows:

This program does not imply a release of the above funds and until the Government’s Budget is approved by Parliament and definite funding levels are known, the only funds available to the Co-operative at present is an amount of $ 1 6,000 to cover operating costs during the Supply Period to the end of November 1976.

This amount is for ongoing expenses only and does not provide for expenditure on any Capital items.

The conditions of the grant are as follows:

  1. Compliance with Departmental financial rules.
  2. Annual report of activities to be forwarded.

If you accept the conditions outlined above, please sign the attached copy of this letter in the space provided and return it to this office.

On receipt of your acceptance, a cheque for $16,000 will be forwarded to you.

I will contact you again towards the end of November when more definite funding levels are known.

Yours faithfully, G.HARWOOD

Acting Internal Director of Aboriginal Affairs

The Director, Aborigines Advancement League, 56 Cunningham Street, Northcote, Victoria 3070

Please Note**

This is a minimum number of Staff required for the Aborigines Advancement League (Vic).

There are times when we require extra Office Staff to keep everything up to date, and our Field Officers travel to all parts of Victoria. We understand that we are the only Aboriginal Organisation who have the Director, and Field Officers visit all parts of Victoria.

A small Allowance has been made to cover wage increases and salary for full-time book-keeper which will be necessary.

page 503

CO-DIRECTOR

To relieve pressure on present staff. Most of the time, both Field Officers and the Director are out of the Office, and there are urgent business that comes up requiring immediate attention.

Page 2

Please Note**

Car Expenses- This is for Petrol, Oil, Repairs and Replacements, Registration and Insurance for two cars belonging to the AAL, and used by the Field Officers. Also, running expenses for Director ‘s own car.

Futhermore, at times it is necessary for the Book-keeper to go to Nathalia to check the books. She uses her own car, but should be paid travelling expenses.

Replacement of Cars- The AAL feel both cars owned by the League should be traded in because of the mileage covered. The cars are two Holden Station Wagons. One should be traded in on a smaller more economical car, and the other for a small van that could be used for many purposes.

Telephone- We have a lot of calls reverse charges which must be taken as it is very often from families requiring help, etc

Page 3

Page 4

page 504

ABORIGINES ADVANCEMENT LEAGUE (VIC)

page 504

PROJECTOR

To be used in schools and when speaking to groups, thus bringing information to many more people.

page 504

CASUAL LABOUR

Often necessary to keep our properties in good order and would help employment.

page 504

EXTENSIONS TO OFFICE BLOCK

The Office is very cramped, and we have no storage area for records etc. Nowhere to store goods used for welfare.

No person requiring assistance or advice can be interviewed in private. As there is no spare room to do this.

No lockers for staff for their coats or personal items. No lunch area. Kitchen has to be used for duplicating and has the duplicating machine permanently there. Book-keeper’s Office is part of the kitchen- closed off.

Staff have to use toilets (outside) that are used for Hall also.

page 504

EXTENSION TO THE HALL

The Hall is far too small to run profitable functions to assist the Aborigines Advancement League ‘s finances.

Kitchen is very inadequate for catering.

No storage area for tables and chairs- they are just pushed from one area to another part of the Hall.

If the Hall was extended, it would be let a lot more than it is now, and the hiring charge would assist our income.

We also need an area for a Library and to display our artifacts.

This Hall could be made into a profitable venture if we receive the required finance for its extensions.

page 504

PRIMARY SCHOOL CHILDREN ASSISTANCE

While there is limited assistance available from the Education Department for Primary School Children, there is a Means Test and many just miss getting this help. Furthermore, many schools discriminate against children who apply for assistance.

Many aboriginal children in Victoria of Primary school age are in urgent need of school clothing (particularly warm clothing) and books, etc., so as they can equal to others in their school. Aboriginal people applying for assistance would be handed over to the Field Officers and they would purchase the items needed. Cash would not be handed out.

page 504

FUNERAL AND WELFARE RELIEF ASSISTANCE

We have many families needing funeral expenses assistance from time to time. This is even more necessary now that pensioners assistance has been discontinued. Also families with children in need of help, when no other means of help is available at times even to supply food for their children.

page 504

ARTIFACTS

To assist our income, we need to be able to extend our artifacts to a bigger section.

page 504

QUESTION

EAST GIPPSLAND ABORIGINAL MEDICAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE LIMITED

67 Francis Street, Bairnsdale 3875 Telephone 52 2040 P.O.Box 151

Population of Aboriginal Community

Town Shire of Bairnsdale and Tambo Shire = 462 individuals.

This figure is calculated from the medical files at the East Gippsland Aboriginal Medical Service (1974-75) and does not include those Aborigines who so not choose to use the centre, (which are very few).

Percentage of Population over 30 years European- 46.34 per cent

Aboriginal- 23 per cent

Average age of Population over 30 years European- 5 1 . 1 years

Aboriginal- 42 years

A graph then shows the age distribution of aboriginal population.

It would seem from the above figures that the average life expectancy of aborigines is well below that of Europeans.

Health

Provision of funds for Medical Centre has improved the standard of health and health awareness of local population. There is still far to go to eliminate poor social standing usually in depression, anxiety, alcoholism.

Overcrowing in homes

Lack of accommodation for single adults in area.

Lack of treatment facilities for those with alcohol problems.

There is 100 per cent failure rate of those treated away from the area with alcohol problems.

Every family to a greater or leser degree has alcohol problems. Some children starting to drink as early as 14 to15 years of age.

Job opportunities- few.

Many unemployed, those who are employed by Government funded bodies, e.g. local council, forest commission act, hospital.

Few are employed in private industry (saw milling) vegetable picking when in season.

Education

Many drop out at15 years of age still illiterate.

Primary and Secondary education not geared to meet needs of aboriginal children, many disadvantages e.g. hearing problems, concepts different to white children many parents illiterate therefore children have much smaller vocabulary and understanding of work.

Many are seeking to attend night classes tailored to meet specific needs, e.g.

One boy aged15 left school having completed form 3 unable to write even his address.

Community facilities

No community centre for meetings or social occasions as other organisations e.g. CWA church groups, elderly citizens etc.

There is an urgent need for a meeting place particularly for the teenagers. Where they may meet and entertain their friends.

East Gippsland Aboriginal Medical Service Co-operative Limited 67 Francis Street, Bairnsdale 3875 Telephone 52 2040 P.O.Box 151

Annual Report of Sister in charge to Directors of the EGAMSCL

The aims of the East Gippsland Aboriginal Medical Service Co-Op Ltd are:

To provide comprehensive nursing care, which includes Health Education.

To assess the nursing needs of the aboriginal community.

To plan and implement programs to meet these needs.

To provide supportive care for individuals and groups, helping and encouraging them to cope with their own health needs.

To encourage full use of all available facilities within the community for the promotion of health and prevention of diseases.

To encourage community involvement of individuals, families and groups of aboriginals.

To establish liaison with other helping professions and organisations.

To prepare statistical report relating to the nursing service.

To regularly evaluate all aspects of the nursing service.

Areas covered by our service, include:

Bairnsdale

Lakes Entrance

Lake Tyers

Nowa Nowa

Bruthen

Lindenow (in picking season). 22 July 1976.

Number of Families in each Area:

This above total is only families that are houses, but going on the total number of Aboriginals living in these areas would be a total 576.

Number of clients contacts used EGAMS 1 July 1975-30 June 76 = 5601.

Number of Clients contacts July 1975-June 1976 = 6501.

Number of services 1 July 1975-30 June 1976 = 7032.

Monthly average clients = 466.75.

Monthly average services = 586.

Medical and paramedical services in area used by the EGAMSCL and Aboriginal community.

Hospital and associated services e.g. Xray, Pathology, District Nurse etc.:

Riverine Street, Medical Clinic

East Gippsland Geriatric Centre

Main Street, Medical Clinic

Nowa Nowa Community Health Centre

Lakes Entrance Health Centre

Optician

Dentist

Ambulance

Field Nurse- Central Chest Bureau

Infant Welfare Centre/Bairnsdale Lakes Entrance.

Shire Immunisation Programs, Tambo Shire and Bairnsdale. 22 July 1976

Endeavour has been made to develop liaison and a working relationship with these organisations, with referrals and communications both ways. Use of the Community Health Centre in the area seems to be dependent on the attitude of the staff and urgency of the presenting problem.

At Nowa Nowa where the Community Health Nurse has developed a good support with the community and informal atmosphere, there is good use of the facility, unfortunately it is open only three days a week.

The bus from Lake Tyers attends this Clinic each morning it is open. The doctor from the EGAMS is only in attendance there each Wednesday morning. Unfortunately due to ill health of the doctor this session has been suspended for a number of weeks. These sessions have now resumed.

At Lakes Entrance where the atmosphere is more formal and consultation with the doctor is by appointment only (except in case of emergency) use of medical facilities has been limited at this time however greater use is gradually being made of the nursing facilities. Frequent use however is made of the Social Worker either with referrals from us or self referral.

Geriatric Centre. The elderly clients in the area are encouraged to lodge applications for admission to this centre. There is one permanent resident at the moment. Another attends as a day patient. He is transported daily by the bus attached to the Geriatric Centre.

There is a long waiting list of applicants waiting for admission to this centre. Delays prior to admission may be 2 to 3 years. One difficulty encountered with applicants is their age, many being under 60 and 65 years.

Shire Immunisation Programs. Participation in these programs is encouraged where lack of transport is a barrier to attendance, the medical car is utilised.

Dental Service. Education coupled with the introduction of fee for service dental care, has resulted in improved dental health. Many clients are seeking dental treatment.

Ambulance. The ambulance at Lakes Entrance and Bairnsdale is used for transport of seriously ill as distinct from use of the medical car attached to the East Gippsland Aboriginal Medical Service.

Medical Car EGAMS is used where lack of family transport is a barrier to use the Health facilities in the community e.g. attendance at medical clinic patients discharged from hospital, the car is also used when it is essential for them to attend East Gippsland Hospital for Special tests or treatment.

Infant Welfare Centres. Bairnsdale and Lakes Entrance. There is communication and liaison with both centres. The sister in Lakes Entrance makes house calls throughout her area. She calls on mothers who are isolated or without transport e.g. at Lake Tyers, Bruthen, Nowa Nowa. It is not practical in Bairnsdale (due to heavy work load) to make extensive house calls. Nursing staff of EGAMS encourage girls in the Bairnsdale area to visit the Infant Welfare Centre. Gradually they are learning to do so.

Other Organisations with whom we are in contact include:

Department of Social Welfare

Department of Social Security

Police

SCF (Nowa Nowa)

Schools

Department of Aboriginal Affairs (Bairnsdale Office )

NACC (Bairnsdale Office)

Special Health Service Unit

Bairnsdale Welfare Committee

Allied Health and Welfare Group

Noweyung School for the Handicapped Children

East Gippsland Aboriginal Womens Group

Fitzroy Medical Service

Aboriginal Legal Service (Melbourne)

Aboriginal Hostels, Alcoholics Anonymous, Melbourne Hospitals and Specialists

Major health problems:

Respiratory tract infection

Alcoholism

Skin infection

Trauma

Ear disease

Gastro intestinal tract infection and infestations

Gynecological

Other (includes surgical-pyschosomatic)

Eye disease

Hypertension

Urological and renal diseases

Epilepsy

Liver diseases

Diabetes

Cardiac diseases

Factors contributing to ill health:

Social /emotional problems

Excess use and abuse of alcohol

Overcrowding is still a problem

Poor communications skills when dealing with health and welfare agencies

Poor finances

There is knowledge of nutrition and hygiene, use of this knowledge is hampered, I feel, by use of the above factors.

Health programs include:

Home visiting: One important function of the nurses role is home visiting. It is possible to observe and work with the family to assess their health needs.

The nurse also assists in planning and impending necessary action to be taken.

The home is also invaluable for health teaching on one and one informal basis.

Family planning: Education and advice given on informal one to one basis young women being referral to doctors of their choice. Where IUD have been chosen as contraception, there have some unwanted side effects, these have resulted in their removal and alternative used e.g. pill. Others have problems remembering the pill and forget to take them or to pack them if travelling.

Alcohol program: Liaison has been established between the EGAMSCL and local branch of AA. Clients are being introduced to members and encouraged to participate in AA programs at local level, many are reticent to do so as yet.

The local branch of AA have recently held an open meeting in Bairnsdale, Aboriginal members and others came from Melbourne to speak. Four members of the Aboriginal community attended. Another such meeting is planned for Lakes Entrance in July.

Referrals of clients are also made to Melbourne for detoxification and possible rehabilitation, recidevism is frequent.

Health education: There is a large number of Aboriginal children at Nowa Nowa State School, one of the sisters from the EGAMSCL has been involved in Health Education classes there each week. These classes involve all the children attached to the school, e.g. of content, basic hygiene, nutrition, simple anatomy, physiology, safety, etc. Other sessions have been held at Lake Tyers and several at the clinic.

The most effective means of education at this time appears to be at the one to one level, when the individual is motivated to learn in response to an identified need.

Antenatal-post natal care: The girls are reluctant to attend ante-natal classes held at the hospital, but have been eager to participate in discussions on child care, birth processes, etc, on one to one basis. No problems have been encountered in girls attending clinic for ante-natal /post-natal medical attention.

Evaluation of programs: Are based on statistics, observation and discussion with community members and other professionals, for example; that there is an increased awareness and positive attitude to health care is reflected in use of the EGAMSCL and other community facilities. One pleasing feature was every expectant mother in the area presented regularly to her doctor for ante-natal care throughout the pregnancy. This resulted in 12 healthy mothers and well babies with minimum of problems. They arc unfortunately reluctant to breast feed (only one attempting to do so). Use of other agencies, e.g. Nowa Nowa Health Centre, Lakes Entrance Health Centre. Geriatric Centre, District Nurse. Noweyung School, etc., some of these agencies had never previously been used by Aboriginal community. 19 July 1976

Total Services 1975-76 = 7 032

Monthly average of services = 586

Daily average of services = 27.9. 19 July 1976

Presentation of Diseases 12 January 1 976 to 30 June 1 976

Dr McKeon was absent May/June due to illness. Dr McCallum was available 10-12 midday- 2 p.m.-4 p.m. during this period.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Thank you very much. It is significant that when the Prime Minister and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs visited Wilcannia a day or so ago they gave approval to the Aboriginal housing plan in that area, as was mentioned by my colleague Senator Cavanagh in this chamber yesterday. But there was no mention, except in a vague way, as to whether further money would be made available. Mr George Abdullah, a long-time full-time employee of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, has now set off on a caravan tour because he is absolutely fed up with the way things are going. He is no longer an employee of the Department.

Mr Acting Deputy President, a meeting of a committee of your organisation was held in Sydney a few days ago. I understand that lengthy evidence was given by representatives of the Cattlemen’s Association of the Northern Territory, Lutheran missionaries from Hermannsburg, Mount Isa Mines Ltd, the Australian Mining Industry Association and a few other people. I hope that as a result of those discussions which were held within the lobbies of the Government Parties the Government will do something about improving the lot of Aboriginal people. I hope the Government will do something to give Aboriginals their land rights in the way they want them. I shall touch on one or two other things before I finish my contribution to this debate. On this side of the chamber we have been very critical of the way in which the Government has handled the land right argument. We will be equally as critical if the Government hands over to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly other powers which have to do with the welfare of Aboriginal people. I understand that submissions are being prepared, which should go to Cabinet some time shortly, recommending that the Government hand over virtually all health care to the gentle touch of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. The last time the Assembly had control of health they did not do a very good job at all.

I am told that the plan is to set up a statutory authority by an ordinance of the Northern Territory. The Authority will provide for and administer Aboriginal health services in the Northern Territory. The Joint Committee on the Northern Territory recommended that all State type functions, including health, should be vested in the one Federal Minister. I refer briefly to the recommendation in the report which was submitted by the Joint Committee to the Parliament during the lifetime of the last Government. There was no disagreement between any of the parties involved in the recommendation. The Committee recommended:

  1. that one Australian Government Minister have the executive responsibility for all ‘state-type’ functions retained by the Australian Government and that the administration be vested in one Australian Government Department; and
  2. the establishment of a Committee comprisingthe Minister for the Northern Territory and Ministers’ -

They are the people who belong to the majority party in the Northern Territory and who head the various departments -

  1. . to co-ordinate and consult on major issues, this Committee being chaired by the Minister for the Northern Territory and meeting as required.

That would have allowed sufficient consultation. Apparently the majority group has expressed a view to the appropriate department and which will be accepted by the Cabinet, that it wants to participate in the control of health services. They want to supervise and, in the near future, they want to take over. In other words, the Statehood which the then Leader of the Opposition promised to the Northern Territory will arrive by itself.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT -Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Senator ARCHER:
Tasmania

– I rise to support the Budget. When entering this chamber I recognised the responsibility I had to Tasmania, particularly to items of prime concern to Tasmania. These were items in which I was involved and of which I had some knowledge and in which I had some interest. I took into account the interest and involvement of other members of the Tasmanian Senate team. I shall deal with some of these now in the context of the whole Austraiian economy and in the state of the country both sociologically and economically. I hope I am not too late to rescue some of those who believe that they can have everything they want and that somebody else will pay. I believe that that was never so, that it never can be and that it is certainly not so now. I support the Budget in its efforts to restore reality where it is needed, generosity and compassion where they should be, and sanity in some of the areas of complete and total fantasy. I trust there will be some restoration of relativity between money and effort and that once again it will be recognised that those who want to save Australia from the mess it is in will have to work again. Those who do not wish to work will be the ones who are deliberately trying to destroy Australia as we know it now.

As a Tasmanian representative I would like to comment particularly on some of the items which I consider of importance to Tasmania. We have to remember that Tasmania regrettably has the lowest average income and the lowest net growth rate of any State in Australia. It had the highest unemployment rate before New South Wales took on a Labor Government and has the highest drain of young people of any State in Australia. During the life of its last elected Government, 7 members have resigned, including a Premier, a Deputy Premier and 3 other Cabinet Ministers, and we are now left with the rump only. The Premier was a very greatly respected man and we are all pleased to see that he has now been appointed to the position of Chairman of the States Grants Commission. The Deputy Premier, a former Labor senator, we are also pleased to see has landed a job leading a committee of inquiry. However, what we are left with is a group that knows absolutely nothing about money. As Tasmanians we are desparate. It was only the Christmas before last that we could not pay the teachers their holiday pay, but the next Christmas, having cried poverty all through the year, we finished with $ 1 7.4m in the kitty that we did not know was there to spend. Of this sum, $4.1m was a straight out Budget surplus which we did not know about till a month before the end of the year and $ 1 3.3m came from loans that simply were not used. With industry running down and unemployment rising all we were trying to do apparently was engineer a situation in the books, but we have nobody who can read the books. Still, one day we will put Tasmania back on the map.

I turn now to transport. Tasmania is transport. Freight equalisation is the greatest single piece of legislation that Tasmania has ever had. It will be of tremendous assistance and will do a lot to right a major disadvantage that Tasmania has always suffered. Tasmania suffers all the vagaries of transport and whether it is traffic controllers, hostesses or pilots in the air, pantrymen, seaman or engineers at sea or the Transport Workers Union or waterside workers on the ground, the results are the same- one out all out, and Tasmania is cut off. I should make reference to the situation that exists in relation to the Australian Trader today. The Australian Trader has been tied up at Bell Bay since 29 July. On board there are several containers of cargo for Tasmanian users and they have been in the hold since that date. They are now being held as ransom by this group of two bob bandits that has control of the ship. It has got to the stage where it is putting workers out of work and has created a lot of expense and inconvenience, but nothing is being done to get the results we want. For instance, there is an engineer who is waiting on a press held in the ship. There is a factory which cannot start operations because the doors for the factory are in the ship. There is a baker who has bread ingredients in the ship. There is a bank with a container of stationery on board. Retailers are waiting for cargo that is on board. There are also incoming manufacturer items and consumer goods.

We want to get goods off the island, goods that are manufactured and items of primary production. We are only as good as the reliability of our service, but our reliability is being shot to pieces all the time. It is a matter of complete irresponsibility and weak State government. Equalisation is a big help and I do not know that there is any Tasmanian who would not concede that it has the advantages it is claimed to have, but it does not produce the goods. It does not get the freight unloaded. I was interested to read in the Press that we have support in all sorts of places and that if you want to be loved go to Tasmania. A certain modest member in another place felt that that was so. When one looks at what he says are the advantages of Tasmania one is entitled also to consider what disadvantages there are. There are problems in the shipping industry over the demarcation issue. As honourable senators will know, there are over 1500 containers on the wharf in Sydney. People are waiting for what is in them but nobody intends to move them at the moment. Where does this lead for an island state which is totally dependent on shipping? At least it is not all Tasmania ‘s problem. We do worry about it but I am glad to see that it worries other people as well sometimes. In today’s Australian there was a headline ‘Transport Men Driving Hawke to Despair’. I feel that we are getting somewhere at last. They do not seem to have worried him very much until now and as a Tasmanian I certainly hope that he worries and worries until he does something about it.

Taking the shipping problems into account and adding to them the problems created by the air traffic controllers, this has not been a very good week for Tasmania. Air transport is not just a pleasant and convenient way of travelling interstate; it is an absolutely necessity. It is also a most important way of moving freight. The costs are higher but mostly it is more reliable. The 2 major airlines have done a very good job in keeping Tasmania as viable as it has been but I would like to mention also the terrific contribution that has been made over the years by Brain and Brown Airfreighters Pty Ltd as carriers and Ipec as pioneers in the door to door parcel freight and refer to what they have done to help get Tasmania out of the really deplorable condition it was in when it was relying on a most unsatisfactory shipping service.

Other States have their problems with road and rail transport. Tasmania hived off its railways last year. I saw in the notes of the Australian National Railways that after 30 years of abject neglect it would now cost $30m to put Tasmania’s railways back into a reasonable working condition. The railways were disposed of in haste and in a mood of sheer desperation by the Premier under an agreement that I believe would be as unfavourable as any ever entered into between the Commonwealth and any State in Australia. One has only to look at the agreements for the sale of railways between Tasmania and the Commonwealth and South Australia and the Commonwealth to see what I mean. The main concern was to get rid of it and to get rid of it quickly at any cost. The situation has been much the same with Tasmanian ships but I will say no more about that. It is not one of the subjects that we talk about very much.

While freight assistance is a big help to every Tasmanian, when speaking of ships I suppose we also have to talk about the bridge. We have the Hobart bridge now approaching a repairable state and we are very fortunate that the Commonwealth has agreed to continue funding it. However, I have to add that while we appreciate the funding, on the documents that I have seen there was definitely no agreement between the Commonwealth and the State on what the funding was to be. So we greatly appreciate what the Commonwealth is doing.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Senator ARCHER:

– I would like to make a few remarks about the rural industry. As we are all aware the rural industry in Australia is amongst the most efficient rural industries in the world. It is a very determined industry but at the moment it is very dispirited. Inflation has undermined its trade and extra productivity can no longer offset the increase in costs. The gap between production costs and market returns is widening and there is no room to move. Every effort has to be made, however, to work in greater co-operation in matters such as machinery sharing, experimentation, better extension services, concentration on improving quality, and the best use of natural resources, climates and conditions. An increase in funding for research and marketing is necessary.

Income stabilisation to the rural community is now far more desirable than product subsidy. Every effort has to be made at this stage to preserve the family farm. Poverty in rural areas is increasing all the time but the difference between the poverty of today and the poverty of the 1930s is that in those days the whole community was poor and everybody had no money, but now it is only poverty in the rural areas which really shows. I would like to quote a typical case of a young farmer whom I saw last week and whom I endeavoured to assist in obtaining unemployment relief. This man and his father had a 100-acre property and 2lh years ago they decided to expand. The market at that time looked quite good. They were getting 70c a lb for their butterfat and about $200 a head for their chopper cattle. They raised about $100,000 to buy an additional 200 acres of land. All that happened was that the price of their chopper cattle dropped to about $40 a head and the price of butterfat dropped to 50c a lb. As a result they have been left with a debt of $100,000 and an income that will not support the debt. The father is receiving sickness benefits and the son, in addition to trying to milk 100 cows a day, has applied for outside work. It is very difficult for families like this ever to achieve what they started out to do.

I went to a meeting last week at a country hall which was filled by farmers. The farmers had travelled up to 100 miles to attend the meeting. All of them are in dire trouble and all are victims of inflation. They are sitting back now watching the slow destruction of their asset and their way of life. Some of them are working at two or three jobs and travel long distances to obtain work. As I said, they are just watching their asset decline. They are young keen men who want to work and who are capable of work. Their costs are increasing, their returns are decreasing and their market is lessening and tightening. The unemployment benefits received by some farmers are certainly appreciated. But these benefits are not wanted and they are not the answer. These men are hard working and efficient.

Unfortunately the Commonwealth Employment Service is finding that people who are looking for workers will pick farmers ahead of others who, we might say in some cases, are work shy. Farmers have the reputation of being able to work. Anyone who is looking for a man to work for wages will first go for the farmer who is on relief. We should bear in mind that farmers who are not chosen for work are able to stay at home and keep their farms in order. I think this situation is most unfortunate. I believe that the country should require those who are not working at all to take a job ahead of a farmer who, if employed, would be asked to work a 40-hour week in addition to milking cows and keeping his property in order.

Farmers are in the same position as people in any other industry at the moment where productivity and wages must be related. The problem is huge and a wide range of rural industry is affected by it. We are finding now that lower cost countries are killing our markets and we are helping them by driving our prices up all the time. We are all looking forward to the Sir John Crawford’s Industries Assistance Commission report which is due to be released next week. We hope that the plans in the report will go a long way towards restructuring the industry and will show the Government a lead in the sort of changes that will be necessary and the sort of aids that will be required.

I am very pleased with the wide range of items covered in the Budget in the field of education. I would like to mention a couple of aspects from this wide field. I want to see whatever help is possible to go to those who need help most- the handicapped people. Too often we have found that handicapped people are put into old buildings and given old equipment when they are the most needy group and should receive the best possible assistance that they can get. I have very great admiration for people who work amongst the handicapped and I believe that they too should receive the best of equipment and the best of premises. The problem goes beyond that. There are problems when the handicapped finish formal schooling and they need to have an occupation. It is necessary for hostels and workshops and so on to be made available to these people. I think we have to do a lot more for them. However, I have found that many people who are working in this area are not fully aware of what assistance is available from either State or Federal government. I believe it is probably our duty to make sure that they are aware of what is available and to see that funds allocated for this purpose are used as advantageously as possible.

I believe that in many cases we have built up many fallacies in respect of higher education and in fact most areas of education. We went through a phase a few years ago when it was believed that if one did not have a university education one did not count at all. But I believe that we have to look at higher education generally and we have to ask: ‘Does it provide a livelihood; does it provide fulfilment for the people engaged in it; and does it give them satisfaction?’ So often all that people who go on to higher education wind up with is a document on the wall. I think it is more important that we should provide people with a means to an occupation which will give them fulfilment and a livelihood. I believe that we have to consider these aspects and if at all possible direct our efforts towards achieving this objective.

A few years ago it was believed that if one did not pass exams one went to technical college. The view was held that if one was not good enough for university one went to a college of advanced education. I hope that both of these concepts are now well and truly behind us. I hope that all of these institutions will be equally regarded and that the people who go through them will also be equally regarded. It was long said that education was a process produced by academics to develop academics. There are still areas in which this is true. Fortunately, I believe that they are declining because educated people are just as necessary on the outside as on the inside. The big fields for employment opportunities even now are in the areas where greater education is needed. If we examine a list of persons unemployed, we find generally that those with the least education are the first on that list.

I think that we have to use the funds that are available in the Budget to get the best results possible from apprenticeship training. We should encourage apprentices through the National Employment and Training scheme. We should try to fill some of the vacancies that currently exist in spite of the high level of unemployment. We have to try to get the young people to become work oriented when they leave school because once they cease learning and cease training it is difficult to get them back into the work force. I was pleased to see that the expenditure for technical education has increased by $20. 4m; university education by $69.2m; and colleges of advanced education by $7 1.6m. In examining these figures, I was interested to find that the cost per student per annum is now $4,555 at universities and $4,428 per head at colleges of advanced education.

I turn to housing. Housing policies have largely been developments of habit over a period of years. They have been put together in a piecemeal way. On examining the position, I think all honourable senators would agree that the expenditure on housing is not producing the optimum result in houses. There are too many agencies in the public sector and they are insufficiently integrated. I feel sure that all honourable senators would agree that housing is probably the most practical topic about which we could talk. It is also the most confused of any topic because of overtheorising. There is always a lot of disparaging of developers but it is the developers who very much control the property market and the future of so many up and coming Australians. Everything that is being done now is slowing down the rate of development. All the requirements which have to be met before land is put on the market take so long and cost so much money. Every time there is a new subdivision the requirements are higher than they were earlier. I am not against services being provided- do not get me wrong- but I think that the gold-plated services that are now being required are an unnecessary extravagance when it is houses we need. By the time we add the cost of all the services, the interest on the services and the delays- in many cases it takes up to two or three years to get a block of land from its raw state into a state acceptable for sale- it is making land very expensive. I notice today, for instance, that in Victoria the price of an average block of land is about $17,250. In spite of this I have been told by many people that developers are making huge profits. This again is another total fallacy because I think land development is a high risk operation. It is fraught with all sons of hazards and problems. One only has to look through the list of bankruptcies to see the companies and the individuals listed there who appear there because they have been involved in land development. The Land Commission was going to be the answer to many of these problems but it has not worked out that way. The Land Commission will never be the answer to lowering the price of land. For a start, the Land Commission ties up huge amounts of money which would be far better put into housing than being buried in land. We have to get the money moving in both the public and private sectors. We have to develop schemes that will get money moving. We have to be able to provide more houses so that people can have houses of their own, either to rent or to buy. We have to do something about overcoming the slow, ponderous and expensive systems which are a feature of the housing industry. I was very pleased to note that we now have a 3-year scheme operating for aged persons homes. It gives to people who are dong this very excellent work the opportunity to plan ahead. In many instances we find that welfare housing is going to non-welfare cases. I think that we have to make sure that those who have a need for houses are allocated houses. We also need to provide inducements for rental housing. We have to make sure that we utilise the funds in this area to the maximum. We need to speed up the process as best we can.

I should like briefly to refer to trade. Because of its natural resources and geographical location, Australia is fundamentally a trading nation. We have reached the stage now where, because of our pricing structure, every country can sell to us but we find it very difficult to sell goods to other countries. Let us subject our industries to intense competition. In 1973, 13 industries applied to the Department of Industry and Commerce for assistance. This rose to 3 1 industries in 1974 and 71 industries in 1975. Our trade blew up with the wages explosion. Australian wages increased by 162 per cent between 1968 and 1976 compared with 64 per cent in the United States of America. In 1974 alone, wages in Australia increased by 35 per cent whereas the average increase in the Organisation for Economic and Co-operation Development countries was 15 per cent. Honourable senators will realise how difficult it is to maintain a market whilst we have these sorts of rises which are greater than those experienced by countries with which we trade.

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– I rise to make my contribution to the Budget debate and in doing so I support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Wriedt. I take this opportunity to remind honourable senators of the content of that amendment which, in part, states: . . the Senate condemns the Budget because:

  1. 1 ) it pursues a policy of unemployment as a weapon to reduce real wages and salaries;
  2. it abdicates Federal Government responsibilities and forces the State governments and local governments either to reduce their services or to institute additional charges, or both;
  3. it introduces an additional tax in the form of the Medibank levy, thus further reducing consumer spending;
  4. it reduces the availability of services to the whole community but particularly to those most vulnerable to hardship notably aborigines, the unemployed and migrants; and
  5. 5 ) it fails to institute selective stimulatory expenditure to reduce unemployment and restore consumer confidence.

Of the many omissions, inadequacies, dubious commissions, confusions and deceptions in the Budget, there is one area about which I would like to speak tonight. I think it demonstrates, particularly clearly, the incompetence of this Government as an administrator in the area of social policy and the inadequacies of the economic strategy of reducing spending in the public sector. I refer to the funding of education. Whilst all honourable senators in this chamber are aware of the various demands by the different sectors of education placed upon the taxpayers’ money and are aware of the various needs throughout the education community one very clear fact emerges from this Budget. There is to be a contraction and not an expansion in education opportunities in Australia at all levels. The Minister for Education has repeated in this chamber and outside the claim that education expenditure is to be increased. Education expenditure is not to be increased; it is to be reduced.

In support of this I shall quote not only my own views or the views of the many teachers and parents and university administrators who have come to me and to other members of the Opposition with complaints about the Budget but I shall look also at the reports of 4 commissions of enquiry. But before I do that I should like to remind the Senate of the promise made by the Government first of all in the mini-budget speech made by the Treasurer, Mr Lynch, on 20 May and again later in the recent Budget that there would be increases in real terms in the Commonwealth’s allocation in each of the 4 areas in 1977 compared with the approved programs for 1976. The increases were specified as 2 per cent for universities plus an additional $2m for capital expenditure, 5 per cent for colleges of advanced education, 7.5 per cent for technical and further education and 2 per cent for schools. Not one of the four education commission reports which have been brought down recently- the reports of the Schools Commission, the Technical and Further Education Commission, the Commission on Advanced Education and the Universities Commission- sustain the Treasurer’s claim that there will be real growth in education. All of the commission reports have been critical of the Budget. All of the commission reports have been critical of this Government’s approach to the administration and the funding of education. They have been particularly critical of the imposition of guidelines. I think that my colleague, Senator Colston, spoke about that at some length last night.

For example, the Schools Commission points out that by imposing guidelines upon it as to what could be spent in the area of education the Government in fact was imposing on the Schools Commission a function which was not contained in its legislation. That legislation required it to advise in a objective way on the needs of education throughout Australia. Then the Government turns around and says: ‘Well, you are to do that but then you are also to advise the priorities within our guidelines’. This is an additional function and some might say that it conflicts with the function that the legislation commits the Schools Commission to perform. All of the commissions have expressed serious reservations about the usefulness for planning purposes of this new concept of the rolling triennium. The Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) has repeatedly pointed out in this chamber that the Labor Government interrupted the process of triennial funding. Of course it was. I do not deny that; nobody on this side of the chamber does.

Senator Baume:

– You cannot.

Senator RYAN:

– We do not wish to. But what was made clear at the time was that there was to be a one-year suspension of triennial funding, not that there was to be a permanent cessation of triennial funding and the introduction of a much less satisfactory system of planning. All of the education commission reports acknowledge that the cessation in triennial funding for the period of 1976 was temporary and they rightfully assumed that had the Labor Government remained in office triennial funding would have been reinstated. Rolling triennial funding is of no assistance in terms of long term planning because the commissions are told what they have for one year and what they might have for a second and third year of a triennium; but for the second and third year they can make no firm plans because those second and third year figures are speculative and can be changed at any time by the Government. The concept of rolling triennial funding is a hoax. If honourable senators look at the comments of those people who have to try to administer education programs under these rolling triennial funding programs they will see that these people express these views much more strongly and perhaps much more expertly than I am in a position to do tonight.

All of the education commissions have condemned the failure of the Government to continue the Labor Government’s policy of automatic indexation of education costs. This Government’s budget philosophy, which has been expounded again and again, is that inflation must be reduced. This and the reduction of the deficit are the preoccupations of the Government. It says that inflation must be reduced. It does not matter how many worthwhile social reform programs are to be abolished, held up or confused. Indeed, no worthwhile programs have escaped the interference of this Government. The Government considers that none of these programs matter if the objective of reducing inflation is achieved. But when we look at the real strategies for assisting bodies such as the educational institutions to cope with inflation, what do we find? The Government has failed to continue automatic indexation, thus leaving these educational institutions in a position where they will be the victim of inflationary spirals, where they will not be able to plan and where they will have their so-called increases eaten up by the inflationary process because of the lack of indexation.

I shall turn first to the Schools Commission. I think it is a priority because, after all, schools are an institution through which all Australians pass. Schools are an institution which determine to a very large extent the future of the children who pass through them. The Schools Commission was set up with a very specific charter. Its main objective and the main objective of the Labor Government in setting it up was to work out a strategy whereby equality of opportunity in education for all Australian children could be achieved and could be achieved within a specific period. The Labor Government did not go in for rhetoric that sounded good but had no actual program to back it up as the present Government does. The Labor Government said that within a certain period it wanted to see equality of opportunity in our schools. The Schools Commission drew up such a strategy which was one of resource allocation. I should like to read to honourable senators the objectives of the Schools Commission with regard to achieving within a certain time limit equality of opportunity in schools, that is, the provision of equal resources in every school in Australia.

The interim committee set target standards for the improvement of the current resource levels in government schools and lower resource nongovernment schools at 40 per cent above the government levels in 1972 for primary schools and 35 per cent above those for secondary schools. The Commission reaffirmed these targets in its 1976-78 report but postponed the date of achievement from 1979 to 1980 for primary schools and to 1982 for secondary schools. I think it is fairly easy to envisage the very unequal state that our schools were in in 1972 when we consider that the Commission had to set a target of increasing the resources of the lower resource non-government primary schools by 40 per cent and of secondary schools by 35 per cent in that period. That was the degree to which those schools were below what the Commission regarded as acceptable standards. The Commission, through its federal programs, was working towards those objectives, but now, as a result of the change of education policy- the change of objective in education funding- of the present Government not enough funds are being provided to achieve that objective of equality of opportunity. Again the Schools Commision does not hesitate to point out this fact. The following is stated in the early part of its report:

While it is clear from the early part of the guidelines–

That is the guidelines imposed on the commission by the Government - and from the finance provided that it is not expected that it will be possible to do more than maintain existing standards in government and non-government schools during the 1977-79 triennium, other parts of the guidelines direct the Commission’s attention to needs which could only be met if there were considerable additional finance. The 2 per cent real growth in funds for 1 977 must be seen in relation to the fact that enrolments in the States are estimated to grow by 1.11 per cent. It is important to realise that the guidelines cannot be met in full; the objectives of maintaining existing standards while also undertaking other initiatives, though modest and directed towards immediate needs, are too ambitious within the funds allocated.

Those are the words of the Schools Commission, the body which was set up to advise the Government on needs in education. The funds are inadequate to meet the special needs of the present, and they are inadequate even to maintain present standards which are still far from satisfactory. Where does that leave the special programs of the Schools Commission such as the programs for isolated children, for Aboriginal children, for migrant children and for disadvantaged girls in the schools system? The funding for those programs will be vastly inadequate.

The failure to maintain growth in schools is not an abstract thing; it will have very real outcomes in terms of maintaining gross inequalities within our society. I ask the Senate to consider for a moment the problem about which we have been hearing a great deal lately. I refer to unemployment amongst youth. What sorts of schools do honourable senators think the bulk of the unemployed youths come from? Do honourable senators think they come from our greater public schools? Do they think they come from our wellfunded and well-resourced Government schools? I think we will find that they do not. I think we will find that the teenagers who are experiencing such extreme difficulty at the moment in getting employment are the products of inferior schools. I refer to those schools that are inferior because 23 years of Liberal-Country Party coalition government in this country failed to provide those schools and their students with anything like equal opportunity. When an economic crisis occurs with a situation of high unemployment, it is those lowest down the education and skill ladder who miss out. I think that this is a particularly pertinent reason why the failure of this Government to provide for the continuation of the Schools Commission program is so scandalous.

The resource targets- that is, the targets of equality- cannot be achieved while the Government refuses to provide the money. What will this mean in terms of actual schools? The wealthy private schools will have other resources to call on. They will have affluent parents to call on. Similarly, the well-off State schools in affluent areas will have other resources. They do not need to rely completely on Government funding. So those schools will be able to maintain high standards of education and the children attending those schools will continue to gain sound education which will qualify them for higher education or trade education and so on. But what will happen in the poorer schools which are the schools with which we on this side of the chamber are most concerned? Those schools will have no outside resources to call upon. If the Government does not provide the resources, money will just not be available. There are no affluent parents’ and citizens’ organisations to raise funds to equip libraries and other school needs. So, by the withdrawal of these funds or by cutting down the objectives of the Schools Commission program, the Government demonstrates that it is prepared to allow educational inequalities to persist. We are seeing as well a government which is allowing inequality in work opportunities to persist.

Another great disappointment in the Budget concerns the pre-school and child care area. Despite the fact that Senator Guilfoyle, who is the Minister in charge of child care matters, has repeatedly assured this chamber that her Government will turn its attention to the needs of very young children and that there would be an allocation on the basis of need, what do we find? In the Budget a mere $73. 3m is allocated for this financial year. This might not be so bad; it is only slightly less than the $74m allocated in the Hayden Budget last year. But we are told also in the Budget papers that $54.3m of that $73.3m could take the form of payments to the States. In other words, there is no assurance that that $73.3m which is allocated will go specifically for child care programs for those most in need. If the Government leaves this matter to the States, we know that the States will have a number of alternatives of which just one will be to provide child care programs. I am most sceptical that the States with Liberal Governments will use their grants in this way.

The 1977-79 report by the Commission on Advanced Education is similarly critical of what the Government has done in regard to education funding. It has a specific complaint in respect of the guidelines imposed on it. These demonstrate that the Government was unaware of needs in this area before it imposed the guidelines. Paragraph 1.9 of the report states:

The present guidelines were framed within the Government’s policy of restraint in public expenditure. However, it is our view that Governments should be fully and publicly informed of needs before such decisions are taken. This Commission has been charged with the responsibility of providing advice on the needs of advanced education. The Commission can best give advice if it is able to give proper consideration to detailed submissions put to it. In 1976 we were unable to follow this procedure.

Again, Government interference in the work of the Commission has meant that inadequate advice has come forward. The guidelines are unrealistic. I quote from paragraph 4.3 of its report:

The Government’s guidelines indicated that, within the funds available for 1977, there should be an increase in new enrolments in colleges of advanced education of 10 per cent between 1976 and 1977.

The Commission stated in this respect in paragraph 4.1:

  1. . the Commission gave consideration to the level of growth in advanced education which the Government’s guidelines would permit. Its assessment was that for 1977 a growth of about S per cent in total enrolments could be accommodated within the funds provided.

We see again this technique of the Government imposing guidelines and saying that it wants a certain level of enrolments and of growth maintained but not providing the money for the level of growth and enrolments to be possible. As this report indicates the Government’s guidelines suggested that an increase in new enrolments of 10 per cent be maintained but the Government provided money appropriate to permit a growth of only 5 per cent. This is not the only area of concern. The report of the Commission on Advanced Education states that because of financial restriction other matters will have to be neglected. For example, it will not be possible to build any new residences for students. Those honourable senators who have rural colleges of advanced education in their States will be aware of the absolute necessity of residential accommodation at such colleges. Many students simply cannot attend such colleges if residential accommodation is not available. But as a result of this Budget no new residential accommodation will be built.

Similarly, there will be no research and investigation into colleges of advanced education. No Budgetary allocation is provided for this purpose. I would suggest that this, too, is a very serious matter. After all, colleges of advanced education are relatively new institutions. It is most important for new institutions to be monitored and for their effectiveness to be researched so that we can ensure that they are fulfilling the functions which they were set up to perform. But no money is provided for research into the effectiveness of colleges of advanced education.

I turn to the report for the 1977-79 triennium by the Universities Commission. We find again cause for serious reservations about the Minister’s claim that there is a 2 per cent real growth permitted in education. I quote from paragraph 1.14 of that report:

When these factors have been taken into account the funds available for 1977 allow the Commission to recommend general recurrent grants to universities only at the same level as for 1976. Nor is it possible to restore the equipment grants in 1977 to the 1973-75 standard. Moreover, the requirement to maintain intakes at the 1976 level will result in an increase in total enrolments in 1977 of 2 per cent. In 1978 and 1979 the guaranteed minimum rate of growth of 2 per cent per annum in real terms will permit small increases in general recurrent grants for all universities and the restoration of equipment grants to the 1973-75 standard. However, these increases will not be sufficient to restore real resources per student to the 1 975 level.

Honourable senators, I have quoted that extract particularly because yesterday in the Senate in answer to a question from Senator Knight the Minister for Education, Senator Carrick, insisted that a report in the Canberra Times regarding the plight of the Australian National University was wrong. The Minister suggested that there was no contraction of staff or of educational opportunities at the ANU. He said that there were no cutbacks. Having sought reliable reports of what the Vice-Chancellor actually said, I have found that the Vice-Chancellor said that there had been no retrenchments yet in the University. That does not mean that people have not been put off, people who were temporary employees, people who have worked out contracts and so on. Those people have been put off. As yet there have been no retrenchments of permanent staff. But the Vice-Chancellor was unable to guarantee members of the staff that there would be no retrenchments in future years.

I think that the response of the Minister yesterday to Senator Knight’s question was quite deceptive in that it suggested that there was no possibility of retrenchments at the Australian National University whereas the ViceChancellor has stated publicly that there is no guarantee that there will not be retrenchments. As well as that, there are, for example, 9 chairs vacant in the Institute of Advanced Studies at the ANU and only five of these will be filled. On current allocations the 2 per cent real growth that is talked about for universities in fact will go mostly to new universities. What will happen in the case of established universities such as the ANU is that they will get the same in 1977 as they did in 1976 but because of the incremental creep- the incremental structure of staff salary increasesthe staff bill must go up, so if the money is to be the same the staff must be decreased in some way. The projections for 1977 to 1979 will involve retrenchments if the minima of growth, the second and third years of the rolling triennium, are adhered to and not increased.

I really am at a loss to know why the Minister insists that there is to be no contraction of employment opportunities in the universities when the evidence is so clearly to the contrary. There may even be sound arguments for a contraction of employment opportunities, for a contraction of money available for buildings and equipment at universities but it is not for me to make out such a case. There may be such a case to be made but the Minister has not made it. The Minister insists there will be no contraction in the funding available, in the employment opportunities and in the educational opportunities; yet all the data in the Universities Commission’s report suggests something quite different.

I now would like to turn the attention of the Senate to what I think is the most significant of the 4 Education Commission reports published recently, the report on technical and further education. We in this chamber have all agreed that the area of technical education in the past has been the most neglected area of education. The Labor Government did a great deal about it. The Kangan report of 1974 was the first comprehensive report of the needs of technical education. A subsequent report in 1975 recommended a number of programs which would have improved this area. I suggest to the Senate that if this Government were really serious in its efforts to combat unemployment, if it were really serious about having a long term work force policy, if it were really serious about giving to the community the skills that members of the community need to be able to maintain employment under difficult circumstances, we would find evidence of this serious intent in the allocation to technical and further education. But what do we find? We find quite the contrary. I notice that I am running out of time so I will have to speak very quickly. A reading of the technical and further education reports shows that not only will there be no increase, that the 7.5 per cent increase promised earlier by the Minister does not exist, but there will be a deterioration of education available in the technical area under the present Budget. The current allocations do not even allow for the maintenance of standards existing in 1974 before the Commonwealth program began. I ask honourable senators opposite who are sceptical about what I am saying to read this report and to take very seriously the evidence put forward that there is something like a $78m shortfall in the Budget allowed for technical and further education if the target of only maintaining the standards of 1974 is to be achieved in 1979.

I would like to mention briefly the question of tertiary allowances. Honourable senators may wonder why I bring up this matter as it gets no mention in the Budget- that is, there is no specific allocation at this stage. We are told, as we are told about so many other programs, that the question of tertiary allowances is under review. I ask members of the Government, particularly Senator Carrick, why the question of tertiary allowances is under review. There already have been several comprehensive reviews of the situation of students existing on allowances. There was the Williams Committee report last year and the Australian Union of

Students has prepared a report on the needs of tertiary students. Members of this Parliament have been lobbied by students several times during the first session of Parliament about the desperate situation of students trying to exist on tertiary allowances; yet we are told that the matter is under review.

There could be 2 reasons why it is under review. Either there is to be no increase and the students will be left in the plight they are in and the Government does not want to admit that at this stage, or there will be an increase but the Government, with its preoccupation about reducing the deficit, does not want that increase to appear in the Budget Papers at this stage. This matter of tertiary allowances is extremely serious because the situation at the moment is that only students whose studies can be supplemented by affluent parents are in a position to continue their studies. Those students who have to try to exist entirely on their tertiary allowances are finding that they are unable to do it. They are having to pull out of their university courses and go on the dole.

Where is the logic in this from a government that talks so much about independence, about acquiring skills and about not being dependent on the State? We are moving to a situation which we knew very well in this country until the advent of the Labor Government, the situation where tertiary education is the prerogative of the elite. I suggest to the Senate in my concluding remarks that that is an extremely unhealthy position to be in. In this time of serious unemployment the Government could have taken a very constructive attitude to the whole question of training in education. It could have looked at the work force situation. It could have taken a long term view of our work force needs for the future. It could have assisted unemployed persons and school leavers to become trained and qualified in areas for which employment would be assured in the future. That would have been the constructive and sensible way of coping with both the unemployment situation and the very irregular and uneven work force skill situation we are faced with at the moment.

Did the Government do this? No. Because of its preoccupation, the ideological bias it has against public sector spending, it has reduced education funding to a point where those responsible for the administration of education programs are in total confusion. The beneficiaries of education programs, the students, are unable to plan for their future because they do not know whether places will be available and they do not know whether they will be able to afford to study. We will end up with a large pool of unskilled, unemployed and virtually unemployable people who, I imagine, the Government expects will provide a tame and easily exploitable work force for the business sector.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– I rise to support the motion. At this stage of the debate when a number of speeches on the Budget have been delivered in this place, and a number have been delivered in the other place, from both sides of the House, perhaps it is worthwhile looking at the Opposition’s case so far as this Budget is concerned. I want to state at once that commencing with the speech of the Leader of the Opposition in the other place (Mr E. G. Whitlam) the theme has been that everything this Government is proposing for the economy is wrong and everything that the Labor Government did in its 3 years of office was right. I think that statement is epitomised in the heading of the leading article which appeared in the Age on 26 August. 1 suppose honourable senators would have to say that the Age is not an unkind critic of the Leader of the Opposition. The heading was ‘ Whitiam strolls Memory Lane’. One would have thought that an Oppostion which lost government in December last by the greatest majority in our history since Federation would have learnt a lesson from that defeat, particularly when dealing with such a vital and important document as this Budget. The verdict of the people then- I remind honourable senators that that was less than a year ago- was that Labor was not the team to fight inflation. Yet the same inflationary proposals and policies are put forward again by the Opposition. This, I suggest, is in contradistinction to the attitude of the Government which is proposing a list of alternatives to those policies so clearly rejected by the people of Australia at the polls last December. The Leader of the Opposition has completely failed to acknowledge the mistakes of his Government. He still fails to answer the question asked by the electorate last December: Where was the money to come from to finance the grandiose policies and the largesse of the Labor Government?

Senator O’Byrne:

– How does the Government intend to finance the war it is trying to promote?

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

- Senator O’Byrne can have a go later. (Quorum formed) When I was interrupted by the chorus from memory lane across the way I was about to list some of the Government’s achievements, both as a result of the Budget and since assuming office 9 months ago. I point out to the Senate and to the people of Australia that this Government already has a proud record of achievement. It has the Budget

Papers as a blueprint for controlling inflation, which is its major task.

It is perhaps fortuitous that the first Budget Paper with which I will deal is the one related to education. I am dealing with them in the order in which they were dealt with by the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) in the other place. Senator Ryan devoted her speech exclusively to the subject of education. I think I should deal with it first. I will deal with it very quickly. I suggest that the test is the provision of money for education. Commonwealth expenditure on education in 1976-77 is estimated at $2204m, an increase of 15.3 per cent. Honourable senators opposite talk about incorporating automatic adjustments. We heard a story about the education commissions. Expenditure is up by 15.3 per cent compared with the figures for 1975-76. The great thing, in addition to the increase in the money available, is that the Government has restored the triennial program in education on a rolling basis, which allows for flexibility and adjustment at the end of each 12 months of the 3-year period. Senator Ryan tried to explain away what Labor did to triennial funding. Then she said that she does not agree with it anyway. All the experts in education say that triennial funding is absoluetely necessary if there is to be a planned program. We know the unfortunate story of education under the previous Government. In June 1975, because of the financial mess in which the country was at that time, it was impossible for the Labor Government to continue with triennial funding. All that it could suggest was a 1-year ad hoc proposal. I pay tribute to the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) for his excellent work in restoring order to a significant portfolio in such a short period.

I turn now to social security and welfare. This area is the largest single component of the Budget outlays. In 1975-76 the overall figure was over $5000m or 23 per cent of total outlays. This year there is provision for the expenditure of $6 187m or about 25 per cent of total Budget outlays. I deal briefly with a few of the things provided in the Budget. I mention firstly family allowances, which were introduced in the last session of this Parliament. I think it is worth repeating that some 300 000 low income families with 800 000 children will benefit most from the dependent children’s rebates. Under the previous system of tax rebates, these poorer people derived either no benefit or less than a full benefit.

I turn to the area of pensions. One of the landmarks of this Budget, an historical event, is the announced intention of the Government to tie future pension and benefit adjustments automatically to movements in the consumer price index. Effective from the first pay day in November the standard or single rate social service pension will be increased by $2.25 a week to $43.50 a week. This will apply in respect of age, invalid and repatriation pensions, widows’ pensions and supporting mothers’ pensions. Another pleasing aspect of the Budget’s pensions proposals is that the Government has decided as from November next to abolish the separate property component in the means test for pensions. This will bring a great number of people in Australia into the eligibility field for age and other pensions.

I mention briefly the assistance to handicapped children which has been increased by 50 per cent, from $10 a week to $15 a week. The benefit payable in respect of handicapped children in institutions will be increased from $3.50 a day to $5 a day. I mention briefly legal aid. Here we have an expenditure commitment of $20m, including $3. 7m for legal aid for the Aboriginal community. The total expenditure compares with an expenditure of $ 1 6.3m for last year.

I turn now to the worthwhile taxation reforms proposed. I remind the people of Australia that this is a reform Budget and that some of the taxation reforms proposed are the most far-reaching for many years and are of great benefit to the taxpaying public of this nation. The first milestone is the indexing of personal income tax which has been in force for pay-as-you-earn purposes since 1 July. This proposal, perhaps more than any other proposal in the Budget, will do more to reduce inflationary trends and to restore real spending power in the community. In the past, with rising incomes, particularly in the wage earning sector of the community, the interaction of inflation and a progressive income tax scale had the effect of increasing the effective tax rates, of diverting an increased amount of the national income to the government as tax revenue and of changing arbitrarily the nature of the tax burden. That was in the absence of legislative changes or provisions. The indexation proposal will give to taxpayers of Australia more take home money. Instead of the Taxation Commissioner being the main beneficiary of increases in wages, the taxpayer for the first time will really benefit from the increases in wages. To put it in its simplest terms, this reform means that although a taxpayer has a rise in income his rate of tax remains the same. It is worth noting that the cost of this reform and the changes associated with it is estimated to be $ 1,050m for this year and $1,2 10m for a full year of operation.

The changes in the valuation of trading stock also give relief in the tax field. The proposal is that the cost of a firm’s trading stock at 1 July 1 976 will be revalued for income tax purposes by reference to the percentage increase in the goods’ component of the consumer price index between the June quarter of this year and the June quarter of 1977. This means that the difficulties experienced by many companies and small businesses with inflation of values will be overcome to some extent. The situation has been that a company or a small businessman purchases an article for, say, 80c and sells it at $1, giving him a 20 per cent markup or profit, and when he comes to replace that article the whole of the proceeds of $1 are required for replacement. So he has a liquidity problem created by the fact that all his profits are going in stock replacement. When one adds to that factor the increase in value of the stock on hand at 30 June because of inflation, the difficult situation in which these small businesses find themselves will be fully appreciated, because the greater the value of stock on hand, the more tax has to be paid. The 2 things together have really added insult to injury to the small businessman in particular, to such an extent that many have had to close their businesses and seek other means of income. So the relief given in this regard is timely.

The alteration to the retention allowance for private companies from 50 per cent to 60 per cent is also a worthwhile reform. The investment allowance- the legislation in respect of which was passed in the autumn session of the Parliament- will also assist the private enterprise sector of the community and will help to stimulate the economy. The income equalisation deposits are another timely measure to combat fluctuations in income due to drought, floods, market uncertainty and various other elements which lead to a major fluctuation from year to year in the income of primary producers. Whilst dealing with the taxation side of the Budget may I briefly compliment the Government for increasing the exemption from Federal estate duty which will make approximately 20 per cent of estates which are now dutiable exempt from duty. There will be a considerable reduction in the impact of duty on estates which will still be dutiable. I trust that this will be the first instalment in the ultimate abolition of this tax which yields only a fraction of 1 per cent of the total Federal revenue. In 1973-74 it yielded 0.55 per cent; in 1974-75, 0.43 per cent; and in 1975-76 an estimate of 0.39 per cent. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table showing the proportion of total Federal revenue derived from Federal estate duty for the 3 years which I mentioned.

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

The table read as follows-

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– In the time left to me in this debate I want to say something about the poverty which exists in the primary industry sector of the community today, particularly in my own State and area in the canned fruit and dairy industries. Whilst highlighting the poverty situation I want to acknowledge the Government’s achievements and assistance to the rural sector during its 9 months in office. This subject was dealt with in considerable detail last night by my colleague, Senator Thomas, so I will deal with it very quickly. The measures initiated by the Government to assist the rural sector include the reintroduction of the superphosphate bounty; the suspension of the meat export levy; the extension of the dried vine fruits stabilisation scheme; assistance to the apple and pear industry; loans to canneries; increased tariff protection from orange juice imports; the underwriting for the 1975-76 season of the equalisation value of skim milk powder at $300 per tonne on a two for one basis with the States; the underwriting arrangements for skim milk powder and casein for the 6 months ending 31 December 1976; the underwriting until 31 December 1976 of the equalisation value for butter and cheese at $900 and $680 per tonne respectively; the provision of $ 13.5m for adjustment assistance to the dairy industry in 1976-77; the provision of $ 12m for brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication; the extension of the Softwood Forestry Agreement

Act with a financial allocation of $6m; an increase in the floor price for wool; the provision of drought relief; and the provision of income maintenance support and some liberalisation in unemployment benefits.

These reforms are very worth while and they have assisted materially in many areas of primary industry. In his 1973 report Professor Henderson pointed to the existence of pockets of poverty throughout the rural areas of Australia, particularly in the dairy industry. That was prior to the advent of the world surplus of skim milk powder which put the dairy industry, particularly in Victoria and Tasmania, in a state of crisis and considerably increased the percentage of poverty stricken dairy farmers in those 2 States. I have here some figures relating to income for dairy farmers in northern Victoria in a typical year, for the year ending 30 June 1 975 and the year ending 30 June 1 976. The figures, which are illuminating, have been prepared for me by a taxation consultant who practises extensively in the Goulburn Valley area of Victoria. He prepares and lodges a large number of tax returns for farmers and orchardists. The first table deals with 273 units and includes family partnerships. It probably covers some 600 individual taxpayers. The total income is $1.4m. The average income per unit is $5,410. That is at 30 June 1975. The table gives other details which time will not permit me to cite.

The second table gives the figures for the year ended 30 June 1976. As that is the year just passed fewer returns have been prepared. This table relates to 106 units. The total income is $398,311 with an average income per unit of $3,758. That is between $70 and $80 a week. Probably this is for a husband and wife and it often means working 120 hours a week for less than the basic wage. I think that honourable senators would agree that these people are in a very unfortunate position. The figures for orchardists are even more depressing. The third table for the year ended 30 June 1 976 shows for 26 units a loss of $47,815. The average loss per unit is $1,839. So those people in the canning fruit industry have shown an average loss of about $1,800 on the returns that have been lodged to date. I think that that is a deplorable situation. I seek leave to incorporate those 3 tables in Hansard.

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

The tables read as follows-

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– These unfortunate citizens have no wages board or arbitration commission to fix their terms and conditions. The cases I have cited relate to a husband and wife working 50 or 60 hours a week. When one compares their situation with that of other persons in the community who are fortunate enough to be employed, even at the minimum wage, and with a joint husband and wife situation, one appreciates the unfortunate position in which they find themselves today. Perhaps some of them may be able to become air traffic controllers. As I have said, they have no wages board or arbitration commission. This Parliament and the State Parliaments are the only bodies which are in a position to correct their situation. I trust that something will happen in that regard. I have some further information here which I shall give. It relates to the position of orchardists. They are in an urgent and desperate situation. Suppliers to the Goulburn Valley canneries still have not received any payment for fruit delivered in the 1976 season. This means that they are currently owed about $5. 7m by the canneries. This is a disastrous situation. Until the Victorian Government assists the canneries with some sort of a rationalisation program to allow for the viable people to stay in the industry and to allow for the reduced amount of fruit which can be put into the can -

Senator Mulvihill:

– That is creeping socialism, is it not?

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

-That may well be, but I have not time to argue with the honourable senator now. The growers’ financial position is further aggravated by the prices set by the Fruit Industry Sugar Concession Committee for the 1976 season for deliveries of peaches and pears. These are $140 per tonne for peaches and $60 per tonne for pears. The peach price represents a reduction of 32 percent from the 1975 price and, in the case of pears, the reduction is 43 per cent. The gross income of Goulburn Valley growers for canning fruits delivered in the 1976 season will be $5. 7m compared with $ 14m for the 1975 season. This is a reduction of $8. 3m or 60 per cent. It is interesting to note that the price set for peaches is only 1 8 per cent higher that the price which applied 13 years ago in 1963, while the price for pears actually represents a reduction of 28 per cent.

This is in vivid contrast to the escalation in wages over a similar period. Since 1963 the wages for an orchard hand have risen by 260 per cent. Even since 1974 the increase has been 43.7 per cent. It is interesting to look at the actual cost of the fruit in the can based on the grower’s prices applicable for this year. Of the 50c paid for an ordinary can of pears from the supermarket shelf, the cost of the fruit in the can is less than 5c. For a can of peaches the cost is less than 7c. Surely these figures vividly illustrate the intolerable position of the unfortunate who are producers in the fruit canning industry. The situation in which we have two of our great food industries in danger of collapse calls for urgent concern and attention, particularly in a world where twothirds of the people are still hungry. I think it is reprehensible for any government, irrespective of political persuasion, to stand by and see the industries collapse. I am not suggesting that our Government is not doing something. Something has been done. I have listed the achievements of the first few months.

The future of the dairying industry is tied up in the Crawford report which will affect the whole of the industry in Australia when an endeavour is made to rationalise it and to put it on a proper basis. I understand that the report is to be released to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) tomorrow. I do not know when it will be available to the industry. I urge the

Government to make it available at the earliest possible moment so that people in the dairying industry can plan their future with certainty. Those who are viable can stay in the industry and those who will not be viable can retire gracefully, if possible, from the industry. I have already indicated that the first step in the case of fruit is the rationalisation of the canneries. Senator O’Byrne seems to find this amusing. This is a serious question.

Senator O’Byrne:

– You said ‘a case of fruit ‘.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

-I said ‘In the case of fruit’. The situation is that the canneries will have to be rationalised. There is a market for a percentage of the fruit locally and a small market overseas. The damaging factor is the escalation in costs. If the Government can come up with a proposal I am certain that those who can stay in the industry will survive to see better times. I am sorry that I have had to deal in detail with the urgent problems facing these people in Victoria, but Parliament is the place where they can state their case. As I have said, there is no wages board or arbitration commission for them.

In conclusion, I acknowledge the progress the Government has made in getting the nation back on its feet. I trust that we can look forward to a year in which inflation will be reduced, production increased and the nation returned to a situation of prosperity and progress such as was enjoyed before the advent of the Labor Government in 1972.

Senator SIBRAA:
New South Wales

– I support the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Wriedt. In speaking on the Budget debate I refer to a speech which was made in this chamber on 25 August 1 976 by Senator Walters, who stated:

I would like to quote Mr Russell Prowse who described democratic socialism in this way:

Democratic socialism is the euphoric passing state from democracy to socialism.

A lot of people in the chamber, especially on this side, know Mr Russell Prowse. He is very prominent in the Bank of New South Wales. The last time I saw him he was being chauffeur-driven in a Rolls Royce or a Bentley- I forget which sort of car it was- across the Sydney Harbour Bridge. As far as I could see, he did not seem to be worried too much about democratic socialism at that time. He seemed to be more worried about prices on the stock exchange. Senator Walters then made a most remarkable statement. She said:

I suggest to those sincere people who believe that there is such a thing as democratic socialism that they should look a little closer at the experience of other countries. Where is there democratic socialism that has existed for any length of time where the people are still free, and where they still have freedom of speech, freedom of worship and freedom to strike for better conditions?

The situation is that members of the Australian Labor Party on this side of the chamber are members of an organisation called the Socialist International. The Socialist International comprises 56 political parties. It has a total membership of 1 7 million people. It has an electoral strength of over 75 million and at this stage out of the 56 political parties, 22 are in Government and they govern almost 200 million people in all continents. I stress ‘all continents’.

Senator Walters:

– Which countries?

Senator SIBRAA:

– I shall come to that, Senator. Among those parties are to be found the most democratic. There are the Western European social democratic parties, particularly in Germany, Sweden, Finland etc, the British Labour Party, the Israeli Labour Party, the Australian Labor Party and the New Zealand Labour Party. In recent times the British Labour Party, as honourable senators would know, ruled between 1964 and 1970 and from 1974 to the present time. One of the most prominent members of the British Labour Party, Mr Anthony Crosland, recently in relation to democratic socialism stated:

What constitutes socialism? Socialism describes a set of principles which socialists wish to see embodied in the organisation of society, based on the aspirations and values of people. What are these values? Firstly, an overriding concern for the poor, the deprived and the disadvantaged, whose relief from poverty, distress and social squalor must be afforded the highest priority. Secondly, a belief in equality, which goes beyond equality of opportunity and a redistribution of income to embrace all aspects of societythe division of property, the educational system, social class relationships, power and privilege in industry. Finally, strict social control over the environment, to enable us to cope with the exploding problems of urban life and to plan for the responsible use of our natural resources. But underlying all our beliefs about the nature of society is a deep and enduring commitment to democratic principles, to freedoms of speech, belief, assembly and association and to the administration of society by legally enacted statute. Socialism loses all meaning when the democratic system is violated; it ceases to exist without the protection of democratic forms of government.

That was written in a magazine that is distributed to all the members of the Socialist International I mentioned earlier. In considering the democratic socialist parties in the world today, one should look at Sweden, another European country, where economic recovery is strongly in evidence. The social democatic Government in co-operation- I stress ‘co-operation’- with the Opposition parties in the Swedish Parliament recently negotiated a basis for a wages policy with the trade union movement. This certainly is assisting in that country’s economic recovery.

I turn now to West Germany where the Social Democratic Party, the SPD, has been in office since 1969. The West German economic performance is leading European economic recovery. Why? Senator Walters referred us the other night to West Germany as an example for Australia to follow but she did not say that there had been a Social Democratic government in West Germany since 1969. The West German rate of inflation in 1975 was 6.5 per cent. In 1976 it is expected to be approximately 5 per cent. The Economist in May 1976 said that ‘much of the West German recovery and sustained economic recovery can be attributed to the absence of industrial disruption- a product of codetermination’. The co-determination that the West Germans enjoy has been achieved through co-operation with the trade union movement. But what happens in Australia when a political party puts forward a policy of co-determination, of worker participation? We saw recently during the New South Wales State elections a section of The Australian Labor Party’s platform dealing with worker participation. In fact it was much milder than the worker participation scheme brought in by the Social Democrats in West Germany. What happened here was that the conservatives in our community attacked this as some son of Communist plot and suggested that the workers were about to take over the factories. They generally attacked the scheme along those lines. We know the result now. The people of New South Wales did not fall for this suggestion and there is in the platform of the New South Wales Labor Party a strong section dealing with worker participation.

Social democratic parties stand as protectors of democracy and civil liberties. They stand as bulwarks against dictatorship of the extreme Left or the extreme Right. One should look back to what happened in Germany between 1919 and 1933 when the Social Democrats first got control of that country. Spain in the 1930s is another example, as is Greece more recently until 1967 and again from 1974. Chile has been mentioned today. Where is the radical party in Chile today? Where are the democratic socialist parties in Chile today? I have been to a conference of the Socialist International and have talked with representatives of the democratic socialist parties in Chile and I can tell honourable senators where they are. There are some trying to operate out of Venezuela and some trying to operate from an office in London. In effect the socialist democratic parties are completely banned because after the fascist coup social democratic parties and invariably the trade union movement were proscribed and disbanded.

Senator Lajovic:

– Have you found any social democratic people from the USSR?

Senator SIBRAA:

– I was dealing with the situation in Chile. When talking about Chile it is interesting to look at what sort of parties made up the coalition in Chile and to find the people there who suffer the harshest treatment. I think honourable senators would find that the social democratic parties received the harshest treatment. This is because of their firm adherence to democratic principles and their commitment to constitutional propriety. One has only to look again at the situation which exists in Portugal today. Recently I visted an organisation called the Friedrich Ebert Foundation in West Germany. It is an organisation set up to assist social democratic parties all over the world whether they are legally allowed to operate or operate illegally. When I was there it was explained to me what was happening in Portugal today and as a member of the Australian Labor Party I am proud to say that the assistance, both moral and financial, given by the Australian Labor Party helped in some small way towards the victories which the Portuguese Socialist Party achieved in the election recently.

As was explained to me in West Germany, nowhere is the importance of social democrats to the continued viability of parliamentary democracy more in evidence than in Portugal today. Without the effective performance of the Portuguese socialist party under Dr Soares, both electorally and in government since the election, Portugal would long ago have fallen to the forces of dictatorship. Those forces whether of the extreme Left or the extreme Right would have ruled Portugal. Whoever enjoyed the most military support would have ruled that country, but thanks to the support of social democratic parties all over the world there is now a much more stable situation. The Portuguese Socialist Party can rightly claim to have safeguarded the fragile democracy which only recently emerged after 50 years of fascism in that country. But for the PSF and its determined commitment to democratic priniciples, Portugal would once again have receded into the tyranny it knew before, whether of the Right or of the Left. I think I have spent enough time dealing with the remarks that Senator Walters made the other night about democratic socialism. I considered her charges to be serious and that it was worth while taking the time in this Budget debate to answer them tonight. Now let me get on to dealing with the Budget.

The Sydney Morning Herald on 18 August 1976 called the Fraser Budget a big business Budget. We saw the immediate stock exchange reaction. We saw the reaction of honourable senators opposite to what was happening on the stock exchange. However, both the stock exchange and honourable senators opposite would be somewhat subdued now if they looked at the figures of yesterday or even as late as tonight. There is plenty in the Budget for corporations. There is plenty in it for mining and oil lobbies but I cannot see a great deal in it for the average working Australian. It seems certain that unemployment will rise as a direct result of this Budget. This is deliberately planned as part of the economic strategy to reduce inflation. It is worth remembering in this Budget debate what the late J. B. Chifley said on unemployment in the book he wrote entitled Things Worth Fighting For. In it he said:

You cannot have discipline and efficiency- so critics sayunless you have a degree of unemployment. Not too much unemployment, of course, that would be bad for business. Just a nice 6 or 8 per cent of unemployment … to keep the fear of the sack in the hearts of all the rest.

We reject this as a barbarous and intolerant point of view and dismiss as absurd the argument used to support it as recently as the statement made by Senator Durack this afternoon. The cutbacks in the public sector will mean less economic activity for the private sector and particularly hard hit will be the construction industry. The Australian Financial Review on 18 August 1 976 had this to say:

Australia’s construction industry, already facing dire times, is a major victim of the Lynch deflationary Budget . . . Almost certainly there will be increased unemployment arising out of the Budget … It has been given just the opposite to assistance.

The construction industry needs to be primed to stimulate greater economic activity and this Budget has failed to do it. Unemployment at the moment is far higher than it was at any time under the Labor Government. The economy has not provided new jobs for the 180 000 persons who go into the market this year, the school leavers. What will it be like next year? The trend revealed in the production figures cited in the Australian Financial Review on 25 August 1976 is that economic recovery is still a long way off. Recently published business surveys agree with this point. Unemployment is particularly high in rural areas of New South Wales and is continuing to increase. I will give some examples. In Lithgow unemployment rose by 96 per cent in the 12 months by July 1976. In Bathurst it rose by 50 per cent, in Cessnock by 43 per cent and in Dubbo and Casino by over 30 per cent. There are many more examples in other country towns and rural areas of New South Wales. Yet there are no remedial measures proposed. The Government does not seem to be terribly concerned about this rural unemployment. There is no upgrading of the Regional Employment Development scheme or new initiative in this area.

Then we come to the question of the cost of living. The Government assumes the rate of inflation at around 12 per cent per annum. But if one looks at food prices one finds that they are rising at a much higher rate. I think in the latest consumer price index they are in excess of 13 per cent. I do not have the exact figure. However, I am sure it is over 13 per cent. There is no protection of incomes against inflation through wage indexation because this Government has no wages policy. It has no industrial relations policy except to bash unions as we saw in the statement brought down by Senator Durack this afternoon. As Senator Button said when he replied to that statement, of course there will be industrial unrest as workers try to maintain their living standards. What trade union leader in Australia could go to his trade union and ask his members to accept a cut in real living standards at the moment? I put it to you that nobody would.

Pension and social service increases do not come into effect until November of this year. There are no increases for those under 1 8 years of age, yet there are large numbers of these young people out of work. Let us look at the Budget as far as welfare is concerned. According to the Australian Council of Social Service most people will lose as a result of the Budget. The Council’s Secretary-General, Mr Ian Yates, was quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald of 23 August 1 976 as saying:

  1. . the cost, in human and economic terms, could not be justified.

The welfare housing allocation decreases in real terms. The reduction in the formula for granting assistance to aged persons’ housing has fallen from a ratio of $4 for $ 1 to $2 for $ 1 . Only a couple of weeks ago I was invited to open aged persons’ homes in the Manly- Warringah area in Sydney. These aged persons ‘ homes were built by the St Vincent de Paul Society. At the opening it was pointed out that because of this cut in subsidy from $4 for $ 1 to $2 for $ 1 -this was pointed out not by me but by the State President of the Society- this would probably be the last housing of this type built in the Manly- Warringah area.

Funds for health have been reduced. A number of different figures have been quoted. Some people have said that the reduction is as high as $126m. This decision closely follows on the destruction of Medibank as a result of which Australians are being forced into private funds. In the last week I have been through 2 electorates in New South Wales. I was also asked to address a union seminar at which I was asked questions after the meeting had ended. Invariably nine out of ten questions concerned Medibank. It was evident from the questions that people did not know to what they were entitled. They do not know what the situation will be. This matter has turned into a real medimaze. If honourable senators on the other side of the chamber doubt me they should go out to some public meeting and ask people what they think is going to be the situation in respect of Medibank when the new scheme comes into operation. If honourable senators opposite do so they will get a great surprise at the answers they receive.

Senator McLaren:

– $6 a week out of their wage packet- that is what it is.

Senator SIBRAA:

-That is right. The Australian Assistance Plan has already been abolished. This has been despite the assurance of the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) in the Senate on 18 February. I want to quote from Hansard of 1 8 February 1 976.

On that occasion I asked the Minister for Social Security a question about the Government’s intention to continue support for the Australian Assistance Plan. I will not read all of my question. However, I will read what Senator Guilfoyle said in reply. She said:

The honourable senator may be aware that the Australian Assistance Plan was a 3-year program which will conclude this year. The Department of Social Security has arranged a conference to be held early in May at which all the regional councils and other people directly involved in the Plan will be represented. The conference will be held to evaluate the 3-year Plan as it has developed and to give a guide as to what may be the future of the Australian Assistance Plan. I shall be in attendance at the conference and all people from regional councils throughout Australia will have an opportunity to put their points of view and the experience which they have had of the development of the Plan. At some later stage we will be able to make some deliberations with regard to its future. I think all regional councils are aware of the conference. The concern which the honourable senator has referred to could, I think, be only concern, understanding that there will be an opportunity for revaluation and review early in May.

Only concern’! Well, that concern that I expressed on that date turned out to be correct. When we look at what the Budget has done in the area of urban and regional development we see that total cuts are over $150m. The growth centre program has been severely curtailed. I would like to read into Hansard details of the funds allocated. In 1975-76 Albury-Wodonga was allocated $35m. This amount has been slashed to $ 15m in 1976-77. The 1975-76 allocation of $15. 7m for Macarthur has been slashed in 1976-77 to $2m. The allocation of $8.3m for Bathurst-Orange in 1975-76 has been slashed to $2m in 1976-77. I remember Senator Greenwood ‘s statement in answer to a question that I asked him on 1 April 1 976. He said:

No project at the present time is imperilled. Certainly the Bathurst-Orange project is not in jeopardy as the result of Government considerations.

Yet the Bathurst-Orange project has been cut from $8.3m to $2m. That $2m will probably keep the program running administratively over that period of time.

I believe that under this Budget the growth centres are finished. I said during the adjournment debate recently that the natural gas laterals in connection with Bathurst-Orange and Lithgow are in danger. I realise that in reply to a question the next day Senator Cotton did not take this point of view and blamed other people, including the New South Wales Government. I am collecting some figures on this item and I hope to be able to raise this matter again during the adjournment debate in the very near future.

There are some other points in the Budget that I think are worth examining. I think that Australia’s existing cities will be poorer because of the Budget. There are no new programs for urban public transport. The funds for sewerage projects have been cut by $63m. There are no funds for the National Estate. The cities will further deteriorate. Environmental protection is something of the past.

Much has been said in this chamber about the new federalism. New federalism under this Budget means that the States are to be starved financially. The States will be obliged to increase taxes and charges to keep services at their present level. I believe this will be highly inflationary. Federal allocations to the States have increased by only 8 per cent while the rate of inflation this year will be at least 12 per cent. Allocations for local government have also been reduced. They have been reduced to the tune of $80m with the result that there will be less public works. It means that there will be economic contraction and further unemployment.

I now want to deal with the problem of Aborigines. I know that Senator Keeffe has spoken in some detail on this subject. But unemployment amongst Australian Aborigines is as high as 30 per cent. Despite Senator Guilfoyle ‘s promise on 1 8 May 1 976 to do something about the situation nothing has been done to alleviate it. I would like to quote from the Hansard of 18 May 1976. I asked the following question of Senator Guilfoyle:

I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. It arises out of a previous question asked by Senator James McClelland. In the light of statistics cited by the Australian Financial Review of 1 7 May 1976 showing that the rate of unemployment amongst Australian Aborigines is as high as 30 percent, will the Minister, perhaps in co-operation with the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations and also the Department of Social Security take immediate steps to ensure that this abnormally high rate of unemployment is reduced.

Senator Guilfoyle gave the following answer:

I did notice the article to which the honourable senator has referred. I shall confer with the Ministers mentioned by the honourable senator to determine what can be done. We have already had interdepartmental meetings and ministerial meetings of several Ministers with regard to the opportunities for employment of Aborigines. I hope that arising from the fact that this matter has been drawn to my notice again we shall be able to take some steps forward in this direction.

They were some steps forward all right because in fact funds for Aboriginal welfare have been reduced by $33m. This is breaking the election promise that was made by the Liberal and Country Parties in 1975. As I have said, Senator Keeffe has outlined this matter in detail previously in the Budget debate. But this is a scandalous situation- Aborigines are the people most in need in this Budget but they are the people getting the least.

I think it important that we examine what this Budget does not do. It does not stimulate business confidence. Most business leaders, according to surveys, predict a worsening economic situation. The Government’s major economic statement in May reduced business confidence statistically by 3 per cent. This Budget does not encourage consumers to release savings and spend. I believe that this is the key. Consumers are fearful about their jobs and the high cost of living. This is prompting the Australian community to save more. I think this point was put very well this afternoon by Senator Button but I think that in the short time left to me I ought to say some more about it. While Australians are faced with the distinct possibility of losing thenjobs they will continue to save against that eventuality. They will not be encouraged to spend. They will not be encouraged to buy more by seeing their friends, their relatives and their work mates retrenched- particularly in New South Wales in the building and construction industry, in the electronics industry, in the motor vehicle industry or in the ship building industry.

They feel threatened with redundancy themselves and, of course, there will not be consumer spending.

Secondly, the taste of Australian consumers appears to be changing quite dramatically. There is a move away from the traditional consumer durables, such as the family saloon car, to the more unusual type of goods. I mentioned motor cars. There has been a move by the consumer towards the purchase of 4-wheel drive vehicles and the expensive imported models. The Government’s economic strategy shows no signs of taking this aspect into consideration. This Budget does not provide economic or social security nor does it provide a climate for harmonious industrial relations. The Leader of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party, Mr Whitlam, described the Budget by saying:

It is a Budget for social poverty.

I have pointed out the faults that I see in the Budget. I suppose now I should say what I think should be done. I think the economy must be stimulated to generate economic activity and to provide jobs. The building and construction industry, in particular, should be primed so that the multiplier effect can be brought into play. The public sector must be moderately expanded to ensure social security, public works programs and employment opportunities and so that the private sector can have contracts for business. In the Age of 20 August 1 976 Bill Hayden put it this way:

  1. . a greater level of Government activity has become necessary to sustain the rather slack overall activity in the economy.

Therefore, a mildly expansionary economic policy is needed now. I believe that the Hayden Budget of 1975 was working and that recovery was on the way. The Fraser Budget can only retard recovery. It can only generate unemployment. It can only ensure prolonged stagnation in all sectors of the Australian economy. This Budget is presented by those who in 1975 paraded as the saviours of Australia. On their own criteria- this Budget- I believe that honourable senators opposite stand condemned. I ask honourable senators to support the amendment moved by Senator Wriedt.

Senator STEELE HALL:
South Australia

– In his speech last week Senator Bishop inquired of South Australian senators how they had replied to the Speaker of the South Australian House of Assembly in response to a resolution which was passed by that House, a copy of which was sent to all South Australian senators. I am pleased to have the opportunity to read my reply to the Speaker of the South Australian House of Assembly for Senator Bishop’s benefit. It reads:

Thank you for sending me as you were directed a copy of the resolution passed in the House of Assembly on Tuesday, 1 7 August, concerning the shipbuilding industry at Whyalla.

I would be grateful if you would inform the House of Assembly of my reply.

I deeply regret the inability of the shipbuilding industry in our State to compete with competition from overseas markets.

The effect on the South Australian citizens who have made their home at Whyalla is greatly to be deplored.

However, I earnestly hope that suitable arrangements can be made to continue the employment opportunities in that city. I do not accept the proposition contained in the resolution that Whyalla is endangered because of lack of support from the Australian Government.

It is a matter of grave concern that a superficial political attitude should be used by the South Australian Government to try and obscure the basic reasons for the problem.

Senator Bishop, who is trying to interject, wanted to know what I said. I am informing him now. The letter continues:

The real reasons lie with the very high rate of inflation that has been generated in this country in recent years.

In this regard it is quite evident that the Liberal Government in Canberra now has the onerous task of sharply reducing the disastrously high rate of inflation established by the previous Labor Administration.

If the House of Assembly therefore desires to apportion blame for the current situation it should couple the Whitlam years with those of the Dunstan Government which has administered one of the most inflationary State policies in Australia.

I agree with the resolution’s desire to preserve Whyalla ‘s future.

However, unless the Labor movement and its political wing can recognise the failure of its economic policies I am afraid many other worthwhile Australian industries will be placed in similar circumstances.

It was therefore with some approval that I heard the statement read today by the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Senator Durack, concerning a wages policy. There is no doubt that the position in Whyalla relates directly to the statement read to the House today. Before I deal with that in detail, I should like to deal with one or two other points made by Senator Bishop. He mentioned the delay in the rail standardisation of the Adelaide-Port Pirie line. He gave his speech the distinct impression- in fact I think one could say it was a charge- that the delay was occasioned by a Liberal government. I take that to mean this Liberal Government. The facts of the matter were that the previous Liberal administration had approved the first Maunsell report in 1970. The report was disagreed with to the extent of the metropolitan connection with that main standardised plan. The State Liberal

Country League Government disagreed with the Maunsell report. In South Australia the Labor Government came to office in 1970. Any responsibility for finalising those arrangements rested with the Labor Government in South Australia from 1970 and with the Federal Labor Government from 1 972 to 1 975. It is deliberately wrong for Senator Bishop to blame anyone but bis own party, Federal or State, for the delay of that important work in South Australia.

Secondly, of course, Senator Bishop again raised the issue of Dartmouth. Senator Cavanagh would know very well that the issue of Dartmouth has long passed, but it is still current, I suppose, to the extent that had the drought in Australia extended through to the Australian Alps this season we would have been in a disastrous position in South Australia because of the Dunstan Government’s refusal to pass the legislation for 2 long seasons. That Government, during the 1970 election campaign, said: ‘We will build 2 dams following the Stott line’. That decision was announced prior to that election for political purposes and to achieve political advantage. The Dunstan Government knew full well that it could not build the 2 dams at Dartmouth and Chowilla. Of course, this led the State into great danger for 2 seasons longer than it ought to have been.

Senator Cavanagh:

– You are a has-been. In 2 years ‘ time they will not have you.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-We will see about that. Senator Cavanagh has had his day as others have had their day. However I notice that Senator Cavanagh is sitting on the Opposition benches. Senator Bishop made one valuable contribution to the Budget debate when he said:

Nothing is produced unless labour is applied. If we lose the ability to produce we lose the skills which go with it and the technical know how. Australia cannot afford that.

I think the whole key of Senator Bishop’s debate was that nothing is produced unless labour is applied. That basically is what the whole of this economic argument is about. Honourable senators opposite in this debate have entered into one long lament that not enough is being spent. That is the whole tenor of the Opposition’s objection to this Budget and of its support of the amendment moved by its leader. Most of the Opposition’s argument failed on the figures provided by its own speakers.

Senator Wriedt, in a very well documented speech, went through the increases in expenditure which the previous Labor Government instituted during its years of office. Commonwealth expenditure on its activities increased by 20 per cent in the financial year 1973-74 whereas payments to the States increased by 2 1 per cent. In 1974-75 Commonwealth expenditure increased by 32 per cent whereas payments to the States increased by 53 per cent. The last budget brought down by the Labor Government provided for an increase in Commonwealth expenditure of 24 per cent whereas the increase to the States was 32 per cent. The Leader of the Opposition makes a virtue of the very reasons why Australia is now going through one of the most difficult economic problems of all the Western countries. He makes a virtue of the very input behind those failures. He defines it clearly in his speech in many other references to the high expenditure of the Labor years. I could not help but smile today when Senator Button asked a question as to what is normal when people say that they want to get back to some normalcy. I can assure Senator Button that one thing that we do know is that the expenditures of the Labor regime are abnormal by Labor’s own claim. They stand behind the greatly accelerated inflation rate which they helped to establish in this country and which it is so difficult to reduce.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Why did you support every appropriation that you now condemn?

Senator STEELE HALL:

– I do not want to be distracted by Senator Cavanagh. He knows my view on the Senate ‘s attitude to money Bills quite well. They have not altered. Senator Bishop was innocently right when he referred to the fact that everything is done with a labour input, whether it is a service or a manufacture. He knows full well that our standard of living depends on our trade and that our exports and imports are very finely balanced figures. I think that the August figures were publicised this morning. If our costs of production are exorbitantly above those of our major trading partners we are indeed in very great economic trouble and will be unable to maintain the standard of living that we have developed to this stage. We measure that standard of living by cash rewards and hours of work to mention 2 of the most notable factors which are the subject of industrial disputation. It is about these 2 matters that most of the disputes arise. The cost of labour in Australia is at an extremely high level. Figures were given on the seventh of this month in the South Australian annual report of the Metal Industries Association. The unit cost of labour in Australia, which Senator Bishop referred to, rose between 1973 and 1975 by an estimated 44 percent.

Senator O’Byrne:

– To allow the people to buy the cars that were made in South Australia.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-They are the people who are trying to buy the cars that are in almost every case twice the price of cars made in countries of a comparable living standard. If one looks at a report in the Bulletin of several weeks ago one is staggered to find the low cost of cars in places like Sweden and Germany. Germany was just extolled by the previous speaker as a country with a high living standard. Of course, it is a country with workers against which the workers in this country cannot in any way compete. As far as motor cars are concerned, we have Japanese manufacturers working identical machines in Japan who come to Australia and say: ‘Our production in Japan with the identical machine is double what it is in Australia’. One begins to wonder what is wrong with the industrial scene in this country.

In referring further to wage comparisons between Australia and other countries the report to which I have referred says that Australia’s wages are by far the highest when compared with 7 other member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development The next highest was the United Kingdom with an increase of 26 per cent a year. We have heard of and marvelled at the disruption in the UK and the way in which governments have been held hostage by the Labor movement and the union movement yet our increase in wages is at the rate of 44 per cent a year and the UK’s rate of increase is 26 per cent a year. Last year Australia had the third highest labour costs for process workers with an hourly rate of $4.24. The Netherlands topped the list with $5.07 and Belgium came second with $4.92. The South Australian report goes on to detail the tremendous problems that this poses for manufacturers in Australia. Obviously we have been more reckless than other countries. The Labor administration in the years 1972 to 1975 had a very great bearing on the economic factors which were imported from overseas. The obvious pressures on wages and salaries caused by the enormous increases in government expenditure, which are extolled as a virtue now by the Leader of the Opposition, played a great part in this.

Senator Wriedt:

– Would you reduce it?

Senator STEELE HALL:

-That is not the case now. During this debate the Opposition speakers have blamed this Government for not spending enough. In the time since they governed they have in no way altered their economic appraisal of what is needed for Australia. We are dealing with the basis on which they are now presenting their arguments to this chamber. I support the intention of this Budget to return Australia to some normalcy, in the sense that it means an increase in standards, wages and production at a more or less constant rate which this country can absorb and does not follow the shop window economics of the Opposition, which believes that all that counts is the money value of wages and not what they will buy. The figures that Senator Wriedt used were augmented by the rough and tumble politics of the likes of Mr Clyde Cameron from South Australia, who Senator Cavanagh would know very well, who in his ministerial capacity advocated that the workforce of Australia should go outside the arbitration system. A senior Minister of the Labor Government advocated that the workforce of Australia should get by direct action what they could not get by carefully measured awards. I must say that this is something that the Labor Government does innocently, but the very fact that it stands in office means that its followers look forward to a division of the spoils of office. That in itself is not a policy defect of a Labor government but it is a very real factor.

Added to that expectation of the spoils of office was the deliberate overspending by Government and the deliberate incitement by senior Ministers of the workforce to move outside the arbitration system. We are now dealing with the results in a Budget which tries to stabilise a very unstable economy. During Labor’s years of office many people who saw the tug of war between wages and capital or, if one uses the old fashioned terms, between labour and capital would have seen this as simply a disision of economic capacity between the workers’ share and capital’s share. But of course it went much further than that. It was simply not a load placed against capital for labour’s benefit in some seesaw of the division of spoils but it has been a very long term imposition against the exporters of Australia, who bear the brunt of maintaining our living standard. This is where it ends up. It does not end up as something X company bears as an added wage cost and loads its cost of production. It ends up at the door of the exporter who determines our living standard.

The Opposition speakers have said tonight that they lament the fact that there is not enough expenditure in the Budget. What they are saying is that costs in Australia should go higher. They are saying to people who work in motels: ‘You should be paid more ‘, and this at a time when the tourist industry is in a state of crisis. We are even exporting jobs in service industries. This applies not only in manufacture; jobs in service industries are being exported as a result of this policy. That is what members of the Labor Party are saying today if their remarks are distilled to simple terms. They are saying: ‘Let us have greater accelerated wage rises’. The cost of these increases is being laid at the door of the exporter. For goodness sake, surely the Labor Party knows today how important these exporters are to the people whom it represents in this Parliament.

One of the main factors in this disastrous double figure rate of inflation is the militant union movement. There are 2 factors involved in this. The first is the militant unionist; the second is the weak employer who will move outside the arbitration system, too, to accede to the standover tactics of the militant unionist. Both of these areas must be dealt with at some length if we are to achieve some reasonably sensible management of this country.

Senator McLaren:

– With a sledgehammer! Deal with them with a sledgehammer! That is your policy.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– If Senator McLaren cares to look at union militancy in Australia today he will see the current situation. Honourable senators arrived in Canberra yesterday or the day before with some difficulty as a result of the go-slow tactics of the air traffic controllers. That dispute was settled last evening and flights returned to normal this morning. On the same news service reporting that settlement, we were informed that the mails are jammed up again in New South Wales. If we look more deeply at the newspaper reports of the last 2 days, we see the present industrial situation. It is revealed by even a casual reading of them. I have taken out a few clippings of the industrial unrest normally occurring in Australia. The first headline I come to is:

Chrysler Men Discuss Bans

These employees are the only ones in plants in Australia today who are still maintaining these bans. The next headline I turn to is:

Mitsubishi Warns Australian Strikers

The newspaper report continues:

Japanese shipowners may be considering action, if Australian trade unions continue their strike war, a Mitsubishi executive said today.

Another headline reads:

Hamersley production held up by five day’s strike.

Hamersley Iron Ltd is one of the most enlightened employers in the north-west of Australia. A further headline reads:

Stood Down, So Battler Faces New, Grim Fight

This concerns the well known Viscount caravan factory whose work was held up and which is now out of production because containers have remained on the wharves in Sydney. In the House of Representatives, the Minister for Transport, Mr Nixon, listed some of the ludicrous reasons why strikes have taken place on our wharves in recent days. Above all, we heard this morning from Mr Hawke- his action is well represented in the cartoon which appeared in this afternoon’s edition of the Melbourne Herald- who said that, for political reasons, because he does not like the possibly pending legislation in New Zealand, on which I do not comment at this stage, he will sacrifice Australian jobs by the tens of thousands to achieve a political aim in New Zealand. I advise all honourable senators to read the cartoon which I now show to the Senate. It depicts Mr Hawke holding a gun at the jobs of Australian workers to achieve some aim across the sea in New Zealand.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-What duty does Senator McLaren have in the Senate, Mr Deputy President? Is his duty to the people of South Australia or to the people of New Zealand? Whom does he represent?

Senator McLaren:

– Tell us about the strike that went on in this place last year through the actions of you and your colleagues.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! Senator McLaren, you will come to attention. I call Senator Steele Hall.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– I said earlier, Mr Deputy President, that the ultimate price is borne by the exporter who cannot pass these costs on. He will go out of business or he will exist without proper capital investment or he will have to make some new arrangement with the person whom he supplies internationally- and he is unlikely to do that. I suggest to Senator Bishop and to Senator McLaren that they should read articles such as those which appeared in the Australian Financial Review on 1 September of this year under the heading: ‘BHP Loses Big Local Customer’. What this means is that Australian jobs will cease. Let us put it in other terms: There is to be a loss of probably some hundreds of jobs because of this action to which I will refer. The article reads:

Big steel user Ralph McKay Ltd has saved a multi-million dollar export business by substituting high cost BHP steel with Japanese steel.

The company has negotiated a long term relationship with Sumitomo Metal Industries Ltd in Japan for its export steel requirements.

The agreement, made through Okura Trading Co. (Australia) Pty Ltd is disclosed in the company’s annual report, released yesterday.

The article continues:

Significantly, the Japanese steel was higher priced than local steel when Ralph McKay opened negotiations a couple of years ago, but it appears now that prices are substantially below those of the Australian product.

In these circumstances, with Australian jobs in the motor vehicle industry disappearing- but I emphasis above all the loss of work in the basic industry of steel making in which we used to produce the best and the cheapest in the world because of the natural advantages of having an abundance of coal and iron ore resources in Australiaand the loss of jobs in other basic industries, do honourable senators opposite still maintain that we should spend more? The obvious result will be a wage hike in Australia. There is no answer to this question from honourable senators opposite.

Senator Bishop:

– Tell us what you would do regarding Whyalla?

Senator STEELE HALL:

-They will not look at the question. They will go back to the subject of Whyalla and say: ‘Let us prop it up more. Let us increase the subsidy from 35 per cent to 55 per cent and, if necessary, to 75 per cent’. There are some with knowledge of company operations who say that before long it would have to be 100 per cent. Is this what honourable senators opposite want to do? Do they want to take the situation to the ultimate? In the end, Australia would need to introduce import restrictions because it would not have the trading base from which to operate. People would not be able to travel from this country. If they did, they would be able to take only, say, $200 out of the country. This is where Labor is heading with its policies. The Opposition is dealing simply with a shop window economy. Its attitude is: Grab it off the shelf and forget all of the economics and the industrial management and industrial relations that are behind putting that product on the shelf.

Senator Keeffe:

– That is not what you said last year. You have changed your mind.

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– He is in a different Party now.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-Honourable senators opposite may take that view if they like, Mr Deputy President. But I invite them to look at my record of voting in divisions; they can make up their minds on that matter. As Senator Button said recently, this Budget is highly ideological. Of course it is highly ideological. Until 1972, Australia may have well been bored with the Liberal years of government, but at least they were stable. A general acceptable increase in the living standards of this country occurred. Since 1972, we have sharply gone through ideological change. The Labor years were indeed sharp and expensive. Now we have a Government which has to grapple with the economic expansion which has produced the rate of inflation that we have and so downgraded our ability to maintain our living standards for the future.

Unless there can be co-operation from the Labor Party in the form of the leadership that one would hope it can give its parent- that is, the industrial movement- and unless co-operation with business can be achieved, there will be a continuing diminution of Australian living standards. There is no argument about that simple fact. If wages in Australia are to continue to rise at a greater rate than wages increase in the other countries of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, with the exception of Belgium an the Netherlands, we indeed face a very bleak future as our standard of living is so actively based in the long term on our ability to export.

Senator McLaren:

– But the Liberal Party has never been concerned with the living standards of workers.

Senator STEELE HALL:

– If Senator McLaren wishes to incite industrial disruption in Australia, he will do so. He will continue to say to unionists that they are not being paid what they are worth and that the arbitration system is something which they should ignore. That is what he is doing now.

Senator McLaren:

– You are ignoring it now.

Senator STEELE HALL:

-That is what Senator McLaren is doing now. There is no difference in the approach of Labor from the Cameron years with its philosophy: ‘Go for your life and get what you can out of the system by force’. Until the Labor Party can come to some arrangement with its conscience about what it is doing to the people whom it supposedly represents, we will have added difficulties in the economic scene. As I have said, there will be a diminution of our living standards, whether it is argued about here late at night or in some other place, and nothing will alter that fact. We will have a poverty of capital, a low volume market and a hopelessly outdated industrial base. A great deal in the future will rest with Labor in Opposition for a responsible reaction to the challenge, as much as it will the Government. In any case, I am pleased to have had the wages policy read here today on behalf of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street). I believe that general support of its intentions by the Labor Party could bring about a revitalisation of our community and a pause in our rate of inflation so that we can catch up again in a race that I am afraid we are all too good at winning.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

-This Senate debate on the Budget Papers has gone as most Senate debates have and as usual I, with Senator Chaney I always notice, am way down on the list of speakers. By the time we speak almost everything has been said. The speeches we have heard until now were the sort of speeches we usually hear. When I walked in here tonight and saw that Senator Hall was speaking I felt we were back to last year because we have not heard very much of him this year. We heard plenty from Senator Hall tonight and it was really a most dramatic moment. As well as the usual display of histrionics and other performances we witnessed tonight evidence of a conversion that was more dramatic than that of Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus.

Last year we had Senator Hall berating those with whom he now sits and voting for appropriation Bills that this Government opposed last year. He was standing for democratic principles, which apparently he has now forgotten. He uttered his usual simplistic solutions and answers to the nation’s problems. We heard initially that one of the great causes of inflation in this country is, of all things, the Dunstan Government. He claimed it is the most inflationary government in the country. I thought for a while that his obsession with Mr Dunstan was going to lead him into telling us how Mr Dunstan had caused all the problems of this country. We heard that the problems the shipbuilding industry in Whyalla are the fault of the Dunstan Government.

Senator McLaren:

– I thought he was going to tell us how he sold South Australia out on Chowilla. He has forgotten about that.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT -Order! senator Grimes has the floor.

Senator GRIMES:

– I am trying to have the floor. Interestingly enough, we also found that Senator Hall, in contra-distinction to Senator Carrick, said that we were spending too much on the States and that the States needed less money. I think that is something that the people of his State will be very interested to hear. We then heard a great tirade, which I must admit I have heard before in this place, against the union movement of this country and how all the evils of industry are due to the unions, the militant unions, and the terrible people in the unions. Nothing is ever wrong with management in this country; nothing is ever wrong with those people who supported Senator Hall’s electoral funds last year and this year.

Before I speak any further on the Budget I would like to thank Senator Sibraa for giving Senator Walters such an interesting lecture on the facts and realities of politics in Europe. I am surprised that a well-read man like Senator Lajovic had not spoken too. I realise of course that there are some restraints, allegedly, on overseas travel at the moment but I believe that a quick trip around the Scandianavian countries, West Germany, Holland, Austria, Israel, England and New Zealand would reveal that there are plenty of countries which have had democratic socialist governments on and off, sometimes on for a long time, such as in the case of Sweden. The interesting thing about a lot of these countries, I should point out to Senator Walters with her interest in medicine, is that almost all of them- in fact I think all those I named- have lower infant mortality rates, have better longevity rates and better morbidity rates than has this fine country of ours. Swedes do not migrate around the world. I realise that in her family the car comes from Germany but I point out that the cars of many of her husband’s colleagues come from Sweden. I thank Senator Sibraa for giving her that lesson. I hope she will go away, read something and them look at some of those places.

We have been told that this Budget represents the Liberal philosophy. As the entire Liberal Party and its policy is dictated by one man, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), and as in this country, in this place and at this time that word ‘Liberal’ must be spelt with a large L’- with the crazy political nomenclature we have in this country it should be spelt with a large C for Conservative- we have the most conservative of conservative parties in the Western world today. I think this Budget demonstrates the truth of that statement. It demonstrates that we will not find a more simplistic and more conservative approach than that which the LiberalNational Country Party has to this country’s economic problems. It is no surprise that a mutual admiration society was set up in Washington between the Prime Minister and Miss Ayn Rand because their policies are very much the same. Obviously she is a very great inspiration to the Prime Minister.

It seems to me that the philosophy espoused by this Prime Minister and this Government is a very simple one. We had a very good example of it in Senator Hall’s speech. It is that all public expenditure is bad and all private expenditure is good. It is their own fault that the poor are poor and that the unemployed happen to be unemployed, and they deserve to be.

Senator Steele Hall:

– You are talking a lot of liberties with what I said.

Senator GRIMES:

– I am not taking any liberties with anything the honourable senator said. This simplistic sort of approach means, as the Prime Minister said to the Council of Social Services in Victoria: ‘We will look after the worthy poor’. Those words have not been heard in this country for almost a century. The Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) said: ‘We will look after the deserving unemployed who are unemployed because of Labor’s policies but not the unemployed who are unemployed by the policies of the Liberal and National Country Parties. ‘ In the social security field it seems that the whole solution is that you give cash, and very little of it, and that solves everybody’s problems. We have heard many people, particularly Senator Sheil, whose philosophy is now well up to the fore in the Government parties, say that the Government has no place in social reform, that the Government’s duty is to maintain law and order and to look after foreign policy.

The most repeated statement we have heard from the Prime Minister- we have heard it so often from him and he is certainly not speaking from experience- is that life is not meant to be easy. He then translates this into the statement that life is meant to be hard- hard for people who are underprivileged and cannot help themselves. I believe that this Budget has been framed in keeping with this philosophy. Having convinced themselves, particularly the Treasurer, Mr Lynch, that the whole cause of our trouble was the size of the Budget deficit- we had great speeches in this place on this subject last year- the Government has single-mindedly taken the axe to all Government expenditure in an effort to reduce this deficit- a deficit which, incidentally, expressed as a percentage of gross domestic product, was very little greater last year than that of West Germany or the United States of America, which are comparable countries in the Western world. In doing so the Government has indulged in over-kill. It has certainly ensured that unemployment will rise. It has certainly ensured that school leavers at the end of the year will not have any jobs to go to, nor will there be many apprenticeships available. It certainly has caused confusion and concern in the minds of people who are going to be affected by this Budget, people who through no fault of their own need Government assistance and who were assured over and over again before 13 December that they would not be disadvantaged by a

Liberal-National Country Party Government. One needs to look only at the statement in the Prime Minister’s policy speech that ‘we will not reduce the level of assistance to Aboriginals’. I do not need to comment on that statement because there has been plenty of comment on it. There were no Aborigines at the dinner at the Lodge recently when the Prime Minister said that the best thing that could happen to Aborigines was that all of them be moved to Tasmania and towed to the Antarctic. I suggest that that statement reflects not only his attitude to Aborigines but his attitude to Tasmania.

Senator Chaney:

– You heard that in the dining room, didn’t you?

Senator GRIMES:

- Senator Chaney knows it is true. People on that side know it is true. The promise to maintain assistance to the aged was followed by a cut of 36 per cent in provisions for accommodation for the aged and an abortive attempt early this year to abolish the funeral benefit for pensioners. One of the few protestors against that little exercise was Senator Chaney.

I believe that one of the worst aspects of the Budget is its disregard of the unemployed in this country and of the problem of unemployment. There is obviously an intention to continue what I consider were the disgraceful attacks on the unemployed which were started in mid- 1975 by members of the present Government. We are told in the Budget that the work force will increase by some 2 per cent. We are told that employment will increase by somewhere between 1 per cent and 2 per cent. The Government admits, therefore, that the unemployment situation will not improve. Every observer in this country predicts that it will get worse. Yet the estimate for unemployment, special and sickness benefits in this year’s Budget Papers is $33m less than the figure for last year. The total drop in projected unemployment benefits is $55m. We know the Government will not pay unemployment benefits to school leavers during the Christmas period this year, despite the fact that many of those school leavers were back at school this year because they could not get jobs.

We must remember that there will be increased benefit payments in November of this year and May of next year. The only way that such an estimate of expenditure on unemployment could be placed in the Budget is by deliberately understating the position, as we believe has happened with so many other items, to give the false impression of the size of the deficit or as a further extension of the sort of vendetta that has been carried on against the unemployed people in this country since 13 December last. Unemployment is at an extremely high level. The failure to release seasonally adjusted figures cannot conceal the fact that they are increasing. By some accident, Tasmanian politicians were given the seasonally adjusted figures. The unemployment rate, seasonally adjusted, has gone up to 5.9 per cent. Job vacancies are very low. The situation has been getting worse all year. Is this the time to indulge in a campaign of denigration, calling people dole bludgers, making help more difficult to obtain and playing on the prejudices of those unthinking people in the community who readily blame such unfortunate people for their problems? I believe this is a socially divisive thing to do. I believe it is completely without justice. I believe that Government members should be ashamed of the campaign that they have conducted all this time and are continuing to conduct.

The Budget contains some measures which the Prime Minister and others, including speakers here, claim justifies it being called a budget of social reform. The first reform, I gather, is the announcement that pension increases will be indexed to the CPI in May and November of each year. I remind the Government of its promise to the pensioners. I remind it, as the pensioner organisations are reminding it at this time by letters, of what it really promised. The Government promised to provide automatic and immediate increases in pensions in line with the CPI. The Prime Minister said: ‘There will be no need to wait 3 months for your increases, as with Labor’. He then proceeded to introduce legislation which meant that they will wait at least 4 months. What worries the pensioners and others even more is that having introduced this indexation the matter will rest there, that no notice will be taken of the relationship of the pension to such indexes as the average weekly earnings and that the level of about 25 per cent of average weekly earnings is a final one and one which the Government is not interested in increasing. Previous LiberalCountry Party governments let pensions drop to 19 per cent of average weekly earnings. Therefore we can understand the concern of the pensioners.

The second social reform which we have heard talked about in this place day after day is the increase in the handicapped children’s allowance from $10 a week to $15 a week. We have seen Press articles in which the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for Social Security all claim that it was their idea and that it was something in which they had been interested all their political careers, they had always wanted to do something for the handicapped. The Prime Minister even had the hide to call it the greatest advance for the handicapped people in this country since Federation. We welcome this increase, but we ask: Where were those concerned people when the Liberal-Country Party was in government previously? We remind them that the handicapped children’s allowance was introduced in December 1973 by a Labor government. While we do not argue with an increase from $10 a week to $15 a week, we think we have more to talk about as we increased it from nothing to $ 10 a week. When honourable senators opposite rely on that sort of comment and that sort of self praise to justify this Budget as a budget of social reform, one is amazed at their concept of social reform.

The family allowance and the taxation indexation schemes which were introduced before the Budget are the reforms most talked about. Again we do not oppose these reforms. We point out, however, that the Government has used the family allowance changes to excuse cuts in other vital areas such as the supplementary benefits which go to the very poor people. There has been a failure to increase guardian allowances. The Prime Minister even had the gall to say that the new family allowance scheme would make up for the reduction in expenditure in Aboriginal Affairs. That was one of the most trite and incredible statements about this Budget. The difficulty is that the benefits which would have flowed from tax indexation and the family allowance changes have been counteracted by the introduction of the Medibank levy- an unnecessarily high Medibank levy. There is no need to incorporate in Hansard the Government’s tables. They have been included in debate after debate in this chamber. Suffice to say, on the Government’s figures the vast majority of wage earners- wage earners in this country with taxable incomes from $120 to $190 a week-will be worse ofl” under this levy, plus indexation plus the allowances. Unless they have more than 5 children they will be considerably worse off. If they want to take out private medical insurance they will be very much worse off. In other words, their disposable income will be less.

This leads to the crux of the Government’s strategy as put out by the Government. In the words of Mr Lynch, if consumption fails to grow there can be no recovery. We have heard Mr Fraser, Senator Cotton and others exhorting people to buy cars, to buy refrigerators, to stop saving. At the same time the Government has taken action in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to reduce real wages. It has cracked down on the unemployed. It has failed to increase benefits. It has fixed guidelines for the unemployed. It has cut down the disposable income of many people. It has cut down expenditure in many fields, including accommodation for the aged, homeless persons, Aborigines, hospitals, health- all sorts of capital works. That means a breakdown, particularly in the building and associated industries. Business has been urged to invest, to spend and to produce. In the eyes of the Government, business also has been very lax. Businessmen have received lectures from Mr Fraser, Mr Lynch, Senator Cotton and some backbenchers, including Mr Macphee in a speech in the House last night. I suspect that on another occasion today another backbencher may have exhorted them in the same way. But neither the consumers nor the businessmen are responding to these pleas and exhortations because the Government has been too heavy handed. It has been too concerned with figures and too little concerned with people in the community.

Senator Rae:

– No, it is still very shellshocked.

Senator GRIMES:

– Shellshock never lasts that long. The Government’s policy is one of fighting inflation by deepening and extending recession. An attempt is being made to force workers and unionists into submission, by increasing unemployment using the theory that if more people are unemployed they will be more meek and mild and will not stand up for their rights. There are very few people in industrial relations who believe that story this year. The business community sees that and will not respond. The building industry cannot respond. If the Government is fair dinkum about unemployment it should remember the election policies of Mr Street. They were very clear and specific. He promised a continuation of the Regional Employment Development scheme. He promised retraining schemes. He promised apprenticeship assistance. He promised special assistance to local areas with high unemployment. Despite Senator Hall ‘s claims, no one on this side of the House is advocating a massive outflow of expenditure which would exacerbate inflation, but neither do we believe that there should be excessive cutbacks causing a recession. That is the sort of problem which we will encounter. The potential contraction caused in the economy by the Government’s actions will, it seems, disturb all sections of the community. The Treasury documents themselves make no attempt to hide this fact and they predict a cutback in production growth this financial year.

It is obvious that the investment allowance and other such mechanisms failed because industry was under-utilised. It had under-utilised plant. Funds to stimulate the building industry, especially in areas of great need, would do a lot more through the multitude of associated industries to provide selective stimulation without sending inflation over the top. The increase in unemployment due to the failure of industry to invest and the failure of consumers to spend is surely the greatest signal the Government could have so far that it should change its tack. Last year the Government claimed that, if elected, it would inspire business and consumer confidence because it claimed to stand for the same things for which business and the consumers stand. But no such confidence has resulted. A lack of confidence in government of this type depresses demand and expectations.

If the Government would cease to be hampered by its philosophical prejudices or hangups and take selective action, not excessive action, to deal with the areas of need; to produce a plan aimed at reducing the number of young people unemployed and thus reduce the inevitable social problems that result from a large number of unemployed youths; to help with the housing shortage in specific areas, not just by providing $75,000 on an untried voucher scheme which will make no difference to the appalling situation in welfare housing in this country; to increase the funds available to local government in certain areas- none of these need to be excessive amounts of money- then perhaps it would seem to be doing something and perhaps it would inspire confidence. But because of its ideological bias, government spending is slashed. All government spending is bad, therefore we must cut government spending. But we hand out subsidiesdirect and hidden subsidies- to industries which make the most noise, to industries which have the greatest clout, to industries that do not necessarily employ the most people and do not necessarily produce the most wealth.

Senator Rae:

– As the textile industry in Launceston received under your Government.

Senator GRIMES:

– How much has it received under your Government, senator? The result is a wait and see attitude by business. That is what we are seeing now. It has been waiting and seeing much longer than Mr Fraser predicted. He predicted that there would be a reduction in unemployment of 200 000 in a couple of months and that we would be back on the road to success in three or four months. The Government’s policy will result in increased savings, because people will save for fear of unemployment in the future, no matter how unjustified the Government may think that is. It will produce cynicism in the unions and it will produce a resistance to reduction in their real wages. Surely this is a fair enough prescription for recession.

Finally I would like to comment on one aspect of government since December 1975 which I think is disturbing and which I think is worth commenting on but which will obviously continue. In government we were criticised for setting up committees and inquiries into problems and for setting up commissions to look at problems which the community faces. But these commissions and committees were open. Their reports were public and they were discussed. Some were abused by the then Opposition, as the Priorities Review Staff report on housing was abused. But that is politics. Let us look at what we have had since December 1975. We have had the Medibank review committee which met in private, which produced no public report- and from the look of the results it produced no private report. We have no idea what it recommended. We have no idea whether the Government’s actions have followed its recommendations. Consider the Bland inquiry. We have seen no report. Plenty of decisions have been made and announced as a result of the Bland inquiry. We have no idea what the evidence said. We have no idea how the commissioner came to his conclusions. We have no idea whether the Government has followed his conclusions.

Every week in this place people ask questions about various social security matters and the reply is that the matter has been referred to the income security review committee. It is the greatest garbage tin used at question time in this place. That committee will not report. We will not know what decisions it came to. We will not have any results. The Hay Committee report on Aborigines is a different kettle of fish. We all got the report. The Press got the report. Members of the Opposition all got the report and I understand that most members of the Government got it. But it was not going to be released because its findings were not in keeping with the Government’s prejudged views, and another committee of inquiry has been set up. The aged persons homes inquiry has been set up, largely comprising the same personnel as the Medibank review committee. It will meet and take evidence but I doubt whether we will see any result of that report and we will not know why. The same applies to the welfare health task force set up to find a job for a couple of displaced public servants. We have a further unspecified committee on Aboriginal housing set up to cover the same area as the Hay Committee covered. We have an unspecified inquiry into child care to see where it should be in the spectrum of government bodies.

Will any member of this Parliament see any of these reports, know what they have reported or have any idea where we are going? Will any of us ever have the opportunity to know just what is happening and what the Government intends to do? This Government was elected with a policy. It said: ‘We have a policy for aged people. We have a policy for pensioners. We have a policy for Aborigines. We know what we are going to do. ‘ All these matters have been shoved off to committees. No one knows what the committees are doing and no one will know what the committees will find. In this place mystical references are made to inquiries. We are told repeatedly that a matter has gone to an inquiry. It is not only Opposition members but also Government members who should start to look at this son of set up. They should start to look at the people on these inquiries and demand some information from the people who are advising the decision makers of the Government who, we are told, are the Prime Minister and three other senior Ministers. If the Government does not know where it is going we certainly will not know where it is going and what hope will the rest of the community have of knowing where it is going? I support Senator Wriedt ‘s amendment.

Senator CHANEY:
Western Australia

– I rise to speak with considerable enthusiasm about the Budget papers which have been presented in the Senate. I hope I can speak without the evident boredom of Senator Grimes (Quorum formed) I suppose I should give the customary thanks to the honourable senator who has given me a larger audience. I am scarcely surprised that a quorum was called for because after the doleful speech to which I was referring relatively few of my colleagues remained to listen. I do not blame Senator Grimes who has just been forced to go on other business for being doleful because this Budget debate has lacked the excitement of some of the Budget debates of late, particularly in 1974. 1 think by this stage in the process of the Budget debate in that year the Budget had been effectively gutted by Caucus. That meant that because of the way in which the debate was able to flow through the chamber it was far more exciting than the present debate because this Government has followed a consistent economic pattern since it was elected in December.

At least the Government knows where it is going. It has its course set and it intends to stick to it. I start by stating that I for one do not apologise for the fact that this Government has set as its first objective for its economic policy the defeat of inflation. While the Australian Labor Party was in government I got heartily sick of the absolute mess which it got us into. People were being destroyed by that mess. Professor Henderson has often been quoted in this Parliament by people on my side of politics, especially in relation to inflation and what is was doing to the poor. Professor Henderson in his first report in 1975, after refering to some of the effects of inflation stated:

In our judgment, no country with a continuing inflation rate of over 10 per cent has been able to prevent this causing grave hardship to important groups of poor people.

That, of course, is a fact. It has never been argued against. The Labor Party was responsible for setting a course which was extremely damaging to those who were in need in Australia. I cite an even closer authority in Senator Wheeldon who was the Minister for Social Security. He told the public of Australia that while there was such a high rate of inflation it was not possible to plan to alleviate poverty in Australia. These are matters which ought to be remembered by honourable senators opposite when they are speaking about this Budget. I believe that since December this Government has established that it has a balanced approach which seeks to look after all Australians. I think that needs to be understood in the community if we are to succeed. Therefore it has to be said again and again by supporters of this Government until it is clearly understood.

It is put across by the Labor Party that this is a government of sectional interests. If we examine the acts of this Government since December it Ls quite clear that nothing could be further from the truth. If honourable senators look at what we have done in social reform they will find a concentration on need which certainly escaped the Labor Administration and which is precisely in line with the sort of approach which was recommended by Professor Henderson and which I think shows the true conscience of this Government. When the Government was elected the whole of Australia accepted that the Government would have to exercise financial restraint. I believe it is terribly important that within that framework of financial restraint the Government has concentrated on looking after the needy. There was a somewhat slighting reference to the family allowance by Senator Grimes who has responsibility in this area for the Labor Party. If we refer to the Henderson report, which I mentioned a little while ago, we find set out quite clearly the justification for the changes which were brought in by the Government in May and which are now in operation. We find that Professor Henderson pointed out that taxation deductions, which were the major forms of assistance granted, favoured the wealthy. This assistance did not provide money for those who were most in need. Professor Henderson stated:

Child endowment is of much more value to the poor and is a more equitable form of payment compared with taxation deductions. Because of high marginal tax rates, taxation deductions are much more valuable to the rich and middle classes. In 1973, the revenue forgone through this concession was in the order of $260m.

We now find that the Labor Party is the champion of those who are earning middle and high incomes, as against those who are on low incomes. I think it might be useful for this country if the Labor Party, which is supposed to be the friend of the oppressed, came out and supported what is a most substantial reform in favour of 800 000 children in the community who are in relatively poor circumstances in the 300 000 families which are in relatively poor circumstances. I cite that simply as one example of the Government’s attitude to social reform.

Handicapped children were also mentioned by Senator Grimes. He acknowledged that assistance to handicapped children has been increased by 50 per cent. That is in the form of a direct grant. In addition, institutions dealing with handicapped children have also received substantial increases in their assistance. Another area of social reform which has been tackled is the reduction of death duties. Who will quarrel with the substantial extension of concessions which are contained in the Budget to widows or to spouses? This is an area which directly affects not only the material but also the emotional welfare of many Australians. The present exemption takes to $90,000 the value of estates which are outside the Federal estate duty field. I think this is a substantial reform which ought to be applauded on both sides of the chamber.

I cite these matters simply to show what I think is an admirable record in the 8 months in which this Government has been in office. It has directed its attention to ensuring that the needy in the community are looked after. Once again we have had passing and almost slighting reference to the fact that for the first time in the history of Australia the aged, through the pension system, will get automatic adjustments. These adjustments do not depend upon the goodwill or the ill-will of politicians. They will be automatic. This is an historical first in this country. It ought to be acknowledged. Again I cite this as the essence of the Government’s good faith.

Senator Coleman:

– It is 6 months late.

Senator CHANEY:

-I refer the honourable senator who interjects to the last Budget introduced by the Labor Party where adjustments were made on precisely the same basis. It was predicted that adjustments would be made over the next 12 months on precisely the same basis.

Tonight I have very little time to refer to all the matters I would like to mention. It ought to be clearly understood in this chamber and around Australia that in the area which I see as being fundamental to social welfare, that is in the area of the health of the economy and in the restoration of full employment, the Government has done an enormous amount in the time which it has had. The future of this country is bright because we have enormous possibilities for development.

Developments will now occur because of the changes we have made in our tax structure. This development certainly could not otherwise have occurred. I hope that Labor senators from Western Australia will acknowledge the great boost which will be given to that State by the substantial changes to the tax laws which were introduced in this Budget. In fact, I put to the Senate and to the people of Australia that the consistent approach to business matters, the encouragement of investment and the encouragement of business through tax concessions are matters which will stand the country in good stead over the next couple of years. The introduction of tax indexation, the first instalment of which has come this year, will bring continuing benefits to Australians in the years to come. About $ 1 ,000m will be saved this year. Certainly in the pockets of those who receive it it will be offset in good part this year by the Medibank levy but tax indexation is with us as a permanent feature and will ensure that in future there is not the growing tax bite that was a feature of the Labor Government’s administration.

There is one matter on which I wish to address my remarks principally to the Government, although additionally to the Senate and the people of Australia, and that is a section of the Budget about which there is still an element of uncertainty. It has been referred to in this place and in the House of Representatives. It was provided in the Budget that there would be certain specified expenditure for Aborigines and the Budget Speech includes this very important statement:

In the case of some programs such as grants for Aboriginal housing associations, the provisions in the Budget are to cover outstanding firm commitments pending further reviews of the objectives, priorities and past administration of those programs.

In the light of those reviews additional funds will be provided.

Senator Keeffe:

– How much?

Senator CHANEY:

– I wish to put to the Government, without the assistance of Senator Keeffe who can do nothing but damage my case, that there are substantial areas where additional expenditure could usefully be made through the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. I refer to an answer given in the House of Representatives on 25 August by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) when in response to a question he underlined the undertaking in the Budget. He referred to the passage I have quoted and pointed out that the words ‘will be provided’ were used and not the word ‘may’ or ‘might’. He said that that was said on Budget night, that is the firm position of the Government and that there should be no doubt about it.

I also remind the Senate and the Government of an answer given to me by Senator Guilfoyle yesterday in response to a question about the Prime Minister’s visit to Wilcannia. That was a very important visit because we now have an indication from the Government that it sees the operation being undertaken in Wilcannia as a successful one. I have spoken to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) and he has to some extent supplemented the answer given by Senator Guilfoyle. He has indicated that this operation is successful because the Aboriginal community is running it. It is running an efficient housing association, men are in work, alcoholism has almost disappeared and children are in school instead of in hospital while, most importantly of all, the Aboriginal people of Wilcannia have done it themselves. I refer also to the laudatory remarks made about the Aboriginal legal service in the Senate this morning by the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I mention those matters simply because they underline that there are areas where further expenditure is warranted on projects which can be usefully carried out.

I am one who believes that, for all the goodwill it may have had, the previous Government did some damage to the Aboriginal community. There were areas where there was lax administration, where there was waste and where there was the sort of maladministration that was described by Senator Cavanagh as disastrous. I found- certainly in the outback areas I visitedsome very real resentment in the non-Aboriginal community. I believe that in significant areas of Australia there was substantial illwill generated by the Government through loose administration and error. I do not pretend that in such a difficult field one can avoid error but those destructive elements in what was otherwise a positive policy have to be avoided. I support, therefore, the Government ‘s intention to do away with waste.

My basic thesis is that there are plenty of areas where without waste useful additional expenditure can be undertaken and I and many other honourable senators and members of the House of Representatives await with interest the results of reviews and the decisions which will no doubt be announced later this year. The sort of matter I think the Government should examine- I give this by way of example only- is the project at One Arm Point in Western Australia where the Bardi Aboriginal Association has already had a good deal of Government assistance in housing and infrastructure. A fishing boat and machinery have been purchased, although the machinery is still in Brisbane. There we have a lot of existing infrastructure and a lot of expenditure already undertaken but on the information I have it really is useless spending $45,000 on machinery which remains in Brisbane instead of going to Bardi to make fish meal, which is what it was bought for. It really is useless having an expensive fishing boat sitting on the beach without an engineer to operate it.

Senator Keeffe:

– That is not the fault of the Aborigines.

Senator CHANEY:

– Of course it is not the fault of the Aborigines. I am saying to the Government that this is the sort of area in which it should ensure that the expenditure made to date is not wasted and that there is further expenditure.

Senator Keeffe:

– You are saying that only to get square on the Department.

Senator CHANEY:

– I understood that Senator Keeffe was a man who favoured helping Aborigines. I am trying to put that case and his interruptions seem to be rather pointless. I conclude by saying in the little time which remains to me that it is in areas such as this that there is a real risk that what has been expended to date will be wasted unless the Government is able to marshall its forces, get the money together and, more importantly, get the right people involved so that the Aborigines can gain the benefit of what has been done. The Government should mount a genuine and viable operation which will do the Aborigines some long term good. What we want to see are many examples of the sort of thing the Prime Minister saw on Monday, examples of projects in which Aborigines are involved and where, because of their involvement and success, there ceases to be problems of drunkenness, neglect and other things. As is so often the case, debates in this place divide on party lines in a way which is completely destructive of the spirit of the debate. I would have thought that within this Parliament there was an enormous amount of support for a continued major effort in Aboriginal affairs. Quite frankly, if the effort is going to be encouraged by one side to the boos of the other side we are moving backwards. I suggest to Senator Keeffe that if he is genuinely interested in what the Government ought to be doing he should take a more constructive attitude than the one he has adopted tonight.

I have 2 minutes left before you will sit me down, Mr Deputy President, and I would merely like to summarise the general proposition I have put to the Senate tonight. I think it is important that it be understood in the community that this Government in a number of ways has insulated the most needy sections of the community from want. It has ensured that the aged get pension adjustments which keep them up with rises in the cost of living and for the first time in Australia’s history that is being done automatically without the intervention of this Parliament. The Government is ensuring that children from low income familiesget major additional support in line with whathas been recommended by Professor Henderson. It has also ensured that the weakest in the community are helped and that the productive sector of the community, the business sector, receives incentives. With evenhandedness it has set the stage for Australian development of the sort we have seen in the past but which was nearly destroyed by the previous Government. I commend the Budget. I say to the Government that it must stick to the course it set in December. I believe then that in a couple of years we will see the great benefits that accrued from consistent and stable government.

Debate (on motion by Senator Withers) adjourned.

page 538

ADJOURNMENT

Deserted Wives- Women’s Refuges -Supporting Fathers

Motion (by Senator Withers) proposed:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator COLEMAN:
Western Australia

– I want to raise a matter that should have come to the notice of concerned members of Parliament this afternoon. There was a pitifully small group of women demonstrating outside Parliament House. They require the money that was made available to them last year for women’s refuges, health care centres and the like. The women who were here did not have the money to spend on coming to Canberra to demonstrate. They cannot take time off from work to come to Canberra to demonstrate. The people who actually man those places, who provide the services to the women, do not have the time or the money to come to Canberra to demonstrate. I want to read a pamphlet that they have put out. It reads:

MR FRASER, MAKE IT A REAL CHOICE FOR WOMEN!

Women’s Refuges have been set up to provide short-term emergency accommodation for women and children undergoing severe crises in their normal domestic situations. Refuges assist women to obtain welfare, legal and medical help. They are shelters where women have an opportunity to make a real choice about their future living situation . . .

A choice made without fear of physical violence . . .

A choice made without fear of financial distress . . .

A choice made without fear for their children ’s welfare.

Domestic violence is widespread. We cannot pretend it doesn’t exist. If women know there is somewhere to go to escape that violence, then at least they have a CHOICE.

Women’s Refuges are NOT anti-male.

They do NOT try to destroy family life.

They do NOT try to encourage women to leave their husbands.

WOMEN’S REFUGES DO TRY TO OFFER WOMEN AN ALTERNATIVE TO A HOME SITUATION THAT HAS BECOME UNBEARABLE.

I wonder whether members of this Senate are aware of the actual number of women who leave their homes for a number of reasons in the middle of the night with an armful of children or a bunch of toddlers at their side, with generally the clothes they stand up in and nothing more because they do not have the means to carry anything more. They do not have the money to go anywhere but to a voluntary refuge which will take them in and give them solace and comfort in their hour of need. The pamphlet goes on:

BUDGET CUTS TO WOMEN’S REFUGES AND HEALTH CENTRES ARE BETWEEN 35-50 PER CENT OF LAST YEAR’S FIGURES.

A survey conducted in July 1 976 by the Mental Health Association for the New South Wales Government, showed -

Refuges cost approximately $35 per week per person to run.

Many of the staff are voluntary and this is why they are able to keep their costs down. I ask honourable senators to compare the following points made in the pamphlet:

State run accommodation for children placed in care because mothers cannot support them is $100 per week per child. Psychiatric care for people unable to cope costs the Government $420 per week per person.

The pamphlet continued:

page 539

SINCE MARCH 1974, OVER 12 000 WOMEN AND CHILDREN HAVE PASSED THROUGH WOMEN’S REFUGES IN AUSTRALIA-THERE IS AN URGENT NEED FOR THESE SERVICES TO CONTINUE

page 539

TO GIVE WOMEN AND CHILDREN THE CHOICE OF AN ALTERNATIVE TO DISTRESSING DOMESTIC CIRCUMSTANCES, WOMEN’S REFUGES AND HEALTH CENTRES MUST CONTINUE TO BE FUNDED AT A LEVEL WHICH WILL PERMIT THEIR SERVICES TO CONTINUE . .

Not only must these services continue, they must expand where necessary, to take in country centres and the major country towns, because all women, all families, do not live in city areas. Some of those women who do live in fairly isolated conditions find themselves in situations where it is necessary to leave their matrimonial home. Whether this be because of violence of financial distress or because of their children is not really important. The important thing is that they have somewhere to go- somewhere where their children can shelter and be fed while the mother irons out their emotional problems. The basic freedom in our society is to have a choice. The Government is taking away from the women who are utilising the services of these refuges the choice of an alternative place to go.

It is interesting that the women who demonstrated today were women who had a series of meetings with a number of Ministers including, I understand, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). The women have met in groups. I understand that they have met on the first 3 days of this week to discuss a number of matters. Obviously the Government was a little worried that the women might present a powerful lobby because groups that came to Parliament House were in ignorance that other groups had come. Therefore it was not possible for all the groups to put consolidated submissions before the Government. Also meeting these groups was the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Women’s Affairs (Mr Street). It is interesting to note that at the Preston College of Business Studies in June, before he was appointed to the position of Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Women’s Affairs, he made the statement that the highest incidence of unemployment falls in those categories in which there are no salable skills or experience- the Aborigines, the handicapped, the young, women and people living in isolated areas. I think he even included young people in that statement.

Women do have salable skills. They do have experience. They contribute to our society and to our life style in general. This is the man who has been meeting with these women this week and presumably determining what he will give them for the future. I do not know what came out of the meetings. I doubt very much that the Parliament is ever likely to find out what actually came out of them. But I doubt that the handful of people who demonstrated outside Parliament House today will see their hopes realised. The Government has not been definitive in its Budget as to how much money will go to the individual refuges, the individual rape crisis centres and the individual women’s community health centres. The little that we do know, as I have said, is that there have been cuts of between 30 per cent and 50 per cent with regard to some of the projects for women which were started by my Government when it was in office.

I wish to refer to what is printed on the back of the pamphlet that was distributed at the meeting to day. I understand that for some unknown reason- perhaps for a reason known to honourable senators on the Government side- copies of this pamphlet were taken from people who were bringing them back into Parliament House. I would have liked to have been one of those people. Perhaps the people involved figured that because I was a senator I had a right to bring in material from one of my constituents. The pamphlet reads:

Neglect of woman’s health problems is epidemic and endemic in this society. For years women have been neglected by this ignorance and trivialisation of their gynaecological problems by the male-dominated medical profession.

The half dozen women’s health centres are trying to alleviate this neglect by offering sympathetic help to women with specific problems, such as vaginal infections, need for contraception and abortion: by trying to inform women about health and childbirth by talking to medical students, nurses, women ‘s groups by encouraging women to look at their social situations in the home and at work, to see how their position affects their health by helping women to recognise and express their own sexuality by offering these services in a relaxed, friendly atmosphere.

These needs of women everywhere cannot possibly be met by so few health centres, all of which are in great demand. Those in existence need to expand, more need to be established. Budget cuts make these objectives impossible.

page 539

PROTEST AGAINST THIS DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN

I do protest against the discrimination against women. I protest against discrimination of any kind. Because I protest against discrimination, I want to talk for just a few moments in order to tell the Senate about the other problem area in our society- that of the sole supporting fathers.

We do not know the number of sole supporting fathers throughout Australia. Incidentally, the recent census will not tell us, because there was no provision on the census form to establish whether the head of the household was a sole supporting father. But we do know from the census figures taken in 1 97 1 that there were in excess of 1000 sole supporting fathers in Western Australia alone. It is therefore not a minor problem. Western Australia has one of the lower populations of the States. Yet, 5 years ago it had more than a 1000 sole supporting fathers. In the more populous States the figures could be much higher.

The majority of sole supporting fathers are employed in some way and really are desirous only of keeping together what remains of their family. They will do this by fair means, if possible; but I think they could be excused if they did it by foul means. Very few of the sole supporting fathers to whom I have spoken- I called a meeting of sole supporting fathers in Western Australia last week- are in receipt of special benefits. The majority are loath to accept special benefits because, once they do, they find themselves in extreme financial difficulty. The Federal Government, of course, promised prior to the election that it would do something about supporting fathers. It has not done anything yet and it probably will not do anything until 1978 when the next election is due. If a supporting father chooses to accept a special benefit- which is exactly the same as the unemployment benefit but it is termed ‘special benefit’ so that he cannot be forced to take employment- he gets $82.50 a fortnight and $ 1 5 for each child under the age of six. Once the child goes to school he loses that $15 benefit. A supporting mother keeps the $15 benefit until the child has turned sixteen and it can be extended to the age of 2 1 if the child decides to remain a student A supporting mother can earn $20 a week for herself and $6 for each child without disturbing that benefit. A supporting father can earn $6 a week in addition to the special benefit

The Department of Social Security is not geared for supporting fathers. The community welfare departments are not geared for supporting fathers. Even the State housing commissions are not geared for supporting fathers. Supporting mothers get rental rebates and emergency housing assistance from the State housing commissions but supporting fathers do not. Those supporting fathers who are working and who do not require special benefits from the Governmentthey are frequently in a position where they have been left with extremely large debts when the wife leaves the matrimonial home, when she dies or is committed to a mental institutionhave the additional burden of having to provide adequate care for their children whilst they are at work and also to repay enormous amounts of money. To provide adequate care means that the supporting father may find it necessary to employ a full-time housekeeper.

We have heard discussions- questions have been asked in this chamber- about the bedsniffers from the Department of Social Security who traipse around to the homes of those receiving the supporting mothers’ benefit in the early hours of the morning to establish whether a male has spent the night there. But what about the supporting fathers? I will tell honourable senators about the supporting fathers. I can tell honourable senators about people who have had their special benefit removed because they employed a supporting mother as a housekeeper. The Department, in its inimitable fashion, was able to establish that a de facto relationship existed. Housekeepers do not come cheap, nor should they. They are specialists in their field and they are entitled to receive just remuneration for the work they do. But a supporting father finds it extremely difficult when the cost of employing a housekeeper is high and the amount of money that he earns is very low. He finds it extremely difficult to understand why a supporting mother can get additional benefits that are not available to him. He finds it extremely difficult to accept that society is ignoring him to a large extent when all he really wants is the benefit of being able to keep his children. No organisation is geared to help these people in times of deep emotional stress.

In Western Australia last week we formed the Supporting Fathers Association so that such persons could provide emotional security and benefit to each other. They will liaise with the organisations that are set up on a voluntary basis throughout our society to cater for their needs in a more practical way. For example, Parents Without Partners provides social activities to get the children together so that they are not disadvantaged in any way simply because they have only a single parent at home. It is those children I am concerned about. It may be that some of the women to whom I referred earlier who utilise the refuges in actual fact come from the homes of these men and these children. This does not mean that these children should be disadvantaged. This Government should and must fulfil its pre-election promise to give additional assistance to supporting fathers throughout Australia at least equal to that of supporting mothers in order that the sins of either the mother or the father may not be visited on the sons or the daughters.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.16 p.m.

page 542

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Department of Industry and Commerce: Staffing (Question No. 706)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice:

Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the submission to the Adiminstrative Review Committee from the Associated Chambers of Manufactures of Australia, which claims that understaffing and inadequate industry experience among key personnel in the Department of Industry and Commerce are preventing the Department from adequately meeting its objectives? If so, is the Minister aware of the difficulties presented by the situation outlined in the submission concerned, and has he put in train any methods to overcome these difficulties?

Senator Cotton:
LP

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

I have seen a report of the submission made by the Associated Chamber of Manufactures of Australia, making statements as outlined by the honourable senator; it was one of many submissions before the Administrative Review Committee. The conclusions and recommendations of that Committee are still being considered by the Government and I am not able to comment until decisions are made. If any decisions are made in relation to the staff resources of the Department of Industry and Commerce, they will be announced in the usual way.

Hospital Costs (Question No. 720)

Senator Grimes:

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

What is the estimated payments in respect of hospital costs for 1976-77.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

Medibank hospital payments in 1976-77 are estimated at $830m. This figure does not include an amount of $2 16m prepaid in 1 975-76 in respect of the year 1 976-77.

Hospital Cost-sharing Payments (Question No. 722)

Senator Grimes:

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

  1. 1 ) What was the Budget estimate value of hospital payments, that is the 50 per cent cost-sharing and $16 per day subsidy for 1975-76.
  2. Had all States been in the cost-sharing arrangements for the whole financial year, what would these costs have been.
  3. What is now the estimated payments to hospitals for the year.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Budget for payments in 1 975-76 from the Health Insurance Fund in respect of hospital services and benefits was$822m.
  2. If all States had participated in the cost-sharing arrangements for the whole of 1975-76 the comparable estimate to that shown in ( 1 ) above, would have been $942m.
  3. Commonwealth Government payments from the Health Insurance Fund and under the State Grants (Hospital Operating Costs) Act 1976 towards the cost of operating the public and private hospital systems in Australia in 1975- 76 were $948m. It should be noted that $2 16m of this amount consisted of prepayments in respect of the year 1976- 77.

Australian Tourist Commission: Chicago Premises (Question No. 812)

Senator Rae:

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Have any endeavours been made to sub-let the premises which were vacated by the Australian Tourist Commission in Chicago.
  2. If the answer to (1) is in the affirmative, have they been successful? If so, what are the terms?
  3. Have any endeavours been made to terminate the lease? If so, (a) have they been successful, and (b) upon what terms.
  4. If it is not possible to sub-let the premises or terminate the lease, are any steps being taken to re-open the office to obtain some value, even if it is with a minimum number of staff.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Attempts to sub-let the premises have, until recently, been unsuccessful. An offer is currently being negotiated, but terms have yet to be finalised.
  3. Until the recent improvement in the letting climate the lessor was not prepared to accept termination unless full rental payments were made.
  4. The costs involved in re-opening and operating the Chicago office were considered excessive when compared with the alternative of maintaining strengths in Los Angeles and New York.

Oral Contraceptives (Question No. 818)

Senator Baume:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has recent evidence appeared indicating that the ‘pill’ should not be used by women where elective surgery is planned.
  2. Does it appear that other methods of contraception should be used for 6 weeks before an operation wherever this can be foreseen.
  3. What steps are being undertaken to draw these conclusions to the attention of medical practitioners and of women generally.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. Although the question is still under debate, there appears to be a significant association between oral contraceptives and thrombo-embolic disease. As surgery of any kind is also linked with the risk of thrombo-embolism it has for some time been recommended as a precaution that the oral contraceptive pill should be discontinued for 4-6 weeks prior to elective surgery if time permits.
  2. It would naturally follow that an alternative contraceptive method should be used in this period.
  3. Such advice is included in the teaching of medical students and graduates and in education programs run by the Family Medicine Program and Family Planning Associations and has been referred to in medical journals. Warning of the possible risk has also been included in the product literature of all oral contraceptive preparations since 1 970.

Income Tax Group Certificate (Question No. 828)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Under what conditions may an authorisation be given to a group employer to issue a group certificate to an employee at a later time than outlined in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936-1975 section 221f. (5) (b) and (c).
  2. Are the provisions of these sections binding on State Governments.
  3. Did Brisbane Sanitation Pty Ltd obtain an extension of time to issue group certificates for the 1975-76 financial year? If so, what extension or extensions were granted and on what grounds were such extension or extensions granted.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Commissioner of Taxation may, by notice in writing served on a group employer, vary, in relation to that group employer, in such instances and to such extent as he thinks fit, any of the requirements of sub-section (5) of section 221f of the Income Tax Assessment Act and the group employer is then required to comply with those varied requirements.

Additional time is extended to group employers for the issue of group certificates only where the Commissioner is satisfied that unforeseen or special circumstances exist in a particular year which prevent the issue of the group certificates by the relevant prescribed dates.

  1. Yes.
  2. Section 16 of the Income Tax Assessment Act imposes on the Commissioner of Taxation and his officers a restriction which prohibits them from divulging or communicating information respecting the affairs of any other person (including a company) to any person except in specific circumstances which are set out in the law. The Commissioner is therefore unable to provide the information you have sought in relation to Brisbane Sanitation Pty Ltd.

Museums and National Collections (Question No. 832)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

What actions have been taken to date to implement the recommendations of the report of the Committee of Inquiry on Museums and National Collections.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

The report is at present being examined by an interdepartmental group. On completion of this examination further consideration will be given to the action that should be taken.

In the meantime, the Minister for the Capital Territory has agreed that the Black Mountain site recommended for a National Museum by the Committee will not be used for other purposes without prior consultation with me.

Special consideration is also being given to the problems of training conservators which the Committee regarded as an urgent need.

Health Services: Pitjantjatjara Tribe (Question No. 845)

Senator Colston:

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

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to a statement in the Canberra Times dated 13 July 1976, by the Senior Medical Officer of the Central Australian Aborigines Congress, Dr Trevor Cutter, that three government Health Departments have failed to recruit a medical practitioner to establish a community health service for the Pitjantjatjara Aboriginal tribe in central Australia.
  2. If the answer to ( 1 ) is in the affirmative, (a) has the Australian Department of Health been involved in the recruitment, and why has it not been possible to locate a suitable medical practitioner; (b) what health facilities are currently available to the Pitjantjatjara people; (c) is Dr Cutter justified in saying, as quoted in the Canberra Times on 13 July, that the area ‘had very poor health services’; and (d) what proposals, if any, does the Minister have to upgrade health services in the area concerned.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. (a) and (b) The area to which reference has been made contains a network of health centres operated mainly by the South Australian Government. The Northern Territory Medical Service under long-standing arrangements with the South Australian authorities has provided those health centres with regular routine radio consultations, emergency evacuation services and routine medical visits and, as well, has provided services to health centres in the Northern Territory. In addition, Aborigines consult their traditional healers (Ngangkari) in relation to their health matters. The Royal Flying Doctor Service also provides services to these people.

    1. The Departments of Health in South Australia and Western Australia, as well as the Northern Territory Medical Service, recognise the inadequacy of services they are able so far to provide in this area, especially to Aboriginal groups that have tended to move away from established communities and health facilities. Health authorities providing these services have, over the years, experienced considerable difficulty in maintaining a stable staffing situation in the remote desert areas. However, an active health education and disease prevention program is instituted by Public Health personnel from Adelaide, and in addition medical specialists from Alice Springs and Adelaide also visit centres in the area.
    2. In accordance with arrangements agreed with the health authorities in South Australia and Western Australia, the Northern Territory Medical Service is endeavouring to recruit additional staff, including a medical practitioner, to upgrade the health service to the Central Reserves area where these people are located.

Visit of U.S. Aircraft Carrier (Question No. 850)

Senator Colston:

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

Will the United States nuclear powered aircraft carrier BIG E visit Australia later this year? If so (a) when will the carrier visit Australia; (b) why is the visit necessary; and (c) what is the expected itinerary for the carrier’s stay in Australian waters?

Senator Withers:
LP

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

I presume that the ship referred to as the ‘BIG E’ is the USS Enterprise. Planning is in progress for USS Enterprise to participate with other United States forces in combined exercises in Australian waters later this year.

Exercises with United States forces provide invaluable training for Australian forces, the more so when they are held in the Australian environment and enable benefit to be gained by substantial elements of all three Australian Services.

Details have not been finalised and will be subject, as always, to confirmation in the light of, in particular, operational demands on United States resources as assessed nearer the time. At that time an appropriate announcement will be made.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 8 September 1976, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1976/19760908_senate_30_s69/>.