Senate
2 November 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 1435

DEATH OF MR F. M. KIRWAN

The PRESIDENT:

– It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 28 October 1 976 of Frank McLeod Kirwan, a member of the House of Representatives for the division of Forrest, Western Australia, from 1969 to 1972. I invite honourable senators to stand in silence as a mark of respect to the memory of the former member.

Honourable senators having stood in their places

The PRESIDENT:

– I thank honourable senators.

page 1435

PETITIONS

Aboriginal Land Rights

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

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

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

1 ) That we are thankful that the Government intends to introduce legislation to give effect to Aboriginal Land Rights in the Northern Territory.

) That Aboriginal people have their own laws according to which land is owned, defined, administered and controlled.

That Aboriginal land owning clans each held and still hold their own title to their own land.

That Aboriginal law does not permit pieces of land held under separate Aboriginal title to be placed into land trusts encompassing more than one piece of traditionally held land.

That Aboriginal law does not permit an organisation or body made up of Aborigines from different clans to speak on behalf of, negotiate on Behalf of, advise or otherwise deal with any traditional land owning group in relation to its land.

Your Petitioners therefore most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, will show respect for the laws of Aboriginal people and enact Land Rights Legislation which will allow our traditional land laws to operate unhindered.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Metric System

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

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

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

Petitions received.

Childcare Services

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. a ) an increase in funds for childcare services throughout Australia;
  2. an equitable distribution of funds to cover all the childcare needs of the community;
  3. the cessation of the wasteful useage of sessional preschool buildings, instead these buildings to be used also to cover the full range of childcare needs;
  4. d ) the wider utilisation of government buildings or parts thereof, e.g. schools, hospitals and government offices for appropriate childcare facilities. by Senator Guilfoyle.

Petition received.

Petrol Price Equalisation Scheme

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

That the Commonwealth Government restore the Petrol Price Equalisation Scheme immediately for the benefit of those people who live away from the seaboard.

Your petitioners believe that the matter is urgent.

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

Petition received.

page 1435

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1435

QUESTION

TAXATION REVENUE SHARING

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Does the

Minister agree that a proposal that the Treasurer may by notice in the Gazette declare any income tax as a special surcharge will give the Treasurer control over a major area of financial assistance to State and local governments? Can the Minister give an example of where the exercise of such a power would better financial arrangements between the 3 tiers of government?

Senator cotton:

-As I listened very carefully to the question, it seemed to me to be one of substantial consequence which I would not want to answer directly out of my own knowledge. I shall direct it to the Treasurer, and I shall give an answer to the honourable senator as soon as I can. education expenditure

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP; NCP from May 1975

-brockman- Is the Minister for Education aware that in some educational circles it is being claimed that the Minister’s bland statement that ‘there would be less automatic cost supplementation’ is very alarming? Rather than being alarming, is not his statement an indication that in future expenditure will be made with a real measure of responsibility aimed at increasing in real terms educational development?

Senator carrick- I have seen certain claims that the statement on cost supplementation being less automatic in the future is, in the words of Senator Drake-Brockman, alarming. There is no cause for such alarm. I hope that in the very near future the Government’s policy, explicitly stated, on cost supplementation for the year ahead will be announced by me to this Senate. It will ensure, as Senator Drake-Brockman has indicated, that there will be, on the one hand, good housekeeping and, on the other hand, an ability on the part of the institutions and the commissions concerned to carry out faithfully increased spending in real money terms as laid down by the guidelines and as laid down by the Budget. water reticulation at point Mcleay

Senator keeffe:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Is the Minister aware that construction of the water reticulation pipeline for the small township of Point McLeay has not been commenced although it was funded by the Federal Government many months ago? Can the Minister inform the Parliament whether construction will begin in the next three or four weeks; or will the children of the Point McLeay community be threatened with another outbreak of gastroenteritis this summer?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · VICTORIA · LP

– I understand that there has been some concern about a possible outbreak of gastroenteritis at Point McLeay, where gastroenteritis in the past was alleged to have been caused by an unsatisfactory water supply. I have some information concerning the water supply to the Aboriginal community at Point McLeay. An amount of $197,000 has been approved for a new system to provide for chlorination and a stronger pump. I am informed that installation of the new equipment is expected to commence within the next 3 weeks.

page 1436

QUESTION

URANIUM MINING

Senator KILGARIFF:

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development. In the first report made public by the Fox Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry it was indicated that, while the green light was given for the mining and milling of uranium in Australia under certain conditions, the mining of uranium in the Northern Territory could not be commenced until the second part of the report was made public. Is the Government in a position to indicate when the second part of the report will be made available to the public, to enable the people of the Northern Territory to evaluate the future?

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

– My understanding is that the Government is not at this moment in a position to indicate precisely when the second part of the report of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry will be made available. However, in their first report the Commissioners stated:

We will proceed immediately to finalise and present our second report which will deal with the remaining issues.

The Government anticipates that they will do so.

page 1436

QUESTION

LEGAL FEES OF FORMER SENATOR

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. I preface my question by drawing the Minister’s attention to a reply given to Senator Colston by the Minister for Administrative Services on 21 October concerning the payment by the Government of the legal fees of former Senator Albert Patrick Field. I draw the Minister’s attention to Senator Withers’ assertion that the action taken against Senator Field was not really a genuine attack on the qualification of a former senator but an attempt to further a mean political purpose. I ask the Minister: Before a decision was taken on this matter was the advice of the Crown Solicitor sought on the subject? Did the Crown Solicitor recommend against payment of Senator Field ‘s costs? Will the Minister table in the Senate all documents relating to this matter?

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

– I have some recollection of the question and answer to which Senator Douglas McClelland refers but I am afraid that I am not such an avid reader of Hansard as I used to be and therefore I am not completely familiar with the matter. However, I will take up with my colleague whom I represent here, the AttorneyGeneral, the question raised by Senator Douglas McClelland and endeavour to obtain an early answer for him.

page 1437

QUESTION

TASMANIA: ANTARCTIC BASE

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– By way of preface I indicate that I wish to ask a question of 2 Ministers in respect of their various responsibilities as Minister for Administrative Services and Minister for Science, in respect of a particular matter. I ask that each give an answer to the question. I ask: Has the Ministers’ attention been drawn to a Press report of a statement by the Premier of Tasmania, Mr Neilson, claiming that plans for the Antarctic Division Hobart base have been pigeon-holed? Is it a fact that the alternative sites were inspected by the Minister for Administrative Services last week? Is the matter being actively pursued? Was the Premier’s claim a gross misrepresentation and a mischievous attempt to create uncertainty where none exists?

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

-Senator Rae was kind enough to draw my attention to a newspaper report of 1 November on page 3 of the Hobart Mercury. Mr President, I agree with what Senator Rae has said, that this statement of the Premiers is nothing but a piece of mischief. The fact is that a decision was made and has been confirmed a number of times that the Antarctic Division base is to go to Hobart. The matter at issue at the moment is: What is the best possible site on which to establish the base? My colleague the Minister for Science and I spent all of one morning looking at a number of sites in Hobart in an attempt to determine which would be most suitable. For the Premier to say that the matter is pigeon-holed I think is a piece of nonsense. He ought to be a little better informed about affairs.

I think the poor Premier was in the situation that because Senator Webster and I were in Hobart we got a deal of publicity for showing the real interest of the Commonwealth Government in Tasmania and this does not suit the local political ambitions of the State Labor Government. The Premier’s statement is but a counter-attack one week after the event. All I can say is that I am not surprised that it took the Premier of Tasmania one week to come back. All I can hope is that it is only a month or two before he goes. The sooner he has an election in Tasmania the better. As I recall from what I could find out when I was in Hobart, the Premier brings in a Budget one week and within days of its being passed he has a mini-Budget bringing into being all the -

Senator Cavanagh:

- Mr President-

Senator WITHERS:

-I am delighted I have got under somebody ‘s hide.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Such activities as the Premier of Tasmania bringing down a Budget and what he does in the next week have nothing to do with answering a question as to whether or not the Government is pigeon-holing a proposal to erect an Antarctic base in Tasmania. Obviously this is an abuse of question time for the purpose of political propaganda. The Premier of Tasmania scored a point and Senator Withers has to undo the point which the Premier scored, not at question time in a House of Parliament but apparently in some Press publicity. I say that question time should not be taken up for the purpose of the Government carrying on its political campaign within this House.

The PRESIDENT:

– I call Senator Withers.

Senator WITHERS:

-The honourable senator complains about point scoring but, for goodness sake, what is Mr Neilson dealing with? Anyone would think he is dealing with facts. All he is doing is trying to get a little bit of cheap publicity in his own State. The real tragedy in Tasmania at the moment is that the present Labor State Government is such a deplorable one that the Premier is using every device possible to try to shift the blame elsewhere. It is a political tactic known of old. Because he has an incompetent government that has been unable to do anything about unemployment, he searches around attempting to blame the Commonwealth Government for starting neither the Maritime College nor the Antarctic base as though those will have some enormous effect on the real problems of unemployment in Tasmania. I should have thought that by now honourable senators opposite would have got the message which Senator Carrick has been putting down in this Senate chamber over a number of weeks- that the Tasmanian Government, with all the money which it has stashed away, has the highest level of unemployment in Australia but has done nothing about it. Now the Premier has the cheek to complain about 2 projected works which the Commonwealth intends to start in Tasmania.

The PRESIDENT:

-Senator Webster, do you have anything to add?

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

– I feel that I could not add to the words of my Leader, the Minister for Administrative Services.

page 1438

QUESTION

TASMANIA: ANTARCTIC BASE

Senator WRIEDT:

– I suspect, from the reply just given by Senator Withers, that his visit to Tasmania with Senator Webster indicated their great concern about the prospects of the Liberal Opposition in the forthcoming State election. I am sorry that Senator Withers sent his colleague, Senator Webster, to sleep during the time he was answering the question. I now ask Senator Webster specifically these questions about the Antarctic base in Hobart: Is it not a fact that this year the amount appropriated of the total cost of that project is fractional and that this Government has refused to make any commitment beyond that fractional commitment? What is the expected date of the purchase of the site on which this Antarctic Division base is to be built? Also, what is the expected date of commencement? Mr President, could we have some specific answers to the questions?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I should have thought that the Leader of the Opposition would have been sufficiently interested in this matter, which is quite vital to Tasmania, and would not have to to ask a question at this time. This has been a matter of general public knowledge for many months, and I am quite sure that Senator Wriedt has occupied himself by finding out the facts and learning exactly what the position was in relation to Hobart. If he has not done so, I shall enlighten him. The honourable senator knows that while he was in government a site was purchased in Kingston for the Antarctic Division. Whether or not Senator Wriedt has ever bothered himself to look at this site, I should think he would find it very difficult to say that the site met the criteria which the Antarctic Division set down for its headquarters. When I became the Minister for Science in January, one of my first duties was to go to Tasmania to look at the site and to investigate other sites in the Hobart area. I was well aware that we as a government would be obligated to go to Hobart and commence the headquarters of the Antarctic Division in that State. Having looked at that site and other sites, the Government in May of this year firmed up and made public the decision that the headquarters of the Antarctic Division would be built in Hobart. Senator Wriedt has read that announcement. Why did he ask his question today?

Talk about a political question coming to a Minister! It is most ridiculous. However, Senator Wriedt asks about a fractional commitment. I do not know what the term ‘fractional commitment’ means. Senator Wriedt may know. As far as I know there is a positive commitment that the headquarters of the Antarctic Division will be built in Hobart. Last week the Leader of the Government in the Senate, who is also the Minister for Administrative Services, and I rose very early one morning and spent the whole day looking at various sites. Perhaps one need not go through the sites we investigated in turn, but each of them had some particular attraction.

I am most anxious that this Government spends its money correctly. I do not want to be part of that ridiculous proposition under which we threw money away last year and found that it was of no benefit to the Australian public. If Senator Wriedt thinks that that is a worthwhile proposition he may speak about it later. The Antarctic Division’s headquarters will be built in Hobart. As far as I know, no money is available for building the headquarters in Hobart this year, other than money for the work that will be carried on by the Department of Construction and the Department of Administrative Services to evaluate the quality of foundations and sites. I have been on the telephone today still attempting to find out where an attractive and comprehensive site may be available for the Antarctic Division.

Senator Rae:

asked a question relating to comments made by the Premier of Tasmania. One of the things I would have thought the Premier might have done when he knew that the Minister for Administrative Services was in Tasmania was to put to him a proposition regarding proper and adequate land and attractive sites for the Antarctic Division. That was not done. But there is a possibility of a decision being made by me within the next month as to where the Antarctic Division will find its headquarters. It will take some time for the site to be evaluated. I certainly do not expect that any funds will be expended this year in developing the Antarctic Division site. Three questions were asked. The second concerned the date of purchase of a site. A site is available. I am not attracted to that site but others are available which I am evaluating. The third question related to the date of building. When the site is purchased or leased, or perhaps when somebody gives the Government the land for the site, and when the Department of Construction has developed plans for the site, the date of building will be announced.

Senator WRIEDT:

-I wish to ask a supplementary question. I am sorry to have to follow up with a supplementary question and take up further time of the Senate, but Senator Webster took so long to get around to answering anything at all that it is imperative for me now to clarify 2 points. Will the Minister confirm that the site will not be at Kingston? Will he also confirm that no moneys will be available to commence the project during this financial year?

Senator WEBSTER:

-The answer to the first question is no. The answer to the second is yes.

page 1439

QUESTION

ATTACK ON ABORIGINAL MAN

Senator CHANEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Has she seen a report in the West Australian of 27 October of an incident in Kalgoorlie, Western Australia, in which an Aboriginal man was set upon and sprayed with white paint by 3 white men? Can the Minister have inquiries made to ascertain what action is being taken by the Western Australian police in this matter? If satisfactory action has not been taken or is not being taken would the Minister not agree that this is a case with unfortunate racial overtones? Will she ask the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to refer the matter to the Office of the Commissioner for Community Relations for investigation and possible action under the Racial Discrimination Act.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I understand that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has been informed about this matter. I should say further that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has had this matter drawn to his attention. I understand that the Western Australian police are continuing their inquiries into the matters to which the honourable senator referred in his question. I am informed that there is some doubt about this case coming within the scope of the Racial Discrimination Act. In any event, it seems appropriate that action be taken by the Western Australian police in accordance with the criminal law of the State of Western Australia. I shall have further inquiries made to ensure that these matters have had the consideration of the Minister. If there is any further information I shall give it to the honourable senator.

page 1439

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE: STAFF CEILINGS

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. It refers to the question of staff ceilings and employment opportunities for the young. It follows previous questions to the Minister. He will recall that at meetings of Estimates Committee F witnesses representing the Industries Assistance Commission, the Trade Practices Commission and the Australian Legal Aid Office pointed to the effect which staff ceilings were having on the efficiency of those organisations. Will the Minister direct to the appropriate Ministers the need to recruit new staff in those areas, thus giving new employment opportunities, particularly to young people.

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I am aware of the discussions at the Senate Estimates Committee at which both Senator Bishop and I were present. I listened very carefully to the questions asked of the witnesses about the problems associated with staff ceilings. My general impression from their answers was that the organisations concerned were coping with the work for which they were responsible, despite the staff ceilings, although this required some management attention and techniques. I remind the Senate that in answer to a question Senator Bishop asked me several weeks ago about policy to be followed by the Public Service Board in regard to the recruitment of staff I said that there had been a general direction to departments to have regard to the necessity to recruit young staff as trainees, because the Public Service must constantly be regenerated with new people, young people and people who will be trained. I accept that there is a question which must be constantly considered by the Government in relation to this matter. I note the concern expressed by Senator Bishop and other people about the possible effect in the long run that staff ceilings may have on the efficiency of the service. I shall certainly refer the question and the discussions to the Ministers whom I represent.

page 1439

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE

Senator WOOD:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask a simple question of the Minister for Science in view of the fact that Ministers and parliamentarians often speak in language that people do not understand. In answering the question about the Tasmanian Premier’s accusations the Minister said that we are not going to throw money around as if it was water, as we did last year. Who does he mean threw money around like that last year? Was it the Liberal-Country Party Government of which he is a Minister? I ask him for some clarification.

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I apologise to the honourable senator if he was unable to follow the words that I used. I think it has been a generally accepted proposition, certainly in the electorate at large, that the previous Labor Government last year was very careless with the Australian public’s money. We saw that in various attitudes relating to Budget expenditure. The overexpenditure of the Budget was declared at $2,600m, and it was then proposed to be $3,500m. Later it was declared that the Budget would be at least $4,500m in the red. That appeared to be inconsistent with the way a proper government should perform. It was in regard to that situation that I said that the Government appeared to throw money about, to use a colloquial term, like water. Some instances occurred even in Tasmania. Senator Wright was the first person to raise in this Senate the matter of the purchase of the Hobart Trades Hall, which was a most uncommon purchase.

Senator Withers:

– At an uncommon price.

Senator WEBSTER:

– At an uncommon price. The purchase did not appear to be consistent with good housekeeping, but undoubtedly someone benefited from it.

page 1440

QUESTION

KAKADU NATIONAL PARK

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development. It is really supplementary to the question that was asked by Senator Kilgariff about mining in the Northern Territory. Mindful of the caution shown by Mr Justice Fox in his interim report about any uranium extraction in the Northern Territory, will the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development and the Minister for the Northern Territory exercise the power mentioned by Senator Carrick during Estimates Committee discussion to declare the boundaries of the Kakadu National Park before- I emphasise before’- any future uranium extraction is attempted in the Territory?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– My understanding is that the Minister for the Northern Territory and the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development have agreed that Kakadu National Park in the Northern Territory is of national significance and at the appropriate time should be declared under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975. My understanding is that although the commissioners were not required to do so by their terms of reference they pointed out in the first report of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry that they had been asked to suggest where the boundaries of the National Park should be, having in mind proposed and possible mining operations. In accordance with the provisions of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 public notice has been given of the intention to declare Kakadu National Park. The Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development will have regard to the suggestions of the commissioners and will have further discussions with the Minister for the Northern Territory before defining the boundaries and declaring Kakadu National Park under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975.

page 1440

QUESTION

VISIT OF U.S.S. ENTERPRISE

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– I put a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I preface it by saying that no doubt he is aware that the U.S.S. Enterprise arrived in Hobart last Friday morning to the accompaniment and welcome of literally hundreds of small powered seacraft. Is the Minister aware that the visit of the U.S.S. Enterprise has received an enthusiastic and almost unanimous welcome in Hobart? Is this indicative of the type of welcome that would be offered to any United States warship and its crew, particularly in Hobart but also in most other areas of Australia?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I was fortunate enough to be in Hobart the day the ‘Big E’ arrived. In what little spare time I had from the Constitutional Convention during the week, I noted that a great deal of interest was shown by all people in Hobart in the arrival of the U.S.S. Enterprise. I thought that if it showed anything it showed that those people who represent socalled public opinion represent I do not know whom. The turnout in Hobart was for those to welcome the ship and not for those to boo it.

Senator Button:

– Were you on a special aeroplane from Sydney?

Senator WITHERS:

-No, I was not. All I can say is that those who are opposed to atomicpowered ships are nothing but flat-earthers and Luddites.

page 1440

QUESTION

HOUSING FOR AGED PERSONS

Senator HARRADINE:
TASMANIA

– Does the Minister for Social Security recall that in May of this year I asked her a question concerning the Aged Persons Housing Survey, volume 1, which showed that the State with the highest percentage of aged people in unsatisfactory housing was Tasmania? Does she recall that she acknowledged the existence of the problem and said that it was a matter which should have urgent attention? Has the Minister seen volume 2 of the survey results released recently, which confirmed the earlier findings and which also show that in Hobart 21 per cent of aged people lived in accommodation which was beyond repair or which was unsatisfactory, compared with a capital city average of 9 per cent; that the aged in Tasmania had the worst roofs, gutters and downpipes and the worst exterior walls and cladding; that the old people in Hobart had the worst plumbing and shared with Adelaide the distinction of having the worst toilets; and furthermore that Tasmania, especially outside Hobart, had the worst fire risk? I ask the Minister, as I asked in May, to examine whether some form of urgent and immediate assistance might be given to those elderly Tasmanians whose living conditions are well below standard.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I will have an examination made of volume 2 of the report referred to by the honourable senator as early as possible and I will see whether there is any way in which the Federal Government is able to take steps to give urgent and immediate assistance with regard to housing. It will be understood that the Federal Government, through another department, is conducting a survey with regard to the introduction of a voucher system to assist with housing. It could well be that the urgent matters mentioned by the honourable senator could be related to that introduction, although it is not within my responsibility to determine that matter. As far as programs within my department are concerned, we have recently announced a 3-year program for the provision of aged persons homes and hostels. Whilst I acknowledge that that does not overcome the difficulties that have been mentioned with regard to private housing, I hope that that program will assist many people throughout Australia to have more adequate housing than they enjoy at the present time. I will subject the report to analysis to see whether there is anything that can be done within the scope of our own programs.

page 1441

QUESTION

ASSISTANCE TO THE ARTS

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Will he provide the names of persons comprising the interdepartmental committee currently reviewing methods of encouraging private sector participation in the arts, particularly through taxation deductions for donations? Can the Minister say when this interdepartmental committee is expected to report to the Government? Is he in a position to divulge the names of corporations involved in a similar study known as the Myer Foundation study? Is it likely that the results of this study will be available to the Government? If so, will they be made public?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I think that I should seek the information for the honourable senator. Whilst on occasions the departments represented on an interdepartmental committee are divulged it is rare that the names of the personnel from the departments are divulged. As to the other matters arising from the question, I think that I should obtain a detailed answer for the honourable senator from the Prime Minister.

page 1441

QUESTION

DARWIN HIGH SCHOOLS

Senator ROBERTSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

-I direct my question to the Minister for Education. Is it a fact that the Commonwealth Department of Education did not give the funding of Dripstone High School sufficient priority to enable it to be included in this year’s estimates? Does the Minister believe that the estimates relating to secondary school age children in Darwin between 1 977 and 1 980 now indicate an urgent need for the immediate commencement of construction of a fourth high school? If so, will the Minister indicate when such a high school might be opened and available for use? Will the Minister indicate what plans the Government has to accommodate satisfactorily all secondary school age children in Darwin in the years 1978, 1979 and 1980; that is, until the completion of the fourth high school?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Senator Robertson and all honourable senators will be aware that, as a result of the cyclone in Darwin and the subsequent delays in the restoration of Darwin, there have been major delays in the building and rebuilding programs for schools. As a result, all the school building programs have suffered in terms both of repairs and of the construction of new schools. I am personally acutely aware of the need for the Dripstone High School. We have been seeking to give it the highest possible priority. We will work towards a situation where we will be able to accommodate all high school students in the coming year.

page 1441

QUESTION

ROYAL HOBART HOSPITAL: INTERMEDIATE BEDS

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

-My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Will the Minister for Health emphasise to the Tasmanian Minister for Health, Mr Lowe, his concern about the restriction by that State Labor Government of the use of intermediate beds at the Royal Hobart Hospital by pensioners, low wage earners and Medibank levy payers who are being discriminated against by not being entitled to use those intermediate beds and so have the doctor of their choice, even if they have insured with a private fund for this low hospital benefit? Tasmania is the only State that has refused pensioners use of these beds, even though the Federal Government has subsidised the Medibank Plus table.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I undertake to draw these matters to the attention of the Minister for Health and ascertain whether he is able to give any assistance to those pensioners and low income earners in Hobart with regard to admission to the intermediate section of the Royal Hobart Hospital.

page 1442

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

-Can the Minister for Education provide assurances that the announced 2 per cent growth projected for education throughout the next 2 years of the current triennium will be maintained? Can the Minister outline proposals regarding the cost supplementation for the rest of 1976-77 and for the future? Can the Minister assure the Senate that the Schools Commission will not be altered to exclude its responsibilities for government schools? Has the Government considered any changes in the composition of the Schools Commission? If so, what representation is being considered?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

- Senator Georges asks a series of questions. Of course the Senate will have the opportunity to have a very full and factual exposition of the whole range of these matters when, in the course of the next several weeks, some 8 funding Bills- four of them for supplementation in this year and four of them dealing with the programs for the next year- will be before the Senate. In the generality the information Senator Georges seeks will then be unfolded. The Government’s policies regarding the recommendations of the various commissions concerned- there are four of them- will be set out in the 4 funding Bills which are concerned with next year. As to the first question asked by Senator Georges, we will ensure that for the year 1977 there will be a 2 per cent growth of expenditure in real money terms as compared with that for 1976. I should remind the Senate that this is doubly important because of the cutback made in education funds by the previous Government. I also remind Senator Georges that in answer to an earlier question I said that I would be making a statement in the Senate very soon as to cost supplementation and that I would outline a formula for cost supplementation which would prove satisfactory in carrying out the programs of the Government. It is not the intention of the Government to so alter the Schools Commission as to deny to the Schools Commission any responsibility for investigation and recommendation in the State government sphere. I think the honourable senator asked me that question. It is the intention of the Commonwealth Government in due course to make certain reforms to the Schools Commission to bring it more appropriately into line with a co-operative arrangement between the Commonwealth and the States. When those policies have been formulated they will be announced.

page 1442

QUESTION

NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT AND OCCUPATION

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations aware that the National Committee on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation has not met since May 1976 and that a backlog of work is accumulating? When does the Minister envisage the Committee will next meet to deal with that backlog?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I shall pass on that question to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations whom I represent in this place and endeavour to obtain an early answer from him for the honourable senator.

page 1442

QUESTION

LEGAL FEES OF FORMER SENATOR

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I ask a question of the Minister for Administrative Services. Did the Minister request the Attorney-General to review the Crown Solicitor’s advice not to pay the legal costs of one Albert Field? If so, what was the reason for the request?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-What passes between Ministers is something which I do not intend to disclose in the Senate.

page 1442

QUESTION

BAILEY TASK FORCE: REPORT

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. Has the report of the task force which has been meeting under the chairmanship of Mr Bailey been received? If not, will it be received soon? Do the terms of reference include the activities of the Commonwealth, the States and the voluntary sector in the welfare field? Since all 3 groups have a vital interest in the findings of the task force and since the Commonwealth and the States are likely to have access to the report, can the Minister tell us whether and, if so, how the voluntary sector, which will be the subject of some of the recommendations, will be able to see and comment on the report?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I want to make it clear that the Bailey task force will be reporting to the Prime Minister. The report was requested by him. As I understand it, no report has yet been submitted to the Prime Minister. I understand that at some time in the near future Mr Bailey will give the Director-General of my Department a draft report for some further comment from him on matters that have been studied by the task force. I understand also that there are to be continuing discussions with regard to matters that have been subjected to scrutiny, including such things as the delivery of welfare services between the Federal Government, the State governments and the voluntary sector. I have no knowledge yet of the Prime Minister’s wishes with regard to discussion with or availability of the report to the voluntary sector, but I will seek some information, and if I can advise the Senate at an early date I will do so.

page 1443

QUESTION

OMEGA BASE

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. I asked the Minister this question on 13 October. I would like to restate the question because it may have been my fault that it was recorded incorrectly. I asked: Is the Minister able to confirm the reported offer of $500,000 for a piece of land near Man’s Beach between Woodside and Yarram in the Gippsland district of Victoria for the establishment of an Omega base? The Minister replied to my previous question by saying that he would seek the information for me. I ask: Has the Minister obtained the information I seek? If not, will he use his best endeavours to obtain an answer to my question at the earliest opportunity?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-It is true that in regard to that piece of land specifically I have not seen a reply, but I will seek it. I think I am absolutely correct in saying that the Government has made no decision as yet on the specific site for the Omega base and therefore it is highly improbable that it would have made any offer at all. Indeed I think I can say, following unofficial conversations with my colleague in another place, that he indicated to me that no decision has been made. It therefore follows that no offer would have been made. But, since there may be some other answer about this piece of land, I will follow it up.

page 1443

QUESTION

HOME BUILDING

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development.

Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the latest home building figures for the month of September which were released yesterday and which show an improvement of 1 1 per cent on the commencement figures for September 1975? Does the Minister see this as an indication of the start of a home building recovery? Is he able to say whether this apparent trend has continued into October?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am aware of the figures as published and as stated by Senator Archer. My understanding is that that trend has been fairly uniform throughout Australia even, I think, in New South Wales where there was a sluggish commencement earlier in the year. I understand that there is cautious optimism that this is a sign of slow but nevertheless steady recovery in the home building area. As to whether the trend has continued into October I cannot be precise. One would have to wait until the figures for the end of the month are produced. I will seek them from my colleague for the honourable senator.

page 1443

QUESTION

FEDERALISM

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs. Is the Government considering convening a meeting of Federal and State Ministers to deal with the objections to its federalism program raised by at least 4 Premiers? Does the Minister consider that the objections over the Government’s centralist tendencies mean that its attitude towards Federal-State relations needs modifying?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– My understanding is that the Prime Minister has not considered it necessary to convene a meeting of the Premiers or their representatives on this matter. A number of viewpoints have been put forward regarding certain of the machinery clauses of two of the Bills that are before another chamber of this Parliament. My understanding is that there has been some misunderstanding of the true meaning and the true intentions of the Government in that regard. To the extent that any of those matters put forward can be benefited by some modification in wording to achieve full clarification the Government will be willing to make the appropriate minor adjustments in the Bills to do so. It is not the intention of the Government in any way to evince centralist tendencies. After all, we had 3 horrible years of evidence of what happens in that regard. Indeed, the situation is that we are dealing with a dialogue regarding some matters relating to machinery clauses of the Bills. We will study what the Premiers have put forward and where there is a sound ground we will of course be happy to meet them.

page 1444

QUESTION

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– I ask a question of the Minister for Education. I refer to a report of a statement by an officer of the Department of Education concerning apprenticeship training in the Australian Capital Territory. I ask whether the Minister will have examined the proposals contained in the statement, particularly with respect to a possible shortage of skilled workers in the future and the need to expand opportunities for careers education?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I did see a report of a statement of one of my senior officers in, I think, the Canberra Times relating to the idea of preapprenticeship training. The simple fact is that in the Australian Capital Territory, as in the rest of Australia, there remains a legacy of high unemployment, severely so amongst the young. It is a sad fact that there are many more persons available for apprenticeship training than employers are able and willing to take up. I know that my colleague in another place, Mr Street, is undertaking some very detailed surveys as to the whole question of apprenticeship training. The honourable senator will know that one of the difficulties of the past in apprenticeship has been the changing nature of many undertakings and particularly the tendency to sub-contracting in the construction industry which makes the previous discipline of apprenticeship more difficult to achieve.

The matter as suggested by my officer, which virtually is pre-apprenticeship training, that is, the commencement of a young person in an appropriate discipline at a technical college in the expectation of achieving apprenticeship, is one that is under study at this moment. Of course the important thing is to be able to ensure that upon the completion of such pre-training the young person can get a job. I spent considerable time last week looking at this matter. I am in discussion with my colleague, Mr Street, and will continue those discussions.

page 1444

QUESTION

GRANTS COMMISSIONS: SOUTH AUSTRALIA AND TASMANIA

Senator WRIEDT:

– I direct my question to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs. Is the Minister aware that the South Australian Parliament and the Tasmanian Parliament have passed legislation to establish Grants Commissions in those States? Is the Minister aware that the requirement in the proposed

Commonwealth legislation to report to the Federal Minister is inconsistent with the State legislation? Does the Minister intend to ask the States to amend their legislation to conform with the Federal legislation?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am aware that the various States have in recent times brought in legislation to set up State Grants Commissions in accordance with an undertaking given by them during the 3 Premiers conferences in the first half of this year. I am aware also that during those conferences meetings of officers, both Federal and State, set out a series of guidelines for the development of Grants Commissions and the sorts of rules of the road that might be followed. In reading the transcript of the Premiers Conference I noted that the Tasmanian Premier indicated that he had no objection to the particular guidelines as they were set out. I think that is an accurate recollection.

My Government is looking at the comments of the South Australian Minister. To my knowledge we have had no comments from Tasmania but, assuming that Senator Wriedt is reflecting such a comment, we will look at it. If there were to be any disability as between the legislation which has been passed and our proposed legislation, and if in the spirit of things we can make appropriate adjustments we will do so. It is not the intention of the Commonwealth Government to interfere in the business of State governments. It is our intention, in terms of that legislation which will be before this place within the next week, to ensure that the policies of the Federal Government, for which it has a clear mandate from the people and of which there was a clear acceptance at the Premiers Conference, are carried out.

page 1444

QUESTION

WAGE FREEZE

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I ask: What progress has been made on the Government’s proposals to seek a wage freeze for 6 months in its endeavour to produce a consumer price index figure for the next 2 quarters more in keeping with its election promise to arrest inflation?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– The national wage case hearing is being held this week. I presume that the answer to that question will be revealed at that hearing.

page 1444

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BEEF EXPORTS TO JAPAN

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Has the Government been informed of the likelihood of a reduced quantity of Australian beef exports to Japan? Is the Minister able to say whether there have been any discussions between the Australian Government and the Japanese Government about the quotas for beef exports to Japan? If there have not been discussions, will the Government initiate negotiations so that the slack in the meat industry in Australia arising from the United States and Canadian restrictions will not be repeated in respect of exports to Japan?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-I know of no foundation for any such rumours. All I know about the position is that Japan has been a big customer for Australian beef. We are in constant touch with Japan about these matters. A great deal depends upon the recovery rate of the Japanese economy and the buying power of the Japanese consumer. They have been improving steadily. The best guess we can make is that the situation is improving as between ourselves and Japan in regard to greater market accessibility for beef. This matter is being discussed all the time by the Minister for Primary Industry and his counterpart in Japan. I have just been to Japan. I was talking to the Minister for Industry and Trade, amongst many others, and the question of beef was raised only in the broad. The indications I have are only favourable.

page 1445

QUESTION

PRIVATE HEALTH FUNDS: COMPUTER PROCESSING OF RECORDS

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

-Can the Minister for Social Security inform the Senate whether or not it is true that the private health funds are sending their computer work to Singapore for processing because it can be done more cheaply there? Does this mean that people outside the control of the Australian Parliament would have access to the health records of Australian people?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I have no knowledge of the matter that has been raised by the honourable senator. I will refer it to the Minister for Health. If there is any information that I can give to the Senate I will see that it is provided without delay.

page 1445

QUESTION

NITROGENOUS FERTILISER BOUNTY

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer: Has the Government decided to adopt the recommendation of the Industries Assistance Commission to phase out the nitrogen fertiliser bounty, as the Treasurer indicated in his Budget Speech it would and for the first stage of which the Government has already introduced legislation? If so, does this mean that legislation will be introduced next year to reduce the bounty to $40 per tonne of nitrogen equivalent and $20 per tonne for the year after?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I am aware of the general context of the Treasurer’s Budget Speech. Equally I am aware that the Industries Assistance Commission has produced an advisory report. I cannot go beyond that. Specific matters dealing with what the Treasurer will or will not do are matters that I must refer to him to ascertain his precise position. I will do that and inform the honourable senator.

page 1445

QUESTION

TAXATION ON OVERTIME

Senator TOWNLEY:

– I preface a question which I direct to the Minister representing the Treasurer by saying that no doubt the Minister is aware that a great many people nowadays are loth to work overtime due to the high tax rate imposed upon their overtime earnings. Has the Minister, in the interest of assisting incentive and getting people to work a little harder, considered limiting the tax on overtime earnings to a rate equal to that applicable to the top of the employee’s income? Has he considered limiting the maximum tax that anyone pays to 50 per cent of income, which I believe is the case in New Zealand and Canada?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-During the Budget considerations and throughout the year, the Treasury is always examining alternative arrangements for raising revenue, including the taxation scales, the way in which they fall upon individuals and the effect they have. One cannot say any more than that. I have heard the proposition that the honourable senator has made canvassed before. I know that it has been put under study. I can get a more detailed answer for the honourable senator, but I am not in the situation of being able to give away public revenue in this chamber.

page 1445

QUESTION

BAILEY TASK FORCE: REPORT

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question to the Minister for Social Security refers to the Bailey task force on health and welfare in respect of which Senator Baume asked a question earlier. I ask the Minister: In view of the fact that the findings of this task force will obviously affect State and local government, voluntary agencies, her own Department and the Department of Health, to say the least, and that any such recommendations based on the wide terms of reference of this task force will deeply affect the community, will she ask the Prime Minister whether the members of this Parliament and the public of this country can have made available to them both the recommendations of the task force and the reasons for those recommendations so that there can be some public debate before any Government decisions are made?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I will refer to the Prime Minister the question that has been asked by the honourable senator. I am not aware, as I said earlier, of the status or the nature of the report at this stage. I will draw the question to the attention of the Prime Minister and get a reply from him.

page 1446

QUESTION

CONTROL OF WATER HYACINTH

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Minister for Science: What was the outcome of a meeting of Commonwealth and State Ministers at Moree, New South Wales, on 28 July, concerning the control of water hyacinth? Has a control program been devised? How much will it cost? How will this cost be spread between the national Government and the States?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I am unable to give an accurate description of the outcome of the meeting of Ministers. My Department was not involved. Possibly the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation was involved. As I understand it it has been agreed that an amount of $50,000 will be expended in New South Wales on the eradication of water hyacinth. Whether that decision was made at that meeting I do not know. I mention a matter of interest to honourable senators. I am told that in the United States the development of water hyacinth as a possible means of converting solar energy to a usable form is being considered. The authorities are considering reaping the water hyacinth from effluent ponds where it is grown. Apparently it is becoming a valuable crop in the United States.

page 1446

QUESTION

EDUCATION IN THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Senator RYAN:
ACT

– Is the Minister for Education aware that the present ceiling of 650 ancillary staff for Australian Capital Territory schools and 147 ancillary staff for technical and further education institutions in the Territory has left Australian Capital Territory schools and technical institutions 100 positions short of the number required to maintain 1975 standards? Does the Minister agree that serious inefficiency and disruption have been caused by this shortage? In view of the Government’s promise to maintain education standards in the Australian Capital Territory, will the Minister undertake an immediate review of the present arbitrary staff ceiling policy so ceilings can be raised to a level adequate to fulfil the Government ‘s promises?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The honourable senator may recall that in answer to a question only recently I indicated that it was the intention of the Government to make a review of the levels of ancillary staff in the Australian Capital Territory. The honourable senator may know that there was a review recently of professional staff at the Interim Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority level and the Neal and Hird review of the teaching staff. So there has been progressively and very thoroughly a review of all staff. The honourable senator may also know that in order to keep good faith the Department of Education cut its own ceilings very significantly, to make available further ancillary staff by transfer to the Australian Capital Territory. So Australian Capital Territory schools are getting preference in that regard. I do not concede that there has been severe hardship as a result of the cuts. I acknowledge that in the light of a recession which was inherited by this Government it has been necessary to undertake economies. I have indicated that it is my belief- I think it is a reasonable one- that for next year the staffs at all levels will be maintained at reasonable numbers.

page 1446

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Advisory Council for Inter-Government Relations Bill 1976.

Australian Film Commission Amendment Bill 1 976. National Health Amend ment Bill ( No. 3 ) 1 976. Health Insurance Amendment Bill (No. 3 ) 1 976. Australian Film and Television School Amendment Bill 1976.

Social Services Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1976. Repatriation Acts Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1 976. Australian Council Amendment Bill 1976.

page 1446

QUESTION

HANSARD: INCORPORATION OF MATERIAL

The PRESIDENT:

– I have to inform honourable senators that the Principal Parliamentary Reporter has received a letter from the Government Printer protesting at the quality of material sent to him for incorporation in Hansard during the sitting on Thursday, 21 October. The Printer’s complaint was directed particularly to handwritten documents which presented such difficulty to typesetters that they considered refusing to handle them. Fortunately he was able to prevail on them to accept the material on this occasion, but he has informed me that such documents cannot be accepted in future because of the scope for error and the slowing down of the setting process. I ask all honourable senators, therefore, so far as it is possible, to provide incorporated material in printed or typewritten form. As it is not always practicable for the Hansard staff to examine incorporated material in detail, there is also a responsibility on an honourable senator seeking an incorporation to ensure that nothing is written into the Hansard record which, if it formed part of a speech made in the chamber, would offend against the Standing Orders.

The Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Withers) has suggested that the whole matter of the incorporation of unread matter be referred to the Standing Orders Committee, which I assume would consider all aspects of the problem, including the volume of incorporations. With this suggestion I concur, and the matter will be listed on the agenda for the next meeting of the Standing Orders Committee.

page 1447

COMMONWEALTH GRANTS COMMISSION

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

– Pursuant to section 25 of the Grants Commission Act 1 973 I present the 43rd report, 1976, on special assistance for States.

page 1447

AUSTRALIAN MEAT RESEARCH COMMITTEE

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

– Pursuant to section 17 of the Meat Research Act 1960 I present the annual report of the Australian Meat Research Committee for the year ended 30 June 1976.

page 1447

AUSTRALIAN CHICKEN MEAT RESEARCH COMMITTEE

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

– Pursuant to section 16 of the Australian Chicken Meat Research Act 1969 I present the interim annual report of the Australian Chicken Meat Research Committee for the year ended 30 June 1976.

Senator Georges:

- Mr President, the Minister is making it very difficult. A list of the reports proposed to be presented has been circulated. Certain Opposition senators would like to move motions in relation to those reports. When a Minister gets to his feet and reads from the body of the list the name of the report that he is presenting, it makes it very difficult for us to be aware of just what he is speaking to. I suggest that the Minister should follow the order on the list.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

-by leave- I move:

That the Senate take note of the papers.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

Senator Cotton:

– I assume that the motion refers to the reports I have tabled for myself and the one I have tabled for Senator Withers.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is that your intention, Senator Gietzelt?

Senator Keeffe:

- Mr President, I seek clarification. I take it that the Minister is taking the whole page.

Senator Cotton:

– No.

Senator Keeffe:

– Is the Minister taking a group of reports? Perhaps he can explain what the position is.

Senator COTTON (New South WalesMinister for Industry and Commerce)- by leave- I presented a report for Senator Withers and nobody rose. I presented 2 reports of my own and nobody rose. I do not have the report of the Commissioner of Taxation in my hands to present, so I cannot present it. I have presented one report for Senator Withers on Commonwealth grants and two for myself on the Australian Meat Research Committee and the Australian Chicken Meat Research Committee. As nobody rose as I presented each one, I assumed that nobody wanted to rise. But, Senator Gietzelt having risen, I assumed that his motion related to the 3 reports.

Senator Georges:

– That is exactly what I am objecting to. The Minister makes it very difficult for us. We expected the first report to be dealt with first. The Minister went rapidly through two or three items completely out of order with the list we have.

Senator Baume:

– You were not listening.

Senator Georges:

– I was listening. The Minister is pretty fast on his feet.

The PRESIDENT:

– Maybe I was in error in not looking around to see whether anybody wanted to move a motion in relation to the reports. Senator Cotton mentioned that he was acting on behalf of the Minister for Administrative Sevices in presenting the first report he presented. Do you wish to speak to that, Senator Georges?

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave- I move:

That the Senate take note of the paper.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1448

CANBERRA COLLEGE OF ADVANCED EDUCATION

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– For the information of honourable seantors pursuant to section 30 of the Canberra College of Advanced Education Act 1967 I present the annual report of the Council of the Canberra College of Advanced Education for the year ended 3 1 December 1975.

page 1448

COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO THE MARITIME INDUSTRY

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

-On behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Transport, for the information of honourable senators I present the 4 final reports of the Commission of Inquiry into the Maritime Industry entitled Report on Australian Maritime Legislation, Report on International Maritime Conventions, Report on Maritime Standards and Controls and Report on the Future of the Australian Maritime Industry.

Senate KEEFFE (Queensland)-by leave-I move:

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

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1448

AUSTRALIAN POSTAL COMMISSION

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– On behalf of the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, pursuant to section 102 of the Postal Services Act 1975 I present the annual report of the Australian Postal Commission for the year ended 30 June 1976.

page 1448

FRASER ISLAND ENVIRONMENTAL INQUIRY

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– On behalf of the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development I present for the information of honourable senators the final report of the Fraser Island Environmental Inquiry.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

-by leave- I move:

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

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1448

RANGER URANIUM ENVIRONMENTAL INQUIRY

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– On behalf of the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development I present for the information of honourable senators the first report of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– by leave- I move:

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

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1448

HOUSING LOANS INSURANCE CORPORATION

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– Pursuant to section 39 of the Housing Loans Insurance Act 1965 I present the annual report of the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation for the year ended 30 June 1976.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– by leave- I move:

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

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1448

AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– Pursuant to section 42 of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 I present the annual return of persons granted Australian citizenship during the year ended 30 June 1 976.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– by leave- I move:

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

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1448

AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF ABORIGINAL STUDIES

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– Pursuant to section 30 of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies Act 1964 I present the annual report of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies for the year ended 30 June 1976.

page 1449

BUREAU OF CUSTOMS

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present a report entitled Bureau of Customs 1976: A Review of Activities.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave- I move:

That the Senate take note of the paper.

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

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1449

BANKRUPTCY ACT

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– Pursuant to section 3 14 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 1 present the annual report on the operation of that Act for the year ended 30 June 1 976.

page 1449

REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES COMMITTEE

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

– I present the fifty-sixth report of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances relating to certain retrospective regulations.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 1449

SENATE ESTIMATES COMMITTEES

Estimates Committee E

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-I present written answers received by Estimates Committee E since the presentation of the Committee’s report. I move:

That the answers be printed as part of the report of Estimates Committee £ which was presented to the Senate on 2 1 October 1976.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Estimates Committee D

Senator BAUME:
New South Wales

-I present written answers received by Estimates Committee D since the presentation of the Committee’s report. I move:

That the answers be printed as pan of the report of Estimates Committee D which was presented to the Senate on 2 1 October 1976.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1449

SITTINGS OF THE SENATE

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

– I move:

  1. 1 ) That, unless otherwise ordered, the times of meeting of the Senate for the remainder of this period of sittings be as follows:
  1. That the Sessional Order relating to the adjournment of the Senate have effect at the terminating time each day.
  2. That, unless otherwise ordered, Government Business take precedence of General Business after 3.00 p.m. on Thursdays.
Senator McLaren:

– I would like to ask Senator Cotton a question in relation to the motion he has just moved.

The PRESIDENT:

– You are required to seek leave.

Senator McLaren:

– I now understand that Senator Douglas McClelland will be seeking leave to make a statement.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– After the motion is put and determined and becomes a resolution, I am intending then to seek leave to make a short statement.

Senator COTTON:

-That was my understanding of the position.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– by leave- Without wishing to offer objection to the motion that was just put by Senator Cotton, notice of which was given by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Withers) before the Senate went into recess last week, there are one or two matters to which I should draw attention on behalf of the Opposition. Firstly, the Opposition wants to indicate to the Parliament, to the Senate and to the public at large that it intends to be quite constructive in its approach to legislation that comes before the Parliament. We know from our own experience in government that in the last weeks of a Parliament a government has certain responsibilities to present legislation to the Parliament. Naturally the Opposition wants time to have as much discussion as possible of the various pieces of legislation introduced by the Government. We are earnest in our desire to express our points of view on the Bills that come before the Parliament and it is for that reason and for that reason only that we are prepared to forgo our right to have general business called on between now and the termination of this sessional period. I note that there are only 2 notices of motion under General Business- one from Senator Wright, a Government supporter, and one from Senator Grimes, a member of the front bench of the Opposition, which relates to the Australian Assistance Plan and which was given on 19 August. We would hope that in the normal course of events the Opposition would get an opportunity very early in the next sessional period to present its case on the second motion as well as an opportunity to request the Government to bring forward for debate those matters which have been dealt with to date under General Business but on which the Government secured the adjournment of the debate and which therefore have gone, as it were, to the bottom of the notice paper under General Business.

I wish also on behalf of the Opposition to draw to the attention of the Senate Order of the Day No. 4, the report of the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs on the retiring ages for Commonwealth judges. The report was presented on behalf of that Committee by Senator Missen on, I think, 21 October. The Opposition would like that matter to be debated at a very early date. In normal circumstances we would have opposed the forgoing of General Business, but we realise that when these matters are to be dealt with the general custom and practice has been that a notice of motion standing in the name of a senator is debated one week under General Business and the next week an order of the day relating to a Senate committee report is debated. On that basis it would be 6 to 8 weeks before this item in the name of Senator Missen would be debated. Therefore, the probabilities are that in any event that item would not be debated under General Business this sessional period. However, the Opposition does regard the matter as important. I think it was a matter that we referred to the Standing Committee when we were in office. The Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee has made certain recommendations to the Senate relating to the retiring ages of High Court and Federal court judges. Also reference was made to this very matter at the Constitutional Convention that was held in Hobart last week. I think it was one of the 2 matters on which there was unanimity of opinion.

Therefore, we would hope not only that the matter standing in the name of Senator Missen would be brought forward at an early date under General Business when Parliament resumes for the autumn session but also that the Government would see its way clear to act in accordance with this recommendation and in accordance with the recommendation of the Constitutional Convention which was held in Hobart by bringing down a Bill early in the next sessional period to enable the retiring age of judges of the High Court to be set at 70 years and of all other judges of Federal courts to be set at 65 years.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

-I seek leave to seek from the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Cotton) clarification of the motion before the Senate.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator McLAREN:

-I ask the Minister whether he can enlighten the Senate as to the program of the Senate for the remainder of this session. Earlier this year we were given a tentative program which set out the sitting weeks of the Senate. We have gone through most of that program. In that tentative program it was stated that the Senate would sit on 2 November- which is today- rise on 18 November for a week’s break, and then sit from 30 November to 16 December. I have heard some rumours around this place to the effect that that program is not going to be adhered to. Some people say that we are going to sit for 4 weeks without a break; others say that we will sit for 5 weeks without a break. I ask the Minister to give us some indication of what the program is going to be, so that we can make our arrangements to fit in with the intentions of the Government.

Senator COTTON (New South WalesMinister for Industry and Commerce)- by leave- I note what Senator McLaren has had to say. In the spirit of wanting, as he does, to facilitate the work of the Senate I suggest that to overcome the problem his Leader and Senator Withers should meet to try to make some arrangements. The Government is anxious, as Senator McLaren is, to see the work conducted in an orderly and sensible fashion. I do not know what the program is but I understand that there have been discussions about it with Senator Douglas McClelland and it is hoped that arrangements will be known later on this week. I am about as wise as Senator McLaren is at the moment and I have the same concern as he has.

page 1450

SENATE VOTING ARRANGEMENTS

Senator CHANEY:
Western Australia

-by leave-By arrangement between the Whips in the Senate Senator James McClelland will not vote in divisions during the 3 sitting days this week to compensate for the vacancy caused by the death of Senator Greenwood.

page 1451

STATES GRANTS (HOUSING ASSISTANCE) BILL (No. 2) 1976

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I move:

Mr President, I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The speech read as follows-

The purpose of the States Grants (Housing Assistance) Bill (No. 2) 1976 is to authorise the Treasurer to advance to the states this financial year the sum of $375m for welfare housing in accordance with the provisions of the 1973-1974 Housing Agreement. This amount will be distributed among the States as follows: New South Wales, $123,411,000; Victoria, $98,159,000; Queensland, $37,410,000; South Australia, $56,360,000; Western Australia, $35,440,000; Tasmania, $24,220,000; a total of $375,000,000.

This is $ 10.4m more than was made available in 1975-76 and is 70 per cent higher than the level of advances in 1973-74, the first year of operation of the agreement.

The advances are repayable over a period of 53 years; they bear interest at the rate of 4 per cent per annum in respect of advances allocated to the State housing authorities and 4Vi per cent per annum in respect of advances allocated to the home builders’ accounts of the States. The apportionment of the allocations between the State housing authority and the home builders’ account for each state is as determined by the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development after consultation with the housing Minister of the State concerned.

Despite the importance of expenditure restraint in the Government’s overall economic strategy, we have maintained the level of advances at the very high figure of the last 2 years. The 1976-77 advances are high in real terms compared with earlier years when the States themselves allocated welfare housing funds from their overall loan council works/housing program. In 1971-72 and 1972-73 the aggregate borrowings by the States for housing purposes were $ 16 1.5m and $ 163.2m respectively.

The States have also gained under the 1973- 1974 Housing Agreement in ways that are not apparent in these figures. Under the Agreement the low interest rates payable by the States on the advances are fixed. At the time the Agreement was negotiated the States were intended to receive an interest concession of 2 to 2.5 per cent on their welare housing funds because the longterm bond rate was then 6.5 per cent. This in itself was significantly more generous than any previous financial arrangements for welfare housing. There has since been a significant upward movement of interest rates. By 1 July 1974 the long-term bond rate had increased to 9.5 per cent; it is currently 10.2 per cent. The Commonwealth has borne the entire increased cost of the loan funds from which the welfare housing advances are made. The level of interest rate concessions on welfare housing funds to States is currently about 6 per cent.

The level of real assistance for the States’ welfare housing programs has therefore increased considerably as the interest concession has become greater. Moreover, all States are expected to have available greatly increased amounts of general purpose recurrent and capital funds in 1976-77 (under the new tax-sharing arrangements and loan council programs) compared with 1975-76; the estimated increase in the general purpose funds is 16.5 per cent. By contrast, the Commonwealth’s own outlays in 1976-77 including payments to the States will increase by a substantially smaller percentage. These figures represent real growth for the States. Any State is, of course, free to devote any part of these funds it wishes to housing purposes to supplement the specific advance it will be receiving from the Commonwealth.

The volume of outstanding work on State housing authority accounts at the end of 1975-76 was lower than it has been for many years. The reason for this is clear. The rapid acceleration of advances by the previous Commonwealth administration had encouraged the States to commence large numbers of dwellings in 1974- 75. The levelling out of advances in the 1975- 76 Budget meant, for most States, that a disproportionate amount of 1975-76 advances was required to complete the dwellings already under construction at the time, leading in turn to fewer commencements in 1975-76 and a relatively low volume of work outstanding at the end of the year.

We believe that the only sensible course, particularly within the present objectives of budgetary policy generally, is to seek to restore activity in the welfare housing area to an even keel. At the level of advances determined for 1976-77 we expect that the States will be able to undertake significantly more commencements than in 1975- 76 and still have more work in the pipeline at the end of 1976-77 than 12 months previously. The welfare housing sector is a small but important part of the total housing sector; in recent years government dwelling construction has amounted to something like twelve per cent of total dwelling construction. Overall dwelling construction activity expanded rapidly in the second half of 1975.

The outlook is for activity to continue for a while at about the same level as in the first half of 1976- that is 33 000 to 34 000 commencements per quarter- and then to resume moderate sustainable expansion into 1977 and beyond. The recent slowing in the rate of expansion in most States has come at a time when the strong growth of 1975 needed to taper off to avoid a rekindling of inflationary pressures in this industry. A clear lesson from the past is the susceptibility of house and land prices to rapid and over-extended increases in activity.

Nevertheless, there are still areas of underutilised capacity in the industry particularly in New South Wales and, to a lesser extent, in Queensland. Premiers and housing ministers of those, and other, States have called for larger welfare housing advances than this Bill provides for. In the Commonwealth’s view, large advances for welfare housing are not the way to ensure a robust housing industry. That will be best achieved by bringing down the rate of inflation, and in consequence interest rates, and by fostering recovery in the private sector- objectives to which the Government’s economic strategy is specifically directed.

The Bill also authorises the Treasurer to pay to the States in the first 6 months of 1977-78 the sum of $ 187.5m, which is half the allocation for 1976-77. This amount will be distributed on the same basis as the advances for the current year. In other words, the Treasurer will be authorised to continue payments to the States for welfare housing in the period from 1 July 1977, until an appropriation measure for 1977-78 is passed by the Parliament. Authority is also provided to the Treasurer to borrow the monies necessary for making the advances to the States under the Bill.

The repayable interest bearing advances will, as circumstances dictate, be made either from the

Consolidated Revenue Fund or the Loan Fund and will be on the terms and conditions set out in the 1973-74 Housing Agreement. Provision is made for any payments out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for this purpose to be reimbursed in due course from the Loan Fund, when the Treasurer considers this appropriate. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland) adjourned.

page 1452

APPROPRIATION (URBAN PUBLIC TRANSPORT) BILL 1976

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I move:

Mr President, I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The speech read as follows-

Mr President, the purpose of the Bill is to appropriate $20 million to meet cost increases on projects approved under the terms of the joint Commonwealth State Urban Public Transport Agreement. Under this Agreement, acceptable cost increases can occur either by variations to an approved project which are agreed to by both my colleague, the Minister for Transport and a State Minister or through increases in the cost of labour and materials. With regard to the latter, the States were given an assurance that the Commonwealth would meet its share of cost increases that could not have been reasonably foreseen at the time initial estimates were prepared and submitted to the Commonwealth.

The amount to be appropriated is the estimate required to meet in part, cost increases which have arisen from inception of the program in 1973-74 up to 30 June 1977. This year’s Budget allocation from existing appropriations is $44.6m for the continuation of approved projects and together with the provision under this Bill raises the total Commonwealth funds available for urban public transport in 1 976-77 to $64.6m. This represents a 90 per cent increase over the $33.8m advanced to the States in 1 975-76. Those of the Opposition who claim the Commonwealth has withdrawn from urban improvement programs need to get their facts straight and should be applauding the level of assistance we are providing. It is an increase of over 50 per cent on what they were prepared to provide last year.

It is obviously necessary to remind the honourable senators opposite of the origins of the Urban Public Transport Improvement Program. The former Minister has often claimed it is his initiative; but for the record I make it quite clear that the initiative was in fact taken by the present Minister for Transport when he held that portfolio in 1971. At the July 1971 meeting of the Australian Transport Advisory Council, State and Federal Ministers agreed that the Bureau of Transport Economics (BTE) should urgently prepare a report on the needs for a capital investment program in urban public transport. The BTE report clearly demonstrated that there were many vitally needed improvements to our public transport systems which should be undertaken.

The report was presented to the July 1972 meeting of the Australian Transport Advisory Council and the then Prime Minister, my colleague the Right Honourable Member for Lowe became the first Federal Leader to give a firm commitment that the Commonwealth would assist in improving urban public transport. Having set the record straight as to who initiated investment in public transport, I want to briefly review the achievements of the previous Labor Administration. At his first meeting with State Transport Ministers in February of this year my colleague, the Minister for Transport, was inundated with requests to simplify the administration of the Urban Public Transport Agreement. He was also asked to ease the centralist authoritarian control which had been exercised by the former Government. Although the States were charged with the task of implementing approved projects there was the spectre of the former Minister continuously checking on their performance in the way of a headmaster.

The Minister for Transport has indicated quite clearly to his State colleagues that this is not the way a Liberal-National Country Party Government operates. We recognise that in this field it is the States that have special knowledge and a high degree of competence and accordingly agree that they should have responsibility in such matters. We do acknowledge of course that there are areas where the Commonwealth is able to contribute to the States’ benefit. The emphasis of our relations with the States is one of cooperative federalism, however, not a centralist dictatorship.

This program has suffered, as so many of the former Government’s programs have suffered, through the indecent haste with which it was foisted upon the States. Indeed the first Budget allocations for the program were made even before the Agreement had been negotiated with the States. It is just one example of the Opposition’s naive approach that money is the sole solution to all problems; an attitude that led between 1973 and 1976 to unprecedented levels of government spending with limited returns and ultimately to the massive defeat of the Labor Government. It is no wonder that the Labor Government presided over some of the highest levels of inflation in the nation’s history.

What proved to be a complex program to the States, due to its inflexible administrative requirements, was further complicated by the former Government’s policy that finance for rolling stock acquisition should be limited to a year-by-year basis. Such an approach is, of course, totally impractical. It is not feasible to place orders, accept delivery and pay for rolling stock within a 12 month period. But this is what the former Government required. It placed the States in an untenable position. The States were naturally reluctant to place orders in anticipation of Commonwealth financial assistance and hence the whole program was disrupted.

This disruption also spread to the rolling stock manufacturers. They were understandably cautious about investing in plant and equipment in order to increase production for what was only a twelve month order without any assurance there would be continuity of further orders. They saw themselves as pawns at the whim of a centralist Labor Government. As I have indicated, all these shortcomings in the program stem from the former Government’s attempts to change the world in twelve months, and to enforce their own socialist ideology upon the States.

Upon assuming the portfolio of Transport in the Commonwealth Government, the Minister immediately advised his State colleagues on the Australian Transport Advisory Council that he would be prepared to examine ways of greatly improving the administrative arrangements introduced by his predecessors. At the same time he made it quite clear that he had responsibilities to the Parliament for Commonwealth funds disbursed under this program. The Minister offered also to consider any proposals the States wished to put forward for the revision of program priorities within the constraints of the existing financial allocations.

The States have all indicated they will take up the Minister’s offer to re-order the program allocations. As I will indicate in almost all cases the States have sought to cancel projects concerned with the expansion of their urban transport systems and to concentrate available resources on upgrading the existing network. The States’ greatest priority has been to divert funds to rolling stock acquisition. In all cases, the Minister for Transport has been prepared to accept States’ priorities rather than follow those which had been dogmatically imposed by the previous Government. For the information of honourable senators a table provides details of the program revisions the Minister has so far approved. Mr President, I seek leave to table the document, which is Attachment I.

In fairness to the former Minister it should be noted that he had indicated he was prepared to consider similar arrangements in 1975 to try to overcome the total disruption caused by his Government’s failure to provide for a new program in the 1975-76 Budget. In answer to any claim that the Government has failed to fund a new program in 1976-77, 1 would point out that our provision for 1976-77 is 90 per cent greater than the amount advanced to the States during 1975-76.

The States all accept the present economic situation. It has caused them some problems but we are working together to minimise their problems. The States also know that this Government will honour its commitments under the Agreement, despite the present financial constraints. My Government’s support for the improvement of urban public transport is clear. The Government recognises that the Commonwealth, State and Local Governments each have responsibilities in the field of urban transport. It is therefore essential that all three levels of Government meet in a co-operative atmosphere to discuss problems and formulate guidelines for the development of programs and responsibilities. We must work together. It is not acceptable to have one government pursuing a particular policy line while another government moves in a different direction.

The Commonwealth sees its role as identifying national needs. To this end we utilise the resources of the Bureau of Transport Economics to critically evaluate transport investment programs. The Government also makes available the resources of the Bureau to assist the States in the investigation of specific urban transport improvements. Over two-thirds of Australia’s population lives in our major cities. We are extremely conscious of the need therefore to develop a balanced transport system for these cities. In this regard one significant current deficiency is the lack of adequate inter-suburban transport links. The great majority of the Australian urban work force has no direct public transport link with their work location. This leads to increasing use of the private motor car for the journey to and from work with its resultant road and parking congestion.

We are all aware of the benefits and costs which are attributable to urban travel by private motor vehicles. There is a growing belief that these costs tend to outweigh the benefits to the community at large. We are therefore anxious to assist the States to provide improved public transport services to relieve congestion and pollution on suburban streets. Our approach to urban transport problems will proceed hand in hand with our development of Federal/State relations policies.

State and local governments have clear responsibilities in the provision of urban transport services. It is our aim to see that they receive adequate funds to carry out these responsibilities consistent with prevailing budgetary considerations. This does not mean of course that the Commonwealth does not have a national responsibility in urban issues. Rather it believes that decisions should be made and implemented wherever possible at the State and local level. The Minister for Transport is currently investigating in co-operation with his colleagues in ATAC the general question of the future funding of urban transport improvements, bearing in mind that the present Agreement expires at the end of 1978.

The Minister proposes to ensure that any future financial arrangements are consistent with the Government’s overall federalism policy. He wants to be clearly aware of the States’ requirements so that he can adequately represent their views to the Government. But most of all the Minister wants the development of programs that have been carefully planned and evaluated. It is important to learn from experience. The difficulties created by the present arrangements should not be repeated so that the benefits of any future investment program can be maximised. As I have already indicated, the 2 most salutary lessons from the three years of Labor maladministration are: The need to plan carefully; and to act in full co-operation with State and Local Governments.

This should not be interpreted by honourable senators as implying that the Government does not appreciate the urgency and need for improvements to the public transport systems in our cities. We certainly acknowledge the overall need as is reflected by the 90 per cent increase in the Commonwealth’s allocation to this program for 1976-77. But in a period where it is simply unrealistic to contemplate the high levels of expenditure required to totally upgrade the urban transport systems of our cities, we must seek to optimise the funds available.

In this regard, I would point out that there is an obvious world-wide swing away from the grand strategy’ approach of solving the transport problems of urban areas. The pendulum is swinging towards making best use of the existing infrastructure rather than providing new systems. The emerging philosophy is to concentrate on making existing systems operate as efficiently and effectively as possible, rather than appropriate at the taxpayers’ expense the vast expenditures required for new systems.

A corollary of this approach is the emphasis now being placed on the co-ordination of transport services. Buses feed trains and ferries, cars feed buses and trains. The park and ride principle is widely adopted overseas and is in use in Australia, with several such schemes being introduced under this program. Several operators in Australia are adopting ticketing systems which allow single ticket transfer between modes.

The operators of public transport services are also aware of the need to keep travellers moving. In this regard a number of measures designed to give public transport vehicles priority over general traffic has been sucessfully introduced. On the aspect of investigating improvements to public transport, honourable senators should be aware of the financial assistance provided to the

States by the Commonwealth for transport planing and research. Under this scheme the Commonwealth provides two-thirds of the cost of projects proposed by the States and approved for assistance. In 1976-77 some $8m will be provided to the States, of which about 36 per cent will be directed to urban transport projects. The projects are aimed at identifying transport problems and examining potential solutions. This is seen to be an essential element in the formulation of sound social, economic and technological solutions to transportation problems.

We have always been conscious of the importance to Australia of overseas developments in urban transport. In June this year the Minister for Transport attended the European Conference of Ministers of Transport in Toulouse. This Conference consists of 1 8 European Ministers, with Australia and Japan being associate members and the United States and Canada having observer status. Members will appreciate that the Conference brings together an extensive knowledge of transportation. It therefore provides an opportunity to exchange views with the majority of Government transport authorities in the developed world. The Minister was greatly impressed with the work of the ECMT, and intends to ensure that Australia obtains maximum benefit from our associate membership.

We recognise of course that overseas experience and solutions are not always directly applicable to the Australian situation. Access to overseas expertise can however avoid many pitfalls and duplication of effort and expenditure. I repeat that we are acutely aware of the significance of urban transport in contributing to the overall quality of life in our major cities. We stand ready to work in co-operation with the State and local governments in order to achieve our mutual aims of an improved public transport system. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland) adjourned.

page 1456

INCOME TAX LAWS AMENDMENT (ROYALTIES) BILL 1976

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

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

– I move-

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr President, I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The speech read as follows-

This Bill will amend the income tax law to remove doubts about the operation of provisions that require foreign residents to pay Australian

income tax on royalties derived from this country. For the purpose of these provisions royalties include payments for the supply of industrial know-how and other amounts in the general nature of royalties. The need for the amendments arises from a recent decision by the Victorian Supreme Court in a tax appeal brought by a Canadian company. The company received substantial payments for the use in Australia of its know-how. It claimed that these payments were not liable to Australian tax under the provisions enacted in 1968 for the specific purpose of subjecting such payments to tax.

The court in this particular case upheld the company’s claim and this decision is now the subject of an appeal to the High Court. The Government has however decided that the matter is so important that the doubts that have been shown to exist should be put to rest immediately by legislative action. Royalties paid by Australian businesses are a charge against the profits of the businesses for tax purposes and it is fair that they should bear Australian tax in the hands of the foreign recipient. If they do not, profits earned in Australia and remitted overseas as royalties bear no Australian tax at all.

This situation cannot be accepted as it enables overseas company groups to take profits from Australian activities out of the country free of tax. For these reasons, the Government has decided to seek amendments which will resolve the legal doubts. The main purpose of this Bill is, therefore, to re-express the law so as to make it clear, in relation to payments to residents of all overseas countries, that the provisions requiring payment of tax on royalties are to operate in the way intended when the 1968 amendments were enacted. The then Government’s policy that the 1968 provisions were to apply to amounts flowing to all foreign residents was, I might add, made quite clear by ministers at the time.

The Bill technically achieves its purpose by directly defining the term ‘royalties’ in the Income Tax Assessment Act instead of defining it by reference to a definition in the double taxation agreement with the United Kingdom. This measure will make plain the intention that the defined term is not to apply only to payments made to residents of the United Kingdom. The Income Tax (International Agreements) Act is also being amended to eliminate any doubt that the definition in the Assessment Act has effect for the purpose of double taxation agreements in which the term ‘royalties’ is not defined.

By a provision in those agreements, the terms that are not defined are to have the same meaning as they have in the income tax laws of the country applying the agreements. In the 8 years since the provisions now being amended were enacted, no other country that is party to an agreement with Australia has ever questioned that the law operated in that way as regards royalties.

The Bill, in effecting its purpose of making clear the original intention of the Parliament, will apply to income in respect of which an assessment is made after 4 July 1976. That is the date on which the Treasurer announced that the amendments were to be made. The amendments will not affect the determination of valid objections lodged against assessments made on or before 4 July 1976. A memorandum containing more detailed explanations of technical aspects of the Bill is being made available to honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland) adjourned.

page 1457

CUSTOMS TARIFF (COAL EXPORT DUTY) AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

Bill (on motion by Senator Durack) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator DURACK (Western Australia-

Minister for Veterans ‘ Affairs) (4.7)- I move:

Mr President, I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The speech read as follows-

The Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Amendment Bill 1976 now before the Senate proposes amendments to the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Act 1975 to exempt from duty exports of non-coking coal which conforms with the specifications indicated in Clause 4 of the Bill, to reduce the export duty on high quality coking coal from $6 per tonne to $4.50 per tonne and to reduce the export duty on other coal from $2 per tonne to $1.50 per tonne. Honourable senators will recall that in the context of presenting on 17 August 1976 the Budget papers and outlining to the Senate the Budget proposals of the Government the Honourable the Minister for

Industry and Commerce mentioned that the coal export duty would be phased out. That same evening the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs introduced in another place the Customs Tariff (Coal Export Duty) Proposals (1976) to authorise collection of duty at the reduced rates with effect from 8 o’clock that evening. The purpose of the Bill now before the Senate is to enact those changes.

The action proposed represents the first step towards phasing out this levy which the Government regards as an entirely inappropriate form of tax in that its effects fall in a quite haphazard manner as marginal fields pay the same rate of duty as economically more profitable fields, or in some cases more. The existing levy has had undesirable effects both on existing producers and on potential developments. However, the reduction in duty rates proposed by this Bill and the Government’s announced intention of phasing out the levy over 3 years will have the immediate effect of encouraging the healthy development of the industry. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland) adjourned.

page 1458

AUSTRALIAN TAXATION OFFICE

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

– by leave- I present the following paper: Taxation, Fifty-fifth Report of the Commissioner of Taxation, dated 1 October 1976. This is the report which was listed but which was not presented to the Senate at the time when reports were being tabled.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave- I move:

I apologise for the confusion beforehand but we did break the order. The Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Cotton) was standing in for another Minister and one report was missing. In the circumstances I am not surprised that we were all confused. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Senator Cotton:

– There is no need for Senator Georges to apologise. It is nobody’s fault.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1458

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1976-77

First Reading

Debate resumed from 2 1 October, on motion by Senator Withers:

That the Bill be now read a first time.

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

-The matter I wish to refer to briefly in this debate on the first reading of a money Bill is a matter that I have been pursuing for nigh on 4 years. I refer to the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act 1948-1971 as amended, section 55 (4) of which stipulates that where a male pensioner marries after his retirement, pension shall not upon the death of the pensioner be payable to the widow or in respect of any child of the marriage. The latest amendment to the Act that I have been able to locate was made in 1973. In the course of the debate on the Defence Forces Retirement and Death Benefits (Pension Increases) Bill 1976 in the House of Representatives on 4 May 1976 this provision was adverted to by Mr Calder, the honourable member for the Northern Territory. The member for the Northern Territory said, as recorded at page 1860 of the House of Representatives Hansard of 4 May 1976:

I make a point to the Minister concerning members of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund who join as married serving men, whose wives subsequently die, who marry again and who leave the Services. It seems to me that there is an anomaly in the fact that the man who was a member of the DFRB Fund paid his money to that fund on the understanding that the pension would go to his wife, whether it was his first or his second wife.

Then the honourable member went on to point out that he had not been a member of the committee of inquiry into the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits scheme. The point he raised was that he was concerned- and I repeat I have been pursuing this over 3 years- that the second wife of a member of the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund was denied the pension rights that would have been payable to the first wife.

During the debate on this matter in the Senate on 6 May I cited the comments made by Mr Calder and the Minister’s reply which is recorded at page 1 862 of the Hansard. The Minister said:

The last point to which I turn is that raised by the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Calder). It has been brought to my attention already that a number of people have been disadvantaged because remarriage has occurred and the claim of the relevant spouse to the DFRB pension or the DFRDB pension has subsided. I acknowledge that. The House may recall that when the Superannuation Bill went through this House recently provision was made to overcome that difficulty.

The Bill to which the Minister was referring at that time was the Superannuation Bill, which affected public servants. The Minister gave an undertaking to have this matter referred to the Department for appropriate amendments to place persons covered by the 2 Service funds and the members of the Commonwealth Public Service in exactly the same position. The case I cited and which I have been pursuing for over 3 years is very important. It is not peculiar to this one constituent; it has many applications.

The member concerned had 35 years in the armed Services including distinguished service overseas in the Middle East and in the islands during the Second World War. He was paying into the DFRB Fund. His wife predeceased him. He retired after 35 years and his wish was to marry the widow of a former colleague. This meant 2 things, the first being that if the widow were to remarry she would immediately be disentitled to the DFRB pension for which her husband had made payments over many years. Of course that is the arrangement under the Act. I do not think one could quarrel with that; indeed it would appear as though one could not. However, the fact that the former serviceman had retired, his wife predeceasing him, and the fact that the widow would be disentitled to the pension flowing from the death of her former husband involved a 2-way effect. The pension of the former member, who is still alive and who has already made his contribution to the DFRB Fund, cannot flow on to a second wife. The wife of his former colleague, who served and paid into the DFRB Fund, was receiving, and I presume is still receiving, the DFRB pension; but should she remarry, she will immediately lose the pension and cannot enjoy the security that would otherwise be available to her because of this section of the old Act of 1 948-73.

It seems so wrong. The Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers), who represents the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) in this place, in his reply on 6 May to my submission undertook to convey my views to the Minister. True to his word, he did so. I received a letter from the Minister dated 22 March 1976. The Minister seemed to be able to cite the representation I had made, and among other things he said:

  1. . as I understand it, was primarily concerned with the provisions which cancelled the DFRB pension of a widow on her remarriage and exclude an ex-serviceman’s widow from eligibility for benefits where the marriage was contracted after his retirement from the Defence Force.

That is precisely the crux of the issue. In June 1976 I again received a letter from the Minister, because I had brought to his attention a reference to the alterations to the superannuation scheme which would affect public servants. The Minister said:

As I indicated during the debate in the House of Representatives on the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits (Pension Increases) Bill 1976 I have issued instructions to my Department to prepare appropriate amendments to the Defence Force retirement benefits legislation so that in future members of the Service schemes are placed in comparable circumstances with members of the Commonwealth Public Service schemes where a recipient spouse remarries.

Two things claimed my attention. The first was that it is about 6 months since this issue was last raised by me on 6 May and by Mr Calder in the House of Representatives on 4 May. It must be 3½ years at least since I originally raised the matter. Therefore I am concerned that there has been no finality on this issue at this point of time. The second is that the Minister referred to preparing appropriate amendments to the defence force retirement benefits legislation so that in the future members of the Services are placed in a comparable position with public servants.

What concerns me is whether there are any impediments which the Commonwealth Government could not overcome to ensure that persons who are eligible within the meaning of any amended Act may not have immediate entitlement. In other words, would there be a degree of retrospectivity? I suppose that if the Act were amended in 1976 serving members would enjoy a degree of retrospective entitlement notwithstanding the fact that they were currently serving and had been serving for X years prior to the relevant month in 1976. To me that seems to be reasonable and logical. If that is accepted by the Government, I hope 2 things would happenfirst, that the Minister would be encouraged to hasten the preparation of the legislation to correct what is not just an anomaly but is so wrong that it begs for appropriate amendment and, secondly, that a person who retired- the constituent to whom I was referring did retire in I think 1970 or 1971- would be entitled to the benefits of the amended Act. Accordingly, I trust that this matter will be brought to the notice of the Minister so that the two things can be accomplished: The expeditious amendment of the Act, and the application of the amended Act not only to those persons who may be able to take advantage of it in the future but also to those who have made their contributions in the terms of their service to this country and their financial contributions to the DFRB scheme over the years during the course of their service.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to appropriate amounts required for expenditure in 1976-77 from the Consolidated Revenue Fund other than those amounts provided by special appropriations and those included in Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1976-77. The amounts sought for each department are shown in detail in the second Schedule to the Bill, and total $7,502,130,000. This Bill seeks authority for the Treasurer to issue $4,090,025,900, the balance of $3,412,104,100 having already been authorised by the Supply Act (No. 1 ) 1 976-77.

The expenditure program of the Government was outlined in the Budget Speech and the Schedule to this Bill is the same as that contained in the document Particulars of proposed expenditure for the Service of the Year ending on 30 June 1977 which was referred to the Senate Estimates Committees on 19 August for examination and report. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland) adjourned.

page 1460

HOMES SAVINGS GRANT AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 18 August on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– We have before us the Homes Savings Grant Amendment Bill 1976 which makes certain amendments to the existing legislation and, I believe, brings the position of the homes savings grant back to that which existed before the Liberal and Country Parties lost government in 1972. The Australian Labor Party when in government instituted new proposals to assist people purchasing homes. Honourable senators will recall that the Labor Government endeavoured to ease in some way the burden of interest that faced those who had purchased homes and those who intended to purchase homes. The interest burden, the inflationary pressure that existed in the community, was created almost entirely by the previous Liberal-Country Party Government. But, of course, as the burden continues to persist, it can also be placed at the feet of the present Government.

High interest rates have been and continue to be a result of continuing inflation. For some reason there is an expectation in the community that the value of money should be maintained during a period of inflation. Those who have savings and assets demand that those savings and assets must maintain their value. It seems that the method by which they maintain the value of their savings is to expect a particularly high interest rate. Previous governments and the present Government have gone along with the situation of maintaining high interest rates in order to satisfy the needs of a particular section of the community which could possibly make a sacrifice more easily than could those who have no savings at all. The persistence of high interest rates has placed an exceptional burden on those people who are purchasing homes. The interest rates on home loans at present average about 10>/4 per cent. That means that the instalment bill at the end of the month is becoming excessive and, as I said before, is a very heavy burden upon the home purchaser.

The previous Labor Government endeavoured to correct this situation by giving substantial taxation rebates on interest paid. I do not think that what the Labor Government was doing was properly understood by the community. I think that if people in the community had understood it they would have been less angry with the Labor Government than they subsequently proved to be at election time. The present Government has decided that giving a tax rebate on interest payments is not a way in which to assist home purchasers. It has decided that it will re-institute the homes savings grant scheme. That is the purpose of this legislation. I was not scheduled to speak in the debate on this Bill and I confess that I do not have the Bill before me. Perhaps I may be trusting too much upon memory, but my memory is good enough to make the clear statement that what the Government proposes will not be a success. It was not a success previously when the grant being given was much smaller, because all that the giving of the grant did was to lift the cost of a house by almost the same amount as the grant.

Under this legislation the position will be exactly the same. The amount under this legislation will be much higher. The legislation will lift considerably the price of a home and will place a greater disadvantage upon those who are not eligible for the grant. There are many people in the community who are not favourably placed. What do we have? We have a situation in which people will find greater difficulty in purchasing a home or, if they have purchased a home, a greater difficulty in making the repayments. Having recovered from the disorganisation which followed a sudden change in the program, I think we can proceed with the Homes Savings Grant Amendment Bill. I do not know what is proposed. I do not doubt that later in the day we will be debating the Appropriation Bill, and the speakers who are listed will be available.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– The Homes Savings Grant Amendment Bill follows the statement put down in the Senate on 31 March 1976 by the late Senator Greenwood. In fact, the statement was one of his last contributions. On that occasion I was given the opportunity to say a few words about the legislation. We took the view then- I think subsequent events have shown this to be so- that it would do very little in terms of encouraging and stimulating the essential building industry which at that stage we were able to identify as being in a serious state of decline and difficulty. Figures given to us today in a report circulated to us show that the building industry still has not got out of the trough that it was in at that stage. Seven months after that statement was made in the Senate we find ourselves unable to be any more enthusiastic about this legislation than we were when Senator Greenwood made that statement about the Homes Savings Grant Bill.

While there are certain aspects of the Bill to which the Opposition would not take major exception, there are some aspects of it which we think need to be restated because the stiategy behind the Government’s bringing forward this legislation was designed, as was stated in the second reading speech, to make some improvement in the home building section of the construction industry in this country. The incentive provided in the legislation is a grant which is made available on the basis of $ 1 for every $3 saved in a form prescribed by the legislation. I think we must say that that places rather onerous conditions upon the applicant because that will give assistance only to a limited number of Australians. I do not think Government senators should feel happy about the very difficult conditions in which people generally find themselves, particularly so many young people, when they try to solve their accommodation problems. We have reached a stage in the capital cities, particularly Sydney and Melbourne- perhaps to a lesser extent the other capitals- at which something like $50 is regarded as a generally acceptable rent for accommodation. That is a very heavy commitment for persons to have a roof over their head.

The figures show quite conclusively that to qualify for the benefits of this scheme it will be necessary for persons to save between $26 and $40 a week. When we look at the basic economy and at the basic economics of people endeavouring to solve their accommodation problem today it is clear that we must take into consideration that something like two-thirds of the Australian work force is receiving less than the average weekly earnings which are about $ 160 a week. If one takes into consideration that to live in a dwelling- a flat or a home unit- today costs something like $50 a week, it stands to reason that if we place an additional burden on persons to save between $26 and $40 a week to quality for the benefits of this scheme a very limited number of people will be able to qualify because the scheme does not provide assistance for those most in need, which should be the basis upon which all government legislation should operate. The need concept should be the central feature of all government legislation. The legislation will do nothing to bring about the essential revival in the building industry. The Bill sets out that it will be 3 years from the date of the legislation being passed by the Parliament before anyone is able to qualify for the benefit. So we are talking about 1979. I do not know how many more builders will go bankrupt, how many more architects will draw social service benefits and how many more people will suffer a lack of accommodation while people seek to qualify for this benefit which does not have regard for the inability of most people to save. I am talking of the people most affected by inflation and the people most affected by the problems of housing in our country.

Many organisations have concerned themselves with this problem of housing. I refer to the Priority Review Committee and the observations it made last year about funds for housing and funds for the States to provide public housing. It made no recommendation about the reintroduction of a home savings grant scheme. It pointed out that there were a lot of difficulties and flaws in any home savings grant scheme which had operated under previous conservative governments prior to 1972. The Australian Institute of Urban Studies has reported from time to time on these problems and has drawn attention to the fact that home savings grants are regressive and operate quite contrary to the principles of need. The sort of people who will be able to qualify for this benefit will be people earning incomes above average. Therefore this legislation can be regarded as a grant from the poor to the rich, when we take into account what has been said repeatedly by this Government about income tax and about the need to have income tax and taxes generally put in the hands and the pockets of the people in the community generally.

The facts also point to the building industry being unable to gain any immediate benefit from the legislation in order to relieve unemployment in the industry. Probably it would be true to say that today the building industry has the greatest percentage of unemployment in the whole economy. Yet the Government still has a dogmatic, rather defiant attitude to the economy. It does not accept the fact that it will be government activity and government funds that will stimulate the private or public sector of the building industry. It is wedded to the view that Budget deficits are anathema; that the most important thing is to reduce government spending. It will be 3 years before the Government will be committed to any substantial funding under this legislation. If one examines the Government’s Budget approach to housing, it is clear that it is prepared to reduce the amount of money that it makes available to the States for public housing. Therefore there can be no relief for the people about whom I have been talking- those people who for obvious reasons will not be able to qualify for a benefit under this legislation.

In accordance with the philosophy that seems to dominate its thinking, the Government has reduced the amount of Federal assistance not only to the building industry but also to the State governments in respect of the provision of land and community facilities upon the land. One cannot look at the housing question with any degree of confidence if governments, particularly national governments, do not see their responsibility to do something about the price of land. One only has to look at the tremendous inflationary cost of land when this Government was in office from 1950 to 1972 to appreciate that pro rata average weekly earnings and the price of land grew out of all proportion; that the cost of land increased three or four times more than average weekly earnings increased in that period. The cost of land is an integral part of the accommodation problem.

The maximum grant that the Government proposes to make available is $2,000, on the basis of $ 1 for each $3 saved. Again we have to draw attention to the problems of inflation that face the Western world. The $2,000 will be the same as the homes savings grants that was legislated for some years ago. Most of the money then went into the hands of those who speculate in land, particularly in the major cities, where there is an acute shortage of land and where the price of land is determined by the quantity on the market. It is clear that most of the grants we are now considering, which initially might be seen by some who qualify for the grants as being of benefit, will finish up as part of the inflated price of land in the pockets of those who because of their accumulated capital are able to accumulate land and sell it on a market that is to the detriment of the purchaser and in the interests of the vendor. Inflation will have the effect of eroding this gift. I think ‘gift’ is the way it has to be described. It will go to a certain select number of people whose income will enable them to save the substantial sum of money needed over a 3-year period. It has to be regarded as a gift, but that gift will be only superficial because it will finish up in the hands of those who will profit from the inflated price of land or the inflated price of the home people seek to purchase. What we are examining in the whole of the building industry is how State governments in particularLabor, Liberal and National Country Party- can deflect some of the scarce money available for the building industry .into the new home market and not into the second-hand home market, which has been the trend in recent times because of the general inflated costs of accommodation.

We cannot be enthusiastic about the legislation. We say that it is not the way to tackle and solve the problem. It does not take into consideration the necessary reforms that are required in conveyancing legislation. It does not simplify conveyancing procedures or reduce the cost of conveyancing, which would be a tangible way to assist those who require accommodation. It does not recognise the tremendous problems of the costs of services that States and local government have to provide. It is a piecemeal and one-sided piece of legislation which we believe will have only a very minor effect upon the total problem of housing in this country. I think we are entitled to say that the housing policies of this Government are virtually non-existent and noneffective; that the cuts in government expenditure which have been a feature of the Budget this year worsen the problem; and that this legislation really does not contribute very much to assisting those who wish to become part of the home owning section of the Australian community.

It is estimated that the scheme will cost something like $ 15m. The Government uses as one of its reasons for this legislation the argument that it cannot retain in its present form the home loan tax deduction scheme, which was a most effective way to give assistance to those who were in the unfortunate position of wanting accommodation.

It gave them an opportunity to claim as a tax deduction the interest paid on the money they borrowed to provide themselves with a home. It was a much more effective way to assist potential and existing home owners. This legislation, which just puts into legislative form the statement that the late Senator Greenwood made earlier this year, will be a very minor contribution towards the alleviation of accommodation problems. Like its predecessor, the Bill will give little assistance to those most in need. When we recognise the costs of providing a home and recognise that the costs in the major cities today are in excess of $30,000 and $40,000, clearly the sort of money that is involved here- $ 15m and a maximum grant of $2000 after a 3-year intensive saving period- will make very little impact upon the very grave social problem of housing that exists in this country.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– 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 1463

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1976-77

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I take advantage at the second reading stage of this Appropriation Bill to raise one or two matters that I would normally raise during an adjournment debate. An Appropriation Bill affords honourable senators the opportunity to raise a wide range of matters. The matter with which I concern myself is the administration of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and the Department of Education. Before I embark on the specific matters to which I wish to allude I want to refer to the general problem of the staff ceilings that have been imposed by the Government on the Public Service Board and on government departments. I know that it is having a deleterious effect on the efficiency and especially on the morale of public servants generally. I think it is a great pity that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has given a direction that the staff ceilings imposed on departments, which are actually being applied, should not be made public. The Parliament and the public at large therefore cannot test the effect that this is having on the general attitude existing within the Public Service.

Only recently, before last week’s parliamentary recess, my colleague Senator Grimes brought to the notice of the Parliament the unhealthy situation which had developed over a period in the Department of Social Security. Whatever may be the real cause of the problem, 1 suspect that underlying it is the problem caused by staff ceilings. There is concern in the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association and in the other Public Service unions at the deleterious effect that the staff ceilings are having on the morale and efficiency of the Public Service and on the way in which public servants handle the affairs of the public. There is also concern at the effect they are having on future recruitment for the Public Service. During the Committee stage of the debate which will be taking place tomorrow it will be my intention to elaborate further in respect of one or two of these matters.

Having made those initial remarks, I draw to the attention of the Senate and particularly of the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Cotton), who is at the table, the delays that are taking place in the office of the Minister’s colleague the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) in making final replies to representations made to the Minister on behalf of constituents. I say quite frankly that either there is a delay in the Minister’s office or there is a delay in the Minister’s department which should be looked at and immediate action taken to correct it. The honourable member for Parramatta in the New South Wales Legislative Assembly, Mr Barry Wilde, wrote to me in May this year and asked me to make representations to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs concerning the desire of one of his constituents to bring some people to Australia. I received the letter from Mr Wilde on 26 May. On 2 June I made appropriate representations to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I received an acknowledgement from the Minister’s office on 7 June in which he advised me that he would inquire into the matter and would then write to me as soon as possible. The Minister eventually wrote to me on 1 3 October as follows:

You wrote to me on 2 June 1976 at the request of Mr B. Wilde, MLA to make personal representations on behalf of . . . concerning his parents and sister who wish to remain permanently in Australia.

The Minister then wrote:

I apologise for not replying to you earlier.

There was just a simple peremptory statement expressing apology for not having replied earlier. I remind the Senate that my first representations were made to the Minister on 2 June this year. I will not weary the Senate with the details of the case, but in the last paragraph of the letter the Minister went on to say:

In normal circumstances I would have insisted that the . . . family be required to depart.

Then he continued:

However having regard to the compassionate circumstances and as the categories of people eligible for migration had been extended to include non-dependent parents, I decided on 26 May 1976-

Note the date, 26 May 1976, which was before I had made the representations- that they could be allowed to remain subject to their meeting normal entry requirements relating to health and character.

On 26 May, without having received any representations from a member of Parliament, the Minister made a decision to allow a family to stay in Australia. Not knowing that that decision had been made, I made representations about a week later, on 2 June. Yet it took the Minister from 2 June to 13 October to tell me of the decision that he had made a week before I made my representations. I say to the Minister at the table that that is not good enough. The Minister should be seeing that the administration of his office and his department is looked at more efficiently. Whether this case is a result of staff ceilings or not, I draw the matter to the notice of the Minister.

There is another matter to which I wish to refer. On 18 June I made representations on behalf of a young gentleman from Rockdale in New South Wales who wished to have brought to Australia a young Greek girl whom he wished to marry. Representations were made by me to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs on 18 June. I received a formal acknowledgement on 2 July. On 1 1 October- nearly 4 months later- I was advised by the Minister that he was pleased to be able to tell me that the entry of the young girl as a fiancee had been approved and that she had been invited on 2 September to present her passport to the Chief Migration Officer, Athens, for the issue of a visa. That was some 6 weeks after that decision had been made but three or four months after I had made the initial representations. Six weeks after the actual decision had been made for approval by the Minister the matter was conveyed to me as the senator making the initial representations.

Senator Mcintosh:

– That is pretty general though.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator Mcintosh says that that is pretty general. It is a lamentable state of affairs. Frankly, it is not good enough for members of this Parliament. I know I am not the only person who is treated in that fashion. If the Minister has any respect for members of the Parliament, and for members of the Senate in particular, I ask him to ensure that replies are provided by his Department much more expeditiously.

The other matter I want to raise is one which I have already mentioned to the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) I would raise in this chamber. It concerns the administration by his department of the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme. Frankly, if the case that I am about to cite is any indication of the way in which that Department regards students who come under the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme, then I must say regrettably that it is a pretty bureaucratic organisation which seems to overlook human feelings and not to consider the students and which sets out to impede rather than assist students in its administration of the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme. I make my remarks with particular reference to the way in which the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme relates to students who also are entitled to receive assistance under the Soldiers’ Children Education Scheme, which applies to the children of servicemen who have died, children whose mothers are war widows, or unfortunate children who are orphans.

I raise the case of a young lady who is the daughter of a war widow and who is being assisted with her university training by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. Whilst I am critical of the way in which the Department of Education is administering its affairs so far as that scheme is concerned, let me say at the outset that the young lady has received, as far as I am aware, every possible assistance from the Department of Veterans ‘ Affairs. Earlier this year the young girl was advised by the Repatriation Department, as it then was, that because she might be eligible to receive under the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme assistance supplementary to that available to her under the Soldiers’ Children Education Scheme, she should lodge an application with the Department of Education. She was further told by the Repatriation Department that her university admission fees would not be paid through the Soldiers’ Children Education Scheme unless she presented a formal advice from the people administering the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme that she was ineligible for benefits under that scheme. So there we have a situation in which there are 2 schemes operatingthe Soldiers’ Children Education Scheme and the Tertiary Education Assistance Schemeand in which the Soldiers’ Children Education Scheme cannot or will not pay benefits until a person makes application for assistance under the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme; and when that matter is decided those people administering the Soldiers’ Children Education Scheme can determine the amount that they might be able to pay to a person under the latter scheme.

Having been told by the Repatriation Department that she should make an application for assistance under the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme, she thereupon made application to the Department of Education. That was done in January of this year. After some correspondence had been exchanged between the Department of Education and her concerning the courses to be undertaken and details of income of the mother and of the young lady, she eventually received advice on 8 April from the Repatriation Departmentnot from the Department of Education but from the Repatriation Department- in the following terms: . . I wish to advise you that the maximum amount you may receive from the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme is $600.

You should contact that scheme and advise them that you are in receipt of full benefits-

I emphasise those words- under the Soldiers’ Children Education Scheme, including an education allowance of $1,000 per annum, so that the necessary adjustment may be made.

She immediately forwarded that letter dated 8 April which she received from the Repatriation Department to the Department of Education so that it would be fully aware of all the benefits she was receiving from the Repatriation Department. On 21 April she received a formal acknowledgement from the Department of Education in these terms:

The following documents are enclosed: Letter re benefits from Repatriation Department.

So the Department of Education had been made fully aware ofthe fact that she was receiving full benefits under the Soldiers’ Children Education Scheme. She having forwarded that letter to the Department of Education, the Department, as I say, acknowledged receipt of the ‘letter re benefits from Repatriation Department’.

Then she received advice dated 3 May from the New South Wales office of the Department of Education in these terms:

I refer to your letter on 29 March 1 976 in which you advise that you are receiving $1,000 per annum living allowance from the Repatriation Department. Your application for tertiary education assistance has therefore been reassessed and you are entitled to $600 per annum or $46. 1 5 per month.

You have been paid $307.68 and $100 incidentals living allowance for the period to 21 April 1976. As you are only entitled to $184.60 living allowance an overpayment of $123.08 has been incurred. To recover this amount your monthly allowance has been reduced by $ 13.67 per month to $32.48.

Then she was told that if she had any objection to the arrangement that the Department had arbitrarily determined should be made she should advise the Department accordingly within a period of 14 days. However, she chose to accept the statement ofthe Department that her allowance under the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme had been reassessed, that she was entitled to $600 or $46. 15 per month, that she had been overpaid $ 123-odd, that therefore her monthly allowance had been reduced from $46.15 to $32.48, and that repayment was being arranged by reducing the amount of her monthly allowance. Much to her chagrin and surprise, a month later, despite the fact that that amount was being deducted from her monthly cheque, she received a letter again from the Department of Education- I emphasise that it was sent by certified mail- in these terms:

I refer to my letter of 3 May 1 976 requesting repayment of an overpayment of $123.08 under the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme. To date no repayment has been received.

She received that letter despite the fact that the Department was taking an amount out of the girl ‘s allotment. The letter continued:

If payment or an acceptable explanation of failure to repay this amount is not forthcoming within 14 (fourteen) days ofthe despatch of this letter, legal action will be taken.

So we have the situation of a department which is taking an amount out of a girl’s monthly allowance because she has been overpaid sending her a month later a letter saying that because no repayment of the amount had occurred action would be taken against her unless she did something about it within 14 days. As I say, this is the case of a young girl who is attending university and is being supported by a mother who is a war widow. The girl ‘s father died from war injuries. Yet this is the cavalier way in which this Department has treated her. Naturally she rang the Department. The Department said: ‘We will have a look at it’. It again sent out a letter- a copy of the letter it had sent originally on 3 May advising her that the allowance had been reassessed at $600 and that arrangements were being made to reduce her allotment by $ 1 3.67 a month. Suddenly, in August, the payment ceased. No cheque at all came forward. So the young girl rang the Department- either she or her mother rang- and spoke to a female officer, who was quite pleasant. This officer went away from the telephone and after some time came back and said: ‘I am sorry; I cannot tell you anything about it, but a letter will be going to you in the post’. Two days later this young girl received a letter dated 30 August which read:

I refer to the payment of benefits under the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme (TEAS) in 1976.

You qualified for an allowance of $600 based on the incomes of your mother and yourself.

Bear in mind that she had notified the Department of Education that she was in receipt of full benefits from the Department of Repatriation under the Soldiers Children Education Scheme. Notwithstanding that that advice had been given to the Department, the letter went on to say:

However, this figure did not take into account the Book and Equipment allowance which you will be reimbursed as a beneficiary under the Soldiers Children Education Scheme (SCES). At this stage it is not possible to estimate what this amount will be. The SCES board advises that it averages at about $200 per student.

Although your allowance has been reduced to recover a previous over-payment, your TEAS payments have been stopped until this matter is finalised. Up to 1 1 August 1976 you have been paid a total of $537.60. At the end of the year the SCES board will advise the exact amount you have been reimbursed and your TEAS allowance will be adjusted accordingly.

I draw these matters to the attention of the Senate to show the cavalier way in which the Department of Education is handling its administration of the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme, particularly as it relates to students who might be eligible for assistance under that scheme as well as under the Soldiers Children Education Scheme. If this Government wants to talk about improving efficiency within the Public Service and overcoming bureaucracy, then I suggest strongly that it have a look at the way in which this scheme is administered. I think this bungling is a shocking indictment of the Department. As I said, I mentioned this matter to the Minister. I told the Minister that I would be raising it here today. In fairness to the Minister let me say that he told me that whilst he cannot be in attendance he certainly will have a look at my comments as recorded in Hansard and take up the matter with his Department. I urge the Minister in charge of the Bill to bring my initial remarks to the notice of his colleague the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar). I believe that something is seriously wrong with the administration of that Department. I believe that there is something wrong with the administration of the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme. If it be the matter of staff ceilings that is causing the difficulty, then I ask the departments concerned and the Public Service Board to have a look at this matter as one of urgency.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I take this opportunity in the debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1976-77 to raise a number of points concerning the lack of attention paid by this Government to areas north of 26 degrees south latitude. There is a whole group of areas in which neglect is very noticeable. Over the years we have said that so far as the State of Queensland is concerned everything finishes at the Kingaroy line. The area north of that line is the most neglected area in the State of Queensland. We are rapidly reaching the stage where, with the advent of this Government on 1 3 December last year, there will be a new northern line. I think it will be based somewhere around Nareen’; so as the years go by it probably will be known as the ‘Nareen Line’. It is obvious that there is money to be spent in other areas but there is not money to be spent in areas where it is most needed.

It is true that the population north of the Tropic of Capricorn is considerably less than the population south of it, but there is an attempt by this Government not to provide information to the people on this side of the Senate if it can possibly avoid doing so. Earlier this session I placed on the notice paper a number of questions to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. I want to quote details in respect of information that I desired at that time. Incidentally, if this information ever comes to hand it will still be relevant. I asked how much money had been allocated by the Federal Government and the State governments for the construction and maintenance of roads in northern Australia north of latitude 26 degrees for each of the past 10 years; how much of this money had actually been spent; how many miles of new beef, rural, and national roads had been constructed in each of these years in the Northern Territory, Western Australia and Queensland; and where these roads had been constructed. In relation to roads constructed by individuals and private companies I asked where these roads had been constructed, when were they constructed and what was the cost. Some considerable time later I received, in answer to question No. 731, a brush-off from the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon)- that is all it can be described as. I quote two or three relevant paragraphs because I think they ought to go into the record for the benefit of history. This is what the Minister said:

The allocation of Commonwealth moneys are regarded a matter for the States, whilst the allocation of State moneys was a matter for the States.

The information sought by the honourable senator is of such amount and of such a diverse nature that it would need to be assembled from a number of sources- principally from the records of the States of Queensland and Western Australia and from those of the Northern Territory.

Such a task would require a major commitment of staff resources from the States and within the Commonwealth Public Sen-ice. I do not feel that I would be justified in asking the Commonwealth Ministers or my counterparts in the States to have the information extracted.

We know, of course, that the Government is bankrupt and that it is having great problems finding money. But that is largely self-inflicted; it is not a carry-over from the previous Labor Administration, as Ministers on the Government side of the Senate are so fond of suggesting. If this request for information meant a major commitment of staff resources within the States and within the Commonwealth, then it is a sad day indeed for the Northern Territory, which appears to be rushing towards statehood under this Government, because it is obvious that the Territory will not be able to put together its own statistics to enable it to set up State-like functions or to be classified as a State.

Insofar as Queensland is concerned, that situation is understandable because there is usually a fair bit of hanky-panky going on about the compilation of figures in that State. I understand that under the present Administration in Western Australia a fair bit of this goes on there too. It is not good enough for the Minister to say that he cannot get the information or that he does not know what it is. When we look at other documents we can see that the information is readily available. I suggest with great respect that this is one reason why the Minister does not want to get the information.

Just to enlarge a little on what I said a moment ago about State and Federal road grants, I will quote the State Government expenditures in Queensland. For 1970-71, for the city of Cairns, with a population at that time of 30 226, the expenditure was $57,000, but for the year 1973-74, with a population of 34 350, it was $34,000. For Kingaroy, with a population of 7868, State government expenditure was $29,000, compared with only $ 13,000 for Roma, with a population of 5870. As you would know, Mr Deputy President, the 2 towns are of comparable size. Those figures make interesting reading indeed. I am aware of what Mr President said here today about the incorporation of tables. But I have some legible figures here which are clearly set out. There are not many figures. They cover the populations of the areas of Cairns, Gladstone, Kingaroy, Rockhampton, Roma, Ayr and Mareeba for the years 1971 to 1974. They show over that period Australian Government grants, State Government grants and the total combined government grants for each of those centres. I seek leave to have that short table incorporated in Hansard.

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

The document read as follows-

Senator KEEFFE:

– I thank the Senate. One of the areas of greatest neglect is in the road system throughout the Northern Territory and throughout the remoter parts of Western Australia and Queensland. Australia’s road toll is probably one of the highest in the world. The road system should be improved. People on the other side of the chamber say from time to time that the road toll is caused through people drinking too much lemonade or make equally innocuous statements about the cause of the magnitude of our road toll. They are not true. There is plenty of evidence to indicate that basically the road toll is caused by the poor state of Australian roads, particularly in country areas where the percentage of road casualties is far beyond what it ought to be. In 1966 the total number of people who lost their lives in road accidents in Australia was 3242. In 1975 this figure was 3694. Apart from the people who actually lose their lives there are thousands of people every year who are maimed in road accidents, people who become a burden on the

Australian economy. It is not their fault that the Government wants to pursue the shortsighted policy of not making sufficient money available.

The reductions in expenditure on roads in this Budget are totally disgraceful. Funds have been cut back drastically on what Labor was able to provide for the previous 3 years. At no time during that period did this country look like becoming bankrupt, in spite of the protestations of the people who now sit on the Government side in this chamber. In 1966 the total number of people injured in road accidents was 77 837 and in 1975 it was 89 499. The magnitude of the road toll is such that I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table which more properly illustrates the point that I am trying to make.

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

The document read as follows-

Senator KEEFFE:

– I thank the Senate. Prior to the election of this Government the then Leader of the Opposition- he became Leader of the Opposition by strange methods; nevertheless he was the Leader- said:

We would not interfere with expenditure on land commissions, urban flood mitigation, the sewerage program, and the development of Aboriginal community amenities.

I wish to pass a brief remark on the latter part of that statement. I have just completed a tour of a reserve in the north-western part of South Australia as well as having looked at a number of other areas over the past two or three months in other parts of Australia. The development of Aboriginal community amenities has totally ceased in most areas. Money has been taken away. This has created an unemployment’ pool double what it was when this Government took over. However, I shall be having a lot -“more to say about that at a later date during this sessional period. Senator Webster, the Minister for Science, once said:

Housing, education, transport -

I emphasise the word- “’’ and health are not at risk under this Government.

Yet these are the very areas of course in which this Government has decided to cut down. During the course of an address to a National Press Club luncheon Mr Malcolm Fraser stated:

It is especially important for the Australian Press and the Australian people to have a clear sense of the basic approach and philosophy of the Opposition Party.

This is what he said before he was elected as Prime Minister. He continued:

But me say straight away that I certainly don ‘t see the next Liberal-National Country Party Government restoring the pre- 1972 status quo.

In other words he was going to use imagination, he was going to demand that his party at that time do something about the situation. Of course Mr Calder, in talking about the Darwin City Council in 1975, said: . . so it will have to raise extra rates from the citizens of Darwin who are already sorely and hardly pressed trying to reconstruct their dwellings and live under severe conditions … so these people in the north are being disadvantaged all the time.

Mr Calder said this while there was a Labor Government in office. But what happened in May of this year? I assume that it had the full backing of Mr Calder and Mr Adermann, the Minister for the Northern Territory, no doubt the Minister for National Resources (Mr Anthony), and also Senator Kilgariff who sits in this chamber. Drastic increases were made in the rates and charges. In a moment I shall read some figures into the record which show that in terms of government expenditure there has been a very drastic reduction amounting in some cases to 100 per cent.

Senator Withers complained about that time also of the wrecking of tourism under the Labor Government. He said this in the 1975-76 Budget debate a little over a year ago. But now in Government his party has abolished the Department of Tourism and Recreation and has cut back expenditure on tourism in the Northern Territory by tens of thousands of dollars. The professed concern for the Northern Territory by Government supporters carries little weight with territorians, particularly in view of the slashes in capital works and all of the other cutbacks that have been made allegedly in the name of reducing inflation and restoring the economy. But people have suffered. As I think I have said in this chamber once before, the philosophy of the Liberal Party is about the protection of private enterprise and the neglect of people; the philosophy of the Australian Labor Party of course is on the other side of the coin. It is about people and their needs. Consequently, the philosophies of the 2 parties can never be classified as one philosophy.

Senator Missen:

– A double headed coin.

Senator KEEFFE:

– All the double headed coins are on the other side of the chamber. Incidentally, that is how the Government was able to win its way into office, by tossing double headed coins. I suggest that the honourable senator might reflect on that for a moment or two.

Senator Walters:

– That is an insult to the Australian people.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I suggest through you, Mr Deputy President, that the lady on the other side of the chamber might concentrate on her apple recipes. Darwin and Alice Springs are 2 cities whose councils will be forced under this Administration in the near future to lay off massive numbers of workers because the Government is not providing the sort of money that will enable the Northern Territory to keep workers in employment. For the record, in Darwin 162 people are now employed by the Darwin City Council. In parks and recreation 39 people are employed. No doubt this will be one of the first areas to suffer. Road maintenance employs 60 to 65 people. In Alice Springs road maintenance employs 21 people; parks and recreation 22 people; administration 14 people; garbage disposal 8 people; and cleaning employs 3 people. Then there is a miscellaneous group of 17 people employed in various areas. This area also has been cut back severely. The Aboriginal special works program funded by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs once employed 35 Aboriginal people in Alice Springs; on town services 14; parks and recreation 19; and 2 others were individually employed.

Honourable senators will remember what I said about Mr Calder a while ago. He complained about the Labor Party increasing charges. But this Government has increased the rents for public servants employed in the Northern Territory who are renting government houses from 1 0 per cent to 1 5 per cent of their salaries. A number of other cutbacks have been made, and all are very important. They are not very important to senators on the other side of the chamber because they do not have to live in isolated areas. Even those honourable senators normally based in isolated areas spend a lot of time in the more salubrious asmosphere of cities on the coast.

One of the first acts of their Government was to abolish the Northern Territory railway system that runs south from Darwin, even though the loss in the last year in which the assessment was made was not great. In addition the microwave link between Alice Springs and Tennant Creek has been deferred. This was something that the Labor Government proposed to take right through to the final construction stages in the earliest possible time. The people in central Australia will have to do without their colour television, their STD telephones and similar services that should be provided in this area. Power tariffs have been increased by 50 per cent for domestic users in the Northern Territory and by 47 per cent to 56 per cent for commercial users. The Government parties, which were so loud in their criticism not a long time ago are now imposing three, four or five times the charges that the Labor Government imposed. Water and sewerage charges have been increased by about 40 per cent. I suppose that is one way of saying that you are going to assist the organisation of services in the Territory.

The figures I am about to cite have been taken out quite recently. Odd ones were referred to in the Budget Speech, but the majority have not been well publicised. I did see a padded statement made by a representative of the Government in one of the Northern Territory publications’ recently. It was quite untrue. It was a phoney Press statement that had been put out by a representative of the Government. In the Nhulunbuy township, the allocation in the 1975-76 Budget for service charges has been reduced by 35.6 per cent, which means a drop in real terms of more than 43 per cent. The allocation for consultants fees for the whole of the Territory has decreased by 84 per cent on the previous year’s allocation. Incidental and other expenses show a decrease of 22 per cent. The appropriation for community activities which comes under the heading of general services has dropped by 50 per cent on the previous year’s allocation.

The appropriation for mosquito control- a very essential service which is required in many parts of the Territory- has been reduced by over 74 per cent from the previous year’s Budget figures. The allocation for the transport of stud stock, which is a subsidy which helps this particular area of primary industry, has been reduced by 100 per cent. The allocation for police motor vehicles and motor boats that are required if the police are to carry out their job effectively has been reduced by almost 50 per cent. The allocation for the improvement of stock roads and reserves has been reduced by 36 per cent from the previous year’s allocation. The allocation for the tourist leasings and associated improvements shows a 100 per cent drop. The allocation for flood relief assistance loans, which are essential in many parts ofthe Northern Territory, has also been decreased by 100 percent.

Next I refer to the Northern Territory Port Authority. We have heard a lot of stories over a long period about this matter and the Government is particularly cagey, particularly reticent, about telling us what is happening in the development of the Darwin port. We hear all sorts of promises. When one asks questions quite legitimately in this chamber seeking information as to whether certain vessels will continue to run in that area, one is astounded at the paucity of information that is available not only to members of the Opposition but to the electors, because after all when the Government is giving us information it is giving information to the electors as well. With the type of government we have today it is understandable that there should be a lot of secrecy, a lot of pushing under the table and a great disinclination to tell Australia what it is really doing. With regard to the Northern Territory Port Authority- an area that needs to be expanded- the Government has decreased the money available by 100 “per cent. The allocation for the Darwin Business Relief SchemeAdvances to the Commonwealth Trading Bank for loans to small business, many of which were seriously disadvantaged by Cyclone Tracy and many of which still have not got over it in spite of the sometimes enthusiastic reports we get from Government- has been decreased by 100 per cent.

There is something terribly phoney about the way in which things are happening in government today. There will be opportunities to discuss a lot of these things in very much greater detail when the Estimates come back in detail and when a number of other Bills come through this chamber. There will be opportunities, too, to make public statements on many of these issues, none of which need the protection of parliamentary privilege. As time goes on, I propose to expose the falsehoods that have been preached by the Government, to expose the lack of policy and to expose the way in which it is treating people in the northern part of Australia when it is supposed to have incorporated as part of its policy ways to look after the people in this area. What the Government says it is doing is not true and it knows it is not true.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I take this opportunity on the second reading of the Appropriation Bills to raise one or two matters which concern the appropriation, that is, the expenditure of moneys. The investigation that the Senate undertakes is for the purpose of making certain that the moneys provided by the Government are wisely spent. I think in the Senate we take ourselves seriously, as we should, on the Estimates Committees, sometimes on the first reading of money Bills and sometimes on the second reading of Appropriation Bills. They give us an opportunity to voice criticism, an opportunity to the Ministers to take up those criticisms and questions and go back to the departments and seek from their heads of the departments answers to the questions. It makes this Parliament and this House a responsible body and a body to whom public servants must defer.

The tendency has been, and this has been my experience while a member of the Party in government, for public servants in some way to resent any supervision which the Parliament imposed. Many of them who came before Estimates Committees and before this House seemed to be of the impression that we were here merely to allocate moneys and not in any way to supervise that allocation of moneys, that we were here merely to lay down policy but that they, the public servants, were the ones who were to determine how that policy was to be carried out. Nothing is further from the truth. The truth is that the House of Representatives and the Senate are elected for the purpose of governing on behalf of the people. The public servants are exactly what the term means; they are the servants of the Parliament. Being servants of the Parliament they are servants of the people. On a couple of occasions I have had some trenchant criticisms to make of public servants and the heads of departments. The answer given to me sometimes by my own Ministers was that these public servants were without defence. That is not correct. Public servants, in their own way, are capable of defending themselves. They seem to be able to carry out correspondence, to meet on interdepartmental committees and to make all sorts of criticisms of members of Parliament, and appear to feel free to make those comments without any complaint being laid by a member of Parliament in this place. It has often been said by Ministers in defence of their public servants that they are defenceless and that in some way they ought to be protected from comment made under privilege. I think that any public servant who is criticised in the Parliament has the right to answer that criticism on his own behalf, and no one denies him that right.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– What about the Treasury officials sitting up there at the Bar last year?

Senator GEORGES:

-I had my views about that matter on that occasion. I may be in some way going against the opinion within my Party, but even at that stage I thought that those members of the Public Service should have responded to the questions asked of them in this place. I know I felt that way at the time, but party discipline, which I accept as a necessary discipline, determined that one could not speak out at that time. But from time to time, such as now when I am on my feet, one can make the comment that members of the Houses of Parliament- the House of Representatives and the Senate- have a right to receive answers to their questions, even though I considered that the motives behind the questions asked of the public servants last year were questionable. But no matter how questionable the motives may have been, I do not think that the public servants had a right to withdraw behind some privilege and refuse to answer the questions. If they have that right our Estimates Committees are senseless committees. They cannot search out information as they should, and Parliament becomes a cipher; this Senate becomes a cipher.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– You have to bear in mind that Samuel Pepys faced up to the House of Commons Naval Estimates Committee and answered all the questions.

Senator GEORGES:

– I am not as conversant with history as the honourable senator. I will take his word on that. I may be taking a risk in so doing, but I have found him to be correct on many other occasions. I remember saying on one occasion that the Greeks had the correct way of selecting a parliament- they put all the names in a hat. Senator Sir Magnus Cormack pointed out that people did not have hats in those days and that they placed the names in some sort of a receptacle. The honourable senator was correct on that occasion, and perhaps he is correct on this occasion. I wish to take this opportunity to ask the Government one or two questions concerning the Department of the Environment, Housing and Community Development and the Department of Science. Just exactly what are those departments doing about the Great Barrier Reef? Many of us in this place have always accepted the Great Barrier Reef as being one of the finest eco-systems in the world. It is a very delicate ecosystem, an eco-system of great beauty. I think that honourable senators on both sides of the chamber have quickly supported any proposition which was designed to protect the Great Barrier Reef.

The problem has been that the sovereignty, the responsibility in this matter, was never properly established. Only recently a ruling was given that this Parliament had the responsibility for and sovereignty over the waters of the Great Barrier Reef to the low water mark. Having achieved that responsibility and authority after much struggle through various committees, investigations and challenges to the High Court, I believed that by now we would have taken certain decisions which would have led to further investigation of the threats that face the Great Barrier Reef. Certain decisions have been made regarding oil drilling on the Reef.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– There is a precedent for this. This Parliament passed a Bill for an Act to call the Cartier and Ashmore reefs islands and to make them possessions of the Commonwealth Government. That was done just by a simple Act of Parliament. Why cannot we do that with these reefs on the Barrier Reef?

Senator GEORGES:

– It has always been considered that the islands and the area 3 miles around them were, and still remain, the responsibility of Queensland, and that the reefs are part of the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– I suggest that the Commonwealth Government, by its own constitutional power, can declare the reefs to be islands and part of the possessions of the Commonwealth.

Senator GEORGES:

– I wish that the Commonwealth Government would do that. It would clear up doubts about the islands, the surrounds to the islands and the area 3 miles out from those islands. In any case, I am putting the problem. I think that Senator Sir Magnus Cormack has underlined the problem and that he supports a solution to the problem. I think that the main concern of all of us is that the eco-system is under threat from a variety of directions. Some sanity has prevailed as far as oil drilling of the Reef is concerned. Some bans have been placed on oil drilling, and I doubt whether oil drilling will take place on the Great Barrier Reef, no matter which Federal government happens to be in power. But there is a threat from pollution coming down the rivers, from over-fishing and from overcollection by tourists. In the main, there is a threat to the Great Barrier Reef from the crown of thorns starfish. This Parliament and the Queensland Parliament have not been well served in this direction by the various investigations that have been undertaken by scientists. Scientists have a habit of disagreeing. They also have a habit of looking to the interests of thenown universities and to the funding of their own universities and they come into competition in that area. One would have thought that they would have been satisfied to stay in competition in that area and at least be honest in their scientific approach to problems. My view is that there has been bickering between the scientists which has in some way clouded their scientific judgment regarding the starfish problem on the Great Barrier Reef. What has happened is that this has enabled the Queensland Government to slip in between the conflicting opinions of the scientists and to take the view: ‘Well, since they disagree perhaps we can do nothing about it’. Perhaps the Queensland Government takes the view held by some scientists that there is no problem. The easiest way to solve any sort of a problem is to accept that there is no problem and to say that therefore one has to do nothing about it.

I ask both the Department of Science and the Department of the Environment, Housing and Community Development to say what progress has been made in this area. What steps have been taken to protect the Great Barrier Reef against the spread of starfish? Recently reports on this question have been brought down. Each of those reports has indicated that the starfish problem remains. There has been some support for a theory that it is a cyclic problem, but there is no real evidence to indicate that it is without doubt a cyclic problem. I would like to know whether in the future the Department of Science will take any responsibility in this area. Or has that Department now passed the responsibility to the Department of the Environment, Housing and Community Development? If the Department of the Environment, Housing and Community Development is now responsible for this area, what funds are to be made available for the research that every investigation has suggested should be carried out? It has been suggested that there should be an increased amount of research. This is an area in which one cannot allow budgetary considerations to have any effect. If wheatfields or vineyards or some other area were threatened with commercial calamity something would have been done because there would have been an immediate threat to somebody’s economic survival. The economic consequences to the Great Barrier Reef are long term. Because they are long term, there is less inclination to take action in the short term. There is no immediate economic impact. That means that there must be a greater acceptance of responsibility by those who provide moneys and those who make the laws, and that is this place.

I would like Senator Carrick, the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, at some stage to make a statement on what is happening to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. It was set up under legislation brought down by the previous Government. It established an authority of 3 members, who were prominent in the environmental and scientific field, to supervise a consultative committee of up to 18 persons. Both the Barrier Reef Authority and the Consultative Committee would do all the things necessary to protect the future of the Great Barrier Reef, as we would wish it to be protected, as a great, unique and magnificent ecosystem. Apparently it took quite some time to appoint the members of the Barrier Reef Authority. Apparently it was a matter of the Queensland Government making its appointment and the Australian Government making its appointment also.

There were some rather rapid changes in the ministry previously. As the responsibility moved from Minister to Minister, the important matter of appointments to the Great Barrier Reef Authority was postponed. Under the new Government there were continuing, inexplicable and unexplained delays. Somewhere I heard announced that members of the Barrier Reef Authority had been appointed. What seemed to be evident was that no staffing or funding was to be provided and the Great Barrier Reef Authority was to find itself very much in the position of the Australian Heritage Commission. There have been some champions of the Heritage Commission on both sides of this place. I think some legislation on this matter is coming forward. During that debate we can perhaps question what is intended with the Heritage Commission. The nonprovision of staff and funds for the Barrier Reef Authority became evident early in the year and has been the subject of many questions in this place. I question the future of the Great Barrier Reef Authority both so far as staffing and financing are concerned. What staff has been provided? What actions have been taken? What has been done? When will we hear of any results?

Appointments have been made to the Great Barrier Reef Authority. I am a little regretful, without in any way denegrating the men appointed, that we did not appoint people with an international reputation in this field, having in mind that the Great Barrier Reef is not only a national responsibility but also an international responsibility. Many ecologists and environmentalists from overseas have made specialised studies of the problems that face the Great Barrier Reef. They have made investigations of reefs of less importance, of less variety and less complexity overseas. Nevertheless, they are experts and are in advance of our people in this field. There is no doubt that eventually, if the Department of Science gears itself correctly and the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development supports it, our experts will become the leading experts. Through the Institute of Marine Science at Townsville our experts will be the marine experts. I question the funding. I question the matter of staff. I hope the Minister will answer those questions in due course.

Another matter that I raise relates to the Consultative Committee. Under the Labor Government there were to be as many as 18 people on that Committee. I am not certain of the figure to which it has been reduced. Perhaps I can be given that information. In any case, there seems to be emerging evidence that all the positions on the Consultative Committee were to be taken up by representatives of various departments, not because they were concerned about the future of the Great Barrier Reef as such but because they were concerned that not one of their own vested interests should be affected. That may be admirable. If there were eighteen on the Committee at least each department would see that its rights were protected, whether it was fisheries or wildlife or whether it was Aboriginal Affairs. Each of these departments-perhaps has a right to be represented on the Committee, but not to the exclusion of those people who for a lifetime have had an interest in the Barrier Reef and its protection, not to the exclusion of representatives of various conservation organisations, not to the exclusion of scientists who put their reputations on the line to protect the Great Barrier Reef.

The Consultative Committee, one would have expected, would consist of sufficient people with this background to enable it to carry out its proper role- to advise the Authority on what the Committee considers was in the best interests of the Barrier Reef. Although the Authority in the first place may appear to be a step forward- I hope it will be a step forward in the protection of the Great Barrier Reef- if it was not properly representative, properly supported or properly advised it could dismember the Reef. It could come to decisions to exploit the Reef. It could set aside areas for fishing. It could set aside areas for mineral exploitation of the corals of the Reef for limestone and cement production. It could set aside areas for tourists. It could set aside areas for spear fishermen. If it were to proceed in that way it would do a disservice to the Great Barrier Reef because the Great Barrier Reef has been considered by leading scientists, both here and overseas, to be one ecosystem in delicate balance. If one were to interfere in a particular way in one area it would affect other areas. There could be some inclination on the part of the Authority, if wrongly appointed, especially if the Consultative Committee is also wrongly appointed, to take decisions which would be to the disadvantage of the Great Barrier Reef.

I repeat the questions that I have asked. Has the responsibility previously held by the Department of Science been passed to the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development? I refer particularly to the responsibility for research and support of the Great Barrier Reef. If it has been passed to the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development, what has been done by the Department? Have the appointments to the Great Barrier Reef Authority been completed? I think they have. Have members of the Consultative Committee been appointed? Who is on the Consultative Committee? What meetings have been held by the Authority? What meetings have been held by the Consultative Committee? I have something further to say on the matter of turtles. I will say that after dinner. I give the Senate forewarning that I wish to speak on turtles. I will be remembered in this place for 2 things. One is turtles. The other is the installation of flashing lights in the toilets.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Senator GEORGES:

– Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner I was speaking on matters which concern me and which I hope concern all members of the Senate. They include the Great Barrier Reef, the need for its protection and the need for research to be done for its protection. I must say that, enlivened by a hearty dinner, what goes with a hearty dinner and discussion with people whom many of us meet in this place, I came to a conclusion that I did not think I would be prepared to announce publicly, namely, that I am a protectionist and a supporter of high tariffs in the interests of protecting manufacturing industry and those whom it employs. Having made that confession and having startled some of my National Country Party colleagues who believe that only those who work in rural areas, have rural occupations or own rural establishments should have protection, let me say that I believe that a nation as small as ours has a great responsibility to see that the 14 million people to whom we are responsible live at a substantial level. I believe that those 14 million people should be protected first, before we consider the need to protect others. We can do both things. We can reach the point where we can protect ourselves and have a comfortable level of living that we can transmit to others in less developed countries.

Having made that confession. I come back to the matter other than the matter of the Great Barrier Reef that I want to raise. I remind the Senate of the turtle farming project in Torres Strait. This is a project into which I was suddenly introduced in the office of then Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Gordon Bryant. There has been a succession of Ministers since then, but there has been only one head of the Department over the whole period, which seems to indicate that Ministers have less chance of survival than heads of departments have. I do not want to be enticed into that area; I want to avoid it if I can. I want to make a personal explanation which perhaps I should have made at the time the matter was brought to my attention; I think that is a cliche that one uses in this place. I want to explain something which needs to be explained.

When I became involved indirectly, and rather forcibly indirectly at a later stage, in the Applied Ecology Pty Ltd units, I was involved because of a need for some restructuring due to an apparent misuse of public moneys. Honourable senators know how sensitive I am to the misuse of public moneys. I was enticed to take a responsibility, together with a member of the House of Representatives at that time, Ray

Thorburn, and an accountant of some prominence in Canberra, Jim Neill. We were quite astounded- subsequently our attitudes and positions were substantiated by the AuditorGeneral, who made an investigation- at the open-ended arrangements which had been made with Applied Ecology, headed then by Dr Bustard, for the running of turtle farms and associated projects, such as crocodile farming, witchetty grub farming and emu farming, using the ecology in an applied way for the benefit of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people. It was a concept which sought to assist the Aboriginal people and which did not seek to do any damage to the ecology. It did not succeed in either aim. In my view it did not assist the ecology in any way; rather it did some damage to it. In my view it certainly did not assist the Aboriginal or Torres Strait Island people.

At the time of my association with Applied Ecology I considered that the turtle farming project and its concept could be described as a hoax. I have since described it as a continuing hoax. It started under a Liberal-Country Party Government; it continued under a Labor Government; and now it continues to exist under a LiberalNational Country Party Government. Somewhere along the line someone will have to accept responsibility for the many hundreds of thousands of dollars which have been spent on the project. I am suggesting that the Minister for Science (Senator Webster) should have taken an initiative in this area. It is an area that must be of concern to him because it has some relationship to scientific investigation. In fact, a leading member of the staff of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation is a member of the board of Applied Ecology. He is a man of considerable standing. I cannot think of his name at the moment, but I can well remember his face and many of the contributions he made to the consideration of the problems of Applied Ecology when he came on to the board. It is also a matter for consideration by the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development. It should be a matter of concern for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, but unfortunately it has never really become so. At stages it should have become a concern for that body.

My reasons for raising the matter are that there is continuing expenditure in this area and that the project is doomed to failure. What I am concerned about is that I am now going to get the blame for its failure. This is one of the things that caused me to rise to my feet and remind the Senate of the turtle farming project. At one stage well over $ 1 m a year was being expended by Applied Ecology. Those of us who were on the board managed to bring the expenditure down to a reasonable amount of some $700,000 and to alter the balance of payments which was in favour of those who were white and did not need the financial assistance that was being provided as much as those who were black. We weighted it considerably in favour of those who were black. It would be interesting to find out exactly what the situation is at present. During the consideration of the Estimates I may raise the question.

It has come to my attention that the Department of Aboriginal Affairs is blaming me for the continuing failure of the project to lift itself up and to justify the weighty expenditure on it. It is being said that one action of mine that is responsible is my statement to the farmers in the Torres Strait to this effect: ‘We cannot justify the mutilation of turtles no matter how just the cause may be to assist the Torres Strait Islanders. The mutilation of the turtles in this cause is not justified on any consideration’. One must accept that at the time some thousands of turtles were being held in the Torres Strait Island farms under the most unhygienic conditions imaginable. One could smell the turtle farms on Murray Island about 5 miles out to sea if the wind were blowing from that island. The filth in which the turtles existed was unimaginable. The Torres Strait islanders said that the result was that they were put off eating turtle meat, which was a basic part of their diet.

One might ask why they would keep turtles in those conditions. If they kept a certain number they were entitled to be classed as turtle farmers and an amount of $45, $50 or $60 a week would be paid to them. Certain farms consisted of trenches about 9 inches deep, 12 feet long and 6 feet across. The turtles which were kept in these trenches mutilated one another to the extent that some of their flippers were completely eaten away. Cannibalism was rife in these particular turtle farms. Any reasonable or sensible personI consider myself to be such a person- associated with such a project would not tolerate those conditions, and it was necessary to start again. After some investigation of the whole project it was necessary to make the decision that this sort of practice should come to an end. Perhaps I was responsible for that decision. I might add also that some of the turtles on Murray Island were heavily infested with worms. A parasite which is carried by sardines, upon which the turtles were fed almost entirely, transmitted itself to the turtles and they became highly infested. Can anyone deny the wisdom of the decision that the conditions under which the turtles were held should come to an end?

So at that stage a decision was made that, as scientists were being appointed to the board and as an impact statement was to be prepared, the existing turtles which were suffering under these conditions should either be destroyed or be released. Those that could be released and which were not in a mutilated condition were tagged, recorded and released. Those that were mutilated were destroyed. I suggest that it was the right decision to make, that the turtles be so released either through extermination or by release to the sea. What is now being peddled by the department is that that decision is the reason for the continuing failure of the turtle farms.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Who in the department says that? Let us hear that.

Senator GEORGES:

– Although I am enticed by Senator Sir Magnus Cormack I do not want to go further at this stage until that statement is made officially in a Public Accounts Committee report or some other report and becomes officially the reason for the setback in the turtle farm project. I am only making the statement here that I will not accept the advice that has been given to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) that the failure of the turtle farm project to some extent stems from a decision that was made when I was chairman of Applied Ecology. I say that the decision was the correct one, that if the turtle farm project was to go through a period of research all existing turtles had to be released. No matter what anyone else says, there was no value in these turtles. To kill them, stuff them and sell them on the Australian market proved not to be viable because there was no market and, as it turned out, the cost of that procedure was such that the end price was so high that no person would be prepared to purchase the stuffed turtles.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– But the turtle farms were successful in Singapore.

Senator GEORGES:

-The turtle farmers in Singapore were producing a turtle that sold on the market for $8. Admittedly they were not in the same class as the stuffed turtles produced in Australia, but our selling price is $70. It just would not have been possible for the Australian industry to survive without a heavy subsidy. It would have to be subsidised to the tune of many hundreds of thousands of dollars. I put it to Senator Sir Magnus Cormack that the turtle farm project in Torres Strait was based on the Mariculture project in the Caribbean, and that project has failed. It went bankrupt, it closed down and the investors lost many millions of dollars. Our project which was set up in the Torres Strait Islands was not thought out along commercial lines. The farms were far from a market. The project was not geared to the same extent as the Caribbean experiment. It was doomed to failure. It was like the old Indian blanket concept that was developed in the United States of America. That concept was: ‘You weave blankets, we buy blankets and we will try to sell blankets.’ What we have done with the turtles is exactly the same.

The project is a means of distributing moneys to the Torres Strait Island people. But in the process we have mutilated the turtles and damaged the ecology. The mortality rate of the turtles was so high that we were really doing the opposite to what was intended by the Applied Ecology project. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. In due course it will be proved that what I am saying is correct. We cannot take the eggs or the young turtles from the rookeries, endeavour to raise them under the conditions in which they are raised in the Torres Strait, spend a considerable time out fishing in order to feed the turtles, and make it a viable proposition. Admittedly we are caught in a situation where unless some alternative is provided to the Torres Strait Island people the turtle project will continue. It is a means of making payments to the Torres Strait Island people. That is the bind. A hundred Torres Strait Island people depend upon the continuing funding of this project.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Do you mean to tell me that they are still doing this?

Senator GEORGES:

– They are still doing it. I think that I have stirred Senator Cavanagh into entering the debate. I notice that he is making notes and that he has put his name on the speakers ‘list.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Because you are wrong on many points.

Senator GEORGES:

– I may have missed some of the points. I have crossed swords with Senator Cavanagh before. I am more comfortable in crossing swords on this side of the House than I was on the other side of the House.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Have you not read the Mayne-Carr report? There is a market for them.

Senator GEORGES:

– I have read the MayneCarr report. If I may say so, the Mayne-Carr report depended very much on the recommendations of Mr Smart. I would say that Mr Smart would have some ideas on turtle farming. He certainly produced a report which the government of the day accepted, but Mr Smart has got himself into difficulties in other directions. I would say that Mr Smart may have been wrong. I suggest that he is wrong in putting forward such a favourable report in relation to these turtle farms. I might say to Senator Cavanagh that the proof in the end will be whether they succeed.

Senator Cavanagh:

– The proof will be whether they carry out the recommendations of the Mayne-Carr report, but they are not doing it. That is the whole point.

Senator GEORGES:

-That is a possibility; perhaps they are not carrying out the recommendations of the Mayne-Carr report. But are they in any way being continually, shall we say, bemused or misled by the Smart report? The Smart report is the basis upon which the whole project continues because it says that the project is an economically viable proposition. My view of it is -

Senator Cavanagh:

– If you can breed your own turtles.

Senator GEORGES:

– Yes. Mariculture, after many years and after expending a lot of money, did succeed in artificially breeding in captivity two or three turtles. It took them a long time and it took a lot of money and they have subsequently failed. Senator Cavanagh will realise that the recommendation towards the end of the Smart report was that we could establish a market by rearing turtles to one-year-old in the Torres Strait, then sending them across to the Caribbean and selling them to Mariculture. That was not on on 2 bases: Firstly, under our laws we could not export them and, secondly, it was not an economical proposition to transport yearling turtles all the way to the Caribbean to have them raised to 70 lb or 80 lb and then have them slaughtered. If I may say so, any primary producer who has raised even a fowl- perhaps we should have Senator McLaren up there- and who was taken through the Torres Straits and looked at this project would have said that it was not on; it just was not a commercial proposition. The only way in which it could be justified was that it was providing some sort of income for the Torres Strait Islanders. But a great deal of patronage and a great deal of elitism has developed in the running of these turtle farms. That in itself is a sad story.

It came to the point where people earned an income by looking after and maintaining ISO turtles. Despite a considerable mortality rate among the turtles, those people were receiving some $50 or $60 a week; it may be more now.

Perhaps it should have been more if the job occupied them, as it was supposed to, for a full 40 hours a week. The end result was that people were diverted from their normal pursuits of using the riches of the sea to raising turtles and receiving a sum of money which they themselves knew they were receiving under false pretences. The Torres Strait Islanders were laughing at us. Make no mistake; they think we are a bunch of suckers and they are right.

Senator Baume:

– Have you got the Hay report?

Senator GEORGES:

– I do not know about the Hay report, but if I can think about the Hay report -

Senator Baume:

– He says that the company is operating without proper authority perhaps. There is some doubt as to the authority of the company to undertake new projects without ministerial approval. Some of the companies -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I call Senator Georges.

Senator GEORGES:

– I trust that Hansard has taken down what Senator Baume has just said because it would have assisted me. I do not know what the Hay report has to say; I know what the other reports have had to say and I know what the Auditor-General had to say. What worries me is that a project continues without any attempt being made to diversify away from that project. The point I was going to make was that the tragedy is that the money going to the Torres Strait Island people is diverting them from their normal pursuits of exploiting the sea. Even they consider that they are receiving money under false pretences.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– And not without the proper authority of Parliament either.

Senator GEORGES:

-That is a question with which the Torres Strait Islanders are not concerned, and I do not think they ought to be concerned about it; but we should be concerned about it. In any case, what happens to the money which they receive? There may be one, two or three turtle farmers in a family. That money is then spent on what I might call a most unsuitable diet purchased from the local canteen. One may wonder why the Queensland Government has not objected more strongly to this waste of money. That government does not worry very much because almost one-third- perhaps even a half- of the money that is spent on the turtle farms eventually finishes up in the company stores which, in this case, belongs to the Queensland Government. The Island people spend their money on tinned foods, frozen peas, frozen fowl, carbohydrates. One would have thought it would be impossible, but on some of the Torres Strait Islands there appear to be vitamin deficiencies in children. Senator Cavanagh will recall that he promptly responded to my request that milk supplements and milk powders should be provided to those islands to counter the increase in vitamin deficiencies in the children.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– As a result of turtle farming.

Senator GEORGES:

– Not so much as a result of turtle farming. All I am saying is that the moneys which are made available to people in this way in those areas finish up creating exactly the opposite result to what was intended. Once the situation was discovered one would imagine that the Goverment would bring the whole project to an end. But it is not at an end; it continues. I want to ask the present Government whether, after being responsible for these matters for 12 months, it intends to make any searching inquiry about the continuing expenditure incurred by Applied Ecology on the turtle farms. How much longer are we to suffer this continuing hoax? I am just hoping that no body will dare to suggest at any time that Ray Thorburn, Jim Neill or I, who were placed on the Board to correct the situation, should be made to accept the responsibility. That is the proposition that is being peddled at the present time. I will not have any part of it, and if such a proposition surfaces officially in this place then I shall place the blame where I believe it belongs. But until that time I do not intend to go any further. I was going to thank the Senate, but why should I thank the Senate? I am merely exercising my right to speak. I appreciate the opportunity to say what I have said.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-Earlier this year the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), in an interview with the American magazine Variety, indicated that as far as he was concerned it would be business as usual for importers into Australia of overseas, particularly American, film and television programs. That is to say, business as usual after an interrupted 3 year period during the time that the Labor Government was in office. In the course of this year the Australian content of television programs in Australia has dropped from 43 per cent to 34 per cent. In the light of both the Prime Minister’s statement and these figures which I just mentioned, I want to draw some attention to the somewhat disastrous state of the television industry in Australia at the moment. I am not talking about its profits, because as everybody knows commercial television in Australia has been having a record period of profit making in the last 6 months.

I raise these matters in this particular discussionof course, they are relevant to the appropriation for the Postal and Telecommunications Department and, indeed, other departmentsbecause there is considerable concern in the community in regard to the continuing of production of Australian drama and television programs. It is perhaps appropriate to raise these matters at this time because this building is full of rumours of an impending announcement by the Government of the results of the inquiry into broadcasting and television. I suppose most members of the Senate have had an opportunity to read the submission to Cabinet and the associated documents which have been circulated quite widely in the past week or so. It is anticipated that the Government will make an announcement about this matter in the next day or two.

The particular matters to which I wish to refer are of the utmost concern to people engaged in film and television production in Australia. For some time we have had a small but relatively viable and relatively independent television film production industry in this country. It now sees that independence threatened by the importation of what are admittedly cheaper- but cheaper in every sense- television productions. If we look first of all at the position of the Australian Broadcasting Commission we will see that the Budget cuts which have been made in the course of the last 8 months have led to a significant decline in the Commission’s drama production. The quantum of drama programs produced by the ABC has been reduced consistently in recent months and only one or two of the present proposed drama series are in fact continuing. In fact, people who normally were engaged in ABC drama work are at the moment being offered alternative work within the ABC but outside the production area. The ABC has found itself forced into a position of coproduction ventures with commercial interests and international co-production ventures in which it is associated basically with American companies perhaps on a basis that should be examined more closely by this Parliament because it does seem to be a very unfavourable basis on which the ABC should enter into such agreements. One sees first of all on the national network ofthe ABC not only a decline in drama production and television production generally but also a decline in the employment of creative talent in these areas. If one looks at the commercial sector, which if I might say so has never been strong on local content apart from jingles and inferior programming, one finds again that little Australian talent is being employed at the present time.

But what of the film production industry itself? I said before that both television advertisements and television drama programs were being made in Australia to quite a significant degree by local television production companies. That situation seems at the moment to be very much threatened, at least in Sydney. If one looks at the ownership of Australian commercial television and consider the fact that it is impossible to buy advertising time on Australian commercial television at least until about March of next year, one sees first of all the effects of a monopoly or an oligopoly situation on the part ofthe commercial proprietors and the consequences of this for people who want to get programs on television. This has been exacerbated in the past few months by developments in the television production industry in Australia.

I suppose that one of the key starting points was when the proprietors of Channel 9, Television Corporation Ltd, acquired control of Video-Tape Corporation Pty Ltd in Sydney and appointed a manager to that corporation. The practical situation in regard to Australian television production is that most Australian content productions are produced by independent producers. For showing on television they are transferred to video tape, and that is done in Australia basically by 3 companies. That is another monopoly situation in the media which is of the utmost important importance and it is a matter to which I want to point in a moment. The 3 companies which basically have the facility- it is a very expensive facility- for transferring films produced by film production companies to video tape for showing on television are a company known as Armstrong’s Agency in Melbourne, which is very largely owned by David Syme and Co. Ltd, the proprietors of the Melbourne Age; a company called Enterprise, Colorvideo Productions Pty Ltd, in Sydney, which might be described at this stage as an independent company which performs the function of producing video tape for television; and an institution known as the Video-Tape Corporation, which is owned, to put it bluntly, by the Packer interests and has been so owned for four or five months.

The consequence of that sort of strict monopoly position has been revealed to Australian television producers quite recently in the following way: It is the practice of producers to farm out, as it were, various aspects of the work of the production of a television program. Let me take one example, that of an episode of a program known as Case for the Defence which was to appear on Channel 9 in Sydney. A Sydney production house, Reg Grundy Productions Pty Ltd, a long-standing television producer in this country, let out to another firm the job of technically producing a production of Case for the Defence.

That was done by quotation, as it is normally done, and it was to be shown eventually on the Channel 9 network. Subsequently, the Channel 9 network advised Reg Grundy Productions, which had sought to produce this program, that the program would effectively go to air on Channel 9 in Sydney only if all work relating to it was carried out at Video-Tape Corporation- the corporation which is now owned by the Packer interests. So, what is happening is that Australian television producers are being told: ‘You cannot get your programs to air in this country unless you have them made at the corporation- the final production house- which we, the proprietors of commercial television in Australia, own’. That situation, which has emerged in the past few months, is probably a breach of the Trade Practices Act- I hope that Senator Durack, as the Minister representing the Attorney-General in this place, will be examining that matter- but whether that is so or not is a matter to be determined elsewhere.

I come back to the point which I was making earlier; that is, the effect this has on creative production for television in Australia, on the employment of creative artists in Australia and on the development of any sort of cultural identity in this country which we might hope for and reasonably expect in 1976. This sort of development comes at a time when there is an Industries Assistance Commission report on the arts in Australia which has turned up some fairly revolutionary suggestions, to put it mildly; at a time when there is an inquiry into the broadcasting and television industry which is solely concerned with the structure of the industry; and, as I said the other night, at a time when there is a situation in this country in which the average primary school child spends more time watching television than he spends at school. We have a series of somewhat pompous reports about the structural situation of various industries- if one can call the arts an industry- the structural situation of the broadcasting and television industry. At the same time there is a stranglehold on the creative production process in Australia, very extensive arrangements for the cheap importation of commercial television programs from the United States and a situation in which there is not one body in Australia, including the Government, which seems to be seriously concerned with the sort of cultural development we get when, as I said, children of primary school age are watching television for more hours than they are attending school. They are imbibing, one suspects, their cultural values from that sort of programming.

No money is being spent in any serious way by the Australian Government on this problem. None of the inquiries has really directed the sort of searching attention which ought to be directed to it. Ultimately the question of whether Australian children will be brought up with a secondhand culture and secondhand experiences obtained from television or whether they are to be involved in more creative experiences of a first-hand kind will of course depend on Australians; it will not depend on the importation of pap from the United States- or it might do, tragically. But it should not depend on that and that is and should be a matter of great concern to this Parliament. It is not only a question of the sort of cultural cringe being assumed again, the sort of attitude displayed by the Prime Minister in his interview with the magazine Variety, but it is also a matter of great consequence to people employed in the television industry who have been squeezed out of employment of a creative kind, people employed in the creative arts who are likewise threatened by a similar process. I think it is a matter of urgency that the Parliament look to this matter. The Film and Television Producers Association of Australia is very concerned about it. It is a body which, as I said, enjoyed some independence in the past and has done some good work towards the improvement of standards in this country. It is because of its concern and the concern of others engaged in a most important aspect of creativity in Australia that I raise these matters in the Senate tonight.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– My colleague Senator Keeffe before the suspension of the sitting for dinner made some references to the funding of roads with respect to the Appropriation Bill which we are discussing tonight. Like Senator Keeffe I have received numerous complaints from local government authorities, in my case from Western Australia, about road funds in particular and about the availability of funds from both State and Federal governments this year in comparison to previous years. In fact it is quite apparent that the local government authorities of Australia, like the Australian States, are now finally realising that the so-called new federalism is a massive confidence trick to camouflage the reduction of finance by this present Federal Government to State and local governments.

Senator Carrick now knows by heart the line: We increased by 75 per cent financial payments to local government’. If it is properly qualified that line that Senator Carrick seems finally to have memorised is correct. If it is qualified in terms of direct grants to local government it is true that the payments are 75 per cent higher than they were in previous years. But of course if we look a little beyond that, if we look at payments to local government in total in the previous financial year and in this financial year we find, as Mr Walls of the Council of Local Government Associations stated last month, that there has been a decline from $274m to $ 195m. Senator Carrick ‘s kneejerk response to that is to go off into a tirade detailing how the decision to phase out or reduce funding for the Regional Employment Development scheme was made by the previous Labor Government and not made by this Government. Senator Carrick surely has the intelligence to realise that that is totally irrelevant to the simple fact that total payments to local government have been reduced by the Fraser Government by $80m in actual money terms. If we like to translate that into real terms, into constant value dollars, the reduction in payments to local government has been in excess of $100m and in fact the total payments to local government have been almost cut in half by this present Government.

A tribute is due to the audacity of the present Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). The sort of audacity for which he is famous, the sort of audacity which enabled him to say on 6 March 1975 that he supported the leadership of Bill Snedden and that there was no contest for the leadership and so on and then 16 days later, I think it was, to challenge Mr Snedden for the leadership successfully having plotted to do so for several months, the sort of audacity which enabled the present Prime Minister to indulge in that knife work within the Liberal Party -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Walsh, you can attack on policy; you shall not reflect on a fellow member of Parliament.

Senator WALSH:

– I am very sorry, Mr President. The audacity for which the Prime Minister is famous was demonstrated once again a few weeks ago when he was addressing the Australian Farmers Federation. This man who engineered a reduction in real terms of $ 100m in Federal payments to local government then castigated some local government authorities for increasing their rates by as much as 20 per cent.

The people who were the victims, who were forced into this situation by the policies which the present Prime Minister has engineered, were then castigated by that Prime Minister for responding in the only possible way in which they had power to respond. It is analagous of course to the continuing campaign of vilification initiated by members of this Government in 1975, carried out throughout 1976, against the so-called ‘dole buldgers’. The people who are unemployed as a deliberate and conscious effect of the policies of this Government are constantly vilified by members of this Government as being dole bludgers so that the Government can divert the latent hostility of the community to it towards the unfortunate people who are unemployed as a direct consequence of the deliberate policies of this Government.

The Prime Minister applied the same sort of evasion or diversionary tactic against local government in condemning local government for increasing its rates when it had no alternative in the circumstances but to do so. Of course local government authorities are not so naive or gullible that they have swallowed the Prime Minister’s line on this issue. Indeed, they fought back. I received a letter last week from one local authority in Western Australia. Probably several other senators from Western Australia on both sides of the chamber received a copy ofthe same letter to the Prime Munster in which this local authority attacked the Prime Minister for having the audacity to say that after an increase of funding to local government of 75 per cent local government should hold its rates steady and not increase them.

This letter set out the figures relating to direct financial grants to this particular authority in 1975-76 and in 1976-77. It showed that in the last financial year, that is 1975-76, this shire received $24,000, $20,000 of which was Federal grant money supplemented by $4,000 from the State. In 1976-77 that shire received $24,282. That amounts to an increase of just over one per cent, not the 75 per cent which the Prime Minister had asserted. This shire has come back very heavily at the Prime Minister for the way in which he misrepresented the facts when speaking to the Australian Farmers Federation. I shall be very interested indeed, and I hope I get the opportunity, to see the Prime Minister’s reply to that letter. The reasons for the reduction in funds to local government are various. There has not only been the reduction of funds made available last year under the Regional Employment Development scheme, as Senator Carrick seems to think. There have been reductions in real terms, and in fact in absolute terms, in the allocations for road construction. There have been reductions in allocations in the sewerage programs, area improvement programs and so on.

I wish to deal in particular tonight with road funding and the way in which the fundamental dishonesty of this assertion that there has been a 75 per cent increase in funds to local government has been compounded by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony). The Deputy Prime Minister in an article in the Farmers’ Weekly of 16 September, which is published in Western Australiait was not a report, so he cannot claim to have been misrepresented- had the audacity to say:

An extra $100m has been provided this year for local government use on roads.

The fact, of course, is that the total amount of money provided from Federal sources for road construction and maintenance this year has decreased very slightly from $442. lm to $441.5m. In real terms the decline is of the order of 12 per cent to 14 per cent.

I am more interested in the assertion by Mr Anthony that $ 100m extra has been provided for local government for use on roads this year. Mr Anthony has not responded to the invitation published more than a month ago to clarify his stand on this issue. I suppose he initially allowed that article to be published in the belief based on long experience that you can say almost anything in country newspapers and get away it, that no one challenges the statement you make. This is normal for the country newspapers around Australia. In this instance he was challenged and corrected, and I do not expect that he will come back into the controversy. I assume that this fictional sum of $ 100m which Mr Anthony concocted is the aggregate of the amount set out for road funding in the schedules to the 1974 Acts which were presented to the House of Representatives before the coup d’etat last November and finally passed in April or March of this year and an additional payment of $65m to compensate for increases in road construction costs since the 1974 Acts were passed.

This year, that is the 1976-77 financial year, this present Government has forecast its intention to provide $35.8m in addition to the amounts specified in the schedules of the 1974 Acts, notwithstanding the fact that the Bureau of Roads had recommended an increase of some $125m in the amount specified in the 1974 Acts. I note that there is an appropriation of $ 1.288m for the Bureau of Roads in this Bill. One wonders about the justification of that when the Government clearly has so little respect for the recommendations that the Bureau of Roads makes. Whereas the previous Labor Administration provided full compensation of $65m for one year’s cost increase, since the 1974 Acts were passed we find that this present Government, for 2 years’ cost increase, is providing only $35.8m instead of the $125m that would be necessary to compensate fully for increases in road construction since the Acts were passed and since the Schedules appended to the Bills were printed. So we have this sort of double deception practised by the Deputy Prime Minister -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Walsh, you must not refer to deception by a fellowmember of Parliament, and you know it.

Senator WALSH:

– I am very sorry, Mr President. We have this doubly inaccurate statement by the Deputy Prime Minister who first adds together the cost compensatory funds for 2 financial years and asserts that they were paid in the one year, and then asserts that these funds were available for local government. Of course all that money is not available for local government. It it money paid to the States. Part of it is allocated for national highways, part of it is allocated for rural local roads, part of it is allocated for rural arterial roads and part of it is allocated for urban arterial roads. So it would not be made available to local government unless the States chose to do so, and the States did not choose to do so.

This brings me to the other specific complaint which I wish to relay on behalf of 3 shires in Western Australia which have written directly to me and, I believe, also to a number of other senators a letter with regard to road funding. These shires, which call themselves the Nuigham Group and are in the north-eastern wheat belt of Western Australia, have shown that in 1968 under the statutory grants as they are called now- I am not sure what they were called thenthey received road funds totalling $ 124,000 from the State government, though ultimately much of the money was sourced from Federal grants. In 1976 the same 3 shires received only $161,000. That is an increase of about 30 per cent over an 8-year period when the consumer price index had increased by about 65 per cent or 68 per cent. We cannot be too sure yet about the total increase because this financial year is not finished. So this year there is a reduction in real terms in total road funds for those particular shires of the order of 25 to 30 per cent compared with what they received in 1 968.

I wish to speak briefly about the estimates for agriculture. Most honourable senators can probably remember the wild, extravagant undertakings that were given by this present Government before the 1975 general election. The Government was not always specific but certainly the general assertions were that the problems which some agricultural industries were experiencing had been caused by the Labor Government and that they would disappear just as soon as the Labor Government was removed and was replaced by a Liberal-National Country Party Government. In the Budget Speech 8 months later, the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) asserted, with reference to last year, that the farm sector was in a state of collapse. That phrase has been mindlessly echoed ever since all around the country by the Prime Minister.

Ironically, just before the Treasurer made that assertion, the Bureau of Agricultural Economics had released its trends publication in which it forecast a 27 per cent fall in real net farm income in this financial year compared with last financial year. This begs the question of course. How can an allegedly collapsing sector survive a 27 per cent fall in real income? I put that question to Senator Cotton as the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry in the Senate on 7 October. Senator Cotton’s reply failed to deal with the question. Senator Cotton asserted that this fall in net farm income had been caused by drought. That is partially true; it has been partially caused by drought. But that answer completely evades the central point. The central point is that the Treasurer asserted that the farm sector was in a state of collapse and that this year its income would be reduced by 27 per cent. I repeat that question to all members of the Government and to Government supporters, and I am sorry that Senator Scott is not present: How will an allegedly collapsing sector survive a 27 per cent fall in real income? Will they either explain how an allegedly collapsing sector will do that or acknowledge that the assertion made by their Treasurer, mindlessly echoed ever since by their Prime Minister, is utterly without foundation? I observe that there has been no response to that cahallenge.

Senator Scott will say that the record low level of real farm income which is expected this year- it is expected to be the all-time low level of farm income since the Second World War- has been caused by the Labor Government- the 3 years of socialist rule, as Senator Scott usually puts it. Accepting for the moment Senator Scott’s stereotyped assertion at its face value, I wonder whether he can explain why farm income in 1 966 value dollars was $786m in 1970-71, which was some 12 per cent lower in real terms than in 1 975-76 and some 1 8 per cent lower in real terms than in 1974-75, the Labor Government being in power for 18 months of that 2-year period. Incidentally, apart from the figure expected this year, the amount of $786m has been the lowest figure recorded since about the mid-1950s or early 1 950s. I am not sure because my figures do not go back that far. I suppose Senator Scott would say that that level of farm income, which was the second lowest in the last 20 years, was caused by the 8 years of socialist Labor Government from 1941 to 1949. It would be about as logical and would make about as much sense as the assertion which Senator Scott normally makes in this chamber.

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– Are you just talking about income?

Senator WALSH:

– I am talking about net farm income in 1966-67 value terms. The level was $786m in 1970-71. Incidentally, the average for the 3 calendar years, not the financial years, when the Labor Government happened to be in power was $ 1,430m, which was 45 per cent above what it had been for the 3 preceding years when the Liberal-Country Party Government was in power. But I suppose that Senator Scott will tell us that incomes were low between 1970 and 1972 inclusive because Labor had been in government 20 years previously.

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– It was something to do with wool prices also, I think.

Senator WALSH:

– Of course it had something to do with wool prices. Did not the low level of farm income in 1974-75 have something to do with the fall in beef prices, a fall, incidentally, which was exacerbated by the mindless expansionary policies which were being advocated ad nauseam by the Country Party in 1973? At that time the present Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) was saying: ‘There is an urgent need to increase production. I believe the demand for meat will rise so much we will be flat out trying to keep up with it’. The Country Party abused the then Labor Government for not providing extra market incentives to stimulate artificially investment in the beef industry which, if the government ofthe day had been foolish enough to do it, would only have exacerbated the ultimate problem.

The farm sector of Australia was grossly misled by the pre-election propaganda of the Liberal and Country Parties. A couple of things that they have done since they have become the Government, which they claim have assisted the agricultural sector and which are significant in terms of the amount of money involved, are, firstly, the restoration of the superphosphate bounty- a very expensive measure for which the justification is highly doubtful. Of course, because of the large amount of money involved this has pre-empted in a number of other fields action which could have made more sense in both social and economic terms. The second specific and fairly expensive item is the abolition of the export inspection charge on meat as from 1 March of this year. There is an appropriation of some $22m in this Appropriation Bill for meat inspection services. It was suggested by the Industries Assistance Commission, and it was stated by other people at the time when the meat export levy legislation was being repealed, that under the then and still prevailing marketing conditions- it is an extreme sellers’ market- it was highly doubtful whether the benefit would be passed on to the meat producers. The figures that I have obtained on this- they relate to the position a few months ago and there is a fair bit of freedom for interpretation of and speculation about such figures- show no evidence that from the first week in March, which was when the levy was repealed, there had been an increase in prices to beef producers. I am informed that this year there has been a massive increase in the profits recorded by meat exporters, the people who process and sell the product overseas. There appears to be no evidence that there has been an increase in the prices received by beef producers pursuant to the abolition of that export inspection charge.

So once again this sum of $22m or $23m probably could have been very much better spent in some other way- at least while the present marketing conditions prevail, while we are operating in an extreme sellers’ market and when any subsidy on exports, which is what a free export inspection service really means, is likely to be shared between the foreign buyer, the Australian exporter and the livestock producer. It would appear that in this case the livestock producer is getting the smallest of those 3 shares. Despite all the allegations that Labor had done nothing for agriculture and the assertions that the position of agriculture would change dramatically once the natural rulers of this country were back in their proper place, we find in fact that there is a net payment of $25m to revenue in the estimates for this year from the agricultural sector. That payment arises because the Australian Wool Corporation is expected to repay $245m of the money advanced to it mainly in the 1974-75 season. So far from pouring a great deal of money into agriculture, this Government will be a net beneficiary from the agricultural sector or, I suppose, if we go far enough back, a net beneficiary of funds provided 2 years ago by the Labor Government to the agricultural sector which will now be returned to the public revenue.

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– Are you talking about loan funds?

Senator WALSH:

– Of course I am talking about loan funds. If I was not, would I be talking about the repayment of moneys? Of course I am talking about loan funds. It is interesting but characteristically ironic to note that the same people who continually abused the Labor Government for incurring a substantial deficit in 1974-75- it was a smaller deficit than this Government will incur this year- fail to acknowledge that $300m of that deficit was provided as loan funds for the Australian Wool Corporation to enable it to maintain the price of wool during the price slump of 1974-75. These same people who were saying that the Labor Government ought to have been underwriting the market at a higher level were also abusing the Labor Government for providing $300m which effectively increased the deficit by $300m. The present Treasurer in a Press statement released at the end of the previous financial year, that is in July of this year, had the audacity to claim that because of the many economies which had been achieved by the present Government as a result of good housekeeping and the ending of the waste and extravagance of the previous Labor administration, etc., it had saved $11 lm. He asserted at the time that the Government had saved $350m. Included in that figure was $80m from last year’s appropriation for further borrowings by the Wool Corporation which was not needed because wool prices improved, plus $31m which had been repaid by the Wool Corporation in the last financial year. Mr Lynch had the audacity to claim that that windfall to the Government, $80m of which was no saving at all because it was simply a provision for money which was not spent because it was not needed and $31m which was paid back and which was unexpected, was the result of good housekeeping by the present Government.

The Government’s failure to live up to its election undertakings and its failure to deliver the goods in the agricultural sector are just small components of its overall failure to live up to its pre-election promises. The rate of inflation has been temporarily and slightly reduced in the September quarter. Almost everyone agrees that it will rise to above 5 per cent in the December quarter. In other words, the consumer price index for the second half of the 1976 calendar year, with this Government in power, will increase by more than it did for the second half of the 1975 calendar year. There was a 6.4 per cent increase in the last 6 months of what was effectively a Labor government. It is generally agreed that the increase in the first 6 months of this Government will be in the vicinity of 7 per cent. So the rate of inflation, at least at this stage, in the first half of this financial year, will not be reduced. The number of unemployed has been signifiantly increased, to the degree that the Government now finds it necessary to fiddle with the statistics to camouflage the fact that the number has significantly increased. It has now, in seasonally adjusted terms, hit a level which has not been recorded since the 1930s. So the Government is looking for another scapegoat. As it is unable effectively to blame the previous Government any more for the failures of its own economic policies, it seems that the scapegoat will be the unions.

We see constant references in the Press to the burning desire of some Ministers, particularly the Prime Minister, incited as usual in these matters by a number of senior members of the National Country Party to have a showdown with the unions to try to provoke a national strike or a series of strikes if he possibly can. Instead of the Government being blamed for the failure of its economic policies, some members of the Government hope that unions will be blamed for it. I suggest to those members of the Government who have a genuine interest in this vexed question that they read an article published by the National Times last week, written by their colleague the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) who displays a far more rational attitude on these matters than one has come to expect from his Party or its coalition partner.

We have appeals from the Prime Minister and others for everyone, but particularly for the labour movement to make personal sacrifices for the greater national good, for the greater good of society and so on. Once again I suppose this is just another demonstration of the audacity ofthe present Prime Minister, a man who engineered a plan to seize power under what the Liberal senators ‘ own colleague Senator Hall described aptly as sleazy circumstances. This man who engineered a plan to seize power under sleazy circumstances and who expounded the proposition that whatever could be grabbed should be taken now has the audacity to say to the industrial wing of the labour movement that it ought to make sacrifices for the national good and that it ought to exercise restraint.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Life is not meant to be easy. They were his words.

Senator WALSH:

– Life is not meant to be easy. That call for restraint would have somewhat more credibility if its current apostle had exercised a little more restraint 12 and 18 months ago. Since he failed to do so he and those who stood with him on that exercise are totally without moral credibility.

Since my colleague Senator Mulvihill reminded me about the statement that life is not meant to be easy, I wish to relate that statement to the matters on which I first started to speak. I refer to the way in which the present Government has reduced total funding to local government in real terms by some $100m. The prime Minister seems determined to prove to local government that life for local government is not meant to be easy. He is trying to make it easy for himself by passing the blame on to someone else and by utilising the same sort of blatant buckpassing which he has done to the States and which he has attempted to do to the labour movement.

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– I wish to make a few remarks on the allocation in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) for the Australian Legal Aid Office. It seems to me that the failure of the Government to provide adequately for the future of the Australian Legal Aid Office constitutes a major breach of promise made, admittedly not at all stages, by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) who at one stage threatened to disband it but certainly made consistently by the Attorney-General (Mr Ellicott). It is something of a cliche in democracy to say that people should have equality under the law. Unfortunately this cliche was not realised in this democracy until the Whitlam Government took steps to realise it by setting up the Australian Legal Aid Office in 1973. The purpose of the Australian Legal Aid Office was to provide facilities by which all people could have equal access to the law. People on low incomes who had previously been unable to seek legal assistance or legal advice were no longer to suffer that very serious disadvantage. The service was based on the concept of providing a salaried service by lawyers who would deal exclusively in the kinds of cases that were judged as appropriate to be dealt with by the Australian Legal Aid Officethat is, the whole range of legal problems which people on low incomes might experience.

The need for the Australian Legal Aid Office’s services was amply demonstrated by the growth ofthe Australian Legal Aid Office. By 1975 33 offices had been opened, covering all States and Territories. The Whitlam Government recognised the very important service being provided to the low income earners in the community by the Australian Legal Aid Office, and demonstrated that recognition in the 1975 Budget, the Hayden Budget. Although the Government realised that there had to be cutbacks in some areas of public expenditure, there was still an allocation sufficient to provide for the opening of 28 further legal aid offices throughout the country. I point out that the geographical placement of these offices was such that the concept of decentralisation rather than the concept of centralisation, for which the Labor Government was so often reviled, was realised. Legal aid offices were established in most major country centres, thus offering for the first time in many cases legal facilities for low income groups in rural areas.

The cost of the Australian Legal Aid Office was low. It was extremely low when compared with the cost of other public services such as education, health, roads, transport, etc. The cost of running the Australian Legal Aid Office for 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77 amounts to less than $38.5m. Of that something like $20m went in payment to private solicitors who worked hi co-operation with the Austraiian Legal Aid Office. So the Australian Legal Aid Office itself has cost only $18,092,400 in its 3 years of operation.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– It is a growth industry, though, is it not?

Senator RYAN:

– It certainly is a growth industry, as Senator Sir Magnus Cormack has pointed out. That is the very reason why I rose to speak on the allocation tonight. It is a growth industry. The Australian Legal Aid Office was established, I suppose, as an innovation. As an innovation, it would have had something of an experimental character; but the need was demonstrated so aptly. Of course it would be a growing need as more and more people in the community- more and more migrant people, more and more Aboriginal people and more and more low income people generally- came to realise that they were no longer to be deprived of legal assistance but could get it through the Australian Legal Aid Office. Of course the demand for such services would grow. But no allowance is made for this very healthy growth.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– There is $20m in the Budget as against $16m last year, as you will see if you look at the Bill.

Senator RYAN:

– There may be an apparent increase in the amount allocated, but there certainly is to be no growth. I will establish that when I continue my remarks. As there seems to be some scepticism in the chamber as to the need for the Australian Legal Aid Office services and the growth in this area, I refer to the results of a study published by the Australian Council of Social Service -

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– Look at the figures on page 29 of the Bill.

Senator RYAN:

– I am looking at figures to which I wish to draw the attention of the Senate at this stage. A study was carried out by the Poverty Commission in 1973, before the Australian Legal Aid Office was established. It found that 70 per cent of residents in 3 low income Sydney suburbs had had a legal problem within the last 5 years where the advice or assistance of a lawyer would have been valuable. Yet, apart from conveyancing cases, lawyers were consulted in only 20 per cent of these cases. In its first 2 years of operation the Australian Legal Aid Office interviewed 141 478 people seeking assistance; that is, 48 773 in New South Wales, 26 699 in Victoria, 21 666 in Queensland, 13 576 in South Australia, 11 989 in Western Australia, 8312 in Tasmania, and 10 463 in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. Before the Family Law Act came into operation the Australian Legal Aid Office was referring almost 3500 people each month to private practitioners for legal aid under the scheme, and it was expected that the new Act would more than double the demand for the services, which of course it did. I gave those figures for the record to demonstrate the very large numbers and the spread of the demand for legal aid services throughout all States and Territories. As of January this year the Australian Legal Aid Office had interviewed 189 109 clients.

It is true that the present Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) said at one stage before he became Prime Minister that he would disband the Legal Aid Office, but subsequent to his saying that the present Attorney-General (Mr Ellicott) promised on several occasions that legal aid services would not run down, that he would not disband the Australian Legal Aid Office. I refer to a Press statement issued by the Attorney-General on 28 March. He said that he wished to make it clear that he had not taken and would not take any steps to disband the Australian Legal Aid Office. He said that he regarded the salaried legal service as an essential part of the delivery of adequate legal aid services. In a further statement on 18 June he said that the Commonwealth

Government had clearly indicated that it would continue to maintain legal aid at the current level through the Australian Legal Aid Office until consideration was given to the review he was conducting for the purpose of establishing a new system of legal aid in Australia. In the later statement there was some suggestion that in fact there was to be some disbanding. Subsequent to the Attorney-General making those statements he has in fact taken steps to disband the Legal Aid Office. One example of this is the answer given to question No. 163 in the House of Representatives in which Mr Ellicott answered a query with regard to the opening of new legal aid offices which had been planned by his predecessor. He said:

The establishment of offices of the Australian Legal Aid Office at 28 new locations approved by the previous Government has been deferred pending completion of my review.

Presumably the review has not been completed and those 28 offices have not been opened. As well as that, there has been a severe reduction in incomes applicable to means tests under which persons are eligible for aid from the Australian Legal Aid Office. The Attorney-General announced that the guidelines would be restricted as follows: Under the Labor Government’s scheme the maximum disposable weekly income for eligibilty was $50 or $60 depending on the cost of the service. That is reduced now to $40 a week. The allowance for a spouse or one dependant was $20 under the Labor Government. It is reduced to $15 under the present Government. For each additional dependant the allowance was $15 under the Labor Government. It is reduced now to $10. Those reductions, of course, are much worse than they sound because they are over a period in which there has been inflation of 14 per cent. So the overall picture is that there is a reduction of about one-third in the permissible income for those seeking legal aid.

In making these sorts of reductions the Attorney-General made remarks that we have come to regard as very typical of remarks coming from members of the present Government when they explain why they are reducing services to the public. It was said that legal aid services would continue for those most in need. We have heard that phrase in respect of the cuts in the child care budget. We have heard that phrase in respect of the alterations to Medibank. We have heard that phrase in respect to the so-called increases in the tertiary education allowances, which in many cases, of course, amount to reductions. What it means is that on a very literal interpretation of those words and a very precise examination of the figures one would find that certainly a person whose disposable income was less than $40 could be classified as a person most in need; but there is a whole group of persons who are in very serious need and whose income may be $41 a week or $45 a week. Equally, would such people not be in need of legal aid if they had to have legal assistance?

Senator Wheeldon:

-Or $ 100 a week.

Senator RYAN:

-Or $100 a week, as my colleague Senator Wheeldon, who has more expert knowledge of legal fees than I have, has suggested. A disposable income of $100 a week, or perhaps one could say $150 a week, in this community would not enable a person to pay the huge fees often charged by private solicitors. So, for the Government to say, and for the AttorneyGeneral in this case to say, in a moralistic and self-justifying way ‘We are making funds available for those most in need’ when what the Government is doing is cutting out the largest group of needy people from assistance is sheer hypocrisy. The effect of it is certainly to deny access to the Australian Legal Aid Office to those very people for whom the Labor Government set up the Australian Legal Aid Office.

There is another development in the area of legal aid to which the Government has not given proper recognition in its allocation, and that is the implementation of the Family Law Act. When the Labor Government set up the Australian Legal Aid Office the Family Law Act had not been passed and people were not coming to the Legal Aid Office to seek assistance under that Act. The Family Law Act has now been passed and people are seeking assistance under that Act from the Australian Legal Aid Office to such an extent that now the majority of the funds allocated for legal aid is being used on family law cases. In South Australia 80 per cent of legal aid funds are now going for Family Law Act cases. In New South Wales 70 per cent of legal aid funds are now going for Family Law Act cases. Therefore very little money is available for other legal services. I do not wish these remarks to sound as though I am in any way critical of the fact that people can now have access to low cost or free legal advice and assistance under the Family Law Act. That was yet another remarkable and admirable reform of the Labor Government. But whereas the Labor Government would have anticipated the increased demands on the Australian legal aid office services through the Family Law Act, the present Government has made no such recognition and has not allocated funds accordingly. In fact in the Australian Capital Territory the Government has imposed a fee of $60 on each person seeking a divorce action whereas formerly such action was to have been free.

I would like to remark briefly on the allocation for the Aboriginal Legal Aid service, which is a mere $3.7m. Honourable senators on the other side of the chamber might point out- they seem to have gone to sleep now- that this is an increase on the $3m allocated previously by the Labor Government. But again I would say that the situation has changed completely. That $3m was allocated to see whether an Aboriginal legal aid service was something that could serve the needs of the Aboriginal community. It has proved to be very successful. In 1975 the Aboriginal legal aid service handled 20 000 cases in New South Wales alone. The Aboriginal legal service has won the confidence of Aboriginal people in many parts of the community, and so the demand for that service will be greatly increased. I point out to honourable senators opposite that this is another growth industry. I cannot stress too strongly the importance of the Aboriginals in our community finally having access to legal assistance. There are many dreadful effects of the racism that has been practised in the country ever since Europeans settled here, but perhaps among the worst were the injustices suffered by the Aboriginal community under our law. The disproportionately high ratio of Aboriginals to Europeans in prisons and other detention institutions speaks for itself. In some States up to 70 per cent- in some cases higher in the case of women prisoners- of prisoners are Aboriginal. Up to 70 per cent of children in some juvenile institutions, or homes, as they are euphemistically called, are Aboriginal. Those figures apply to a minority group, which makes up something less than one per cent of the population. Those figures in themselves indicate that in the past the Aboriginal community has not been receiving justice under the law and has not had access to proper legal advice. Similarly, the number of cases of victimisation of Aboriginals by law enforcement agencies such as the police is now very well documented and has given rise to a Bill already introduced into the Senate by Senator Bonner regarding the methods by which confessions have been extracted from Aboriginals under charge in the past. I mention these few things to draw attention to the fact that the $3.7m at present allocated by the Government is hopelessly inadequate if the Aboriginal community in Australia is to continue to have access to proper and sympathetic legal assistance. One more comment I would like to add on the subject of Aboriginal legal service is that we hope to have the land rights legislation passed in this session, and once we do there will be large numbers of very complex legal matters arising from land claims by various Aboriginal communities. Again those legal problems will have to be handled by the Aboriginal legal services. They are stretched to capacity at the present time, and the $3.7m allocated for the forthcoming financial year does not take any recognition of the fact that many Aboriginal communities will be using the Aboriginal legal services to make land claims. It would appear from the various reports of the intentions and discussions of the AttorneyGeneral with the State Attorneys-General that he considers that the philosophy of federalism may be called into operation again in the question of the provision of legal aid and that the States should take over what has been done to date by the Australian Legal Aid Office. In fact the discussions with the State Attorneys have been given as an excuse for the delays and confusion regarding the future of the Australian Legal Aid Office. I submit to the Senate that if the Australian Legal Aid Office is to continue to do the sort of work that it has done, it would be best organised and administered at the national level. If it is to be done on a State and territorial basis there will inevitably be duplication of administrative costs, there will inevitably be inefficiencies arising from these duplications and there will inevitably be anomalies with persons moving from State to State or from State to territory and finding different circumstances, different guidelines, different means tests and so on operating in each State and territory.

Another criticism I would have of the State services as operating at present is that they do not offer advice but only paid assistance. In many cases people come for legal advice only. The State systems so far developed have not been able to provide that advice. Also, the present State systems are very expensive because the provision of legal aid involves the payment of private solicitors on all occasions. They do not use a salaried service. I suggest that the present service is inferior in terms of the advice that it can offer. By that I mean that lawyers working in salaried service full time with the Australian Legal Aid Office must develop an expertise in the kinds of cases that people bring to the Australian Legal Aid Office. They must develop an expertise in the kinds of legal problems faced by low income earners and other disadvantaged groups. I suggest that that expertise would be lost if the national scheme of providing legal aid were to be disbanded and become a fragmented State scheme, which would undoubtedly be provided only by private solicitors in some States.

When we look at what the present Government has done, or has not done, regarding the Australian Legal Aid Office in the Australian Capital Territory we get some indication of what are its long term intentions. In the Australian Capital Territory there has been nothing but confusion regarding the future of the Australian Legal Aid Office. I have already mentioned the imposition ofthe $60 fee for divorce cases. There has been talk of legislation to set up a legal aid commission, but that legislation is still in the drafting stage. There has been no consultation with regard to the participation of community groups in such a commission. After nearly a year in office the Government has given no indication of the sort of guidelines that will operate or of who will or will not have access to legal aid. If it has taken the Government a year to make up its mind and it still has not made up its mind about the relatively contained and simple question of the provision of legal aid for the Territory, we cannot really have very much confidence that the negotiations and discussions referred to repeatedly by the Attorney-General will lead to a quick and efficient resolution of the problem of the future of the Australian Legal Aid Offices in the States.

In conclusion I would like to say that despite its undertakings- particularly the undertakings of the Attorney-General which were much more optimistic than those of his leader- the Government has reduced the legal aid services available to the disadvantaged members of the community. The Government has created a great deal of confusion by failing to clarify the future of the Australian Legal Aid Offices in the territories and the States. The effect of the Government’s procrastination has been to lower morale amongst the salaried officers of the Australian Legal Aid Office. I understand that some offices have lost skilled and talented staff because they could no longer remain in a position of uncertainty as regards their future employment. The Government has ignored the special needs arising from the passage of the Family Law Act.

It has in no way anticipated the special needs will arise from the passage of the Aboriginal land rights legislation. I would suggest that despite the fact that various members of the Government have expressed beliefs to the contrary the Australian Legal Aid Office has been another victim of the federalist policy, which is attempting to give back to the States responsibilities for programs which they do not have the funds or the resources to administer properly. The only reason I can arrive at for the Federal Government’s failure to preserve, expand and strengthen the Australian Legal Aid Office service is an ideological prejudice against a salaried professional service and a general lack of concern for the low income and disadvantaged members of the community.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– It was not my intention to take part in this debate on the Appropriation Bills. Normally when one enters a debate without having had any previous intention of doing so it is generally because one has been provoked by a senator on the opposite side of the chamber. But, strangely, I cannot give that as the reason for my entering the debate on this occasion because no honourable senator opposite has spoken in the debate. To my surprise- I think I should put the record straight- the reason I enter the debate is something Senator Georges said about turtle farming, and particularly his suggestion about abandoning the turtle farming. I do not think that that is the whole solution to the problem. We should not go off irrationally about the heavy expenditure involved, but should look at all the questions. The project is concerned with Torres Strait Islanders and Aborigines. I had some responsibility for them for 18 months and I can say we are inclined to get wrong ideas too quickly about how we can improve their situation. I think we all have a desire to improve the conditions of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders.

In support of her case for the need for legal aid services for Aborigines Senator Ryan referred to the necessity to pass the Bill which was introduced into this chamber by Senator Bonner, the purpose of which is the protection of Aborigines in the making of confessions and statements. I hope we are not distracted by Senator Bonner’s very good and emotional address about his struggle through life when we come to look at his Bill. It duplicates the normal common law rights of any individual who is interrogated at a police station but also provides some additional rights for Aborigines by requiring that when they are being interrogated they must have present a witness who can sign a statement to the effect that what has been stated is a true and frank confession. I can see no purpose for that legislation other than that it can be used on those occasions when the defendant gets into the witness box and challenges what is alleged to have been a voluntary confession. Additional documentary evidence can then be presented to prove that he cannot put up such a defence. I would not think that the Opposition would ever support that Bill because it imposes greater restrictions upon Aboriginal defendants in law courts.

I come now to the question of turtle farming. Senator Georges apparently thinks that some blame might be cast on him for the failure of the turtle farming and that he will not get the great glory that he got in regard to flashing lights in toilets. Nevertheless, I think that turtle farming is a matter for the experts and not so much a matter for politicians. Those honourable senators who were in the Senate at the time may remember the day I was sworn in as Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. During the adjournment debate on that day Senator Georges and Senator Keeffe made an attack upon the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and its resolve to engage in turtle farming around the Torres Strait Islands. At the conclusion of their remarks I had to defend the public servants who were attacked and who had no opportunity to reply to that attack.

The history of turtle farming and the whole history of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs is one of the extremely difficult task of fitting into the life style of the white community a population which has its own peculiarities. In fact, the Whitlam Government let them develop their own way of life and their own culture. But these people are to be found mostly in areas where there is no industry and no means of livelihood. Before the Labor Government took office the McMahon Government gave to the Australian National University a grant for the purpose of ascertaining whether turtle farming could be developed into a commercial proposition. That reference was made as a result of some research done by Dr Bustard who was acclaimed as an authority on the breeding of maritime life. He knew his subject. Money was paid from time to time to the research project being carried out by the Australian National University. Dr Bustard established, at considerable expense, that turtles could be raised by means of household farming. They did not have to be raised in the wilds; they could be raised by household farming. At the time when Senator Georges raised this matter previously, they were able to raise turtles from eggs up to some 15 lb by using babies’ plastic baths, kerosene tins and so on. But the research established that they could be raised in household farms.

I think the Australian National University was somewhat influenced by the fact that the Auditor-General had criticised the Government for paying that money to the research project being carried out by the Australian National University and that no one kept a tab on how the money was being spent. It was thought that there may have been a lot of waste of that money when there was no check on whether the money was being used for the purpose for which it was granted to the University. The University decided that Dr Bustard had developed the project to the stage where it was no longer considered to be research work. He established that turtles could be raised in household farms and therefore the University was no longer interested in the project. However the departmental officers felt that if there was a market for turtle meat or any produce from the turtles it would provide the basis of a livelihood for the Torres Strait Islanders who had no other possibility of obtaining useful employment. It was felt that it would provide some means of livelihood for them rather than their receiving dole money.

So, with all the possibility of risk, Applied Ecology Pty Ltd was set up with Dr Bustard as its chairman. Whether or not it was viable, it was shown by Mariculture, a British firm operating in the Caribbean, that there was a big world-wide demand for turtle steaks. They were a luxury throughout Europe. There was a demand for turtle oil, turtle soup and turtle shells for making buttons and so on. The older members of the Senate will remember- Senator Douglas McClelland will remember well- that Senator Scott was dismissed as Minister for Customs and Excise for hiding the fact that a Mr Hoffman had issued a release in relation to the importation into Australia of turtle skins. He could do nothing but he was dismissed for it. The dismissal had to be withdrawn under threat of disclosure of the fact that Hoffman’s wife was working for the Australian Government and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation as a spy in the Japanese Embassy. Therefore the dismissal notice had to be withdrawn and he was permitted to resign. That was over the issue of the importation into Australia of turtle skins. The skins were used for making ladies handbags and so on. There is a world-wide market for turtle products if we can produce them. Applied Ecology, under Dr Bustard, set up a number of farms for the purpose of producing and selling turtles. The then Labor Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Gordon Bryant, was amazed at the cost of the project. In order to stop the wasteful expenditure of money he appointed 2 politicians and a Mr Neill to the board. This was for the purpose of restricting the expenditure on the development of turtle farming when there was no return on the investment. I think the 3 men Mr Bryant appointed to the board did a good job. It was found that Dr Bustard- who I still claim was an authority on the subject of turtle farmingwas living in luxury and going twice a year to Europe or to England to attend conferences on turtle farming or something else. This new board reined in the expenditure to some degree.

But the Whitlam Government, before my time as the responsible Minister, was not satisfied that the project could succeed in the Torres Strait Islands. It thought that it was a matter for the experts to determine. So it appointed Professor Carr and Professor Mayne, one of whom was from a university in America, and a Mr Smart, an accountant from Melbourne, to inquire into this venture and to see whether it could become successful.

The report, which has been discussed here, showed that there was a market for turtle products and that we could farm raise turtles. But the preservationists around the world- I do not know whether you had any influence on this, Mr Acting Deputy President- decided that we would destroy the wild turtles. Legislation was brought in both in France and in the United States preventing the importation of wild turtle meat.

The system of breeding turtles was that when the turtle came to the beach, laid her eggs and covered them with sand the natives fenced them off and when the eggs hatched they captured the young turtles and put them in tanks to allow them to develop. At the time there was an argument. It was said that the natives should save more turtles. One of the conditions of the project was that they had to release so many turtles to the wild, but they were releasing to the wild many young turtles which would not be able to survive. Nevertheless the conservationists around the world decided that we were robbing the sea of wildlife and therefore sought the introduction of legislation to prohibit the importation of turtle products. I think Senator Murphy placed restrictions on the export of turtle products for the same reason. Mayne and Carr found that if we had to rely on overseas markets for the sale of our turtle products we would have to breed the turtles ourselves; that is, we should not thieve the eggs of the turtles that came from the sea to lay eggs in the sand, for the purpose of growing turtles to a marketable stage.

Senator Georges said that in this project the turtles were eating each other’s flippers and devouring each other because of their close confinement. The water in the tanks had to be changed twice a day. In the primitive stage the natives were running down to the beach with buckets and bringing back buckets of water to refill the tanks every time they emptied them. When we installed pumps to pump water to these tanks the flipper-eating diminished greatly.

We were given an assurance that this would happen with frequent water changes and with clearer water. Carr and Mayne also found out that, whereas we were feeding turtles on minced sardines which had been caught from fishing boats, fish is the diet for only young turtles and in the main adult turtles live on seaweed. Therefore if we wanted to have turtle farming we had to create a chain a mile long in the sea, fenced off, so that we could cultivate the type of seaweed that turtles live on in their adult life. The imprisoned turtles would lay their eggs on the beach and we could take their eggs without touching the wild turtles at all. We could raise the young turtles up to the age of IS months, when we had to let them loose in the natural sea in the fenced off area where they would feed upon the seaweed which had been cultivated. The turtles would reproduce and, as I said, we had an assured market for them.

Some months after the Mayne-Carr report came out I toured the islands. The report said that a committee of scientists had to be established. It was a scientific venture. It was not a matter for laymen. The report suggested that there should be one man from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and one with a commercial interest. I forget who was appointed to the board then, but they were appointed at the time of the implementation of the Carr-Mayne report. There was no longer any place for Senator Georges, Mr Thorburn or Mr Neill because they did not have the qualifications. There were 3 scientists, I believe, Mr Smart and someone from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs.

Senator Georges:

– How are they doing?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I will tell honourable senators how they are doing. Some 10 months later I toured the Torres Strait Islands and, much to my surprise, I found that there had never been any attempt to build the chain which the Department of Construction said could be built to enable them to breed their own turtles. The excuse given was that there was an arrangement with Mariculture which was prepared to buy 15- month-old turtles which was a better commercial proposition than if they raised them to adulthood.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Who are they ‘-the Islanders?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– Applied Ecology. But it was still necessary, as we pointed out, for Applied Ecology to raise young turtles to lay their own eggs, not to thieve eggs from wild turtles. This was under discussion at that time. From Senator Georges’ utterances tonight it is obvious that what is wrong with the turtle farming is that Applied Ecology has not yet implemented the Carr-Mayne report.

Senator Georges:

– It would cost millions of dollars to build that sea wall.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-Of course it would cost millions. When I visited the Islands I did see that some of the Islands had fishing walls which the islanders used to operate. The tide came in, and when the tide went out the fish were left stranded. That was an easy method they used to catch fish. Although the Department of Construction gave a quote and it was expensive, it would create an occupation for Torres Strait Islanders if it was feasible. The only way in which the project could be feasible is for Applied Ecology to breed its own young turtles. There is a market for turtle products. There is a good commercial market for them. We have not yet solved the problem of how to breed turtles without thieving eggs from wild turtles. In 1973 it was reported that it would cost $1.5m to establish the wall to imprison the sea turtles. The report has not been implemented. The Labor Government established an expert committee that brought down a report. It looks as though I was the only one interested in acting on the report of the experts. Unless one is prepared to do this one cannot sell turtle meat on the world market at present.

There have been a lot of mistakes in this area. On the day I was appointed Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, as I said, there were attacks upon the Public Service. I somewhat suspected this tonight when there was reference that Ministers for Aboriginal Affairs have come and gone with great frequency but the head of the Department is still there.

Senator Georges:

– That is true, is it not?

Senator CAVANAGH:

-Yes, too true and I think it is so for logical reasons. The head of the Department has more sincerity, honesty and more knowledge of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, is more dedicated and hard working than any Minister for Aboriginal Affairs we have had. When Aborigines anywhere do not receive all they want it is easy to blame the head of the Department because he is their contact. Having worked as Minister in 3 departments with 3 different heads I would not value their capabilities one against the other but I would say that there is no one in the department with more honesty, sincerity or dedication than Barrie Dexter. He works night and day. He never stops. When he is on a light aircraft, a hovercraft, a helicopter over the Torres Strait Islands, he is writing or doing something towards his occupation. His success is perhaps not always as spectacular as that in some other departments. He has a difficult department. In my time as Minister for Aboriginal Affairs it needed the exertion of the Minister to get the recommendations of the experts adopted because Applied Ecology then was not adopting them and apparently is not adopting them now.

I agree with Senator Georges that if you cannot afford or if you will not build a chain for the purpose of breeding your own turtles you are only wasting money trying to raise turtles under the cruel conditions in which they are raised now. Whether turtle farming is worth the expenditure necessary we must remember the livelihood and the incentive of deprived people who have nothing else to turn to in a remote area where they can do nothing unless they are given some incentive. If this cannot be provided, if turtle farming is not successful- no one can say that it is not successful until the recipe of the experts is tried- we must find an alternative to turtle farming in those depressed areas. Whatever it costs we cannot deprive these people of the incentives and livelihood there today; we must look around for somewhere that it can pay. I would not give turtle farming away. I would give it to a band of experts with a determined Minister who would see that the reports of the experts were implemented.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– In rising to speak to Appropriation Bills (No. 1) and (No. 2) I should like to remark that the debate on these Bills this year is a complete reverse from the debates we had on similar Bills at this time last year. Last year the coalition senators took the opportunity to use the Appropriation Bills as a vehicle to attack the Whitlam Government policy but because of the risk of some of their colleagues defecting they refused to vote on those Bills. Tonight we have the complete reverse. We find that not one member of the coalition Government has had the courage to get up and to speak to the Bills- not one of them as yet. Why is it? Are they afraid or do they not have the fortitude to defend the contents of these Bills because they know that the public at large is disgusted with this Budget which has been brought forward with all the drastic cutbacks in many areas of need in Australia? That apparently is the reason why honourable senators opposite have so far refused to rise in their places in this debate and to take part.

Mr President, I was listening in my room to Senator Walsh when he was speaking. I was surprised to hear you on 2 occasions object to some of the remarks made by Senator Walsh when he referred to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). Some of his remarks related to the actions of the Prime Minister when he set about destroying Mr Snedden and, when successful, his backdoor methods of collusion with the Governor-General and the Chief Justice to destroy the Whitlam Government. I want to remind the Senate, and particularly you, Mr President, of what is contained on page 1221 of the Senate Hansard of 16 October last year. An amendment was moved to the Appropriation Bills of the then Whitlam Government.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Who moved it?

Senator McLAREN:

- Senator Cotton moved this amendment and a similar amendment was moved to a Loan Bill by the then Leader of the Opposition, Senator Withers. I want to remind the Senate of the words contained in that amendment because they have a great bearing on what Senator Walsh was talking about tonight. The language which he used in my opinion was nowhere near as strong or as abusive as the language used in this amendment which you, Mr President, as a member of the then Opposition voted for in this chamber. No member of the then Opposition and present Government coalition took offence at those words. You had plenty of time to consider them. They were not put in this chamber on the spur of the moment; they were debated in the Liberal and National Country Party coalition rooms and the decision was made to come in here to put the amendment in writing. I have it here in writing. It was tabled and it was read into Hansard. I wish to quote those words. The amendment proposed to our Bills reads:

Leave out all words after ‘That’, insert:

This Bill be not further proceeded with until the Government agrees to submit itself to the judgment of the people, the Senate being of the opinion that the Prime Minister and his Government no longer have the trust and confidence of the Australian people because of-

the continuing incompetence, evasion, deceit and duplicity of the Prime Minister and his Ministers-

What stronger words could be used in this chamber? Yet when members of this side use words which in my opinion are nowhere near as harsh they are upbraided.

Senator Cavanagh:

– But Mr President was not in the Chair then or he would have ruled it out.

Senator McLAREN:

– I hope he would have but, as I pointed out, Mr President must have been party to the drawing up of this amendment and when the vote was.taken on it he supported it. So he agreed with those words on that occasion.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I must advise honourable senators that I regard standing order 418 as a very basic standing order to ensure free flowing debate. If standing order 4 1 8 is observed then it is within the ability of all honourable senators to make their points on policy but not in contravention of that standing order.

Senator McLAREN:

- Mr President, I am at a bit of a loss to comprehend your remarks in view of the fact that this was Opposition policy last year, at this time nearly one year ago.

Senator Cavanagh:

– And you are claiming it was in breach of standing order 418.

Senator McLAREN:

– I am claiming it was in breach of standing order 418. If it is now in breach of that standing order, of course it was in breach of it 12 months ago. Yet we find that the supporters of the present Government brought that amendment in here to use it as a vehicle to discredit the Whitlam Government and to bring about its demise and its sacking by methods to which Senator Walsh was endeavouring to refer tonight. Of course he had to cut short his remarks. I wish to quote the pertinent parts of the remainder of the amendment. Clause (b) of the amendment was in these terms: the Prime Minister’s failure to maintain proper control over the activities of his Ministers and Government to the detriment of the Australian nation and people;

Senator Chaney:

– Case proven.

Senator McLAREN:

-It may well be that the case will be proven but not in that particular way. I have been a poultry farmer and I am well aware that chickens have a great habit of coming home to roost. Those very words may come home to roost on this Government before many months hence. Honourable senators opposite may regret that they ever had those words inserted in an amendment in an endeavour to bring about the defeat of the Whitlam Government. Those very words may well have the effect of bringing about the defeat of their own Government in the not too distant future. Clause (c) of the amendment reads: the continuing mismanagement of the Australian economy by the Prime Minister and this Government with policies which have caused a lack of confidence in this nation’s potential and created inflation and unemployment not experienced for 40 years.

That clause, like the proverbial chicken, may also come home to roost on the present Government. The very things that it had written into that amendment are now proving to be a very great embarrassment to the Australian community.

I refer again to the words ‘lack of confidence in this nation’s potential and inflation and unemployment not experienced in 40 years’. As I have pointed out so often since that amendment was introduced, that was a deliberate untruth. I have incorporated in Hansard on more than one occasion a schedule showing the rate of inflation back to 1949. That schedule shows that in 1951 under the Menzies Liberal Government the inflation rate was 25.5 per cent. It never reached anywhere near that mark under Labor. Yet honourable senators opposite had the hide to incorporate those words in their amendment. They had the cheek to go out on the hustings and fool some of the people who did not know any better into believing that the inflation rate of about 16 per cent was the highest inflation rate for 40 years. Of course it was not, and honourable senators opposite cannot prove that it was. They fooled the people but they cannot fool them all the time.

Let us look at the unemployment figures. I incorporated in Hansard, I think during the last sitting week in my speech on the Budget, a table which showed the unemployment figures. There is conclusive proof there that the unemployment rate is rising regularly each month under this Government. I wish to refer now to some of the statements made by the present Prime Minister when he made his economic statement on Thursday, 27 November. I wish to quote him so that I shall get his words correct. He said:

For three years the Australian economy has suffered the shocks of rapid and unpredictable change. Australia now faces an economic crisis of very serious dimensions . . . This means that the community must steel itself to withstand … a level of unemployment in January in excess of 400 000 when more Australians will be out of work than at any time since the Great Depression.

That is another misleading statement to the community of this nation.

Let us have another look at this table and see under which government Australians are out of work. They were not out of work under Labor because, as I pointed out, if we make a comparison between each month that this Government has been in office and the corresponding months of 1 975, we find that there is a great escalation in the unemployment figures. So there again we find a government now in office that got into power by misleading the electors. A little further on in the Prime Minister’s speech we find that he uttered these words: a continuing drift in the rate of consumer spending reflecting the badly weakened state of consumer and business confidence.

I think everybody agrees- the economists writing in the newspapers today agree- that the economy is not as sound now as it was when we were in government It is nowhere near as sound. I shall prove that in my later remarks. The Prime Minister went on to say:

Economic stability will not be easily gained.

We knew that it would not be easily gained when we were in government because we were faced with an economy that was set in train by the previous McMahon Budget and we had to cope with that.

That did not daunt us. We set out to carry out the policy on which we were elected in 1 972, and that was to bring justice to the needy people of this community. Our first priority was for the unfortunate people who, in most cases through no fault of their own, had a very low standard of living. Many of those people were the lower paid sections of the community, and in particular pensioners. As I said here just a fortnight ago, this Government had the hide to stand up during the debate on the Social Services Amendment Bill and claim all the credit for bringing in a twiceyearly increase for pensioners. This was not so. The Whitlam Government did that. We were not daunted by the problem with which we were faced. We were not going to cut expenditure and keep the needy people on the breadline. Of course we were not. We set about to distribute the wealth of this nation from the very wealthy to the very needy and the very poor. It is unfortunate that those people, at the height of anxiety that was abroad because of the way our Government went out of office and the emotion that was generated, voted the Labor Government out of office. If honourable members opposite were to talk to many of them now and if those people had their opportunity again now, it would be a different tune.

Although the people who sit opposite now gave us only 17 months to prove ourselves as a government, they claim daily in this place that they have to have at least 3 years. It would be very interesting to see whether they would be prepared to face the people again after they have been in office for 1 7 months to see what the result would be. Of course they would not be prepared to do so. I challenge honourable senators opposite to go to the people again now just 17 months from the date of their election, in the way they forced the Whitlam Government to go to the people, to see what the result would be.

Senator Sibraa:

– It would be like the result in the New South Wales State election.

Senator McLAREN:

– As my colleague points out, the New South Wales State election was a clear and classic example of the way the people feel. We will get another classic example when the people go to the polls in Western Australia next year. Some talk was started in this place today by a Dorothy Dix question which backfired. Senator Webster did not have his notes in front of him and he could not answer off the cuff. It was a question on expenditure in Tasmania. Apparently the Liberals have told the people in Tasmania about all the money they are going to spend on a base in Hobart. Senator Withers admitted he had been down there with Senator Webster looking at land. They were talking about spending this money to bolster the economy. The question was posed jointly to the 2 Ministers and when Senator Withers got up he apparently evaded it all right but Senator Webster put his foot right in it. He had to admit that no land had been purchased. I suppose it was very embarrassing to Senator Webster to have Senator Rae lean over and really give him a blast for not giving him the right answer. I will be very interested to see, as will my Tasmanian colleagues, how that Dorothy Dixer is going to fare in the Mercury tomorrow when it is proven that the Tasmanian Premier was right in what he was saying and the 2 Government members who went down there to try to bolster the stocks of the Liberal Party have been wrong.

All along the line when we analyse the supplementary policy statement of the Prime Minister which was headed ‘The Economy’, and when we go right through it word by word, we find that practically everything he said he was going to do or promised he would do he has reneged on. Of course that is nothing new. The Prime Minister went on to say:

We will begin the task of economic management with clearly defined goals . . .

Every wage earner in this country knows just what those clearly defined goals are. Every time the trade unions put a case before the Arbitration Commission and prove they are entitled to an increase in their wages, what happens? This Government opposes the increase and pleads a case for granting only half the increase in the consumer price index. The Government is not giving justice to the workers. That is what the Prime Minister had in mind when he said:

We will begin the task of economic management with clearly defined goals …

Let us cast our minds back to the time before we went out of government. I alerted this Parliament to what this Prime Minister was going to do after he deposed Mr Snedden and became the

Leader of the Opposition. It is all recorded in Hansard because I relayed the whole lot of it, word for word, 1 1 months to the day after it was discussed. Every jolly thing that I told this Senate- and it was doubted by some people- has now come true except that the Government has not really finalised what Mr Fraser said he was going to do, that is, to take on the unions in the courts. Everything else has transpired- the refusal of Supply, the defeat of the Whitlam Government and the appointment of Mr Street as the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I told honourable senators all that in this chamber. It is recorded in the Senate Hansard of 30 September 1975-11 months to the day after the discussions took place in this Parliament. That is the intrigue that went on to get rid of the Whitlam Government. Perhaps the new senators might care to pick up the Hansard and read some of the statements made by Mr Fraser. They will see the denial that he was going to get Mr Snedden and the statement that he would back Mr Snedden all the way. Yet just a few days later he upended Mr Snedden, got rid of him. Those words are in the Press statements put out by Mr Fraser ‘s own office about what he would and would not do. Yet we find that since then events have taken the opposite turn.

Now we have a government led by Mr Fraser going out to the people and asking them to trust it. Honourable senators opposite want to go out and talk to some ofthe people now and see how much they trust this Government. The Government claims it is going to look after the needy. We recall the Government coming into this chamber not so many months ago with a Bill to take away the funeral benefit from pensioners- a miserable $40. If it had not been for the fact that some honourable senators opposite got cold feet that Bill would have been passed. They knew that if they supported that measure they would not return here after next half Senate election. They crossed the floor and defeated that measure. Of course those same honourable senators, except for two of them who are not here now because they got the chopper when they sought endorsement, would have done the same thing with regard to the Appropriation Bills at this time last year had the then Opposition been prepared to let those Bills go to the vote.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– How do you mean: ‘They got the chopper*?

Senator McLAREN:

– One can look at what happened to the 2 Tasmanian senators. I suppose I should refer to what was said by former Senator Marriott who was a great friend of mine. Even though he was a Liberal I had a lot of time for John Marriott. After I enlightened the Senate on what Mr Fraser was going to do when he took over as Leader of the Opposition, former Senator Marriott rose at 10.40 p.m. that night and said:

Seldom in 23 years have I delayed the Senate on an adjournment motion and less seldom have I stayed to listen. I certainly would not have put my name down to speak tonight if I had known that I had to suffer such stupidities and nonsense.

I think he was referring to what I had told the Senate.

Senator Chaney:

– Hear, hear!

Senator McLAREN:

- Senator Chaney can say Hear, hear’, but what I have said has been proved to be correct; it has all come true. Then former Senator Marriott said:

But I believe in the principle of fair play.

I wonder what would be the reply if one asked him now about the principles of fair play and how he got shoved right off the ticket in Tasmania and how former Senator Bessell lost his place on the ticket. They were two of the senators who, it was rumoured around this Parliament House, would not vote for the refusal of those Appropriation Bills. It is well known that that is why the present Government was not prepared to let democracy prevail and put those Bills to a vote. Honourable senators opposite dickered about in this chamber week after week until they set up the coup d’etat which brought about the defeat of the Whitiam Government. Many words have been written about that, and many more words will be written about it. I am sure that when history is written and when some of our children or grandchildren read it they will look with dismay at the actions of the then LiberalCountry Party coalition and the methods it used to get back into government. When one talks to some honourable senators opposite now confidentially they will say that perhaps they were a bit hasty; that with the way things are going in the economy, perhaps they should have waited for another year or two and then they might have got back into office by legitimate means.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Who are these people?

Senator McLAREN:

-I will not tell the honourable senator who those people are because they might receive the same treatment as the honourable senator’s hierarchy meted out to former Senator Bessell and former Senator Marriott, and I would not want them to suffer that same fate. They will probably speak up for themselves when the time comes. Already there are plenty of rumblings among the back benchers of the present Government. Let us have a look at what Mr Fraser had to say in his statement on the economy prior to the last election. Under the heading ‘The Strategy for Recovery’ and the sub-heading ‘The First Six Months’, he said:

  1. . three principal objectives will be pursued; the generation of an immediate lift in confidence, investment spending and job opportunities.

We are not getting the investment spending, and we certainly are not getting the job opportunities because if people like to read Hansard they will see in the statistical schedule that I obtained from the Parliamentary Library that job opportunities are getting fewer and fewer every week under this Government.

Senator Chaney:

– Your job opportunity is getting very remote.

Senator McLAREN:

– My job opportunities have always been very good because I have been prepared to work, and to work at any job possible to earn a living. I have never shirked it. I have lost a lot of sweat and tears earning a big fat cheque for some of the big wealthy wool growers of this country. When I shore their sheep for 35 bob a hundred I sweated my life away. We never got a thing out of those wool growers unless we put pressure on all the time. Nothing was volunteered. So do not talk to me about my job opportunity.

In his statement Mr Fraser went on to say:

The elimination of extravagance, waste . . .

There was a report in the Press recently that the present Prime Minister could be the most extravagant Prime Minister that this country has ever known. Members of the Government already have had countless overseas trips. He is the one who said that he would cut out all the overseas trips. He criticised Whitlam. But the big difference is that when Whitlam went on overseas trips he hired a flagship of the Australian airline, a Qantas aircraft, and everybody went with him. All the departmental people and the members of the Press went on that aircraft and that was all charged under the one line- the Prime Minister’s expenses for overseas trips. What do we find now? When the present Prime Minister goes overseas the cost is split up among the various departments. So one finds it very difficult to get the total cost. If he takes somebody from the Department of Foreign Affairs with him the charge is debited against the Department of Foreign Affairs. If he takes somebody from the Department of Overseas Trade with him, the charge for that person’s expenses is debited against the Department of Overseas Trade. One cannot ferret it out. One cannot get the total cost. At least during the period of the Whitlam Government we were honest. Whatever it cost for the Prime Minister to go overseas was all there in the total cost. We will ferret out what it costs the present Prime Minister on his overseas trips. We will get it by a series of elimination, make no mistake, and the chickens will come home to roost.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– What about the 200 bottles of champagne?

Senator McLAREN:

– That is another thing, Senator Cormack. It is a very good thing that he mentioned the champagne because Mr Fraser was very vocal about some refreshments that he found in the garage at the Lodge when he took over. But he did not go on to say that the previous Prime Minister had put the champagne there at his own expense in order to give a Christmas party for all the people who work in Parliament House. That was put there at his own expense, not at the taxpayers’ expense. But there was no Christmas party for the workers in Parliament House last year, and it will be very interesting to see whether the present Prime Minister will invite the members of the staff of Parliament House to the Lodge this year and let them have some tea and bickies off that dinner set that he bought at a cost of $8,000 to the Australian taxpayers. It will be interesting to see whether the working people of this community are invited to the Lodge to share with the present Prime Minister the goodies of the Lodge, just as they were invited over there by the previous Prime Minister.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– They will have to take their own.

Senator McLAREN:

-There is the old story about some barbecues. People are told that tea and sandwiches will be provided, but at the end of the invitation there is a little thing which says ‘BYOG’. I used to wonder what it meant. Senator Douglas McClelland has reminded me that that is probably what will happen at the Lodgepeople will be told: ‘Bring your own grog’. I point out to Senator Cormack that that question about the champagne is something which I will pursue during the Estimates debate because I was given an incorrect answer when I pursued the question previously to see what the champagne cost.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Who paid $35 a bottle down in Melbourne?

Senator McLAREN:

– There is a report about $35 being paid for a bottle of champagne in Melbournenot by a Labor Minister but by somebody appointed by a Labor Prime Minister. Now

I come to the part of the Prime Minister’s statement headed ‘The Investment Revival’. Under this heading he said:

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

Debate interrupted-

page 1497

ADJOURNMENT

Pensions- Education: Tertiary Allowances

The PRESIDENT:

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

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I draw the attention of Senator Guilfoyle, the Minister for Social Security and the Minister representing the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt), to the manifestation of certain anomalies or weaknesses in our pension portability scheme. I think, in the light of the oratory of Senator McLaren, I should point out that this scheme was one of the innovations of the previous Labor Government. The honourable W. Hayden and subsequently the illustrious Senator John Wheeldon piloted this scheme into reality. The difficulties which I wish to ventilate tonight can be illustrated by the case of an invalid pensioner, an Australian citizen of Yugoslav origin, who returned to the country of his birth. He is receiving his pension cheques quite satisfactorily. His wife was entitled to an assistance allowance while she was here. I gave the name of the recipient of the pension to Mr Hunt’s staff, on request, to prove the bona fides of the case. The Australian Government provides the actual invalid pension. The Yugoslav Government’s national health scheme coven this man and his children, but that Government has rightly raised the question about his wife. It has asked whether, if she had any national health coverage, there could be a reciprocal agreement.

As I understand the position, the decision would apply in future pension portability cases. Do overseas governments recognise the Hospital Contributions Fund of Australia, the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Ltd or their equivalents in the overall coverage? I emphasise this point because I think it is important. There was some speculation as to whether there would be difficulties by bureaucrats the world over when people who had acquired Australian citizenship returned to the country of their birth. I think it is to the credit of the Yugoslav Government I think this applies to most governments in Europe- that it is taking in its health coverage the person who came back from Australia. This man gave the best years of his life in heavy industry. I think he was a Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority casualty. He has a serious back ailment. The Government is covering the invalid pensioner and his children under its national health scheme. It asks whether his wife was covered by a national health scheme in the country which provides a pension portability.

It would be impossible at long range to be specific on what should be done. I think Senator Guilfoyle would agree that these matters should be discussed on a government to government basis. I know that each time I have been in eastern Europe- the last time with Senator Davidson and other people- representatives of government and various enterprises spoke to us on matters that they felt should be removed or adjusted. While I am talking tonight about a Yugoslav, I know from dealings with the Greek community and the Italian community that they have had a few minor matters. This one could be a pacesetter. The decision could apply not only to the case in question but also in future if somebody returns to his homeland with a pension portability coverage. What happens to his wife? Will she get coverage? If she is a Medibank client, a HCF client or an MBF client, what will be the position? I simply leave those facts with the Minister. Hopefully we can set in train some adjustment that will give blanket coverage both ways.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

– All honourable senators know that people who receive allowances or pensions from the Government quite often are entirely dependant upon those allowances or pensions. When a cheque does not arrive for such a person it often means that he has severe financial embarrassment. Recently this happened in Queensland with regard to Tertiary Education Allowance Scheme payments. I am not aware of the full extent of the occurrence, but I think it is sufficiently important to bring it before the chamber and sufficiently important for me to ask the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) some questions about this occurrence. Some of the students informed me that this happened in Queensland with regard to their TEAS payments for October. The cheques did not arrive. When the cheques did not arrive the students naturally made some inquiries. They told me that when they inquired they were informed that the allowances had not arrived because of a blunder in the Education Department office in Brisbane. They asked me to look into the matter on their behalf. I did so.

I was in contact with the Education Department in Brisbane and was informed of 2 basic things. The first was that the allowances did not go to some students in October because of a mistake in that office. The officer who spoke to me did not elaborate. I did not ask him any further questions about the mistake. He also told me that to his knowledge the allowances had gone out after the mistake had been discovered. This did not agree with the information which had been given to me by some of the students. So I asked him further whether this was correct. He checked and said that they had not gone out but that they would most likely go out on Monday or Tuesday of this week. I presume that by now the allowances have gone out. I hope that they have. There is no need really to point out the distress that this can cause if it happens not only to students but to people in receipt of other benefits as well.

Most of us know that at this time of the year students either are engaged heavily in studying for examinations or are actually doing examinations. For a student to find that his allowance has not arrived increases the anxiety at a time when one would hope that he would not have such pressures on him. I am informed that some students were obliged to go into debt because they were left bereft of funds. I am inclined to think- I hope I am incorrect- that those who were responsible for the mistake were not aware of the distress that could have been generated to students, especially at this time of year. Therefore I ask the Minister certain questions with regard to this occurrence. The first one is this: What were the details surrounding the nonarrival of the cheques to the TEAS recipients in Brisbane? Why was it that once the error was noticed, well before the end of October, the students had to wait until this month for thencheques to be forwarded? Additionally my information suggests that it was necessary to wait for a computer run and the cheques had to be programmed into a possible run in future. If this is so, why could not a manual system of preparing and forwarding the cheques have been adopted, especially under circumstances in which students were in need of these funds? Finally, what steps have been taken to ensure that needy students are not kept waiting for their allowances in future?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I thank Senator Mulvihill for raising the matter which he did. As he stated, portability of pensions has existed since 1973. I think it is important that we clarify the matter of portability of benefits which relate to

Medibank. The Health Insurance Act makes provision for payment of medical and hospital payments during the temporary absense overseas of an Australian resident. In this case the medical benefits are the same as if the person had incurred the expenses in New South Wales. The standard hospital benefit of $16 a day would also be payable under Medibank arrangements. The Act also provides, under section 7, for entering into agreements with other countries in respect of visitors for the purpose of the provision of medical, hospital and other care. No agreements have been made and it is not expected that any will be made for some time.

Based on information provided by Senator Mulvihill, it would appear that in this case the wife of the pensioner concerned has taken out permanent residence in Yugoslavia. In this circumstance Medibank benefits cannot be made available under the current legislation. At this point there is no proposal for the portability of Medibank benefits to other countries where a person has taken up permanent residence. However I will draw the attention of the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) to the matter raised by Senator Mulvihill.

Senator Mulvihill:

– It is the question of reciprocal agreements that I am probing, as the Minister would know.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

-I realise that Senator Mulvihill is opening up the general question of reciprocal agreements with regard to Medibank benefits. 1 will draw that matter to the attention of the Minister for Health. But, as I have stated, under the current legislation there is no provision for the portability of benefits; there is provision for those who are temporarily absent overseas.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I refer to the remarks made by Senator Colston in relation to some alleged delays in sending cheques for tertiary allowances in Queensland. I should point out that until Senator Colston raised this matter tonight of course I had no knowledge of any such alleged incident. It is a pity that when these incidents occur the names of the persons concerned are not given to me or my Department immediately, because only if we can identify the persons can we in fact deal with the situation. I do not seek in any way to defend mistakes if mistakes are made. I would eagerly want to ensure, if they have been made, that we rectify them quickly and obviate them for the future. I will look into the question tomorrow and see what information I can gather.

Of course, the honourable senator has not mentioned specific cases. If it so happens that he has in his possession the names of any students involved, giving them to me or my Department would aid us enormously in this business. I just make the general comment to honourable senators that when these things occur a quick message to me or my staff could set in train investigations which could hurry up payments if payments have been delayed. Therefore, in the generality of things I can only comment that if this has occurred I very much regret it. In the course of this year there has been a remarkable speeding up of payments. There had been in the past, for a variety of reasons, a quite bad track record. This has been improved upon. There is no excuse if there is failure now. I will look at the matter raised.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.43 p.m.

page 1500

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Subscriber Trunk Dialing (Question No. 865)

Senator Colston:

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

Is the Minister aware that the Subscriber Trunk Dialing system now being introduced into New Zealand will register individual calls and allow them to be shown as a separate item on the subscriber’s account. If so, (a) why has it not been possible to introduce a similar system into Australia to date and, (b) are there any plans to introduce the system into Australia.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

Yes. (a) and (b) To introduce an Automatic Message Accounting system into the Australian telephone network would require the installation of new equipment, together with the modification of existing equipment, in every telephone exchange. Such a program would cost many millions of dollars and, if undertaken, would necessarily have to be done on a progressive basis over a number of years. STD has been available to Australian subscribers for over15 years and records show a very high level of acceptance of STD with multi-metering. Having regard to this and the cost of introducing Automatic Message Accounting, the Commission does not consider that a nigh priority can be given to this work.

Of interest, perhaps, are proposals in relation to International Subscriber Dialing. Because many overseas calls are over longer distances and can involve relatively higher costs, ISD is being restricted at this stage to those subscribers who request the facility knowing that the charging will be on the basis of multi-metering. However, with the high growth rate of international traffic, longer term economics and customer convenience both require the wide-spread availability and acceptance of ISD. Accordingly, a program of equipment installations and modifications to enable automatic message accounting for international calls only has been planned and the first such facility will be available in 1978. It will.be extended over the following5 years. The scope and cost of such a program is much less than would be required in relation to Automatic Message Accounting on calls within Australia, which is a longer term program under study in Telecom.

Portraits of Her Majesty the Queen (Question No. 871)

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What was the cost of removing the portraits of Her Majesty the Queen from Government Offices and buildings and replacing them with photographs of the then Prime Minister, the HonourableE. G. Whitlam.
  2. What was the cost associated with having the photographs taken and framed of Mr Whitlam.
  3. What was the cost of removing Mr Whitlam ‘s portrait from Government Offices and buildings and replacing the portraits of Her Majesty the Queen.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and ( 3 ) I am advised that portraits of Her Majesty the Queen were not removed from Government buildings when portraits of Mr Whitlam were displayed.
  2. The cost to the former Department of Services and Property was $347.00.

Australia Post Mailing Lists : Paid Advertisements (Question No. 872)

Senator Colston:

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

  1. 1 ) Is Australia Post currently considering or, in the past twelve months, considered any proposals to assist advertisers to be placed on any of its mailing lists, excluding the mailing list for Stamp Preview.
  2. If any such proposals were or are being considered, what are the details.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) The only Australia Post mailing list for which paid advertisements are accepted is the Stamp Preview list. No other list is suitable for the inclusion of advertisements.

Unemployment and Sickness Benefits (Question No. 913)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What estimates can be made of amounts saved in unemployment and sickness benefits (a) following the tightening of the work test in January 1976 until the the end of the 1975-76 financial year; (b) following the instruction to refuse benefits to school leavers until the beginning of the 1977 school year for the 1976-77 financial year; and (c) following the instruction to deny benefits to persons voluntarily leaving employment until they have been registered as unemployed for six weeks for the 1 976-77 financial year.
  2. How many persons registered for unemployment and not receiving benefit were in category 1 (c) on 30 June 1 976.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Because insufficient data is available, it is not possible to estimate what additional amounts of unemployment benefit may have been paid, or claims for the benefit made, if the instructions in parts ( a ), ( b ) and ( c) of the question had not been applied.
  2. Because insufficient data is available, it is not possible to estimate the number of persons voluntarily unemployed and not receiving unemployment benefit on 30 June 1976.

Bicentennial Radio Weekend (Question No. 927)

Senator Colston:

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

With reference to the Minister’s reply to Senate Question No. 747 which appeared in the Senate Hansard dated 17 August 1976, have final costs for the landline and satellite link rentals outlined in the answer been determined. If so, what are the costs involved.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

Final cost details for the landline and satellite links used for the Bicentennial radio weekend are not yet available. The information in respect of the satellite link and the American landline is determined in the United States of America and our requests for the details have not yet been satisfied.

Statutory Authorities under Control of Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Question No. 952)

Senator Wriedt:

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

  1. 1 ) Which statutory authorities come under the control of the Minister.
  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 following information is provided in answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Statutory authorities whose legislation comes under the control of the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs are:

Industries Assistance Commission; Temporary Assistance Authority; Prices Justification Tribunal; Trade Practices Commission; Board of Examiners of Patent Attorneys; Companies Auditors Board.

(2)

Northern Territory: Statutory Authorities (Question No. 956)

Senator Wriedt:

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

  1. Which statutory authorities come under the control of the Minister.
  2. What is the name, occupation, date and term of appointment, and remuneration of each holder of public office of each authority.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Whilst various statutory bodies have been established under Northern Territory legislation, the only such body established under Commonwealth legislation is the Darwin Reconstruction Commission.
  2. The members of the Darwin Reconstruction Commission and the information requested relevant to their appointment is as follows:

Statutory Authorities under Control of Minister for the Capital Territory (Question No. 961)

Senator Wriedt:

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

  1. Which statutory authorities come under the control of the Minister.
  2. What is the name, occupation, date and term of appointment, and remuneration of each holder of public office of each authority.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) The following statutory authorities are constituted by Acts or Ordinances administered by the Minister for the Capital Territory:

A.C.T. Architects Board

A.C.T. Electricity Authority

A.C.T. Fire Brigade

A.C.T. Legislative Assembly

A.C.T. Milk Authority

A.C.T. Police

A.C.T. Totalizator Agency Board

Agents Board of the A.C.T.

Building Review Committee

Building Standards Committee

Bush Fire Council

Canberra Commercial Development Authority

Canberra National Memorials Committee

Canberra Public Cemetery Trust

Canberra Retail Market Trust

Canberra Showground Trust

Canberra Theatre Trust

Consumer Affairs Council

Design and Siting Review Committee

Festival Australia Incorporated

Liquor Licensing Board

National Capital Development Commission

National Capital Planning Committee

Poker Machines Licensing Board

Surveyors Board of the A.C.T.

Valuation Review Board

  1. The names, occupations, dates and terms of appointments and remuneration are shown below.

Consumer Complaint and Advice Facilities (Question No. 978)

Senator Coleman:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

  1. 1 ) Did the Minister state in a speech given at a meeting of New South Wales consumer organisations that ‘Consumer advice and complaint facilities are best provided by the States’. If so, what role does the Minister envisage for the Australian Government in this field.
  2. Did the Minister also state at that meeting that ‘I have sent two references to the Commission. These deal with consumer education and a number of matters such as unit pricing, prepackaging and date stamping’. If so, apart from the report on consumer education which is due by the end of October, when are the other reports due and when will they be presented to Parliament.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. The Government believes that consumer complaint and advice facilities can best be provided by State Governments working in conjunction with local government and consumer groups. The Commonwealth will handle all matters which arise in a multi-state, national or international context.
  2. The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs expects that the Report of the Trade Practices Commission relating to packaging and labelling of consumer products should be presented to him either late this year or early next year.

Department of Aboriginal Affairs (Question No. 979)

Senator Coleman:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Is the Prime Minister in a position to advise on the policy in respect of the continuance of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, bearing in mind the recommendation of Professor Charles Rowley to the Royal Commission that it be phased out over 5 to 6 years and a Commission for Aboriginal Development set up to bring Aboriginals into top policy making.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

There are no plans to change the present administrative structure, namely the Department of Aboriginal Affairs.

Unemployment Benefit: Prosecutions (Question No. 1003)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

How many persons were prosecuted for improperly obtaining unemployment benefit in each State of Australia in the periods (a) 1 July 1974 to 30 June 1975 and (b) 1 July 1975 to 30 June 1976.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

Framed Photograph of Mr E. G. Whitlam (Question No. 1012)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

What is the present whereabouts of the official framed photograph of the former Prime Minister, the Honourable E. G. Whitlam, Q.C., M.P., which was hanging in the reception area of the Australian Parliament Offices, 295 Ann Street, Brisbane, prior to 1 1 November 1975.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

In store in Canberra.

Department of the Northern Territory: Journalists (Question No. 1044)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Northern Territory, 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 1 975 were made.
  2. How many journalists were employed in the Department of the Northern Territory, and in commissions and statutory bodies under the Minister’s control, at 1 September 1976.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Five.
  2. Two.

Postal and Telecommunications Department: Journalists (Question No. 1045)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, 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 1975 were made.
  2. How many journalists were employed in the Postal and Telecommunications Department, and in commissions and statutory bodies under the Minister’s control, at 1 September 1976.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Post and Telecommunications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (l)and(2)-_

Commonwealth Record (Question No. 1059)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What are (a) the weekly publishing costs and; (b) the weekly distribution costs ofthe Commonwealth Record.
  2. Who made the decision to have the Commonwealth Record published and why.
  3. Who made the decision to have ten copies circulated to each senator and member, and why.
  4. How many members and senators are requesting extra copies.
Senator Withers:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: 1 (a) and (b) Weekly publishing costs for the Commonwealth Record average $3,540 and weekly distribution costs $1,800. As there is no free list for the publication these costs are recovered in the subscription charged.

  1. The Government decided to publish the Record to ensure that there is a permanent record of statements made outside Parliament by Ministers and Opposition Leaders and that the public has access to these statements.
  2. The Government decided to provide up to ten copies for each member and senator to assist them in conveying authoritative information to organisations and individuals within their electorates.
  3. One request has been received for additional copies but has not been approved.

Cedar Bay Raid: Federal Agents (Question No. 1105)

Senator Colston:

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

With reference to the raid carried out by Queensland State Police and Federal narcotics agents on the community of Cedar Bay in north Queensland on Sunday, 29 August 1 976, (a) on whose instructions were the Federal agents acting, (b) who requested them to take action, (c) how many Federal agents were involved, and what were their respective names and official designations, (d) were any of the agents armed and, if so, were their firearms discharged during the course of the raid, (e) on whose instructions was the vessel Jabiru involved in the action, and what part did it play, and (f) is the Minister satisfied with all aspects of the conduct of the Federal agents involved in the raid.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. and (b) The use of the Customs vessel Jabiru and the allocation of Customs personnel including Narcotics Bureau officers as support for a State Police planned operation in the Cedar Bay/Cape Tribulation area was approved by senior Bureau of Customs officers based in Canberra following a request for support made to the Bureau by a senior officer of the Queensland Police.
  2. Three Narcotics Bureau officers were involved. Their role was to co-ordinate the use of Customs equipment and personnel and if necessary to take appropriate action if breaches of Commonwealth drug laws were detected. In view of the nature of the duties performed by these officers the Minister does not believe it appropriate to provide their names and official designations.

  3. (i) Yes; two ofthe officers carried departmental issue revolvers. They are authorised to carry these weapons for personal protection;

    1. The firearms were not discharged.
  4. The Jabiru was used to convey State Police and Narcotics Bureau officers to the area and to patrol the Cedar Bay area in conjunction with HMAS Bayonet during the landbased operations. Later it was used to convey police and some of their prisoners to Cooktown. The following day it conveyed a party of police officers to Hope Island where an unsuccessful search was made for an escapee from Cairns jail, who had been arrested and charged by Narcotics Bureau officers concerning the importation of a large quantity of cannabis.
  5. Both the Narcotics Bureau and State Police have information suggesting that large scale cannabis cultivation is taking place in the Cedar Bay area and that cannabis is being transported from the area by trawler. In addition the Narcotics Bureau recently received a request from New Zealand authorities for assistance in determining the source of supply and method of transportation for large quantities of cannabis being smuggled from Australia to New Zealand.

The Minister is completely satisfied with the conduct of all Customs personnel involved in the operation.

Cedar Bay Raid: HMAS Bayonet (Question No. 1106)

Senator Colston:

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

With reference to the raid carried out by Queensland State Police and Federal narcotics agents on the community of Cedar Bay in north Queensland on Sunday 29 August 1976, (a) on whose instructions did HMAS Bayonet take part in the raid, (b) who requested the presence of HMAS Bayonet, (c) what was the name and rank of each crew member of HMAS Bayonet at the time of the raid, (d) what part did HMAS Bayonet and the crew play in the raid and (e) were any other officials from the Department of Defence or the armed services involved in the raid; if so, who were they and what pan did they play.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

HMAS Bayonet was not directly involved in the police operations ashore in the vicinity of Cedar Bay on the night of 28-29 August 1976, and at the time in question was operating some distance off shore on sea surveillance activities. Specific answers to the Senator’s questions are as follows:

not applicable;

the presence of HMAS Bayonet in the area was requested by a senior Queensland Police Officer so as to be available to provide assistance in the event of any illegal activity occurring outside State jurisdiction;

HMAS Bayonet was under the command of Lt. B. J. Bird RAN and it would be inappropriate to list details of other crew members;

none;

no.

Cedar Bay Raid: HMAS Bayonet (Question No. 1107)

Senator Colston:

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

  1. What instructions were given to the commander of HMAS Bayonet in relation to the raid on Cedar Bay on 29 August 1976.
  2. Who issued those instructions.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) HMAS Bayonet was instructed to be available to provide assistance in the event of any illegal activity occurring to seaward.
  2. The Commanding Officer, HMAS Cairns.

HMAS Bayonet (Question No. 1108)

Senator Colston:

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

Did HMAS Bayonet intercept and/or search any vessels in or out of Australian waters during August 1 976 or during the period 1-14 September 1976; if so, what are the details.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

Yes- Taiwanese Clam vessel Kon Cih No. 1 on 5 August 1976.

HMAS Bayonet (Question No. 1109)

Senator Colston:

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

Were any police officers of the Commonwealth, any State, or any Territory, on board HMAS Bayonet, during August 1976 or during the period 1-14 September 1976; if », what was the name of each police officer, on what date or dates was he on board and why was he on board.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

Yes- Two officers from the Queensland State Police and one officer from the Bureau of Customs were embarked on the night of 28-29 August to provide liaison with the Customs launch Jabiru and assistance should any illegal activity occur to seaward. It would be inappropriate to provide the names of the officers concerned.

Arms on Naval Vessels (Question No. 1110)

Senator Colston:

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

  1. Do crew members on naval vessels normally carry arms.
  2. Were crew members of HMAS Bayonet armed on 29 August 1976; if so, what arms were they carrying.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. Small arms are carried in HMA Warships for issue to boarding and landing parties if required.
  2. No.

Cedar Bay Raid: Use of Defence Facilities (Question No. 1122)

Senator Colston:

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

Has an internal inquiry taken place into the use of defence facilities and personnel during the police raid on the community of Cedar Bay on Sunday, 29 August 1976; if so, what were the findings of the inquiry.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

page 1511

No

Cedar Bay Raid: Costs (Question No. 1123)

Senator Colston:

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

Did the Federal Government meet the cost of the charter of the helicopter used to transport members of the Queensland Police Force and Federal narcotic agents who took part in the raid carried out on the community of Cedar Bay in north Queensland on Sunday, 29 August 1976; if so, (a) what was the cost of the charter, (b) who requested the charter of the helicopter, (c) who approved the charter of the helicopter, and (d) why did the Federal Government meet the cost, rather than the Queensland Government.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

Yes-

  1. $lS19.97;
  2. When the request for support was made by the Queensland Police the desirability of having a helicopter to support certain aspects of the operation was raised;
  3. Approval for the Charter was given by Senior Bureau of Customs officers based in Canberra following the request for support made to the Bureau by the Queensland Police;
  4. The Bureau of Customs has a unit which co-ordinates the charter of air transport for enforcement operations. This unit also programs routine anti-smuggling and intelligence patrols by chartered fixed wing and rotor aircraft in remote areas including those north of Cairns.

Apart from the transportation of personnel to and from the beach at Cedar Bay the helicopter was used by Bureau of Customs personnel for ancilliary patrol and surveillance activity.

Millibar Recordings during Cyclone Seasons (Question No. 1126)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister for Science, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is a millibar adjustment carried out at the beginning of each cyclone season and again at the end of the cyclone season; if so, what is the number of millibars in each adjustment and what is the reason for the adjustment.
  2. What are the highest and lowest millibar recordings for cyclones in Australia and when did the cyclones occur.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Adjustments are made at the beginning of the tropical cyclone season to automatic recording barometers, known as barographs, located at stations in tropical cyclone prone areas. These instruments are adjusted to read 20 millibars lower than in the non-cyclone season, in order to record the low pressures which might be experienced with the passage of a cyclone close to the observing station. Barographs are reset to the higher range at the end of the season.
  2. The lowest recorded pressure accepted as reliable in a cyclone in the Australian area was 914 millibars on the ship Crest of the Wave’ in Bathurst Bay, Queensland, on 5 March 1889. During a cyclone near Roebourne, Western Australia, on 7 January 1881 a barometer on a pearling vessel recorded a pressure of 880 millibars, but there are doubts regarding the accuracy of this reading. Statistics are not kept of the highest pressure recorded in cyclones. High pressures occur at the stage where a tropical cyclone is weakening and have no special significance.

Darwin Public Library (Question No. 1130)

Senator Robertson:

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

What arrangements have been made for restoring the Darwin Public Library and to provide library services to the people of that area?

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

The Darwin Library building and part of the bookstock were destroyed in the cyclone. An annexe at the rear of the building was only partly damaged and immediately converted to provide reader services. Since then a demountable has been installed to overcome the crowding which grew from the need to amalgamate work areas, storage space and public facilities in one small annexe.

The Darwin bookstock currently approximates 14 000 volumes and is available to the public through both the Darwin and Nightcliff depots. The library at Nightcliff has been restored to pre-cyclone condition.

Some 38 000 new books have been purchased and are being processed in Canberra for early dispatch to Darwin. Steps have been taken to ensure the progressive transfer of these books to the Northern Territory.

A new library in Casuarina has been proposed and, subject to availability of funds, construction will commence next financial year.

Cedar Bay Raid: Use of Defence Forces (Question No. 1131)

Senator Robertson:

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

  1. 1 ) Is the Minister aware that there has been a good deal of concern over the use of members of the Defence Forces in the recent raid at Cedar Bay in Queensland?
  2. Will the Minister give an assurance that members of the Defence Forces will not in future be utilised in civil actions?
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Members of the Defence Force were not directly involved in the police operations ashore in the vicinity of Cedar Bay on the night of 28/29 August 1976. The concern that may have been expressed in this connection is therefore unfounded.
  2. As the Defence Force is often employed with statutory authority in support of civil administration, for example, fisheries surveillance and protection duties, such an assurance cannot be given and would be inappropriate.

Tarcoola-Alice Springs Railway (Question No. 1137)

Senator Kilgariff:

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

  1. 1 ) What is the extent of work completed on the standard gauge railway between Tarcoola and Alice Springs to date.
  2. What is (a) the extent of the construction to be carried out this financial year and (b) the anticipated time scale for completion of the standard gauge railway between Tarcoola and Alice Springs.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Earthworks, including bridges and culverts, have been completed to Robin Rise, 160km north of Tarcoola and track laying to 87km north of Tarcoola.

  2. (a) A contract has been let for earthworks, including bridges and culverts, for the section from Robin Rise to Maria Bore. Estimated date for completion of these works is November 1977. If the present rate of track laying is maintained trackwork should be approx. 30km north of Robin Rise by June 1979.

    1. The railway is expected to be completed in 1981.

Unsealed Roads: Brisbane to Northern Territory (Question No. 1138)

Senator Kilgariff:

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

  1. 1 ) What is the amount of unsealed road on the main route and other routes between Brisbane and the Northern Territory border.
  2. What amount of sealing is to be completed in the current financial year.
  3. What is the time scale for the completion of the sealing of at least one route between Brisbane and the Northern Territory border.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The principal route between Brisbane and the Northern Territory border is the route for the declared National Highway which follows the alignment of the Warrego, Landsborough and Barkley Highways. On this route, approximately 300km of the Landsborough Highway between Winton and Cloncurry remains unsealed.

The other routes between Brisbane and the Northern Territory border are the alternative route from Winton to Mt Isa via Boulia, and the Flinders Highway between Townsville and Cloncurry. Both roads are eligible for Commonwealth financial assistance under the provisions of the Roads Grants Act.

On the Flinders Highway, approximately 20km remains to be sealed but the Queensland Main Roads Department has advised that sealing of this road is expected to be completed by December this year. There is approximately 90km of the Winton/Boulia road unsealed.

  1. Queensland’s National Highways Program for 1976-77 approved on 29 July 1976 provides for projects on the Landsborough Highway between Winton and Cloncurry involving commencement of 68km new construction and associated bridges and continuation of 43km of new construction. It is expected that approximately 40km of these works will be completed during 1976-77. As indicated earlier, it is understood that approximately 20km of the Flinders Highway will be sealed in 1976-77.

Little work is planned in 1976-77 for the Winton/Boulia Road involving expenditure of Commonwealth funds. It is not known what funds the State has allocated to this road in 1976-77 from its own resources.

  1. The completion of the Flinders Highway sealing later this year will provide an all-sealed route between Brisbane and the Northern Territory border. The Winton/Cloncurry section of the Landsborough Highway is not expected to be completed until the early 1980s.

Cedar Bay Raid (Question No. 1145)

Senator Colston:

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

  1. 1 ) What was the total cost to the Australian Government of the raid’ carried out at Cedar Bay in north Queensland on Sunday, 29 August 1976.
  2. Have Federal Officers either on their own initiative or acting in conjunction with Queensland State Police visited the Cedar Bay area on any occasion since 29 August 1976; if so, what are the details.
  3. What amount of marijuana was seized during the raid on Cedar Bay on 29 August 1976 and what was its estimated commercial value.
  4. Has any marijuana been seized at Cedar Bay on any occasion since 29 August 1 976; if so, what are the details.
  5. 5 ) Has the Minister, or any of his officers, had any contact with the Western Australian Government concerning extradition proceedings against Robert Clive Elliott and Kerry Jay Elliott from Cairns, Queensland, to Western Australia relating to warrants issued against R. C. Elliott and K. J. Elliott in Western Australia in 1 97 1 .
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Department of Business and Consumer Affairs incurred the following direct costs:

    1. Helicopter charter-$ 15 19.97;
    2. Air fares for 3 Narcotics Bureau officers Brisbane/Cairns/Sydney $523.20.

As locally based (Cairns) staff and launch Jabiru were detailed to provide support as part of their routine operations it is not possible to determine what portion of the operational costs relate to the Cedar Bay operation.

  1. No.
  2. Commonwealth officers did not seize any marijuana.
  3. See (2) above.
  4. No.

Cedar Bay Raid: Contact with Queensland Administration (Question No. 1153)

Senator Colston:

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

Has the Minister been in contact with the Queensland Premier, the Queensland Treasurer, the Queensland Minister for Police or the Queensland Police Commissioner concerning the recent raid by Commonwealth and State Officers at Cedar Bay, on any occasion since the raid took place on 29 August 1976; if so, what are the details.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

page 1513

No

Cedar Bay Raid: Contact with Queensland Administration (Question No. 1154)

Senator Colston:

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

Has the Minister been in contact with the Queensland Premier, the Queensland Treasurer, the Queensland Minister for Police or the Queensland Police Commissioner concerning the recent raid by Commonwealth and State Officers at Cedar Bay, on any occasion since the raid took place on 29 August 1 976; if so, what are the details.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

page 1513

No

Cedar Bay Raid: Confiscated Articles (Question No. 1155)

Senator Colston:

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

What is the present whereabouts of items of clothing, personal effects and other articles confiscated during the raid on Cedar Bay on 29 August 1976.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

Bureau of Customs officers providing support for the Queensland Police operation at Cedar Bay did not seize or confiscate any goods.

Cedar Bay Raid: Confiscated Marijuana (Question No. 1156)

Senator Colston:

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

What is the present whereabouts of the marijuana confiscated during the raid on Cedar Bay on 29 August 1 976.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

See my reply to Question No. 1 1 55.

Returned Services League: Defence Advice (Question No. 1157)

Senator Missen:

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

  1. 1 ) Have reports emanating from the National Congress of the Returned Services League of Australia urged the Government to (a) build a nuclear reactor so that it can manufacture nuclear weapons, (b) reintroduce conscription to raise the strength of the Army to 38 000 men, and (c) double defence expenditure so that not less than 5 per cent of gross domestic product is spent on defence; if so, has a reply been made on behalf of the Government.
  2. What was the content of any such reply.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) Advice has not been received by the Government arising from the National Congress of the RSL on the matters referred to in the question.

The Government’s policy on Defence will be set out in the White Paper which will be tabled in the Parliament as promised earlier.

Dairy Exports (Question No. 1158)

Senator Rae:

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

  1. 1 ) What was the total quantity of butter exported from Australia during the years 1974-75 and 1975-76.
  2. To which countries and in what quantities was the butter sold.
  3. What was the lowest price received from export markets for Australian butter during the same period and what quantities were sold overseas, at that lowest price and to which countries was it sold.
  4. What was the total quantity of cheese exported from Australia during the years 1974-75 and 1975-76.
  5. To which countries and in what quantities was the cheese sold.
  6. What was the lowest price received from export markets for Australian cheese during the same period and what quantities were sold at that lowest price, and to which countries were these quantities sold.
  7. What was the total quantity of skim milk powder exported from Australia during the years 1974-75 and 1975-76.
  8. To which countries and in what quantities was the skim milk powder sold.
  9. What was the lowest price received from export markets for Australian skim milk powder during the same period and what quantities were sold at that lowest price and to which countries were these quantities sold.
  10. For the same period what percentage of total Australian production of butter, cheese and slum milk powder was (a) consumed in Australia, (b) sent overseas, and (c) sold overseas commercially.
  11. For the same period can the Minister detail the (a) quantities, (b) commercial value, and (c) receiving countries for quantities of the abovementioned products sent from Australia but not purchased overseas, for example, quantities sent in the form of foreign aid.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

  1. The total quantity of exports of butter including butteroil, dry butterfat, butter concentrate and ghee was, in terms of commercial butter equivalent, 35 591 tonnes in 1974- 75 and 76 596 tonnes in 1975-76.
  2. The following table shows the volume and value of butter and butterfat products exported during 1974-75 and 1975- 76.
  1. On the basis of unit f.o.b. export values as calculated from the data given in part (2) above, the lowest prices received from export markets for butter and related butter fat products were as follows:
  2. Cheese exports were 34 235 tonnes in 1974-75 and 31 235 tonnes in 1975-76.
  3. The following table shows the volume and value of exports of cheese to significant export markets during 1974-75 and 1975-76.
  1. On the basis of unit f.o.b. export values as calculated from the data given in part (5) above, the lowest prices received from export markets for cheese were:
  2. Skim milk powder exports in 1974-75 and 1975-76 were 67 03 1 tonnes and 95 108 tonnes respectively.
  3. The following table shows the volume and f.o.b. value Of exports of skim milk powder to significant export markets.
  1. On the basis of unit f.o.b. export values as calculated from the data given in pan (8) above, the lowest prices received from export markets for skim milk powder were:
  2. The Australian Dairy Corporation advises that the relevant percentages were as follows:
  1. The Commercial value of foreign aid in 1 1 (a) was: 1974-75-5537,000; 1975-76-$2,000,000.
  2. Countries receiving the above foreign aid were:

Number of Age Pensioners (Question No. 1160)

Senator Baume:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

How many and what percentage of Australians aged 70 years or more take up the aged pension.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

At 30 June 1976 there were 71 1 700 persons in Australia aged 70 years or more in receipt of an age pension. It is estimated that about 97 per cent of the residentially qualified population aged 70 years of more are in receipt of age pensions. This figure is based on the projected age distribution of the Australian population at 30 June 1976, prepared by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The estimated age distribution of the population is subject to revision when 1976 Census figures become available.

USS Truxtun: Berth (Question No. 1190)

Senator Colston:

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

Why did the Department of Defence decide upon which berth in Melbourne was suitable for allocation to the USS Truxtun without consultation with Melbourne port authorities and with the Victorian Government, as was alleged in an article in Nation Review dated 2 October 1976.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

The decision to berth the USS Truxtun at Station Pier was taken after full consultations and agreement between the relevant State and Commonwealth Authorities.

HMAS Bayonet: Bogus Mines (Question No. 1192)

Senator Colston:

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

Were bogus mines recently attached to the side of HMAS Bayonet whilst the vessel was positioned within Cairns Harbour; if so, what are the details.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

No mines or bogus mines were attached to HMAS Bayonet recently. Late in September, a collection of magnets, wire and switches were removed from the starboard quarter of HMAS Barricade by an Explosive Ordnance Disposal team from the Army.

Australian Government Publishing Service (Question No. 1194)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

Has the Central Reference Unit of the Australian Government Publishing Service been abolished; if so, why has this source of information been denied to the public

Senator Withers:
LP

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

The Central Reference Unit of the Australian Office of Information, to which the Honourable Senator presumably refers, has been abolished. The Unit was no longer required when the inquiry service previously operating within Government bookshops was discontinued in July 1 976.

Australian Military Deaths in Vietnam (Question No. 1205)

Senator Walsh:

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

  1. 1 ) How may Australian military personnel were killed, or died as a result of military actions, in Vietnam after 1 May 1965.
  2. How many of these personnel were conscripted under the National Service Act.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) 493 (including 56 non-battle casualties).
  2. 202 (including 15 non-battle casualties).

Galactic Chemistry Projects (Question No. 1217)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister for Science, upon notice:

  1. Is the Minister aware of Australia’s high standing in the world in the field of galactic chemistry.
  2. Is the Minister aware of recent discoveries by a group of space chemists from Monash University which have lead to a big breakthrough in the search for signs of life in outer space.
  3. Does the Minister support these projects; if so, will the Minister ensure that funds are immediately made available to enable these scientists to continue their research by financing a trip to the United States of America to make use of the United States National Radio Astronomy Observatory in Arizona.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

– The answers to the honourable senator’s questions are as follows:

  1. Yes.
  2. I am aware of recent discoveries by a group of space chemists from Monash University and specifically of advances made in their laboratory on the measurement and characterisation of the microwave spectrum of glycine. This is the simplest of the amino acids which are the building blocks of life as we know it. While its discovery in space would not in itself prove the existence of extra terrestrial life, it would certainly be further evidence to support the case that conditions do exist which could lead to the development of simple organisms.
  3. 1 certainly support these projects. It is pleasing to see Australians excel in this aspect of cosmology just as they have in other areas of that science and that their work is receiving the world wide recognition that it deserves. I can appreciate that these scientists are keen to visit the United States National Astronomy Observatory in Arizona to search space for the finger print radio pattern of glycine. While I strongly support this work, the question of funding such a visit is a matter for Monash University. It would be inappropriate for me as Minister for Science to become involved in the assessment of priorities for expenditure within that, or any other, university.

Women’s Advisory Committee

Senator Durack:
LP

– On 25 August 1976 (Hansard, page 279) Senator Missen asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister a question without notice concerning the proposed Women’s Advisory Committee. The Acting Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Women’s Affairs has now supplied the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The concept of an advisory body relating to women was foreshadowed in the Government’s policy statements. It is consistent with the Government’s desire to consult with the broadest possible range of community groups.

At consultations between Government Ministers, Members, representative non-government organisations and officials held on 7, 8 and 9 September 1976 it was generally agreed that a working party be established to formulate proposals for such a body, and that reports of the working party would have wide circulation among women and women’s organisations to allow for the broadest possible consultation and comment.

Rail Transfer Agreements

Senator Carrick:
LP

– On 26 August 1976 Senator Bishop asked me a question without notice concerning the terms and conditions of employment for the State personnel who will become employees of the Australian National Railways Commission.

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

A Commonwealth Treasury proposal on superannuation arrangements for the staff of South Australian and Tasmanian Railways being transferred to ANR was discussed with unions under ACTU auspices on Tuesday 3 1 August 1976. At the meeting the unions indicated they required staff to retain the state superannuation provisions and I understand they subsequently indicated this view to State Ministers.

I am informed that meetings are due to take place shortly between the Minister for Transport and State Transport Ministers for the purpose of seeking early resolution of outstanding differences in respect of transfer arrangements which will include terms and conditions of employment for the staff being transferred to ANR and I would expect that the matter of superannuation, having regard to the view expressed by the unions, will be dealt with at this meeting.

Australian Register of Shipping

Senator Carrick:
LP

– On 7 September Senator Archer asked a question without notice concerning the establishment of an Australian register of shipping. I undertook to refer the matter to the Minister for Transport and asked him to provide the honourable senator a detailed answer in relation to any timetable which may be involved.

I said in reply that over the years successive governments have looked at the matter of the establishment of an Australian register of shipping, but have come up against a series of legal and practical problems.

I am now advised that it is certainly the aim of the Government to introduce legislation to set up an Australian register, and thus remove our dependence on the British system, as soon as practicable. However, because of the substantial drafting involved and the heavy legislative drafting program, I am not able to give an estimate as to the likely date on which the register will be established.

Public Service Staff Ceilings

Senator Withers:
LP

– On 8 September 1976 (Hansard, page 453) Senator Bishop asked me a question without notice which sought a review of current staff ceilings to make sure that maximum employment opportunities are made available, particularly in the apprenticeship area. The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The honourable senator’s reference to the Public Service Board’s Annual Report is inaccurate. The Report merely says that there is a point beyond which restraints may impede efficient administration. It does not suggest that this point has already been passed. In fact it goes on to explain the steps taken to ensure that the Prime Minister is kept aware of difficulties that departments may experience in achieving ceilings, so that the achievement of ceilings does not in itself reduce the efficiency of the Service. In addition to this, of course, the Public Service will be subject to the normal continuing checks on efficiency and productivity.

The provision of maximum employment opportunities, particularly for school leavers embarking on traineeships and apprenticeships, has long been of concern to the Board and in advising departments of ceiling levels the Board has on each occasion drawn to their attention my concern that the training of these staff at an appropriate level should be maintained.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 2 November 1976, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1976/19761102_senate_30_s69/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant