Senate
6 October 1976

30th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 30th Parliament
  3. 1976

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

page 1011

DEATH OF DOMINIC ERIC COSTA

The PRESIDENT:

– It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 23 September 1976 of Dominic Eric Costa, former member of the House of Representatives for the Division of Banks in New South Wales from 1949 to 1969. I invite honourable senators to stand in silence as a mark of respect for the deceased member.

Honourable senators haying stood in their places

The PRESIDENT:

– I thank the Senate.

page 1011

PETITIONS

St Albans Community Health Centre

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 1110 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned residents of St Albans in the State of Victoria respectfully showeth-

That the funding for the proposed St Albans Community Health Centre building programme has been deferred by the Victorian Hospitals and Charities Commission. This action has deprived our community of certain basic human rights. The lack of adequate medical facilities and the complete absence of Health Education and paramedical services is a tragedy for the St Albans population which is comprised of about eighty per cent (80 per cent) migrants arrived within the last five years and with an overall majority of mothers and young children for whom the proposed Community Health Centre would provide an essential service in this underprivileged area.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that immediate and urgent action be taken to make a special grant of funds so that the building programme of the St Albans Community Health Centre can be proceeded with, without any delay.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Australian Broadcasting Commission

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 20 citizens of Australia:

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

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

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

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

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

Ensure that any general inquiries 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 inquiry.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

South Africa

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I present the following petition from 1 1 9 citizens of Australia:

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

That whereas Vorster ‘s white minority government in the Republic of South Africa continues to deny basic human rights to the Africans, Asians and Coloureds who together form the great majority of the South African people:

That whereas the Vorster government has swept aside United Nations demands for an end to Apartheid and for the cessation of armed South African rule over the former United Nations trust territory of Namibia (South West Africa);

That whereas the world is currently witnessing the slaughter of Africans, many of them school children, who are protesting against Apartheid;

Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled will take the most urgent steps to:

Implement a total economic boycott of South Africa;

Cut all diplomatic and political links with South Africa;

Offer immediate aid to the victims of Apartheid by

providing places and scholarships at Australian schools, colleges and universities, to students who have been forced into exile,

making a substantial contribution to the United Nations Trust Fund for Southern Africa.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Cadetship Scheme

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– I present the following petition from 68 citizens of Australia:

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

That we vehemently oppose the re-introduction of the Cadetship’, which brutalise students in their formative years, and which confirms the ‘war ethic’ in young people, instead of establishing humanitarianism and a positive belief in peace and aid to others.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, reconsiders its decision to re-introduce this scheme which will have the abovementioned brutalising effect on the students involved, and will add unnecessarily to Government expenditure.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Radio and Television Licence Fees

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 32 1 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 the reintroduction by the Government of radio and TV licence fees, abolished by the previous government is an unjust tax which strikes almost everyone, particularly pensioners, regardless of their ability to pay.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

St Luke’s Hospital

Senator COLSTON:
QUEENSLAND

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Soviet Prisoners

Senator DAVIDSON:

– I present the following petition from 160 citizens of Australia:

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

Having learned of the unjust and harsh incarceration in Vladimir prison by the Soviet Authorities of a prisoner of conscience of Latvian nationality Gunars Rode, we the undersigned Australian citizens respectfully petition the Australian Senate and through it the Australian Government to use all its diplomatic resources and influence to secure the release of the said prisoner of conscience in order that he may enjoy the human rights as set out in the United Nations Charter, and as agreed to by all signatories of the European Security and Co-operation Conference in Helsinki.

This petition is submitted because great anxiety is felt for Gunars Rode, as it is known that to obtain the very minimum of the abovementioned human rights, in March of this year he commenced a hunger strike and his fate since then is unknown.

We further feel great concern for the numerous prisoners of conscience of many nationalities kept in Soviet prisons, labour camps and so-called mental institutions and pray for their well being and release.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Medibank

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– I present the following petition from 135 citizens of Australia:

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

That we object most strongly to the Government’s systematic erosion of the Medibank system of universal health care.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should reaffirm its election promise to the people of Australia that it would support Medibank on the universal basis upon which it was introduced by the previous Government.

Petition received and read.

Family Planning

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– I present the following petition from 41 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembed. 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:

– A petition has been lodged for presentation as follows:

Health Matters and Medibank

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 the State of Queensland should be maintained and that Medibank should not be so altered either in cost or complexity so that it may no longer be available to all people of Australia as a universal health insurance scheme.

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

Petition received.

page 1013

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1013

QUESTION

CONN AIR AIRLINE STRIKE

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. I preface my question by reminding the Minister of the current Connair Pty Ltd strike/shut-down in the Northern Territory. I ask: Is it true that SAATAS Pty Ltd, the other airline operating in the area, is considering purchasing a number of Connair’s air routes? How will this affect the jobs of the 45 Connair pilots? Will they be transferred to the staffof SAATAS? Who owns and controls this company and what will happen to those air routes which SAATAS may not take over?

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

– I have no immediate information concerning the details of the question that Senator Keeffe asks. My hope and understanding is that the Connair dispute may be resolved at an early date; therefore I hesitate to make any comments on the matter. But with regard to the specific questions asked, I will ask my colleague in another place for the information and let Senator Keeffe have it.

page 1013

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Education. The Minister will recall that on 20 May he made a statement to the Senate to the effect that the Government had decided to replace the existing cost supplementation arrangements by less automatic provisions for unavoidable increases in costs in the funding of education. I ask: When will the Minister be able to inform the Senate of the method of cost supplementation that the Government intends to use in the future?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Within the next few weeks the Government will be introducing into both Houses of the Parliament the State Grants Bills for the funding of recommendations contained in the 4 commission reports following Cabinet consideration of and deliberations on those reports. It will be necessary, when those States Grants Bills are before the Parliament, to make clear what is meant precisely by ‘cost escalation’. This will be done at that time.

page 1013

QUESTION

RECORD OF UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFICIARIES

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. I ask: Are exact statistics maintained of the number or percentage of unemployment benefit claimants whose claims are not approved or whose benefits are not continued because of their failure to meet the work tests? Have any surveys been made of terminations due to special advices from the Commonwealth Employment Service? In particular, what is known of the number of claimants for unemployment benefits who have been forced to wait until the expiration of the 6-week period because they voluntarily left their last employment? If the answer to any of these questions is yes, could the Minister release such figures to the Senate?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · VICTORIA · LP

– I will need to release the statistics that have been requested in the honourable senator’s question. I make the general comment that unemployment benefits are not paid unless the work test conducted by the Commonwealth Employment Service has been passed. I will give the honourable senator a breakdown of the figures required as soon as possible.

page 1013

QUESTION

NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Can the Minister confirm that the Government adheres unequivocally to its commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? Can the Minister also confirm that the Government believes that Australia’s efforts should be directed to supporting the limitation or reduction of nuclear armaments? Can the Minister say whether, in the circumstances, any consideration has been or will be given by the Government to any change in its stand on this matter?

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

-As is well known, the Government is strongly opposed to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Therefore the Government has welcomed the recent decision by several governments, particularly Japan, to ratify the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, taking the number of parties to this important Treaty to over 100. The Australian Government has been actively participating in international efforts to ensure that the export of nuclear equipment, materials and technology remains under effective controls. The Australian Government is concerned that important countries in all regions of the world have not yet committed themselves to the Treaty and strongly hopes that the trend towards universal acceptance of it will be continued. The Government has given preliminary consideration to the safeguard arrangements which it would apply to exports of Australian uranium. It has decided that as a minimum- I repeat, a minimum- our policies will reflect our international obligations that arise from our adherence to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and, in some respects, it has in mind seeking more stringent conditions. However, policy decisions will have to await the outcome of the Ranger uranium environmental inquiry.

page 1014

QUESTION

OMEGA STATIONS

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. I refer him to his answer of 5 October to a question asked by Senator Rae about a proposed Omega station. I quote the Minister: . . there is no military significance attached to the establishment of an Omega station.

He further said:

  1. . inquiry, both in this country and elsewhere, has shown that absolutely no disadvantages would accrue to a State from the siting of an Omega station in that State.

In view of these statements, I ask the Minister the following question: How does he reconcile his view that ‘there is no military significance’ attached to Omega with the United States Navy reports and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Defence Ministry reports which give a high strategic value to the Omega system in coordinating nuclear strikes? Would he not agree that Omega, being a highly potential nuclear target, would be a disadvantage to Australian people in the vicinity of such a base?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The main thrust of evidence before the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence of this Parliament was against the honourable senator’s first premise which was that both the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics regard Omega as being essential for nuclear strikes. The volume of scientific evidence before the Committee was that no country would use Omega for nuclear strikes, because of its potential serious inaccuracy and vagaries. I make it clear that all scientific evidence shows that any electrical flare- that is, any solar flare or any large lightning storm- can affect Omega, therefore making it seriously inaccurate and putting in absolute peril the guiding of nuclear weapons. I make it clear also that all evidence is that if there were to be a nuclear explosion of any kind in the atmosphere that of itself would deflect Omega and make it totally unreliable. Those who are aware of the findings know that all evidence shows that the long range ballistic missile nuclear submarines use their own inertial system plus the transit satellite system. The two together give a degree of accuracy infinitely greater than Omega gives.

The world wide consensus is that Omega would not be used for nuclear vessels; that it would be far too inaccurate. When used for commercial activities, with its capacity to correct continually, it has an accuracy of approximately 2 miles, depending upon your position on the earth’s surface. In particular, it is subject to vagaries of solar flares. In any case, ballistic missile submarines have their own far more accurate methods of navigation and getting fixes. The transit satellite itself can give a fix, as I understand it, with an accuracy of a few hundred yards on the earth ‘s surface.

page 1014

QUESTION

ABORIGINES: PETROL SNIFFING

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I refer to reports claiming that the practice of petrol sniffing is becoming a major drug addiction problem among Aboriginal children and adolescents in the Northern Territory. Is the Minister aware that this practice, evidently aggravated considerably by a sense of cultural disorientation, is believed to account for over 90 per cent of juvenile crime in that area? Are measures such as counselling and rehabilitation programs being considered to alleviate this serious problem?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am aware that petrol sniffing is not a new problem involving Aboriginal children. The practice has been reported on numerous occasions, and it has been the subject of investigation by Department of Health doctors. It is said that it could be attributable mainly to dispossession and deprivation in the minds of young Aborigines. In tackling the problem consideration must be given to the reduction of the situations which may bring about in Aborigines a sense of inferiority and cultural disorientation. However, it should be noted that alcolholism and drug addiction also occur in the more affluent sections of the community, but they are perhaps more often hidden than the matter we are discussing at present.

The elders of particular Aboriginal communities impose their own punishment on youths found to be sniffing petrol. Offenders are sent to outlying areas and placed under the guidance and control of an older relative. They are expected to live off the land, using traditional skills to stay alive. This form of action is encouraged as it represents an initiative taken by the community itself. It is known that people under the influence of petrol fumes are more likely to engage in petty crimes. Problems of this kind appear to be most common amongst school non-achievers. The Government and others concerned with this matter have been active in introducing sporting and recreation programs, and counselling and other means of assisting them to attempt to contain the situation. These programs are regarded as most important. I will draw to the Minister’s attention the matters that have been raised by the honourable senator.

page 1015

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH ROLLS ROYCE

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

-I ask the Minister for Administrative Services: Is it a fact that because the Rolls Royce in the Victorian car pool was unavailable for the Governor-General to attend the grand final of the Victorian Football League on Saturday, 25 September 1976, the Rolls Royce from the Sydney car pool was freighted to Melbourne by road for that purpose? If the answer is in the affirmative- I understand the car was used for approximately 4 hours only- why was not one of the many available LTDs in the Victorian car pool used?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I do not know whether the allegation made by the honourable senator in his question is true. Evidently, the matter was not in any of the newspapers I read. I will make inquiries and obtain an answer to the question. I hope to have an answer tomorrow.

page 1015

QUESTION

STATE GRANTS COMMISSIONS

Senator DAVIDSON:

-I put a question to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs. It relates to the establishment of State governments grants commissions for the distribution of federal funds to local government authorities in the States. Can the Minister give any information on the progress of the formation of such commissions, particularly as far as Commonwealth direction or influence is concerned? What is his response to the claim that any such direction is tantamount to centralisation? Is he aware of the request of the Australian Local Government Association that frequent adequate opportunity will exist for a review of the relevant arrangements? Will he initiate arrangements for such continuing reviews?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– It should be understood that the arrangements regarding the whole distribution of Commonwealth Government revenue supplements to local government are a decision of the Premiers Conference and are supported by all the Premiers. The arrangements that we are implementing at this moment, rather than being an influence from the centre to the fringe, are in full a federalist arrangement. There is no truth at all in the suggestion that the Commonwealth is seeking to impose its views. The Commonwealth made it clear in the discussions with the Premiers that, for the distribution of what is called element B- the equalisation or topping up element of the funds- there should be State grants commissions similar to and, in general philosophy, identical with the Commonwealth Grants Commission. All Premiers agreed to this proposal. Some Premiers asked that they be given time and that they not be forced to establish grants commissions this year. That was agreed upon. So in some States there may be makeshift arrangements for this year, but it is generally understood that in subsequent years there will be set up in each State an independent statutory body to deal with equalisation, set up on the same principles as the Commonwealth Grants Commission and with provision for access to it for local government. As I say, that principle has been agreed upon and is capable of being found in the records of the various Premiers Conferences.

Senator Davidson also asked me about frequent reviews of the arrangements. In general terms, the particular characteristics of the way in which the money shall be broken up between the States and other arrangements are to be reviewed regularly. Discussions have been taking place as to the nature of that review. The Commonwealth Government is very conscious of the requests of local government in this regard. There is no policy which is more federalist and more conceived and carried out on a truly co-operative basis than the present one. The Bill which will be introduced to implement the $140m will contain the elements of the decision of the Premiers conference.

page 1015

QUESTION

SEIZURE OF RADIO TRANSMITTER

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. I refer to the answer given yesterday by Senator Withers to Senator Missen when he said, referring to the seizure of a radio transmitter in Darwin, that the plain fact was that the transmitter was being operated unlawfully. I also refer to a question which I directed to Senator Withers on 26 February this year about an application by a Mr Neilly in Darwin for a licence to operate a radio transmitting to East Timor. Senator Withers then answered that this was a matter for the Postal and Telecommunications Department and that he would obtain an answer as to whether a licence had been granted and as to the Government’s attitude to the granting of a licence. I now ask: Has a licence been granted? In view of the current circumstances, what is the Government’s attitude to the granting of such a licence?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Senator Button raised 3 points. He drew attention to the seizure of a radio transmitter earlier this year and one a few days ago and he referred to a Mr Neilly and his application for a licence. The advice which I have before me is as follows: An illegal radio transceiver was seized by officers of the Postal and Telecommunications Department in Darwin on 25 January 1 976. This equipment was being used by a Mr A. Bello who is believed to be a national of East Timor. Mr Bello admitted that he was using the apparatus to communicate with persons in Timor. He was given a receipt for the equipment. Departmental officers acted on this matter following a request from the Department of Foreign Affairs. The Minister for Foreign Affairs had cleared the action with the Prime Minister prior to the seizure. Mr W. J. Neilly, a Darwin resident and an official of the Northern Territory Workers’ Union, has been refused a licence to operate the seized equipment. The Department would not normally issue a licence to an individual for overseas transmissions. The Overseas Telecommunications Commission is licensed for this purpose. Telecom facilities in Darwin were made available to Mr Bello to assist in making contact with Fretilin forces in East Timor by the United Nations special envoy, Mr Winspeare Guicciardi. Telecom has passed on to some Australian addressees messages for them received on Outpost Radio in Darwin. This has been done with the proviso that Telecom cannot guarantee the authenticity of the messages. In recent months the number of messages has declined significantly but they have not cut out altogether.

Another seizure took place on 27 September 1976 when a radio transmitter was found to be operating from a vehicle on Cox Peninsula near Darwin. In accordance with normal procedure officers of the Australian Postal and Telecommunications Department sought the cooperation of local police when there were reasonable grounds to suspect a breach of the Wireless Telegraphy Act. Those operating this equipment were a Mr S. Da Silva and a Mr A. Waterhouse.

Senator BUTTON:

-I ask a supplementary question. I ask the Minister to appreciate that I was asking a question not about bureaucratic regulations but about communications with East Timor. What is the Government’s attitude to the granting of licences? Does it rely on bureaucratic regulations entirely?

Senator CARRICK:

-I have stated the Government’s attitude. It is not the policy of this Government, nor was it of the previous Government, to grant to individuals licences for overseas transmission. That has been the consistent policy of governments of this country over the years. The responsibility for overseas transmission is of course that of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission.

page 1016

QUESTION

ECLIPSE OF THE SUN

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Science and, by way of preface, I state that in my professional capacity I have examined patients who have suffered from eclipse scotoma which is the result of direct viewing of an eclipse of the sun, causing irreparable damage to the retinal tissues. Consequently I am very conscious of the dangers that will be presented, particularly to children, on 23 October when the next eclipse will occur. Because of my concern, I ask: Is the Minister aware of an eclipse viewer that is on sale in Australia and to which some publicity has been given? Can the Minister comment on this device?

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

– I am aware of current public discussion relating to the solar eclipse and to the viewing of it through a filter. The advice I have received is that whilst a filter may reduce the intensity of solar radiation to a safe level, the filter is very difficult to check adequately for this purpose. In particular, filters that are very dense in the visible region of the spectrum may nevertheless transmit sufficient invisible infra-red radiation to cause the serious eye damage to which Senator Jessop has referred. I understand that the Victorian Public Health Commission has warned very strongly against the use of any form of optical filter. Senator Jessop mentioned the possible Australia-wide sale of such a filter and within my own State I have been alerted to the fact that a person has suggested that he has the approval of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation for the type of filter which he has either imported or manufactured. I inform Senator Jessop and the Senate that at no stage has CSIRO approved of any filter for this purpose. Senator Jessop, with his professional experience, has very appropriately raised the question of optical filters. Thus is a serious matter for those people who envisage looking through any filter which purports to give protection against eye damage during an eclipse.

page 1017

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY: DARWIN STAFF

Senator ROBERTSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. In his annual report the Director-General of Social Security, Mr Daniels, has drawn attention to an alarming situation which exists at the Darwin office of the Department. He quoted figures to show that prior to the cyclone the Darwin office had a staff of thirty. After the cyclone only nine remained. The disturbing fact is that by June 1976, despite additional demands made on the office through an increase in unemployment, the staff had risen to only fifteen, one-half of the precyclone figure, to serve a population of 43 000. Will the Minister give an assurance that the staff at the Darwin office will be increased to the precyclone level to meet the needs of the Darwin community and to overcome the delays which have been the subject of previous questions from me during this year.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– The Darwin office has been a subject of concern to me. Earlier this year- in fact, quite recently- the South Australian State office was assisting by supplementing the staff at the Darwin office. I am unaware of the exact number now engaged at the Darwin office but I will obtain the information for the honourable senator. I assure him that despite the cuts in the Public Service that have been predicted the Government’s primary concern is to ensure that services to the public are not diminished by reason of any policy decisions and Darwin is certainly one area that has been a subject of my active consideration. I can assure the honourable senator that services to the public will be maintained and I hope improved on what we have seen in recent months.

page 1017

QUESTION

DAIRY INDUSTRY PRODUCTION

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Can the Minister advise the estimated decline in production in the dairy industry over the last 12 months? Can he say whether it is currently believed to be at the level required for stabilising? Can the Minister also say whether it is anticipated that the new underwritten price of approximately 60c may be achieved on normal market expectations? Are there any forward plans for the period after 3 1 December 1 976?

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

-I do not have the precise details to answer the honourable senator’s queries, but I do have some information about the matter in general. There was an announcement yesterday about the increase in underwriting arrangements. There is a Press release on this. If the honourable senator does not have it I can make it available to him. There is a special meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council set down for Friday of this week to consider the recommendations of this report which is often referred to as the Crawford report. Some of the points that are in the report and indeed some of the honourable senator’s queries are quite specific and they would have to wait until consideration of the report on Friday. After that we should have more information for the honourable senator, I think.

page 1017

QUESTION

TAXATION: PENSIONS

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– My question to the Minister for Social Security refers to changes in the incidence of taxation on beneficiaries of both full and part pensions which bring into the taxable area many people who were previously exempt. I ask the Minister: Is it intended to send out information on these changes to the taxation of both full and pan pensions with pension notices? If so, will this information be prepared by the Department of Social Security or by the Taxation Office? As many pensioners are very much in the dark as to how this tax is to be administered and as to whether it will act as a disincentive for them to continue to carry out work in which they are currently engaged, will the Minister at the earliest opportunity make a statement in an easily understood form so as to clarify the situation?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am aware that many pensioners are concerned about the taxation changes which mean that pensions are no longer exempt income for taxation purposes. Part of the pension income was affected by a decision of the previous Government and part by a decision of the present Government. I am also aware that many pensioners will have cause for concern when the new income test is introduced by the Government on 25 November. It is my intention to include in pension notices prior to that date some information in regard to the income test and its application. I also intend briefly to alert pensioners again to the fact that pensions will be regarded as part of their taxable income. It is the prerogative of the Treasurer on behalf of the Commissioner of Taxation to make the list of taxable income and other factors such as that available. I intend to inform pensioners that upon their request we will be prepared to deduct tax from their pensions. As a result of the efforts of the Treasurer and the Commissioner of Taxation, I feel sure that all pensioners will be alerted to the changes that may affect them, either by way of the new income test or the incidence of taxation.

page 1018

QUESTION

SOUTH AUSTRALIA: HEARING OF MAINTENANCE APPLICATIONS

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address my question to the Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral. I refer to the recent remarks of the South Australian Attorney-General, Mr Duncan, to the effect that the delay in hearing maintenance applications in South Australian courts is the fault of the Federal Government because it has not allowed these applications to be heard in the Family Court of Australia. Has Mr Duncan raised this matter with the Minister and/or officers of the Family Court? Would not the provision of the facility of the Family Court for these hearings increase the backlog of other divorce matters before that Court? Is this another attempt by the South Australian Government to blame the Federal Government for shortcomings which are in the State ‘s direct province?

Senator DURACK:
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I have some information concerning statements made by the South Australian Attorney-General, Mr Duncan, I think in answer to a question in the South Australian Parliament recently. It is true that he has sought to blame the Federal Government for the delay in the hearing of maintenance applications in South Australia. He has apparently alleged that the Federal Attorney-General has refused to agree to these applications being heard by the Federal Family Court in South Australia. The statements which are attributed to Mr Duncan are rather strange. The Family Court of Australia continually hears applications for maintenance in South Australia, as it does in all States in which it operates. It does not do so, of course, in Western Australia because that State has its own State Family Court. These applications for maintenance include cases brought by the Department of Community Welfare.

I am not aware whether these complaints by Mr Duncan have been discussed with Mr Ellicott, the Attorney-General. Mr Duncan complains that negotiations have been going on between the State and Federal governments, so I presume some recent discussions have been held, although Mr Duncan apparently complains that they have been broken off. As I have said, the Family Court of Australia is hearing many applications in South Australia. I remind the Senate that there is concurrent jurisdiction under the Family Law Act for the Family Court of Australia and the ordinary State magistrates’ courts. The State courts in South Australia are also hearing applications for maintenance. If the South Australian Attorney-General thinks there is an undue delay in hearing maintenance applications the matter can be relieved by the South

Australian Government appointing additional magistrates. I am informed that the delay in the hearing of applications in the Family Court in South Australia- that is, the Federal Court- is 6 weeks, but, of course, urgent cases would be heard much sooner.

page 1018

QUESTION

CHILEAN REFUGEES

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. By way of preface, I refer to the decision of the New Zealand Government, at the request of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, to accept a further group of Chileans who have been subject to political duress under the Allende Government- a term which the Minister has used and a term which the Department uses for people in that category. I ask the Minister: Have we been asked by the High Commissioner for Refugees to assist with this further lift? In view of the fact that trade unionists and others are constantly leaving the gaols of Santiago and looking for sanctuary, does the Government feel that we have reached a limit with Chilean immigrants in that category or is Australia still in the field to receive them?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am informed that earlier this year the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs discussed the matter raised by the honourable senator with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Geneva. In answer to the special appeal of the United Nations of 22 June the Australian Government has agreed to continue to accept for settlement those refugees who meet our normal migration criteria. Our embassy in Buenos Aires has been instructed to give priority, as far as this is possible, to applications from Chilean refugees who appear to meet these migration criteria. In addition, the embassy has been instructed to refer for consideration applications from refugees who are not normally within the class eligible for entry but who are adjudged to warrant special consideration. Some of the cases being processed have now reached the approved awaiting movement stage. Figures relating to the movement of Chilean refugees to Australia in the years 1 973-74 to 1 975-76 are as follows:

Although there have been some further approvals in the current financial year there have been no movements to Australia. I give the honourable senator the assurance that the Minister has discussed this matter and the Government is prepared to give consideration and active assistance to these people.

page 1019

QUESTION

RHODESIA

Senator HARRADINE:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to the question that I asked on 23 September 1976 which dealt with the considerable concern of a large number of Australian citizens over the trial of Bishop Lamont in Rhodesia and also the matter of former Rhodesian nationals wishing to migrate to Australia. I ask the Minister: Has he any further information to add to that which he gave me on that occasion? Is he aware of the fact that Bishop Lamont has appealed? Can the Government at this stage give an indication whether a representative from Australia will be able to attend that appeal trial? On the broader question, will the Government give consideration to having some official Australian presence in Rhodesia in order to ensure that our interests and the interests of a peaceful settlement in that country towards majority rule and protection of minority rights are pursued?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-The honourable senator asked me 4 questions. The answer to his first question is no. The answer to his second question is yes. His third question dealt with whether Australia ought to have a representative available at the appeal trial of Bishop Lamont and his fourth question dealt with the possibility of having an official Australian presence in Rhodesia. As I said yesterday, Australia does not recognise Rhodesia. Ever since the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Rhodesia Australia has regarded the Rhodesian Government as an illegal regime and therefore of no international standing. One cannot have it both ways. One cannot refuse to recognise a country and at the same time expect to have official representation there either to watch trials or to make protests.

Senator Harradine:

– But the circumstances have changed.

Senator WITHERS:

-We hope they are changing. I do not know whether they have changed. I think everybody hopes that they are changing and changing, most likely, for the better. But until the present situation firms up and agreement is reached between the present Government of Mr Smith and the British Government, and sanctions are lifted, I very much doubt whether Australia will give any recognition to Rhodesia or have any presence in that country.

page 1019

QUESTION

DISCRIMINATION

Senator GIETZELT:

– I ask the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, as Minister representing the Attorney-General: Is he aware that International Labor Organisation Convention No. Ill concerning discrimination in respect of employment and occupation affirms that: all human beings, irrespective of race, creed or sex, have the right to pursue both their material well-being and their spiritual development in conditions of freedom and dignity, of economic security and equal opportunity . . .

And further affirms that such discrimination, if practised, would constitute: a violation of rights enunciated by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights . . .

Is he further aware that the Convention defines discrimination’ as exclusion, preference which has the effect of nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity or treatment in employment or occupation as may be determined by the member concerned after consultation with representative employers’ and workers’ organisations where such exist 1 1n view of that Declaration, to which we are a signatory I ask: Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the actions of the Queensland Government and the statements of the Premier of that State regarding the civil action against 3 teachers and a railway worker, which has had the effect of imposing double penalties on such employees? Do not these actions contravene the ILO Convention? Is it proper that citizens should not only be dealt with in the civil courts but also lose their employment and then be denied by the Premier an opportunity for reinstatement? What action can the Government take, legislative or otherwise, to protect citizens from such discrimination which nullifies the spirit and the principles of the ILO Charter?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I am aware and I am sure the Attorney-General is aware of the International Labor Organisation Convention to which Senator Gietzelt referred. I am grateful to have his reminder of the definition of ‘discrimination’ because my recollection of it does not extend to all the finer details. I have also some passing knowledge of the circumstances in Queensland to which he has referred, concerning some views expressed by the Queensland Premier and some action which has been taken or has been threatened to be taken in regard to State employees who have been convicted of certain offences and who apparently are also under threat of losing their jobs.

I think it should be said as the outset that the mere fact of a person being convicted and also losing a job is not uncommon. I imagine that Senator Gietzelt and other honourable senators would acknowledge that there could well be circumstances in which the nature of an offence which somebody had committed was such that it would properly lead to dismissal. I think the circumstances have to be considered in each and every case. I shall pass on to the AttorneyGeneral for his consideration the particular circumstances raised in this question.

As to what action could be taken, I am afraid that raises very vexed questions indeed as to the powers of the Commonwealth Government and also as to the propriety of such actions being taken in respect of matters which fall within the province and, in these circumstances, largely within the sole province of a State government. However, I shall pass the question on to the Attorney-General.

page 1020

QUESTION

AGED PERSONS HOMES AND HOSTELS PROGRAM

Senator WALSH:

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Social Security, relates to a statement the Minister issued about 4 weeks ago concerning funding for this financial year and the next 2 financial years for projects under the Aged and Disabled Persons Homes Act and the Aged Persons Hostels Act. I ask: Can she give an unequivocal guarantee that the funds, as set out in that statement, will be provided within that period and that the program will not be extended to a fourth year, as previous statements by some Ministers have indicated?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– The aged persons homes and hostels program which I announced some weeks ago is a 3-year program for which $225m has been provided. Honourable senators will recall that approvals have been given for the 3 years of that program. But the honourable senator will understand that some of the projects which have been funded for the third year of the program may extend into a fourth year and require funding in that year. It will also be understood that the funding that has been provided was given on the basis that the building subsidy level would be reviewed quarterly. This will possibly necessitate the provision of more than the $225m that has been provided already if the program does extend beyond the 3-year period.

I can assure honourable senators that those people who have had a firm approval from the Government will receive their funds. They will receive them as they require them in accordance with the three yearly stages of the program. But if there are those who require funds in the fourth year to complete a project that has been approved for an earlier year, I can give the assurance that they will receive funds in that fourth year. In addition, in accordance with Treasury requirements and because of the escalation in costs, the Government has not at this stage committed approvals that will absorb the total amount of $225m provided. Some funds are held in reserve so that the Government is able to guarantee the funding for the approvals that have been given. I can assure the honourable senator without any doubt at all that those organisations which have received firm approval and firm authority can proceed knowing that those funds will be available in accordance with the Government’s undertaking.

Senator WALSH:

- Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. The Minister used the phrase ‘firm approval’. Can that be taken as applying to all the projects which were listed in the statement which she issued last month?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

-‘ Firm approval’ will mean that those organisations which were listed in the 3 years of the program will have funds made available in accordance with the arrangement of the 3-year program. That is, funds will be made available on the basis of a quarterly readjustment of building subsidy levels. The funds will be available in the years that were specified and could extend into a fourth year if required.

page 1020

QUESTION

REPORT OF WORKING PARTY ON UNEMPLOYED YOUTH

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to Senator Durack in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I refer to the report of the special youth unemployment working party which was recently handed to the South Australian Government. Is the Minister aware that the report states that the image of the Commonwealth Employment Service is not high amongst young people in South Australia? Further, has the Minister considered the fact that the report makes strong criticism of the CES for being unable to match young people to jobs and for placing too heavy an emphasis upon rigid work tests for young people? As the report rightfully recognises the skills and concern of the officers of the CES in their endeavours to find employment for young people, could it be that the officers are having to shoulder blame which rightly rests with the Australian Government because of its budgetary restraints? Finally, in view of the tragic numbers of young people unemployed and the expected spiral in these figures in January 1977 due to the numbers of school leavers seeking employment, can the Minister provide the Senate with a clear undertaking that significant Government initiatives to eliminate this problem will be taken in the immediate future?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I am not aware of the details of the report to the South Australian Government referred to by Senator McLaren. Therefore I cannot comment on the alleged criticisms of the Commonwealth Employment Service. I will pass on the question to my colleague the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. The latter part of the honourable senator’s question concerned the policies of the Government in relation to youth unemployment. I am rather surprised that he asked this question because it seems to anticipate the debate on the matter of urgency which will be raised later today. However, I think I should emphasise the very important initiative by the Government in establishing the youth employment scheme, the details of which have been announced and which are being advertised widely in the Press at the moment by my colleague.

page 1021

QUESTION

DELIVERY OF HANSARD

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I ask a question of the Minister for Administrative Services. I remind him that as recently as 23 September he said that if honourable senators did not receive their copies of Hansard early in the morning it generally was not the fault of the Government Printer but of the distribution within Parliament House, and that henceforth he intended personally to monitor daily the time of delivery of Hansard to the House by the Government Printer. Has he been carrying out his tedious and onerous Bundy task? If so, will he confirm that this morning the delivery of the Senate Hansard to Parliament House occurred at 11.41 a.m., that the House of Representatives Hansard delivery occurred at 12.45 p.m., and that upon their arrival they were hastily and immediately delivered by the distribution people in their usual efficient manner? Will the Minister agree therefore that on this occasion the distribution system within Parliament House cannot be blamed for the late arrival of Hansard? Will he make inquiries elsewhere as to the circumstances and reason?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I certainly will make inquiries. One of the things which my monitoring showed was that from the time I answered that question copies of Hansard were lobbing in my office within 2 minutes of their delivery to Parliament House. Evidently some attendant got the message. Whether Hansard was being delivered to the rooms of other honourable senators with the same expedition, I have no knowledge, although I have some doubts. I think I was getting a special delivery.

Senator Harradine:

– You cannot say that.

Senator WITHERS:

– One gets a bit suspicious about the operations around here occasionally. I suspect that when a delivery is as late as it was today, there must have been a breakdown at the Government Printer’s premises. I think, in fairness to the Printer, I should say that his copy ran an hour later last night because we sat an hour later. I will make inquiries as to why the Senate Hansard arrived at 11.40 a.m. If honourable senators want a list of times when Hansard has been delivered, I will table it. I say again that it is not the Government Printer’s fault that Hansard is not delivered earlier. The Government Printer runs a very efficient and competent operation. He feels that he has a real duty imposed upon him to get Hansard here at the earliest possible time. He makes his best endeavours to do so. Once it arrives, it is out of his hands.

The PRESIDENT:

– I wish to say a few words on this matter. When it was raised on the previous occasion I made inquiries about the delivery of Hansard within this place on its receipt. I found that the staff was acting with the utmost expedition in having deliveries of Hansard made when it arrived at Parliament House. I advise honourable senators of that fact which I ascertained following the previous question.

page 1021

QUESTION

PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Social Security. The Minister for Health, in answer to a recent question on notice, said that studies were in hand regarding ways of alleviating the hardship suffered by pensioner, low income and chronic illness groups who have to pay the $2 fee for pharmaceutical benefit items. Has this matter been referred to the Income Security Review Committee? If not, has the Department of Social Security been consulted by the Department of Health on alleviating the hardships referred to? Why will it be some time before the studies are completed?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– The matter raised has been the subject of discussion between my Department and the Department of Health. I will look at the answer that was given by the Minister for Health and see whether there is any further information I am able to provide without further delay. The matter of all benefits to pensioners and in particular those which may be termed fringe benefits has been the subject of study by the Income Security Review Committee.

page 1022

QUESTION

RAILWAYS

Senator BISHOP:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. It concerns the Adelaide-Crystal Brook rail standardisation project and the Tarcoola-Alice Springs railway. The Minister will recall that recently, following a question from me, he advised me that the Minister for Transport had stated that the committee for the Tarcoola line was in operation and was to report shortly but that the committee on the South Australian standardisation work had not been appointed. Because it is now more than 5 months since the Government announced that these committees would be set up and there is considerable confusion not only on the part of the South Australian Government but also on the part of a number of corporations who have written to South Australian senators, will the Minister ask the Minister for Transport to inform us whether he has set a target date for the completion of the inquiries by these committees and when it is likely that there will be final discussions and determinations?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I will convey the honourable senator’s question to the Minister for Transport.

page 1022

QUESTION

SHIPBUILDING

Senator JESSOP:

-I ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce whether he has had an opportunity to study the Australian Council of Trade Unions proposals with respect to the shipbuilding industry. Does the Government intend to make a statement on the matter?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-The document descended on me at about 10 past 2 this afternoon. Therefore I have not had a chance to look at it, but I sent it to my Department for a careful analysis. I should have a report about its contents by this evening.

page 1022

QUESTION

JOINT STATES’ COMMITTEE

Senator COLSTON:

– Is the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs aware that, as reported in the Courier-Mail of 30 September 1976, the Queensland Premier, Mr BjelkePetersen, and the Liberal Treasurer, Mr Knox, have agreed to consider asking other State governments to form a joint States’ committee to watch the Federal Government for any infringement of States’ rights. Has the Queensland Government discussed the proposal with the Prime Minister or any of his colleagues? Would the Federal Government welcome the formation of such a committee? If so, what advantages would there be in establishing a States’ rights committee?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have not seen the report in the Courier-Mail. I would be grateful if the honourable senator would bring it to my attention. Therefore I am not aware of the suggestion that a joint States’ committee be set up to keep an eye on States’ rights. I am asked by a Labor senator what benefits would flow from this. For those who, like the Liberal and National Country Party senators here, believe in States’ rights and federalism, there would be immense benefits. For Labor senators, who believe in the abolition of the States, the amalgamation of local government authorities and all power in one House in Canberra, there would be no benefits at all. I will welcome a chance to look at the paper. I will study it eagerly. Really, anything that promotes decentralisation in this country and prevents ever again the kind of centralism that Australia suffered in the 3 years of Labor government must be good news for the people of Australia.

page 1022

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE

Senator RYAN:
ACT

– Can the Minister for Social Security clarify the present position of the Australian Capital Territory Consultative Committee, which was established under the former Children’s Commission, whose functions have now been transferred to the Child Care Office in the Department of Social Security? Specifically, is the Consultative Committee, which is composed of departmental officers and voluntary members representing community groups, to continue to function both as a policy-making body and as a fund-allocating body?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– The present position of the Australian Capital Territory Consultative Committee is as it has always been. At the present time in the Office of Child Care we are giving attention to consultative arrangements in the States and the Territories. If there are to be any changes with regard to the activity and manner of working I will make an announcement, but at present the arrangements are as they were established under the proposed Children’s Commissionthat is, that it is an advisory body and will continue to act as such unless we decide that any other manner of working would be of greater advantage to the work that needs to be done by the Office of Child Care.

page 1023

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Construction. In view of the unemployment situation, which is steadily worsening, and considering the commendable initiative taken by the New South Wales Government in allocating $20m specifically for a public works program which will create 3800 additional jobs, can the Minister say why similar action cannot be undertaken at a Federal level?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– In representing the Minister for Construction I can only convey to the honourable senator the view of the Government which is that when in office the former Australian Labor Party Government spent public money irrationally. It placed the economic viability of this country in jeopardy. It placed the country at risk. That Government spent money which it did not possess. The money belongs to the people. The view of the Fraser Government is that, in its first year in office, it should impose restraints in order to bring about an even balance in the economy. This is the reason for the restraint on the Public Service and on uninhibited spending, such as that carried out by the former Government. This restraint has flowed through into the construction industry. Although the present Government would wish to float more projects, it has done a great deal to see that work that has been commenced will continue. New projects will be initiated from time to time. I doubt whether the New South Wales Government–

Senator Keeffe:

– I take a point of order. The Minister is dealing with a subject that will be debated later this day. He is misusing this opportunity to answer a question.

The PRESIDENT:

– The Minister will continue.

Senator WEBSTER:

– That is the type of interruption one would expect to hear. The question which was asked related to the constuction industry and to unemployment in New South Wales. There was no necessity to interrupt my answer. I think that the Senate well recognises the difficulty that was created by the former Government. That is generally accepted in the community. I have no doubt that the Fraser Government will bring our economy back to an even base.

Senator Gietzelt:

– Before it sinks?

Senator WEBSTER:

-The honourable senator interrupts by saying: ‘Before it sinks’. The greatest harm that was done to this country in its 70 years since federation was done by the socialist Australian Labor Party Government. The present Liberal-National Country Party Government will make a very strong attempt to bring this country back on to an even keel.

page 1023

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH ROLLS ROYCE

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-Earlier Senator Brown asked me a question about a Rolls Royce car. I have the information for him now. In Melbourne there is normally one limousine Rolls Royce. However, this was damaged in the demonstrations against the Governor-General earlier this year. When a booking was received recently for a Rolls Royce limousine the Department considered that one of the two held in Sydney ought to be sent down. It was a decision of my department. The car was transported to Melbourne on an opportunity basis, being a back loading which involved no extra cost. The car is still in Melbourne and will be back loaded to Sydney, again free of cost. If ‘rent-a-crowd’ would stop damaging the taxpayers ‘ property we would not have to transport cars back and forth between capital cities.

page 1023

QUESTION

STUDENT ASSISTANCE SCHEMES

Ministerial Statement

Senator CARRICK (New South Wales-

Minister for Education)- by leave- I thank honourable senators for the courtesy they have shown me in allowing me to make this statement. The statement concerns the review of student assistance schemes.

The Government has determined a number of changes in the rates and conditions of various student assistance schemes to be effective from 1 January 1977. In July of this year the Government appointed an inter-departmental committee to recommend changes in rates and conditions and to correct certain anomalies which had become apparent since the schemes were introduced. The committee was instructed to recommend changes in rates and conditions and any desirable rationalisations to the various schemes.

The committee had before it a number of submissions by various bodies, including student organisations. In addition, it studied the report of the Williams Committee on the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme, known as TEAS. That report, prepared by a committee under the chairmanship of Dr H. S. Williams, Director of the West Australian Institute of Technology, was submitted to the Whitlam Government in May 1975. It recommended a wide range of changes. The report was not implemented and few changes were included in the August 1975 Budget of the Whitlam Government for the 1976 calendar year. As a result, current tertiary living allowances have not been varied since January 1975 and are based on June 1974 prices.

The Whitlam government’s failure to vary the living allowances, combined with the erosion of the allowances by inflation and the difficulty experienced by students in getting part-time jobs to supplement their incomes, has caused appreciable hardship to those who are wholly or predominantly dependent on the allowance.

Government Decisions

In general, the Government affirms its support of the present nature and form of student assistance schemes. It emphasises that the main thrust of such assistance should be towards the most needy. It notes and endorses the following principle asserted by the Williams Committee with regard to TEAS:

The Committee has taken the view that the public purse should not be expected to bear the total costs of tertiary education. In view of the significant benefits which generally accrue to the individual from such education, the student and/or his family should bear part of these costs. The purpose of TEAS is seen as providing a subsidy to those students and their families who are unable or whom it would be unreasonable to expect to provide all of the costs normally expected to come from sources other than the public purse. The level of subsidy provided should cover only the basic needs of students and their dependants.

The then President of the Australian Union of Students was a member of the Williams Committee and a signatory to the report. The Commonwealth Department of Education will administer 10 student assistance schemes in 1977. They are:

Details of 1 977 rates and conditions of each of the schemes are as follows:

Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme- TEAS

The Government confirms that means-tested assistance should continue to be provided to fulltime students at universities, colleges of advanced education, technical colleges and other post-secondary institutions through the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme- TEAS. It acknowledges the following means-test concept as defined by the Williams Committee:

The basic purpose of applying a means test for student grants is to ensure that only those in financial need are assisted and that only to the extent that this need is not or cannot be met from other sources. In determining the extent to which a student’s needs may be met from other sources it is necessary to take into account the other demands on the use of the funds, such as the support of dependants.

The following rates will apply to TEAS from the beginning of next year:

Where previously only one rate applied to both independent students and dependent students living away from home, the Government has decided to introduce an intermediate rate for dependent students living away from home who can be expected to benefit from some family support when compared with the independent student. The Williams Committee suggested that incidental allowances should be incorporated in the TEAS living allowance. The Government has chosen, however, to continue to pay separate incidental allowances at the present rates.

In future widows, widowers and other single independent students with dependants will be able to receive incomes up to $4,850 per annum without affecting their entitlements to allowances under TEAS. This is in line with the Williams Committee recommendation. Currently such people are treated as single students and so have their allowance reduced when income exceeds $1,500. In future, allowances will be reduced at the rate of $ 1 for every $2 of income in excess of $4,850. The means test for a married student under TEAS will in future be applied to the spouse’s income in the financial year preceding the year of study. At present it applies to the calendar year in which the student is receiving benefits. This has resulted in a number of overpayments due to the inability of the spouse to estimate income for the current year.

The maximum personal income which a student may receive without affecting his or her allowance entitlement will remain for 1977 at $1,500. In accordance with the Williams Committee recommendation, the income taken into consideration for this purpose will include earnings in the long vacation. These are at present excluded. However, there will be a relaxation of the abatement rate- that is, the rate by which the allowance is reduced by income in excess of $1,500. Currently the abatement rate is $1 for

every $ 1 of income in excess of$l,500for dependent students and $1 for $1.50 for independent students and spouses. In future, for both dependent and independent students it will be $1 for every $2 of income. The limit of assistance which a student may receive from another award without affecting his TEAS entitlement will be reduced from $600 to $150. This is a Williams Committee recommendation. New students receiving assistance from another Commonwealth award in 1977 will not be eligible for TEAS benefits.

Full-time students who are unable, because of course requirements or arising out of a direction from the institution attended, to undertake the 75 per cent of a normal full-time load, now the minimum requirement to attract a TEAS allowance, may qualify for TEAS provided they undertake at least 66% per cent of this load. This again is a Williams Committee recommendation. Eligibility for independent status on the grounds of 2 years self-support will be limited to those students who have been full-time in the workforce or registered as unemployed for a total period of 2 years. Again, this is a Williams Committee recommendation. This limitation will not apply to any student who has already been granted independent status for a year prior to 1977.

The maximum adjusted family incomeMAFI which attracts a full allowance will be increased from $7,600 to $8,200. At the same time, to ensure that the provisions of TEAS may be related more closely to those in need, the abatement rate of allowance for incomes above the MAFI will be increased from $2 to $2.50 in every $10. The abatement rate will be constant for all levels of income. The present sibling concession and the deductions for dependants used in applying the means test will continue.

Adult Secondary Education Assistance Scheme (ASEAS)

The Adult Secondary Education Assistance Scheme will be continued as a means of assisting adult students who are undertaking the final year of secondary education. The levels of allowance and means test provisions decided upon for TEAS for 1977 will be applied also to this allowance. The conditions, such as those applying to widows under TEAS, will apply also to recipients under this scheme.

Pre-School Teacher Education Allowance Scheme

This scheme is at present being phased out. Allowance increases determined for TEAS will apply also to the remaining recipients under this scheme.

Commonwealth Teaching Service Scholarship Scheme

The Commonwealth Teaching Service Scholarship Scheme will continue to provide nonmeans tested competitive awards. The number and distribution of these awards will reflect the particular needs of the Northern Territory schools and of specialist teaching fields in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory where qualified teachers are in short supply. The levels of allowance and conditions for TEAS will apply.

Post-graduate Awards Scheme

The following allowances will apply:

Secondary Allowance Scheme (SAS).

The Secondary Allowance Scheme will be continued as a means of assisting families on low incomes to maintain their children at school during the final 2 secondary years. For 1977 the maximum allowance will be increased from $450 to $550. The maximum adjusted family income for this allowance will be increased from $4,300 to $5,100. The abatement rate will be set at $2.50 for every $10 of excess income, but will make provision for the sibling concession as applied to TEAS which provides reduced abatement rate where more than one member of the family is eligible under the Scheme. The dependant ‘s deduction allowed in calculating the adjusted family income for the proposed SAS entitlement will be increased from $300 to $450 and extended to include full-time dependent students at post-secondary level.

Aboriginal Secondary Education Grants Scheme (ABSEG).

Special assistance will continue to be provided to Aboriginal families through ABSEG to provide a positive incentive to those families to keep their children at school. Consideration will be given to the possibility of introducing a means test but a means test will not be introduced for 1977. A survey will be undertaken into levels of incomes of Aborigines which will be sensitive to the customs of Aboriginal communities and to the difficulties of determining family incomes, before a decision is reached on means testing. Allowances payable under ABSEG will be set as follows:

Stricter provisions will be made regarding unsatisfactory attendance and also repeating students beyond the school leaving age.

Aboriginal Study Grants Scheme (ASGS).

This scheme will continue as a separate form of assistance and encouragement to Aborigines who have left school. A study will be made of the possibility of introducing a means test but it would not be applicable to 1977. The following allowances will apply:

The present 3 levels of allowances have been reduced to two for 1977 in recognition of the costs to Aboriginals aged 1 8 years and older who have no other means of support and thus require the same level of assistance as older students.

Dependants’ allowances will be the same levels as for TEAS. The special provision for payment of boarding fees and a reduced living allowance for students living in residential colleges will in 1977 be extended to students living in hostels and be adjusted to provide an increase in the special living allowance rate of $ 1 5 a week. The establishment allowance payable under this scheme will be increased to the following levels:

Aboriginal Overseas Study Awards Scheme

This scheme will be continued. Payments will continue to be based on the Aboriginal Study Grants Scheme.

Scholarships for Graduate Diploma in Recreation.

This is a limited scheme which had little support and will be discontinued. TEAS allowances are available for approved courses in recreation studies.

Assistance for Isolated Children

Benefits will continue to enable parents in isolated areas to give their children access to appropriate schooling. The following allowances will apply:

The means test applicable to the additional boarding allowance will be similar to TEAS, except the abatement rate will remain unchanged at $2 for every $10 of excess income. The special supplementary allowance currently payable to isolated, low-income families will be adjusted in accordance with the new provisions of the secondary allowances scheme.

The total cost of maintaining all student assistance schemes will be approximately $178m in the current financial year. This compares with the amount of $15 1.877m which was initially allocated in the 1976-77 Budget. The full cost of student assistance schemes in the calendar year 1977 will be approximately $200m, or an addition of some $50m. The Government will review all allowances for 1978 within the context of its 1977-78 Budget.

In addition to these schemes of student assistance, the Government will institute an inquiry into the feasibility of a loan scheme for postschool students. This inquiry will seek the views of the public as well as the directly interested parties and will include, among those conducting the inquiry, a representative of students. This inquiry will begin as soon as possible. The Government has decided not to proceed with the reintroduction of tuition fees for higher and second degree students or for overseas students in tertiary institutions. It took this decision after careful consideration of the detailed implications of the proposed measure. The Treasurer (Mr Lynch) had already indicated in his Budget Speech that the Government had no intention of reintroducing fees for Australian tertiary students undertaking their first degrees. The measures I have announced result from a comprehensive review of the whole range of the Commonwealth’s student assistance programs. I am confident that the revised arrangements provide an equitable and reasonable basis of support for the various classes of students during 1977. 1 seek leave to move a motion that the Senate take note of the statement.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I move:

That the Senate take note of the Statement.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator KEEFFE:

– We have heard the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) deliver a statement on the increase in allowances. I accept what he said at the outset of his speech when he expressed appreciation to the Opposition for cooperating in allowing this statement to be presented before we dealt with the next item of business. We also are involved in this matter because thousands of students are interested, economically and otherwise, in finding out what their allowances will be. I venture to say, at this early stage, that many students will not be particularly happy about the increase in allowances. In 2 paragraphs of his statement the Minister referred to the committee that had been set up under the chairmanship of Dr Williams and also to the actions of the Whitlam Government. The Minister said:

The Whitlam Government’s failure to vary the living allowances, combined with the erosion of the allowances by inflation and the difficulty experienced by students in getting part-time jobs to supplement their incomes, has caused appreciable hardship to those who are wholly or predominantly dependent on the allowance.

That is only half the story. From the moment the Minister was sworn in as Minister for Education he endeavoured to switch the attack from his Government to the Hayden Budget, the Whitlam Government and, in general to the Labor Party in government. The responsibility for student assistance schemes has been his from the day he was sworn in as Minister. If the level of student allowances is held constant throughout 1976 it is because of the decisions of the present Government. The Minister stated that in 1977 minor reviews only will be undertaken but that he will again examine the allowances for the period 1977-78.

When the Labor Government assumed office in 1972 no provision was made for isolated children’s grants and no provision for isolated children’s grants was made in the Budget that was passed by the previous Government before the election in December 1972. But this did not deter or prevent the Labor Government in January 1973 announcing isolated children’s allowances ranging from a basic allowance of $350 a year to $ 1 ,004, according to means. The point I am making, of course, is that this continual denigration of the political predecessors of this Government does not stand up to public scrutiny. I think that many students also would be aware of that fact.

If the Minister and the present Government were convinced about the inadequacy of the tertiary student allowance when they assumed office, they could have acted as speedily as did the Labor Government in relation to isolated children’s grants. When the economic stringency developed in 1975 the Labor Government, which had increased Commonwealth educational expenditure from a minor part of the nation’s educational spending to a Commonwealth action financially equal to all the States put together, decided that tertiary student allowances would stay steady for one Budget. As I said a few moments ago, that did not prevent this Government doing something about tertiary assistance allowances from January this year. When the Labor Government took that view, it was probably a doubtful decision but in the light of the political situation at the time and the harassment that was being displayed by the then Opposition against the elected Government, it was felt that per capita expenditure for the education of tertiary students was overwhelmingly greater than for primary and secondary students. As from January 1974 fees were abolished in universities, colleges and advanced education and technical colleges.

In October 1974 my colleague in another place, Mr Beazley, the then Minister for Education, appointed a committee to review the tertiary education assistance scheme. The Chairman was Dr H. S. Williams of the Western Australian Institute of Technology. The Committee’s deliberations were based on the belief that the scheme’s primary aim should continue to be that of meeting the needs of students to enable them to study without inordinate financial pressure. It reported in May 1975 and recommended that the living allowance should be $1,200 a year for the ‘at home’ student and $2,200 a year for the away from home’ or ‘independent’ student. It also recommended that student allowances should be adjusted twice a year to apply from the beginning of January and July and that the adjustment, if possible, should be based on the figures for the immediately preceding quarter of a student allowance adjustment index to be devised by the appropriate branch of the Department of Education. This, of course, is another repudiation of the theory of indexation.

The Government claims that it supports indexation but it has now abolished it.

The Committee recommended a complex means test on parental income to operate differently according to the age of the student. It was assumed that parental responsibility for the student might legitimately diminish with the increasing age of the student. I have no time to go into the complications of this means test but, for those who are interested, it is set out in paragraph 13 (a) and 13 (b) of the recommendations of the Williams committee. The report of that Committee was not rejected by the Labor Cabinet but the Labor Cabinet could not in the Hayden Budget face the quite onerous increase involved because it was felt that there were higher priorities in other areas of education. It was not that we took money away from the field of education. It was, however, recognised that the analysis by the Committee was the most scientific study ever undertaken into the problems of the tertiary allowance. It was a high powered committee consisting of, apart from Dr Williams, Emeritus Professor G. A. Barclay, Deputy Vice-Chancellor of the Macquarie University, Mr N. K. McLean, President in 1974 of the Australian Union of Students, and Mr E. S. Rolfe, Assistant Secretary of the Department of Education.

An amount of $2,200 a year in January 1975 would have represented about $42.30 a week at that time. In the October 1976 value of the dollar this would probably represent in the vicinity of $50 a week. We need to face the fact that this is an assessment of need. The Government, by bringing forward these increases, has in fact not gone all the way in meeting the needs of the students at this particular time of high inflation which is eroding the value of fixed fees and wages. There is probably no case to be made out for making the basic living allowance for tertiary students greater than the unemployment allowance except that in addition to a sum at least equal to the unemployment allowance there should be a certain incidental allowance for costs that students must meet above their cost of living. This includes the provision of necessary textbooks, etc.

The Government has merely pretended that it has restored triennial funding of tertiary education. It has not. Its so-called ‘rolling triennium ‘ is in fact an annual assessment and the Minister for Education admitted as much just a few moments ago. The Government will no doubt claim also that it has restored the tertiary allowance. Incidentally I take nothing of the legitimate credit from the Minister for his battle to make the scheme more generous. But the fact is that the real need is to return to the Williams report and to update it. Until that is done we will not be operating upon a scientific assessment of student needs.

I look briefly at some of the provisions that are supposed to be included in the statement laid down by the Minister. In the first instance, he expressed concern that many students were suffering hardship. But the decision announced has been delayed too long and now it is not going to be implemented until next year- 1977. Students were led to believe, on the other hand, that increases would be announced in the August Budget. In this they were bitterly disappointed. Noises had been made by Government Ministers and Government supporters prior to the bringing down of the Budget to the effect that this was what the students could expect. They did not get it. Instead we saw the establishment of another interdepartmental committee to delay decisions in order to avoid any increase in 1976 when the Government could have operated profitably, politically and otherwise, on the recommendations contained in the Williams report which was presented last year. Under those circumstances there was no need for a further inquiry.

Students will find again that the increase will be swiftly eroded because of the inability of the Government to control inflation. We shall be saying more about that in a debate later this afternoon. The Government has ignored the impact of inflation in holding at $ 1 ,500 the maximum personal income that a student may earn without affecting his or her allowance. This will now for the first time include income earned during the long vacation. The Government is giving with one hand and taking away with the other. In addition, the assistance a student may receive from another award without affecting his or her Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme allowance will be reduced from $600 to $150. 1 quote just 2 instances of the people who will be affected by this: There are 5800 students in Victoria and 2600 students in South Australia who receive a non-bonded State education scholarship. This for them means an effective decrease of $9 a week. I hope that the points I am making will be taken on board by the Minister and if they can be rectified I hope that he will rectify them.

In another search for cents, the maximum adjusted family income which attracts the full allowance will be increased by only $600 to $8,200 a year, again despite high inflation. The abatement of allowances for incomes above $8,200 will be increased from $2 to $2.50 in every $ 10. 1 wonder how many families earning less than $8,200 a year could live on that income. I suggest to the Minister, with great respect, that there would not be many. In the case of the secondary allowance scheme to assist families to keep children at high school the maximum allowance has been increased by only $100 whilst the maximum family income to attract the full allowance has been increased from $4,300 to only $5, 1 50.

The means test that is going to be apllied in regard to Aboriginal education assistance is not welcomed greatly by me. I note that that policy is not going to operate for another year. I hope that in any investigations the Government will give full weight to the fact that in the Aboriginal community the youngsters are worse off than all other sections of the community. They need this educational assistance and if they do not get it there will be children who will be forced to drop out of school. I hope that it is not necessary at this point of time to apply the means test. If it is going to be done, I hope it will be done fairly so that anybody who will be disadvantaged will not suffer as a result. The Opposition welcomes the increase in student allowances but is critical of the fact that the Government has taken a long time to do this. It has spent all these months blaming the previous Government and now, when it brings down an increase in allowances they are half or even less than half of what the allowances ought to be.

Debate (on motion by Senator Carrick) adjourned.

page 1030

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Matter of Urgency

The PRESIDENT:

– I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter from Senator Keeffe. 6 October, 1976.

Dear Mr President,

In accordance with Standing Order 64, 1 give notice that on Wednesday, 6 October, I shall move:

That in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The failure of the Government to rectify the critical unemployment situation in Australia, and in particular the serious problem now confronting those under 20 years of age.’

Is the motion supported?

More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places-

Suspension of Standing Orders

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

-I move:

That so much of standing order 64 be suspended as would prevent time being made available for any senator from the

State of Tasmania speaking on the matter of urgency concerning unemployment which, in Tasmania, is at a higher level than in any other State.

I am loath to move this motion but I am forced to do so because my name is not on the list of speakers. Not only is my name not on the list of speakers; the name of only one other Tasmanian senator is on the list of speakers even though Tasmania has the highest unemployment rate in Australia. Senator Archer is listed to speak but his name appears right down at the bottom of the speakers’ list, under the dotted line which, I am informed, is the point at which this debate will be gagged. So, in effect, no Tasmanian senator will be able to speak on this matter of very grave importance. I do not wish to delay the proceedings of the Senate but I believe that Tasmanian senators ought to be in the forefront of a debate on this matter of unemployment. The situation in my State is that whilst overall unemployment in Australia, according to the last figures available in August, is running at a rate of 4.4 per cent, the figure for Tasmania is S.3 per cent.

The proposed urgency motion also deals with the serious problems confronting persons under 20 years of age who are unemployed. On an Australiawide basis 38 per cent of the total unemployed are teenagers, but in Tasmania the proportion is 45 per cent. Of last year’s school leavers, the proportion unemployed, according to the last figure published in May- if these figures are out of date, do not blame the Senate or the public, blame the Government for not updating them- is 14.2 per cent for the whole of Australia, but in Tasmania the proportion is 2 1.3 per cent. In the 2 years since August 1 974 -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! The honourable senator must confine his remarks at this stage to the reason why he seeks suspension of the Standing Orders. I also ask the honourable senator to provide me with a copy of his motion.

Senator HARRADINE:

– Thank you, Mr President. I remind the Senate that the motion is:

That so much of standing order 64 be suspended as would prevent time being made available for any senator from the State of Tasmania speaking on the matter of urgency concerning unemployment which, in Tasmania, is at a higher level than in any other State.

In the 2 years since August 1974 the rate of unemployment has more than doubled in Tasmania whilst the number of vacancies has shrunk by 25 per cent. This truly is a very serious situation and it would be extraordinary in the extreme for a discussion on a matter of public importance to exclude any submissions or contributions from the State which is worst affected by unemployment. I call upon all Tasmanian senators to support the motion.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is the motion seconded?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I second the motion that has been moved by Senator Harradine. We of the Opposition are delighted to know that Senator Harradine agrees with us as to the urgency of the serious problem of unemployment which is the subject of the motion that the Opposition proposes to put to the Senate. The Labor movement readily concedes that there is serious unemployment in Tasmania as there is very serious unemployment in every other State of the nation. It is a great pity, I suppose, that a period of only 3 hours is allotted for debate on an urgency motion of this nature, when representatives of every State, and indeed every senator in this chamber, seek to express their attitudes on the problem of unemployment. If Senator Harradine wishes to speak in support of the necessity to overcome the problem of unemployment in Tasmania, the Opposition certainly will not set out to gag him or to silence him. Therefore, on behalf of the Opposition, I support Senator Harradine ‘s motion.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– The Government opposes the motion to suspend the Standing Orders because it is simply totally unnecessary. I am rather staggered by the hypocrisy of Senator Douglas McClelland speaking for the Opposition about how the Opposition will not try to gag Senator Harradine and how delighted it is to have Senator Harradine ‘s support. If it is so delighted to have Senator Harradine ‘s support it can make room for him quite easily if it so desires among its speakers in support of the motion. It is total hypocrisy for Senator Douglas McClelland to get up in this House and make statements like that.

Senator Harradine has been in this House long enough to know something about the Standing Orders and the procedures of this House. If he wants to speak on this motion he ought to know perfectly well how to go about it. He does not need to grandstand by moving a motion to suspend the Standing Orders in order to enable him to speak. For those reasons the Government opposes the motion to suspend Standing Orders. The Standing Orders allow a 3-hour debate on the motion, which is ample time for Senator Harradine or other senators from Tasmania or any other State who may have a particular interest in this matter of unemployment to speak. At this stage there is absolutely no suggestion of any arrangements being made to gag the debate at any particular time or to prevent any senators from speaking in the debate. For all those reasons, the Government opposes the motion to suspend Standing Orders.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– Again I have to clear up a point. A discussion of a matter of public importance was proposed and was discussed by the Whips. More Opposition senators than could be accommodated indicated that they wished to speak on this matter. After the speakers list had been compiled, I received a note from Senator Harradine which stated:

I notice there is an urgency motion, the subject matter of which I support and wish to speak on.

I indicated to Senator Harradine that unfortunately debate is limited to a certain length of time. The speakers list was already completed and I informed Senator Harradine that in that situation the Opposition could not drop a speaker, suggest to Senator Harradine that he should anticipate the program of the day and list his name with the Whips for consideration or take other steps, but that he ought not to endeavour to enter the debate at a late stage. However, I am pleased to see that he is prepared to support this very important motion and that Senator Douglas McClelland is prepared to second the motion to suspend Standing Orders. The Opposition supports the proposition that there should be a suspension of the Standing Orders to allow full debate on this matter.

Senator Harradine:

– Is that the end of the debate? I claim to have been misrepresented. I want to make a personal explanation.

Senator Rae:

– I take it that Senator Harradine ‘s personal explanation will not close the debate.

The PRESIDENT:

– No. I call Senator Harradine.

Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania)-Thank you, Mr President. I take the strongest exception to the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Senator Durack) accusing me of grandstanding. As the Opposition Whip, Senator Georges, mentioned, I wrote him a note when I noticed that there was an urgency motion listed for debate. At that time his list was full. I advised the Deputy Government Whip that I wished to speak. She quite rightly said that I should seek a place on the Opposition ‘s speakers list since I was supporting the motion. I will not beg of the Minister or of the Opposition the right to speak in this chamber on a subject matter of vital importance to my State. I request you, Mr President, in view of the attitude that is being adopted, to look this way sometime and to ignore the speakers list during the urgency debate.

Senator CHANEY:
Western Australia

– There are probably three of four people listening who do not understand the rules under which this debate shall proceed. The first rule is that there is a limited period for debate- a period of 3 hours. The Opposition has put forward this matter of urgency and, needless to say, has put forward a full slate of speakers to support its motion. If Senator Harradine thinks this matter is so important I suggest that he use the procedures of the Senate to bring forward his own matter of urgency instead of trying to ride on the back of the Opposition.

Senator Harradine:

– Will I get your support?

Senator CHANEY:

– We will wait and see.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I want to clarify finally what still appears to be some confusion so far as Senator Harradine and the Australian Labor Party are concerned. Whilst the Opposition is apparently supporting Senator Harradine ‘s motion and recognising the importance of allowing him to speak on the situation in Tasmania, it is apparently doing so with a degree of hypocrisy in that it is not prepared to make way for him to participate in the debate by any other means. I wonder whether the genuineness or otherwise of its support of his motion might be determined by allowing him to speak at an appropriate stage in the debate. If the motion fans at this stage, I wonder whether the Opposition would not then be committed to allowing him to speak by making way for him at an appropriate stage. I hope and trust that it will so that it can have the opportunity of hearing him speak of the seriousness of the situation in Tasmania. If Senator Harradine speaks perhaps he should give some thought to seeking to change the terms of the matter of urgency because in my view the matter of urgency should read: “The failure of the State Labor Government in Tasmania to rectify the critical unemployment situation in that State, an opportunity it had but refused to take in its recent State Budget’.

Question resolved in the negative.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– After that little kerfuffle, and the support that we got from an unexpected quarter, for the sake of the listening audience, I think I should move the motion straight away. I move:

That in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The failure of the Government to rectify the critical unemployment situation in Australia, and in particular the serious problems now confronting those under 20 years of age.

I want to talk a little firstly about the background to the motion. I know that this subject is a very touchy one so far as members of the Government are concerned. We have noted in this chamber in the last day or two a more dignified approach by Ministers, apparently as a result of a little lecture they had a few days ago. I hope my speech will not provoke them into making wild statements, as they have been wont to do in more recent times. In 1974 and 1975 the then members of the Opposition claimed that they had the remedy for unemployment, for inflation and for everything except ingrown toenails. They said that the answer was so simple that all that was needed was a change in government. On 1 1 November 1975 the Government was changed. The election on 13 December 1975 confirmed the new Government. The situation did not improve. When we went out of government, as one of our speakers said in a debate on the economy in this chamber a few weeks ago, the number of unemployed was decreasing; so was the rate of inflation. It is only since the election of the new Government that inflation has shown no signs of being controlled by the new economic measures used by the current Government. Unemployment has reached a tragic level so far as the people of this country are concerned. In particular, it affects school leavers who will be leaving school at the end of this year. It affects those who were not able to get jobs last year and who had to go back to school.

The present situation proves one point. The basic policies and philosophies of the Liberal Party are wrong. It has this paranoia about trying to get rid of inflation, instead of looking at things in other areas that ought to be looked at. Human values are much more important than some sort of temporary political expedient that might be adjusted to suit particular philosophies. At a recent lecture at a college of advanced education I was asked what was the basic difference in philosophies between the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal Party. I said that the Liberal Party is interested in private enterprise, the so-called free enterprise system, and cares nothing for people. On our side, we are interested in every individual in the community. If one or two big monopolies kick their toes in the process, that is no skin off our political noses. Early in the piece we warned that a cut back on spending in the public sector would cause a crisis in the employment field. Our words of that time have been proved correct because it is the severe cut back of the public sector that has done most of the damage to date. We must look at the problem as an on-going process. When the Government starts to make repairs, even if they are running repairs, as they will be, the closer we get to an election, there will be a tremendous amount of catching up to do on the administrative side before it can even put people back into employment.

The Government further aggravated the situation in recent weeks by not quoting the seasonally adjusted unemployment figures. I know it is a bit embarrassing to quote them, so now it is producing for the population of Australia the raw figures. It does not matter how the Government approaches this matter, there is no way that unemployment will go away with the present political decisions that this Government has taken. There are too many unemployed to push under the carpet, there are too many to push in the nearest river, there are too many to dispose of in any way that will help the Government. I will cite in a moment a series of figures. In particular I will cite in detail some figures for Western Australia. These figures relate to areas in which I have a particular responsibility- the north of Australia. I think the record ought to be put straight by some statistics that we need to cite to back up our arguments in this debate.

I refer firstly to the number of unemployed in the 1 5 to 1 9-year old group. The total was 90 000 in August of this year. Those are the latest available figures. In that age group 12.6 per cent of the labour force is unemployed. That is, one in eight of the labour force aged 15 to 19 years is unable to find any sort of job, temporary or otherwise. The unemployment rate for persons aged 20 years and over is 3.2 per cent. The percentage of unemployed people in the younger group is almost four times the percentage of unemployed people in the older group. Six per cent of females are unemployed. Two per cent of all family heads in Australia are unemployed. For 2 families in every 100 the state of affairs is disastrous because the breadwinner is not able to earn the weekly income needed to sustain the family.

I want to go across the board and describe where some of these unfilled vacancies and unemployed people are. In the rural sector there are 7795 unemployed, and they are competing for 250 vacancies. In the professional and semi- professional area there are 7233 unemployed, and in this higher academic field there are only 1738 vacancies. In the clerical and administrative areas there are 69 131 unemployed and 5136 jobs available. The skilled building and construction area is an area where there ought to be no unemployed at all. This country is grievously short of houses. We are still short of community buildings. We are short in the whole area of building projects, but this new system of deferring projects because of financial restraints means that we are not going ahead with building projects. This means we are disbanding building teams. There are 9410 skilled building trades people unemployed. The vacancies to be filled amount to only 876. In the skilled metal and electrical trades there are 10 348 unemployed and 3322 vacancies. There are a number of other skilled people who are not listed because they come under various small categories. In this area there are 3437 unemployed and 930 vacancies. In the semi-skilled area there are 70 282 people out of work and there are only 4881 jobs going. In the unskilled manual field there are 62 314 without a job and only 1099 vacancies. In the service occupations there are almost 28 000 people out of a job but only 273 1 vacancies.

There is a wide difference between the levels of actual unemployment in the States. We heard Senator Harradine a while ago talking about the very high rate of unemployment in Tasmania. In fact, the percentage he gave is not quite true. Tasmania is not the worst area in Australia. The Northern Territory is the worst in Australia. This is where the highest group of unemployed is. This is an area where the Australian Government has total control over the work force and everything that goes with it, and where it ought to be able to keep unemployment down. The Opposition has previously given figures to show that since this Government was elected unemployment in most parts of the Northern Territory has increased by up to 50 per cent over a period of a few months. In New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory there are 117 000 unemployed, which constitutes 5.1 per cent of the work force. In Victoria the figure is 62 400 or 3.8 per cent. In Queensland it is 37 500 or 4.4 per cent. Incidentally, the latest available figures, which have not yet been published totally, show that that has gone up by a considerable number. In South Australia the figure is 80 300 or 3.3 per cent of the work force. That is the lowest figure in Australia. In Western Australia it is 20 900 or 3.9 per cent. I will be able to give more detailed figures on Western Australia in a few moments. In Tasmania the figure is 9200 or 5.3 per cent, and in the Northern Territory it is 2 1 50 or 5 .4 per cent of the work force. The most severe decline in employment during the last year was a fall of 1 1 per cent in building and construction employment. This is an important point to take into consideration when we realise that a whole group of people are depending on homes. There are kids waiting for schools. There are sick people waiting for hospitals. So it goes right across the board. This apparently does not concern the Government in any way.

I want to give figures for Western Australia which have been taken out in very great detail from a very reliable source. They have been compiled through the trade union organisation. In June 1976, the most recent month for which statistics are available, the Western Australian civilian work force stood at 379 000-243 000 males and 136 000 females. The largest industries at that time were community and business services, which constituted 20 per cent, manufacturing 19 per cent, wholesale and retail trading 17.5 per cent, and building and construction 8.6 per cent. Those who read the figures I am giving will need additional detail that I have. I do not want to bore the Senate with it, but I think it is essential to put everything in its right perspective so it can be readily understood by those who want to make an examination of it afterwards. Since June 1966 the work force in Western Australia has grown by 122 000 or 47 per cent- 34 per cent for males and 78 per cent for females. The population during the same period increased by about 30 per cent or 1 7 per cent less than the increase in the work force. The major industry contributing to that increase was community and business services, which accounted for 28 per cent of the increase, followed by wholesale and retail trading with 13 per cent, amusements, hotels and personal services, etc. with 13 percent, manufacturing with 10 per cent, and mining with 10 per cent. I have figures for the fastest growing industries in that period. I seek leave of the Senate to have the balance of the figures I have incorporated in Hansard.

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

The document read as follows-

The fastest growing industries in the period June, 1966 to June, 1973 were mining (162 per cent), amusements, etc. (107 per cent), community and business services (86 per cent), public authorities (73 per cent), manufacturing (21 per cent), building and construction (18 per cent) and transport ( 1 1 per cent).

Although the female work force had grown much faster than the male work force over the nine year period, in recent times between June, 197S and June, 1976, the female workforce did not expand at all, while the male work force grew by 5000 or by 2 per cent.

In the twelve months for June, 1975 to June, 1976, the last full year for which statistics are available, the total work force in Western Australia grew by only 1.3 per cent of 5000 persons. The industry which contributed most to this increase was community and business services (4200) followed by building and construction (2200), mining ( 1600) and public authorities (900). Industries which declined during the period were wholesale and retail trading (-3400), manufacturing (-1500) and transport (-600).

Senator KEEFFE:

– Let us compare unemployment in June 1974 with unemployment in May 1976. For all occupational groups unemployment at least doubled. The greatest increase was experienced in the metal and electrical groups where it went up by 279 per cent. In the service group it went up by 177 per cent, in the clerical group by 164 per cent, and in the unskilled group by 152 per cent. In terms of their contribution to the increase in unemployment from June 1974, the most significant occupational groups were the clerical, semi-skilled, unskilled and service groups, which between them accounted for 85.6 per cent of the increase. The building, metal and other trades accounted for only 7.5 per cent of that increase.

Total unemployment in Western Australia stood at nearly 20 000 in May 1976 compared with 16 500 in May 1975. It is here that we want to make the comparison, because in May 1975 honourable senators opposite were castigating the then Labor Government and saying that when they took office they would be able to increase the work force and put confidence back into the private sector. Ever since they have been in Government the private sector has suffered from economic constipation. It is not game to spend 2c because it does not know what will happen to it after it has put the money into a project. The Government has not restored confidence to the private sector and it has failed to overcome unemployment, as it has failed to overcome inflation. I believe the great difference in the 2 sets of figures I have given speaks for itself.

If the figures for that period were seasonally adjusted, the figures would be 21 800 in May 1976 compared with 17 250 in May last year. In actual terms, 3.8 per cent of the work force was unemployed in May 1976, and in seasonally adjusted terms nearly 4.2 per cent was unemployed. In the last 12 months the actual number of unemployed persons had increased by 2 1 per cent. When seasonally adjusted, the increase was 26 per cent. The Government is cheating by supplying only the raw figures to the community when it makes unemployment statistics available. In other words, the increase in seasonally adjusted figures would amount to 5 percent over and above what it now appears to be.

Unfilled vacancies really show up the economic health of a country. If a country is economically viable- Australia is not at the moment because of the way the Government is knocking it around- there is a greater number of vacancies than are indicated in the registrations we have seen over the last 6 or 8 months. The total actual unfilled vacancies stood at 1800 in May 1976, but in May 1975 they were 2600, and a year earlier there were 4326 unfilled vacancies. That is an amazing decline as a result of the policies of the Liberal Government. I might say that Western Australia and Queensland do not have nonconservative State governments. It is very much like the one under which we suffer in Queensland. In seasonally adjusted terms, there were 1900 vacancies in May 1976 compared with 2700 vacancies in May 1 975. This means a decrease of 30.7 per cent in actual terms or 29.6 per cent in seasonally adjusted terms.

Further interesting factors are revealed when one examines the details of age and sex variations. In the 12 months to May 1976 unemployment amongst adult males increased by 22 per cent, and amongst adult females by 8 per cent, but unemployment amongst junior males increased by 28 per cent and by 27 per cent amongst junior females. So there is a wide variation and it is the young people again who are taking the brunt of the problems caused by unemployment. The proportion of juniors under 2 1 years of age, including school-leavers, in the total number unemployed has been increasing steadily in recent years. In May 1973 they accounted for 33 per cent of the total and by May 1 976 this had grown to 41 per cent. In the case of unfilled vacancies the decrease in the 12 months to May 1976 was 47 per cent for adult males, 14 per cent for adult females, 21 per cent for junior males and 31 per cent for junior females. The greatest increases in unemployment in that State were recorded at Esperence and Kalgoorlie, which both recorded 58 per cent, and at Port Hedlandwhich is in the centre of a mining area- the increase was 5 1 per cent. In other isolated areas the percentage increase was similar. These areas depend on mining, transport and tourism but they do not offer a wide variation of occupations. In May 1 976 there were 15.1 job seekers for each vacancy in the metropolitan area compared with 7.2 in the non-metropolitan area. In the nonmetropolitan area the worst centres were Port Hedland, with 20 job-seekers for each vacancy, Bunbury with 13 and Kwinana with 12.4. Most other country centres had about three or four job-seekers for each vacancy.

I turn now to the statistics for occupational variations. These are interesting. In the 12 months to May 1976 total actual unemployment increased by 2 1 per cent- 22 per cent for adult males, 8 per cent for adult females, 28 per cent for junior males and 27 per cent for junior females. There is a variation in the clerical area and in the semi-skilled classifications. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table showing the number of job-seekers for each notified vacancy according to occupation.

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

The table read as follows-

Number of job seekers for each notified vacancy at May 1975 and May 1976 for males and females according to occupation.

Senator KEEFFE:

-The Government has come up with all sorts of ideas, but nothing of any great substance, in its alleged efforts to overcome unemployment. I want to refer to some of the things that the Australian Labor Party Government endeavoured to do in order to maintain the dignity of unemployed people. It found different types of work for them even if that work had to be funded by the public. It is interesting to compare the figures for the payment of unemployment benefits now with the figures on the benefits which the Labor Government paid in total under the Regional Employment Development scheme. The influence of the abolition of the RED scheme can be seen in the following figures. In May 1973 there were 27 053 persons employed throughout Australia under the RED scheme. This represented 1 1 per cent of the number who remained unemployed at that time. The scheme peaked in July 1975 when 32 000 were so employed. If a proportionate number of persons were employed in Western Australia under the RED scheme, 1813 would have been so employed in that State. The abolition of the RED scheme would therefore have accounted for about half the increase of 3482 which has occurred in unemployed persons in Western Australia in the 12 months to May 1976.

The Government has now come up with the suggestion of subsidising employers. This will not lead to an increase in the number of people placed in jobs. The smart employer will sack some of his staff so that he can take on a subsidised employee. So that is not the answer. Obviously the answer is an economic one. It is obvious that the Government must take a serious look at restoring the cuts in public sector spending. It has a paranoid idea that if it can get rid of inflation it will solve Australia’s ills. Other countries have had to live with inflation. If the Government gets rid pf inflation the chances are that there will be no Australia left, because everybody will be out of a job.

As I said earlier, there ought to be no unemployment at all in the building sector where many projects need to be commenced and carried out. The recent expansion in the building and construction workforce since June 1974 seems to have slowed and there are now some signs that the trend may be reversing. It is clear that in order to overcome the worst of the current unemployment the recent expansion in the tertiary sector will have to be maintained. Nearly half of those unemployed in May 1976 are associated with this sector. As for the other half of those unemployed, the overwhelming majority are unskilled or semi-skilled, of which 60 per cent are adult males and 30 per cent junior males. This group in total involves about 8500 persons in Western Australia. It is necessary therefore to look to expansion in industries which are likely to provide employment for this group. Since 31 December 1975 this Government has paid out $423,096,093 in unemployment benefits. The total payments under Labor for the RED scheme amounted to only $182,900,000, which is substantially less than the amount paid out this year in unemployment benefits.

If the Government is not very interested in unemployment a lot of other people in the community, including some sections of the media, are worried about it. I want to refer to a question which was asked in another place by the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren) when he was seeking information from the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street). The Minister gave a long-winded reply, but the facts quoted by Mr Uren ought to go into the record. He said that 40 per cent of unemployed people are aged 20 years or less whilst only 12 per cent of the workforce is in that age category. This gives emphasis to that part of the matter of urgency that refers to people under 20 years of age who are unable to get a job. Today the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick), made a statement about education allowances. Students, who are unable to survive on their allowance now, have little or no opportunity to pick up weekend or night work. They certainly have no opportunity of picking up work during the school vacation period. So there are lots of young people who, due to economic circumstances, will not be able to continue with their education and will have to abandon promising careers. Mr Uren went on to say that in metropolitan areas an average of 35 people are registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service for every job vacancy whereas in non-metropolitan areas the average is 600 registrations for every job vacancy. This is an indictment of the National Country Party which is supposed to be speaking out on behalf of the people who live in isolated areas. When the Budget was introduced we had a famous statement made by the Treasurer, Mr Lynch. He said that he rejected suggestions that his Budget deliberately set out to increase unemployment. He can fool some of the people for a little bit of the time but he will not fool Australia on this occasion. That Budget is best described by this statement that was published in a newspaper:

The intention is revealed in documents attached to the Budget. These show that the Government’s basic estimates on tax collections are on the premise that the level of employment will increase only by 1.5 per cent on the present high level. However, other estimates show that the labor force in Australia will increase by two per cent this financial year. The Budget tells workers to ask for less in wages and salary, and at the same time says: ‘spend more ‘.

It is to be noted that company profits have not decreased substantially except where there has been bad management. On 25 August, a few days after the Budget was introduced, the following appeared in an editorial in the Melbourne Age:

A senior official of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Peter Kirby, has disclosed that while teenagers represent only 12 per cent of the work force, they account for 40 per cent of the jobless.

These are the figures I quoted only a few moments ago. It continued:

Contrary to a popular view of unemployed youngsters as dole bludgers, the reality is that only one job vacancy exists for every 35 under-20-year-olds registered as looking for work. In some categories and regions the situation is very much worse; for instance, the ratio is 600: 1 for unskilled junior males in rural New South Wales. A common remedy is to encourage youngsters to stay at school longer, and some 20 000 have done so in the past 2 years. Unfortunately, this simply postpones the problem.

It does not overcome the problem. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations on 22 September 1976 issued a Press statement saying that the new system of subsidy would be introduced. We have to look seriously at this. It may be a temporary expedient in some way or other but there are people who will take advantage of it and they will not be those who need the jobs. There are others who want some feeling of security put into the community so that they can fight their own battles. I have said enough to make the point that the Opposition and the Australian community are worried about the continuing and increasing level of unemployment. The onus is on the Government to produce some scheme and initiate some drive in the community so that there will be a definite attempt by the public and private sectors to bring about the sort of feeling that existed while the Labor Government was in office.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– The speech that was just made by Senator Keeffe, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in this chamber, was one of the most notable performances of Satan rebuking sin that I have. heard. He brings forward for debate in the Senate this afternoon a complaint that the Government has failed to rectify the critical unemployment situation in Australia and he points in particular to the serious problems confronting those under 20 years of age. I want to say at the outset of this debate on behalf of the Government, and with all the emphasis at my command, that the Government is particularly concerned about the level of unemployment in Australia and is constantly giving the deepest thought to ways in which this level of unemployment can be reduced. It is not in any shape or form a matter for Government complacency that we have a continuing high level of unemployment, a level which certainly is high by Australia’s past standards and one which is remarkably and distressingly high by comparison with the very low level that pertained in Australia during the 23 years of the previous Liberal-Country Party Government from 1949 to 1972.

I want to give the Senate figures which show the rapid decline from the high level of employment and low level of inflation that we enjoyed during that remarkable period of Australian prosperity and development to which I have just referred. These figures speak for themselves and are a great indictment of the previous Labor Government which Senator Keeffe, who complains here today, supported, Although he was not a member of the Government he supported it strongly in its 3 years in office. Many honourable senators opposite were members of that Labor Government. When the Liberal-Country Party

Government went out of office in December 1972 the number of unemployed in Australia was 110 000. That was the November 1972 figure. It was on the high side compared with the previous 23 years, but during the period from November 1972 to November 1975 unemployment in this country under a Labor Government, of which many honourable senators opposite, who are supporters today of the motion moved by Senator Keeffe, were members, rose from 1 10 000 to 265 000. In December last when this Government was re-elected, the number of unemployed in this country was 328 000. That is why I said that the speech just heard from Senator Keeffe was a great example of Satan rebuking sin. It was the record of the Labor Government during those 3 distressing and devastating years for this nation and the economy which led to a state of affairs with which the present Government is forced to grapple and which is causing the problems that we face today.

Some of the matters raised by Senator Keeffe in his speech are even more remarkable. I have cited the overall figures and have shown the rapid increase in unemployment during the period of the Labor Government. However, Senator Keeffe specified certain areas which he said were of concern and singled out 3 areas which were particularly affected by high levels of unemployment. He mentioned first, rural areas, and he pointed out the great excess of numbers seeking employment over vacancies in rural areas. He then referred to similar statistics in relation to the building industry and also statistics for the Northern Territory and Western Australia. I do not think I need to remind the Senate and those who might be listening to this debate- certainly I do not need to take very long in doing it- that it was the disastrous rural policies of the Labor Government that practically brought rural industries to their knees. It was the disastrous policies of the Labor Government in respect of the mining industry, which greatly affected the Northern Territory and Western Australia. The development of the mining industry was of vital importance to the Northern Territory and to Western Australia.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Do not blame us for the situation in Kalgoorlie. It is your fault.

Senator DURACK:

– It was the 3 years of Labor Government, supported by Senator Keeffe, by Senator Mulvihill and by all the other Labor senators who now sit opposite- most of them were in this place during Labor’s term of office- that almost killed off the mining industry in Australia and certainly brought its development to a standstill. Yet Senator Keeffe has the gall to stand up in this place today and quote unemployment figures, particularly in areas where the rural industry and the mining industry are vitally important, as examples of the failure of this Government to do anything about the levels of unemployment. Senator Keeffe also referred to unemployment in the building industry. Can any honourable senator trunk of an industry that is more affected by inflation than the building industry? It was the disastrous economic policies of the Labor Government during its 3 years in office which not only created record levels of unemployment in Australia but also created record levels of inflation. I believe they were brought about by the failure of the Labor Government, now the Opposition in this place, to perceive the vital inter-relationship between inflation and unemployment. The economic policies of the Labor Government, which created the record levels of inflation in that 3 years, led inevitably and inexorably to unemployment which, as I said, had reached record levels at the end of Labor’s term of office last year.

We as a Government inherited this very difficult and serious economic situation in this nation when we took office in December of last year. As I said, we inherited unemployment of 328 000 people. We inherited a record level of inflation. In the election campaign last year the present Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), who was then the Leader of the Opposition, made it perfectly clear that it would take a period of time- in fact it would probably take a period of up to 3 years- to restore to a normal state the shattered economy which we had inherited from the Labor Government. That is the crux of the present problems we face with the present level of unemployment. I want to emphasise that although in November 1975 265 000 people were unemployed and the number rose to 328 000 in December, the latest available figures which are the August figures show that unemployment is 267 000 and we have been in office for a period of only some months. Such a level of unemployment is unacceptable to this Government and it is a matter of great concern to this Government.

Senator Keeffe:

– Explain them.

Senator DURACK:

– I will explain to Senator Keeffe the actions we are taking.

Senator Keeffe:

– They are raw figures.

Senator DURACK:

– I am quoting raw figures. I am comparing like with like.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– You are not. You are comparing the August figures with the December figures.

Senator DURACK:

– I am giving these figures to show that unemployment has not risen in any dramatic way during the life of this Government. I am comparing unemployment over a period of time to show how unemployment rose dramatically during the life of the previous Government.

I now refer to another striking feature in the speech by Senator Keeffe. I have already mentioned his inability- and it seems to be an inability on the part of the Labor Party whether it is in government of in Opposition- to understand the vital connection between inflation and unemployment and to recognise the cause of inflation or the cause of unemployment. I will deal with this in a moment. Another striking feature of the speech by Senator Keeffe this afternoon was the complete absence from it of any suggestion whatever of policies which the Opposition believes may solve the present problems. All the Opposition has done this afternoon is to quote statistics which are readily available and are well known. Senator Keeffe spent most of his time doing just that and he never at any stage indicated what policy the Labor Party had to solve the existing problems.

I turn for a few moments to what the Government considers to be the vital problem. The underlying and basic cause of unemployment in this country has been the wage explosion which occurred during the 3 years of the Labor Government. I will just quote the broad average weekly earnings increases. The increase in 1 973 was 1 5 per cent. In 1 974 it was 27 per cent and in 1975 the increase was 13 per cent. Over that period of 3 years in which Labor was in office there was in excess of a 50 per cent increase in average weekly earnings. Yet in the same period of time productivity increased by less than 5 per cent. No economy can withstand that type of pressure. It is correctly described, I believe, as a wage explosion and it is the underlying cause of our present economic illness. That is why this Government has maintained from the time of its election to office that there must be a proper degree of wage restraint as an absolute precondition to the solution of the twin problems and inter-related problems of inflation and unemployment.

Senator Gietzelt:

– Why is it that you never mention prices?

Senator DURACK:

-Senator Gietzelt mentions prices. This Government does not run away from prices. We have maintained the Prices Justification Tribunal. We intend to maintain it. Everybody in this community knows that we intend to maintain the Tribunal.

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– It was an afterthought.

Senator DURACK:

-It was not an afterthought. It was stated by the Government in the very first months of coming to office that we were going to keep the Prices Justification Tribunal.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– You have modified its terms of operation.

Senator DURACK:

– It is now very funny. Apparently we are being criticised by the Opposition for our decision to keep the Tribunal. Are Opposition members suggesting that that is a wrong policy? Is that what you are suggesting?

Senator Gietzelt:

– No. We are suggesting that prices are still going up.

Senator DURACK:

– You are getting nowhere with your argument because we are keeping the Tribunal.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Davidson)- Order! Interjections shall cease. I ask Senator Durack to address the Chair.

Senator DURACK:

-Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. The key to the problem facing us is the maintenance of policies of wage restraint and the advocacy of such policies before the arbitral tribunals of this country. As I said, that is the linchpin of the Government’s policy and it is vital to the solution of the problems of inflation and unemployment because the two are related. I do not think this can be emphasised too often. Apparently it has to be emphasised because the Labor Party does not understand this for one minute and this is apparent from the terms of this matter of urgency. I am surprised in a way that the Labor Party does not understand it because a former Labor Treasurer, Mr Crean, funnily enough- admittedly he was sacked by his Leader; perhaps because he said this- perceived this fundamental truth when he was Treasurer. He made the very important statement that one man ‘s wage increase was another man ‘s job. The matter is as simple as that and it has been proved over and over again.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– He has made that statement since, I think.

Senator DURACK:

– The honourable senator is quite right. The fact does not seem to be able to be understood by the Labor senators opposite. We will keep repeating it and hopefully Mr Crean will keep repeating it as well. It is a fundamental truth that the excessive wage demands and increases in wage rates which occurred and which were encouraged by the Labor Party in government were the cause not only of inflation but also of the great reduction in the number of jobs throughout this country.

In the latter part of my speech I will turn to some of the measures which the Government has taken and will continue to take in regard to the problem of unemployment and particularly in regard to the unemployment of our youths. Firstly I deal with the steps that the Government has taken broadly in relation to the problems of inflation and unemployment. As I said, the two cannot be discussed separately. I have mentioned our policies of wage restraint, policies which the Government is pleased to note appear to be working despite the provocations of many members of the Labor Party and the union movement. The policies on wage restraint now seem to be understood and accepted by large numbers of rank and file members of the union movement. The Government sincerely hopes that that recognition will continue. As I have said, it is absolutely vital to the solution of this problem. The policies are now being understood and accepted by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The Government hopes that the Commission will continue to follow the policies in its quarterly decisions.

The next policy of vital importance has been the encouragement to the private sector. The private sector provides three out of 4 jobs in this country. The previous Labor Government not only permitted the private sector to run down but also I think in many ways encouraged and hastened it. This is a serious contributing factor to our present problems. Encouragement to the private sector is a vitally important part of the Government strategy to create more jobs and more employment. We are doing this in a number of ways, mainly, of course, by the investment allowance. This is the most extensive and generous incentive of that kind that has been given to industry. We firmly believe that the allowance is showing signs of contributing to an upturn in the investment by the private sector.

The Government has taken two other very important measures to encourage consumer demand. This also is a vital method of creating a demand for more jobs. The tax indexation provided in this Budget will put more money in the pockets of the people, money which hopefully they will spend. The signs are that the people are likely to spend the money, thereby providing further encouragement to the private sector to invest and to expand. The other important new initiative by the Government in this area is the increase in family allowances. We have directly put more money into the pockets of people who need it most and who are most likely to spend it immediately.

Senator Gietzelt:

– You put it in one pocket and took it out of the other.

Senator DURACK:

– We took money away- I thought Senator Gietzelt would have understood this better- from people who could afford to have it taken away and we gave it to people who desperately needed it. It was a great policy of social justice, and Senator Gietzelt, a Labor supporter, is seemingly critical of that policy. I hope people will understand where he stands and where the Labor Party stands.

I want to refer also to some recent policies of the Government which are aimed directly at the unemployment problem. Firstly I refer to the assistance for relocation of people who are in areas where there is difficulty in obtaining employment. The details of the scheme have been explained but I do not have the time to repeat them today. The Government has provided a very interesting initiative in the field of relocation assistance. People who are unemployed in one area and wish to take a job in another will be given assistance to do so. We are also maintaining and improving the National Employment and Training scheme which had been run down by the Labor Government. In its latter months in office the Labor Government ran down the numbers of people employed under the NEAT scheme. We have maintained the numbers and in fact have slightly improved them. We are certainly extending the scheme. Through NEAT and associated measures we are sharpening our focus on unemployment. We have initiated a review of the operations of the Commonwealth Employment Service. I think Senator McLaren asked earlier today whether the Service was working efficiently in South Australia. We have some concern about whether it is operating efficiently enough, and that is why we are reviewing its operations. Finally in this regard it is important and relevant to mention the inquiry which the Government is setting up into the relationship between education and the provision of skills for the labour market. We are also looking at the ways people can benefit from employment opportunities provided through the education system. I know it is a long term proposal but it is a most important one and is vitally connected with the problem of unemployment.

I turn in conclusion to some of the special measures which the Government has taken to relieve the problem of unemployment among our youth. Senator Keeffe cited some figures in this regard. The figures were correct and present the Government with a great deal of concern. I think it is important to note some figures which I hope Senator Keeffe will accept as being correct.

When we took office in December 1975- the peak period for school leavers- the number of school leavers totalled about 60 000. Of that number the vast majority have in fact found jobs. The July figures, which are the latest figures I have, show that 14 000 school leavers have not found jobs. That is a very worrying figure. We should look at the overall figure. Of the 60 000 school leavers 46 000 have found jobs. Because of our concern for those who have not found jobs- the problem is very real and we are looking at it again so far as the end of this year is concernedwe have taken some special measures. We have a special assistance program under NEAT for apprentices whose jobs are in jeopardy. We have provided in this Budget for a higher growth rate for expenditure in the technical and further education field than in any other field of education. I think that particular growth rate this year is budgeted 7 per cent higher than in the previous year. This, of course, in itself is a very important area in which the Government is providing training for those who are leaving school and who are capable of benefiting from such education.

The Government also has increased expenditure on apprenticeship programs to $4 1.5 m for the current year. Finally, the Government has introduced the new youth employment training scheme, specifically designed for that group mentioned by Senator Keeffe of youngsters aged 15 to 19 years, who face a continuing problem of finding adequate or any employment. The youth employment training scheme has been initiated only recently by the Government but it has been widely publicised. I have already heard reports of activity.

Senator Harradine:

– Have you heard of sackings of other employees to find them places?

Senator DURACK:

-No. I believe that would be unlikely to happen as a result of this scheme. Employers at the present time are hanging on to their trained, good staff. Indeed, they are providing overtime for staff in lieu of taking on new staff. I think it is most unlikely that employers will sack good and experienced employees to take on untrained people. Employers will not take on untrained people unless they are given some incentive to do so. That is the whole purpose of the Youth Employment Training scheme. I do not have much time left to me to speak in this debate but I should like to refer again to the vital problem as the Government sees it. The Government has to reduce inflation because it is only by tackling inflation that we will reduce unemployment in the long run. Senator Keeffe spoke about human values and appealed to the Government to have regard to human values in these matters. It is the less fortunate members of the community who suffer most from inflation. There is no getting away from that. As my major authority, I quote the report of the Henderson Commission of Inquiry into Poverty. In part, it states: 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. We do not believe that Australia can escape this consequence. We therefore recommend that one element essential in any program to reduce poverty in Australia is that the rate of inflation be brought under control and that the reduction be at least to a rate of less than 1 0 per cent a year.

I believe that already there are signs- the figures that we have on inflation rates this year indicate that this is so- that the Government’s strategy in this regard is succeeding. Australia’s rate of inflation certainly is lower than it was under the previous Labor Government. I believe that with goodwill in this community- I believe there is plenty of that- the Government’s strategy will work.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I want to tell the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Senator Durack) who has just spoken that the younger generation of Australians who are most vitally affected by unemployment are not impressed by this Government. Indeed, they are sick and tired of hearing the members of this Government complain that they- the members of this Government- have not been able to overcome or to rectify the problems that they say, in parrot fashion, they have inherited from the Labor Government. The Labor Government had to face 3 elections in 3 years and 2 double dissolutions in 18 months. It was a government that was frustrated, obstructed and destroyed by the tactics adopted in this Senate by honourable senators opposite. Whether the members of the Government like it or not on 13 December last they were given the opportunity by the Australian people to click the switch and turn on the lights. They have not been able to do it. They have not done it to date and they cannot do it in the future because it is the Government’s economic policy which has virtually ruined the heavy metal, manufacturing and building industries in Australia. This Government, unlike the Whitlam Labor Government, has not been hindered, frustrated or obstructed by lack of numbers in this place. This Government has had 11 months now in which to do something about clicking the switch. Unlike when we were in government the present

Government has not had the business of government taken out of its hands, as happened during the last Parliament.

The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs can make loud noises and proffer long excuses but with little success. Whilst he juggles figures and compares unlike with unlike- that is what he did by comparing the December 1975 seasonally adjusted figures with the actual figures, unadjusted, for August- he might convince himself but no one else. He said that inflation was running at the highest rate ever under the Labor Government. I should like to have incorporated in Hansard an answer that was provided by the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Cotton) to my colleague, Senator Walsh, as recently as 22 September this year when Senator Walsh, among other things, asked: . . When was the highest year on year or annual percentage increase in the consumer price index in Australia recorded, and what was that percentage increase.

The answer was that in 1951-52 there was an increase of 22.5 per cent. I should like to have that question and answer incorporated in Hansard.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Davidson)- I take it, Senator McClelland, that you have not quoted all the material.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have not.

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

The question and answer read as follows-

Consumer Price Index (Question No. 1020)

  1. 1 ) When was the highest year on year or annual percentage increase in the consumer price index in Australia recorded, and what was that percentage increase.
  2. When was the highest quarter to quarter percentage increase in the consumer price index recorded, and what was the increase.
  3. What was the percentage increase in the consumer price index from (a) December 1949 to December 1952, and (b) December 1972 to December 1975.
  1. 1 ) 1 95 1 -52 (over 1 950-5 1 )-22.5 per cent.
  2. ) December quarter 1 95 1 -7.0 per cent.
  3. (a)52.7percent.(b)50.1 percent.
Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have only a short time available to me in this debate. The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs sought ideas from the Opposition about how to overcome the problem of unemployment. I suggest to the Government- as my colleague, Senator Gietzelt, pointed out by way of interjection- that it have another look at the rake-off it is getting from the consumers so far as Medibank is concerned. I suggest that the Government look at the question of a reduction in indirect taxation for consumers. I suggest that the Government needs to look at the possibility of easing the heavy taxes which have resulted in a drain on the public sector of the economy, particularly in relation to the metal, manufacturing, electrical and building industries in Australia. I suggest to this Government that rather than engage in a constant campaign of union bashing it set out to seek the cooperation of the trade union movement.

As recently as 18 August- the day after the Budget was brought down by this Government, a mere 7 weeks ago- the Labor Party moved a motion in this Senate to discuss the Government’s economic policies which were producing increased unemployment and lack of business confidence. As I said, that was 7 weeks ago. We were then told by Government spokesmen that this Government’s Budget strategy- a Budget that had been brought down only the day before on 17 August- was designed to overcome inflation, to create business confidence and, thereby, to reduce the level of unemployment. Those statements were repeated in parrot fashion again by the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, who has just spoken in this debate. Regrettably, the confidence in the economy- which the Government espoused then and which it asserts today is coming back- is not evident to the businessman, particularly the small businessman. It is not evident to the worker in the Australian work force. It is not evident to the housewife in the home and it is certainly far from evident to those who unfortunately, as a result of this Government’s policies, remain on the unemployed list. The situation today, whether the Government likes it or not, is much worse in the economy and in the community than it was 7 weeks ago. It is all right for the Government to compare the unemployment figures of last December or last November with those for October of this year. I only compare the period from 18 August- when we last raised an urgency motion on this matter- with the situation which applies today.

I defy anyone to produce any small businessman, any worker, any housewife or any person who is on the unemployed list who would say that things are better economically in Australia today than they were 7 weeks ago. The simple fact is that things are worsening as the weeks go by. Consumer demand is further tightening because of the rip-off from the taxpayers’ pockets of millions of dollars caused only by fiddling and juggling with a very efficient health and hospital service, commonly referred to as ‘Medibank’, created by the Labor Government. The millions of additional dollars thai have poured into the coffers of the private health funds as from the first of this month as a direct result of Government policy could well be going into the private sector of the economy, towards increasing the spending power of people and could well be injected into the business community to create confidence all round. With things deteriorating daily it is no wonder that the Labor Party has been forced to move this urgency motion again in order to discuss the failure of the Government to rectify the critical unemployment situation and, in particular, the serious problems now confronting those under 20 years of age. The State that I have the honour to represent in this Parliament is New South Wales, the largest so far as population is concerned and the one that unfortunately is affected most heavily by unemployment. It has the highest rate of unemployment in Australia. At the end of August -

Senator Jessop:

– Because of the State Government.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– You are not blaming us for that?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I certainly am blaming the Government for that. I was not going to worry about interjections because of the lack of time available to me, but I am going to break my golden rule. I heard Senator Jessop say: ‘Because of the State Government’. The simple fact of the matter is that unemployment has seriously increased in New South Wales since 20 May when the present Government introduced its mini-Budget- when it cut off the public sector of the economy and spelled ruin to the metal manufacturing industry, the steel industry and the building industry of our State. Whether honourable senators opposite like it or not, nearly all of the heavy industrial industries are concentrated in New South Wales. Because the Government has cut off that pipeline unfortunately it has spelled ruin and economic disaster for a large number of people engaged in those industries.

At the end of August 23 022 males under 21 years of age in New South Wales were without a job and 19 344 females under 21 years of age in New South Wales were without a job. They represent 40 per cent of the total unemployed in New South Wales. Unfortunately they represent the great bulk of the unemployed in the community. They have been trained for work, want work, are willing to work but cannot find work because of the policies being pursued by this Government. In addition, there are expected to be around 90 000 school leavers wanting to join the work force in New South Wales at the end of this year. That means that roughly six out of ten- 60 per cent- of those leaving school in New South Wales at the end of this year will not be able to get jobs. Honourable senators should look at the annual intake of apprentices in New South Wales and compare these figures, if they like, with the figures applicable to the period when the Federal Labor Government was in office. In 1972-73, 1 1 275 apprentices were taken on in New South Wales. In 1 973-74, the first year of the Federal Labor Government, 15 376 apprentices were taken on in New South Wales. In 1974-75 13 835 apprentices were taken on in New South Wales. In the financial year just concluded, 1975-76, the number was back to 1 1 429 apprentices- back to nearly the number that were taken on 4 years ago, before the advent of the Federal Labor Government. So where is the growth? Where is the expansion? Where are the opportunities that were going to come as a result of the policies pursued by this Government?

As I have said, the major industries that employ apprentices are the metal, electrical and building industries. The total drop in intake of apprentices in New South Wales in the metal and electrical industries has been about 8 per cent in the last 12 months. The building industry in my State has fallen by some 42 per cent in its intake of apprentices. The latest statistical information as at August showed that more than 26 100 Australians were still looking for their first job. Over 26 000 people who left school or university last year, 10 months later are still looking for a job. That in fact is more than double the number claimed by the Commonwealth Employment Service and the figure of some 12 000 that was cited by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) last week.

When the Labor Government was dismissed from office by the Governor-General the assertion made by our political opponents was that we had created a class of people known as ‘dole bludgers’ and that they, when in government, would get rid of them. Frankly, it is to their eternal shame that they coined such a horrible phrase. But times have changed and in some respects, from an English language or grammatical point of view, thank God they have because no longer is an unemployed young person known as a ‘dole bludger’ by the rest of the community. He is now somewhat affectionately known as a doley’. That change has been brought about because the public now knows that these young people are willing to work and are desirous of work but they cannot get work because of the hopeless economic policies pursued by this Government.

No longer does job satisfaction remain an essential for a job seeker. Not only has the Government created unemployment but it has also created tremendous psychological problems for many thousands of people- universitytrained people, architects and others- who now, unfortunately, because of lack of opportunities in their professional sphere, find themselves driving taxis and working far below their level of employment training. The unemployment that this Government has created and for which it and it alone is responsible is hitting all sections of the community. Whilst temporarily the Government might take some comfort from an apparently non-volatile electorate at this stage, I assure it that this is merely the calm before the storm. Students are shortly to leave school, as are the graduates of universities, all wanting and demanding their right to work.

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

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

- Mr Acting Deputy President, I claim to have been misrepresented by Senator Douglas McClelland in his speech.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- You are seeking to make a personal explanation?

Senator DURACK:

-Either that or to invoke the provisions of standing order 410. Senator Douglas McClelland at the beginning of his speech alleged that I was comparing seasonally adjusted unemployment figures for December with the actual or raw figures, as they are known, for August. I want to assure you, Mr Acting Deputy President, the Senate and particularly Senator Douglas McClelland that the figures I cited were all raw figures.

Senator Keeffe:

– I rise to order. I appreciate the Minister’s attempt to make a personal explanation but I think it would more properly be done at the end of the debate and not at this point of time.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I understand that if any explanation is to be made it is to be made at the end of a speech. You have made your personal explanation, Minister?

Senator DURACK:

-Yes, Mr Acting Deputy President.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I call Senator Harradine.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

-Mr Acting Deputy President, I want to enter this debate -

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTOrder! The sitting of the Senate is suspended until 8 o’clock.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Senator HARRADINE:

- Mr President, we are debating an urgency motion on the unemployment situation within Australia. The debate thus far has been characterised by point scoring attempts with the Opposition criticising the Government for failing to reverse the trend of unemployment and inflation and with the Government saying that in any event this was all the Opposition’s fault because of its actions when it was in power last year and the year before. The nation is now faced with the spectre of unemployment at a higher level than at any other time since the Depression of the 1930s. On the last published figures, the average length of unemployment had increased from 14.6 weeks according to the February figures to 17.1 weeks as shown in the figures for May. About one quarter of the young unemployed have been unemployed for between 13 weeks and 26 weeks, whilst nearly 20 per cent of them have been unemployed for 6 months or more. In addition, we are faced with the prospect of 200 000 school leavers entering the work force together with an additional SO 000 graduates at the end of this year. Mr President, this is not the time for cheap political point scoring. In fact, it is the time when we should see the need for a combined cooperative approach to tackle the twin evils causing hardship, those evils being inflation and unemployment, and should seek to analyse the nature of the unemployment and to prescribe remedies.

Mr President, I stand here for the young people of this country who are desperately seeking work and who are unable to obtain it. I stand here for the parents with children of school leaving age who are confused and very worried about the prospects of only 6 out of every 10 school leavers in 1977 getting a job. I commend the Government on the initiatives that it has taken thus far, but those initiatives are not good enough either generally or for the specific problems of unemployment in certain geographical locations. An Assistant Secretary of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Kirby, stated in his report that: The study of the nature of youth unemployment has not been given appropriate attention. He also said, significantly that since the mid 1960s unemployment rates among young people have risen more rapidly than adult unemployment rates. He stated further:

It can be expected to persist in a greater or lesser degree irrespective of economic recovery and improved labour demand.

So it is no good for the Government to say broadly that the unions are to blame. I ask the Government, when it attempts to say that, to distinguish. Sure, the pro-communist Left within the trade union movement directed from outside should be exposed for its political exploitation of the trade union movement for its ends and for the damaging affect that its actions have on employment in Australia. But for the Government to say that trade unions generally are to blame is to ignore the clear fact that youth unemployment, in the words of the Government’s own expert, will ‘persist in a greater or lesser degree irrespective of economic recovery and improved labour demands’.

I said previously- and I support the viewpoint of Mr Kirby- that more attention should be paid to the analysis of the nature of unemployment. I will show tonight that there is a direct correlation between the increase in the number of married women in the work force since the early 1960s and the increase in juvenile unemployment. Figures show that in 1961 married women made up 9.47 per cent of the work force. Married women now represent 21.71 per cent of the work force. On the other hand, juvenile unemployment over the same period has increased from- it has increased from -

Senator McLaren:

– You are not sure of your figures.

Senator HARRADINE:

– I am quite sure of my figures. I am talking about female unemployment. Female unemployment in the 15 years to 19 years age group has increased from 8.22 per cent to 17.19 per cent while male unemployment in the same age group has increased from 10.12 per cent to 17.54 per cent. Those figures establish a direct correlation between the increase in the number of married women in the work force and the increase in juvenile unemployment. Why has there been such a dramatic increase in the number of married women in the work force?

There was a deliberate policy of the then Department of Labour and National Service and of employers to attract a source of cheap labour into the work force. An Opposition senator is trying to interject. I do not know what he is trying to say, but I point out that that policy was continued by the Labor Government. Posters could be seen in the Department of Labour and Immigration which read: ‘Mothers Liberation’. I ask: liberation from what? They were liberated from the most important job that a mother can do in the community and were condemned into the work force. There was indeed a positive discrimination against mothers who chose to stay at home.

This positive discrimination was engendered by radical feminist propaganda. Indeed, it is still going on. On the Australian Broadcasting Commission program Lateline- or the ‘Marxist halfhour’ as it is colloquially known- recently there was a statement by a radical feminist to the effect that there should be 2 -income families and that the husband should go to work for 4 hours a day and the wife should go to work for 4 hours a day. Such a practice would reinforce employer attempts to make the dual income the norm and would make it much harder for the family wage earner to make ends meet. I will say this: If this state of affairs goes on too much longer the workers of this country will mount a frontal attack on radical feminist organisations which are seeking to lower the standards of the workers -

Senator Mulvihill:

– You tell that to the women who are working in clothing factories. You would not know. That is utter rubbish.

Senator HARRADINE:

– You have not heard me out. I was referring to radical feminist organisations seeking to lower the standards of the workers and to debase the values which we hold most dear. I shall deal now with Senator Mulvihill ‘s interjection. I have always upheld and fought for equality and freedom of choice of married women to enter the work force. Is this freedom of choice present? A recent survey showed that the majority of married women in the work force- almost 80 per cent- are there for economic reasons, either of socially created want or of need. A number of women are forced into the work force through economic reasons or economic pressures. On the other hand a large number of unemployed youths are desperately seeking to get into the work force. Why does not the Government look at the proposition of introducing a realistic home maker’s allowance to be paid to all mothers and home-makers and which will give to those mothers who are forced into the work force and who do not desire to stay there a true freedom of choice?

In addition, the Government should look at the problems faced by young people trying to get homes. It should tackle the problem of high interest rates. It should tackle the problems faced by young people who are trying to get loans at reasonable rates of interest. Many young married women must work for eight to ten years to get the basic requirements of a home. The Government should improve the homes savings grant scheme.

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– How would you know?

Senator HARRADINE:

– When I was first married we lived in more flats than Beethoven used for his fifth symphony.

Senator McLaren:

– That is because you could not pay your rent.

Senator HARRADINE:

– That is probably right. In addition, the Government should look at the question of a reduction in sales tax which, in essence, is a regressive tax which falls more heavily on those who can least afford to pay. The Government ought to give special consideration to those areas in most need of assistance. Tasmania is one such area. I make no apologies for coming into the debate at this time. I am entitled of right to have my say in this chamber. The exercise of this right is not dependent on the Government nor on the opposition.

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– Hear, hear!

Senator HARRADINE:

- Senator Brown is trying to shut me up. I do not depend on him either. I will stand for the rights of my State, although Senator Justin O “Byrne is not here to stand up for the rights of the unemployed in Tasmania. I have fought for the rights of the unemployed in my State. Why does not the Government look at the situation in Tasmania? It should recognise that Tasmania is the most decentralised State in Australia and should come to some agreement with the Tasmanian Government about payroll tax. What is payroll tax? It is a tax against employment. The decentralised industries in Victoria get some concessions in this regard. Tasmania as a whole, as a decentralised area, should be given similar treatment. About 3 weeks ago I asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Senator Durack, who represents the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) a question about Tasmania. It has the highest rate of unemployment. In that State 45 per cent of the unemployed are teenagers, as compared with 38 per cent on a national average. Over the last 2 years unemployment has more than doubled, and vacancies have shrunk by almost 25 per cent. I asked the Minister whether, bearing those factors in mind, Tasmania could be regarded as having special problems and whether the Government would establish a joint task force to overcome the chronic unemployment in that State because it needs particular attention. I commend the suggestion to you, Mr President, to the Senate and again to the Minister.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

-This debate has developed into a somewhat emotional debate. I note that Senator Mulvihill is to follow me. I credit myself with having had a certain fleetness of foot in various sports before coming to this place, but a few seconds before 6 o’clock tonight apparently I was a bit slow out of the blocks. So we have had the advantage of hearing Senator Harradine. I would be quite happy to race my friend Senator Mulvihill over 100 yards, but I am glad I now have the call to speak. I think I should come to the subject of the debate. The matter of urgency is both ill-conceived and illtimed. I say that for 2 reasons. Firstly, my colleague Senator Durack mentioned a number of initiatives introduced by this Government to deal with the matter under discussion. Only last week an announcement was made of a special incentive scheme for youth employment training. It was made by the Acting Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. The second reason is that the unemployment problems which confront the nation at the moment stem from 3 years of Labor mismanagement, in which time the number of unemployed trebled. I think we must look at the history of unemployment in this country in recent years. One of the strange things about this matter and a number of other matters in respect of which Labor is critical of the present Government is that the Labor Party, which showed no concern for the unemployed when it was in power, has suddenly found a conscience. It is also starting to show concern for school leavers who are unable to get jobs because of its policies during 3 years of office.

The facts were stated by Senator Durack. I repeat them. In 1972 there were 1 10 000 unemployed. One of the major achievements of the Labor Government in its 3 years of office was to treble that figure. When looking at this question one is forced to examine the record of the previous Government and one finds that the present problems are the direct result of the policies of that Government.

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– Are you reading your speech?

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

-No, I am not. The Labor Government failed to recognise a basic and fundamental economic principle. I will quote it for Senator Brown’s edification if he is prepared to listen. I will read it, so that I quote it correctly. The principle is that inflation, wage restraint and unemployment are totally interdependent and inter-related. I will repeat that for Senator Keeffe ‘s benefit because he propounded the heresy that inflation does not matter. The whole strategy of our Government has been to deal with inflation first. We deal with it because it is interrelated with unemployment and wage restrainta term about which Senator Brown knows very little. Until our friends in the Opposition, the people in the Australian Labor Party and the people in the unions of this nation accept that fundamental economic principle the problems we have will remain with us. I want to give some figures for the years 1973 to 1975. An increase in labour costs inevitably leads to a rise in unemployment. The present unemployment can be traced -

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– What is the source of your figures?

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– I will give the source when I give the figures. I have only 10 minutes in which to speak, so please, Senator Brown, do not interrupt.

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– Please tell us the source because it is important.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– The source is the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street).

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– You have to be joking. What about an independent source?

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– The problem with our friends in the Opposition is that they will not listen to argument; so I propose to continue without interruption. The present unemployment can be traced back to the wage explosion that was permitted, and indeed encouraged, during the period 1973 to 1975 and particularly in 1974. My colleague, Senator Durack, has already cited these figures. They are in the record, but for Senator Brown’s benefit I will repeat them. They are important when looking at this situation. They show the percentage increase in the average weekly earnings of Australians over the period 1970 to 1975. Between 1973 and 1975 wages escalated by 56.5 percent.

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– What is the source?

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– It was the Department of Labour when the Labor Government was in office, and the figures cover a period during part of which the present Government was in power. The wage increase in 1973 was 15.3 per cent, in 1974 it was 27.9 per cent and in 1975 it was 13.3 per cent, adding up to 56.5 per cent. Because we had these massive increases in labour costs, Australian manufacturers are now finding it increasingly difficult to compete on the overseas market. That may be regrettable, but the fact is that many are making plans to manufacture outside Australia. So we have the unfortunate situation that because of excessive labour costs Australian industry is forced into the position not of exporting goods but of exporting labour. I stress again the fundamental principle that there is an inter-relationship between inflation, unemployment and wage increases. It has been stated a number of times both inside and outside Parliament that the Government’s overall economic policy is aimed at the reduction of inflation. This is the top priority. The measures already undertaken require time to have effect, but the Government believes that its policy is the only road to a sustained reduction in levels of unemployment. I will give a couple of examples very quickly for Senator Brown’s edification to show the escalation in wage costs.

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– Will you give us the source?

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– The first example was given by the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) this morning. It costs 578 per cent more to handle a container cargo at the port of Glebe in Sydney than it does to handle such a cargo at London. Senator Brown can check this fact. Another example is in the shipbuilding industry, the industry about which everyone is concerned. At the moment that industry is being subsidised by between $7,000 and $8,000 per employee. The Labor Party suggests that it now be subsidised to the extent of $12,000 to $13,000 per employee. I am going to the core of this nation’s unemployment problem. Until we get back to the situation of a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay, fewer strikes by the unions, fewer 48-hour stoppages over an issue like the 35-hour week, unfortunately school leavers will find it difficult to find work.

In the few moments I have left I want to deal with one matter relating to unemployment today. From inquiries I have made I think it is fair to say that not all job vacancies are attracting workers. I refer to yesterday’s Australian, a paper from which Senator Brown occasionally quotes.

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– When it suits me.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– It suits me to quote it tonight. I am going to quote it for the benefit of the

Senate and the benefit of the people of Australia to show what has happened to an industry in Victoria. A news item in yesterday’s issue of the Australian stated:

Dunlop Australia is having trouble finding 400 workers it will need for a $7.7m extension to its Montague, South Melbourne, tyre plant.

. Dunlop is already offering 3-month training schemes to bring unskilled workers up to the standard it needs. Trainees will graduate as machine operators and earn about $170 for a 40-hour week, plus overtime and bonuses for quality control and productivity . . .

Senator Douglas McClelland said there has been no improvement in unemployment since August, but the article to which I have referred is certainly an illustration that in certain areas of industry jobs are available.

Finally I turn to the specific measures which the Government proposed last week in both the Senate and the other place. Guidelines were set out in a ministerial statement. Because honourable senators opposite have seen fit to introduce this urgency motion it is patently obvious that they are not even aware of this statement. If they are aware of it they do not understand it. Again for their benefit and the benefit of listeners to this Senate debate I will quote from the news release of the Acting Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Howard, a section referring to school leavers. It is headed ‘Special Incentive for Youth Employment Training’ and states:

They would now be offered the opportunity of 6 months on-the-job training for employment under a special program.

A subsidy of $58 per week in respect of each person during training will be paid to employers participating in the program, whether in the private or public sector. This subsidy is considerably greater than the subsidies normally payable under NEAT.

If Senator Brown likes to look at this document he will see that there are 4 conditions. Applicants have to be aged 15 to 19 years. They must have left school in the preceding 12 months. They must have been registered for employment with the Commonwealth Employment Service for not less than a total of 6 months during this period. They must be registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service at the time they apply for training.

Here we have an urgency motion on a matter about which the Government did something very substantial less than a week ago. I suggest to the Senate and the people of Australia that the Government’s initiative in respect of those who left school last year should be given an opportunity to work. The Labor Party does not want it to work. The aim of the Government is to provide training in a wide range of jobs in both industry and commerce. The scheme is being introduced initially as a special measure for a limited period only. Its performance will be closely monitored and reviewed at the end of January 1977. So we are looking at it in those terms. The people of Australia will at least expect that this proposal, which is less than a week old, be given a fair trial before judgment is passed on it. I ask our friends in the Opposition to join the people of Australia and to give the initiatives a chance to work.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– My response to Senator Tehan, who put out his hand and asked for co-operation, it to ask him to table a statutory declaration tonight to show that when the Labor Government sought power over wages and prices at a referendum he voted yes. If, as I suspect, he voted in the negative, he is receiving the same sort of co-operation. He was not a senator at the time but his Party was quite happy to make cheap political tricks by advocating a no vote. That Party had its moment of glory. Now it has the effrontery to come here and suggest that the trade unions and everybody else must practise restraint. Taking that a little further, there is not a great difference between the word ‘restraint’ and the words ‘devaluation’ or ‘deflation’. I prefer the word ‘deflation’. Going back to the last economic crisis in the 1930s, Liberal governments under the infamous Premiers Plan argued that a balanced budget was the be all and end all. It was only by the advent of World War II, with the stimulation of expenditure for survival- for justifiable reasons- that the national economy was boosted.

If I were to have a heading for my speech it would be ‘The Contradictions of Capitalism’. Let me take Senator Tehan up on a second point. In parrot like fashion he referred to people not coming forward to work at Dunlop Australia Ltd. It is typical of the idea of freedom of private enterprise that people should lift up their chattels and go from one State to another. If Senator Cotton, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, were here I would remind him that 6 or 8 weeks ago he and I had a meeting with the secretary of the Federated Rubber and Allied Workers’ Union of Australia. We know that there are problems in industry which involve tariff matters. But the basic situation is that if the workers on the job in the Sydney establishment sat down- honourable senators opposite would call them 1976 Luddites- and refused to work the Government would argue that they had been got at by the communists. However, in this case the employer indulged in rationalisation. He did not say to the Dunlop workers or to the workers in the rubber industry in New South Wales: ‘You must uproot your family and move to Victoria’.

If honourable senators opposite want to talk about freedom and the employer having the right to rationalise his industry and the unions having to live with it, they should not come here and bleat about lack of union co-operation. They should go out and tell some of the rubber workers who have homes in Bankstown that they have to move to Collingwood or Footscray. A human element is involved. The Government should have another look at who must make the sacrifices. For years, particularly when Senator Bishop was the Postmaster-General, honourable senators opposite harped about PMG expenditure. It is significant that Telecom has been established and the Government has done nothing to dismantle it. We know that it has growing pains. But when we were in government the theme song advanced by honourable senators opposite about Telecom was about excessive buying and stockpiling. Then the Labor Government decided to reduce the amount of stockpiling.

One can read in the Bulletin an interview with Mr MacKellar about migrants coming to this country and about job opportunities. Let us look at the result of the capitalistic idea of living within one’s income. It sounds very nice but one does not always realise the consequences of it. Let me refer to the largely female work force in the non-skilled section of the Electrical Trades Union- the girls who do the PABX wiring with soldering irons. They work under the supervision of a tradesman. When honourable senators opposite in their zest cried out about too much stockpiling the result was that many of these girls were temporarily on the street. But the difference in approach between the Labor Government and this Government is that within a fortnight most of those girls were picked up by the National Employment and Training scheme, as were other people in the textile industry. When Senator James McClelland took over as the Minister for Labor and Immigration not a day went by when honourable senators opposite were not screaming about the NEAT scheme. Senator Webster used to sing a hymn of hate about the millions of dollars that were spent. At least those millions were keeping people in jobs, giving them new skills and boosting the purchasing power of the country. But what is the position now? Quite a number of those girls who were wiring switchboards were retrained under the NEAT scheme and took other occupations. Honourable senators should go to the Crows Nest Commonwealth Employment Office and look at the case histories. Then they would understand the position.

I now want to refer to what Senator Harradine said. It is not always possible in the crossfire to get a point across but I say sincerely that quite a lot of husbands and wives, probably with family co-operation, decide that both of them will work so that by the age of forty they will have paid off a home, unlike the parents of a lot of us who had not paid off their homes before they were in their late fifties. There is nothing Marxist about that.

Senator Harradine:

– I did not say that there was.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I am answering something that you said. If you as a former Australian Council of Trade Unions Executive member have given a false impression I will have to go back at the weekend and talk to the rank and file members of the clothing trades and rubber workers union and defend their position. If you were misunderstood, your usual fluency was absent when you made that assertion.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Mulvihill, please direct your remarks through the Chair.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I am sorry. I am trying to mop up some of these other interjections. At the beginning I said that the theme of my address was the contradictions of capitalism. I repeat that, until World War II, the idea of having a balanced budget come what may did not work. Only for that catastrophe- it was a pretty high price to pay- the problem would not have been solved. The great fear expounded by Senator Keeffe, Senator James McClelland and other Labor speakers is that the method the Government is using will not bridge the gap. Honourable senators opposite do not have to worry about what we say. My own local member, who is a Government supporter and a former Prime Minister- the Rt Hon. William McMahon- is in doubt. If the Rt Hon. William McMahon, my local member, is in doubt about the Government’s policy honourable senators opposite cannot criticise me. They cannot answer that argument; their silence proves it.

The fact is that the captains of industry are concerned about the shackles which the Government has put on the purchasing power of the nation. I repeat that in a mixed economy we cannot be too rigid. On the other side of the capitalist spectrum, I would say that those gentlemen to whom I referred who advocated greater spending are right. I am glad to see that Senator Durack, who is a Western Australian senator, is at the table. I know that in his heart of hearts he does not believe in the Lang Hancock dictum.

Lang Hancock believes that what the mining magnates want is good for Australia. I have told the Senate before that what the United States Secretary for Defence, Tug Wilson, said was right for General Motors-Holden was not even right for a Republican president. So let us have no more nonsense about this.

The Opposition does not want to score points on this matter. I am concerned and I think even Senator Harradine is concerned with the grass roots problem of co-operation between employers, the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations and the local employment office. I suppose that in a flourishing period the people who needed employment largely belonged to selected groups. It is true that the Department did a fairly good job with migrants. I suppose that it was not geared to deal with the situation. I know that my particularly knowledgeable colleague on female employment, Senator Ruth Coleman, would agree with me on this matter. I refer to the semi-skilled girls who work in the printing industry. Their union is not trying to hold a gun at the head of the employer. When an employer gets a contract, if they worked 8 hours a day they would probably get 12 months work. But they work 3 shifts and they complete the work in 3 months. I do not know what Senator Tehan was getting at. If their union were militant they would be saying: ‘We want 12 months work. We will ban overtime. We will just work our 40 hours’. The moment that happened I imagine that honourable senators would be bowling up full tosses to Senator Durack about irresponsible trade unionism. The union did not do that and the pay off is that the girls have only 3 months work.

Senator Tehan will probably come back and say to me that the employer has the right to run his business. If he has the right to run his business, does he not have responsibilities about our work pattern? I came into the Senate in 1966 and I asked then what the Department of Labour and National Service was doing in long range research into the effect of automation and mechanisation generally. I might mention here that unions such as the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia never opposed containerisation.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– They were always on strike.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– The fact of the matter is, senator, that some of those people work into the early hours of the morning when you are probably in silken pyjamas sleeping off a grog session. If you want it, senator, you will get it. I am here to defend the trade unions. Most honourable senators are well fleshed on their buttocks but there are a lot of people working in the early hours of the morning and late at night who are not getting the pay that senators get, and it is time that honourable senators opposite became a little more humble.

Let me take a little further the theory about private enterprise doing the right thing. No one here has ever given credit to one of the greatest work force transformations that occurred between 1945 and 1949 when John Dedman, the then member for Corio, created all sorts of exservicemen ‘s training schemes. Now the chickens have come home to roost, and while hononourable senators opposite rear away from what they call a planned economy, one of thenactions is like an albatross around their necks. For years the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority used to absorb about 8000 people, independent of those employed by subcontractors and of the industries that lived off the Authority’s contracts. Honourable senators opposite liquidated the Snowy Mountains Authority. A great Austraiian, Sir William Hudson, told them that they would rue the day. All we have now is a glorified research agency. You send a few experts to Thailand to tell people how to build dams. Probably you can make available a few engineers, but the whole of the main work force has been broken up.

Honourable senators opposite never learn. On the one hand they talk about the Russian presence in the Indian Ocean; then we find them dismantling a docksite. In Eastern Europe eight or nine years ago there were far more modern cranes which could lift more tonnage than we can now in any of our dockyards, yet honourable senators opposite blandly blame the shipwrights and boilermakers for the present situation when the fact is that they earn their money a lot harder than do people who have a nice soft job in commerce as a banker or an accountant. I am not against those people, but I ask honourable senators opposite who are accountants whether they have ever taken out figures on what we wasted in Vietnam. I would not mind so much what was spent if we had a massive air force and modern tanks, but nothing that we used there has been any good to us afterwards. And I say to the mothers of teenagers listening to this debate that when we were in government we attempted, under Clyde Cameron, to boost the apprenticeship allowances, and even if some young Australians are now temporarily unemployed at least they will not be walking onto a land mine in Vietnam or becoming inmates of Concord Repatriation Hospital. I will be visiting that hospital with Senator Durack in a few weeks ‘ time and I wish some of the hawks would be there with us. I know, however, that they could not look the patients in that hospital in the face because they sent them to Vietnam, we did not. Mr President, you will again note the silence.

As for the capitalist economy, we believe that the foundation we laid in providing incentives for the employment of apprentices and establishing the National Employment and Training scheme is what the Government belatedly is falling back on now. One honourable senator opposite taunted us about other ways of providing jobs. I express here a personal opinion because I know that there has been a bi-partisan approach to aid for Asian and other countries in need. It may well be that we will have to tell Mr Lee when he meets Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser that we do not mind giving aid to other countries but we refuse to accept that some of our ships will be dry-docked on the cheap because he cannot give his people a wage which is comparable with ours. We do not mind giving aid but we probably should emulate the approach of the United States. The United States of America, from the days of Marshall Aid, always insisted that the bulk of that aid was transported in American ships. We have never insisted on Australian ships carrying aid to Asia. We were the good guys; we just gave it and did not care any further. I commend that thought to the Prime Minister and to Andrew Peacock.

I take this line a little further. Instead of giving aid grants to United Nations’ agencies we should give aid in the form of goods. There is no question that it would have a tremendous effect on our secondary industries. I have given the Senate tonight reasonable solutions to our problems,, and if honourable senators opposite say that we wasted money when in government, I reply that they wasted blood and flesh in Vietnam.

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I thought I had heard everything but to hear Senator Mulvihill associate himself with the Right Honourable William McMahon is tremendous; he is really improving. Senator Mulvihill mentioned cooperation between unions and employers. This is in fact being achieved, and quite successfully in many areas, but unfortunately I understand that the Cadbury organisation, even though it set out deliberately to encourage this co-operation, has not had the co-operation from trade unions that it would have liked. Nevertheless, it will keep working at it. I must admit that I left the chamber for one minute during Senator Keeffe ‘s discourse. It must have been then that he said something constructive because he did not say anything constructive while I was here. He referred to Mr Uren. Is that the Mr Uren who when in Western Australia just after the election said that students who were not satisfied with the ballot box result should take to the streets? My colleagues now tell me that he was the one. Senator Douglas McClelland suggested some solutions to our problems and his first suggested solution was to reduce indirect taxation. What a magnificent suggestion from a senator who when in government doubled indirect taxation. It was an incredible thing to say. He used the words dole bludger’ about 5 times. Since I have been in the Senate I have never heard one Government senator use that expression but it is used time and time again by Opposition senators.

It is rather interesting and a pleasant change to have the Australian Labor Party talking about something it really understands and, boy, does it understand unemployment! It presided over a record increase in unemployment in only 3 years, a 140 per cent increase. To the final number of 328 000 unemployed in 1975 we have to add the 26 000 who were employed under the Regional Employment Development scheme. That brings the total number of unemployed to a pretty high figure. We have been talking about young people, and in those 3 years the number of young unemployed rose from 80 000 in 1972 to about 152 000. So much for the Labor Party’s concern for unemployment.

I would like to be as objective as I can and point to some of the positive ways in which the Government is trying to improve the situation. I will first refer to the short-term measures which most senators on this side and the other side of the chamber appreciate as being only palliatives. It is the long-term effect that we are really after. However, we are maintaining spending on the National Employment and Training scheme and improving it in that we are providing on-the-job training under the NEAT scheme. We have introduced a re-location assistance scheme to assist people to move from areas of unemployment to areas of employment. We have improved the subsidy to encourage employers to employ school leavers, the level of subsidy paid to employers being set at $58 a week.

I turn now to long term matters. As many honourable senators on this side have said, we cannot divorce inflation from unemployment. They are tied inextricably together. The first thrust of this Government must be to reduce inflation. One of the positive ways of doing it is by indexing taxation. This will in effect reduce the necessity for wage demands from workers and reduce the tax bill by over $ 1 billion. We have been more generous with the States and so have allowed them to reduce their charges. We have followed the general thrust of the recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission. We have set out to encourage the more efficient industries. We are encouraging investment in 2 ways- by the 40 per cent investment allowance, which has already been referred to, and by the new stock valuation provision which, once it is finalised, will make a major difference to investment in industry. We have also set up an inquiry to relate the needs of employment to the present education system. This should be a useful exercise. It will take many years to reverse the tragedy of Labor but I am certain that this Government’s policies will work.

I am a farmer. Until December 1975 I was an active full-time farmer. I produced mainly for the export market. I am probably better equipped to speak at first hand on the effects of the last 3 years of Labor Government than almost anybody else. People can see the figures but if you experience the conditions it has much more effect. I employ some labour. I do not employ anywhere near as much labour as I did 3 years ago. I replaced that labour with machines. I have been forced by increased costs to increase production dramatically. In the 3 years from 1973 to 1975 there was an increase of 50 per cent in average weekly earnings- an astronomical rise- yet there was no increase in production to come anywhere near that figure. One of the less appreciated side effects of that situation was a dramatic increase in taxation and of course the Labor Party needed that money to finance its rather indiscriminate spending.

Senator Collard:

– Holidays.

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– My friend mentions holidays. There was an increase in holidays and in holiday loadings. Workers compensation premiums increased dramatically. I agree with the Labor Party when it says that we should not blame the unions. I do not blame the unions for trying to maintain the buying power of wages consequent upon inflation. They have every right to do so. What we must do and what this Government is charged to do is to decrease the need for this wage-cost hike that is going on all the time. Just to illustrate my point, I come back to my own personal situation. I am in fairly close contact with the Australian Wool Corporation. It has a tremendous information section. Anybody who is interested in getting up-to-date information is very welcome to apply to the Corporation. It gave me some detailed figures recently on the cost of moving wool from the sheep’s back to the overseas mill door. In November 1973 that cost was 46.9c a kilo greasy. In March 1 976 it cost 74c a kilo greasy- a 58 per cent increase in not much more than 3 years. That was a dramatic increase. It is resulting in many people with otherwise viable properties in my area, particularly areas to the north of where I live in Geraldton, finding it completely uneconomical to continue. These people have had to sack all of the people who work on them. It is not really a matter of sacking them. They just cannot afford them. Many of the people in these areas have had to walk off their properties.

This is a tragic situation. These properties have been operating for over 100 years. Tremendous improvements have been made to them. The properties have proved their value through producing first quality wool but because of the tremendous increases in costs the people have just had to walk off their properties. This is happening more and more. One of the obvious results of this is that it has reduced employment opportunities dramatically in country towns. Probably inflation and this madness of the Labor Party during its term in office have affected employment opportunities in country areas and in country towns more than in any other single area. This was caused by the Labor Government which pretended it believed in decentralisation.

I will mention some of the things that are going to happen unless we can improve the situation. I illustrate my point by referring to the present unresolved disagreement between the unions and the wool stores regarding the 180 kilogram bale weight. For the time being it costs me many dollars to have my bales repacked if they happen to be more than 180 kilograms in weight. This issue arose only recently. There was never any problem years ago. There is certainly a deliberate attempt by the growers to increase the bale weight because this is one real way they can reduce their costs, particularly for those who live a long way from the selling centre. The obvious result is that the wool stores will have to employ less labour. They are going to mechanise the whole of the operations in the wool stores which means they will employ less labour. I regret very much the need to do this, but this is the sort of thing that is happening.

I was in New Zealand a couple of years ago representing Western Australian Farmers Cooperative Ltd. I watched meat being loaded in ports in New Zealand. Almost invariably carcasses that are loaded on ships are not touched by human hands. They are put onto a conveyor belt at the wharfside. They go straight from the trucks into the holds on the conveyor. This is the sort of thing that is going to be forced on to the industries in Australia unless we can reduce these tremendous demands for increases in wages.

Looking a bit further ahead, there is a tremendous amount of experimental work going on in Australia to mechanise shearing. I have had a tremendously high regard for the Australian Workers Union which is responsible for the majority of shearers in Australia. I respect the union tremendously. It understands the situation. It understands the position of the workers very well and it has a very good relationship with the employers of its members but because of the huge cost-price squeeze mechanical shearing will probably be a fact sooner than we think.

In the Pilbara iron ore development area not far north of where I live, 5 per cent of the Western Australian work force is employed. Last year that area was responsible for 62 per cent of the total man hours lost. That is an incredible record. I do not say it was due to unionism. In fact, I suggest it was because of a lack of unionism. This is the sort of thing that is going on. The union leaders are not in a strong enough position in that area to enforce the awards and agreements that are made. Never mind the cause, the result is that Japan has issued a very strong warning to Australia that we are beginning to price ourselves out of the iron ore market. This is a tremendous export earning market for Australia. We are beginning to price ourselves out of it. We have one of the worst reputations overseas for being a regular supplier of goods. It is no wonder that we are losing all these markets.

The last point I wish to make- I believe it is worth thinking about- is that unions generally represent workers. They do not represent the unemployed or the young people. When the Government is negotiating with unions over awards and other matters, I suggest it try to get somebody other than unions to represent the unemployed.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– This matter of urgency gives the Senate the opportunity to debate the problems of unemployment. It is clear from the debate that has ensued that this sort of debate is long overdue. Some emotion has, of course, been introduced into the debate, as well as a lot of rhetoric. A lot of simple explanations and simple theories have been propounded by Government supporters and this would seem to indicate that they think one or two simple theories can solve the very vexed problem of inflation and unemployment which is a characteristic not only of Australia but also of many other countries. It is clear that Government supporters fail to appreciate the chronic sickness which is now not only a symptom but also a fact of life in the whole of the industrialised nations of the Western world. They failed to perceive that there are obviously some structural deficiencies, some weaknesses such as those to which my colleague Senator Mulvihill drew attention, within capitalism itself which have to be examined by the community as well as by governments if we are in any way to make any impact upon the problems of inflation and unemployment.

The Government seeks to say that all that has to happen from its Budget strategy and its general economic program is a reduction in inflation and therefore we will have taken a step along the path of economic recovery. If we look at the speeches which characterised the Government in the late 1960s and the early 1970s when this chronic sickness was manifesting itself, we will find the same mish-mash, the same contributions, the same simple theories being advanced. These theories proved to be a failure in the period when Mr McMahon and Mr Snedden were Treasurers in Liberal-Country Party governments. On this occasion Government senators are suggesting that all we have to do is achieve an economic revival in the private sector and get consumer demand moving. In the process the whole problem will be resolved by getting the consumers to buy and by exercising some measure of wage restraint. There is a great contradiction in that simple proposition. If in fact a consumer revival is the strategy of this Government it will not be achieved if we reduce the living standards of the Australian people and reduce the purchasing power of the consumers. That is what is happening in a period of inflation. Unless wage rates continue to rise less money will be spent by the consumers. It is not lower wages that are required but higher wages if we are to have some consumer revival.

One has to examine why the Government got into this economic malaise- there is no other word to describe it. Of course it is being advised by the same advisers who advised the previous Government about economic policy. The men of stone who gave the Labor Government the sort of advice which sometimes we hear criticised in this chamber are the same men of stone who are now giving this Government advice in respect of the economic situation in this country. The advice given was that there should be an unemployment pool of 6 per cent. The Labor Government rejected that concept, but this Government is clearly accepting it as an important part of its whole ecomonic program. By emphasising and stressing inflation the Government is going against all of the experiences in the Western world; it is going against the experiences within even our own country. One has only to look at some of the advice that has come out of industry itself to appreciate this fact. I refer to bulletin number 276 of the Australian Industries Development Association- this is not a trade union body; it is a body that represents ten of the major industries of this country. It says: the thrust of economic policies being exercised at present is towards curbing inflation. That’s an important problem. But is there not a risk of going overboard about it?

In its September bulletin AIDA goes on to say:

Thirdly, there is no clear guarantee, in the official view or otherwise, that recovery will happen automatically, once inflation is wound down.

It continues: . . the official view tends to play down the extent to which policy uncertainty- on the tariff front, about the regulatory institutions, and about export and research incentivesall of which existed-

Says AIDA, this very important commercial and industrial organisation- long before inflation became a problem, have in addition to inflation depressed the incentives for Australian industry to expand.

Of course that is the major problem that exists in the highly industrialised country of Australia. What was said at the Perth conference recently of the Australian Steel Convention by Mr Johnson? A report of the meeting states:

Australia’s manufacturing industry is in a disastrous position. This was the grim message received by delegates at the Australian Steel Convention in Perth yesterday … Mr Johnson said that an analysis of new manufacturing ventures supplying Australia showed that growth was occurring not in Australia, but in Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and other countries where there existed low wages or high productivity.

Is that what we want? Is the sort of alternative that this Government wants high productivity and low wages? This is what is happening to capital in this country as it moves from Australia to those countries. The report continues:

Mr Johnson warned that job prospects for young people would be reduced to the choice of the 1930s- fishing, farming, mining or the dole- if that trend continued.

Let us examine what the Chairman of the Industries Assistance Commission is reported to have said in the Financial Review only a week ago. He said that only the fittest industries in Australia will survive. That is contrary to the very charter of the IAC. Under the Labor Government’s administration the IAC was obliged to have regard to the desire of the Government- a Labor Government was in power when this legislation was pursued in Parliament in 1973- in pursuing the general objectives of national economic and social policy and urban and regional development, to improve and promote the well-being of the people of Australia, with full employment, stability in the general level of prices, viability in external economic relations, conservation of the natural environment and rising living standards. Yet it is that organisation upon which this Government is now relying to close down the shipbuilding industry; it is that organisation upon which this Government is going to rely to close down our motor car industry; and it is that organisation on which this Government is relying to bring about rationalisation in the whole area of agriculture.

I want to spend the few remaining minutes of my time with the problems of unemployment as they apply to agriculture. But before doing so I want to say that last year the main thrust of the conservatives was to blame the Whitlam Government for the problems of unemployment. When the figures in August showed an increase in unemployment in Australia to 5.15 per cent of the workforce and that 1 17 000 people were out of work in New South Wales, Sir Eric Willis, the Leader of the Liberal Party in New South Wales, and subsequently Mr Fraser had the temerity not to blame the Federal Government but the State Government of Mr Wran which had come into office only a few months prior to that time. What do the current figures show? They show that pro rata the greatest number of people are out of work in the Northern Territory. Tasmania is next. It has had an increase in unemployment in the rural areas. In fact in Tasmania more people are out of work in the rural areas than in the urban areas. Queensland is in a similar position.

We can go through the unemployment figures to see the tragic state of affairs that exists in the rural areas. The figures I have been able to take out show an alarming situation from the point of view of our rural communities. For example, in Bathurst, New South Wales, in July 1975 463 people were out of work. Today 694 people are out of work- that is an increase of 49.89 per cent. In Bega the numbers of unemployed have increased from 638 to 1 106- an increase of 73.35 per cent. In Cowra unemployment has risen from 677 persons to 792 persons- an increase of 16 per cent. In Dubbo the number of unemployed increased from 1623 to 2282, an increase of 40 per cent; in Lismore there was an increase of 50 per cent; in Tamworth an increase of 32 per cent; and in Taree an increase of 43.72 per cent. It is small wonder that the Deputy Leader of the National Country Party in Victoria said that at the end of June 7.5 per cent of the work force in country areas was unemployed compared with 3.5 per cent in the metropolitan area. Yet, in the Press today the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Street, has indicated that according to a survey that his Department has carried out it is expected that there will be an increase in unemployment from 4.8 per cent, which is the national average, to 6 per cent by January 1977. What sort of future lies ahead for those in the rural communities?

I should like to present to the Senate some of the comments made as a result of a survey that has been carried out by members of the Government. The honourable member for Angas, Mr Giles, as Chairman of the Joint Parties Government Committee, went on a trip to Victoria and Tasmania 4 months ago. He presented a report to his own Government about the povertystricken areas of Tasmania and Victoria. In his report he said:

Our concept of freedom from government interference won’t work when they’re broke.

When speaking about farmers he said:

Bankruptcy … a much more serious proposition than worrying about future inflation.

He went on to say that there is a need to make statements that we do want a dairying industry, a canned fruits industry, a dried fruits industry and so on. He stated also that the Press reports of company tax investment allowances and tax indexation are not only of no help at all to people in these areas but also are a positive irritant to them.

The report that the Presbyterian Church of Victoria placed before the Government in an interview with the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) recently shows how the rural infrastructure is collapsing in many parts of Australia. Surely these matters ought to be debated and discussed in the national Parliament. Yet, it was the Labor Government which took the initiative to do this. The report of the Presbyterian Church expressed its deep concern for these families which evidence the pressures, privations and severe anxieties occasioned by the present crisis in rural industry and, in particular, in the dairying and beef industries. These symptoms were in evidence before we came to office in 1972. These symptoms were part of a malady that grips the capitalist society. Yet one would imagine that just by the sheer simple mechanism of appealing to the unions to accept lower wages all this can be changed and in point of fact it will bring about that consumer revival upon which this Government’s Budget strategy depends so much.

The report which the Presbyterian Church has placed before the Parliament and my own experiences during the parliamentary recess between the autumn and spring sessions of the Parliament indicate clearly the very grave problem that exists in so many centres of rural Australia. Yet there is nothing in this Budget to alleviate the problems confronted by those in the rural communities. There is no hope in the Government’s economic program. A malady exists. The few palliatives that this Government has brought forward were not provided for in the Budget. They are stop gap measures taken to try to meet a situation which is beyond the control of this Government. Therefore it is no wonder that there is an increasing concern within the Australian community about the problems of unemployment; about the problems of inflation; about the growth concepts in this country; about where this country is going; about whether there is any future in the manufacturing industry; and about the role which the Industries Assistance Commission is taking in its attempts to bring about some form of rationalisation in the belief that in so doing it will bring about a better standard of living. On the contrary, it will depress living standards in Australia.

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

Senator ARCHER:
Tasmania

– I begin my speech in a depressed mood because I really believe that Senator Gietzelt is trying to believe what he said. I regret that during the course of this debate no Labor senator from Tasmania has spoken. Therefore, I will endeavour as best I can to cover the situation that exists in Tasmania. I will be brief. I will not repeat all the unemployment figures that have been related to the Senate tonight. I think all honourable senators are familiar with those figures and can use them in whatever way they desire. We are all aware of the results of inflation. There is no doubt that nobody in his right mind wants the present economic situation. There is nobody in his right mind who will not do anything possible to try to remedy the current economic situation.

Honourable senators may recall the comments I made a couple of weeks ago about the situation in Tasmania. I do not intend to repeat what I said except to say again that Tasmania is a great place even though it has become the stagnation State of Australia. Tasmania has the lowest wage rate of any State. It has the highest unemployment rate and, I regret to say, the highest level of what is known as the brain drain of any State in Australia. The Tasmanian economy has been built on 2 main things: Labour intensive operations and the export market. It depends greatly on such products as textiles, paper, minerals, aluminium, wood products, dairy products, confectionary, wool, meat, apples, pears, and small fruits. All these items have been the basis of the Tasmanian economy for more than 100 years. All those items have been affected by what has happened in the last few years and by what has been accelerated particularly in the last three or four years. They depend very heavily on a solid, steady and reliable labour force and on a steady, reasonable and reliable cost structures. In both these fields these industries have suffered badly. They are all in trouble because their costs exceed their returns. Their prosperity will only be restored when productivity and costs can again be made to match. We all enjoy high wages and the things that they bring. But can high wages be justified by productivity?

The Tasmanian Government has done little for its State. I regret that this situation has obtained for many years and has been declining slowly. I need not remind honourable senators that these were years when a Labor government was in office. Can we pay the cost of these high wages and high benefits? What are they and what is a benefit? Productivity and cost must go together in any form of business. The main cost in business is generally wages. When wages get too high, machinery takes over. This is not a new trend. It has been happening for many years but it happens at an accelerated rate when wage demands get ahead of productivity. In this regard, I again quote the many people who now are claiming to have said that one man’s rise is another man’s job. That is very true. It is a complete and absolute truism in every way. Any business can stand just so much cost. It is equally true to say that the more wages per person, the fewer persons per wage. Restraint in any form has been scoffed at by those who are pledged to see that the economy does not recover. Restraint is well understood by the people who wish to see the return of a sound and prosperous country.

To understand the situation, one has to be aware of the causes of it. But can we turn back the situation? Can we unwind and go back to where we were? I do not think that any of us would want to do that or would be prepared to do that. In this economy now we enjoy a rate of pay equal to the highest in the world- a higher proportion of women is working, there is a high standard of minimum pay rates and there is equal pay for women and so on. All these things are part of the system. The technological changes are here to stay. But they have accelerated and we must live with this. We have to fit ourselves around the changes that exist. I realise that this is going to take extra consideration of special training, special education and special considerations generally. The whole system from here on must be designed again to increase productivity on the amount of wages that are paid. Otherwise there will be no improvement.

Right now we have priced ourselves out of our markets. I wonder whether any of us really believes that other countries who have worked hard to stabilise their economies should be called upon to subsidise our folly. We are a trading nation. We have simply run out of trading partners. I certainly, like everybody else, do not want to think about, see or even consider such a thing as a wage reduction. But I do want to see control of the demands for wages so that people will consider what they are paying to get the increase that they seek. The community at large very much accepts this situation and I do not disagree with them. But the community at large also has to consider the effects that go with their demands. The community and the Government go together in this; one cannot achieve anything without the other. It is very pleasing to me and I presume to other honourable senators to have received a lot of suggestions from individuals and organisations who are concerned about the situation and who have offered a wide variety of alternative suggestions as to things that may assist in gearing up training or employment or in reducing costs or stabilising production and so on. But when we take all this into account we again have to consider the costs.

Let us look at what has happened in the areas which are particularly involved with women, with juveniles, with migrants, with the handicapped and with the Aborigines in particular. All of this group received great benefits from increased wages while they lasted but really all that the new wage package has done is to put a far too high proportion of them out of work. I think all these people are pleased with the new scale of unemployment benefits but I think that most of them would prefer an economic wage to watching others work. Of course, a few anomalies arise from time to time. I recently read in an article published by one of the major newspapers that there are still more people in Australia with 2 jobs than there are with none and 20 per cent to 25 per cent of these represent 3 job families. Again, I do not blame these people. I feel that it is quite reasonable that people should have the opportunity to improve themselves if they wish. But there are social consequences that go with it and provided we accept these we accept the situation.

We have to consider the substantial proportion of the work force that now comprises working women. Senator Harradine covered this very well. These women do this by individual choice and they take the individual consequences. Many of them choose to go to work at the expense of having their daughters at home. This is the way it is. In Tasmania as well a lot of women have been in employment for many years. Tasmania is a State where there has been high female employment. Unfortunately, the women employed there have suffered very greatly in the present down turn.

Cases are often quoted of employment opportunities that cannot be filled. I should like to quote 2 such cases just to show what can happen. An employer in Tasmania required an unqualified junior. He rang the Commonwealth Employment Service which sent him one young lad who was not suitable. He rang the CES and advised that he was not suitable. He received no replacement so he rang again and the CES said that it had nobody who would be suitable. The gentleman then looked for an employee himself. He advertised in the main Tasmanian paper on 3 consecutive days before he had one junior applicant. He put on the first boy who turned up but, with all the people that we hear are available for work, it took 3 days and the full resources of the Commonwealth Employment Service to produce one.

Senator O’Byrne:

– What was the job?

Senator ARCHER:

– It was unskilled labour, working behind a counter. In an isolated area of Tasmania a company required 40 employees. The employment officer of this particular company went to the 3 major employment centres in northern Tasmania and interviewed 70 people with a view to engaging 40 people. He finally appointed 30 of these people during the week to start work on the following Monday. Three turned up.

Senator Georges:

– He must have frightened the living daylights out of them.

Senator ARCHER:

– The thought of work probably did. I have been involved and concerned with poverty areas for many years. I think that the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Senator Durack) covered the Henderson report questions very well. But we have to consider the fact that there are these people to whom Senator Wheldon refers more charitably than Senator McLaren as ‘welfare professionals’. There are very few of these but we do not run the system for them. I think that those who are in genuine need should be protected from them. I think that if people are able to work they should work. The situation is bad but we have to think back and see how much worse it would still be if we had the former Government. Too many people, both here and outside, are crying the situation down and too many are hoping that the Government’s actions will not succeed. There has been improvement and we shall all work on it. We have to consider, though, that this will probably need education and we have to get at it very quickly. There are certain pre-apprenticeship requirements. We have this 40-hour week syndrome. I feel that 40-hour week could well be divided into half day jobs amongst people who need work. Much thought and concern is going into this proposition. It is still substantially a matter of attitude. I think that we have basically covered the points surrounding this issue. I move:

That the question be now put.

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– I take a point of order, Mr President. Standing order 364 states:

A Document quoted from by a Senator not a Minister of the Crown may be ordered by the Senate to be laid upon the Table; such Order may be made without Notice immediately upon the conclusion of the speech of the Senator who has quoted therefrom.

It was obvious that a document was being read. I hear Senator Baume offering advice to Senator Archer.

Senator Baume- No. I was interjecting. Senator Brown interjects on everybody all the time.

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– I do not think that the honourable senator needs to encourage or advise. I would ask that the papers and the document that Senator Archer quoted from be laid on the table as a public document. I think this is important because the comments that Senator Archer made from that document were so interesting. If I may, I therefore move:

That the document quoted from by Senator Archer be laid on the table of the Senate.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is the motion seconded?

Senator Georges:

– Yes.

Senator Chaney:

– I rise to take a point of order. The previous speaker in the debate, Senator Archer, moved: ‘That the question be now put’. The Standing Orders require that that motion should be put forthwith without debate. In my submission, the question should be put.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! There can be no debate on the motion ‘That the question be now put’. A point of order has been raised and a motion has been moved seeking the tabling of a document. Senator Archer, do you wish to indicate your position?

Senator Archer:

– I did not have any document with me.

The PRESIDENT:

– You have no document from which you quoted?

Senator Archer:

– No.

Senator Georges:

– I raise a point of order. I seconded the motion moved by Senator Brown. The point of order arose from the fact that Senator Archer for the whole of the period that he was on his feet read his speech. Therefore, the point of order seeks and the motion requests the tabling of Senator Archer’s notes, so that it can be made quite -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! No point of order arises. I listened to Senator Archer’s speech. I did not note that he was reading his speech. He was speaking with reference to notes, maybe; but it was not a read speech.

Senator Georges:

– With respect -

The PRESIDENT:

– The question is–

Senator Georges:

– With respect, Mr President -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! No point of order arises -

Senator Georges:

– No, Mr President. I must insist. There is only one way to test this matter and that is for Senator Archer to table the notes from which he read.

Senator Wright:

– What an impertinence!

Senator Georges:

– It is an impertinence, according to Senator Wright, but the same type of point of order and the same initiative were taken by the Government on several occasions against members on this side of the Senate. I am insisting, in accordance with the provisions of the Standing Orders, that Senator Archer table the notes from which he read.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I have listened to the contributions made on that point of order raised by Senator Brown and on his motion. The fact is that standing order 364 states:

A Document quoted from by a Senator not a Minister of the Crown may be ordered by the Senate to be laid upon the Table . . .

Reference is made to the tabling of a document. No document was quoted from. Therefore, no purpose is served by pursuing the matter of tabling. A motion is now before the Chair, moved by Senator Brown and seconded by Senator Georges. In the light of what I have just said, Senator Brown, do you withdraw your motion or do you desire to persist with it?

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– I do persist, Mr President, and I say this, with respect -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! There is no more discussion. I put the question:

That the motion (Senator Brown’s) be agreed to.

Question resolved in the negative.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I now put the original question:

That the question be now put.

Question put.

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

AYES: 29

NOES: 21

Majority……. 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

No Senator shall read his speech.

With respect, I am convinced that Senator Archer did read his speech. I ask you to give consideration to that standing order.

Senator ARCHER (Tasmania)-I wish to make a personal explanation. I object to the insinuation. The notes which I used, if one cares to look at them, are so rough that I did not give them to the Hansard reporter. I object to the reflection.

Question put:

That the motion (Senator Keeffe’s) be agreed to.

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

AYES: 21

NOES: 29

Majority……. 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 1059

CHRISTMAS ISLAND

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

– For the information of honourable senators, on behalf of Senator Withers, I present the report on the Territory of Christmas Island for the period 1 July 1972 to 31 December 1975.

page 1059

AUSTRALIAN DAIRY CORPORATION

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

– Pursuant to section 29 of the Dairy Produce Act 1924 I present the interim annual report of the Australian Dairy Corporation for the year ended 30 June 1976.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– by leave- I move:

That the Senate take note of the paper.

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1059

CRUDE OIL

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans ‘ Affairs · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the report of the Industries Assistance Commission on crude oil pricing.

That the Senate take note of the paper.

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1059

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION: ANNUAL REPORT

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– Pursuant to section 45 of the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973 I present the annual report of the Industries Assistance Commission for the year 1975-76, together with a statement outlining the action taken during the year 1975-76 on reports made to the Minister.

That the Senate take note of the papers.

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1060

PAPER

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the report, dated 25 August 1976, of the Temporary Assistance Authority on paper.

That the Senate take note of the papers.

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1060

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Cotton)- by leaveagreed to:

That the Senate at its rising adjourn until tomorrow at 10.30 a.m.

page 1060

EXPORT FINANCE AND INSURANCE CORPORATION AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 18 August, on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator KEEFFE:
Quensland

-The Opposition does not oppose the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment Bill 1976, but I take this opportunity to make a few observations in relation to the Bill. It is a Bill that has been on the stocks now for a considerable time. It is possible that honourable senators on both sides of the House have forgotten it because it is one of those seemingly minor things, although in fact it is a major Bill, that was introduced a considerable time ago. It is a matter that ought to have come back to this chamber much earlier. The amendments proposed in the Bill do not involve any great change in the general policy concerning the overseas investment insurance scheme operated by the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation, which is shortly known as EFIC. The amendments are essentially of an administrative character and are intended to streamline the administration of the scheme for the benefit of Australian investors in overseas countries.

The second reading speech of the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Cotton), which I will basically quote, in one of the introductory paragraphs indicated that the scheme was introduced in 1965 basically to assist Australian manufacturers to establish manufacturing facilities overseas as a means of preserving their export markets. This practice has been fairly widely indulged in by Australian manufacturers. At the time the scheme was introduced Australia was one of the pioneers in the field. An erroneous statement that is frequently made is that it is largely underdeveloped countries that benefit as a result of this scheme. The investment scheme has been a useful means of implementing a policy of successive Australian governments of encouraging direct Australian investment in developing countries, particularly those in our region. By ‘our region’ I refer particularly to the Asian region. Insurance cover is offered against non-commercial risks such as expropriation, war damage and restrictions on the remittance of dividends and capital to Australia. At the present time 60 overseas investments by Australian enterprises are insured under the scheme, involving a maximum contingent liability for the Government and the Corporation of $74m.

The majority of investments insured under the scheme are in developing countries. That is frequently where we go astray. I will read for the record the countries involved. Some of them are not countries that one would classify as underdeveloped countries. I believe this is not the total list, but the countries include Peru, Papua New Guinea, Thailand, Dubai, Singapore, the Philippines, New Caledonia, Panama, Mozambique, Indonesia, the Khmer Republic, Japan- which I suppose is a country which is generally described in the commercial world as one of the most developed countries- Hong Kong, Malaysia, India and Iran. Most of these countries are in an area that is being developed, but two or three cannot be so classified.

I want to finalise the Opposition’s contribution to this debate by quoting a paragraph from a speech by a colleague in another place, Mr Young, which I believe describes the general attitude of the Opposition and, I would hope, also of the Government to the Bill. He said:

I hope to see in the future a steady growth, particularly in the investment area, for it is extremely important for us to play a role in seeing that the under-developed countries reach their own economic independence. I cannot think of any greater assistance we can offer to the countries involved than help of this kind with projects that can be undertaken with the benefit of experience gained in our well advanced technological industries. It has been a successful project . . .

Incidentally, it has been a project that has lasted for more than a decade. It was introduced in 1965. People on both sides of the House could hardly criticise the operation of this legislation. It adds a great deal of confidence to decisions that sometimes have to be made by some of our major industries and runs parallel with similar legislation which operates in other advanced countries. It is not the only scheme of its kind in the world. There are several other similar or parallel schemes. I do not see the necessity for a lengthy debate on these amendments. I reiterate that the Opposition does not oppose the Bill.

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

– in reply- I am indebted to Senator Keeffe for his contribution to a matter which is not the subject of controversy, which we are all agreed upon, and which both sides of government have supported since its inception. I listened with great care to the remarks he made and to his reference to the comments of his colleague in the House of Representatives. I thought they were perfectly correct and ones to which one would subscribe oneself as being the general purpose one hopes to see the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation achieve through time.

Of course it is possible to make a long debate out of this, but I do not think it is necessary. The Corporation has been an admirable operation. It. has grown steadily. It has been most successful. It is probably known to most honourable senators that it has a face value insurance in its business of $1,356,000,000. In 1975-76 it paid out in claims $2. 7m and recovered out of that $1.5m. Its premium income is about $4m. So it is not a very expensive operation for what it does when you think about the cover. It has a surplus of $ 1.3m. It is endeavouring to extend its operations, and it has certainly extended its operations through the years it has been operating.

I believe as time goes on it will come to mean more and more in Australia, because I have taken the view, for instance, and I have said it in the Senate on a number of occasions, that Australia as a nation has to learn a great deal more about handling its capital problems in relation to its export trade, whether it is in primary products, in developing country assistance or in the export of capital goods or projects. It is in this kind of operation we will learn how to manage this exercise in relation to overseas trade. We have been a country of significance in overseas trading for many years, but we have not been a country that came to understand very much about international financing of that trade and the complications of that. It is quite essential for this Parliament to take a bipartisan position in the area of international finance as it affects Australia’s balance of payments, Australia’s competitive trade and Australia’s ability to take a stronger position through time because of its resource capacity. The exercise of the Corporation through the years will be extended to do more and more of those things in a very sensible and well run way. I thank Senator Keeffe and the Opposition for their contribution.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1061

HANDICAPPED PERSONS ASSISTANCE AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 26 August, on motion by Senator Guilfoyle:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

-This Bill, which amends the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act, has the effect of increasing the rate of the handicapped children’s benefit from $3.50 a day to $5 a day. This Bill will not be opposed by the Opposition, nor has the Australian Labor Party any desire to delay the passage of this legislation. The increase from $3.50 to $5 a day is a rise which keeps up with inflation but does no more than that. None the less the increases will be welcomed by those charitable, religious and voluntary agencies which are eligible to receive payments under this legislation and which care for many of the handicapped children in our community. Many of these agencies are in some financial difficulty. State institutions which care for these children have long waiting lists and this often throws the burden onto the non-governmental agencies which may be caring for the children of people in some financial difficulty through unemployment, sickness or lowered incomes, in depressed industries such as the rural industries. In such cases the benefit becomes an indirect subsidy sometimes to the families involved.

In any case smaller, perhaps more residential type of accommodation, is considered preferable by many of us, I am sure, to accommodate handicapped children of various types. It is certainly a more appropriate sort of unit for those children who need residential and institutional type care. The Labor Government introduced the handicapped children’s allowance which was payable to the parents of handicapped children who cared for them at home. This was introduced in December 1975 and this form of care is often the preferable form of care for many children with handicaps. It is of some assistance, but there will still remain a need for suitable residential care and suitable residential accommodation for handicapped children in the community. One of the difficulties is to know how many children need this care and how to plan for the future. In this regard we would like to know from the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) if possible how many of the approvals for this sort of accommodation have had to be deferred this year due to various restraints.

Future plans for the care of handicapped children- and handicapped adults for that matterin our community in particular depend very much on having an accurate assessment of the size and the type of the problem that we face. In general in this community there has been a deplorable lack of hard statistical data in the welfare field. It has been complained about by welfare professionals in various voluntary agencies. I know that it is a problem to governments, and the Social Wefare Commission when in existence pointed out the great difficulties which we face in trying to rationalise our welfare programs and in trying to rationalise future developments not only in this field but also in many other fields. It was for this reason that this year’s census form contained questions which it was hoped would overcome this lack of knowledge. These questions referred to numbers of handicapped peoples in various families and the types of handicaps they had. I believe that it is a regrettable thing that, with the staff ceilings in the various economy drives that the Government has felt necessary to put in train, these figures will not be available for up to 2 years. Of course, by that time they will be out of date. I think that we should urge the Government to reconsider the delay in processing figures of this type, which are obviously needed if we are to take a sensible approach to the problems that we know we face. I am sure that people from the Australian Bureau of Statistics would be keen and anxious to get this sort of information available because for too long in this country we have been going in the dark. We have been approaching all welfare programs in a piecemeal way with methods whereby we have no idea where we are going or what sort of result we will produce from our legislation.

The Opposition is also somewhat concerned that the handicapped assistance plans in general are the subject of inquiry by another task forceanother committee of inquiry- of the Government. We well remember that one of the criticisms of the Labor Government was that there were too many commissions and committees of inquiry. We have had the results of those commissions and committees of inquiry. It seems to us that we will not get the results of the committees of inquiry that have been set up by the present Government. The Bailey task force on health and welfare in the community is due very shortly to produce an interim report. I believe that it is expected to be produced at the end of this month. But we have no idea to whom it will report and whether this House and this Parliament will see it.

In the area of handicapped assistance in general one item has been given top priority by the Bailey task force. It has been given a star rating. That item is the very benefit mentioned in this Bill- the handicapped children’s benefit. We know from the terms of reference of the task force that the Government has given this task force the problem of deciding which programs and which items will be eliminated and which will be consolidated and, to cite the terms of reference, which items will be co-ordinated at the State and local government level without Commonwealth involvement. We are quite fascinated that this item has been given top priority at the time when it has been legislated for. At the end of the month the task force will report and we hope that we will get some official knowledge of the recommendations of the task force.

The Labor Party has been responsible for the introduction of a number of plans to help the handicapped in this community. The Labor Government, which was in power until last November, was responsible for the most comprehensive plan for handicapped persons. In May 1974 Mr Hayden foreshadowed a 15-point plan for assistance to all handicapped people. This plan was introduced in either late 1974 or early 1975 and included in it was the handicapped children’s allowance which will be the subject of legislation later in this session. The handicapped children’s benefit in 1974 was doubled from $ 10.50 a week to $2 1 a week.

But more than that was introduced. Various plans and schemes were introduced and the Handicapped Assistance Act was consolidated so that we could make a step forward in assisting handicapped people of all ages. The changes that were then introduced were introduced after consultation with the Australian Council for the Rehabilitation of the Disabled and the Australian Association for the Mentally Retarded. These organisations are very useful organisations which do a lot of research. Their members are concerned people who know the problems of the handicapped of all ages. They can make a great contribution to the formulation of Government policy and we hope that the Government is keeping close liaison with them. The Austraiian Association for the Mentally Retarded, for instance, is very keen to help establish in this capital city an institute to study the mentally retarded and methods of rehabilitation and treatment of them. Whether this is the appropriate place for it I would not know, but I think it is a worthwhile idea and one worth investigating.

In the Budget the handicapped children’s allowance is increased by SO per cent, and certainly we will not oppose that. The handicapped children’s benefit is increased by some 40 per cent. However, we notice that the incentive allowance for handicapped people in sheltered employment has not been increased at all. The rationale for this decision may be reasonable but we would like to know what it is. We believe also that the Government should be mindful of the importance of community involvement in the provision of facilities for the handicapped and, perhaps more importantly, mindful of increasing awareness in the community of the problems of the handicapped, of handicapped children and especially the problems of the parents of handicapped children. In this regard the Austraiian Assistance Plan was important in respect of improving facilities and awareness. It is important that community involvement and awareness be encouraged. We believe it is a great pity that this stimulus to community involvement and awareness has been lost.

The Opposition does not oppose this increase- in fact it welcomes it- but we urge the Government to look to the future and plan. We will welcome such planning and the provision of information on which such planning is based. We hope that future welfare plans in this and other areas of social security will be on the basis of good, hard statistical data, of research and of information and that that information will not be buried in interdepartmental committees of inquiry which do not report to this Parliament, committees of inquiry to which matters are referred and which report only to have part of their reports acted upon and parts rejected while the Parliament, the public, the people involved and the parents of the people involved have no idea of the basis on which these plans were developed. We urge the Government to facilitate such planning by obtaining the necessary statistical information that is available from the Bureau of Statistics through the last census and from any other source and that the Government will not rest on the small cash increases in this benefit, important though it is, and in the handicapped children’s allowance. We should look at the whole field of handicapped persons.

Senator BAUME:
New South Wales

-The Senate is debating the Handicapped Persons Assistance Amendment Bill and it may be important at the beginning to take up some of the points that Senator Grimes was making regarding assessment of what we are doing in the whole welfare area. As he put it, we should know whether we are getting value for our efforts. I thoroughly endorse his concern that we should know with any of the programs operating in this country, no matter how worthy the client group, what the programs are supposed to be doing and whether they are doing that job. I notice that the main report of the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty had among its recommendations that an assessment should be carried out, and that there should be federal funding of State governments to evaluate services. Senator Grimes was making an important point in emphasising that we want evaluation of every program and want to know what is the purpose of any change. I believe that this Government is moving towards that objective.

The Henderson Commission of Inquiry also made a recommendation that pensions should be adequate for specific disability groups and this Bill which deals with handicapped persons fits exactly the area about which Professor Henderson was writing. The Bill seeks to increase the benefit payable to handicapped children. It increases the benefit payable to organisations caring for the children. This kind of benefit has an interesting history. In 1968 it was first instituted by the Liberal-Country Party Government of the day. It was not then payable under the Act which we are amending tonight. It was payable under the National Health Act, and Senator Grimes has pointed out that in 1974 that Act was changed and a separate Handicapped Persons Assistance Act passed. The Henderson Commission in its reports designed to alleviate poverty and to make agencies more effective recommended that there should be loans to nonprofit agencies to provide subsidised accommodation. This Bill goes further. The existing Act provides grants for organisations and provides assistance. The money is payable to non-profit organisations which are providing residential accommodation and training for certain groups of handicapped people and there are quite substantial increases proposed in this Bill for those organisations- $3.50 to $5, as Senator Grimes has mentioned- payable from 1 November 1976. They will apply to 86 institutions caring for more than 1400 children.

Also this year the Fraser Government is providing an increase in the handicapped children’s allowance of 50 per cent, an increase which was acknowledged by Senator Grimes in his contribution, from $ 10 to $ 1 5 a week. This is further evidence of the importance we place on trying to support groups with demonstrated need.

Let us look at what this program has achieved. Of the $30m made available for capital expenditure on new projects this year, $27m is to go on projects already approved and $3m on new projects. We anticipate that next year there will be expenditure of a further $10m and in 1978-79 of a further $20m, a very considerable capital outlay.

All this is part of a concern of the Fraser Government to assist those in need, and in a year in which we have emphasised financial stringency and the need for restraint, we have still found it possible to assist, in not one but in many areas, groups in need and people in need. I am sure that no one in the Senate would want it otherwise. This is consistent with the stated policy of the Liberal and National Country Parties. Spending in our Budget on social services and welfare has been increased by 23 per cent, almost a quarter more than it was in 1975-76. It is a very generous increase. It indicated that the Fraser Government in its dealings with those in need is a compassionate and a caring Government. We have introduced the family allowances scheme this year- a significant and important reform. As announced in the Budget Speech and subsequently we will be replacing the means test with a simplified incomes test. We have announced that pension rates are to be adjusted automatically. We have announced that there is to be a housing voucher experiment designed to assist those in need. We have announced today that students in need will have increased allowances under the Tertiary Education Assistance scheme. We have announced the expenditure of more than $14m during this year on rehabilitation programs.

Throughout this year of stringency, throughout this year of financial hardship, it has been possible for this Government to identify areas of need and to offer real assistance to the groups in those areas. I hope that with the easing of financial stringency in the next few years it will be possible to increase our activities even further and to take account of even more of the recommendations of the Henderson Commission and of many of the other welfare reports which have emerged. Again I would like to take up and agree with a point that Senator Grimes made in his speech. We do have in this country now a data base, a set of facts which we did not have several years ago. We have a set of facts which gives us some idea of the dimensions of poverty and the dimensions of need. It is now possible for us, working from these basic documents to construct programs to meet some of these acknowledged needs.

This Bill, which amends the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act, is merely one such initiative. It is consistent with our overall program to identify those in special need and to give them real assistance. It is part of our program to protect the poor and to protect the weak. It is entirely consistent with our whole approach to welfare and our style of government. I would hope that the Senate would acknowledge that this is a Bill which deserves commendation from both sides.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I welcome this Bill. It gives further assistance to those in need and in particular to the handicapped. It adopts the principle that the whole of society must accept the responsibility for a person in need. It is gratifying to see that the Government, a Liberal-National Country Party Government, has recovered from some 20 years of inactivity in this field and has responded to the initiatives instituted by Bill Hayden, if I recollect correctly, in 1971 when he announced a very comprehensive program. By 1 January 1975 the whole of that program was implemented. I am not saying that we, as the previous Labor Government, should take all the credit. I am saying, in response to Senator Baume ‘s quite eloquent support of the present Government, that he must also give a large share of the credit to the initiatives taken by the previous Labor Government. For instance, if I may just briefly classify them, I refer to the adoption of many of the recommendations of the Griffith report, especially recommendations of the National Advisory Committee on the Handicapped and also the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Health and Welfare. In 1971, as I said, Bill Hayden was responsible for designing a comprehensive program.

Senator Grimes has indicated that the handicapped children’s benefit was doubled during the period the previous Government was in office. The handicapped children’s allowance was introduced by the previous Labor Government. Whilst we support the Bill, some of us had some doubt at the beginning of the year as to whether the present Government was going to continue the program. There was, in spite of what Senator Baume has said, hesitation by the Government. There were comments such as programs will be carried out in this way subject to budgetary requirements’. I remember a number of occasions when the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) and for that matter the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) used this phrase to qualify many of the programs which the Government announced.

The phrase seemed to me to indicate that the Ministers in charge of these areas of responsibility to society were coming under pressure, just as previous governments had come under pressure, from the Treasury to cut down expenditure in the area of social welfare. If I may make the point again, this is the area which should not be subjected to budgetary requirements. The efforts to meet the needs of the community as far as health and welfare are concerned should not be limited. The responsibilities should be met. If there is a short fall in finance that shortfall must be carried by another section of the economy. In particular cuts made in February 1976 created difficulties in New South Wales. I have in front of me an editorial which appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald on 9 February. It questioned what the Government was appearing to do. It said:

In deciding to cut aid for projects assisting handicapped children, the Federal government has stepped into a sensitive area. It is one in which special care must be taken with any cuts made. Governments in Australia have been slow to provide aid for handicapped children.

The editorial concluded by saying:

The Federal Government has begun to recognise the size of the problems. It is realising that many of them are beyond the capacity of individuals to overcome. This realisation and the consequent aid should go forward, not backwards.

I trust that this legislation before us tonight is a movement forward, not backward. I would emphasise that private organisations in this area should not have to bear the responsibility of fund raising. They have a difficult task in providing administration, in providing the cohesion required in carrying out programs for the care of the handicapped without having to worry about raising the finance. We should not be getting this sort of welfare on the cheap, subsidising money which is raised by the private efforts of people who have already accepted a responsibility for the care of the handicapped.

There was also a further editorial in March 1976 headed ‘Hope for retarded schools program’. Apparently the Federal Government got into difficulties with the New South Wales Department of Education. I trust that the deadlock which developed at that time in respect of the program for mentally retarded children has been overcome. 1 hope that the Minister might be able to enlighten me on this point. In Queensland as late as 1 8 August 1 966 this comment appeared in the Press:

Workers for the Queensland Spastic Centre at New Farm were being forced to act as beggers to maintain their service, a union leader said yesterday.

The union leader was Mr A. Bevis of the Transport Workers Union. He was underlining the problem that this organisation was facing.

I suggest to the Minister that great care has to be taken with the implementation of these programs by her Department and by State departments which have been funded to carry out certain programs to support handicapped children. For some reason there seems to be a considerable difference between the intention of the Government, through the Minister of the day, and the actual result in the field. This has been revealed by Senator Grimes in a question concerning the way in which the Department of Social Security was terminating unemployment benefits. There seems to be a most inhumane approach to the needs of a person unemployed. Similarly I think Senator McLaren revealed in a question today that the operation of the Commonwealth Employment Service fell short of the intention of the Government and that in the area of assistance to both junior and senior handicapped persons there may be a tendency by the bureaucracy to become callous in its application of the program. Again I return to the possibility that the Treasury, preoccupied with the need to reduce the deficit, may impose budgetary restrictions in this area of welfare. This may pass down into the bureaucracy and may in the end lead to a diminished service.

Let me say in conclusion that there seems to be general agreement on both sides of this House at least that programs for the handicapped and for the needy should not be in any way limited. On the contrary they should be more freely supported financially and should be more freely supported with professional and scientific skills. For that reason therefore, in spite of the fact that I have made criticisms, I welcome the Bill because it adds to the assistance of very worthwhile organisations. I trust that the Department and the Minister will monitor the needs of these organisations and provide, with the generosity that the area needs, further sums as the months and years go by.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– in reply- The Government thanks honourable senators for taking part in the debate this evening on the Handicapped Persons Assistance Amendment Bill. I will make reference to one or two matters in closing the second reading debate. I welcome the fact that the Opposition did not oppose this Bill which increases handicapped children’s benefits as announced by the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) in the Budget Speech this year. Honourable senators are aware of the increase from $3.50 a day to $5 a day which will take effect from 1 November 1976. These payments are made to eligible voluntary, religious or charitable organisations or local governing bodies which provide an approved residential program for handicapped children who are engaged in training and who require accommodation. The Bill provides that the benefit will be paid in respect of physically or mentally handicapped children under 16 years of age. Claims for this benefit are submitted monthly in arrears by the organisations concerned. Senator Baume mentioned that approximately 1400 handicapped children in 86 homes are receiving this benefit at present.

I take the points that were raised by Senator Grimes as being important. I refer to the care of children at home instead of in larger institutions and the fact that smaller and more personal institutions are of benefit to many children. I also share his concern with regard to the figures which have been collected by the Bureau of Statistics. The figures will be of great assistance in the future in determining programs to meet the needs of children and adults with handicaps. It was of some interest to me that at the recent census the question had been raised as to whether there was an intrusion on the privacy of an individual in being asked whether he or a member of his family suffered any handicap. The matter was considered to be desirable. The information collected could enable planning for the future to meet the needs of handicapped people. I hope that we will soon be able to process and analyse the statistics that have been collected so that we can move into future programs on a sound data basis. The information undoubtedly is required by those people who know how plans need to be developed.

It was mentioned that the handicapped persons program is subject to a committee of inquiry. I think it is well known that the Government at present has an interdepartmental task force looking at the variety and diversity of health and welfare programs. The Commonwealth Government, State governments and in some cases local governments and voluntary organisations are involved in these programs. It was considered by the Government that it needed a task force to look at these programs and to collate and perhaps recommend coordination and means of effective delivery of service in the areas of health and welfare. I do not feel that there need be any concern by the Opposition that this task force has as its objective the elimination of benefits; rather it has as its task the efficiency of delivery of service and coordination of programs at the levels which I mentioned.

Senator Grimes hoped that we would keep close contact with the bodies of advice which exist in the community. I mention that the Australian Council for Rehabilitation of the Disabled is an advisory committee which will be funded this year to the extent of $ 150,000 to enable it to continue its co-ordinating role and its effective advisory role. The National Advisory Committee on the Handicapped has been instrumental in making very sound recommendations to me and also has worked with other people who have expert knowledge in the care of handicapped persons. I agree with what has been said with regard to community involvement in caring for people with handicaps. Perhaps here I would disagree with Senator Georges to the extent that this is not a matter of trying to curtail government expenditure by using voluntary organisations; rather it is by using voluntary organisations that we have that other dimension in the care that can be given to people with handicaps and in the support that can be given to parents of handicapped children. Involvement of the community and the support of the community is a very important part of the way in which we are able to work. It is a role that I would not like to see diminished for any reason. There are extensions of government work that can be done by the community itself in a way that government is not able to do.

The other matter mentioned by Senator Georges to which I feel I should make some reference was the Press clipping that he quoted of a date in February. I draw his attention to a Press statement which I released on 13 February in which I refuted the allegation made on the previous day by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr E. G. Whitlam, that major benefits for handicapped children had been cut by the present Commonwealth Government. In that Press statement, I stated:

  1. . on the contrary, benefits and allowances paid by the Department of Social Security would increase substantially this year.

In the 1974-7S financial year $ 1.58m was paid out in handicapped child’s allowance. These payments are made to parents caring for handicapped children in their own home and this financial year these people will get a total of nearly $9m . . .

I stated further:

  1. . payments of handicapped children’s benefit, which are made to organisations caring for the children, will rise from $890,000 last year to $ 1 .2m in 1 975-76.

I added also that $30m had been allocated for assistance to organisations providing assistance to handicapped people, including children in the current financial year- that was last year. I said that there would be no cut in this amount which compared with expenditure of nearly $ 15m in 1974-75 and $7m in 1973-74. 1 stated also that the current Commonwealth Government programs for assistance to handicapped people were all being continued in view of the special needs of handicapped people. This was a government commitment in February. My Press statement originated because of statements that had been made erroneously by the Leader of the Opposition and which were causing concern to parents of handicapped people who believed a cut would be made in expenditure on handicapped people. This was proved to be totally inaccurate. I think it should be said again at this stage that we have now embarked upon a program that will be of considerable benefit to handicapped children.

In addition to the increase in the allowance that is the subject of this Bill, we have also announced that there will be an increase in the handicapped child’s allowance from $10 to $15 a week. In addition to the amount of $30mcomprising $2 7m for continuing commitments and $3m for new projects- it has also been announced that a 3-year program will be implemented. In the next few days I hope to be able to announce the program for the second and third years of the 3-year program. In 1977-78, $10m will be provided for new projects. In 1978-79 provision for new projects will be doubled to $20m, in addition to providing for the continuing recurrent expenditures. Over these 3 years a total of $ 121m will be provided under this program.

Senator Grimes raised a query with regard to projects which may have been deferred. We believed that because there were projects which were worthy of assistance and because community funds had been raised by voluntary organisations it was essential that we went beyond simply this year in planning. So, we have announced a 3-year program which has been mentioned. These matters are of great importance to us as a government in meeting the needs of and showing our concern for handicapped people. I have welcomed the fact that this Bill has been well received by honourable senators from both sides of the chamber. It is one of the Bills which I think will be of great benefit to those organisations which are caring for handicapped children.

Senator Georges raised a query with regard to New South Wales and referred to schools which were under some consideration or discussion. I can only report to him that according to the information available to me at the present time discussions were held with the former Minister, Mr Ciough, prior to the change of government in New South Wales to determine what would be the State government commitment and what may be any future Commonwealth Government commitment in relation to special schools. The present Minister involved in this work in New South Wales has sought discussions with me. I will arrange to have discussions with him to determine our respective participation in any future programs in that State. I thank the Senate for the way in which it has debated this Bill and I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1067

TELEVISION STATIONS LICENCE FEES AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 9 September, on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-The Opposition does not oppose this Bill. The circumstances in which the Bill was introduced were set out in the second reading speech of the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick). Commercial television stations at the moment are having a very successful time financially. Their program standards have not improved but that really has nothing to do with government revenue which is obtained from licence fees. The Opposition has nothing further to add.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1067

ADJOURNMENT

Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament- Australian Capital Territory- Public Servants- Tabling of Documents

Motion (by Senator Carrick) proposed:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator SHEIL:
Queensland

– I rise to counter certain aspersions and allegations that were cast on the Queensland Premier during the debate on the adjournment in this chamber last night. The tenor of Senator Colston’s speechapart from the innuendo and invective- was that the media should start a searching scrutiny of the Queensland Premier’s share deals and hound him with it and that the Queensland Premier should resign because of his lack of decency and lack of integrity. He stated that the Queensland Premier should resign because of the stunning conflict of interest that existed between his position as Premier of the State and his share holdings in certain companies that had a far-removed locus of activity from government contracts. Senator Colston also, called for this Parliament to legislate, following the tabling of the report by the Joint Committee on the Pecuniary interests of members of the Parliament last year. The honourable senator then went on to draw a rather tenuous web of connection between the Queensland Premier and a company called Nema Holdings Limited. He said that that company had hit the jackpot since the Queensland Government’s recent change in policy in that it was now giving out certain government works contracts to private enterprise.

The leaflet that the honourable senator mentioned iti his speech and obviously the one from which he drew his inspirations for his speech was circulated amongst the workers of the building industry in Queensland under the heading: ‘The Premier and the Public Works’. It was signed by one, Fred Nerk. Even the Opposition’s ubiquitous blind Freddie would recognise the anonymity of this scurrilous rag. Fred Nerk of course, was a character in the Goon Show. Perhaps the honourable senator should audition for a similar show. The leaflet, by the way, was pinned to the Press notice board in the Queensland Parliament for a fortnight and even the Brisbane Press reporters recognised it as just being gutter gossip and did not take it seriously. Even the Leader of the Opposition in Queensland did not take it seriously. Obviously no Labor Senator from Queensland has taken it seriously apart from the tyro senator opposite who had the temerity to pick up this gutter publication and use it to flog a dead horse. Naturally, it had been mentioned in papers of such repute as the National Review and Semper Floreat but it is still of fictitious authorisation. The honourable senator was just trying to use the same old smear tactics on the Queensland Premier’s share dealings that had been discredited years ago. The Queensland Premier’s share dealings have been public knowledge for years and are open for all to see. Any conflict of interest is denied. The Premier makes no apology for his share dealings. If more people had shown the courage and foresight that he has shown they would be financially better off than they are today.

Senator Keeffe:

– You mean to say he owns all those shares?

Senator SHEIL:

– Perhaps the honourable senator would prefer the Queensland Premier to do his dealings at breakfast with the Iraqis like the leader of his Party does. But to show how misleading the speech of the honourable senatorthe honourable retailer of gutter gossipwas last night, I should like to cite this letter.

Senator Colston:

– I raise a point of order, Mr President. As you probably know, Mr President, I intend to follow in this debate but I do not think that I should be referred to as a purveyor of gutter gossip.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Colston, you object to those terms?

Senator Colston:

– I do, Mr President. I shall show shortly, when I have the chance to speak in this debate, that what I said last night is correct but I do not think that that is the point at this stage. I do not think that the terminology used by the honourable senator should be used from one senator to another in this chamber.

The PRESIDENT:

– It is not very parliamentary.

Senator Keeffe:

– I want to support what the honourable senator has said in taking his point of order. The statements made by Senator Colston last night were totally true. The information has been widely published. I think this has been verified by Senator Sheil. In the short statement that he has made already to the Senate he has admitted the truthfulness of the statements that were made. I think that there ought to be some sort of withdrawal of the term used by Senator Sheil when referring to Senator Colston.

Senator Webster- I rise to speak on the point of order. If the Opposition wishes to treat Senator Sheil in this way I imagine that from now on those honourable senators, such as Senator Keeffe and others who have referred to the State Premier, Mr Bjelke-Petersen, as ‘Holy Joh’ and by other such names will certainly seek to take those references off the notice paper and will never use them again. I think that this is a one sided argument and there is no requirement for Senator Sheil to withdraw his remarks.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Colston has complained about the expression used. He takes it as a reflection upon himself.

Senator SHEIL:

– I withdraw the reference to the honourable senator as an ‘honourable retailer of gutter gossip’. The letter I wish to cite is from the State Secretary of the Building Workers Industrial Union of Australia, Queensland Branch. It is dated 21 September 1976 and reads as follows:

Mr Bill Stockwell,

Nema Constructions Pty Ltd,

P.O. Box 53,

DARRA, Qld 4076

Dear Sir,

Recently a leaflet was circulated to workers in the building industry under the heading ‘The Premier and the Public Works’.

The leaflet contained reference to the Premier, Mr J. Bjelke-Petersen’s connections with Nema Construction- this by way of shareholding in mining and oil companies, in particular Highland Gold.

Comments in the leaflet implied that Nema Construction were in a more favourable position for obtaining contracts because of the Premier’s connection with the Company.

One of the sub-headings on the leaflet was ‘NEMA WAS RECENTLY GIVEN THE FOLLOWING CONTRACTS’. This sub-heading is misleading. Nearly all contracts referred to in the leaflet were contracts obtained by Nema Construction through ethical methods of tendering prior to the Company becoming a public company on December 12, I97S i.e. before the Premier, Mr Bjelke-Petersen or the mining and other Companies had any connection with Nema Construction.

These facts were substantiated following a discussion between myself, another official of this union, and Mr Bill Stockwell, and also after we perused the tendering book of Nema Constructions.

In all fairness we acknowledge that the State Government contracts obtained by this Company were gained in a normal, proper manner.

Youn faithfully,

  1. R. HAMILTON, State Secretary

Mr Hugh Hamilton happens to be the President of the Communist Party in Queensland and could not possibly be considered to be a friend of the Premier. I seek leave to table the document, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

– I had no intention of speaking on the adjournment tonight but when I heard that Senator Sheil was to speak on the matter that I raised last night I felt compelled to say a few words to the Senate, especially with regard to the comments which had been made. It is not the first time tonight that the word ‘gutter’ has been used. In fact -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! That matter has been attended to. Please carry on your remarks without reference to a previous point of order.

Senator COLSTON:

-Very well, Mr President. I shall mention that tonight on radio and television in Queensland the Premier of Queensland accused me of making misleading comments to this Senate. During the course of his accusations he said that I picked my information up from the gutter. I should like to tell the Senate in a moment where I did find my information. It was not from that leaflet that was referred to just a few minutes ago. I should like to point out also that during that same news broadcast which I heard by way of telephone this evening the Premier of Queensland said that he would be writing to you, Mr President, to complain about the misleading information that I had given to this Senate last night. I do hope he writes to you because I shall point out to the Senate tonight where I obtained the information.

Before I do that, let me mention that the whole point of what I said last night with regard to the Premier of Queensland has been missed. In fact, my whole argument last night centred on the report of the Joint Committee on Pecuniary Interests of Members of the Parliament. The point that I was stressing with regard to the Premier of Queensland was not that he was necessarily profiting from any shareholding that he had but that there was a conflict of interest. It was this conflict of interest that I was stressing.

I did not make this speech with the expectation that it would be left to people to read Hansard in order to find out what I had said. My motives were greater than that. Today I had a member of my staff in Brisbane take copies of my speech to every person who was mentioned in the speech and to some people who were not mentioned directly but were, only peripherally connected. Amongst others, copies went to Nema Holdings Ltd, Mr Siller, who was mentioned last night, to Mr Bjelke-Petersen’s office, to Mr Lee, the Minister for Construction and- Housing, and to Spry Walker and Co. which, I believe, is connected with Nema Holdings Ltd and associated companies, and also the Commissioner for Corporate Affairs. Out of courtesy, those people and organisations were sent copies of the speech, so that they would be able to see what was in it and what was the main theme of my argument. Mr Siller was quoted on television tonight. He was quoted as mentioning that Mr Bjelke-Petersen did have an interest in Nema Holdings. The point I am making is that the whole theme of my argument was concerned with a conflict of interest. Where did I obtain most of my information? Mr Bjelke-Petersen was quoted on the media tonight as saying that I picked it up out of the gutter. If I picked it up out of the gutter, that does not say much for some of his State Government organisations; I obtained most of the information from the Queensland Government’s Office of Corporate Affairs.

Senator Sheil:

– It is public knowledge.

Senator COLSTON:

-Of course it is public knowledge, but the honourable senator said that I took it from a document which was circulated by the Building Workers Industrial Union. The honourable senator quoted a statement by the State Secretary of the Building Workers Industrial Union, a man who is an avowed communist, to back up his argument. I obtained my information from a place where this type of information is readily available, or at which it should be readily available, to any member of the public.

Honourable senators may remember that in my speech last night I said that some not too subtle attempts were made to prevent me from obtaining information. When I went to the Office of the Commissioner for Corporate Affairs on a number of occasions to seek this information, I was told from time to time: “The document is missing. We cannot find the document. Ring back later on. We may have it in the morning’. But I persisted and I obtained the information from that Office. I am very surprised indeed that Senator Shiel should stand up here and try to defend the Premier of Queensland in respect of the statements that I made last night.

Senator McLaren:

– He is leaving the chamber now.

Senator COLSTON:

-Yes, he is leaving. Senator Sheil was a member of the Joint Committee on the Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament. I wish to quote a couple of recommendations from that report. The first recommendation reads:

The Committee recommends that Members of Parliament should disclose the names of all companies in which they have a beneficial interest of shareholdings, no matter how insignificant, whether held as an individual, a member of another company or partnership, or through a trust.

That is one of the recommendations of the Joint Committee of which Senator Sheil was a member. There is nothing in the report to show that Senator Sheil in any way disagreed with that recommendation. But another of the recommendations is even more significant.

  1. . the Committee recommends that Ministers of the Crown, on assuming office, should resign any directorship and dispose of any shares in a public or private company which might be seen to be affected by decisions taken within the Minister’s sphere of responsibility.

That recommendation clearly outlines the conflict of interest about which I was speaking last night. With your concurrence, Mr President, I shall read a short statement which I issued tonight. I did not think that I would be speaking in the adjournment debate tonight. I hoped that I would not have to take the time of the Senate this evening to do so. Believing at about 8 o’clock this evening that I would not be speaking in the adjournment debate I issued a statement concerning some of the comments that have been made about me by Mr Bjelke-Petersen this afternoon. With your concurrence, Mr President, I would like to read to the Senate the statement which I issued to the Press this evening.

The PRESIDENT:

– You may read whatever you like, but not as a speech.

Senator COLSTON:

-Thank you, Mr President. The statement reads:

Senator Mai Colston tonight said that it was incredible that the Premier of Queensland had resorted to personal abuse in an effort to push the Nema affair under the carpet. It is quite obvious that the Premier has not read the speech presented to the Senate last night’, Senator Colston said. A copy was supplied to his office by a member of my staff this afternoon. Until he gives it proper consideration he should not go off with ill prepared statements. Senator Colston said that the Premier’s claim that the Senate had been deceived was totally false. So too was the claim that I had obtained my information from an anonymous pamphlet. ‘My facts were researched and a great majority of my information came from the Queensland State Government’s Corporate Affairs Office’, Senator Colston said. I stand by what I said last night and, if necessary, would repeat it outside Parliament.

That is the statement which I issued this evening in the belief that I would not be speaking in the Senate tonight. When I spoke last night, I intended doing 2 things: first, to urge the Government to take note of the recommendations in the report of the Joint Committee and, secondly, to outline what I thought was a serious state of affairs which existed in Queensland. If people keep trying to defend the Queensland Premier and keep trying to suggest that I have put forward wrong arguments or wrong information, I will continue to speak against them, and that will continue to receive coverage by the media. Last night I pointed out that I did not believe or did not even contemplate that favourable treatment had been given to Nema. This is what I said last night:

Let me stress that I do not allege that Nema has been given favourable treatment because of its association with Mr Bjelke-Petersen. I make no claim that Nema has not won its contracts on its own merits. I certainly have seen no evidence to suggest that this is so. What I am stressing is that a conflict of interest exists with the political leader in the State of Queensland. Indeed, the Queensland Premier’s conflict of interest in this case is plain and indisputable.

If debate on this conflict of interest continues, I shall continue to come before this place and I shall be able to put forward the exact number of shares that I have been able to uncover that this man holds. Perhaps there are many more. The companies are so intertwined that it is very difficult to understand the position. I stress that the matters which I presented last night are correct. I am able to back them up. I am so sure of the facts that, if necessary, I will repeat them outside this Parliament. If people continue to defend the Premier because of what I say, I will continue to repeat these statements.

Senator MAUNSELL:
Queensland

– I believe that if Senator Colston adheres to his statement that he is prepared to repeat outside this House what he said last night we can let the law take care of this matter. Earlier he quoted something which he said last night. I wish to quote one thing which he said last night which he did not quote earlier. It is quoted at page 997 of yesterday ‘s Hansard. He said:

I urge the media not to be silent on this issue. If Mr BjelkePetersen happened to be a Labor politician- heaven forbidhe would be hounded mercilessly by the media and forced to hand over to someone who exhibited integrity in his leadership. The fact that Mr Bjelke-Petersen is a member of the National Party does not absolve him from the searching scrutiny of the media. His party membership and his position certainly give him no licence to make personal profit from contracts let by his own Government.

I hope Senator Colston will make that statement outside the House.

Senator Sheil:

– He has offered to make it.

Senator MAUNSELL:

– I hope he makes it outside the House. Today Senator Sheil tabled the letter from Mr Hugh Hamilton.

Senator Colston:

– He is a communist.

Senator MAUNSELL:

– The greatest communist hater in this country would be one Joh Bjelke-Petersen. One could not imagine a top communist in Queensland supporting Joh Bjelke-Petersen. No one does more than Joh Bjelke-Petersen to get rid of the communists in that State. Even this top communist knows that the scurrilous statements which have been made are untrue. He believes that to save his own hide and to save his own integrity he must admit that what Joh Bjelke-Petersen did was within the law, within the bounds of integrity and so forth.

This argument about Joh Bjelke-Petersen’s holdings in companies, his shareholdings and what-have-you has been public knowledge for years. We have fought 2 elections on this matter. The Labor Party has used it to try to smear him and to try to get the public on side. What was the result? Of 82 members in the Quensland House today, there are 1 1 Labor Party members.

Senator Sheil:

– A cricket team.

Senator MAUNSELL:

– Yes, a cricket team.

Senator Mulvihill:

– That is because of the worst gerrymander in Australia.

Senator MAUNSELL:

– If the Electoral Act in Queensland was changed and there was no gerrymander, and members were elected on the basis of one vote one value, the Labor Party would have only 5 members. This is a very interesting exercise. I suggest to the Queensland members that there be a redistribution. I do not care how it is done. If it is done on the basis of one vote one value, the Labor Party will not get more than 5 members. It can talk this way as long as it likes. It has only 1 1 members because it has no support in the State.

Senator Bonner:

– How many representatives from Queensland does the Labor Party have in the other House?

Senator MAUNSELL:

– It has only one, and he scraped in only by the skin of his teeth. If we had organised our campaign a little better he would not be there. The Labor Party is so far down the drain that it realises that most Queenslanders are behind Joh Bjelke-Petersen. The votes show it. The Labor Party would love to be able to get rid of this one man who has destroyed it in that State. I hope that Senator Colston will make good his offer of today and will go out into the public place and make those statements, particularly the one which I quoted.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– In support of Senator Colston I remind the Senate of the debate that took place in this chamber concerning the shares held by the Premier of Queensland in Exoil, the manner by which he obtained a lease in Queensland while a member of Parliament, misused his position as a member of Parliament in disposing of -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The word misused’ implies a very serious reflection on a member of Parliament. Will you please withdraw it?

Senator GEORGES:

– I am receiving all sorts of advice, Mr President, from honourable senators.

The PRESIDENT:

– It contravenes standing order 4 18.

Senator GEORGES:

– I want in some way to accede to your request, but there is no doubt that that lease which was obtained by Mr BjelkePetersen was sold in such a manner that it attracted the attention of the Taxation Office and of a judge of a court in Queensland who made some very very caustic comments about the Premier at that time. No one can deny that. No one can deny the massive holdings that the Premier had in Exoil which had a lease on the Great Barrier Reef which he sought to drill to the disadvantage of the Australian people. I remind Senator Maunsell and the National Party that the Premier’s own Party and his coalition partner reached the point of voting on a motion of no confidence in the Premier and the Premier was in some difficulty in surviving.

Senator Bonner:

– But he survived.

Senator GEORGES:

– If you recall, Senator Bonner, he survived because he took 2 proxies out of his pocket.

Senator Bonner:

– But that was a long dme ago.

Senator GEORGES:

– It was not so long ago and the situation has not changed. Perhaps Mr Bjelke-Petersen passed some of his shares across to his wife. This seems to be a device which people use from time to time to get themselves out of an area of conflict of interest. It is an admission that they are in a position of conflict of interest, and Mr Bjelke-Petersen was in a position of conflict of interest at that dme.

The other day it was revealed that Mr BjelkePetersen had a shareholding through a number of companies which effectively influenced Nema Holdings Limited. Incidentally, someone by interjection mentioned the other day that Nema spelt backwards is ‘amen’. We might even see Mr Bjelke-Petersen ‘s influence in the choice of that particular name. We cannot get away from the fact that the Premier of Queensland has a strange ethical code. His political attitude, to say the least, is primitive.

Senator Keeffe:

– He is a Christian when he is asleep and a non-Christian when he is awake.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order ! Senator Keeffe, you cannot accuse a person of being a nonChristian in the way you just did.

Senator Keeffe:

– I withdraw the statement.

Senator GEORGES:

-We have complained about the frontier type politics we have in Queensland under the Premier, Mr BjelkePetersen. All I can say is that Senator Colston by his speech in this Senate has drawn attention to the conflict of interest. That conflict of interest would be considered to be important by the Press in Queensland because it gave it front page treatment. The Courier-Mail, unless it is in the public interest, would do very little which would support the Australian Labor Party and in any way disadvantage the coalition in Queensland, but then the matter has been raised the Courier Mail has consistently drawn attention to the strange ethical position in which the Premier of Queensland has found himself and still finds himself.

In conclusion I mention the remarks made by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Withers) last night in response to Senator Colston. He implied that Senator Colston misused privilege. We ought to debate this matter of privilege or it ought to be considered in some way by a committee. To my mind privilege stems from the desire to give to the Parliament and members of the Parliament protection against the mighty, the rich and the powerful. I suggest to Senator Colston that what he did last night and what he did tonight is the right use of privilege. Mr Bjelke-Petersen is in the position to answer the charges. He is in the position to answer the allegations as best he can. Senator Colston had the right to use privilege to disclose the information he did and at the time use privilege as a protection against Nema Holdings Ltd, which has already issued writs against a newspaper which dared to publish the comment. Senator Colston indicated the extent to which an associate of Mr Bjelke-Petersen, Mr Callaghan, was prepared to go to intimidate the Press. He said: ‘If you publish anything in connection with this we will sue’.

I take it that the privilege given to us here is given so we can reveal the truth of a matter without having to face the intimidation of the powerful interests outside this place. For that reason I suggest -

Senator Maunsell:

– Do you recognise BjelkePetersen as all-powerful then?

Senator GEORGES:

-Mr Bjelke-Petersen has the power and privilege of his own place and he misused that privilege not to do what Senator Colston did but to recall the Queensland Parliament for one day during the Federal election in order to defame people without naming them. He defamed person after person by innuendo and by insinuation. Let me tell how he did it. He made vile accusations about Ministers of the Crown getting kickbacks and about Ministers of the Crown having Swiss bank accounts. He did not mention a name because he could not mention a name. At the same time as he was making these statements the National Party membership throughout Queensland was spreading the insidious propaganda and naming Ministers of the Crown. That was a vile exercise and misuse of privilege. Mr Bjelke-Petersen misused privilege and he misused the Parliament of Queensland.

Senator Colston stated a case. He gave the information; he named the companies; he gave the shareholdings. He exercised his right of privilege in the correct fashion. My advice to him is not to make a decision to repeat his comments outside this Parliament because this is a place in which a member of Parliament shall disclose information about the powerful in the land, including Bjelke-Petersen, the directors of Nema and the directors of all associated companies. He should not place himself under threat. Privilege was rightly used by him. It was not abused. The case put was well documented and well supported. Mr Bjelke-Petersen has now been put to the test. He has to explain away his conflict of interest, which gives him large slabs of shares in companies which control Nema Holdings Ltd. Those companies are receiving millions of dollars worth of contracts from the State Government. At one stage in Queensland if one was a member of Parliament and owned a garage and serviced a government motor car one was finished, being in breach of the Constitution. One was in a position of profit under the Crown, but Mr Bjelke-Petersen has thrown all that to the wind. I say that the sooner he is put to the test the better. Senator Colston has put Mr BjelkePetersen to the test. Let Mr Bejlke-Petersen get out of it if he can. The figures are there, the documentation is there, the evidence is there and the profit is there.

Senator KNIGHT:
Austraiian Capital Territory

– I wish to refer briefly to a report in the Canberra Times today relating to constitutional change in the Australian Capital Territory. The report states:

The Depanment of the Capital Territory and sections of other departments servicing Canberra will make way for a new organisation serving the Assembly-

That is the Legislative Assembly of the Territory- but Mr Staley ‘s statement is not expected to either clarify or assure on matters like security of jobs, wages or conditions.

That relates to the public servants involved. I know that that sort of statement gives rise to some concern among many public servants in the Territory who are associated with its administration or who may be associated with its administration following the constitutional change. I understand, although I have not heard these reports myself, that today some Public Service trade union officials have expressed concern at the proposed changes. My personal concern is that a report of that nature may be taken to mean that no such assurances have been given to public servants who may be involved in or affected by constitutional change in the Austraiian Capital Territory. I should like briefly to correct that position by quoting from the policy statement on the Capital Territory issued by the Government parties prior to the last election:

Employment under the Assembly or within the ACT Administration will be under the terms and conditions of the Public Service Act- this will ensure that public servants moving freely between the Government and the ACT administration will be fully protected in all their rights.

That assurance has been given publicly since then. Indeed, a report was carried in the Canberra Times on 5 August which quoted me as passing on an assurance from the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Staley) at a meeting in the Albert Hall in Canberra on 4 August. The report in the Canberra Times stated:

Senator Knight said that he had been assured by Mr Staley that public servants who chose to serve in the ACT administration would retain the same rights as other public servants.

As it turns out, the statement in the Canberra Times to which I referred earlier is correct as far as it goes. But in fact it does not go far enough and mention that those assurances have been given in the past. Once again I was not present, but I understand that the Minister for the Capital Territory reiterated those assurances at a Press conference following the release of his statement on this matter this afternoon.

Tonight in this chamber I seek a clear assurance from the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory that the statement made by the Government parties during the election campaign and the assurance which I gave on 4 August still stand and that public servants who, because of constitutional change, may be involved in or transfer to the Capital Territory administration will have the same rights and terms and conditions as all other public servants under the Public Service Act.

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

– I acknowledge Senator Knight’s great interest in this matter and in public servants in the Australian Capital Territory. Public servants in Canberra need not be disturbed by newspaper reports or statements made by people without authority and perhaps made with intent to deceive. This evening I contacted the office of the Minister for the Capital Territory, Mr Staley, and was given an unqualified assurance that the undertaking given previously by the Minister for the Capital Territory and reiterated by him on several occasions will stand. The extract from the policy of the Liberal and National Country Parties in relation to the Australian Capital Territory, as read out by Senator Knight, is the basis of the undertaking. It says:

Employment under the Assembly or within the A.C.T. Administration will be under the terms and conditions of the Public Service Act- this will ensure that public servants moving freely between the Government and the A.C.T. administration will be fully protected in all their rights.

I hope that that statement will satisfy the honourable senator.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

-Mr President, I shall be very brief. Two of the reports that were tabled yesterday- the report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board and the annual report of the Prices Justification Tribunal- exhibited a trend to which I believe attention should be drawn. The reports were presented on 5 October this year, on 30 September last year and on 19 September the year before. There is a tendency for a number of these reports to be presented later and later each year making it more and more difficult for those honourable senators who are interested in matters contained in those reports in relation to the Estimates committees to be able to have those reports to take into account when preparing for the examination of the Estimates. I simply take the opportunity to draw attention to the fact that there is a trend which should be stopped and reversed so that the Senate has the benefit of those annual reports when it is dealing with the Estimates in September or early in October each year.

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

– On behalf of the appropriate Minister I take note of the comments made by Senator Rae. Over the years we have experienced difficulty in the printing of various documents. Certainly within the last few years that matter has been the subject of debate in this House on a number of occasions. In my view it is imperative that documents and reports of this nature should be available to the Estimates Committees of the Senate. Those Committees play a very important part in the control of expenditure and the control of government administration in Australia. I will certainly refer Senator Rae’s comments to the appropriate Minister.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.33 p.m.

page 1075

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Authorities Controlled by Department of Aboriginal Affairs (Question No. 955)

Senator Wriedt:
TASMANIA

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

  1. 1 ) Which statutory authorities come under the control of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs.
  2. What is the name, occupation, date and term of appointment, and remuneration of each holder of public office of each authority.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

There are no statutory authorities under control of the Department. The following statutory authorities are associated with the Department of Aboriginal Affairs:

The Aboriginal Loans Commission

The Aboriginal Land Fund Commission

The Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.

Taxation Relief for Divorced Fathers (Question No. 973)

Senator Coleman:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

Are many divorced men who are paying maintenance for children of former marriages disadvantaged because (a) child endowment payments are paid to the person caring for the children, usually the former wife, and ( b ) the withdrawal of the rebate for children in taxation returns; if so, will the Treasurer undertake a review of this situation and ensure that divorced men obtain the tax relief that was previously available to them.

Senator Cotton:
LP

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

The new arrangements for assisting families were introduced by the Government in order to direct more support to families in most need. The abolition of the income tax rebates for dependent children and the substitution of higher child endowment has removed the inequity arising from the inability of low income families to take full advantage of the taxation rebates for children. There were estimated to be some 300 000 such families with 800 000 children.

Whenever substantial changes are made to major welfare programs, it is inevitable that gainers and losers will emerge; it is not practicable for the law to take account of each and every variant in personal or domestic circumstances. The Government carefully considered the social implications of the new scheme and concluded that its advantages far outweighed any disadvantages that might attach to it.

Restoration of the income tax rebates to divorced men who are paying maintenance for their children would result in the Government paying double assistance in respect of the children, as the mothers would also be in receipt of enhanced family allowances. Apart from the cost to revenue which this would involve, the payment of a double benefit to divorced or separated parents in respect of the maintenance of their children could hardly be justified while other parents are in receipt of a single benefit

Authorities Controlled by Attorney-General’s Department (Question No. 951)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Which statutory authorities come under the control of the Attorney-General ‘s Department.
  2. What is the name, occupation, date and term of appointment, and remuneration of each holder of public office of each authority.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1) Administrative Appeals Tribunal; Australian Security Intelligence Organisation; Films Board of Review; Law Reform Commission; Legislative Drafting Institute; National Literature Board of Review; Office of the Parliamentary Counsel; Solicitor-General; Trade Practices Tribunal; Australian Institute of Criminology; Film Censorship Board; Barristers and Solicitors Admission Board of the Australian Capital Territory; Commonwealth Practitioners Board; Criminology Research Council; Legal Aid Committee of the Australian Capital Territory; Administrative Review Council; Copyright Tribunal; Institute of Family Studies.

(2)-

Petroleum and Mining Industries (Question No. 306)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

Has the Treasury costed the recommendations contained in the draft report on the petroleum and mining industries issued by the Industries Assistance Commission. If so, what is the estimated cost of implementing the recommendations for the financial year 1976-77, and the financial year 1981-82.

Senator Cotton:
LP

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

The cost in 1 976-77 would be slight, as the revenue effects would generally take at least a year to be felt. It is not practicable to provide a figure for a year as distant as 198 1-82.

The honourable senator would no doubt be aware that the 1976-77 Budget contained a number of concessions to the mining industry which related to some of the recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission. The cost in the first full year of these measures was estimated to be $60m.

As regards those Industries Assistance Commission majority recommendations that do not fall within the ambit of the Budget measures, it was estimated that excluding the proposals relating to housing and welfare at ports and the carry-back of losses, the first full-year cost would be $3 5 m. Adoption of the latter proposals could result in further substantial cost to revenue.

Darwin Airport (Question No. 809)

Senator Kilgariff:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

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

  1. 1 ) What plans are proposed for the future of the Darwin Airport terminal buildings, which were extensively damaged as a result of cyclone Tracy.
  2. What is the proposed time-table if repairs are to be Carried out on the present buildings.
  3. What facilities will be provided to alleviate the subStandard state of the terminal as it now stands.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

Initial works carried out on the terminal building following cyclone Tracy were the minimum required to enable it to function. This was necessary having regard to the competing demands for construction resources for housing and the rehabilitation of Darwin city. Subsequently the first floor transit lounge was refurbished late in 1975 at a cost of approximately $53,000.

A contract has recently been let for the further rehabilitation of the ground floor area of the terminal, at a cost of about S 1 43,000 and with expected completion late this year.

At the completion of this work the terminal will be virtually back to pre-Tracy condition and capacity and this will then allow a reasonable standard of facility to be available whilst the future of the terminal facilities at Darwin is clarified.

It is expected that the present civil aviation area at Darwin Airport will have to be vacated by 1 985 and options available for the development of new civil aviation facilities at

Darwin Airport are being studied at present to determine the most economic solution in the longer term.

You may be assured that a reasonable standard will be maintained in the existing terminal but you will appreciate that, in view of its limited life, expenditure on it must be restricted consistent with achieving that standard.

Prime Minister’s Visit to North America (Question No. 825)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. What arrangements with regard to air travel were made for the Prime Minister and his party on the Prime Minister’s recent visit to the United States and Canada.
  2. If chartered or Royal Australian Air Force aircraft were used on any sections of the tour, (a) why was their use considered necessary, and (b) why were commercial aircraft used on the remaining sections of the tour.
  3. Did the Prime Minister, his staff, and the accompanying security officials find the travel arrangements satisfactory.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Normal commercial flights were used from Sydney to San Francisco and from San Francisco to Sydney. A United States Government aircraft was provided for the journey from Washington to New York.

My wife and I and some members of the party travelled by charter flights within North America over the other stages of the official visit. Other members of the party travelled by scheduled air services.

  1. (a) The chartering of a small jet aircraft within North America enabled official commitments to be fulfilled more conveniently.

    1. Scheduled commercial flights were used where practicable and at less cost than for chaner flights.

  2. The arrangements certainly were not as convenient as those enjoyed by my predecessor in office who used chaner aircraft at significantly greater expense to the Australian taxpayer.

Car Seat Belts (Question No. 835)

Senator Colston:

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

Has the Department of Transport studied the findings of three Melbourne surgeons detailed in a recent edition of the Medical Journal of Australia and reported in the Melbourne Age dated 17 May 1976, that deficiencies in car seat belt design are causing a greater incidence of bowel rupture. If so, what action has been taken as a result of the Department’s investigations.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The Depanment of Transport has been aware for some time of the possibility of injury which can result when seat belts are worn too loosely or with the buckle located in the abdominal region. This problem was investigated in a medical study sponsored by the Depanment of Transport in 1 972 into injuries sustained by vehicle occupants claimed to have been wearing seat belts when involved in accidents. Injuries sustained were shown, however, to be markedly less severe than would have been expected had seat belts not been worn.

On the basis of that study, the Australian Design Rules for Motor Vehicle Safety were modified in order to prevent the incorrect location of buckles and to require the fitting of inertia reel belts which effectively preclude incorrect adjustment. As these design changes extend throughout the vehicle population, injuries of the bowel rupture types should decrease.

There is now a large body of evidence which clearly shows the overall benefits of seat belt wearing. However, further research into injuries sustained in accidents in which seat belts are worn has also been sponsored by my Department with the Traffic Accident Research Unit, New South Wales, so that the effects of changes in design may be monitored and improvements determined.

In order to better protect the occupants of cars fitted with older type seat belts the Department has also mounted intensive educational campaigns to demonstrate the correct method of seat belt adjustment so that the belt is tight and the buckle is at the side of the hip.

Aircraft: Damage by Birds (Question No. 841)

Senator Colston:

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

Has the Department of Transport studied the report prepared by the United States National Transportation Safety Board relating to the susceptibility of some aircraft to damage by birds. If so, what action has been taken as a result of the study.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

Presumably the report to which the senator refers is the National Transportation Safety Board Recommendations issued on 1 April 1976 following investigations of the accident involving a DC10 rejected take-off at John F. Kennedy International Airport. This report has been studied by the Department of Transport. The majority of the recommendations concern the certification or modification of the engines and these are being rechecked in the United States of America.

I would like to point out to the senator that this report related to the failure of the GE CF6 engine following ingestion of birds. We have no Australian registered aircraft equipped with these engines.

Recommendation No. 4 concerned bird control procedures on airports. Australian practice already covers the aspects raised and these are considered satisfactory.

Recommendation No. 5 recommended advice to all operators of the dangers. Irrespective of any advice to the operators from the manufacturers, the Commonwealth Department of Transport also wrote to all international airlines operating aircraft with these engines into Australia. So far only one operator has replied to date to the effect that the bird control measures undertaken at Australian airports are considered to be adequate.

Kingsford-Smith Airport: Bird Control Program (Question No. 856)

Senator Mulvihill:

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

  1. Under what terms and conditions were falcons introduced to Kingsford-Smith Airport to combat seagulls.
  2. What evidence was supplied to justify the innovation.
  3. 3 ) Why was it discontinued.
  4. What future plans has the Department to deal with this hazard.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) As a part of the Department’s continuing bird control program a twelve month trial period commenced in February 1975 where Australian falcons were obtained, trained and preliminary tests made of their effectiveness as a bird control measure at Sydney Airport. The tests were carried out on an ‘at cost’ basis and cost the Department $29,000. It became evident that in order to fully assess the capability of the control method a full scale trial under contract conditions was necessary. A contract was then let to Longwings Ltd in the United Kingdom for the period February- June 1976 at a cost of $31,642 to carry out this trial.
  2. The decision to use falcons as an addition to the bird control program followed a departmental investigation into overseas practice and experience. On this basis, and with particular reference to reported effectiveness on United States Air Force Bases in the United Kingdom, a study to test the effectiveness under Australian conditions was initiated.
  3. Australian experience found that falcons could not be considered an effective component of our total bird control program, particularly since falcons cannot operate at night, and are reluctant to fly in rain, high wind or on one or two days following rain. This means they are ineffective during periods in which 80 per cent of bird strikes occur at Sydney. On this basis the Longwings contract was not extended beyond June 1 976 when the trial concluded.
  4. Future plans of the Department to deal with the bird strike hazard at Sydney airport include:

Co-ordination with local authorities to obtain better control of rubbish dumps (food sources for gulls) near the airport; examination of garbage dumps in the Wollongong-Port Kembla area near the gull breeding area to reduce food sources and consequently total gull population; improvements to airport drainage to make areas less attractive to birds; removal of feeding and resting areas adjacent to the airport (as associated with the New South Wales Government plans for foreshore reclamation); continuation of various bird scaring programs, including the use of shells.

Australian National Railways Employees: Wage Determinations (Question No. 873)

Senator Bishop:

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

  1. 1 ) Have flow-on payments of national wage case wage determinations to Australian National Railways employees been delayed for many months. If so, what is the cause of such delay.
  2. ) What is being done to avoid future delays.
  3. 3 ) When will Australian Railways ‘ employees receive all adjustments flowing from these judgements.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. The delay was caused by complications arising out of the application of the May national wage case decision and related to the adjustment of increments which necessitated consultation with the Public Service Board and the Public Service Arbitrator.
  2. ) It is expected that delays should not occur in future.
  3. Adjustments are being effected in pay periods ending 2 1 August and 4 September 1976.

Taxation Group Certificates: Extension of Time (Question No. 1077)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

How many employers were granted extension of time to issue group certificates in each State, for each financial year, from 1969-70 to 1975-76.

Senator Cotton:
LP

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

The Commissioner of Taxation has advised that although no statistics have been kept of the number of employers granted extensions of time to issue group certificates for each of the financial years ended 30 June 1970 to 1976 inclusive it is considered that not more than fifty such extensions would have been granted in any of the years concerned.

Taxation Group Certificates: Extension of Time (Question No. 1078)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

When an employer has been granted an extension of time to issue group certificates what onus, if any, is placed on the employer to notify employees that an extension of time has been granted.

Senator Cotton:
LP

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

The income tax law does not require an employer, who has been granted an extension of time to issue group certificates, to notify employees of that extension.

Katherine: Re-alignment of Road (Question No. 1090)

Senator Kilgariff:

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

In view of the concern of the people and the strong representations by leaders of the Katherine community, what plans are in hand to have an S bent in Giles Street reconstructed and re-aligned so as to remove this dangerous section where many serious accidents have occurred.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

Provision of $60,000 is made in the Civil Works Program, Part 1 , to eliminate the S bend in Gorge Road which is a continuation of Giles Street. Tenders for the re-alignment are expected to be invited in November.

Technical and Further Education (Question No. 822)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What money has been made available to Queensland under grants for technical and further education for the 1975-76 financial year?
  2. How much of this Technical and Further Education Commission money has been directed to adult education in Queensland in the last financial year?
  3. 3 ) What proportion of the total expenditure on adult education in Queensland came from the Commission?
  4. Has the Commission any policy on the merging of the Technical Education Branch of the Department of Education in Queensland with Queensland’s Board of Adult Education?
  5. In the event of any competition between the Queensland Technical Education Branch and the Queensland Board of Adult Education to provide adult education in Queensland, which body will receive financial assistance from the Australian Government for providing adult education in Queensland?
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

A total of $7,801,300 comprising $3,159,000 for capital grants and $4,642,300 for recurrent grants was made available to Queensland for the 1975-76 financial year under the States Grants (Technical and Further Education) Act 1974. These grants are supplementary funds to the State’s own expenditure on technical and further education.

and (3) The Board of Adult Education and the Technical Education Branch of the Department of Education share responsibility for the provision of adult education in Queensland. Commonwealth grants have not been made for adult education specifically. The extent to which Commonwealth TAFE funds are used in the adult education area is decided by the individual States.

No. The organisational relationships between the education bodies in Queensland are the responsibility of the Queensland Minister for Education.

Commonwealth grants for TAFE are made on the basis of an assessment of needs across the whole spectrum of TAFE activities within a State. Questions of competition between authorities within a state for the provision of particular forms of TAFE programs do not affect determination at the national level of the total funds to be made available to a State.

Australian Assistance Plan: Capital Territory and Northern Territory (Question No. 897)

Senator Robertson:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. Are the States now in the position of ascertaining whether they can find any money for Australian Assistance Plan funding which is to be given to them at the end of the financial year.
  2. Has the Minister pointed out to the Ministers for the Capital Territory and the Northern Territory the virtues of the program, so that the Commonwealth will take responsibilities for the needs of its citizens in the Territories.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 refer the honourable senator to the Prime Minister’s answer to a question without notice from the honourable member for La Trobe on 7 September 1976 (Hansard, House of Representatives page 712) which is as follows:

The very large increase of $75m to local governmenttaking the total grant to $ 140m- is a direct result of the federalism policy of the Commonwealth. Over the last few days local government bodies in Victoria have been notified of the sums coming through the States from the Commonwealth. I believe that most local governing bodies are very pleased at the result. It will help to achieve a dual purpose of enabling local governments to keep rates down but at the same time it will give local governing bodies greater flexibility in supporting local programs which are particularly in the interests of their own areas. Australian Assistance Plan type programs of social development are ideally suited to local funding or to State government funding because the people who are closest to those affected by the programs can in fact influence their direction. That is a view that the Government has expressed.

In addition it ought to be noted that the Commonwealth Government, again as a result of the new federalism porposals, has increased the untied tax reimbursement payments to the States this year by 2 1 per cent, and that is a direct result of revised procedures and formulas. That rate of increase is very much more than the rate of inflation. It will give greater real resources to the States in an area which is completely under their own control. Therefore it is a matter for the States to decide whether to fund AAP-type projects or whether they seek to use those funds in some other way . . .’

  1. I wrote on 27 July 1976 to the Ministers for the Capital Territory and Northern Territory advising them of the Government’s decision on the Australian Assistance Plan as it affects the Territories and suggesting that discussions take place with officers of my Department.

I have received replies from both Ministers. The response of the Minister for the Capital Territory has resulted in discussions being arranged at officer level with my Department. The Minister for the Northern Territory has also indicated his agreement to officer level discussions and has informed the Majority Leader, Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, of my offer to provide staff to give advice and assistance. The Assembly has appointed a select committee to examine the operations of the Australian Assistance Plan in the Territory.

Humanitarian Relief Aid to East Timor (Question No. 1004)

Senator Mcintosh:

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

  1. 1 ) Has the Australian Government terminated the allocation of aid to East Timor through international channels, and will future humanitarian and relief aid be channelled through the Indonesian Red Cross.
  2. In view of the Indonesian Red Cross’s support for the Indonesian invasion of East Timor, can the Minister outline what assurances have been received from the Indonesian Government and what steps have been taken to ensure Australian Government participation in the distribution of aid to all areas in East Timor.
  3. Do Press reports concerning this change in Timor aid policy reflect a change in Australian Government policy, recognising the Indonesian annexation.
  4. Will Australia maintain an active policy of support for a proper process of self-determination in East Timor during the deliberations of the United Nations Committee of Twenty-four on 8 and 9 September 1976.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. As it has not been possible to channel humanitarian relief aid into East Timor through international channels such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Government has decided to make a contribution for humanitarian relief aid through the Indonesian Red Cross.
  2. The arrangements for the Australian contribution which is to be channelled through the Indonesian Red Cross have not yet been finalised. It is the Australian Government’s firm hope and intention that the Indonesian Red Cross will use this assistance in as wide as possible an area in East Timor.
  3. The contribution is a humanitarian gesture. The Government recognises that the Indonesian Red Cross is the only available channel through which humanitarian assistance for East Timor can be provided.
  4. The Committee of 24, after a brief and perfunctory debate, agreed to submit the question of East Timor to the General Assembly for further consideration and without passing any specific resolutions. The Australian delegation did not speak in the debate. The Government’s attachment to the principles of self-determination are already clearly on record.

Department of Employment and Industrial Relations: Journalists (Question No. 1033)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) How many journalists were employed in the Minister’s Department, and in commissions and statutory bodies under the Minister’s control, when the administrative arrangements of 22 December 1973 were made.
  2. How many journalists were employed in the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, and in commissions and statutory bodies under the Minister ‘s control, at 1 September 1976.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. and (2) On the two dates mentioned there was one Journalist Grade A employed in the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. There were no journalists employed in commissions and statutory bodies under my control.

Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development: Journalists (Question No. 1047)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) How many journalists were employed in the Minister’s Department, and in commissions and statutory bodies under the Minister’s control, when the administative arrangements of 22 December 197S were made.
  2. How many journalists were employed in the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development, and in commissions and statutory bodies under the Minister’s control, at 1 September 1976.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Medical and Hospital Funds: Transfer of Memberships (Question No. 1065)

Senator Ryan:

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

  1. Is it the case that after December 1976, if a person wishes to transfer from one medical and hospital fund to another fund, the person must pay twice over a two-month period to ensure cover, that is, continue to pay the medi levy plus the new contribution.
  2. Is this a deliberate mechanism to deter people from changing funds. If so, will it have the effect of locking contributors into one fund, even though funds will be able to increase contributions at will and a contributor may find it desirable to change to a cheaper fund.
  3. Does the Minister agree that this provision is a restriction on freedom of choice of the contributors.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) to (3) No. Insofar as the basic medical benefits table and the basic hospital benefits table are concerned, a person may transfer from one registered health benefits organisation to another without loss of rights i.e. with full continuity of benefits cover. This principle generally will also apply in relation to supplementary benefits although in this case, it is a matter for individual organisations to determine in accordance with their rules.

The requirement that a person will ‘pay twice’ only applies to a person who is transferring from standard Medibank to a registered benefits organisation, in which case that person will need to continue to pay the health insurance levy (if applicable) during the two months waiting period (if any) imposed by the organisation. During this period that person will be required to pay the appropriate contribution rates to the organisation.

The waiting period does not apply where a person takes out private insurance before 1 December 1976.

Drug Smuggling (Question No. 1073)

Senator Kilgariff:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Does the Government intend to place customs vessels in various areas of the northern coastline to bring under closer scrutiny smuggling of drugs and other illegal goods.
  2. Is it the intention of the Government to strengthen customs control over northern waters and air space.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The following information is provided in answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Yes.

During 1976, two new 14 metre ocean going launches became operational for the Bureau of Customs at Cairns and Broome. A third such launch will be stationed in northern waters before the end of 1 976.

  1. Yes.

Customs control has been strengthened by the activities of the two vessels and will be further enhanced by the placement of the third later in the year.

The Bureau of Customs is further developing its patrol activity in northern regions in co-operation with the Defence Services and where necessary by private charter.

Department of Social Security: Field Office Establishment (Question No. 1076)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

What was the Department of Social Security Field Office establishment for each State, at the end of each month from 30 June 1 975 to 3 1 August 1 976. .

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

Pensions Payable Overseas (Question No. 1097)

Senator Townley:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What amount of money was sent overseas last year by way of pensions payable to those persons who chose no longer to live in Australia.
  2. What are the basic requirements that must be satisfied before payments are made to those persons who live overseas.
  3. 3 ) Does the Government intend to alter those provisions.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. Approximately $ 14.64m was paid to people overseas by way of Australian social security pensions during 1975-76. This includes amounts paid under reciprocal agreements to Australian residents temporarily in the United Kingdom and New Zealand or otherwise temporarily abroad.

  2. Former residents of Australia living permanently abroad may be paid Australian pensions overseas broadly under one of two sets of circumstances:

    1. if they were receiving an Australian pension before they left Australia on or after 8 May 1 973 the pension is continued;
    2. if they left Australia before 8 May 1973 and are in special need of financial assistance pension may be granted and paid while they are overseas. The basic requirements are that a claimant for age pension lived 30 years in Australia and left the country after reaching 60 years of age in the case of a man or 55 in the case of a woman. People claiming invalid or widow’s pension respectively must have become permanently incapacitated for work, or widows, in Australia. The ordinary conditions for grant of pension, other than that of being resident in Australia, must also be satisfied.
  3. The Government is not proposing alteration to these conditions at present.

Albury-Wodonga (Question No. 1098)

Senator Mcintosh:

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

  1. Is the Minister aware of the plight of people in Albury-Wodonga who have made agreements with the Albury-Wodonga Development Authority to sell their land.
  2. Will the Minister inform the Senate when such agreements will be adhered to and when sufficient funds will be made available to the Authority to undertake commitments in this financial year.
  3. Is the Minister aware of the considerable public opinion in Albury-Wodonga that the Government is attempting to abandon the development of this and other growth centres.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. and (2) The Commonwealth Government has informed the Victorian and New South Wales governments that funds have been provided to meet the contractual commitments of the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation at 30 June 1976. No contracts for the purchase of land have been entered into since 30 June 1976. Furthermore, every landowner with whom the Corporation has exchanged contracts will receive his money on or before the date on which settlement is due.
  2. It is not true that the Commonwealth Government has decided to abandon Albury-Wodonga.

Australian Metric System

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

- Senator Wriedt asked the following question without notice on 23 September 1976:

I ask the Minister for Science: Can he explain to the Senate why the decimetre has not become a standard unit of measurement under Australia ‘s metric system?

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

One of the major disadvantages of the imperial system was the large number of units used to measure the same physical quantity. For example, for length measurement we had the inch, foot, yard, hand, rod, chain, link, fathom, furlong, mile and league together with numerous ‘gauges’ used for wire and metal products. The inter-relationships between these units were, in general, arbitrary and awkward.

Before any unit is recommended for use with Australia’s metric system, the relevant expert committees of the Metric Conversion Board examine the matter to determine whether it is essential. A wide range of unnecessary units would tend to confuse rather than help those who need to use them.

The decimetre is included in the System International which Australia is adopting. It has been included in the metric system as defined by section 3 (b) of the Metric Conversion Act and is legally defined in the Weights and Measures (National Standards) Regulations. Nevertheless the Board is of the opinion that most lengths can be adequately described by the millimetre, centimetre, metre and kilometre. In addition smaller sub-multiples such as the micrometre and nanometre are required for scientific work. There appears to be little practical need for the decimetre, dekametre or the hectometre.

There may be some instances where the derived units square decimetre and cubic decimetre will find application, although suitable recommended alternatives exist iri most cases. For example, the litre is a special name for the cubic decimetre and is generally preferred.

In summary, the decimetre is part of Australia’s metric system but it is non-preferred and should have limited application.

Anti-Cyclonic Housing

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

- Senator Georges asked the following question without notice on 23 September 1976:

I remind the Minister of his media release of 9 September in relation to the progress of housing reconstruction in Darwin. Can the Minister tell us whether the new houses built since cyclone Tracy are utilising anti-cyclonic measures? If so, how many of the houses are built to withstand cyclones and what degree of stress are they built to withstand? Further is the Department currently analysing the need for anti-cyclonic housing for regions most affected by cyclones, such as in Queensland, the Northern Territory and northwestern Australia? Can the Minister provide details of such research and its current progress?

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

All new houses in Darwin are designed to cope adequately with winds of 55 metres per second (200km/h) and to have some chance of surviving winds of 80 m/s (270 km/h). (Winds that gust up 55 m/s are expected to occur about once every 50 years. Wind gusts of 80 m/s represent an estimate of the maximum possible speed of a tropical cyclone off Australia).

All houses in the cyclone affected regions of Australia should be designed to resist high wind forces. In this regard, some regions present greater risks from high winds than Darwin. A Committee of the Standards Association of Australia (BD/57) is working on a statement proposing appropriate Standards entitled ‘Structural Details for Houses in High Wind Areas’ which should be suitable for this purpose. The main area of current difficulty is to specify design criteria that lead to a satisfactory balance between cost requirements and safety considerations.

At the CSIRO Division of Building Research, studies are currently in progress on the following broad areas relating to wind damage of houses;

design philosophy (including development of structural systems for houses);

determination of wind forces on houses;

c ) determination of the capacity of houses to resist wind forces;

) designing houses to withstand airborne missiles.

Other organisations that are carrying out research on one or more of the above topics include:

a ) James Cook University

Department of Construction

Melbourne and Monash Universities.

In addition, there is known to be a considerable amount of ad hoc research in progress, particularly on the part of some manufacturers who are investigating the structural properties of their products.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 6 October 1976, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1976/19761006_senate_30_s69/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant