Senate
16 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 1923

PETITIONS

Aboriginal Land Rights

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 267 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill 1976, does not satisfy the Aboriginal needs for land in the Northern Territory.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should:

Extend the freeze on European claims to the unalienated Crown Lands of the Northern Territory until 12 months after the passage of the Bill; and to provide for speedy lodging and hearing of Aboriginal claims. The hearing of Aboriginal claims have been postponed as a result of Government decisions. Aboriginals should not be penalised.

Amend the Bill to ensure:

The removal of all powers to pass Land Rights Legislation from Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, particularly its control over sacred sites, entry permits, control over the seas adjoining Aboriginal land, the fishing rights of non-Aborigines, the right of Aborigines to enter pastoral stations and control of wildlife on Aboriginal land.

The control of Aborigines of all roads passing through Aboriginal lands.

The restoration of the Aboriginal Land Commissioner’s powers to hear claims based on needs as well as traditional claims lodged by Aborigines.

d ) The restoration of all powers vested in Land Councils and the Land Commissioner in the 1975 Land Rights Bill.

A provision that any Government decision to override Aboriginal objections to mining on the basis of national interest be itself reviewed by both Houses of Parliament. (0 A provision that land-owning groups of Aborigines may apply to form separate trusts if they wish.

The removal of artificial barriers to traditional owners imposed by the Territory borders on all tribes so affected.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Pensions

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 7 1 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: v/That those who have retired and those who are about to retire, are being severely and adversely affected by inflation and Australian economic circumstances.

The continuance of the mean’s test on pensions causes undue hardship to them.

We call on the Government to immediately abolish the mean’s test on all aged pensions.

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

Acknowledge that a pension is a ‘ right and not a charity ‘.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Aboriginal Land Rights

Senator ROBERTSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I present the following petition from 1 7 1 citizens of Australia:

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

That the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill 1 976 does not satisfy the Aboriginal needs for land in the Northern Territory.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should:

Extend the freeze on European claims to the unalienated Crown Lands of the Northern Territory until 1 2 months after the passage of the Bill; and to provide for speedy lodging and nearing of Aboriginal claims. The hearing of Aboriginal claims have been postponed as a result of Government decisions, Aboriginals should not be penalised;

Amend the Bill to ensure:

The removal of all powers to pass Land Rights Legislation from Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, particularly its control over sacred sites, entry permits, control over the seas adjoining Aboriginal land, the fishing rights of non-Aborigines the right of Aborigines to enter pastoral stations and control of wildlife on Aboriginal land.

The control of Aborigines of all roads passing through Aboriginal lands.

The restoration of the Aboriginal Land Commissioner’s powers to hear claims based on need as well as traditional claims lodged by Aborigines.

The restoration of all powers vested in Lands Councils and the Land Commissioner in die 1975 Land Rights Bill . . .

A provision that any Government decision to over-ride Aboriginal objections to mining on the basis of national interest be itself reviewed by both Houses of Parliament.

A provision that land-owning groups of Aborigines may apply to form separate trusts if they wish.

The removal of artificial barriers to traditional owners imposed by the Territory borders on all tribes so affected.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Aboriginal Land Rights

Senator ROBERTSON:

– I present the following petition from 14 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia do humbly pray that the Australian Government:

Extend the freeze of alienation of vacant Crown land in the Northern Territory.

Give urgent consideration to amendments to the Northern Territory (Land Rights) Bill 1976 to give effect to:

The restoration of the role of land councils and the Land Commissioner.

The removal of distinction between ‘needs’ and traditional claims.

The re-introduction of the 1975 Land Rights Bill’s provisions regarding mining.

The withdrawal of power from the Northern Territory Assembly to make laws over sacred sites, permits and entry to pastoral properties.

The control of all roads throughh Aboriginal land being held by the Aboriginal people themselves.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Alice Springs Railhead

Senator ROBERTSON:

– I present the following petition from 92 citizens of Australia:

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

Take heed of this Petition in respect of the proposed closure of the Alice Springs Railhead.

Accept that such closure, before the completion of the Tarcoola to Alice Springs Rail Link, would:

Cause massive disruption to Northern Territory transport links.

Impose an even greater freight penalty on the Central Pastoral Industry.

Result in the loss of employment to Railway Staff and staff employed in ancillary industries.

) Require ancillary industries to undertake a major reequipment and relocation program, to deal with road freight deliveries for a short term operation.

Overtax the sub-standard road to South Australia and reduce the number of transport links to southern and eastern States by placing total reliance for deliveries on this unreliable, damaging and dangerous highway.

Result in higher freight costs which must be reflected in increased charges for consumer goods.

Further reduce the Defence capacity of Northern Australia.

Have a detrimental effect upon the Tourist Industry which is vita) to the Northern Territory economy.

Agree that the proposal disregards the National responsibility to develop and defend Northern Australia.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Australian Schools Commission

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

  1. Pass, immediately, the States Grants (Schools) Legislation for the year 1977 as recommended by the Australian

Schools Commission in their Report for the Rolling Triennium 1977-79.

  1. In no way alter the present role and administrative functions of the Australian Schools Commission.
  2. Encourage the Australian Schools Commission to develop and implement without restrictions, a philosophy of Educational Funding independent of Government pressures.
  3. Guarantee continuing parent and teacher representation on the Australian Schools Commission through the two recognised national bodies, namely the Australian Council of State School Organisations and the Australian Teachers Federation who represent the vast majority of children in Australia attending Government Schools.

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

Petition received.

Petrol Price Equalisation Scheme

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate, and the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives 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 (2 petitions).

Petitions received.

Pensions

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

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

The continuance of the mean’s test on pensions causes undue hardship to them.

We call on the Government to immediately abolish the mean’s test on all Aged Pensions.

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

Acknowledge that a pension is a right and not a charity.

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

Petition received.

page 1924

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1924

QUESTION

THE ECONOMY

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

-I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer whether he is aware of the forecast last week by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development of renewed world recession in the second half of 1977. Does he agree with that forecast, and does it not show up the fallacies of the current economic policies of his own Government of restrictions and expenditure cuts which could push Australia further back into recession and higher unemployment? Is it not time for some stimulation, especially in the areas of consumer spending and job creation?

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

-The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development predicts that the world growth rate in those measured countries will be Vh per cent, not 5 per cent. That cannot be classed as a recession. It might be classed as a slower rate of growth than has hitherto been expected. I do not think that one ought to draw from that all sorts of unfortunate pessimistic conclusions. I have always taken the view- I took it in the days of the previous Government- that it is not proper to complain about somebody else’s situation; one’s job is to fix one’s own situation. It became very clear in the days of the previous Government that Australia was suffering from a massive overdemand on resources that had to be restrained. That was the reason there was inflation generated largely by the previous Government and why there were huge deficits. Expenditure had to be brought back within the bounds of available resources which the community could supply. That was the right and sensible process to adopt. That is what is happening. The honourable senator should refer to the latest survey of the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd which says:

There are signs the economy is proceeding, but in the cross fire of political criticism and the pressures and impatience of sectional interests, the facts are often obscured, and the community could become bewildered.

That is also very true of the Senate.

page 1925

QUESTION

MEDIBANK

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. What is the position regarding pensioners who are entitled to a pensioner health benefit card and therefore are exempt from paying the Medibank levy for coverage by Medibank Standard but who wish to take out extra cover through either Medibank Private or a private health fund? If a pensioner who is exempt from paying the Medibank levy wants to arrange for snared accommodation or for a private bed in a private hospital, are special tables available which allow that person to pay the extra amount required without having to pay for the basic coverage to which he is automatically entitled?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
VICTORIA · LP

-Holders of pensioner health benefit cards are not required to pay the health insurance levy. They receive a coverage of 85 per cent of doctors’ schedule fees, with a maximum patient contribution of $5 for any service for which a schedule fee is charged. They also receive optometrical consultation generally without cost to the pensioner and standard ward accommodation, at no cost to the patient, in public hospitals with treatment by doctors engaged by the hospital.

Extra cover may be taken out by pensioner health benefit card holders. They may take out basic hospital insurance which will cover them for shared room accommodation in a public hospital and for the doctor of their choice. This table is available throughout Australia with Medibank Private and most other private hospital benefit organisations at a cost of $2.60 a week for families and $ 1 .30 a week for persons without dependants. These are special concessional rates subsidised by the Government to assist pensioners and other low income earners who wish to have the doctor of their own choice while in hospital. Pensioners who wish to take out private room or private hospital cover may do so by paying the appropriate contribution rates additional to the basic hospital insurance table rates. For benefits of up to $76 a day in a private hospital, which will cover accommodation charges in most private hospitals, the additional premium costs with Medibank Private are 80c a week for a single person or $ 1 .60 a week for a family. These are the rates applicable in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory, and other rates would be appropriate to the other States.

page 1925

QUESTION

REPORT IN AGE NEWSPAPER

Senator KEEFFE:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Administrative Services. Is it a fact, as reported in one of Australia’s major newspapers this morning, that Commonwealth police are trying to discover how the Age newspaper was able to publish details of the views expressed by senior Ministers on the previous Friday when they held a special meeting to revise the Government’s economic policy? If so, why was it necessary to have a police inquiry when the Prime Minister stated last Wednesday that the report in the Age contained many marked elements of fantasy?

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

-If the honourable senator believes what he reads in newspapers he will believe anything. All I can say is that the report is not true.

page 1926

QUESTION

PERTH AIRPORT TERMINAL: FUN PARLOUR

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. Is it the policy of the Department of Transport to develop the Perth Airport terminal as a fun parlour?

Senator Devitt:

-As a what?

Senator SIM:

-As a fun parlour. Has the honourable senator heard about it? Is this policy to extend to other airport terminals? Is the Minister aware that 2 Kamikaze slot machines have been installed in the terminal building, one right at the entrance to the domestic airline counters? Will the Minister ask his colleague, the Minister for Transport, to investigate the matter as these machines are causing inconvenience and attracting undesirable elements?

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

-As to the first part of the honourable senator’s question, my answer is: Not intentionally. It is not our intention to develop the Perth Airport terminal as a fun parlour. I am not aware that what is happening at Perth will spread to other parts of Australia. Since Perth sets a good pace in other things, I can fully understand the situation. The honourable senator referred to Kamikaze slot machines. As I understand it, the Japanese word ‘Kamikaze’ means divine wind. Apart from the Senate, I know of no place where there is a monopoly in that regard. I know nothing of the matter. I shall bring the question to the attention of my colleague in another place.

page 1926

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL UNREST

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

-I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to frequent attacks by the then Opposition during the year 1 975 on the then Government concerning the level of industrial unrest which was alleged to be the responsibility of the Government. Is the Minister aware that statistics published on 10 November show that 4 million working days were lost through strikes in the 12 months to August 1976, compared with 3.5 million days lost during the identical period up to August 1975? Does the present Government, in the light of its own established criteria, accept responsibility for the present level of industrial unrest? What steps does the Government propose to take in the next 12 months to attempt to reduce these figures?

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

– I have not seen the figures to which Senator Button refers. I will certainly make it my business to look at them and will also obtain comments from my colleague, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, in relation to the points Senator Button has raised. His general point concerned the responsibility of the Government and a comparison between the attitude of this Government and that of the previous Government. The major difference between the 2 governments is that this Government has tried to take some firm action in relation to the matters the honourable senator mentioned. That action has proved its worth already in the speedy lifting of the bans imposed by the Australian Postal and Telecommunications Union on the delivery of mail to John Fairfax and Sons Ltd. Considerable efforts have been made by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to reach early settlements in many other disputes.

page 1926

QUESTION

SOCIAL WELFARE GRANTS

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Social Security a question regarding grants for welfare rights officers. In her statement on the Budget the Minister said she was withdrawing the grant from FILEF in order to reallocate it to the organisation called Parents Without Partners. It now appears that the grant to Parents Without Partners will run for a full year- that is for the first 6 months of the 1977-78 financial year as well as the second half of this financial year. Has any other organisation been informed of its receiving a grant in the next financial year? Has the Minister made any decision as to what organisations will receive money in the next financial year? Will the decisions be made on the basis of organisations applying for welfare rights officers, or are others, such as Parents Without Partners, to be encouraged by the Minister personally?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · VICTORIA · LP

– The honourable senator raised a number of points in her question. Grants for welfare rights officers are made, subject to review from time to time. The grant to Parents Without Partners is to commence from 1 January next year. I will treat the other questions as being on notice and give a reply to them in due course.

page 1926

QUESTION

COMMENTS ABOUT THE SENATE

Senator LAJOVIC:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Leader of the Government. Has he noted a remark made by Senator James McClelland during an interview on State of the Nation on 1 1 November 1976 in which he referred to the Senate as an antique, archaic, geriatric upper chamber? While conceding the advanced age of Senator James McClelland, can the Minister tell us whether his comment is otherwise correct?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I do not know whether I was fortunate or unfortunate to have been looking at the program on the night mentioned by the honourable senator. I well recall the remark of Senator James McClelland. I must say it surprised me somewhat because I thought that the senator had some reputation around the Parliament for accuracy. As a result of the remark he made, I asked for a few figures to be taken out. It is interesting that, at the moment, the Liberal senators have an average age of 51 years 6 months, whereas the average age of the Labor senators is 51 years 9 months. I do not know exactly where the geriatrics are. The average age of the Liberal members of the House of Representatives is 43 years 7 months; the average age of the National Country Party members is 49 years 6 months; but the average age of the Australian Labor Party members is 52 years 4 months. I repeat that the average age of Labor senators is 5 1 years 9 months. The Labor Party members of the House of Representatives are, on average, 7 months older than their colleagues in this place. So. I do not know exactly where the geriatrics are. As I understand the mathematics, the average age of senators is 5 1 years and 7 months and the average age of members of the House of Representatives is 47 years and 2 months. So, compared with our colleagues in the other place we are hardly geriatrics. If one is looking for a geriatric political party, I suppose I should point out that the average age of the members of the Fraser Ministry is 47 years and 4 months but that of the Labor shadow Ministers is 49 years and 2 months. I now understand why Mr Whitlam talked about ‘yesterday’s men’. It is quite obvious that today’s and tomorrow’s men sit on the right hand side of the Presiding Officer in each chamber.

page 1927

QUESTION

OLYMPIC GAMES: AUSTRALIAN TEAM’S SHOWING

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Seeing that the matters of age, fitness, sport and things like that are in the air, I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development. By way of preface I remind the Minister of the headlines which were accorded the Prime Minister’s statement on 27 July this year that the Federal Government would hold an official inquiry into Australia’s showing at the Olympic Games in Montreal. The Minister responsible for this area of government, Mr Newman, also got headlines on the same day for his announcement that he intended to call a meeting of the Australian

Sports Council soon after the return of the Australian Olympic team and his promise to ‘examine the proper role of the Commonwealth in assisting national sports organisations’. A very alert senator on the other side of the chamber, Senator Rae, asked Senator Carrick on 13 October what, if anything, had been done to honour these promises, and Senator Carrick gave a waffling, non-committal reply. My question is: Can the Minister now tell the Senate whether anything has been done to honour these promises; or is this just another case of a Fraser breach of promise?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I will be very happy to obtain the information and give it to the honourable senator, including the classes in gerontology in the next Olympic Games.

page 1927

QUESTION

REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT SCHEME

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

-I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I have noticed that Mr Whitlam recently has advocated the re-formation of the Regional Employment Development scheme. Is it true that the previous RED scheme was being phased out by the Labor Government last year? Is the unemployment situation significantly different now from what it was then?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-It certainly is a fact that the Labor Government’s RED scheme, as it was known, was being phased out by that Government last year following decisions it took in 1 975 to limit the funds available for the scheme for the financial year 1975-76 to projects that had been approved already and were under way at that time. As far as the second part of the question is concerned, the latest statistics available on unemployment are for October 1976. They show that there were 26 1 999 persons or 4.4 per cent of the labour force out of work, compared with 247 1 99 or 4. 1 per cent of the labour force out of work at the end of the month of October 1975. However, at the end of October 1975 there were still some 13 600 persons employed on RED projects, although the scheme in fact was being phased out.

page 1927

QUESTION

SHIPBUILDING

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, relates to the Government’s shipbuilding policy. I refer in particular to the statement of the Prime Minister during the weekend about an offer which has been put before the New South

Wales Government. I ask: Does the Prime Minister’s statement indicate that the representations from the South Australian Government and industry in South Australia are being rejected, or does the Government still have under consideration the proposals from the South Australian Government and/or the Australian Council of Trade Unions shipbuilding committee? Finally, is the offer to New South Wales the whole residue in relation to representations which have been made to the Government about shipbuilding in Australia?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-I will provide the honourable senator with a copy of the Prime Minister’s Press statement on this subject. It deals specifically with whether it is possible to achieve industrial harmony and some sort of contract for the placing of orders in the Newcastle State dockyards for and the construction of 2 Australian National Line ships, orders for which are still awaited. There is nothing in that statement that bears upon the Whyalla shipyard conducted by the Broken Hill Pty Co. but that is not to say that the concerns of the Government are not directed towards that shipyard, because they are. The representations made by the ACTU, the South Australian Government and the New South Wales Government equally have been taken into account in the Government’s considerations and still are being taken into account.

page 1928

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

-Has the Minister for Social Security seen a report that the proportion of persons receiving the unemployment benefit compared with those registered for employment is the highest on record? Is this record correct? Can the Minister provide further details? What explanation can be given for those figures?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I have figures which show a breakdown of the unemployment benefit figures in the various States as they are related to those who are registered for employment. These figures vary from State to State. The figures as at August 1976 show that, in New South Wales, 78.9 per cent of those registered for employment were receiving unemployment benefit; in Victoria, 68.7 per cent; in Queensland, 7 1 per cent; in South Australia, 71.4 per cent; in Western Australia, 71.8 per cent; and in Tasmania, 82.6 per cent. These figures can be compared with previous years. If we examine years such as 1969-70 we find that 28 per cent would be the average; in 1970-71 it was 25.4 per cent; in 1973-74 it was 47.9 per cent; and in 1974-75 it was 40.2 per cent. What these figures show is that at this stage a very much higher proportion of persons who are registered for employment are in receipt of unemployment benefit. With regard to the latter part of the honourable senator’s question which asked for a reason for this, I am unable from these figures to determine the reason. However, I do state that these are the percentages I have mentioned who are in receipt of unemployment benefit. It may be of interest to the Senate if I incorporate a table- with the leave of the Senate- which shows the varying percentages from the period 1969-70 up to the present time.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The table read as follows-

page 1929

QUESTION

SPRAY CAN GASES

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development. By way of preface I refer to reports that a large amount of spray can propellant gases are coming from the northern hemisphere into the southern hemisphere. It is in that context, together with the impending Concorde flights, that I ask the Minister whether the working party of skin specialists that was set up to examine these hazards has, as yet, produced an interim report as a prelude to any future flights of the Concorde aircraft?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– As I understand it, scientists have commented that the fluorocarbons which are used as the propellants in spray cans do have some influence on the content and structure of the ozone layer, the effect of which is to allow more ultraviolet light through. The thesis is that that causes an increase in skin cancer- a phenomenon which, I think, is growing throughout the world. There is a further thesis that supersonic flight- the honourable senator has mentioned the Concorde- may add to it. I think there is a misunderstanding about the Concorde. My understanding is that there are about 6 supersonic Concorde aircraft flying in the world at the moment. As honourable senators may know, Australia has 100 supersonic Mirages and 24 supersonic Fills. Throughout the world there are probably about 15 000 or more supersonic aircraft flying daily. My advice from scientists is that the effect of Concorde flights upon the ozone would be, I think it is true to say, too small to measure. But let me make this clear: One is never complacent on any of these matters. The importance of maintaining the ozone at its proper level is of course obvious. As regards details, I am informed that my colleague the Minister for Science gave an answer on this matter not so long ago. My advice is that if the honourable senator looks at the answer to question No. 1233 published on 9 November he will find that some relevant evidence was given on this matter of aerosol propellants. As regards the question of a working party to examine any resultant increase in skin cancer, this matter comes within the responsibility of the Minister for Health. I shall direct that part of the honourable senator’s question to the Minister.

page 1929

QUESTION

RURAL BANK

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-My question is to Senator Cotton in his capacity as the Minister representing the Treasurer on the one hand and the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry on the other hand. It relates to the establishment of a rural bank, and it takes on some special interest in the light of the meeting of the Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers Council, I think yesterday. Does the Minister recall the inclusion of a reference to the establishment of a rural bank in the Government’s election policy statement last year? What progress is being made with the establishment of such a bank? Is the Minister aware that many primary producers and others in rural industries are looking to an institution like a rural bank as they plan financial arrangements for the future? Can they expect to take advantage of the rural bank and, if so, when will the bank be established and when will an appropriate announcement be made?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I have a summary of the answer given on this subject by Mr Sinclair on 3 November 1976 which I shall read for the edification of the honourable senator and my colleagues. It states: The Government has undertaken to implement the rural bank as a supplement to the availability of existing finance through existing lending institutions. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics has been charged with the responsibility of developing an assessment of the rural finance situation, up-dating an original assessment made by it in 1972.

The Treasurer and Mr Sinclair have had discussions with the trading banks and there also have been interdepartmental discussions. It is hoped that a proposition will be developed for consideration by all interested parties during the early part of 1977. The Government sees a rural bank as being a worthwhile supplement to existing lending institutions.

page 1929

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT PURCHASING ARRANGEMENTS

Senator DEVITT:

-I direct to the Minister representing the Minister for Construction a question which has relevance to the employment situation in Tasmania. I ask: Is it the policy of this Government to give preference in its purchasing arrangements to goods of similar specification- that is, quality, type, suitability and so on- manufactured within a State? What is the basis of this policy? Can the Minister say why such a policy was not followed in respect of equipment and installations in the Commonwealth Government Centre at Glenorchy in Tasmania, despite an adherence to this policy in respect of the Hobart centre and the Burnie centre? In view of the serious employment position in Tasmania and the Government’s stated policy of supporting local industry, will the Minister cause an inquiry to be made to ascertain the full facts concerning an apparent repudiation of this policy in respect of the matter I have mentioned, details of which I can supply to the Minister if required?

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

-The honourable senator’s question deals with matters which are basically within the province of a Minister in another place. He will be able to answer the question accurately. I shall seek an answer to the question. I shall also refer the matter of an inquiry to that Minister.

page 1930

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. I refer to the cuts in programs foreshadowed for the Australian Broadcasting Commission. Is the Minister aware of the concern expressed in South Australia at the suggestion that the Adelaide Symphony Orchestra will be disbanded and that there will be cuts in current affairs programs? Is the Minister aware that these complaints are coming from all sections of the community, not the least being prominent members of the Liberal Party? Will the Minister ask his colleague to consult Sir Henry Bland with the object of reviewing these decisions which, in my view, are not in the interests of the cultural life of South Australia in particular and which in general would deprive the Australian audience of invaluable current affairs information? Can the Minister provide details of the production costs of the State of the Nation program? Is he concerned that the nation’s only federal political program, which has an effective rating of 7, is one of the first to be deleted? Can the Minister ascertain from the ABC the criteria applied in making decisions on these budgetary cuts?

Opposition Senators- Hear, hear!

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Because I hear ‘Hear, hear’ from the Opposition and because I know its attitude on this matter I think I should state firstly that cuts in the budget of the Australian Broadcasting Commission so that its expenditure is not keeping pace with the rate of inflation are not new. For example, I draw the attention of the Senate to the Hayden Budget. The rate of increase in 1975-76 was cut back to 15 per cent, which was considerably below the rate of inflation. I think it is important to understand that the degree of criticism then was negligible. One must get this matter in perspective. Senator Jessop has drawn attention to the natural concern about the symphony orchestras. Today I heard rumours about 2 States apart from South Australia. The other 2 States, by chance, will perhaps have elections earlier than South Australia, although that is not certain. I ask that one take cautiously the statements that are made. I do not know the production costs of the program State of the Nation. I will ask my colleague whether he has that information. The ABC has been treated in the same way as any other government department or statutory authority has in these economy measures. This is not unusual. I remind honourable senators that this is not unique, because the Hayden Budget imposed a cut on the ABC.

Senator JESSOP:

– I ask a supplementary question. I also asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications whether he could ascertain from the Australian Broadcasting Commission the criteria which were applied in making these decisions?

Senator CARRICK:

-On the assumption that the decisions have been made- that is a matter of which I am not aware at the moment- I will ask my colleague to obtain the information.

page 1930

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Senator WRIEDT:

-I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications a question arising from his previous answer. Is it not true that this Government indicated for the first year to the Australian Broadcasting Commission that any future wage increases must be met from its existing budgetary allocation and that there will be no supplementary payment to the ABC as a result of future wage and salary increases?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am not specifically aware that that is so. It is likely to be. I will ask my colleague whether that is a fact and give the honourable senator an answer.

page 1930

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL UNREST: DAYS LOST THROUGH STRIKES

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. It arises from an earlier question asked by Senator Button in relation to industrial unrest and days lost because of strikes. The figures I have from the Bureau of Statistics agree with the figures quoted by the honourable senator.

Senator Button:

– Thank you very much.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– I take it that they are correct. The figures show that 3.5 million days were lost in the year ended 30 August 1975, compared with 4 million days lost in the year ended 30 August 1 976. What the honourable senator omitted to point out, however, was that the figure for the year ended 30 August 1976 included 483 000 days lost through the Medibank strike in June and 1 574 000 days lost through the Medibank strike in July. Will the Minister agree that the net figure of slightly fewer than 2 million days lost in 1976, as against 3.5 million days lost in 1975, shows a substantial reduction in the number of working days lost?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– This whole matter seems to be becoming a test of my powers of arithmetic. Of course, it is a much more serious matter than that. It is not to be treated in any sense of jest or lightness at all. I am very grateful to Senator Tehan for the further information about the statistics which were first conveyed to the Senate on behalf of the Opposition by Senator Button. It would have been much more helpful if, in the first place, the statistics had been presented in full. Certainly the impact of the Medibank political strike is shown quite strikingly in the number of days lost by ordinary wage earners as a result of that misguided attempt by union leadership to influence the decisions of this Government. The Government has reiterated constantly its opposition to political strikes. I would hope that the number of days lost as a result of that major political strike would be a clear warning to any other unionists who, in the future, may be contemplating support for that type of activity. I was impressed, as I said, with the figures that were supplied by Senator Tehan. I will still refer the whole subject to the Minister whom I represent and obtain a full and definitive answer from him.

page 1931

QUESTION

NATIONAL CORPORATIONS AND SECURITIES INDUSTRY LEGISLATION

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

-Is the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs aware of statements made by the Attorney-General of New South Wales, Mr Frank Walker, on 12 November, to the effect that negotiations between the Commonwealth and the States on national corporations and securities industry legislation have reached a stalemate? Is the Minister aware that Mr Walker centred his criticism relating to the cause of this stalemate on the lack of co-operation by the Queensland Premier in the formulation of a national scheme? Is the Minister aware that any opting out by Queensland could destroy the Government’s intention of regulating the securities market with State co-operation? Can the Minister confirm that such a standstill in respect of this vital legislation will delay the implementation of the necessary reforms outlined in the report of the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange? In view of the time that Senate committees have spent on the investigation of proposed legislation, can the Minister now give us some idea of when the Government will decide to set up a regulation system with national legislation alone and not with legislation in cooperation with the States?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-The Senate would know how much I share with Senator Georges and other honourable senators, particularly Senator Rae, a great interest in, and concern to achieve, some national legislation in this whole field. I believe that my colleague the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, since he became a Minister, has indicated a very real commitment to the same object. Not only nas he done that publicly, but also I have had numerous conversations with him in relation to this matter, and I can certainly assure the Senate, particularly Senator Georges, who asked the question, of the concern by the Minister.

The Senate would also be aware of the very great constitutional problems that are presented to a national government in achieving its purposewhether it be a purpose of covering the whole field in the way in which the Labor Government attempted to do it or whether a national government decided to achieve a more limited purpose such as, for argument’s sake, the regulation of the securities industry alone without a full national Companies Act. Whichever way a national government wished to move in this area there would be very great constitutional difficulties. These were clearly revealed to the Senate select committee inquiring into the Labor Government’s Corporations and Securities Industry Bill, of which Senator Georges and myself were members among other senators. The whole object that my colleague the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs has had in mind has been to endeavour to reach an agreement between the Commonwealth Government and the State governments to overcome in that way the very great problems arising under the Constitution and to achieve a co-operative regime in this area. This would be in accordance with the policies of the present Government of achieving co-operative federalism and recognising, as we do, the very real role that the States have played and can continue to play in the regulation of company law and some aspects of securities law.

That is what is behind the Government’s thinking and the negotiations which the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs has been undertaking with the State Ministers. I am not sure how many conferences he has had with State Ministers but there have been at least two and possibly more conferences with State Ministers formally assembled. I know he has also had many discussions with State Ministers individually. I have not discussed the matter with him, but I would not imagine that he would agree that negotiations had reached a stalemate, as apparently one of the State Ministers has indicated. The negotiations are continuing, and the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs is still hopeful that an agreement can be reached on the co-operative scheme which he has put forward to the State Ministers and which they have been discussing.

I will refer to the Minister the very important question that Senator Georges raised, namely, whether the Minister can give the Parliament some idea as to the timetable for the introduction of legislation. I think that is a fair question. Certainly negotiations cannot go on forever in this manner. A resolution to this problem has to be reached. Legislation undoubtedly will be introduced into this Parliament by this Government. It is only a question of when it will be done and how it will be done. I will pass this matter on to the Minister.

page 1932

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ASSISTANCE PLAN

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

-Did the Minister for Social Security read a report in the Australian newspaper of 15 November that the New South Wales Minister for Youth and Community Services, Mr Jackson, has called a meeting next Friday of State Ministers responsible for social welfare to discuss the future of the Australian Assistance Plan? Is the Minister aware of the concern of several of the State Ministers that the Australian Assistance Plan or an equivalent State plan will fail unless there is a continued financial contribution by the Commonwealth to its support? Is the Minister considering making a positive response to the States to ensure that this 3-year experiment in community involvement in social development will not be destroyed?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am aware of the meeting of the State Ministers, as I referred to it in the Senate last week. I advised the Senate at that time that one State Minister had called a meeting of other State Ministers. I have asked the Director-General of Social Security, Mr Daniels, to attend that meeting of State Ministers to provide any factual information which they may require for their consideration and for their developing of an approach to the Commonwealth Government. I will await the report from the State Ministers’ meeting before commenting further on the matters that have been raised by Senator Missen today.

page 1932

QUESTION

INFLATION AND UNEMPLOYMENT

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-In directing a question to the Minister for Social Security I draw her attention to the statement of the Prime Minister to the Stanford Research Institute in Sydney in which he said:

In giving priority to inflation, we are giving priority to unemployment.

I ask the Minister: Has this policy the endorsement of Cabinet, and does she believe that inflation is being reduced substantially? What will be the effect of more unemployment on the Department’s allocation of funds? Has the Minister given any consideration to easing the unnecessary conditions applied to unemployed persons in view of the projected increase in the number of persons drawing social security benefits?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I have not seen the text of the Prime Minister’s address to the Stanford Research Institute, nor am I aware that he made the statement quoted by the honourable senator. I should imagine that the part of the question which referred to the allocation of funds for unemployment benefit related to the amounts set out in the Budget this year. It should be understood that payments of unemployment benefits come from the National Welfare Fund without further appropriations during the year. There is an automatic application of pensions and benefits through the National Welfare Fund once the legislation is established, and this will occur throughout this year. There are no proposals before me at the present time concerning the easing of conditions for unemployment benefits, nor do I believe that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations is considering any proposals. However, I will have that matter referred to him to see whether he has in mind reviewing any aspects of the conditions for unemployment benefit.

page 1932

QUESTION

CONTROL OF BLOWFLIES

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-My question is addressed to the Minister for Science. Is it a fact that the fly problem is costing the wool and meat industries an estimated $60m a year? Would it be true to say that the fly is building up a high level of immunity to chemicals? As these chemicals have caused human tragedies in the past as well as damage to the environment from time to time, can the Minister inform the Senate what research has been carried out into the genetic extermination or control of the blowfly? Are adequate funds available to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation to carry out this work? When can it be expected that the CSIRO might carry out field work on such a project in Western Australia?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-Research into the blowfly problem in Australia has been carried out by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation over a number of years. The advice that I have is that the blowfly pest costs the industries mentioned about $40m a year. The significance of the problem can be seen from that. The CSIRO has attempted control in a number of areas over the past years in improved sprays and dips and through research on the dung beetle. I have mentioned this previously in the Senate but honourable senators may not recognise the great importance of the dung beetle in the control that Senator Drake-Brockman has mentioned. In genetic control, the CSIRO has endeavoured to breed new strains of blowflies in its laboratories in an attempt to find those that are reproductively incompatible with the existing wild strains of blowflies. Steady progress has been made in developing a number of artificial strains, and large scale field trials have been carried out in the past year. Testing the degree of control achieved requires a great deal of time and, indeed, a great deal of money. Senator Drake-Brockman asked whether the CSIRO had sufficient funds. I doubt whether a laboratory could say that it has sufficient funds. The main source of funds for the CSIRO are Treasury appropriations and grants from the Australian Meat Research Committee. The work is being pushed ahead as fast as possible and as fast as biological limitations will allow. When the studies have been completed in the laboratories undoubtedly field trials will be carried out in various States, and CSIRO would probably move to Western Australia at that stage.

Mr R. LOBATO, FRETILIN MEMBER

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Is it true that Mr R. Lobato, a senior member of Fretilin, has been refused an entry visa to Australia? Is this change of policy in relation to representatives of Fretilin entering Australia directly attributable to statements made by the Indonesian Foreign Minister, Mr Malik? Is the Government not abrogating its responsibility for determining Australia’s foreign policy in acceding to Indonesian demands? Does the Prime Minister agree that this deliberate exclusion of Mr Lobato runs in complete contradiction to Australia’s condemnation of Indonesian actions in East Timor?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-Strictly speaking this is a matter which belongs to my colleague, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, and not to the Prime Minister. I understand that Mr Lobato, who claims to be the Minister for Defence in Fretilin, has contacted the Australian Embassy in Peking with a view to obtaining a visa to visit Australia for the purpose of discussing officially with Ministers of the Australian Government military and political matters. The Australian Government does not recognise the Fretilin movement as a government and it does not propose to enter into official discussions with Mr Lobato.

page 1933

QUESTION

DARWIN CYCLONE: ROYAL COMMISSION

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Northern Territory, refers to various statements made by Major-General Stretton in the last week in relation to cyclone Tracy, particularly in regard to his call for a royal commission into various aspects following the cyclone. What is the Government’s attitude to a call for a royal commission? Is it a fact that MajorGeneral Stretton has been requested to make no further public statements?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for the Northern Territory has advised me that no one has put forward to him a case for a royal commission; nor has one been called for. I am also advised that, as Major-General Stretton is not an officer of the Department of the Northern Territory, certainly no instruction has been issued to him from that source.

page 1933

QUESTION

DEVALUATION

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer: Is it possible for, say, a United States company with an overseas subsidiary to remit funds from the subsidiary to the United States prior to a devaluation of currency in the host country of the subsidiary, to transfer the funds back to the host country after devaluation and to secure a windfall capital gain proportionate to the devaluation?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-I think I have said on a number of occasions- if I have not said it before, I say it now- that there are a couple of things that a Minister of the Cabinet prefers not to talk about. One is his sex life and the second is devaluation. This is an area of considerable difficulty. The organisation which looks after the transfer of money out of Australia and into Australia is the Reserve Bank.

page 1934

QUESTION

IMPORTATION OF LIVESTOCK

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Health: When can it be expected that livestock from the United Kingdom and Ireland can be imported directly into Australia?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– That sounds like a simple question. At present, horses, dogs and cats are permitted importation under quarantine control from the United Kingdom and Ireland. In relation to the importation of cattle, sheep, pigs and goats from these countries, veterinary health conditions of importation are under discussion between officers of the Department of Health and the British Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. When these discussions are concluded, the Minister for Health will be in a better position to outline possible means of importation. He is informed that there are serious difficulties in reaching a comprehensive solution because of the presence in the British Isles of some diseases such as scrapie and Aujeszky ‘s disease. As soon as information is available I will see that it is given to the honourable senator.

page 1934

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS FOR STUDENTS

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister for Social Security. I refer to the answer she gave to a question I asked last week on unemployment benefit for students. She said that undergraduates not returning to full time studies by abandoning or deferring their courses would not be eligible for the unemployment benefit until such time as enrolment for next year has closed and they have not enrolled. As the last day of enrolment at the Australian National University is 24 December this year- other universities have set similar dates- and a student not reenrolling would therefore be eligible for the unemployment benefit, one would think, on that day or at least after a 7-day waiting period, why are students who are quitting their studies receiving letters from the Director-General of the Department of Social Security saying that they will not be eligible for benefits until 1 February next year, that is, approximately one month later?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I have no information with regard to the letters that have been received by individual students. University graduates may apply for unemployment benefit as soon as they leave the university. Payment will commence from the seventh day after the date of lodgment of the claim if they are graduates. There has been no change in the way in which undergraduates become eligible for the unemployment benefit. They are regarded as students during the long vacation and are not eligible for the unemployment benefit. However, I will look at the matters that have been raised and the individual cases which the honourable senator has mentioned to see what determination can be made.

Senator GRIMES:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question. I draw the Minister’s attention to her answer of last week in which she said that students who are abandoning or deferring their studies would not be eligible for the unemployment benefit until such time as enrolment for next year has closed and they have not enrolled. I suggest that that is a very different picture from the one she has just given us when she said that students will not be eligible at all during the whole of the university vacation.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I will not add to what I have already said except to say that the conditions for undergraduates this year are the same as those which applied last year. I will look at the specific instances in which letters have been received from the Director-General and see what information I can obtain.

page 1934

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL CHILD MORTALITY

Senator BAUME:

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs been drawn to a newspaper report of 1 1 November of a claim, attributed to an Opposition spokesman, that Aboriginal child mortality will rise within the next year to a level of not less than 100 out of each 1000 Aborigines less than one year old? Can the Minister confirm that Aboriginal infant mortality has fallen over recent years and that it continues to drop? Is she able to suggest any reason for the quite irresponsible claim that the rate would double? Is there any reason to believe that the Aboriginal infant mortality rate will not continue to fall under the generous and sympathetic policies of the present Government?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I did not see the statement referred to or the figures that were quoted. The programs of the Government at present are directed towards all aspects of Aboriginal health. I would hope that any predictions with regard to Aboriginal child mortality would not reflect what was suggested by the honourable senator in his question. I believe that the Minister for Health has made statements from time to time to show the emphasis we are placing on nutrition and health for Aboriginal people wherever they may be. I will refer the question to him to see whether any further information can be given on this matter.

page 1935

QUESTION

ACCOMMODATION FOR THE AGED

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Social Security a question relating to organisations which wish to build residential accommodation for the aged and which have not been granted an allocation under her 3-year program. If these organisations have submitted applications and indicated their wish to begin building with reasonable low interest bridging finance, will the Minister guarantee the Commonwealth subsidy for a later date? What advice does the Minister give organisations which have had their plans drawn up, in some cases with the aid of a Commonwealth subsidy paid this year for architects’ fees, but which now find that they are not included in the 3-year program and which have low interest bridging finance available and wish to begin their projects as of now?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– The Government recently announced the 3-year program. We said at that time that those organisations which had allocations approved under the program would be able to proceed with a guarantee from the Government that they would receive funds in accordance with the subsidy levels, which will be changed on a quarterly basis. As far as those organisations which were not included in the 3-year program are concerned, I am not able to give them any guarantee that they will receive funds at some future time or that they will be covered for architects’ fees or other expenses which they incurred in anticipation of approval. This is a difficult situation. If there are individual instances that can be brought to our attention which show that the relatively few extra applications that can be approved at the latest stage of the 3-year program and may be able to come within that stage of the program, we may be able to give them some information; but in general terms those organisations which were not included in the 3-year program should not anticipate that at any future time they will be covered for assistance under a program which at the present time is not yet determined. After we have dealt with this 3-year program we will be looking to recommendations from the Committee on the Care of the Aged and Infirm to ascertain whether we will continue with the same types of programs or whether alternative programs would be more beneficial. For all of these reasons, those organisations in the situation referred to by the honourable senator can be given no concrete assurance that funds will be made available to them at some future time after the expiration of the 3-year program.

Senator McLAREN:

- Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question.

The PRESIDENT:

– I call Senator McLaren on a supplementary question.

Senator McLAREN:

– I asked what advice the Minister was giving to organisations which had already received a subsidy to cover architects’ fees this year and had their plans drawn up but which were not included in the 3-year program.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

-I am sorry; my attention was distracted at the time that part of the question was directed to me. Those organisations which have been covered for their architects’ fees would be in a special category. I will check to see what information we are able to give them. Many of the 900 or so applicants had made progress towards detailed planning and had incurred architectural expenses prior to the announcement of our 3-year program. I will have to determine what advice can be given to them. Under the 3-year program the allocations already approved and announced do not absorb all the funds because we need to allow for increased expenses which will absorb some of the funds. With that small degree of flexibility, some assistance may be able to be given to those organisations which are in special categories where special need is shown to exist. Beyond that, I will look at the position of any organisations which have had funds this year for architectural or other expenses and ascertain what information can be given to them.

page 1935

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

- Mr President, on Thursday of last week Senator Grimes asked me some questions about the existing policy of the Department of Social Security relating to confidentiality of information recorded within the Department. At that time I indicated that I always had stressed with my Department the importance of maintaining confidentiality of matters and I promised to provide Senator Grimes with a considered reply to his questions. I have had some information prepared by the Department. It deals with the policy on confidentiality as introduced in the time when Mr Hayden was the responsible Minister. With the concurrence of the Senate, I should like to have this information incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

  1. Section 17 of the Social Services Act defends the confidentiality of information between the Department of Social Security and the individual pensioner or beneficiary. Generally speaking, under the provisions of the section, information with respect to the affairs of a person acquired by an officer of the Department in the performance of his duties is treated as confidential. However, the section does empower the Minister or the Director-General to divulge information if considered to be necessary in the public interest.
  2. Prior to 21 November 1973 the Department would release information to a relatively large number of authorities on the basis that it was in the public interest to do so.
  3. For example, there was a free exchange of information between Commonwealth and State Departments administering social services and the principle can be traced back to a conference of Commonwealth and State Ministers held in 1934. The object of that conference had been to investigate the need for avoiding overlapping and for greater coordination of social services between the Commonwealth and States. At the conference it was agreed that there should be complete co-operation between Commonwealth and State Departments and that there should be interchange of desired information between the responsible officers.

  4. On 21 November 1973 the then Minister for Social Security the Honourable (W. Hayden) made a statement to the House of Representatives on the disclosure of information from files of the Department of Social Security and provided details of the authorities to whom the Department released information. As a consequence all previous practices of the Department relating to the disclosure of information were revoked and the following Ministerial directive came into effect:

    1. . all access to personal information recorded within the Department of Social Security will be restricted to cases-
    1. where there is explicit written authorisation or verifiable authorisation by the client concerned.
    2. in extreme cases where there exist grave reasons of public interest; and in such cases approval will be decided by either the Director-General or the Minister on each individual case.’

No alteration of the terms of section 1 7 of the Social Services Act was proposed to the Parliament at the time of Mr Hayden ‘s statement but the Department was directed to adopt a narrower interpretation of the expression ‘public interest’ in sub-section (4) of section 17.

  1. When Mr Hayden announced the new policy he also announced that he had arranged with the Attorney-General for the matter to be a subject for thorough consideration by the Committee of Inquiry into the Protection of Privacy. The Committee was established originally to investigate what measures should be adopted to protect the individual privacy of persons in respect of whom data would be supplied to the Health Insurance Commission for the Medibank program. The membership of the original Committee was not considered suitable to undertake an examination of the whole question of the protection of the privacy of clients of the Department of Social Security and the Committee was to be reconstituted by the Attorney-General’s Department. In the event the Committee was not reconstituted before the change of Government in 1975.
  2. Shortly after making the 1973 statement Mr Hayden agreed that the Department could make information available, without the written authority of the client, to Federal and State Members of Parliament (and their staffs) who were making representations on behalf of constituents. Since then approval has been given on a number of occasions to release personal information about clients of the Department in certain specified circumstances. The persons and authorities to whom information has been released, in what circumstances, the designation of the approving authority and the date on which the approval was given are set out in a separate document which I propose to table for the information of honourable senators.
  3. Where an approval was given by other than the Minister to release information the Director-General of the Department would notify the Minister of approvals of disclosure of information in a monthly report. The frequency of this reporting was subsequently changed to quarterly with the approval of Senator the Honourable J. Wheeldon. Since I became the Minister for Social Security the Director-General has notified me of only three approvals and they were given by him during the term of the caretaker Government last year. In addition, however, I approved a request by the Minister for Health in January 1976 for the Department of Health to be supplied with the addresses of some pensioners for use in connection with the provision of pharmaceutical benefits. There is one other matter, where we are in contact with a court, but it is not as yet finalised.
  4. On 1 1 April 1976 the Attorney-General (the Hon. R. J. Ellicott) announced that the Law Reform Commission had been asked to examine and report upon undue invasions of privacy arising from matters under the control of the Commonwealth Parliament. Under the Terms of Reference the Commission will examine what invasions of privacy occur arising out of the collection, recording and storage of information by Government Departments and the communication of this information to any Government Department or authority.
    1. The policy announced by Mr Hayden on 2 1 November 1 973 in relation to the disclosure of information from departmental files, has been confirmed by me and there will not be any review by the Government until the Law Reform Commission reports to the Government on the privacy exercise.
    1. Turning now to the specific questions asked by Senator Grimes on Thursday, 1 1 November 1976. 1 will answer each in the order in which it was asked-

Q.- Is access now again widely available to police departments and others?

A.- No. Early this year I approved a recommendation by the Department to continue with the policy announced by Mr Hayden in 1973, and that will remain the position until the Law Reform Commission submits its report on privacy.

Q.- Which organisations have access to departmental files and in what circumstances do they have access?

A.- Exceptions to the general rule of no access to information without the written authority of the person concerned are listed in a separate document which I propose to table. I should make the point that the Social Services Act places a clear obligation on people to whom information is divulged not to communicate that information to any other person. For example, this applies to members of the Social Security Appeals Tribunals who receive information to enable the hearing of an appeal. The members of the Tribunals are aware of this restriction on the information they are given and, I am sure, appreciate its importance.

Q.- On whose instructions has the situation changed?

A.- It will be seen from the answer which I have given to the first question that the position has not changed since 1973.

Q.- Has the Minister given any instructions that access to information within the Department not be available?

  1. -Shortly after I approved the Department ‘s recommendation to continue with Mr Hayden ‘s policy in relation to this matter I wrote to the Director-General asking him to ensure that the right to privacy of an individual was safeguarded to the maximum extent possible- a copy of my minute to the Director-General is among the documents I propose to table in response to the Honourable Senator’s request.

Q - Can the Minister lay on the table at some time the instructions in regard to access to the files in the Department.

A.- Yes, I propose to table the instruction sent to all staff of the Department on 14 April this year. In addition I propose to table for the information of Honourable Senators the following documents- the schedule which sets out the approved exceptions to the general policy my minute to the Director-General of 1 7 March 1 976 the relevant instruction in the departmental manual on pensions and associated payments the relevant instruction in the departmental manual on unemployment and sickness benefits. (See page 2033 Hansardof 1 7 November 1976)

  1. I have asked the Director-General not to add to the existing list of exceptions to the general policy without prior discussions with me.
  2. In conclusion, Mr President, may I say that if Senator Grimes has information in his possession which would suggest that the rules which I have outlined have not been observed in any particular instance, I would be grateful if he would reveal this to me so that an examination of the circumstances may be undertaken.

page 1937

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1976-77.

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1976-77.

Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1976.

page 1937

ROYAL COMMISSION INTO MATTERS RELATING TO NORFOLK ISLAND

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the report of the Royal Commission into Matters Relating to Norfolk Island.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1937

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

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

– Pursuant to section 37 of the Australian Industry Development Corporation Act 1970,I present the annual report of the Australian Industry Development Corporation for the year ended 30 June 1 976.

page 1937

DAIRY ADJUSTMENT ACT

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

– Pursuant to section 5 of the Dairy Adjustment Act 1974,I present an agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of Tasmania relating to that Act.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

-by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1937

RANGER URANIUM ENVIRONMENTAL INQUIRY

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the text of a statement by the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development relating to the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1937

DEPARTMENT OF THE CAPITAL TERRITORY

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

– For the information of honourable senators I present the annual report of the Department of the Capital Territory for the year ended 30 June 1976.

page 1937

LAW REFORM COMMISSION

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans ‘ Affairs · LP

– For the information of honourable senators, pursuant to section 35 of the Law Reform Commission Act 1973 I present the annual report of the Law Reform Commission for 1975-76.

page 1938

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans ‘ Affairs · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the report of the Industries Assistance Commission on ADP equipment and parts.

page 1938

SENATE ESTIMATES COMMITTEES

Estimates Committee D

Senator BAUME:
New South Wales

-I present additional written answers received by Estimates Committee D since the presentation of its report on 2 1 October 1976. 1 move:

That the answers be printed as part of the report of Estimates Committee D presented on 2 1 October 1 976.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1938

SITTINGS OF THE SENATE

Notice of Motion

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

– by leave- Mr President, as honourable senators are aware, the Parliament is now approaching the end of its current sittings. For some time now the Government has been considering its legislative requirements for the remainder of the year. I believe I should now outline these to the Senate with the timetable the Government envisages will be necessary. This will allow honourable senators to make whatever arrangements that may be necessary for their political and other commitments for the remainder of the year.

In reviewing its legislative proposals the Government has been mindful that the sittings of the Senate should not be unduly prolonged. At the same time it has reviewed all those items of legislation considered necessary to be enacted as quickly as possible. As a result the Government has determined that quite a large number of Bills must be presented to the Parliament before the end of the year. I stress that these Bills are considered essential. Less urgent proposals will be introduced or proceeded with early next year.

Nevertheless there are a large number of Bills that the Government believes should be dealt with with some degree of urgency. They are all important pieces of legislation. Many of them give effect to the Budget, and the general provisions of the Budget have been the subject of long and searching debate. Some-for example, those dealing with personal income tax sharing arrangements for the States and local governmentare important parts of the Government’s federalism policy. These Bills will provide arrangements under which income tax collections can be properly shared among the Commonwealth, the States and local government.

There are a number of Bills providing funds for education which are of the utmost urgency. These Bills implement the programs recommended by the Universities Commission, the Commission an Advanced Education, the Technical and Further Education Commission and the Schools Commission. The funds to be appropriated by these Bills are essential to maintaining existing education activity. In addition, a number of Bills providing greater opportunities and rights for Aborigines should properly be debated in the next few weeks. The Government also wishes to pass legislation establishing the Federal Court of Australia.

Provision will be made for the distribution of the surplus in the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund to pensioners and Bills providing funds to Queensland and New South Wales for flood mitigation and weir construction should also be dealt with. Other legislation considered essential for passage this session includes a variety of provisions for compensation for Commonwealth Government and similar employees. In addition, there are a number of machinery amendments necessary to maintain programs, levies, bounties and such matters which would normally expire if not backed up by legislation. I am sure all honourable senators will agree with me that the Senate has a duty to consider this legislation, and to pass it.

The Whips have had some discussions together with the manager of Opposition business, Senator Douglas McClelland, about this program. I am confident, given goodwill and cooperation from all sides, that the program can be met. As I will indicate, the Government program is flexible enough to accommodate the reasonable needs of honourable senators. At this stage there are between 80 Bills and 90 Bills which the Government would like to be passed by the Senate before the Parliament rises. However while there may appear to be a large number of separate Bills there need not be separate debates on each.

Much of the legislation comprises machinery measures relating to principal Bills and we will be suggesting that there should be a number of cognate debates when this is possible. Therefore, while the total number of Bills is high, it may be possible to have no more than forty or so debates. For example, there are 1 1 Bills relating to the establishment of the Federal Court of Australia, many of them providing amendments to existing legislation. The Government would hope that these Bills can be encompassed within the one debate. Similarly, some 8 Bills relate to the Government’s proposals on education. The Government would hope to have these dealt with in the one debate.

Mr President, I shall shortly seek leave to give a notice of motion relating to sitting times. These will provide some extensions to the existing pattern and will give honourable senators advance information as to how the Government sees the program for the next few weeks. These times are aimed at providing the maximum opportunity for honourable senators to consider legislation while at the same time allowing the Senate to rise for the Christmas recess at a reasonable time.

Honourable senators will recall that in Opposition I was opposed to the use of the gag or guillotine to force legislation through the Senate. I am delighted that the co-operation of senators has, throughout this year, made such devices unnecessary. I am still reluctant to use such measures to fulfil the Government’s legislative program. I believe this would not be the best way to have legislation passed by this Senate. Not only do I have a personal dislike of such measures, but I believe honourable senators will agree with me that this is not the way Parliament should have to be run.

I am pleased to say that this year the Senate has been able to go about its business with amiable agreement reached between both sides, and for this I thank the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wreidt), the Manager of Opposition Business and the Opposition Whip. I am confident the remainder of the year will be no different. I would hope that for the next few weeks those who have a point of view and wish to express it will be given ample opportunity to do so. Both the Government and the Opposition have a mutual interest in ensuring a reasonable time for debate while still meeting a date for finalising the sittings. I do not believe there is any difference of opinion on this between the 2 sides.

The program the Government envisages provides for the Senate to sit for the remainder of this week as already provided. The Senate, as planned, will not sit next week. On the following week the Senate will sit from 2.30 p.m. to 1 1 p.m. on Tuesday, 30 November; 2.15 p.m. to 1 1 p.m. on Wednesday, 1 December; 10 a.m. to 1 1 p.m. on Thursday, 2 December; and 10 a.m. to 11 p.m. on Friday, 3 December. If, of course, the Senate is running on schedule by 5 p.m. that afternoon I will be happy to move that the Senate rise at that time. The Senate will resume again on Monday, 6 December, at 10 a.m. until 11 p.m.; on Tuesday, 7 December, from 2.30 p.m. to 11 p.m.; Wednesday, 8 December, 2.15 p.m. to 1 1 p.m.; Thursday, 9 December, 10 a.m. to 11 p.m.; and Friday, 10 December, from 10 a.m. to 1 1 p.m.

The Government would hope it possible for the Senate to rise on 10 December. However, should the program not be completed at that time the Senate would resume on Monday, 13 December, at 10 a.m. and sit, as for the previous week, until all the Bills are dealt with. In setting the remainder of the legislative program, Mr President, the Government has provided a timetable which goes further than it would like to sit. However, it acknowledges the Senate’s right to considered debate and proper scrutiny of legislation. Therefore while the Government wishes to ensure the Senate deals principally with this legislative program I assure honourable senators that the Senate will be given an opportunity to debate the Fox report on uranium. A Government statement on this matter was tabled today, arid it would be my desire to set aside at least either an afternoon or an evening to give honourable senators an opportunity to discuss this important report. The exact day and time will be decided in consultations between the Government and the Opposition., I also hope a day can be set aside for a debate on the Defence White Paper.

Mr President, as I have said, the Government hopes the Senate would be able to rise by 1 1 p.m. on Friday, 10 December. If, however, the program is not finalised by that date the Senate will continue to sit the following week, and until the program has been met. If the Senate can complete its business before then, I will be delighted to move that it rise. Mr President, I thank the Senate and hope that we can maintain the spirit of friendly co-operation and goodwill that has persisted throughout the year. I seek leave to give notice of a motion. I do so at this stage because I did not wish to do it without making the statement first.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator WITHERS:

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

That the Sessional Orders relating to the days and times of meeting and adjournment of the Senate be varied as follows:

1 ) That, unless otherwise ordered, on and from Tuesday, 30 November 1976 the days and times of meeting of the Senate be as follows:

Tuesday, 30 November 1976-2.30 p.m. to 6.00 p.m., 8.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m. Wednesday, 1 December 1976-2.15 p.m. to 6.00 p.m., 8.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m. Thursday, 2 December 1976-10.00 a.m. to 1 .00 p.m., 2. 1 5 p.m. to 6.00 p.m., 8.00 p.m. to 1 1 .00 p.m. Friday, 3 December 1976-10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m., 2.15 p.m. to 6.00 p.m., 8.00 p.m. to 1 1.00 p.m. Monday, 6 December 1976-10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m., 2. 1 5 p.m. to 6.00 p.m., 8.00 p.m. to 1 1 .00 p.m. Tuesday, 7 December 1976-2.30 p.m. to 6.00 p.m., 8.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m. Wednesday, 8 December 1976-2.15 p.m. to 6.00 p.m., 8.00 p.m. to 1 1.00 p.m. Thursday, 9 December 1976-10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m., 2.15 p.m. to 6.00 p.m., 8.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m. Friday, 10 December 1976-10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m., 2.15 p.m. to 6.00 p.m., 8.00 p.m. to 1 1.00 p.m. Monday, 13 December 1976-10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m., 2.15 p.m. to 6.00 p.m., 8.00 p.m. to 1 1.00 p.m. Tuesday, 14 December 1976-2.30 p.m. to 6.00 p.m., 8.00 p.m. to 1 1.00 p.m. Wednesday, 15 December 1976-2.15 p.m. to 6.00 p.m., 8.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m. Thursday, 16 December 1976-10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m., 2.15 p.m. to 6.00 p.m., 8.00 p.m. to 1 1.00 p.m. Friday, 17 December 1976-10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m., 2.15 p.m. to 6.00 p.m., 8.00 p.m. to 1 1.00 p.m.

That, unless otherwise ordered, the Sessional Order relating to the adjournment of the Senate have effect at 1 1.00 p.m. each day.

While I have given notice that I will move that motion on the next day of sitting, I shall certainly meet the wishes of the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues who will no doubt wish to discuss this matter.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– by leave- Without getting involved in a long, tedious and boring debate about the sitting hours of the Senate, I indicate that Senator Withers sent both myself and Senator Douglas McClelland a copy of the statement that he has just made. It is true that this year the Opposition has endeavoured to co-operate where it has considered it necessary to do so. But there is probably a limit or a stage at which cooperation becomes very difficult. I suggest, after discussions with my colleagues this afternoon before the Senate sat, that we feel generally that we are just about at that stage. I do not believe that in the 8’/i years that I have been a member of the Senate I have ever seen a more horrendous schedule of sitting times than what is before us now. I do not see any reason why we should kill ourselves off one by one, which is what we will do if we embark on a program which involves meeting at 10 a.m. on Monday and concluding at 1 1 p.m. on Friday.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Just because public servants are lax in getting their legislation drafted.

Senator WRIEDT:

– Whatever the reason may be, it is quite evident that, if we are to have additional debates on White Papers, uranium mining and so on, we will be here until Christmas. It is quite obvious to me that the Senate will rise 2 days before Christmas and we will go home then.

The likelihood of the Senate rising on 16 December is pretty remote. That being the case, it would seem somewhat illogical to drive outselves into the ground just for the sake of getting through ‘X’ number of Bills. However, I am not indicating any definitive position; rather am I reacting to the notice of motion given by Senator Withers. As I have indicated to him, on behalf of the Opposition I will have some discussion with him later in the day and perhaps put some alternatives to him. Then we can finally determine the position tomorrow.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Mr President, I seek leave to make a short statement. I assure you that it will be very brief.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I draw the attention of the Senate, particularly of Senator Withers, to his statement appearing on page 7 of the printed copy of his speech where he said that the Whips had had some discussions together with me, in my capacity as Manager of Opposition Business, about this program. I do not wish it to be inferred from that statement for one moment that either Senator Georges or I have agreed with the program.

Senator Withers:

– I did not say that you had agreed.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I do not wish it to be thought for one moment that I expressed any agreement with that program in any capacity.

Senator Withers:

– I just said that you had had discussions. I was very careful to say that.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I know that.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-Mr President, I seek leave to make a brief statement.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– You are squaring off before your Caucus.

Senator GEORGES:

-That was an uncalledfor remark by Senator Sir Magnus Cormack.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Mr President, I raise a point of order. You can see what we are getting into now. I sought leave to make a statement. Senator Georges sought leave to make a statement. Senator Sir Magnus Cormack uttered what I regard as an offensive remark in that he said: ‘You are trying to square off before your

Caucus’. I object. I ask that Senator Sir Magnus Cormack be made to withdraw the remark.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– I will not withdraw.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Well, this is what you are starting.

Senator Chaney:

- Mr President, it may ease the matter if I make a brief comment on the point of order, simply to say-

Opposition senators interjecting-

Senator Chaney:

– Speaking to the point of order, Mr President, I wish to make it quite clear that at no time did I represent to the Government that either Senator Douglas McClelland or the Opposition Whip, Senator Georges, was agreeable.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I still ask that Senator Sir Magnus Cormack be asked to withdraw his remark.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– I am not going to withdraw the remark.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I claimed that the remark was offensive. I ask that the remark be withdrawn.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Douglas McClelland has claimed that the remark made by Senator Sir Magnus Cormack is offensive to him.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Well, Mr President, I rise in deference to your wishes in these matters; but I consider that some line has to be drawn, if someone can claim that a matter is offensive when in reality it is not offensive. If we are going to turn ourselves into a virginal girls choir, well, let us do it; but I am not going to be part of it. If it will satisfy the semantic virginity of Senator Douglas McClelland, I withdraw the remark.

The PRESIDENT:

– Thank you, Senator Cormack. Senator Georges will proceed.

Senator GEORGES:

– If we get into so much trouble when I rise, perhaps I should reconsider the matter before I speak. I attract the attention of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Withers) to these words in his statement:

Honourable senators will recall that in Opposition I was opposed to the use of gag or guillotine to force legislation through the Senate. I am delighted that the co-operation of senators has . . . made such devices unnecessary. I am still reluctant to use such measures to fulfil the Government’s legislative program.

I have not had an opportunity to go through Hansard but I recall very well the attitude the Leader of the Government took at the beginning of the new Parliament. He came into this place and threatened us with the numbers that he has at his command. In fact, he moved the gag and the guillotine, and he did it with great arrogance. I am glad that he has a short memory. If honourable senators opposite wish it, I will quote Hansard to them when I have the opportunity. I welcome the change of attitude by the Leader of the Government, but I remind him that we in the Opposition are cautious about his statement, having in mind the attitude that he took at the beginning of the year. I am hoping that he will not revert to the position he took then, but he needs to be reminded that he did rather regressively move the gag. The Opposition reacted strongly and he soon found that he saved very little time by moving the gag and the guillotine. If the Government attempts to do this again we are most certainly prepared to stay here until it gets this legislation through.

page 1941

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE

Motion (by Senator Withers)- by leaveagreed to:

That notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders Senator Cotton and Senator Wriedt be appointed as members of the Standing Orders Committee.

page 1941

VOTING ARRANGEMENTS

Senator CHANEY:
Western Australia

-by leave- By agreement between the Whips in the Senate, Senator Coleman will not vote in divisions on sitting days this week to compensate for the vacancy caused by the death of Senator Greenwood.

page 1941

STATES GRANTS (BEEF INDUSTRY) 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 Cotton) read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

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

The PRESIDENT:

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

The speech read as follows-

Senator COTTON:

-The purpose of this Bill is to amend the States Grants (Beef Industry) Act 1 975 to enable the Commonwealth to provide up to $15m to match on a dollar for dollar basis State funds approved for lending in 1976-77 under the beef carry-on loans scheme. The scheme provides low interest carry-on finance to specialist beef producers with a sound asset structure who would be viable given a return to more normal beef market conditions.

Last year the Industries Assistance Commission, in its report on short term assistance for beef cattle producers, recommended, among other things, that the carry-on loans scheme be extended to provide up to 2 years carry-on finance - -presently the scheme provides for 12 months finance- and that the terms and conditions of the loans be liberalised. The States have indicated their general agreement to the revised terms and conditions, which will closely follow the recommendations of the IAC. Formal acceptance by the States is to be sought by means of a Prime Minister-Premier exchange of letters. Up to 2 years carry-on finance will be provided, with the loan limit of $15,000 per year presently applying only to Queensland to be extended to all eligible producers in the pastoral zone or on pastoral or similar leases. Elsewhere the existing limit of $ 1 0,000 per year will apply. Limits in all areas may be relaxed in special circumstances at the discretion of the loan administering authority. Rates of interest will average not less than 4 per cent per annum for all loans.

The estimated cost of the Commonwealth’s contribution in 1976-77 under the extended scheme is $ 15m. The Commonwealth’s commitment to 30 June 1976 under the existing scheme was some $ 12.3m and hence the Bill provides for a total Commonwealth outlay of $27.3m from the inception of the scheme. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Gietzelt) adjourned.

page 1942

QUEENSLAND GRANT (SPECIAL ASSISTANCE) 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:

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-

Senator COTTON:

-The main purpose of this Bill is to authorise the payment to Queensland of $27m in 1976-77 in the form of special grants. The payment of this amount is in accordance with the recommendations of the Grants Commission contained in its forty-third report on special assistance for the States which was tabled in the Senate by the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers). The Bill also seeks authority for payment of advances to Queensland in the early months of 1977-78, pending receipt of the Commission’s recommendations for that year and enactment of any necessary legislation to provide for special grants that may be paid to the State in that year.

The Commonwealth Government makes special grants to certain of the States to compensate them for such factors as lower capacity to raise revenue from their own resources and higher costs in providing government services of a standard similar to those in the financially stronger States. When special grants were first paid they constituted the only regular form of general revenue assistance paid to the financially weaker States for this purpose. However, for many years now, the main way in which special compensatory assistance has been provided has been through the higher per capita shares of other general revenue funds paid to the four less populous States. This meant principally that, prior to the current financial year, the financial assistance grants, or formula grants, paid to Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania were higher, in per capita terms, than the financial assistance grants paid to New South Wales and Victoria. From the beginning of 1 976-77, those formula grants are, of course, being replaced with the personal income tax sharing arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States.

I emphasise however that under the personal income tax sharing arrangements, the less populous States will continue to be free to apply for special financial assistance on the recommendation of the Grants Commission. As honourable senators will be aware, this is one of the explicit understandings between governments in relation to the tax sharing arrangements. Any such special grants would be regarded as supplementing a State’s entitlement under the tax sharing arrangements in the same way as they formerly supplemented the financial assistance grants.

The Grants Commission, in arriving at its recommendations in relation to claims for special assistance, makes an assessment of the financial needs of a claimant State. To quantify these needs, the Commission compares in detail the finances of the claimant State with those in New South Wales and Victoria, taking into account differences in revenue-raising capacity and differences in the cost of providing comparable services.

The payments of special grants recommended by the Grants Commission consist of 2 parts. One part is based on a preliminary estimate of the claimant State’s financial need in the current financial year, and is treated as an advance payment subject to adjustment 2 years later when the Commission has compared in detail the finances of the claimant and standard States for that year. The other part represents the final adjustment to the advance payment made 2 years earlier and is known as the completion payment. This adjustment may be positive or negative and therefore may result in the final grant in respect of a year being higher or lower than the advance payment for that year.

Currently Queensland is the only State applying for special revenue assistance under the Grants Commission arrangements. The payment to Queensland in 1976-77 of $27m provided for by this Bill comprises an advance payment of $18m in respect of 1976-77 and a completion payment of $9m in respect of 1974-75. The completion payment in respect of 1974-75, when added to the $15m advance grant paid to Queensland in that year, brings the final grant in respect of 1 974-75 to $24m, which is $2.7m more than the corresponding figure for 1973-74. The advance grant for 1976-77 will, in accordance with normal practice, be subject to adjustment in 2 years time.

The Commission’s recommendations in relation to the special grants arrangements have been adopted by the Parliament each year since the Commission’s inception and the Government considers that they should be accepted on this occasion. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Mulvihill) adjourned.

page 1943

SOFTWOOD FORESTRY AGREEMENTS 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. 1 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-

Senator COTTON:

-To date there have been 2 Acts authorising softwood planting agreements between the Commonwealth and each State, both of which covered a 5-year period. These were the Softwood Forestry Agreements Act of 1967, which marked the commencement on 1 July 1966 of an expanded softwood planting program in the States, and the 1972 Act, which terminated on 30 June 1976. The purpose of the softwood planting agreements is to increase the level of softwood planting from that being funded by the State governments prior to the Acts coming into force, to a level related to Australia’s future needs for softwood forest products. With the assistance of loan funds provided under the first 2 Acts, the area of State Government owned softwood plantations in Australia increased by about 220 000 hectares in the decade covered by the Acts. Total loan payments were of the order of $48m, about 10 per cent of which was for purchase of land.

The effect of this proposed legislation will be to enable the Commonwealth to enter into an agreement with each State covering the financing of a program of softwood planting for the year ending 30 June 1977 under the same general terms and conditions which applied under the Softwood Forestry Agreements Act 1972, but at a reduced level. The Government regards a one year extension of financial assistance as a necessary holding measure while the question of further agreements covering a longer term is reviewed.

The Australian Forestry Council has had the question of a third series of softwood forestry agreements under review for some time. Recommendations on the future level of plantings were deferred pending the completion of the study of the operation of the softwood planting agreements undertaken by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation of the Twenty-ninth Parliament. That committee considered that there was a need for a softwood planting program, possibly at lower levels of planting than covered by the 1 972 Act. It also expressed some doubts about the economics of pine planting in Australia and recommended that an immediate study be carried out by a body such as the Bureau of Agricultural Economics to determine the economic viability of the softwood planting program on both strict financial grounds and on the broadest possible cost-benefit grounds. As a consequence of this recommendation 2 studies have been carried out. The BAE has reported on the demand for forest products and the economic viability of the industries through which they are processed. The Bureau also has provided estimates of the supply and demand for these products to 2020 A.D. The Forestry and Timber Bueau has made an assessment of the costs and benefits of growing pines in Australia.

The BAE report has been made available for the consideration of the Standing Committee of the Australian Forestry Council and it is scheduled to be published as soon as possible. This series of events has precluded the possibility of a Government decision on the longer term position being raised before the conclusion of the 1972 Act. The 2 studies carried out by the 2 Bureaux in the Department of Primary Industry indicate that from an economic viewpoint it will be in Australia’s interests to continue with a pine planting program. They provide a basis for assessing what level of future planting is desirable and whether further federal financial assistance is justified. In accordance with the findings of the parliamentary committee report, the level of planting proposed to be financed this year is less than previously. Unlike the previous Acts, expenditure is limited to a specific sum in order to conform to Government policy of financial restrictions. The $6m loan allocation is expected to allow a level of Commonwealth financed planting half of that which applied under the 1972 Act.

Normally, expenditure of Commonwealth funds would require the preparation by the States of environmental impact statements on the proposed plantings. Because of the time required to prepare and consider these statements, insistence on this requirement would negate the purpose of the extension. As a complete compromise, and in recognition of other recommendations of the House of Representatives

Standing Comittee, the States have agreed in respect of the extension year plantings that to the greatest extent possible, new plantings should be established on land which has already been cleared for agricultural purposes and that the guidelines for forest management procedures in paragraph 159 of the Standing Committee’s report be followed. The States have been advised that should the Commonwealth and the States enter into agreements for a further period, it would be necessary to comply with the administrative procedures under the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1 974.

Mr President, in placing this Bill before the Senate, the Government has given consideration to the benefit to rural communities of the softwood program and of the greater benefits to these areas and to the nation which will accrue when industries using the raw material of the forests are established or expanded. It has given consideration also to the employment opportunities provided in rural areas by the softwood planting program and the social disruption that a sudden termination of Commonwealth financial assistance would bring. I commend this Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Mulvihill) adjourned.

page 1944

AIRPORTS (SURFACE TRAFFIC) 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 Carrick) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator CARRICK (New South Wales-

Minister for Education) (4.7) - I move:

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

The PRESIDENT:

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

The speech read as follows-

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– This Bill is primarily designed to amend the Airports (Surface Traffic) Act 1960 to overcome a number of problems being encountered in administering that Act. The Act provides for the control of surface vehicular traffic and the charging of parking fees for parking vehicles at airports owned and operated by the Commonwealth. The Act has not been amended in any material respect since it was passed in 1960. Practical experience in the operation of the Act since that time has disclosed some problems and deficiencies which can be remedied only by the amendments proposed in this Bill. Several proposed amendments are purely to clarify or improve the existing wording of various sections of the Act in order to achieve its purposes- In some instances, the introduction of modern car parking control equipment such as ticket spitting machines at the entrances to car parks, where the parking fee is payable on leaving, has produced situations which were not envisaged when the Act was originally drafted.

Several other proposed amendments relate to the monetary value of the fines and penalties specified in the Act. The Bill proposes to increase these amounts to compensate for the effects of inflation since they were set in 1960. For example, the maximum general penalty for illegal parking, damaging signs or notices is increased from $40 to $100. This will restore the deterrent value of the fines and penalties which is necessary for efficient airport traffic control.

A new matter provided for by the Bill is the disposal of derelict motor vehicles left on airports. This has become a problem at some places. The Act in its present form does not provide any machinery whereby these vehicles may be disposed of. The Bill inserts provisions conferring on the Secretary to the Department of Transport powers similar to those conferred on local municipalities under State laws. He may give notice requiring payment of parking fees owing and for the vehicle to be removed. This notice may be served personally, by registered letter or by means of a newspaper advertisement. If the notice is not complied with the vehicle may be sold by public tender. The proceeds go to Consolidated Revenue. Any excess of the sale price over the costs of disposal can be claimed by the owner. If no tender is received for a vehicle it may be disposed of in any appropriate manner.

The provisions as to operation of the owneronus system have been revised to simplify the procedures and to apply to cases when the owner of the vehicle is a corporation and not a private individual. New provisions are made to enable undefended prosecutions for parking offences to be dealt with without the necessity for departmental traffic officers to attend a Court to give evidence. This provision is also modelled on State legislation. Where at the hearing the defendant pleads guilty or does not appear a certificate may be given as to any matters relating to the offence. This certificate is evidence of the matters stated in it, by virtue of existing provisions in the Act. This amendment will produce significant cost savings in salaries paid to traffic officers.

The amendments to the Act proposed in this Bill are expected to improve the Department’s general administration in enforcing the Act, thereby resulting in greater efficiency of airport traffic control, some increase in Commonwealth revenue and various administrative cost savings. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland) adjourned.

page 1945

STATES GRANTS (NATURE CONSERVATION) 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 Carrick) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I move:

I seek leave to have the text of the speech incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The speech read as follows-

Senator CARRICK:

– This is a Bill to amend the States Grants (Nature Conservation) Act 1974. It is a simple amendment, designed to provide flexibility in programs developed with the States for nature conservation. The Government has a clear policy to work through the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers in the development of co-operative programs for the conservation and management of Australia’s wildlife.

In October 1972 a select committee of the House of Representatives reported on the broad subject of wildlife conservation. It recommended, among other things, that the Commonwealth Government should initiate a national policy aimed at acquiring land in the form of national parks and reserves for the protection of habitat sites and that a program of grants to the States under Section 96 be instituted to enable the States to acquire areas of wildlife habitat that are of national significance.

The report of the select committee established under a Liberal-Country Party Government in

May 1970 is a landmark in Commonwealth Government policies for the protection of Australia’s unique fauna and flora; it set the pattern and provided guidelines for much of the future legislation for nature conservation in Australia.

In 1974 the Parliament legislated to make it possible for the Commonwealth to provide financial assistance to the States for purposes connected with nature conservation. This Act makes provision for the Minister to agree with an appropriate Minister of a State upon programs of land acquisition for nature conservation and for payments of financial assistance to be made to the States in accordance with the approved programs. Since the Act was passed, there have been some highly significant land acquisitions carried out by the States with funds provided from the Commonwealth. A project of current interest is the land at Yellingbo, Victoria, on the eastern side of the Dandenongs. The Commonwealth and the State governments are co-operating in a program of acquisitions to secure the habitat of the helmeted honeyeater. This bird is the emblem of Victoria, and occurs only in this area. It is an endangered species, whose existence is threatened through loss of its native habitat.

This financial year the Government has included an amount of $3.3m in the Appropriation Act (No. 2), of which $75,000 has been set aside to assist the State of Tasmania to develop management plans for the establishment of the South-West National Park. This extension of the Commonwealth’s role in nature conservation, from land acquisition to management activities, is in response to a general view expressed among the States that the acquisition of land in itself is only the first step towards creating secure areas where flora and fauna can be protected and preserved. An equally important activity is the management of these areas and this has led the Government to decide on an amendment to the Act so that the States can be given flexibility within an overall program of financial assistance for nature conservation, to determine in consultation with the Commonwealth where the priority needs lie, in the particular circumstances of their own State responsibilities. The decision of the Government to include an appropriation for Tasmania this year is, of course, in fulfilment of our announced policy to assist the Tasmanian Government in establishing a national park of world significance in south-west Tasmania.

I take this opportunity to refer more broadly to the role of the Commonwealth Government in respect to its policies and practices for the conservation of our national heritage. I know there has been a lot of criticism made of the Government recently and a good deal of concern expressed within the community about our priorities. I would like to refute the assertions that are made from time to time that this Government is giving very low priority to matters that affect the environment and the quality of life. The record shows otherwise. Since coming to office the Government has made appointments to the Australian Heritage Commission, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, and the National Parks and Wildlife Service.

It has provided appropriations for these statutory bodies to enable them to begin urgent and priority tasks. Appropriations are made for conservation programs involving the National Estate, nature conservation and grants to the voluntary conservation bodies such as the National Trusts and Environment Centres. The appropriations are not as large as we would have liked, but the Government has made it perfectly clear that its overriding objective this year must be a return to economic stability, and that part of the strategy must be restraint in Government spending. Equally, the Government has made it clear that it accepts a role and responsibility for the conservation of our National Estate, whether it be of the natural environment or of the built environment. The introduction of this Bill today and the inclusion of funds in the Appropriation Bill is evidence of our determination to work with the States in trying to conserve our national heritage, and I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Mulvihill) adjourned.

page 1946

STATES GRANTS LEGISLATION

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Senator Carrick)- by leaveagreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of the States Grants (Universities Assistance) Bill 1976, the States Grants (Universities) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1976, the States Grants (Advanced Education Assistance) Bill 1976, the States Grants (Advanced Education) Amendment Bill ( No. 2 ) 1 976, the States Grants (Technical and Further Education Assistance) Bill 1976, the States Grants (Technical and Further Education) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1976, the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill 1976 and the States Grants (Schools) Amendment BUI 1976 being put in one motion at each stage, and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole.

page 1947

STATES GRANTS (UNIVERSITIES ASSISTANCE) BILL 1976

Bills received from the House of Representatives.

Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay.

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

Second Readings

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I move:

I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The speeches read as follows-

States Grants (Universities Assistance) Bill 1976

In July 1976 the Universities Commission presented to the Government its Report for 1977-79 Triennium, in accordance with the guidelines determined by the Government for the tertiary education Commissions, which I announced in the Parliament on 20 May 1976. This Bill provides financial assistance to the States to meet operating and building expenditure of the 18 State universities for the year 1977. In particular it provides ongoing support for the establishment of Deakin University in Geelong, and for Griffith University and Murdoch University which will be enrolling third year students for the first time in 1977. Special earmarked support is also provided for the Australian Graduate School of

Management at the University of New South Wales, the School of Medicine at the University of Newcastle, the School of Medicine at Flinders University of South Australia, and the School of Veterinary Studies at Murdoch University. Priority has been given to an increase in funds for the University of Wollongong to bring that University closer to the standard of other, more established, universities.

The Commission’s recommendations were expressed in December 1975 cost levels. The amounts provided in this Bill make allowance for subsequent movements in salary costs to the September quarter 1976, in non-salary costs to the June quarter 1976 and in building costs to the month of June 1976. A total of $520.7m is available to the States under this Bill for university purposes in respect of the year 1977, of which 5 14m is for recurrent costs and equipment purchases and $6. 7m for building programs. Estimated expenditure on State universities for 1977, including building funds available from earlier appropriations, amounts to $546. lm at the previously mentioned cost levels. This figure does not of course include grants for the Australian National University which are provided under annual appropriations. Subsequent adjustments will be required for cost movements, and these will be made in accordance with new procedures for cost supplementation applying to the 1977 program. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

States Grants (Universities) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1976

This Bill amends the States Grants (Universities) Act 1972 and the States Grants (Universities) Act 1976 to adjust the approved programs of grants to State universities for the 1973-75 triennium and for the year 1976 respectively. The Bill takes account of known variations in costs over and above those which have occurred since the previous adjustments were made in legislation enacted earlier this year. The proposed amendment to the States Grants (Universities) Act 1972 is the last in a series of amending Bills to provide for adjustments for the 1973-75 triennium. The Bill makes no change to the terms and conditions attached to the grants. The additional amounts to be paid to the States for universities in respect of the 1973-75 triennium have been calculated on the basis of price levels for the December quarter 1975 for operating expenses, and December 1975 for the building expenditure. The additional amount to be provided totals $ 1 .24m of which $ 1.14m is for operating expenditure and $0.1 m for outstanding building projects.

Together with previous amendments to the Principal Act, grants which have been provided for the 1973-75 triennium for State universities now total $98 1.3m. When the State contributions are taken into account the total program for the 18 State universities is $ 1 1 69m.

In respect of the year 1976, the additional amounts take account for the recommendations of the Academic Salaries Tribunal 1976 Review which have been accepted by the Government. They also take account of movements in the appropriate salaries indexes to the September quarter 1976 and to the non-salary indexes to the June quarter 1976. In the case of the 1976 program the additional amount totals $44m of which $37.3m is for operating expenditure and $6.7m for the building program. The total estimated value of expenditure on State universities for 1 976, including building funds available from earlier appropriations, amounts to $526m in the previously mentioned cost levels. Further amendments to the States Grants (Universities) Act 1976 will be required as information becomes available on movements in costs to the end of the year 1976. 1 commend the Bill to the Senate.

States Grants (Advanced Education Assistance) Bill 1976

The purpose of the Bill is to provide $4 1 5m for the approved programs of financial assistance to the States for the funding of colleges of advanced education in respect of the 1977 calendar year, following the acceptance of the financial recommendations made in the 1977-1979 Report of the Commission on Advanced Education, which conform to guidelines announced by the Government on 20 May 1976.

The grants included in the Bill total $343,521,000 for expenditure under the recurrent program and $70,456,000 for expenditure under the capital program. In addition, the Bill provides for recurrent grants on a formula basis to assist in meeting the administrative costs of student residences and affiliated residential colleges providing accommodation of a collegiate nature. The estimated expenditure on these grants in respect of 1977 is $715,000.

The programs are based on the financial recommendations contained in the Commission’s Report after transferring to the university sector $6.6m for allocation to the Deakin University on behalf of the Gordon Institute of Technology and the State College of Victoria, Geelong, which will be absorded into the Deakin University in 1977, and $3m to the Technical and Further Education sector for advanced education courses in TAFE institutions.

Because the Commission’s financial recommendations were expressed in December 1975 cost levels the amounts shown in the Bill include an allowance to cover cost increases since that date. The allowance is based on indices to take account of increases in costs up to September 1976 in the case of academic salaries and nonacademic (general) salaries and wages, and June 1976 in the case of building, equipment and other non-salary costs. In accordance with new cost supplementation procedures it will be necessary, in due course, to make further adjustments to the amounts shown in the Bill. I commend this Bill to the Senate.

States Grants (Advanced Education) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1976

The main purpose of the Bill is to amend the States Grants (Advanced Education) Act 1972-1976 and the States Grants (Advanced Education) Act 1976 to provide, in accordance with the established policy and procedural arrangements, supplementary grants totalling $33,284,880 to cover cost increases not allowed for when the 1973-1975 triennial and 1976 programs in respect of colleges of advanced education and approved non-government teachers colleges were adopted.

The supplementary grants being provided for the 1973-1975 programs comprise $623,510 for recurrent expenditure and $564,340 for capital expenditure and are the final cost escalation adjustments to be made to the 1973-1975 programs. The grants in the existing Act contain a provision to cover cost increases occurring up to December 1 975 in the case of salaries, and September 1975 in relation to building equipment and other non-salary costs.

In the case of the 1976 programs the amounts of cost supplementation being provided for in the Bill comprise $24,829,000 for recurrent expenditure and $7,268,030 for capital expenditure and are based on indices to take account of increases in costs up to September 1976 in the case of academic salaries and non-academic (general) salaries and wages, and June 1976 in the case of building, equipment and other nonsalary costs. Further adjustments for cost movements to the end of 1976 will be required as the relevant indices become available.

The grants contained in the existing Act were based on amounts set out in the Commission on Advanced Education’s Report, Recommendations for 1976. The recurrent program includes an allowance to cover cost increases from the June quarter 1975 cost levels of the Report to December quarter 1975 cost levels. The capital program is at June 1975 cost levels. As the amendments included in the Bill affect the programs detailed in the Schedules to the Acts, the opportunity has been taken to include in the revised Schedules the changed names of some colleges and a number of intra and inter program transfers of funds which have been approved under the provisions of the Acts. The additional funds provided by this Bill bring the total Commonwealth financial assistance provisions for colleges of advanced education in the States to $744m for the 1973-75 triennium and $385m for 1976. 1 commend the Bill to the Senate.

States Grants (Technical and Further Education Assistance) Bill 1976

The purpose of this Bill is to provide financial assistance to the States for technical and further education in respect of the year 1977. The Bill gives effect to the recommendations relating to 1977 contained in the Report of the Technical and Further Education Commission for the triennium 1977-79.

The total amount which the Bill makes available to the States for 1977 is $79,088,000, of which $37,270,000 is for capital expenditure and $41,818,000 is for recurrent expenditure. The prime responsibility for technical and further education rests with the States and these amounts are supplementary to the States’ own efforts in this area of education. Building projects to be supported by the Commonwealth m 1977 are listed in a Schedule to the Bill. Most of the projects are located in the State capitals where the Technical and Further Education Commission considers that the greatest demand for new training facilities is to be found.

The general purpose recurrent grants are intended to reimburse the States for the costs of abolition of tuition fees for vocational courses, a measure adopted in 1974 at the request of the Commonwealth Government. Special purpose recurrent grants are being provided to meet 2 broad areas of concern which warrant Commonwealth assistance in the form of national programs to meet urgent needs in all States. These areas are staff development and the improvement of the collection of data on the enrolments, staffing and resources of technical and further education so that firmly based planning decisions can be made. Particular purpose grants are being provided to enable the States to achieve desirable improvements in the effectiveness of technical and further education. The grants will be applied by the States to fit in with their individual priorities.

The Bill also provides the first grants for programs to be carried out by non-government adult education bodies. The allocation of the funds is to be made by an agency nominated by each State in accordance with guidelines mutually acceptable to State and Commonwealth governments. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

States Grants (Technical and Further Education) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1976

This Bill amends the States Grants (Technical and Further Education) Act 1974-76 to adjust the approved program of grants to the States for technical and further education for the period 1 July 1975 to 31 December 1976. The Government has agreed that cost supplementation of grants for technical and further education should be applied from 1 July 1975. The Bill gives effect to this decision and provides additional funds totalling $5.633m, bringing the funds available for technical and further education since 1 July 1 974 to $ 1 37m. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill 1976

This Bill provides for the payment of grants to the States for government and non-government schools in 1977-the first year of the 1977-79 rolling triennium. The Government issued guidelines for the triennial programs of the education commissions on 20 May of this year providing expenditure in 1977 of $508m, in December 1975 prices, on schools in the States. The Schools Commission’s report for the 1977-79 rolling triennium was tabled in the Parliament on 18 August. The Government’s decisions on the Commission’s recommendations were announced by me in the Senate on 4 November.

The Bill provides for programs estimated to cost $459.4m (December 1975 prices) for the 1977 calendar year, the balance of the $508m- $48.6m being available under the ongoing States Grants (Schools) Act 1972. This Bill therefore honours the Government’s undertakings in relation to the first year of the 1977-79 rolling triennium- the amount represents a 2 per cent growth in real terms over 1976. The grants in this Bill are expressed in June 1976 prices for capital programs, and September 1 976 prices for recurrent programs, except for the nongovernment schools general recurrent progam which includes an allowance for cost increases during the first half of 1 977. Consequently the grants for 1 977 actually incorporated in this Bill amount to an estimated $509.5m. The grants will be subject to supplementation by amending legislation for subsequent movement in costs. Supplementary funds for this purpose will be determined by movements in the Schools Price Index after any offsetting savings are taken into account.

The introduction of the rolling triennium will enable, as each year progresses, plans for the remaining 2 years of the triennium to be reviewed and updated and initial proposals to be made for a new third year. This Bill gives effect to the new arrangement for 1977. For years 2 and 3 of the 1977-79 triennium, the Schools Commission is to plan on the basis of a minimum growth of 2 per cent per annum over the level of expenditure in year 1. The Government has considered recommendations of the Schools Commission against the background of its own education policies for schools. These include widening educational opportunity and promoting equality; parental choice in schooling; encouragement of community participation in education policy development and implementation; and special assistance to the educationally disadvantaged. We endorse in particular the emphasis the Schools Commission wishes to see given to moves to create 2-way communication between schools, parents, employers and the community at large; and encouragement of cooperative planning between government and non-government school authorities.

The Government welcomes moves by school communities and State governments to encourage a more active role for parents, teachers and local communities in school management and decision-making. In particular it is the Government’s intention that these groups participate with government and non-government school authorities in planning activities under the disadvantaged country areas program. The Bill gives effect to several new initiatives proposed by the Commission. Principal among these are programs for disadvantaged country areas, to which I have just alluded, emergency aid for nongovernment schools in temporary financial difficulties, particularly in country areas, and grants for the education of children living in institutions. Funds will also be available for the first time in 1977 for the provision of boarding facilities in non-government schools. The Government has decided to guarantee loans for approved non-government school building projects and to implement a scheme of advance offers of building grants for these schools to enable projects to be commenced sooner than would otherwise be the case. Legislation to authorise the former of these 2 schemes will be introduced in the Autumn session while the latter does not call for legislation.

General Resources Programs

As indicated in my statement in the Senate on 4 November, we have accepted the Commission’s financial recommendations for Government schools in broad terms but have modified the recommended distribution between States of capital grants. This modification was made after considering the basis of the recommended distribution and relating this to the existing pattern of grants in 1976. The Government considered that, in the light of 1976 allocations, the recommended total of general recurrent and capital grants for Queensland would make it too difficult for that State to implement its planned programs for 1977. The modified distribution of grants decided on by the Government results in a $1.4m addition in December 1975 prices to Queensland’s allocation for general capital grants offset against slight reductions in the allocations for four other States. As is the case in relation to grants for 1976, the Commonwealth is prepared to consult with the States on the question of transfers between the allocations for general recurrent and capital grants within each State. This move is aimed at providing each State with a degree of flexibility in planning the use of grants under these two programs.

The Government reaffirms its policy of providing basic per capita grants for all pupils in nongovernment schools while at the same time maintaining higher grants for schools in greater need. It is concerned to encourage parental choice. The Government has accepted the Schools Commission recommendation that the level of grants for non-government schools be linked automatically in future years to per pupil expenditure levels in government schools. The Government has generally accepted the Commission’s recommended levels of funding for non-government schools in 1977 but has decided to increase the size of recommended general recurrent grant for the most needy primary schools from $223 to$229 per pupil (in average 1976 price levels). These schools cater for approximately 90 per cent of enrolments in nongovernment primary schools. The Government has decided not to proceed with the introduction of a ‘Supported Schools’ scheme for nongovernment schools. The per pupil grants for non-government schools in 1977 are set out in the Bill and include allowance for price increases in the first half of 1977.

Specific Purpose Programs

The Government will be continuing the special purpose programs in 1977, generally at about the same level of activity as in 1976- for migrant and multi-cultural education; for disadvantaged schools; for handicapped children; for educational services and development; and for special projects. The provisions incorporated in the Bill will contribute significantly to maintaining and improving primary and secondary education in both government and non-government schools in the States. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

States Grants (Schools) Amendment Bill 1976

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the States Grants (Schools) Act 1976 and the States Grants (Schools) Act 1972 to provide supplementary grants to the States for government and nongovernment schools. When the States Grants (Schools) Bill 1976 was introduced earlier this year it was indicated that the grants for 1 976 were, in the main, expressed in June 1975 price levels and would be supplemented by amending legislation for subsequent movements in costs. This Bill is presented in accordance with that undertaking. The commitment to the Commonwealth for 1976 under both the existing Acts amounts to $476.2m. This Bill extends that commitment to $53 1.9m- an increase of $55. 7m. The 1976-77 Budget estimates include allowance for payment of supplementary grants in respect of cost increases.

For general recurrent expenditure for nongovernment schools, the grants incorporated in the Bill include a prospective allowance for cost increases up to the end of the year. For other programs further supplementary grants have yet to be determined as information concerning cost increases becomes available; these additional funds will be provided for through a subsequent amendment to the Acts to be introduced in the 1977 Autumn sittings. In addition to adjusting grants for 1976, the Bill adjusts grants for 1977 under the States Grants (Schools) Act 1972 in respect of cost increases. This involves a further allocation of $7.6m, in addition to the $55.7m mentioned above. Consequent upon the Government’s decisions on the Schools Commission’s Report, the main Commonwealth appropriations for schools in the States for 1977 will be the subject of a separate Bill to be introduced shortly. I commend this Bill to the Senate.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The fact that the Opposition has agreed to that course of action being taken by the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) is an earnest of the reasonable amount of co-operation that we are prepared to extend to the Government in securing the passage of its legislation.

Debate (on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland) adjourned.

page 1951

BILLS RELATED TO THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA BILL

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Senator Durack)- by leaveproposed:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of the Federal Court of Australia Bill 1976, the Remuneration and Allowances Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1976, the Judiciary Amendment Bill 1976, the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1976, the Bankruptcy Amendment Bill 1976, the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Amendment Bill 1976, the Northern Territory Supreme Court Amendment Bill 1976, the Federal Court of Australia (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1976, the Income Tax Assessment Amendment (Jurisdiction of Courts) Bill 1976, the Patents Amendment Bill 1976, and the Trade Marks Amendment Bill 1976 being put in one motion at each stage, and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Opposition does not oppose the motion but again I point out and place on the record that this is further evidence of the extent to which we are prepared to go, in the dying days of this sessional period, to co-operate with the Government in getting the legislation through the Parliament.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1952

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA BILL 1976

page 1952

JUDICIARY AMENDMENT BILL 1976

page 1952

BANKRUPTCY AMENDMENT BILL 1976

page 1952

PATENTS AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Bills received from the House of Representatives.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– I move:

In view of the remarks made by Senator Douglas McClelland, I indicate that I am sure that there will not be any delay, and in fact we may even finish here by 10 December.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

Second Readings

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– I move:

I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The speeches read as follows-

Federal Court of Australia Bill 1976

The purpose of this Bill is to establish a new federal court, to be known as the Federal Court of Australia. Proposals to create a new Federal Court have been under consideration now for many years. The case has been discussed in this

Parliament, at legal conventions and elsewhere. Sir Garfield Barwick, when Attorney-General, had been authorised to proceed with the drafting of a Bill. His proposal was for a Superior Court that would have jurisdiction in matters of special federal concern. A Bill was introduced in 1 968 by Mr Justice Bowen when he was AttorneyGeneral, but was not subsequently proceeded with. Bills to establish a Superior Court of Australia introduced by the Whitlam Government were rejected by the Senate.

As the concept of a Superior Court was developed by the Labor Government from the original proposal by Sir Garfield Barwick, it was found to involve many technical constitutional difficulties. It was also opposed by some of the States and many members of the legal profession. As conceived by the Labor Government, it would have removed from State Courts the bulk of the federal jurisdiction exercised by those Courts and greatly weakened the status of those Courts and the quality of the work dealt with by them. The Bill presented by the Labor Government was rejected by the then Opposition. Nevertheless there has remained a need for the existing federal court system to be put on a more rational basis. The Australian Industrial Court, created under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, has had added to it in piecemeal fashion jurisdiction in a diverse variety of matters. That Court is neither appropriately named nor structured to serve federal judicial administration in an adequate manner. As presently structured under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, it is not really suitable for more general work. Unless a restructuring takes place, appointment to the Industrial Court must be based largely on experience in industrial matters, which is not directly relevant to the other important work of the Court in the trade practices and administrative law fields.

The Federal Court of Bankruptcy has not, in practice, regularly sat elsewhere than in New South Wales and Victoria. In the other States bankruptcy has been administered through the State courts. Because the Judges of the Bankruptcy Court are in a separate court, they have not been available to sit on the Industrial Court in commercial-type matters under the Trade Practices Act. Nor would it have been appropriate for the Bankruptcy Court, so named and established under the Bankruptcy Act, to be given a wider jurisdiction. At the same time there is a need to relieve the High Court of some of the work-load it now has in matter of federal and Territory law. This need will be partly fulfilled by plans the Government has to ensure that State and Territory Supreme Courts will have exclusive original jurisdiction in some matters in respect of which jurisdiction has in the past been vested in the High Court. Specifically, what is intended is that the original jurisdiction the High Court now has under such laws as taxation and industrial property legislation should be taken from that Court and vested exclusively in State and Territory Supreme Courts. Since 1973, income tax appeals from the Commissioner of Taxation or the Board of Review have been vested in the State Supreme Courts, but nothing was then done to remove from the High Court appeals of this kind under other taxation legislation. Separate legislation will be introduced for this purpose, and also to extend the jurisdiction of State and Territory Supreme Courts in patents and trade mark matters.

The Government believes that only where there are special policy or perhaps historical reasons for doing so should original federal jurisdiction be vested in a federal court. This has been so in relation to industrial matters, bankruptcy and trade practices. It is also appropriate that judicial review of administrative decisions by Commonwealth officers be vested in a federal court. Appeals from Territory Supreme Courts now lie directly to the High Court. Besides adding to the work of the High Court, this is often inconvenient and expensive for Territory residents. The residents of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory are entitled to have an appeal court that will sit locally and regularly in these Territories. Having regard to the expected work-load, the Government does not think it appropriate to create a system of internal appeals within each of the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory Supreme Courts at this stage. Needless to say, the course of constitutional development for the Northern Territory may eventually require that the Supreme Court of that Territory have its own internal system of appeals and the Government recognises this.

If, as is appropriate, this jurisdiction is to be taken from the High Court, there is now no existing federal Court that is really suitable to serve as an appellate court, either from the Territory Supreme Courts or from State Courts exercising federal jurisdiction in matters of special federal concern such as taxation, bankruptcy, industrial property and trade practices. The Government therefore believes that the time is opportune to establish a new federal court that will meet the specific needs I have mentioned. The Court now proposed will not, as would previous Bills to establish a Superior Court that have been introduced into the Parliament, perform judicial functions that can better be performed by State courts or create jurisdictional problems of a kind that might delight constitutional lawyers but only add to the hazards of litigation for the parties concerned. The present Bill therefore differs from previous Bills relating to a Commonwealth Superior Court in that the original jurisdiction that is to be exercised by the proposed Federal Court of Australia will be limited initially to that now exercised by the Industrial Court and the Bankruptcy Court, instead of the much more extensive jurisdiction previously proposed, and secondly in that the Court will serve as a court of appeal from State courts in certain matters of special federal jurisdiction as well as in Territory matters.

The proposed Court would thus operate in well-defined fields of federal and Territory law. It would not enter into any field of original jurisdiction now exercised by State Courts. It will be implicit in what I have said so far, but I should make it clear, that the present Bill would in no way affect the functions of the Family Court of Australia. That Court will continue as a separate Court, as at present. Further, the Supreme Courts of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory will be allowed to develop as separate Courts exercising original jurisdiction in their respective Territories. The Bill contains, however, provisions to enable Judges of the Territory Supreme Courts to sit in the new Court on appeals from their own Courts. This will ensure that the appellate work of the new Court in Territory matters can benefit from the particular experience and expertise of the Territory Courts.

I now turn to a discussion of the provisions of the Bill. The present Bill would establish the Federal Court of Australia. The Bill does not specify what original jurisdiction the Court is to have. The Court is intended to have the original jurisdiction now conferred on the Australian Industrial Court and the Federal Court of Bankruptcy. That is, it will have original jurisdiction under the Bankruptcy Act, the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, the Trade Practices Act, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act and a number of other Acts. Separate Bills are being introduced to transfer this jurisdiction from the existing Courts to the new Court.

With regard to appellate jurisdiction, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia will have jurisdiction to hear appeals from single judges of the Court and from the Territory Supreme Courts by virtue of the present Bill. Clause 24 of the Bill also provides that the Court will have jurisdiction to hear and determine, in such cases as are provided by any other Act, appeals from State Courts, other than the Full Courts of the Supreme Courts, exercising federal jurisdiction. Separate legislation will be introduced to provide for appeals from State Courts to the Federal Court of Australia in taxation, industrial property, bankruptcy and trade practices matters. I should say here that it is intended that the State courts will continue in practice to exercise bankruptcy jurisdiction in States other than New South Wales and Victoria.

The Court will sit in 2 Divisions, the General Division and the Industrial Division. All of the proceedings in the Court, whether original or appellate, will be in one or other of these two Divisions. A Judge of the Court, other than the Chief Judge, may be assigned to only one Division of the Court by the Governor-General on his appointment. If so assigned, he may not sit in the other Division, except by virtue of special arrangements made by the Chief Judge in any particular case. However with his consent, this assignment of a Judge may be varied by the Governor-General at any time. The primary purpose of these proposals is that the special character of the industrial jurisdiction under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act will be preserved and will be exercised in the Industrial Division of the Court. It will also enable Judges to be selected specifically for the General Division of the Court and with regard to the appellate and original jurisdiction it is likely to exercise. The main provisions relating to the Divisions of the Court are to be found in clauses 13 and 14 of the Bill. Clause 5 of the Bill would establish the Court, to consist of the Chief Judge and other Judges from time to time holding office. The Judges are, in accordance with the Constitution, to be appointed by the GovernorGeneral. The constitutional requirement, that a Judge may be removed from office only by the Governor-General on an address from both Houses of Parliament in the same session praying for his removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity, is contained in clause 6 of the Bill.

The Court may be constituted either as a Full Court of at least 3 Judges or by a single Judge. Unless contrary provision is made by another Act jurisdiction in the Industrial Division is to be exercised by a Full Court. Special provisions are contained in the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill (No. 3) to be introduced following this Bill. Clause 15 of the Bill would give the Chief Judge of the Court specific responsibility for arranging the business of the Court and, after appropriate consultation with the other Judges, the Judges who are to sit in any matter or class of matters. Provision is also to be made by that clause for Judges of the Court who are additional Judges of the Territory Supreme Courts to be made available, by arrangement, for the work of the Territory Courts. Provision is also to be made for Territory Judges who are also Judges of the new Court to be made available, by arrangement, for the work of the new Court. Sub-clause (3) of clause 15 makes it clear, however, that the primary responsibility of a Territory Judge who is also appointed to the new Court is for the work of his own Court. These inter-curial arrangements will be made between the Chief Judge of the new Court and the Chief Judge of the Territory Court concerned. The Government has decided that there should be an office of Chief Judge in each of the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory Supreme Courts. Separate Bills will be introduced for this purpose. The role of the Territory Judges in the appellate work of the new Court in hearing appeals from Territory Supreme Courts, to which I have previously referred, is recognised by clause 25 (2). This provides, in effect, that on an appeal from a Territory Court the Bench, where practicable, shall include at least one of the full-time Judges of that Court.

Clauses 19 to 23 of the Bill deal with the original jurisdiction of the Court. Clause 1 9 provides that the Court has such original jurisdiction as is conferred on it by laws made by the Parliament from time to time. The clause indicates the intention that the Court is to have jurisdiction only in specified matters arising under laws made by the Parliament. Jurisdiction in other federal matters will remain with or be vested exclusively in State courts so far as the Constitution permits. For example, common law actions in contract or in tort by or against the Commonwealth and its authorities wil continue to be a matter for State and Territory Courts, except to the extent to which the High Court has and exercises original jurisdiction, which cannot be taken from it under the Constitution. The State and Territory Courts are the courts of common law and general jurisdiction, and should deal with these matters in federal jurisdiction. I have already indicated the scope of the original jurisdiction that is to be conferred on the new Court.

The appellate jurisdiction of the Court is dealt with in clauses 24 to 30. The intended scope of the appellate jurisdiction of the Court is indicated by clause 24. 1 have already discussed this clause. Specific provision is made in clause 26 for State and Territory Courts from which an appeal lies to the Federal Court of Australia to state a case or to reserve a question of law to the Federal Court and to that Court alone. In those special matters of federal jurisdiction in which an appeal will lie from the State Courts to the Federal Court of Australia, federal jurisdiction will not be vested in the Full Courts of the State Supreme Courts to hear appeals. The effect of these arrangements will be that, subject to the provision for appeals by special leave to the High Court from the Full Court of the new Court, the Federal Court of Australia will be the authoritative exponent of the law in the special federal matters and will thus ensure uniformity of interpretation of the law in important areas such as income tax and industrial property. It will be recalled that at present an appeal in income tax matters lies from State courts to the High Court. This will be taken away and given direct to the new Court.

Clause 3 1 of the Bill gives to the Court a power to punish contempt of court. Where contempt relates to the exercise of jurisdiction in a Division of the Court, the jurisdiction to punish that contempt shall be exercised in that Division of the Court. Again, this is intended to preserve the special character of the jurisdiction exercised under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, by ensuring that all industrial matters are dealt with in the Industrial Division of the Court.

Clause 32 of the Bill would confer on the new Court, so far as the Constitution permits, jurisdiction in matters that are associated with matters of federal jurisdiction before the Court. The intention is to confer jurisdiction on the Court in matters which, if they arose in isolation, might not be matters of federal jurisdiction but which, arising in association with a matter of federal jurisdiction, must be disposed of at the same time as that matter in order that the rights of the parties may be finally determined.

There is to be an appeal to the High Court as of right from the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in matters involving $20,000 or more, except in relation to a ground of appeal in which the quantum of damages for death in personal injury is in question. In all other matters, an appeal will lie from the Full Court to the High Court only by special leave of the High Court. The provisions for appeal as of right correspond to those contained in the Judiciary Amendment Bill 1976.

Registries of the Federal Court of Australia are to be established in each State, in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. This geographical distribution is intended to reflect the nature of the Court as an itinerant court, that will go on circuit and sit in each State and Territory as required.

The practice and procedure of the Court are to be regulated by the Judges themselves by Rules of Court, subject to any special provision made by or under any Act. It is intended that the existing Rules under the Bankruptcy Act, regulating the practice and procedure of both the Federal Court of Bankruptcy and of State Courts exercising bankruptcy jurisdiction, will for the time being continue in operation. Likewise, the practice and procedure in the Industrial Division of the new Court will continue to be regulated by Rules made under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act.

Clauses 39 to 58 of the Bill deal with matters of a machinery nature. Provision is made for the Court to sit with a civil jury where it so orders. The Bankruptcy Court has power to sit with a jury, although this seems not to be done in practice. No provision is made in the Bill for criminal juries, because it is not intended that indictable offences will be prosecuted in the new Court.

This Bill must be seen in the context of other measures the Government is taking to reform the area of federal jurisdiction. The Judiciary Amendment Bill, together with a number of other measures to be introduced separately will give to the State Courts new jurisdiction in constitutional matters and in tax and industrial property. The role of the State Full Courts in common law and general jurisdiction in federal matters will be enhanced. The federal judiciary will, by this Bill, be better placed to handle the important areas of trade practices and administrative law, in addition to bankruptcy and industrial law. A comprehensive appellate structure for the Territories will be established. Uniformity of interpretation of major special areas of federal jurisdiction will be enhanced by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. The High Court itself will be better able to concentrate on its role as a constitutional court and the final appellate court in Australia. These are important reforms, of which this Bill is an integral part. I commend this Bill to the Senate.

Remuneration and Allowances Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1976

One purpose of this Bill is to amend the Remuneration and Allowances Act 1973 to give effect to the report on remuneration payable to

Judges made by the Remuneration Tribunal on 21 June 1976 and a subsequent report made by the Remuneration Tribunal on the remuneration payable to the President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Remuneration Tribunal reported that certain alterations were desirable in the remuneration and travelling allowance payable to Justices and Judges of Federal Courts and of the Supreme Courts of the Territories and persons who, by virtue of an Act, have the same status as a Justice or Judge of such courts. As well as Judges, the offices affected are: Chairman of the Prices Justification Tribunal, President and Deputy Presidents of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, President of the Trade Practices Tribunal, Director-General of Security, Chairman of the Law Reform Commission, Chairman of the Grants Commission and President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Bill also makes provision in relation to the salary and allowances of persons appointed as Judges of the Federal Court of Australia. Similar provision is made for the proposed offices of Chief Judge of the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory Supreme Courts. The rates are those proposed by the Remuneration Tribunal.

I turn now to the substantive clauses of the Bill. Clause 2 provides that the Act shall be deemed to have come into operation on 1 June 1 976, to enable the backdating of the increases in the rates of salary, annual alowance and travelling allowances to that date. Clauses 4 and 6 are to come into operation on the date of royal assent. Clause 3 repeals section 13 and 14 of the Principal Act and replaces them with one section, section 13. References that I now make are to the sub-sections of the new section 13.

Sub-section 13(1) provides for salary, annual allowance and travelling allowance at the rates specified in Schedule 3 to be applicable to a judicial or other office specified in column 1 of that Schedule. Sub-section 13(2) provides for payment of additional remuneration and annual allowance to the President of the Trade Practices Tribunal where he is not also the Chief Judge of the Australian Industrial Court or President of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The rates of additional remuneration and annual allowance are $1,000 and $250 per annum respectively.

Sub-section 13 (3) is intended to ensure that the additional remuneration payable to the President of the Trade Practices Tribunal counts as part of his salary for the purposes of the Judges Pensions Act if he retires or dies while holding the office of President.

Sub-section 13 (4) provides for additional remuneration and annual allowance to be paid to the Chairman of the Prices Justification Tribunal if he is a Judge, within the meaning of the Prices Justification Acts 1 973, but is not the Chief Judge of the Australian Industrial Court or President of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The rates of additional remuneration and annual allowance are $1,000 and $250 per annum respectively.

Sub-section 13 (5) is intended to ensure that the additional remuneration payable to the Chairman of the Prices Justification Tribunal counts as part of his salary for the purposes of the Judges’ Pensions Act if he retires or dies while holding the office of Chairman.

Sub-section 13(6) provides for payment of an additional annual allowance at the rate of $250 per annum to the senior Judge of the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court.

Sub-section 13(7) Provides that the additional allowance to the senior Judge ceases on the appointment of a Chief Judge of the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court.

Sub-section 13(8) provides for payment of remuneration and annual allowance to the Chairman of the Grants Commission holding office on 1 June 1976 at the rates of $39,500 and $2,250 per annum respectively.

Clause 4 inserts three new sections in Part IV of the Principal Act.

New section 14 excludes from the operation of certain provisions of section 13 a person who is a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia. This follows from the recommendation of the Remuneration Tribunal that a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia should not receive any additional remuneration by virtue of holding another office. The salary payable to a Judge of that Court is higher than that payable to the Chief Judge of the Industrial Court.

New.section 1 5 provides for the rates of salary, annual allowance and travelling allowance for the Chief Judge and other Judges of the Federal Court of Australia and the Chief Judges of the Supreme Courts of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. The rates are those specified in proposed new Schedule 4.

New section 16 makes provision for the salary and allowances of a Judge of another Court who is appointed to be a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia.

Sub-section 16(1) prevents such a person from receiving 2 salaries. His basic salary is to come from the court of his original appointment and he will only draw salary as a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia if he ceases to hold his original appointment.

Sub-section 16 (2) provides that where a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia, to whom sub-section 16 (1) applies, receives a salary and allowances in respect of his original appointment which are less than the salary and annual allowances payable to a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia, he is to be entitled to receive an additional salary or annual allowance equal to the difference.

Sub-section 16(3) provides that if the Chief Judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory is appointed to be a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia, while continuing to hold his office as Chief Judge, he is to receive an additional amount of $2,500 per annum by way of salary.

Clause 5 substitutes a new Schedule for Schedule 3 in the Principal Act.

Clause 6 inserts a new Schedule 4, specifying the salaries, annual allowances and travelling allowances payable to the Chief Judge and other Judges of the Federal Court of Australia and to the Chief Judges of the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory Supreme Courts. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Judiciary Amendment Bill 1976

I present the Judiciary Amendment Bill 1976. This Bill is the first step in a thorough revision of that Act and is concerned primarily with the question of relieving the High Court of some of the burden of its original and appellate jurisdiction. A number of the Justices of the High Court have drawn attention in recent times to the need for some relief to be given. At the same time the amendments will have the effect of strengthening State Supreme Courts by enabling them to handle cases involving federal jurisdiction which at present are dealt with by the High Court. The High Court occupies a position of special importance under our constitutional framework. Not only is it the final interpreter of the Constitution, but it has a significant role as the Court of Appeal from State Supreme Courts and other federal courts. In this role, it has achieved recognition throughout the common law world as one of the great common law courts. It is vital to the working of the High Court that it should be left free to concentrate on constitutional issues and on the fundamental issues of law that come before it in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.

Before explaining the change that would be made by the Bill, it will be useful to explain, in general terms, the present sources of the High Court’s jurisdiction. It has an original jurisdiction, derived in 2 ways. One is directly from section 75 of the Constitution, the other from the power given to the Parliament by section 76 of the Constitution to confer original jurisdiction on the High Court. The matters specified in section 75 and in laws of the Parliament passed under section 76 together make up the content of federal jurisdiction. The High Court has an appellate jurisdiction, conferred by section 73 of the Constitution. Section 73 provides for appeals to the High Court from State Supreme Courts, other State courts exercising federal jurisdiction and federal courts. The Parliament may prescribe exceptions to that appellate jurisdiction, and regulate its exercise.

The Judiciary Act provides, in general terms, for the appellate and original jurisdiction of the High Court and for the exercise of federal jurisdiction by State courts. In addition, particular Acts provide for the jurisdiction of the High Court, federal courts and State courts in particular matters. The scheme of the Judiciary Act is broadly as follows:

Section 35 of the Act deals with appeals from State Supreme Courts to the High Court. It provides for appeals as of right to the High Court in cases denned in terms of a money value of $3,000 and upwards, and in cases involving the status of persons under laws relating to aliens, marriage, divorce, bankruptcy and insolvency. In certain other cases, an appeal lies by leave of the High Court or the State Supreme Court concerned. Otherwise, an appeal lies only by special leave of the High Court. An appeal can at present lie as of right from a single Judge of a State Supreme Court provided the test in section 35 is satisfied. Section 39 of the Act confers federal jurisdiction on State courts. It provides that no appeal lies to the Privy Council from a State court exercising federal jurisdiction. An appeal lies to the High Court from any State court exercising federal jurisdiction where an appeal would lie to the State Supreme Court and, in other cases, the High Court may grant special leave to appeal from a State court exercising federal jurisdiction.

The High Court is empowered to order the removal into the High Court from a State court of any proceedings involving constitutional issues. Such an order is to be made as of course when sought by the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth or of a State. Where a constitutional issue before a State court involves an inter se question, it is automatically removed into the High Court. An inter se question is one involving the mutual limits of the constitutional power of the Commonwealth and the States. This provision was inserted in 1907 to prevent the Privy Council from dealing with constitutional questions of an inter se character. Appeals in constitutional matters can no longer be taken directly from State courts to the Privy Council. This position was finally established by the Judiciary Act 1968. Section 40A is therefore no longer necessary to meet its original purpose. Nor is section 38a. Because section 40A operates automatically in cases involving inter se questions it can cause inconvenience and sometimes can cause insignificant constitutional and other questions to be sent to the High Court.

Under the present provisions the High Court may, on an application by a party to the proceedings, remit a matter before it to a State court for trial.

The principal changes the Bill would make to that scheme are as follows:

The relatively low limit of the money value denning appeals as of right from State Supreme Courts to the High Court, $3,000, which was fixed in 1955 and the right of appeal from lower State courts exercising federal jurisdiction mean that matters of lesser significance can come before the High Court.

The Bill proposes that the amount of $3,000 be increased to $20,000. An appeal as of right would not lie from any State court other than the Full Court of the Supreme Court, nor would it lie as of right in respect of a ground of appeal relating to the quantum of damages in death or personal injury cases. In all other cases an appeal would be by special leave only. Special provisions relating to appeals in other Acts would not be affected.

The provisions of the Judiciary Act, sections 38a and 40 a, giving the High Court exclusive jurisdiction in matters involving inter se questions (except in criminal matters) and ensuring automatic removal of inter se questions from State courts into the High Court would be repealed. As I have said they were originally intended to ensure that these matters did not reach the Privy Council by appeal directly from State courts. This is not now possible, so that sections 38a and 40a may be repealed.

The provisions for removal of constitutional issues to the High Court by order of the High Court are to be extended to federal and Territory courts as well as State courts. The AttorneyGeneral of the Commonwealth and the States are to be given a right to intervene in proceedings in all courts involving constitutional issues. At present, an Attorney-General may intervene only by leave of the court. Provision is made for the court to award costs against the Commonwealth or a State intervening in proceedings under this power. This should protect litigants from having to pay increased costs as a result of intervention.

A new provision is to be inserted requiring notice to be given to the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth and of the State in which the proceedings are instituted in the case of proceedings involving constitutional issues in courts other than the High Court. A provision is included to enable the Commonwealth Attorney-General to compensate parties for any increased costs due to an adjournment of a case for the purpose of giving such notice.

A new provision is to be inserted empowering the High Court to order removal into the High Court of a matter of federal jurisdiction from another court. This will enable important questions of federal law to be decided directly by the High Court without having to go through the trial in the other court and an appeal to the High Court.

The provision for remittal by the High Court of matters to State courts for trial is to be extended in 2 ways. The High Court is to be given power to remit a matter of its own motion. A matter may be remitted to a federal court or a Territory court as well as to a State court.

A new provision is to be inserted giving a barrister or solicitor who is on the High Court Roll and entitled to practice in a federal court a right of audience in any State court exercising federal jurisdiction.

The general effect of the changes will be to provide some relief to the High Court, by restricting the appeals that come to it as of right and enabling it to remit to other courts for trial matters commenced in the original jurisdiction of the High Court. It will provide a firm and more appropriate framework within which the High Court and other courts can operate in the future. The changes will also enhance the jurisdiction of State courts, particularly the State Supreme Courts. The existing provisions forbidding State courts from dealings with inter se questions have operated to prevent State courts from making a substantial contribution to the interpretation of the Constitution, since most constitutional issues involve inter se questions. Furthermore, the provision that an appeal does not lie as of right to the High Court directly from a single Judge of the State Supreme Court or from a lower court of a State will give greater authority to the State Full Courts and Courts of Appeal.

The Bill was introduced into the House of Representatives to allow ample opportunity for it to be studied by members of the Parliament, the States and the legal profession. Comments and suggestions received by the AttorneyGeneral were studied, and some of them led to amendments being made to the Bill as first introduced. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1976 plus 7 Related Bills

These Bills relate to the Federal Court of Australia Bill and the Judiciary Amendment Bill and deal with the exercise of federal judicial power and the structure of the Supreme Courts of the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory. These Bills will amend the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, the Bankruptcy Act, the Patents Act, the Trade Marks Act, the Income Tax Assessment Act, the Acts establishing the Supreme Courts of the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory and a number of Acts that confer specific jurisdiction on the Australian Industrial Court. The amendments will give further legislative expression to the Government’s plans to establish the new Federal Court of Australia, to confer additional federal jurisdiction on State Courts, to relieve the pressure on both the original and appellate jurisdiction of the High Court and to provide added status to the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory Supreme Courts.

In my second reading speech on the introduction of the Federal Court of Australia Bill I explained that the intention is that that Court should take over the jurisdiction now being exercised by the Australian Industrial Court and the Federal Court of Bankruptcy. Accordingly, provision is being made by three of the Bills now being introduced for the transfer to the Federal Court of Australia of the jurisdiction at present exercised by those other two Courts and for their eventual abolition. The 3 Bills in question are the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill (No. 3), the Bankruptcy Amendment Bill and the Federal Court of Australia (Consequential Provisions) Bill. From a date to be proclaimed, not being earlier than the date on which the Federal Court of Australia would commence to exercise its jurisdiction, all proceedings that may now be instituted in the Australian Industrial Court or in the Federal Court of Bankruptcy will be instituted in the new Court. Where there are pending proceedings in either of the 2 existing Courts and the hearing of those proceedings has not commenced on the proclaimed date, those pending proceedings will be transferred into the Federal Court of Australia. Proceedings pending before the Australian Industrial Court or the Federal Court of Bankruptcy that are part heard on the proclaimed date will continue in those Courts. Each of those 2 Courts will continue in existence until a time when there are no Judges left on the Court. The Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill (No. 3) and the Bankruptcy Amendment Bill provide that, on the making of proclamations to that effect, the 2 Courts will be abolished and any proceedings then pending in those Courts will be transferred to the Federal Court of Australia.

All proceedings under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and the Stevedoring Industry Act will be dealt with in the Industrial Division of the Federal Court of Australia. The Federal Court of Australia Bill provides for judges to be assigned to the Industrial Division of the Court and that judges assigned to the General Division of that Court shall not take part in the exercise of jurisdiction in the Industrial Division, except in special circumstances by arrangement made by the Chief Judge of that Court. When exercising its jurisdiction under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, the Federal Court of Australia in its Industrial Division will, for the time being, be constituted in precisely the same way as the Australian Industrial Court is now required to be constituted. In those cases where the Australian Industrial Court is now required to be constituted by a single Judge, the Federal Court of Australia will be constituted in its Industrial Division by a single Judge. Where the Australian Industrial Court is now required to be constituted by three or more Judges, the Federal Court of Australia in its Industrial Division will sit as a Full Court. Likewise, the provision as to appeals will remain unaltered for the present. In those cases where there is now no appeal from a decision of the Australian Industrial Court under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, there will be no appeal from a decision of the Federal Court of Australia. In other cases, where an appeal now lies from the Australian Industrial Court to the High Court by leave of the High Court, an appeal will lie from the Federal Court of Australia to the High Court. The special provisions as to appeals under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act will override the provisions in the Federal Court of Australia Bill relating to appeals.

It is intended that these provisions as to the number of judges that are required to sit and as to the limitation on appeals in industrial matters will be reconsidered after discussions with employee and employer organisations. Successive amendments of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act have produced a number of anomalies. Further, the present provisions are wasteful of judicial resources in some respects. For example, the Conciliation and Arbitration Act requires three Judges to sit on a prosecution for a breach of an award under section 1 19 of the Act. If the prosecution were brought in a State Court, it would be dealt with by a magistrate. On the other hand, there are some matters of considerable importance to registered organisations or to individual members of organisations where there is no provision for appeal, even from a single Judge. The only way of reviewing those decisions at present is by way of prerogative writ in the High Court.

As well as its industrial jurisdiction under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act and the Stevedoring Industry Act, the Australian Industrial Court has jurisdiction under 10 other Acts. The most important area of general jurisdiction is its jurisdiction under the Trade Practices Act. The Federal Court of Australia (Consequential Provisions) Bill provides for the transfer of all of this jurisdiction to the Federal Court of Australia, other than cases part heard on the proclaimed day for the transfer of the jurisdiction.

The High Court now has an extensive original jurisdiction in industrial property matters. Appeals from decisions of the Commissioner of Patents and the Registrar of Trade Marks lie directly to the High Court constituted by a single Justice. Although State courts have jurisdiction to try actions for infringement of a patent or a registered trade mark, the revocation of a patent or the cancellation of registration of a trade mark on the ground of invalidity is a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court. Thus if, in an action for infringement of a patent in a State Supreme Court, a counter-claim is made for revocation of the patent the proceedings are automatically removed into the High Court. In addition, the High Court has exclusive jurisdiction under the Patents Act to extend the term of a patent or to grant a compulsory licence for the working of a patent.

The Patents Amendment Bill and the Trade Marks Amendment Bill will vest this original jurisdiction in State Supreme Courts and in the Supreme Courts of the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory. The High Court will no longer have original jurisdiction in patents and trade marks matters, except to the extent that an action may be brought in the original jurisdiction of the High Court under section 75 of the Constitution. Jurisdiction thus conferred on the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory Supreme Courts under the Patents and Trade Marks Acts will be limited to those cases where the plaintiff is resident in the Territory concerned on the date on which the proceedings are instituted, or being a corporation, has its principal place of business in that Territory on that date.

The amendments to the Patents and Trade Marks Acts will also confer additional jurisdiction on the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Appeals now lie from the Commissioner of Patents and the Registrar of Trade Marks to the High Court in a number of matters that are primarily administrative in character and which do not involve questions of patent or trade mark law. There is, for example, an appeal from the Commissioner of Patents to the High Court against a refusal of the Commissioner to grant an extension of time under the Patents Act. Jurisdiction in matters of this kind will not be transferred to State Supreme Courts, it being more appropriate for them to be dealt with by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I would also mention that the Patents Amendment Bill and the Trade Marks Amendment Bill provide for proceedings to be transferred from one Supreme Court to another on the application of a party. This provision will enable a matter to be moved from one Court to another if it turns out that the convenience of the parties would be better served by such a transfer.

In introducing the Federal Court of Australia Bill I said that it was the intention that the Full Court of that Court should have appellate jurisdiction from State Courts, other than the Full Courts of State Supreme Courts, in special areas of federal jurisdiction. In fulfilment of that intention, provision is made in the Bills now being introduced for appeals to lie to the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia from State Courts exercising bankruptcy jurisdiction, from State Courts exercising jurisdiction under the Patents and Trade Marks Acts and from decisions of single Judges of State Supreme Courts on appeals from a Taxation Board of Review and the Commissioner of Taxation under the Income Tax Assessment Act. These appeals will be exclusive of any right of appeal that might otherwise exist to the Full Court of the State Supreme Courts. Provision is, however, made for appeals by special leave of the High Court to lie direct to the High Court under the Income Tax Assessment Act and the Patents and Trade Marks Acts.

Appeals from Territory Supreme Courts to the Federal Court of Australia are provided for in the Federal Court of Australia Bill.

The High Court has original and appellate jurisdiction under a number of other Commonwealth Acts. Bills will be introduced in due course to amend these Acts to transfer the original jurisdiction of the High Court to State and Territory Supreme Courts and to provide, in appropriate cases, for appeals to the Federal Court of Australia. In particular, the High Court still has original jurisdiction, concurrent with State and Territory Supreme Courts, to hear taxation appeals under the Estate Duty Assessment Act and the Gift Duty Assessment Act and exclusive jurisdiction in sales tax appeals. Where an appeal is taken under these Acts from the Commissioner or a Board of Review to a Supreme Court, there is a right of appeal to the High Court. These Acts will eventually be amended to bring them into conformity, as regards the jurisdiction of Courts, with the Income Tax Assessment Act as it will be amended by the Bill now being introduced.

Three other changes to be made by the Income Tax Assessment Amendment (Jurisdiction of Courts) Bill should be noted. Provision is to be made for a taxation appeal to be transferred from one Supreme Court to another on the application of a party. The High Court is to be divested of the original jurisdiction it now has to hear taxation prosecutions under the Income Tax Assessment Act. Original jurisdiction in these prosecutions will be confined to State and Territory Courts. The amount of the penalty in issue that entitles a defendant in a taxation prosecution to elect for trial in a Supreme Court is to be increased from $200 to $500.

I turn now to the changes to be made in relation to the Australian Capital Territory and Northern Territory Supreme Courts. The Government has decided that an office of Chief Judge should be established in each of these Courts. Each of these Courts now comprises three ‘resident’ Judges, together with additional Judges appointed from the ranks of the Judges of the Australian Industrial Court. In each case, the senior of the three resident Judges has specific responsibility for arranging the business of the Court and, in fact, exercises many of the functions that the Chief Justice of a State Supreme Court would exercise. In addition, these Courts will, as I have already said, have jurisdiction under the Patents and Trade Marks Acts, in matters in which original jurisdiction is now vested in the High Court, in respect of proceedings instituted by Territory residents or by companies having their principal place of business in a Territory. Further, the 2 Territory Supreme Courts will be given, for the first time, jurisdiction in taxation appeals under the Income Tax Assessment Act. This jurisdiction will likewise be limited to cases where the taxpayer concerned is a Territory resident or, if a company, has its principal place of business in a Territory. This change will be of great convenience to Territory residents, who have hitherto had to resort to a State Supreme Court to appeal from a Board of Review or the Commissioner in income tax matters.

The Northern Territory Supreme Court Amendment Bill will also enable the appointment of a fourth resident Judge of that Court. The investigation of Aboriginal land claims will, for some time, occupy much of the time of a Judge of that Court. This makes it desirable to increase by one the number of Judges who can be appointed in the Northern Territory for the work of the Court. I commend the Bills to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned.

page 1961

CHRISTMAS ISLAND AGREEMENT BILL 1976

Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment.

page 1961

STATES (PERSONAL INCOME TAX SHARING) BILL 1976

Second Readings

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

That the Bills be now read a second time.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– These Bills provide the basis of tax sharing arrangements between the Commonwealth, State and local governments, and as such were described by the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) as ‘a central element of the Government’s federalism policy’. As such they give us the opportunity to consider not only the specific measures in the Bills but also the federalism policy as a whole. In relation to that policy the Opposition makes 3 charges: Firstly, that this Government is the most centralist government in Australian history; secondly, that no federal government has such a consistent record of misleading the States; and thirdly, that the federalism policy is fundamentally unsound and will work to the disadvantage of the Australian people.

The Government’s federalism policy was claimed to be a philosophical one, and I shall quote from that policy. It stated:

Federalism, therefore, is not merely a structural concept. Its principal justification is a philosophical one. It aims to prevent dangerous concentration of power in a few hands. In doing so it provides a guarantee of political and individual freedom.

That was a quotation from the policy of the present Government when it was in Opposition. It went on to say this about the objective of the policy:

We must restructure our forms and institutions of government and our attitudes of mind to achieve co-operation, not conflict, partnership and not domination.

As I intend to demonstrate on behalf of the Opposition, the history of the so-called federalism policy to date has been one not only of conflict and domination but also of deception. The attitudes which have gone into producing these Bills cannot be seen in isolation. The Government’s relations with the States have reached an all-time low because of its overriding principle that the States ‘can take it or leave it’.

That principle has been applied to the Medibank arrangements. The Commonwealth told the States that it would refuse to honour the Medibank agreements on hospitals and that if the States did not like it they ‘could take it or leave it’. In the growth centres agreements, the Federal Government is obliged to finance the activities of the development corporations. Only a few days ago the Government announced that it would carry out its obligations only if the States made a contribution. Once again it was a case of the States ‘taking it or leaving it’. The Government sought ways and means of breaking the railways agreements which had been endorsed by both the Commonwealth and the State parliaments. In relation to programs such as legal aid and the Australian Assistance Plan, the Government has told the States that they will have to assume responsibility. Once again it was a case where the States ‘could take it or leave it’.

None of the Government’s actions specifically dealing with the immediate federalism issues have been any more encouraging. The States (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Bill deals with approximately 40 per cent of the States’ revenues; the balance comes from specific purpose funds and Loan Council borrowings. In the case of the Loan Council, the Government, without any discussion with the States, slashed the States’ borrowings by 10 per cent in real terms. Not only did the Commonwealth ignore the comments of the States in relation to that decision, but the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm

Fraser) on that day, even before the States had had the chance to consider the decision, called a Press conference to announce it and told the journalists that the decision was not negotiable. That was not a very auspicious start for the new federalism. In relation to specific purpose funds, the federalism policy called for those funds to be transferred to general purpose revenue and ultimately to be absorbed into the States’ income tax revenue. Decisions relating to specific purpose grants have been taken without consultation with the States. Many of the grants have been substantially cut and some have disappeared altogether. The States were not consulted prior to those decisions and were ignored when they reacted against them.

So much for the assurance in the federalism policy that the Commonwealth would convene pre-Budget meetings of the Premiers. The States were told the results and given no opportunity for discussion. Even the establishment of what should have been a quite non-controversial body- the Advisory Council for InterGovernment Relations- was bedevilled by the authoritarian attitude of the Commonwealth. After agreeing with the States’ request that there be only 3 local government representatives, the Commonwealth then unilaterally announced that there would be six. Once again the attitude was that the States could ‘take it or leave it’. On this occasion the Queensland Government has announced that it will leave it. That decision will probably have the effect of destroying right from the outset whatever usefulness that body may have had.

We come to these Bills. The Bills were introduced into the Commonwealth Parliament without prior consultation with the States. Draft Bills were not forwarded to the States, which learnt about the Bills only after they had been introduced. Yet the Bills contain measures which not only had been discussed with the States but also were contrary to agreements previously reached with the States. For example, the States (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Bill allows the Treasurer to declare by a notice in the Gazette any federal income tax as a surcharge. The declaration of such a surcharge removes that proportion of the income tax from the base figure which determines the States ‘ share. It permits the Treasurer to change the entitlements of the States, not only without consultation but also without even the need for legislation. Also the entitlements of the States are to be determined under clause 6 of the Bill by the Commissioner of Taxation whose opinion on such matters is conclusive. The Bill provides for no consultation in relation to either measure. No wonder the Commonwealth did not have the courage to consult the States prior to the introduction of that Bill.

A similar situation originally pertained in relation to the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Bill. The federalism policy states:

  1. . the responsibilities for local government inquiries will be transferred to the States Grants Commissions.

When the Bill was examined it was found that no responsibility had been transferred at all. The Federal Government decided that it would control not only the method of allocating the funds but also the position and style of operation of local grants commissions, and would have the power of veto over any recommendation of those commissions. Once again the reasons for not disclosing these proposals to the States are obvious. It was to be expected and it was natural that the States would object to the Bills. The Victorian Premier expressed extreme disappointment at the unsympathetic and restrictive provisions of the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Bill and called for an appropriate conference of State Ministers. In calling for that conference he received support from the Premiers of Western Australia, Queensland, New South Wales and South Australia. The South Australian Premier was disturbed that the arrangements were to be so rigidly supervised. The South Australian Local Government Minister said that the legislation would make each State Grants Commission a puppet of the Federal Government. The Western Australian Premier described the legislation as centralist.

What was the Prime Minister’s reaction? He refused to call for a conference which had the support of the majority of the States on the basis that ‘this issue does not need a meeting’. They were the words he used. But, as that reputable newspaper, the National Times, on 1 November described it, he ‘had been caught with his new brand of centralist pants well and truly down’. Because of the pressure generated by the Premiers, the Government was forced to amend the legislation.

The way in which the Government went about that course of action is quite revealing. The Bills were to be debated in the House of Representatives on the evening of 3 November. That evening, after the Premiers had gone home, the Prime Minister sent the Premiers a telex nominating a number of minor amendments to the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Bill, rejecting any amendments to the States (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Bill and failing to comment on the request for a meeting. Once again the States had been provided with no opportunity for consultation. Here was clear evidence that the ‘take it or leave it’ policy was still in force. Naturally the amendments were not acceptable to the States, nor was the method of their communication. The Premier of New South Wales, Mr Wran, made this comment to the Prime Minister:

I received your telex of 3 November late last evening. The fact that it was received at such a late hour on the eve of consideration of the Bills in the House of Representatives does not omen well for consultative arrangements with the States. Assurances by the Commonwealth for consultation must be seen in that light.

He also noted that the Prime Minister did not respond to the request for a meeting. So it is now clear that the minor amendments made by the Commonwealth are not satisfactory to the States. The Premier of Western Australia has expressed his dissatisfaction with the amendments, saying that the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Bill was still centralist. The Premiers of South Australia and New South Wales have maintained their objections to both Bills. We know from newspaper comments that the local government Bill is totally unacceptable to Queensland. A Queensland official is reported as saying in relation to the Commonwealth’s attempts to control States Grants Commissions: We’ll set one up and on our lines. Canberra can go jump in the lake’. It must be remembered that we are only going through the phase of introducing Stage 1 of the federalism policy. Stage 2 involves the introduction of State income tax, Commonwealth surcharges, and so on. If the record in relation to Stage 1 is continued, then it is most unlikely that Stage 2 will ever see the light of day.

The charge of centralism is based on 3 factors. Firstly, the Federal Government has maintained rigid control over State finances and has insisted that the States comply with its priorities. Secondly, except for the discussions of the first 2 Premiers Conferences, the Commonwealth has refused to embark on any process of consultation with the States about matters which directly affect them. Thirdly, the Commonwealth method of dealing with the States is not consistent with the respective roles of governments and can be described only as a disgrace. It is not for no reason that the Premiers have described the federalism policy as a fraud, a con job and a sick joke- all quotes from various Premiers. The manner in which the Commonwealth has implemented the policy justifies all those remarks. On the surface, it would appear that the Commonwealth has embarked on a policy of deliberately misleading the States. By January the Commonwealth was fully advised of the effect which the policy would have on the States. The Treasury told the Commonwealth that the Whitiam formula virtually ensured that over the longer term Commonwealth grants to the States would grow faster than the economy as a whole. But the Treasury went on to point out that the position would change quite markedly once personal income tax was fully subject to indexation. The Treasury described the situation in these words:

Leaving aside the possibility of discretionary changes in income tax rates, an indexed personal income tax would, over the longer term at least, almost certainly yield less in terms of growth than the present formula.

The Treasury concluded by saying:

To simply maintain what they have now, the States may be forced to increase the surcharge on income tax which they would have to levy under their own legislation. This could be summarised as the Commonwealth handing over the dirty work of increasing taxes to the States.

It must be remembered that at the time of this advice the general expectation was that an indexation of personal income tax would occur over a 3-year period. This was certainly the view of the State Premiers. Notwithstanding the advice that the indexation of personal income tax would severely affect State revenues, the States were permitted to persist in the view that indexation would occur over a 3-year period. At no stage, until the announcement was made in the Parliament, were the States informed that personal income tax would be fully indexed in the first year. By this time the States had agreed to a general outline of the federalism policy.

My point is that the States were under a misapprehension when they agreed with that policy. The Commonwealth knew that they were under a misapprehension yet permitted that misapprehension to persist. At no stage were the States consulted about the effects of full indexation of income tax. By the time the issue came up for discussion in the June Premiers Conference the Prime Minister who had, in fact, baited a trap was in no mood to change his ground. On top of that the Commonwealth made a belated attempt further to reduce the funds available to the States. At the time of the February and April Premiers Conferences it was generally assumed that the States would get close to 35 per cent of personal income tax collections. By making additional efforts to get in tax revenue last year the Commonwealth was able, by the time of the June Premiers Conference, to reduce that percentage to 33.6 per cent. Notwithstanding some grumbling the States were forced to accept that figure. But then the Commonwealth overreached itself. Shortly after the Premiers Conference and again without consultation with the States the Commonwealth advised the States that the percentage would be reduced even further. This was such a clear breach of the agreements entered into at the June Conference that the Commonwealth was unilaterally forced to back down in the face of extreme hostility from the States. However, the Commonwealth actions clearly signalled the manner in which it intended to do business.

On top of that the States were caught by the introduction of the Medibank levy. Not only did the introduction of that levy erode the revenues available to the States but the States were not consulted either about the introduction of the levy or the rate at which it was set. When this factor is combined with the clear breach of the hospitals agreements, causing further damage to State revenues, it is no wonder that the States now view the Commonwealth with extreme suspicion. Then there was the farcical variation to the composition of the Advisory Council on Inter-government Relations. Under pressure from the Premiers at the June Conference the Prime Minister agreed to reduce local government representation from six to three when he used the words:

Then I allow myself to be rolled again.

But of course the Prime Minister had no intention of being rolled. Subsequently he informed the States by letter that he was increasing the representation from three to six. Once again the States had been misled.

The introduction of these Bills was a further leg in a campaign to mislead the States. As has become standard practice, the States were not consulted about the measures and were told about them later. Not only were the measures to which I referred not disclosed at the June Premiers Conference but they were also a clear breach of the arrangements agreed at that Conference. The Premier of South Australia described this action in the following terms:

The first indication that you had some other interpretation in mind that the Commonwealth was contemplating additional tax came at the June Premiers Conference when you informed the Conference that the States were not to share in the proceeds of the Medibank levy. This levy is of course not a surcharge in the traditional sense but a direct levy on income. It would now seem that you intend to streten the term ‘surcharge’ to breaking point by declaring that it can encompass any income tax at all. If Clause 5 remains unchanged I suggest that you have not so much introduced a different interpretation as altered the entire concept of your tax-sharing scheme.

That was a summing up by the Premier of South Australia- I would think a very accurate one. In commenting on the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Bill, the same Premier said this:

At no stage in the consultations which occurred earlier this year in relation to this matter, at either the officer level or the Premiers Conference, was it suggested that States Grants Commissions and their operations would be supervised by Federal authorities in this way. To that extent I consider the States have been misled.

Thus, not only has the Government operated quite inconsistently with its federalism policy in that it has sought to achieve conflict, not cooperation, and domination, not partnership; it has also added to those elements the element of deception. It is on those grounds and to take into account the various objections raised by the States that on behalf of the Opposition I propose an amendment to the motion that the Bill be read a second time. I move:

That motion was introduced in the House of Representatives prior to the disclosure of the Government’s amendments. These amendments do not go nearly far enough to remove either the objections of the States or the reasons for the motion. I will deal with these aspects in more detail at the Committee stage.

Not only has the Government acted in a highly centralist and deceptive manner, it has also forced on the States a policy which will work to the detriment of all Australian people. The 2 allegedly attractive features about the policy were that the States would be in a better financial position because of access to income tax and that they would have greater freedom in making decisions. I have said enough before, in the Senate and elsewhere, to demonstrate that the States will be in a worse position financially. These Bills demonstrate that far from having greater freedom, the States in fact will have less freedom. When that is combined with the limits of the funds available to them it is quite clear that not since the commencement of Federation have the States had less freedom than they have under the current policy. There are a number of major objections to the policy as an administrative concept. These Bills lay the ground work for the introduction of State income taxes which are likely to increase to very high levels in the future if the policy is maintained. Under those circumstances the Commonwealth ability to manage the economy will be severely reduced. The economic difficulties we currently face are due in part to the ineffective instruments and institutions. The introduction of this policy will further erode the effectiveness of these instruments and institutions and the Government will have difficulty in day to day management of the economy and will have little or no capacity to meet any economic crises.

The framework constructed by the Commonwealth provides no machinery for effective coordination of the actions of the State and Federal governments. With this policy, such coordination is even more critical than it has been in the past. Yet all the Government offers is this ineffective Advisory Council for Intergovernment Relations which may not even get off the ground because of the manner in which the Commonwealth has attempted to set it up. Social welfare services and the basic services provided by government will, of necessity, decline. The States will have insufficient resources to devote proper attention to these activities and the Commonwealth increasingly will vacate the field, as it intends to do. The whole policy is designed to put a brake on the public sector which provides these services. Major investments made in the past will be lost and the needs of the more disadvantaged members of society will be ignored. The policy raises the spectre of competition between the States. One of the whole purposes of the Federation- our original Federationwas to make this country operate as a nation and not a collection of individual States competing with one another. The introduction of this policy will reverse that process. Already there is evidence that the States are in active competition for resources. Not only is this feature bad for the country as a whole, but it will result in a drain on resources from the weaker States, thus reducing their financial viability and creating social and economic problems for them.

This Government has espoused the cause of efficiency and it has criticised overlap and duplication. The Bland Committee allegedly was set up to remove areas of overlap and duplication. However, by forcing the States to establish institutions in each State there will be enormous duplication between the activities of the States. The local government Bill provides just such an example. The Commonwealth Grants Commission has been carrying out its activities effectively for over 40 years. The local government Bill forces the States to set up a grants commission in each State while at the same time the Federal Government will maintain complete control over their operations. Thus we have the worst of both worlds- centralist control from the

Federal level and total duplication of administration at the State level.

I have no doubt that the matters I have raised will be rejected by the Government. However, one of the most fortunate features of the federalism policy is that the Government is answerable to the States. Initial discussions at the February Premiers Conference suggested that the introduction of Stage 1 of the policy would be fairly smooth but that difficulties might arise in Stage 2. To date the introduction of Stage 1 has been a series of errors. If the Government’s actions to date are any indication of the way it intends to proceed, then I say that the federalism policy is doomed. Because of the view the Opposition takes of that policy, we will not be disappointed at that result. Our worry is that relations between governments in this country will be so prejudiced in the meantime that intergovernmental co-operation will be a thing of the past. It is therefore imperative that the Government recognise that within the course it has set itself certain actions will need to be taken which in effect may mean a retraction from the policy which it has enunciated and which it declares at this stage it stands by. The States will continue to feel the effect of the diminishing financial resources available to them. It will be a matter of great interest to this country to see which Premier is prepared to introduce that State income tax. Certain Premiers already have indicated publicly that they will not do so. Until such time as the Commonwealth perhaps makes that breakthrough with one of the States the chance of this federalism policy bringing any benefits to the Australian people is extremely remote.

Senator SCOTT:
New South Wales

– I rise to support these Bills- the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Bill 1976 and the States (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Bill 1 976- which have been proposed by the Government, and to oppose the amendment which has been put down by Senator Wriedt on behalf of the Opposition. The amendment suggests that the Bills be withdrawn and redrafted, which is extraordinarily savage treatment when one considers that since the communications between the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the States of 3 November there has been a marked diminishing of any reference to problems related to this legislation. Not only have the Premiers, with the possible exception in a very much diminished way of Mr Wran in New South Wales, ceased to make any real comment on assumed or presumed problems relative to this legislation, but the Press seems to find virtually no place even for comment let alone for a measure of real criticism of the Bills now before the Senate.

As I listened to Senator Wriedt, there seemed to be a sort of nasty logic in the Opposition’s stance on this tremendously important legislation. It seems to be a logic that is related to the fact that, having been through an election in which the centralism and federalism concepts were major problems and major elements for discussion and determination by the electorate and having witnessed the Australian electorate come down strongly, in common with most democratic societies around the world today, in favour of the federalist concept and all that it means to State and local governments, he now chooses to take a position whereby he will seek to destroy the effective implementation of legislation which can only be of benefit to the States and to local government areas in Australia.

I cannot proceed to a further point in this debate without mentioning the somewhat ironical stand taken by the Premier of New South Wales. If it were not a serious matter it would in fact be rather humorous to witness, as we do, Mr Wran in my State of New South Wales virtually posing as the defender and promoter of federalism and complaining bitterly that his State, as a government and as local government within its area, has lost a measure of independence. Here is Mr Wran taking this stance when he as an individual, one would assume, as a member of Parliament and as a political philosopher, is totally beholden to a centralist view and is totally beholden to a policy under which the States as sovereign entities ultimately are to be abolished, under which local government, in its traditional development and its traditional purpose on the Australian scene, is virtually to disappear and under which these 2 entities are to be replaced by a considerable number- perhaps twenty; perhaps thirty- of quite sizable regions in the Australian scene, all of which are to be held in strong contact with and control by the centralist authority in Canberra. So, Mr Wran now complains, presumably for some political reasonwhat else, because he has moved far away from the centralist philosophy which he and his fellows promote? Overnight he has become- as it were- the champion of federalism and the champion of the rights of freedom of sovereign State governments and local government. If this were not a serious matter which had great relevance to the ultimate projection of this Government’s policy, the discussion of this legislation, as I said earlier, would have to be taken in a somewhat humorous vein. Indeed, in my State of New South Wales perhaps the State Government could be contributing a great deal more to this decentralist federalist view which, I am glad to say, it is now promoting. The New South Wales Government could contribute a great deal more in these areas if it were to reconsider some of the most recent legislation it has introduced. I have in mind the 7 per cent across-the-board increase in freight rates in New South Wales. What sort of contribution is this to decentralisation? What sort of contribution is this to local government? What sort of a contribution is it to the cost structure of the people who live and work in the towns, the provincial cities and on the farms in New South Wales and, if this sort of legislation is to persist, in other areas also?

I turn briefly to one or two matters relevant to the legislation and to the principles contained in it. The Bills that we are discussing are designed to implement, financially, the undertakings of the Liberal-National Country Party Government referable to State and local governments. Those areas of government see the 3-tier system of government as a quite necessary and most important series of checks and balances for the whole system of operation of this continent. In spite of what has been said by Mr Wran and, in some measure, by Senator Wriedt, I believe that this view of the 3-tier system of government stands in stark contrast to the centralist view which has been expressed, designed and promoted by the Australian Labor Party, certainly up to this point in time. I believe this view will remain dominant in its thinking and political system, a system in which ultimately there will be no sovereign State but simply a series of regional puppets controlled and determined by Canberra itself.

Senator Gietzelt:

– What absolute rubbish you talk. It is absolute rubbish.

Senator SCOTT:

-Senator Gietzelt may think it is rubbish. A great number of Australian do not believe it is rubbish but believe they have seen indications of this change in philosophy. This legislation virtually seeks to enact the agreements that were reached at 3 most successful Premiers Conferences this year- the conferences of February, April and June. These conferences brought about the proposition of federalist legislation in a real and constructive manner. Indeed, agreement was reached at these conferences on a great number of issues related to the division of finance among State and local governments. I think some evidence of the success of the promotion that this legislation and those agreements heralded is the fact that every State government in Australia today is able to balance or almost balance its budget. This can be interpreted only as a favourable comment on the principles and the objectives of the sort of legislation that is before us now. After all, about 33.6 per cent of total revenue from personal income tax has been allocated, with the agreement of all States, to the States to be divided between State and local government authorities. This is an improvement, mark you, on the circumstances that existed previously and that would have existed had the system of Mr Whitlam ‘s regime remained.

I reiterate the fact that in all these discussions and deliberations every State Premier agreed. Indeed, it is worth remembering that one of those Premiers, Mr Dunstan of South Australia, promoted the very concept of the involvement of States in a growth tax in the Australian circumstance, and well he may have done. Mr Dunstan had lived and goverrned through a 3-year period which saw an increase in the revenue from personal income tax in Australia rise by about 300 per cent. The results and the implications of this situation were perfectly clear to Mr Dunstan and have been incorporated in the legislation and in the agreements that concern the Senate in this particular debate. The opposition to this legislation, of course, is a typically centralist view. It can be no other because it seeks to replace the sort of circumstances to which this legislation is relevant by a totally different system, a system which was rejected by the Australian electorate very recently. The surcharges are written into this legislation more as a safeguard for the States than for any other reason. The legislation concerns an arrangement in which the States will receive at least $89m more from the Commonwealth this financial year than they would have received under the previous system. Indeed, in the area of local government untied grants the increase has been more significant. As a percentage it represents 75 per cent and, in money terms, it represents the difference between $79m and $ 140m.

The purpose of this legislation is to strengthen the independence of governments, whether they be at State or local government level. Also it will end a period of coercion in the area of government referable to the relationship between the central Canberra Government and the State and local governments. It is interesting to recall that the Australian Labor Party itself was originally a federalist organisation. I believe that it was only after the planned economy that was necessary to solve the problems of wartime that the Labor Party in this country determined that a planned economy of that kind might work as well in peacetime as it did in wartime. Of course, the objectives were considerably different. The wartime objective of survival, following the ‘whatever may be ‘ philosophy, is different indeed from the objective in peacetime which is, in a democracy, to implement legislation which takes account of human nature. It was assumed, quite wrongly, that a planned economy, which is planned in a more or less laboratory type atmosphere, would still work in a peacetime circumstance where it has to contend in a free country with human nature itself. It has been revealed time and again that this is not the circumstance; that there is not the luxury of freedom available to enable that sort of planned economy to operate.

I remarked earlier- I believe it should not be lost sight of as these matters of centralism and federalism are constantly raised- that there is a tendency in the world today wherever democracy and free communities and free parliaments operate, for there to be an increase in federalist concepts as opposed to the centralist concept. An amount of 33.6 per cent of net personal income tax is to be made available to States and local government. I believe that it is tremendously important that we should look at the local government area in this legislation. Local government in whichever State it is situated is to receive an amount equal to 1.52 per cent of personal income tax. This amount is to be provided for that form of government alone. So local government has an involvement with a growth tax, a capacity for flexibility, and a capacity to identify objectives over a longer term. This is the sort of circumstance that local government had sought for a long time. In fact the result of this sort of legislation is that there will be available to the States and local government significant volumes of money in lump sums. This of itself will reduce the necessity that has occurred quite regularly and historically for governments to seek bridging finance. It will mean that governments will not be unsure of the basic amount of moneys which they will be able to use in their various areas.

So far as I can see, it has been suggested in opposition to this legislation only that it is a devious ploy. I believe that that sort of attitude, to use another phrase, is a figment of the imagination. The legislation that we have before us sincerely and on a consultative basis attempts to enact the federalist system referable to the finances of States and local government. It has been said that significant amounts of moneys that were spent on the Regional Employment Development scheme are not to be found in the moneys that are referable to this sort of financing. I answer that by suggesting that the RED scheme, which incidentally was abandoned by Mr Whitlam himself, allowed no sense of priority, no sense of determination to local government itself. It was a desperate scheme to patch up the circumstances that resulted from economic mismanagement. It was a desperate and short-term scheme which had no relevance to long-term permanent finance in the State or local government area. The amount of the untied general revenue grants under this legislation is significantly higher than the amount of moneys provided under the RED scheme.

When we are talking of untied grants and of the capacity of local government to operate in varying fields, I believe it is worthy to remember what happened to local government in extrametropolitan Australia during the 3 years of socialist government. I seem to recall that in the area of rural arterial roads in the 3 years from 1973-74 to 1975-76 there was a reduction, from $ 13.5m to $9.7m in the amount of moneys available to local government. The amount of moneys available for rural local roads over the same 3-year period was reduced from $2 1.6m to $14m. This happened in a period when inflation was running at 12 per cent, 14 per cent, and 16 per cent. That sort of circumstance can hardly be seen as helpful to those vast areas of local government which are involved constantly in maintaining and developing communications of great significance to the whole nation, not only to the region in which they operate.

I believe these 2 Bills provide a dramatic and important change. They contain within them the financial changes that are necessary to be enacted in order that the federalist policy that we have promoted should in fact become part of the legislation of this Government and of the Australian scene. I believe that it is a shame that Mr Wran, on 4 November, failed to take any notice of the communication he had received from the Prime Minister on 3 November.

Senator Walsh:

– He got a communication on 1 May from your electorate.

Senator SCOTT:

– I would imagine he also got a communication on 13 December 1975. Mr Acting Deputy President, I was saying that it was rather strange that Mr Wran on 4 November refused even to recognise a communication, which was a significant communication because it conveyed a real measure of understanding and communication and a real and responsible measure of amendment to legislation. This whole matter was completely and totally ignored. Perhaps that is the reason why the heat seems to have died away from this 24-hour experience. Perhaps that is the reason why today no great concern is apparent among the Premiers of Australia. Perhaps that is the reason why the legislation before us today does not raise one small type line in the Press of this country. That certainly is among the reasons why I most strongly oppose the amendment proposed to legislation which seeks responsibly to introduce a financial system relevant to the federalist policy that we promote and that we intend to establish. That is the reason, amongst others, why I have pleasure in supporting the legislation before us.

Senator MCAULIFFE:
Queensland

– For the Government the sky is black at present, the sun is being blotted out of the heavens, and if ever the time had arrived for the turning on of the lights it is now. Each week it become patently clear to us on this side of the chamber that there are too many honourable senators opposite who think themselves tied by pledges which were extracted not by reason but by expediency; pledges which were the expression of philosophy rather than conviction. This applies particularly when we hear honourable senators opposite say that they are the protectors of the States’ rights and that the Senate is a States’ House. We all well recall that throughcut the last election campaign the Fraser philosophy pledged the Government to new federalism. How often in this chamber have we seen the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) don the shining armour, mount the prancing steed and become the champion of the sacred autonomy and sovereignty of the States? How often has Senator Carrick told us, when answering questions, that a new era was dawning for the States? How often has he assured us that the States would enjoy greater prosperity and greater financial stability than they did previously? How often has he given us the impression that he will lead the States to new found horizons, when the States have been following his leads only out of curiosity? Now they know him to be a Moses in reverse.

I want to be as kind as I can to him, but I must say that I believe that he gives the impression of being hooked on federalism as other people are hooked on heroin, and with as great a danger to the States in the long run. I feel that in his federalism campaign he has passed the point of no return. He cannot go back because of his self satisfaction and the pledges of his Government. So he goes stumbling on from hurdle to hurdle. As a consequence, these Bills- the States (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Bill and the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Bill- bring us face to face for the first time with the hard financial arrangements under which the new federalism policy is to work.

On examination, what do we find? We discover that the Bills do nothing to meet the real financial needs of the States and local government. This Government, which has been masquerading as the champion of the States, has been found to be a sham. The Leader of the Opposition in another place, Gough Whitlam, expertly summed up the situation when he said:

The Liberal Party which pledged to uphold the sacred autonomy and due sovereignty of the States will be shackling them more closely to the authority and direction of the Liberals in Canberra.

How apt that is. Even Senator Scott, who usually in this place is strong in support of his convictions, was very wobbly today when he tried to prop up the Government’s case for federalism. He said that it would give the States great authority, but he did not give one instance in which the Federal Government has passed any authority to the States. I hope succeeding speakers will give us an example of any transfer of authority from the Commonwealth to the States.

An examination of these Bills discloses that the States will, in truth, be starved of funds and will be more rigidly controlled than they were previously. Of course the window dressing for the new federalism had great appeal during the last election campaign. No one can deny that. It appeared imaginative, it appeared exciting and it appeared that it would usher in a new order. It has turned out to be a pipe dream. It was election ballyhoo designed primarily to deceive the electors. Those of us who have had a long association with the Australian Labor Party know that the Liberals are expert at doing this. I do not need to remind the Senate that in 1952 Mr Menzies fought and won an election on the ballyhoo that he would put value back into the pound. When he retired as Prime Minister in the mid-1960s, after a long succession of Liberal governments, he had failed to fulfil his promise. What was worse, he had failed even to attempt to fulfil that promise. Do I need remind the Senate that Lloyd George in the United Kingdom fought and won an election on a hang the Kaiser campaign? Yet the Kaiser died peacefully in his bed in Holland 20 years later. We know the Liberals to be the experts at ballyhoo in election campaigns. The Liberals today are no different from the Liberals at the turn of the century. They are tarred with the same brush. So it is that on this issue the Liberal Party has again been dishonest to the electors.

I will now proceed to demonstrate that point. I believe that 2 main questions require answers in this debate. Firstly, might we ask: Will the States and local government, taking into account the total revenue and resources available to them to meet their commitments, be better off or worse off under the new proposals? The question is as simple as that. The Bills provide that a fixed percentage of revenue from personal income tax will go both to the States and to local government. The Government says that it can amend the fixed percentage from time to time by Act of Parliament, but it will not necessarily amend it. Accordingly, with the introduction of tax indexation, personal income tax will be a no growth tax. That is a very important point. As these Bills provide for an allocation of a fixed percentage of income tax and as personal income tax is a no growth tax due to tax indexation, the allocation to the States and local government will not rise in line with the rise in the rate of inflation. That is the punch line in the whole of the Opposition’s argument. The real value of funds allocated to the States will decline each year. The real value will decline each year because the amount is based on a fixed percentage of a no growth tax.

What follows? The States have the hard and harsh choice either to increase their own taxes to meet the short fall in revenue or to allow essential community services in these areas to decline and new federal initiatives in these areas to expire. That is the choice facing the States. I believe that it is not exaggerating the position to claim that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has adroitly passed the buck to the States for all the failings of government. That is very nice footwork if he can get away with it. One will find that whenever something unpleasant must be faced or blame must be apportioned, such as for the raising of taxes or starving essential services of necessary funds, the States will cop the blame. For the States, let there be no doubt. The future, at best, must be hazardous and uncertain.

Permit me to give an example. In 1971 the Commonwealth transferred to the States the right to collect payroll tax. While this gave the States an important new taxing power it did very little for their immediate revenue positions, as there was an almost comparable reduction in the financial assistance grants. The net immediate benefit to the States was a paltry $22.3m, the amount by which offsetting deductions were less than payroll tax received, based on the 2Vi per cent levy. We also know that, although the States agreed to keep payroll tax at the same level throughout the Commonwealth, it was not long before the States were in open competition among themselves. The same situation will arise when the States are forced to introduce their own taxation.

The Prime Minister, without a doubt, has let the States down. He has let them down by keeping their percentage share of personal income tax to a minimum and then excluding certain special surcharges from the base to which it applies. I know that the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) has said that he will review these special surcharges; but until there is a firm commitment from the Government, stated clearly and in black and white, we can debate these Bills and their contents only as they are before us. One of the serious claims against the Government’s proposals is that the Government is seeking to exclude certain special surcharges from the base to which it applies these percentages. The States realise now- they have realised it before it is too late- that they were better off under the formula system that served them well for so many years. I have heard State Premiers say now that in the fiscal year 1975-76 on the formula laid down by the Whitlam Government the States received more money than they had ever had before. But, of course, they knew the old saying: ‘The door that squeaks the loudest gets the most oil’. Even though they received a greater share of the finances, they were still singing out: ‘Not enough’. But if we asked them today whether they would prefer the old formula that was in existence or this new pipe dream of the new federalism- later on I Will show quite clearly where the States stand in that regard- we know what the answer would be.

That brings me to the second question, which is: Do the States want the new system, and are the States supporting it? In his second reading speech when introducing this legislation, Senator Carrick said:

Federalism policy and tax sharing arrangements central to it were, of course, the subject of Premiers Conferences in February, April and June this year.

That appeared at page 1 of the printed copy of his speech circulated to honourable senators. At page 10 of that speech the Minister said:

In concluding I wish to record the Government’s appreciation of the co-operative and constructive attitude which Premiers have brought to the discussion and development of the tax sharing arrangements which are embodied in this Bill.

Senator Carrick would have us believe that the States are supporting the scheme when he knows in his own heart that such a conclusion is an absurdity.

We, on this side of the chamber, await with great interest the distribution of the official transcript of the Premiers Conference held in June; we have not received it yet. Certain extracts from that transcript have appeared in the Press. They have not been challenged or denied. That transcript will reveal, I believe, that there was confrontation not only from the Labor Premiers but from all Premiers. What was the position of Queensland, the State in which, as a Queensland senator, I am deeply interested? Sir Gordon Chalk, attending his last Premiers Conference before his retirement as Treasurer and Deputy Premier of Queensland, said:

I have been here since the days of Sir Robert Menzies and I just cannot believe what has happened this afternoon. I just cannot believe that this is the attitude of a free enterprise Government. We have no alternative but to go back and slash employment.

Those are the words of Sir Gordon Chalk, then Liberal Treasurer and Deputy Premier of Queensland and at that time the longest serving Treasurer in Australia. What was the stand taken by that great defender of States rights, that Labor-hater, the Premier of Queensland, the Honourable Johannes Bjelke-Petersen? Commenting on 8 April 1976, he showed that he was well awake to what the Prime Minister and Senator Carrick were all about. He said:

The Treasury is trying to dump the odium of tax raising on the States without dumping any of the money itself. If the Prime Minister is genuine about Federation he will be talking just not about income tax but a share of all Federal revenues.

I could go on and tell the Senate of the attitude of Sir Charles Court of Western Australia and of the hostility that is being expressed by all the other Premiers; but time does not permit. This is on record in the transcript of the June Premiers Conference, if honourable senators care to thumb the pages.

Let me summarise: There would be merit in the proposition if the Commonwealth tax revenue were to continue to grow and if specific purpose grants were to continue at the same level as when they were established by the Whitlam Labor Government. That is an important observation. If that were the case, we would be supporting the proposition; but most certainly we cannot support the proposition in its present form. For that reason, I enthusiastically second the amendment which was moved so eloquently by my Leader, Senator Wriedt, and which I quote now so that it may be officially recorded in my speech. The amendment is:

Leave out all words after ‘that’, insert ‘the Bills be withdrawn and redrafted following proper consultation with the State Governments concerning their objectionable features ‘.

Senator MESSNER:
South Australia

– I rise to support the Bill and to reject out of hand the amendment, which is totally unreal in the light of the circumstances, namely that this legislation is aimed at providing the sinews of finance for the most progressive policy in the devolution of power that we have seen since Federation. I have the advantage of having lived in four of the six Australian States at some time in my life and I am completely aware of the diversity of the various parts of this nation which go to make up the cultural whole. Accordingly, I have a great deal of interest in the establishment of a broader philosophy such as the one which we are espousing today and which will develop at the very base roots the most significant policies for the development of local areas, especially local government in developing pride in its own activities. Through the distribution of personal income tax revenue to the States, the States will be encouraged to assist local government in that direction. At the State level in Australia 16.1 per cent of revenue is collected and in America the figure is 16.26 per cent- somewhat the same. At the local government level, the difference is that in Australia 4. 1 per cent only is collected whereas in the United States 13.52 per cent is collected. This shows clearly the centralist tendencies of the Australian federal system as it has developed over the past few years. This legislation is the first major attempt to overcome that.

There is probably no clearer example of the differences between the 2 sides in this Parliament than the differences on this policy. We have seen that clearly demonstrated in the debate today. One of the most significant features that came in for the most criticism during the period of office of the Whitlam Government was the question of the regionalisation of local government areas. If anything was ever designed to threaten the existence of local councils and local government, it was that policy. The Federal Government attempted to impose control from the top to the very grass roots in such a way as to encourage, or I might say coerce, local councils into joining together in such a way as to take away from each other their interest in particular areas. This has been encouraged particularly too with the intervention of the State Government in my State of South Australia, where this very serious activity has been encouraged by the Premier and his Minister for Local Government, Mr Virgo.

Senator Wriedt mentioned quite often and at great length the South Australian Premier’s predilection towards the centralised system and his comments on and criticisms of this legislation. If there is a political pigmy in Australia, it is certainly Don Dunstan. He seeks to hide behind the Federal Government by seeking to ensure that the Federal Government takes all responsibility for raising funds, but he does not have any regard for how they are spent. Certainly it is in his political interest to encourage that sort of activity and involve himself in writing cook books and other matters of that sort which have nothing to do with the running of the State. It is because of that sort of activity that I believe this legislation is fully justified in encouraging the States to have due regard to the jobs that they are doing in their respective States and to have some regard and some responsibility for those things.

Senator McAuliffe either does not understand the system of tax indexation or has not studied the issue very closely, because he clearly made the point today that there would be a no-growth factor in personal income tax. That of course would be absolutely true if in fact there were a falling rate of tax, but tax indexation stops exponential growth of taxation at rates greater than the rate of inflation. Tax indexation will take out of the system the thrust of people moving into higher tax brackets as inflation has its effect. It will not mean that there will be a restriction on the growth of revenue. That will rise in direct proportion to the rise in incomes. The other factor involved is the rise in the general level of economic growth in the community, which will be distributed to the States in the proper way. So I believe Senator McAuliffe misunderstood totally the impact of tax indexation.

One of the greatest furphies thrown around in respect of this new system is the theory that it represents a form of double taxation. We saw that developed to a great extent during the State election campaign in New South Wales. I hope that one has been properly put to rest. We find it emerging occasionally from some of the back bench Labor members in the South Australian Parliament. This is merely because they have not taken the opportunity to read the proper documents. For the record, it is pretty clear that there will be only one taxation return and only one collecting agency. The matter is well and truly controlled in that way.

I would like to make some reference to the points that have been made in South Australia by the Minister for Local Government, Mr Virgo. On some basis known only to him, he has come up with a formula which shows that in 1975-76 the Federal Government gave to local government in Australia some $225m. No one has been able to determine exactly how he came to that conclusion. The point at issue is to demonstrate that the $140m that has been set aside in this year’s Budget for local government is in fact significantly less than the figure he has arrived at in his own mind. The truth of the matter is that local government in Australia will be collecting, as is clearly stated in Budget Paper No. 7, of the order of $ 1 95m, which includes the specific purpose grants, as well as the $140m general purpose grants. It is interesting to note too that whereas last year general purpose grants made up only 29.1 per cent of the total, this year they represent 7 1 .6 per cent of the total.

This clearly demonstrates the Government’s drive to encourage local government to spend money in the way it sees best. In my experience in South Australia, this philosophy has been accepted and very well recognised by local government. Well might local government in South Australia be pleased with the federalism policy, notwithstanding the comments of the State Government. We only have to look at the grants in the current year compared with those last year. The Elizabeth City Council this year will receive $20 1,000 compared with $ 1 10,000 last year. The Port Adelaide City Council will receive $390,000 this year compared with $245,000 last year. The Woodville City Council will receive $445,000 this year compared with $280,000 last year. These are the significant facts which people in local government have regard to and have observed. They are fully conscious that they are gaining from the new federalism policy brought down by the Fraser Government.

The only other area to which I refer concerns the special problems of South Australia in regard to very large areas of the State that are unincorporated. Before the review of the legislation in 1981 there may well be need to review the situation of new areas that may be incorporated between now and then. We hope that there will not be an attempt to redistribute from present grants sums for new incorporated areas but rather that there will be an adjustment of the total amount available in each State in order to cover these areas. I would like the assurance of the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs that this suggestion will be taken into account in such an eventuality.

Finally, I mention the obvious support demonstrated throughout the community for the Government’s policy in the area of local government. I wish to quote from the news sheet put out by the Local Government Association of New South Wales comments about the Federal Budget. I received this news sheet only a day or two ago. It states:

First, the Associations-

That is, the local government associations of New South Wales-

Have no hesitation in repeating their strongest possible support for the revenue sharing system, which we consider to be a major advance and on which we commented in detail previously.

I believe that that is the crux of the interest and genuine support that is developing around the Australian community for this proposal and it is the reason why I support the Bill.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– Before moving on to the main substance of this legislation I feel impelled to correct just a few of the gross distortions of fact which were presented by Senator Scott in his contribution to this debate this afternoon. In his customary sanctimonious style, Senator Scott waffled on about centralist’ and ‘centralism’ which of course are fog words which defy precise definition. I wonder whether Senator Scott regards the proposed levy on all milk produced for manufacturing purposes in Australia, which was recommended by the Industries Assistance Commission in its recent report, as a means of underpinning what is known as orderly marketing in the dairy industry. I wonder whether Senator Scott regards a levy like that, which constitutes gross interference in the market, as a manifestation of centralism in operation. If Senator Scott regards it as such, I eagerly anticipate his opposition to any legislation which may arise therefrom.

I wonder whether he regards the existing effective excise in the form of a hen levy, which is imposed for the same purpose on egg production, as another manifestation of centralism. If so, I would like to know why not, and if he regards it as centralism I would like to know why he has not opposed it. But more importantly, on questions of fact, he had the audacity to assert that taxation under the Whitlam Government had increased by 300 per cent. He did not define what type of taxation he was talking about, but it really does not make much difference. In fact total taxation collections in the financial year 1975-76 were $16.8 billion. For Senator Scott’s alleged 300 per cent increase to be correct, that would have had to be $4.2 billion in 1972-73. In the short space of time I have not been able to find the figures to show precisely what the collections were, but they were something like double that figure. So he was in error by a factor of two. Incidentally, if he has such an interest in the level of total tax collections I draw to his attention the simple fact that total tax collection as estimated in this year’s Budget- his Treasurer’s Budgetwill be $19.9 billion, which is an increase of 18 per cent on the figure for 1975-76.

The grossest distortion of fact of all which Senator Scott had the audacity to present was the figures that he quoted for expenditure on roads pursuant to the Roads Act of 1 974. That is an old National Country Party trick. It has been tried by his colleagues in this House and by his colleagues outside this House. I think that the figures he quoted were correct, but he neglected to mention that the classifications had changed. The 2 most important changes in the classification were, firstly, that many roads previously classified as rural arterial roads were reclassified in the 1 974 legislation as national highways and were funded separately. Secondly, class 3 or class 4 roads- I am not sure which it is- which had previously been classified as rural local roads were reclassified as rural arterial roads. Because of those 2 very important changes of definition which Senator Scott conveniently neglected to mention it is possible to quote figures which purport to show that expenditure on rural local and rural arterial roads were reduced when the reality is that expenditure was not reduced.

Even if that were the case, only the Country Party would have the effrontery to talk about reducing expenditure on roads. The Bureau of Transport Economics recommended that an extra $120m be added to the amounts specified in the schedules to the 1974 legislation to compensate for cost increases since that legislation was passed. The previous year, when the Labor Government was in power, the Bureau of Transport Economics had recommended a $64m increase in the amounts stated in the schedule to the Bill. That legislation was introduced by the Labor Government in November and it was eventually passed some time later this year at the full $64m. This Government which Senator Scott supports did not accept the recommendation of the Bureau of Transport Economics and it has appropriated or has signalled its intention to appropriate a measly $35m to compensate for cost increases over 2 full years- just over 25 per cent of what the Bureau of Transport Economics said was necessary.

The misrepresentation was compounded even further by the Minister for Transport- his National Country Party colleague- Mr Nixon, who has announced so many times that I have lost count of them, that this extra money, this $100m as he called it, will be provided for road construction this year for local government. There are 2 misrepresentations in that claim. The first one is that the alleged $100m represents the figure for 1975-76 which was $64m, plus the figure for 1976-77, which is $35m. The second misrepresentation is that that $35m- not $ 100m- which the Government has appropriated or has signalled its intention to appropriate for this year is not destined for local councils. It is destined for State governments and it will be distributed to State governments, road building authorities and so on. So there are 2 gross distortions. I repeat that only the National Country Party could have the effrontery, given its record in government with respect to road funding over the last 6 months, to condemn and to suggest that road funding under the previous Labor administration was less than adequate. If that were true then it is something even less adequate now.

I turn now to the legislation itself. This new federalism which the present Government featured so prominently before its election campaign commenced and during its election campaign has now been revealed and is recognised by every State government in Australia with the exception of my own State of Western AustraliaI will say a bit more about that later- as a confidence trick. It has also been recognised by many people associated with local government as a confidence trick. Later I will read into the record a letter from one such local government association. This is not a new deal for the States. It is a fraudulent and sanctimonious smokescreen behind which the Fraser Government seeks to renege upon its responsibilities. The more perceptive people in the Labor Party and in the Liberal and National Country Parties always recognised this. For example, Senator Rae, writing in his column in the Australian on 13 February 1976 said with respect to the new federalism and the proposed tax-sharing arrangements:

It is inevitable that unless there is through the system a tremendous improvement in tax-gathering efficiency-

This does not appear to have been claimed - then someone is going to suffer if someone else obtains an advantage.

That is really a fairly self-evident statement. One would have thought that some other honourable senators in this place besides Senator Rae might have recognised the self-evident truth of that statement. Senator Rae continued:

It is significant that in an interview after the Premiers Conference Sir Eric Willis of New South Wales expressed his enthusiasm, saying that he would like to see his State obtaining a greater percentage of the total taxes raised within it.

Then Senator Rae went on to make the equally obvious point that, if New South Wales were to receive a bigger slice from any given level of tax collections, some other State would be likely to receive a smaller slice. Senator Rae feared, with very good reason, that the State he represents would be one of those States to receive a smaller slice. At about the same time- in fact, the day before, 12 February- the following was reported in the A Australian Financial Review.

Queensland’s Treasurer and Deputy Premier, Sir Gordon Chalk, yesterday accused the Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, and the New South Wales Premier, Sir Eric Willis, of plotting against the smaller States.

So it goes on. Back in September 1975- more than a year ago- the honourable member for Lilley, Mr Kevin Cairns, who is a Liberal member of the House of Representatives, said in relation to the then proposed new federalism policy:

In the Liberal Party at present economic decision making is centralised in Victoria, with a little bit left over for Sydney.

Those more perceptive people in the Liberal Party always saw the reality behind the so-called new federalism. Many others, of course, were misled by the extravagant assurances and undertakings given by the responsible Minister in this House, Senator Carrick.

The most dramatic of all of Senator Carrick ‘s irresponsible and exaggerated claims for the new federalism was that which he made on 27 April of this year when replying to a question asked by me. It should be borne in mind that he had stated the previous day that the total payments to the States under the new federalism would increase in the following 3 years by more than the amount by which they had increased during the 3 years of” the Labor Government. I asked Senator Carrick:

Does the Minister assert that the federalism policy means a more generous financial deal for the States than under the previous Labor Government? Secondly, given the fact that total Federal payments to the States increased by more than 38 per cent in constant value dollars in the period 1972 to 197S, can he guarantee that the total payments to the States in the next 3 years will increase, also in constant value dollars, by more than 58 per cent?

In reply Senator Carrick said:

In response to Senator Walsh, my answer is an unqualified yes.

I sought further clarification the next day by way of a further question in which I quoted what Senator Carrick had said the day before. I asked him:

I ask for the purpose of clarification whether his unequivocal yes applies to both sections of the question I asked, bearing in mind that the second section sought a guarantee from him that total payments to the States -

That is, specific purpose and general purpose payments to the States- in the next 3 years would increase by more than they did in the 3 years of Labor Government, that is, by 58 per cent, in constant values.

Senator Carrick replied:

I repeat what I said yesterday:

He did not repeat what he had said the day before, of course. He went on to waffle about what had been happening at the Premiers Conference. He has been waffling about it and dodging the issue ever since. He dodged it again on 26 August this year. Well he might do so, of course, because he gave to the Senate a grossly misleading assurance. If he knew anything about the subject at all- presumably he knows something about it- he ought to have known that the Government was in no position to honour it.

Let us examine how the Government’s performance so far measures up to Senator Carrick ‘s extravagant claims. To do so, let us look at the Budget Papers. In Budget Paper No. 1 , under the heading Federal Payments to or for the States and State Government Loan Council Programs- 1975-76 and 1976-77, we find that total payments to the States increased by 8.6 per cent, which is considerably less than the increase in the consumer price index, which is less again incidentally than the increase in the cost of public services. Following the example set by the Treasurer (Mr Lynch), Senator Carrick has attempted to fiddle with that figure of 8.6 per cent by saying that you should not count some things and that you should count others; that you should count as a grant to the States this year money that was paid to the States for Medibank last year, which is a sum of some $209m. Senator Carrick says that that figure should be counted as a grant to the States for this year instead of last year. By that sort of juggling he comes up with a figures of 14 per cent which is roughly comparable to the increase in the consumer price index. So by the most favourable interpretation, even after the figures have been juggled and the books have been cooked, we find that in real terms there has been no increase in the payments to the States this year. I make this comment in passing: If Senator Carrick believes that it is proper to transfer to this year’s payments the sum of $209m which was paid to the States for Medibank at the end of June, I ask him why the Treasurer also did not include that figure in this year’s Federal expenditure figures in the summary of the Budget instead of putting it in the expenditure figures for last year and thus falsify last year’s deficit as well as this year’s deficit.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Walsh, you have been making reflections again. I have been listening to your remarks fairly closely. I refer you to standing order 418. You must not make any personal reflections on members, on governments or on parliaments. You may continue your remarks, but I ask you to take greater note of standing order 418 or I shall really have to act upon it.

Senator WALSH:

– In responding to your invocation of the Standing Orders, I remind you, Mr President, that just over a year ago in the Senate the then Leader of the Opposition, Senator Withers, moved a motion in which he referred to the dishonesty, deceit and incompetence of the Prime Minister and his Ministers. If my memory serves me correctly, I believe that you voted for that motion. I ask you how you can reconcile that precedent with a ruling that a senator is not able to assert that the deficit has been falsified?

The PRESIDENT:

– Have you finished your speech?

Senator WALSH:

– No. I am seeking a further ruling from you, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT:

– I do not have to reconcile anything. As I interpret standing order 418, as the President of the Senate I most certainly insist that any transgression against that standing order be withdrawn. You can carry on with your speech, but I ask you to observe the requirements of standing order 4 1 8.

Senator WALSH:

– Very well. I accept your ruling, Mr President. I just observe in passing that in view of your ruling one must assume that the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition last year was out of order and should have been ruled out of order. The fact remains, no matter how we describe it, that the Government, in summarising its expenditure and receipts uses one set of definitions in one part of the Budget Papers and a different set of definitions in another section of the Budget Papers. Not surprisingly, of course, in both instances the distortion which occurs from the use of those different definitions presents a picture which is more favourable to the Government than would have been the case if the same definitions had been used in both cases. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard 2 tables which were incorporated in the House of Representatives Hansard by the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Adelaide, Mr Hurford. Both tables have been extracted from Budget Paper No. 1. They show payments to the States and to local government bodies.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The tables read as follows-

Senator WALSH:

– Of course, it has become more and more apparent during the 6 months during which this issue has been debated that the States have realised that initially they were conned into something. They accepted assurances that there would be a better financial deal for the States than there was under the existing legislation. They now realise that there is not. Every State government in Australia, with the exception of the Western Australian Government has, with varying degrees of intensity, condemned this legislation. Indeed, the Liberal Premier of Victoria only 2 weeks ago demanded that the Bills be withdrawn and that the Federal Government consult with the States so that they could be redrafted. Sir Charles Court, of course, has not yet seen fit to condemn this legislation, but then Sir Charles Court, throughout the whole life of the Fraser Government, has cravenly endorsed every action that has been taken, bar one. The one exception -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Walsh, you cannot use a word like ‘cravenly’ in respect of a member of another Parliament. Again I draw your attention to what I said previously in relation to standing order 418. There is a limit to my patience in regard to this matter.

Senator Georges:

- Mr President, I wish to ask you to reconsider the advice you have given to Senator Walsh. You may fall into error by concentrating on Senator Walsh. I recall Senator Messner referring to the Premier of South Australia as a political pigmy. I was not certain or I would have raised the matter at the time. There may be a possibility that you are oversupervising what Senator Walsh has to say. This may lead you into error. Senator Walsh is very incisive and may be abrasive but I do not believe that .he has transgressed standing order 418 as you have ruled.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I wish to speak on the point of order. It is a question of a correct interpretation of standing order 418. The objection arose when a member of one of the State Houses was referred to as craven. Standing order 418 states:

No Senator shall use offensive words against either House of Parliament or any Member of such House, or of any House of a State Parliament, or against any Statute, unless for the purpose of moving for its repeal . . .

The main point is the imputation of improper motives. I do not think an imputation of improper motives has been made. It was just a reference to the state of sanity, I suppose, of a particular individual. I think it would be extremely difficult if members of different political views had to refer to members of the opposing party always as honourable gentlemen. No one would suggest that they should. I think your ruling, Mr President, is too rigid a restriction upon full and thorough debate in this House.

The PRESIDENT:

– I will call Senator Walsh when we resume.

Sitting suspended from 6.2 until 8 p.m.

Senator WALSH:

-Mr President, I am not sure what stage had been reached before the suspension of the sitting for dinner. Points of order had been taken -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Carry on with your speech, Senator Walsh.

Senator WALSH:

– Before dinner I was referring to the fact that of all the State governments only the Government of Western Australia has failed to express any public criticism of the Federal Government’s new federalism policy, which of course, with one exception, is consistent with the record of the Court Government in Western Australia throughout this entire year. No matter what the Federal Government has proposed, it has been endorsed by the Government of Western Australia. The one exception was the mini credit squeeze, or whatever one should call it, of last week in respect of which the Federal

Government received a mild rebuke from the Premier of Western Australia.

I suspect that that mild rebuke had something to do with the communication which was sent to Sir Charles Court by the Prime Minister at that same time and in which the Prime Minister informed Sir Charles Court that the Federal Government could not accede to the request of the Western Australian Government to give that Government legal authority over off-shore areas because, as the Prime Minister stated in his telex message to the Western Australian Premier, that would be a breach of the law. The Prime Minister stated very properly, I might add, that it would be quite improper for the Federal Government to accede to Sir Charles’s repeated incitements to go outside the law and grant such power to the Government of Western Australia. I might add that in delivering that ruling the Prime Minister totally endorsed the legal view which had been stated frequently by both Mr Whitlam and the shadow Minister for National Resources, Mr Keating; whereas Sir Charles had been strutting around Western Australia asserting that under the 1967 Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act he still had the power to exercise control over off-shore areas. So, having been put in his place by the Prime Minister who told him in effect that he was no longer to strut around as if he had authority over areas off the Western Australian coast, Sir Charles I dare say was a little peeved and therefore issued that mild rebuke to the Federal Government for the first and only time.

To return to the legislation concerning the sharing of taxation revenue, I point out that the major Bill provides that 33.6 per cent of taxation revenue as defined in the Bill will be paid to the States in lieu of payments under the pre-existing formula for general purpose payments. There are a number of catches in this. It has been claimed that as a result of the 33.6 per cent and the estimates of taxation revenue for this year the States will receive some $89m more than they received under the pre-existing arrangement. That is correct if the assumption upon which the taxation revenue estimates for this year are based are correct, and that must be seriously doubted for a number of reasons: Firstly, the Budget Papers assume a rate of wage increases in the vicinity of 10 to 12 percent. The Government has been trenchantly pursuing a policy designed to restrict wage increases to a fraction of the increase in the consumer price index. If the Government succeeds in that policy it is likely, in fact it is probable, that the increase in wages will be somewhat less than what the Government or the Treasury assumed when making the estimate of personal tax collections.

The Treasury or the Budget Papers also assumed a growth of some 2 per cent in the work force or the number of people employed, and it now seems highly unlikely that that target will be reached. Because of those 2 factors the estimates or revenue from personal taxation are likely to have been overestimated in the Budget Papers. When it is considered that only a 3 per cent fall in taxation collections in the current financial year is required to erase the $89m which allegedly the State governments will receive over and above what they would have received under the old formula, it seems highly likely that in fact the only thing which will protect State revenue for this year is that the floor of the pre-existing financial arrangements will become operative and the States will receive in general purpose payments precisely the same amount of money as they would have received under the pre-existing formula. In respect of specific purpose payments the States will receive a great deal less.

Looking a little further at the estimates of increases in tax collections, particularly payasyouearn tax collections, Budget Paper No. 1 at page 1 IS forecasts an increase of $ 1.755m or 25 per cent over the preceding year. Some time ago I asked a question seeking the assumptions which underlie that forecast of a 25 per cent increase in PA YE collections. Even the other estimates given in the Budget Papers, which certainly appear to be overoptimistic at this stage, are difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile with a 25 per cent increase in PA YE collections. Apart from the probability that because tax collections will be lower this year than the Government forecast or than it expected at the time the Budget was prepared the extra $8 9m will not be received by the States, in the longer term there is the catch in clause 5 of the legislation which gives the Treasurer the power to define what may be special surcharges and what may be special rebates. In other words, the Bill provides that the States will receive 33.6 per cent of taxation revenue but leaves it open to the Treasurer to define what ‘taxation revenue’ is. So, of course, if at any time the Treasurer thinks the States are receiving more than they ought to be receiving or more than the Federal Government can afford to pay them, all he has to do is change the definition of ‘taxation revenue’. Of course, it was that clause which led to the most vehement protest from the States at the beginning of last week. Since then, the Prime Minister has assured us that there is no need to worry because the

Treasurer will be required to enter into consultation with the States before he changes the definition of ‘taxation revenue ‘.

We have seen some examples of consultation from this Government before. For example, 3 days before the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill (No. 2) was introduced into the House of Representatives the major unions were presented with a fait accompli by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street). The so-called consultation occurred in the week in which the Government introduced the legislation into the Parliament. So, using that as a precedent we can see just how much the assurance that there will be consultation with the States is likely to be worth under this Government. More directly related to this issue we have the example of the establishment of the Advisory Council on Inter-governmental Relations. The States previously had been told local government would have 3 representatives on the Council; then suddenly one day in the newspapers there was an announcement from the Government that this would be increased to six. There was no consultation with any of the States in making that decision. It was a unilateral decision by this Government, and again it provoked a storm of protest from most of the State governments. Let me make one other point in relation to the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill (No. 2). Although the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations did not bother to tell the unions most vitally concerned- the bulk of the Australian trade union movement- or to consult with them until the very week in which the Bill was introduced into the House of Representatives, it is apparent that he had been in consultation with the Federal Secretary or council of the Federated Clerks Union, whose council was able to display before the Bill was introduced into the House of Representatives knowledge not only of the Bill itself but also of the amendment which the Minister threw down on to the table one hour before he moved it some 3 weeks after the Bill was originally introduced.

Looking at the longer term implications of 33.6 per cent of personal tax revenue for the States in lieu of the pre-existing general purpose payments, when stage 2 of the new federalism comes into operation it is this Government’s stated intention to allow the States to levy their own income taxes as a replacement for the specific purpose payments previously granted by the Federal Government. Presumably, if that is done total tax collections by the Federal Government will fall to the extent that the responsibility for financing specific purpose payments is transferred from the Federal taxation authorities to the State taxation authorities. Therefore, other things being equal, total Federal tax collections will be lower than they have been in the past. It seems likely again that the operative factor in determining payments to the States for general purposes will not be the 33.6 per cent of Federal tax collections but the old formula which incorporated, incidentally, a 3 per cent betterment factor, so that also was a growth area of finance. At best it seems that what is most likely is that there will be no improvement from the States’ point of view in the finances available to them for general purpose payments.

If this Government’s stated objectives are to be taken seriously there will be a considerable reduction in payments to the States from specific purpose sources. Of course, we saw that this year. While there was a 20 per cent increase in general purpose payments to the States on the previous year the other specific purpose payments and capital grants and loan raisings increased by, I think, 5 per cent and 7 per cent respectively, or something like that. The aggregate increase in total payments to the States, after adjustment for the Medibank pre-payment which is, I think, a legitimate accountancy exercise, was 12 percent. That was the monetary increase in total payments to the States this financial year, even though the general purpose payments had been increased by 20 per cent. In real terms, of course, there was no increase. Senator Scott made a reference earlier to balanced budgets in the States. He said that the payments to the States this year must be particularly generous because they had enabled the States to bring down balanced budgets. A couple of comments need to be made on that. According to assorted Government spokesmen in this Senate during the past few weeks, the Tasmanian Government has been sitting on a nest egg of $17m, I think they alleged, as a leftover from last year which will be carried on into this year. I do not know whether that is correct because I have not studied it. If it is correct then, of course, one of the reasons which has made it easier for the Tasmanian Government to budget this year is that it has a nest egg left over from the generosity of the previous Federal Labor Government.

In relation to Western Australia, I do know that Sir Charles Court boasted that he had been able to bring down a budget with a surplus of, I think, a couple of hundred thousand dollars. There were 2 reasons for this. Sir Charles Court had massively increased virtually all State charges in the few months preceding the Federal

Government Budget but, more importantly, he had also salted away a little nest egg. He salted away $8m and charged it to last year’s accounts for paying public servants in this financial year. It is the Medibank exercise being repeated at State level. Apparently this is a new trick that the Liberal Party has picked up. By recording in the expenditure for one year money that it did not actually pay out until the next year helps to make comparisons between one year’s finances and the next year’s finances more favourable politically to the Party. That is a major reason for Sir Charles being able to bring down a balanced budget. Indeed, there is considerable suspicion that there may be several million more dollars tucked away in various trust accounts by the State Government of Western Australia. Because of the way in which the accounts are kept by the State Government it is extremely difficult to determine just what money has been paid into what accounts, by whom, and when it is paid out.

If or when there is a transfer of responsibility for funding areas of expenditure previously funded by specific purpose payments, there is no doubt that the 4 States other than Victoria and New South Wales will be financially disadvantaged if the States are to be responsible for raising from State income taxes the money to fund those heads of expenditure. There is no doubt whatsoever about that because the 4 States other than New South Wales and Victoria pay considerably less income tax per capita than do the 2 larger States and they receive very much more by way of Federal grants per capita than is received by the States of New South Wales and Victoria. lt will be interesting to see if and when this happens, how the self-professed States-righters will vote. I refer to those persons who populate the Government benches in the Senate who attempt to perpetuate the myth that the Senate is a States’ House and not a Party House even though, when they were most stridently trying to proclaim that myth, they were following the orders of the Liberal Party Leader in the House of Representatives. It will be interesting to see whether any of them stand up and vote according to the interests of their States or whether they continue with their established habit of following the orders of the Liberal Party Leader in the House of Representatives. As Senator Scott has spoken in this debate, since the question of new federalism was a central, if not the central, issue in the New South Wales election which was held on 1 May and which much to the consternation of the Liberal Party resulted in the defeat of the then Liberal Government and the election of a Labor Government which was campaigning vigorously against the new federalism, and since I understand that Senator Scott has received a telegram from the Premier of that State asking him to vote against this Bill- given that on 1 May the people of New South Wales also voted against this legislation- it will be interesting to see how Senator Scott votes on this Bill. It will be interesting to see whether he stands up as a States-righter, as a servant of the State of New South Wales or whether he meekly gets counted as a lackey of the Liberal Party Leader in the House of Representatives.

I turn now to the question of local government. The other Bill provides for 1.52 per cent of income tax collections to be paid to local government. This is less than the 1.6 per cent which the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) previously stated in April would be paid to local governments. I do not particularly blame Senator Carrick for that. He did spell out the assumption upon which the 1.6 per cent estimate was based. It was based on a lower estimate of total tax collections than now appears likely. Although there does not seem to be very much difference between 1.52 per cent and 1.6 per cent, it does represent about $7m. I am sure that local government throughout Australia would not be averse to accepting an extra $7m. We have heard at great length that because of this magnificent reform local government will receive 75 per cent more money from federal sources than it received last year. It has been stated many times but I will state it again: The simple fact is that while it is true that from direct payments local government will receive 75 per cent more, when we add all the payments from Federal Government to local government- this is the only proper way to assess these things- we see that in fact payments to local government will decline by about $80m from the $273m it received in the previous financial year. I doubt whether there are many gullible people left in local government. Even the President of the Queensland Local Government Association is reported in the Toowoomba Chronicle of 3 November as saying that local government was better off under Labor.

Senator McAuliffe:

– Councillor Rogers.

Senator WALSH:

– Yes. Obviously a couple of months ago Councillor Rogers was no longer gulled by the propaganda of this Government.

Senator McAuliffe:

– He is not a Labor supporter, either.

Senator WALSH:

– I would be very surprised if Mr Rogers were a Labor supporter as a representative of local government in

Queensland, although I do not know him personally. If there are any gullible local government people still around I should inform them that future payments to local government will also be influenced by all the factors which affect the aggregate level of income tax collections to which I referred when dealing with the percentage grants to the States. If this Government transfers responsibility for funding what had been funded as specific purpose payments to the States, Federal tax collections will fall and the figure of 1,52 per cent received by local government will fall accordingly. Of course no betterment factor is incorporated in the legislation either, even though the type of expenses incurred by local government tend to increase at a faster rate than the consumer price index.

Before closing I should like to read a letter which I received from the Koorda Shire Council in Western Australia and which was sent to a number of other Western Australian senators, I understand. I am not sure precisely to which senators it was sent. The letter was provoked by the Prime Minister who early last month had castigated local authorities for increasing their rates. The Prime Minister said in effect that his Government had been so generous to local goverment, increasing federal payments by 75 per cent this financial year as compared with last year, that local governments, if they are decent managers and so on, ought to be able to get by this year without increasing their rates. This is the letter which the Prime Minister received in reply from the Koorda Shire Council, a copy of which the Shire supplied to me. It is addressed to the Prime Minister and reads:

Dear Sir,

page 1980

QUESTION

LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANTS

I have been instructed by my Council to complain at a statement made by you, and later by the Hon. the Treasurer, dealing with grants to Local Governments.

The Statement, in effect, was that Local Authorities had been granted additional money from the Federal Government this year and should create a situation where it was unnecessary for councils to increase rates.

Last financial year my Council received $24,000 being $4,000 State subsidy from the Grants Commission. This year the combined grants was increased by the magnificent sum of$282-

That is about 1 per cent - which would be approximately three weeks salary for my female office Assistant.

Although Main Road grants are separate from the Commonwealth grants, my Council actually suffered a reduction in Main Road and Statutory Road Grants, from $ 109,092 in 1975-76, to $108,973 in 1976-77 which is a reduction of $119.

The overall grant situation was an increase of $163 under the 2 headings, which my Council feels would have absolutely no bearing on the rate situation whatsoever, even if inflation was running at zero.

The amount in the increase of the untied grant of $282 represents .00195 of my council’s rates for the last financial year.

Whilst some fortunate Councils throughout Australia have possibly received increases in their grants of 100 to 200 per cent. Council knows of other councils in this state which received an increase similar to that ‘enjoyed’ by the Koorda Shire Council and others received no increase.

Council feels that your statement and that of the Hon. Treasurer, should be retracted because it gives a very wrong impression to ratepayers.

That is the end of the letter. That Council clearly has looked at the facts instead of the extravagant rhetoric of the responsible Minister in this Government. That Council now realises what the new federalism means for it in the short term. In the long term the situation, if anything, is likely to deteriorate even further. The Prime Minister seems determined to prove to local governments and to State governments that life is not meant to be easy for them but it apparently is meant to be easy for a number of other people directly associated with this Federal Government.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs · LP

– in reply- The Senate is debating 2 revenue-sharing Bills, the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Bill 1976 and the States (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Bill 1976. To the motion that the Bills be read a second time the Opposition has moved an amendment. The Government will oppose that amendment. The Opposition has spoken vigorously against both measures. I think I must be right in saying that the Opposition has opposed the policies inside those measures; so that it would be right to say that the Opposition in Government would rescind these measures. It is terribly important, I think for this to be made clear to the public at large. I think we ought to state what the measures are and what the Opposition’s alternative to those measures is.

Let me take the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Bill 1976 to which the Opposition tonight has stated its implacable opposition. That Bill proposes to give to the States a known calculated percentage of personal income tax for distribution to local government so that local government every year shall know predicatably what its revenue shall be for the following year. The Opposition is opposed to that. The measure provides that the funds shall be in 2 kinds. One, element A, is to be a direct per capita grant to all councils. The Opposition is totally opposed to the concept of direct per capita grants to all councils. It has said that its policy- I state it- is each year to distribute an unknown amount of money through the Commonwealth Grants Commission for equalisation purposes only and not for direct per capita grants. This is the policy that the Opposition in fact would favour. Therefore it is true to say that the Opposition ‘s policy is opposed to direct per capita grants to all municipalities and shires.

Senator McAuliffe:

– That is not right.

Senator CARRICK:

-Then the Opposition’s policies of last year and the year before were wrong and we were right, if now the Opposition has suddenly decided that it was wrong when it would not give to any grants to some 100 municipalities and shires. The Opposition has said that it is opposed to State grants commissions being duplications of the Federal Grants Commission and therefore it would no doubt abolish or have abolished the States grants commissions by attrition and replace them with the Federal Grants Commission. The truth is of course that States grants commissions for local government purposes operated well before the Commonwealth Grants Commission ever touched local government. In 1 969 in New South Wales a local government State grants commission was in operation. So quite clearly the Opposition is saying that it will replace the State grants commissions, that it will not allow the States to have a States view as to municipalities and shires and that Canberra knows best through one centralised grants commission. These are the situations that are to be brought out.

The Opposition, by all sorts of convoluted arguments, is asserting that the Government’s $140m of untied grants this year, being a 75 per cent increase on the amount for last year, is not a significant amount. The Australian Council of Local Government Associations has constantly assured the Government and myself that this is an outstanding policy. What is more, the Council’s policy is precisely what the Opposition is now opposing. The Council’s policy, as stated in its platform, is that there be set aside a percentage of personal income tax or growth revenue for distribution to local government. This Government is doing it, the Opposition opposes it. If the Opposition is faithful to what it said this afternoon and tonight, if ever it becomes a government again no doubt it will have the courage to amend the Advisory Council for InterGovernment Relations Act and reduce the number of local government members from 6 to 3. Much play has been made by Opposition members of how the Federal Government, in their view, quite wrongly went against the States ‘ views and increased local government representation to six. Let it be recorded and let local government know that the Opposition is saying that it is opposed to having 6 local government members on the Advisory Council for InterGovernment Relations. These basic things come out. Here we have a vital reform.

Senator McAuliffe- Tell us about Sir Gordon Chalk and Mr Bjelke-Petersen.

Senator CARRICK:

– If the honourable senator will contain himself I will tell him about Queensland and the question of federalism in Queensland. The Opposition says that it is opposed to what the Government is doing in the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Bill and that it is opposed to what local government has always wanted. Let us be clear, because that is what is being said. A great deal has been said about a certain number of objections by the Premiers to that Bill when it was introduced. They were responded to by my Government and are embodied in the present Bill. Let me make it perfectly clear that everything in the Bill was agreed upon at 3 Premiers Conferences and discussed by numerous working parties of the Federal and State governments at the officer level. Let me make it perfectly clear that these are the situations that the Opposition is now opposing and trying to pretend did not exist.

Senator McAuliffe:

– Table the transcript of the June Premiers Conference.

Senator CARRICK:

– We do not need to table the transcript of the Premiers Conferences because, by gutter means, the Opposition always has access to them. Let me state quite clearly what happened at 3 Premiers Conferences. The Premiers agreed that the Federal policy should consist of these things: A fixed percentage of personal income tax should be earmarked each year to pass through the States, the States acting virtually as a post office, and that that amount should have 2 elements. One element, a minimum element, which should be not less than 30 per cent- element A- should be a direct per capita grant to all municipalities and shires. The second element should be an equalisation element which would go through State grants commission. They would be properly constituted commissions, properly constituted statutory bodies, independent bodies, which would have local government representation on them. This Bill, which the Opposition will vote against if it is consistent, does these things: It sets aside an amount of 1.52 per cent of personal income tax.

It contains an instruction that not less than 30 per cent shall go to element A for all municipalities and shires. The Opposition is opposed to this. The Bill states that there shall be State grants commissions, independent bodies, statutory bodies, having a local government content. The Opposition is apparency objecting to this provision. The Federal Government never intended that it should intervene in any way or interfere with the decisions of the State grants commissions. The Federal Government believed that it was only a courtesy that before there was any announcement in public about these things the Federal Government, from whom the funds would flow, should be informed.

Let me explain how these people who are objecting to what we are doing have reacted. So eager was the Labor Government in New South Wales to ally itself to the virtues of this money which is being distributed- New South Wales senators opposite should note- that it took our $5 lm and allied to it $3m of its own State funds, making a total of approximately $55m, and instructed the State grants commission to distribute the money as joint Federal-State funds. It then had the gall to put out that money as joint Federal-State funds, before we even knew. Where is this Opposition that thinks it is a wicked business, when its own State Labor Government is so eager to latch on to the money that it bought into the things because it wanted to inherit the virtues? When Senator Walsh chided us because we suggested that the $140m might abate rate increases, when he chided us for being wicked, did I hear him say that Mr Wran is introducing legislation in New South Wales to peg local government rates so that local government cannot put them above a certain amount? One by one, each of the arguments put in the last 3 hours fall. Another State put out the amounts as though they were State grants.

Senator Primmer:

– It learnt from Dick Hamer when Labor was in office in Canberra.

Senator CARRICK:

-It learnt from Labor that Labor put out the money for itself. Labor did not pass it out for the purpose of the States. In this Bill we have clarified the position. We have taken the valid objections of some of the States. We have incorporated them. There is no way that we want to interfere in any way with the State grants commissions. We want them to do their objective job. We ask that out of common courtesy the Federal Government be notified before the grants be latched upon by the States, the Labor ones more earnestly than others, to claim as theirs. I will be introducing a minor amendment to clause 4 which will clarify the position. It seeks to add the word ‘ordinarily’ after that part of the clause which refers to there being public hearings. It will allow the States, if they wish, in certain circumstances, not to have public hearings. We will have conceded to those suggestions. I make it clear that the Bill, against which the Opposition will vote, incorporates the policies that the federal body of the Local Government Associations enshrines in its policies and platforms. It incorporates the very policies that are ours. The alternative, which is Labor’s policy, means less money, an unpredictable supply of money, no way of knowing how much growth money a State will receive each year, no money at all for some 100 of the 900 councils, and no say by States in how the local authorities distribute their money. Here was the Opposition today talking of centralism and trying to take unto itself federalism. It will oppose the principle of State grants commissions. That is what it will do.

I now move to the major Bill; that is the Bill which is concerned with revenue sharing. I am fascinated to know that the Labor Party is opposed to the principle of revenue sharing and is opposed to the priniciple of a fixed percentage of personal income tax being known to the States.

Senator McAuliffe:

– No, it is not.

Senator CARRICK:

– Ah, ha! ‘No, it is not’. Did you hear that, Mr President? Honourable senators opposite have put one principal argument throughout all of today’s sittings; that is, that the old formula of the Whitlam Labor Government- the tax reimbursement formulais better than the revenue sharing formula. That has been the argument. As soon as we probe it and say ‘Stand up and be counted’, where are we? I ask the simple question: Has not the Labor Party argued all day one point; that is, that the Commonwealth reimbursement situation of the Whitlam Government formula is immensely superior to what we are now proposing? That is what has been said by the Labor Party. When I now ask ‘Would you revert to that policy?’ the honest answer of course has to be Yes’.

Senator McAuliffe:

– No !

Senator CARRICK:

-‘ No’? That is very interesting. We now have an interesting situation in which it is disclosed that so phoney is the argument of the Opposition that it is not game to say where it stands. I ask again: Where does the Labor Party stand? Since it saw such virtue in the Whitlam Government’s reimbursement formulae, is it intending to go back to those formulae and advocacy of that policy? Since speaker after speaker has said that that policy would yield more and would be better, is not the Labor Party advocating that policy?

It is interesting that this should be said, because every Premier in Australia came to Canberra in 1970-71 advocating precisely this situation. I think it was Senator Wriedt who queried the claim made today that Mr Dunstan advocated this course. The fact is that if one looks at the records of the Press and of his speeches in, I think, June 1974 one will find that the Labor Premier of South Australia argued that the tax reimbursement formula of the Whitlam Government was destroying the Labor Party and was destroying State governments.

Senator McAuliffe:

– I told you this afternoon that they were following you out of curiosity, and that after they found out what you were up to-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator CARRICK:

– The last person I would want to follow me out of curiosity is Mr Dunstan. The simple fact is that in 1974 in a major speech on policy the South Australian Premier, Mr Dunstan, said that the then Whitlam Government formula of reimbursement would destroy the States and State governments and that the only solution was the provision of a fixed percentage of personal income tax. It was a Labor Premier who said that. Nobody has ever denied it.

I come now to a simple situation. In the course of 3 Premiers Conferences, each one of the mechanisms for revenue sharing with the States was discussed in full and put to working parties which reported back to the Premiers. Those reports were examined and the recommendations were adopted. In fact, all of the mechanisms for Stage 1 of the revenue sharing process were adopted by all 6 Premiers. It is of tremendous importance to understand that. Some comment is made that after the June Premiers Conference this year there were some criticisms. Those criticisms were directed to the Loan Council and the loan borrowings as such. In the first year of the Fraser Government, the texts of the Premiers Conferences read like a recital of the Beatitudes when compared with the violence of argument, the turbulence and the conflict that ran for 3 years in Premiers Conferences under the Whitlam Government. The simple fact is that what we are introducing in this Bill in a mechanism had been agreed upon by the Premiers. It is said that we did not submit this legislation to the Premiers for examination. Let me say that no policy ever in Australia’s history has been more submitted. It was submitted to 3 Premiers Conferences as well as to the continuous mechanism of working parties of the Commonwealth and the States. The decisions were all recorded. Basically, the Bills being considered here today reflect totally the decisions recorded. That, I think, is fundamental.

It is fair to turn now to one or two points which have been made in the debate, as they need clarification. Before I do that, I should point out that running through the contributions by the Labor Party to this debate today was, I think, a general condemnation of tax indexation. Again, I may be wrong; but speaker after speaker saw something wrong with the fact that the Federal Government had introduced tax indexation which meant that the Federal Government would forgo $ 1,050m which would remain with the people. It was said that we did not disclose that fact to the Premiers. At all times from February onwards we told the Premiers that we would introduce tax indexation and that it was likely that we would introduce total tax indexation in the first yearlikely, but not necessarily certain, in this situation. So, those who peddle rumours otherwise are quite wrong. Those who have the text should read it.

The simple fact is that we decided on tax indexation before we fixed the rate for the States. The rate of 33.6 per cent was fixed after tax indexation and on that basis, after tax indexation, gives to the States in the first year of operation very substantially more than the Whitlam Government formula would have given. A figure of approximately $89m has been mentioned. That figure can vary either way as the volume of tax collections moves during the year. What the Commonwealth said to the States was: ‘We will guarantee to you that in the next 4 years your share will not fall below what the Whitlam formula would have given you, and we undertake that in the first year- a lean year- you will receive about $89m more than you would have received under the Whitlam formula’. That is a pretty good show.

A number of Premiers made some suggestions. It is fair to say that much has been made of what happened last week. Let me say that, after Mr Hamer had expressed a point of view and we responded with our amendments, he rang me and told me personally that he is wholly and fully satisfied with the legislation. That has to be made clear. Mr Neilson at that time made no comments on the situation. Mr Bjelke-Petersen, knowing what the alterations would be, expressed his agreement with the general trend. That now leaves Mr Wran and Mr Dunstan.

The revenue sharing Bill for the States revolves around the meaning of clause 5. Those who read the Premiers Conference transcript will know that a decision was made at the Conference following discussions by working parties of officials. It was confirmed at the meeting that just such a clause would be put in to protect the States. This clause provides for the Treasurer, by notice published in the Gazette, to declare any income tax to be a special surcharge or a rebate to be a special rebate for the purpose of determining the base figure from which the States’ entitlements and the local government entitlement in years subsequent to 1976-77 will be calculated.

Senator McAuliffe:

- Mr President, I have been following the Minister’s explanation intently. So that I can follow him more closely, will he please tell me to which Premiers Conference he is referring? There were three- one in February, one in April and one in June.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! There is no substance in the point of order.

Senator CARRICK:

– Clause 5 is entirely a machinery matter which is a protection to the States. As the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) have both already pointed out, this aspect of the legislation is very much in the States’ own interest. Even if there is a need in the future for a temporary change in tax levels relating to economic management, that temporary change should not be used either to increase or to decrease the shares going to the States. If, for example, as occurred under the former Administration, there were a mini-budget on some occasion after the Budget in which tax concessions were made, it would in fact reduce the share going to the States unless legislation provided authority to exempt such a matter from the provisions in this legislation. This is a vitally important protection for the States.

Above everything else, the Premiers were given an absolute assurance by the Prime Minister at the Premiers Conference that before any decisions were made on surcharges a discussion would occur at a Premiers Conference. Nothing could be more reasonable than that. In fact, rather than being a bogy, this is a main protection. Clause 6, which gives the Commissioner of Taxation the task of arriving at some decisions, is purely a machinery matter. We went through each one of these matters. Each matter raised by the Premiers was carefully considered. Those that made good sense were incorporated. One is to be incorporated tonight. At least 2 and maybe 3 of the Premiers have indicated verbally their satisfaction with the point we have reached on this measure. These premiers have never opposed federalism. To use Mr Hamer ‘s name and to suggest that his arguments are in opposition to federalism is the reverse of the truth. To use the name of Sir Charles Court or any of the other Premiers is absolutely the reverse of the truth.

Senator McAuliffe:

– What about Sir Gordon Chalk?

Senator CARRICK:

-It will be interesting for Queensland Labor senators to go to Queensland and to say that what they voted for tonight was the centralisation of decision-making in Canberra rather than giving to the State Government in Brisbane and local government through Queensland the right of decentralised decisionmaking. Make no mistake; the difference between the Whitlam formula, which everybody including the Labor Premiers opposed, and our formula is that the Whitlam formula centralised decision-making for Brisbane, Rockhampton, Cairns and Townsville in Canberra. That is what Senator McAuliffe and his Labor colleagues from Queensland are here to vote for tonight. Do not forget that they are also going to vote tonight against the whole of the framework of local government which the Australian Council of Local Government Associations said is its own local government policy. So they are going to vote tonight on principles that are diametrically opposed to local government policies and to decentralisation.

It may be necessary to amplify on certain of the clauses later. I repeat that these 2 Bills come before us as the stated policy of the Federal Government for which it has a mandate, as policies which 3 Premiers Conferences have gone through and accepted, as policies which have been discussed fully in public and which have the total approval of local government. It is significant that the Government has not had one objection from local government at any level to this Bill which the Labor Party will attempt to vote out.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Wriedt’s amendment) be len out.

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

AYES: 25

NOES: 33

Majority……. 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills together read a second time.

In Committee

The Bills

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs · LP

– I have an amendment to clause 4 of the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Bill. The relevant part of clause 4 reads as follows:

  1. Where-

    1. the principal function of a body established by a law of a State is the making of recommendations to the Government of the State with respect to the provision of financial assistance to local governing bodies in the State; and
    2. the Minister is satisfied that-
    1. the membership of the body includes at least one person who is or has been associated with local government in the State, whether as a member of a local governing body or otherwise;
    2. hearings of the body in connexion with matters relating to the making of recommendations by the body with respect to the provision of financial assistance to local governing bodies in the Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs) OUT OF MONEYS TO BE PAID TO THE State by the Commonwealth under this Act are held in public;

I move:

In paragraph (b) (ii), after ‘are’, insert ‘ordinarily’.

The effect of this amendment is to make it normal for the State Grants Commission to have public hearings but possible under less ordinary circumstances to have closed hearings.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I would like the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) to give a more detailed explanation of the intent of this amendment. During the second reading speech he made reference to it. As I understood his remarks, it was primarily concerned with the hearing of evidence in private. Can the Minister indicate precisely what he means by saying that evidence will be taken in private? It was my understanding originally that the Act provided for all hearings to be in public. Now we find the insertion of the word ‘ordinarily’. Presumably, as I read the Bill now it is to be at the discretion of the State Grants Commission. Is it the intention of the Federal Government in any way to determine for the States or to persuade them to adopt a procedure as to what will constitute an ordinary hearing or hearings ordinarily held in public, or will this be left entirely to the Commissions themselves?

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs · LP

– The amendment comes by way of recommendation from the States, most specifically from Victoria. It is intended that the State Grants Commission shall have that reserve power in other than ordinary circumstances itself to make a decision that evidence shall not be heard in public. There is no intention at all for the Federal Government to interfere in any way with the conduct, hearings or decisions of State grants commissions. This is purely a matter, at the request of the States, of giving some discretion to a State grants commission in extraordinary circumstances to decide that private hearings are justified. It is not an attempt by the Commonwealth to lay down the conduct.

Senator CAVANAGH:
9.8

– I cannot understand the amendment. As I read clause 4 (b) it will say:

Where . . . the Minister is satisfied that . . . hearings of the body in connection with matters relating to the making of recommendations by the body with respect to the provision of financial assistance to local governing bodies in the State out of moneys to be paid to the State by the Commonwealth under this Act are ordinarily held in public.

Does the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) envisage that some meetings will not be held in public? What is the purpose of inserting the word ‘ordinarily’? The clause refers to the Minister being satisfied that hearings will be in public, but now the Government wants to say where the Minister is satisfied that they will ordinarily be held in public’. I cannot see the significance of the word ‘ordinarily’.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs · LP

– I assure the honourable senator that the word ‘ordinarily’ is the parliamentary draftsman’s interpretation of the word ‘normally’.

Senator Cavanagh:

– What if they are not?

Senator CARRICK:

-Let me explain. Basically the only conditions that the Commonwealth lays down for the determination of equalisation are essentially contained in clause 4; that is, that there shall be a statutory body, that it shall have some local government experience on it, that submissions may be made to it and so on, and that copies of the reports shall be forwarded to the Prime Minister. Then, so that the normal practice shall be to hear evidence in public, we say that that body ordinarily shall have its hearings in public but we will allow it, in special circumstances of its own decision, to have private hearings.

The States apparently think there is a ground for doing that. We see no objections to it. Basically the whole force of public argument will be upon the States. All 932 municipalities and shires in Australia will be looking to the grants commissions and how they work. If there is any thought that there is involved any sub rosa activitiesI make no such inference at all- public criticism would force the opposite to occur. I have full confidence in the quality of the grants commissions and, within those statutory bodies, the ability of the chairmen to decide that whilst normally hearings should be held in public there may be extraordinary occasions when they should not. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I think we may be getting some clarity. It appears that ‘ordinary’ means normally and, while the commissions will normally meet in public, there may be extraordinary circumstances in which they are not required to do so. Therefore there will be meetings which will not be held in public. However, I ask the Minister whether there is a compulsion that some meetings be held in public.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs · LP

-As I understand the position, the legal meaning of that word implies that obviously that must be so, because if no meetings were held in public then clearly hearings of the body would not be ordinarily held in public; they would be extraordinarily held in public. In other words, the words surely imply that legally some and, indeed, the majority of hearings will be held in public. That is our intention. If, as the events transpire, things do not work out that way, it will always be possible, in consultation with the States, to amend the legislation in due course.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– Sub-clause (b) of clause 4 reads: the Minister is satisfied that-

  1. the membership of the body includes at least one person who is or has been associated with local government in the State, whether as a member of a local governing body or otherwise;

Can the Minister for Education explain to me what categories of people come within that word otherwise’? Does it include people who have been employed in a local council office? Such people would have had an association with a local governing body. Would it include a health inspector or a building inspector? What category of people does that word cover?

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs · LP

– It means, as it says, somebody who demonstrably has had throughout his life some real experience in local government. I take it that it could mean somebody who had been employed in a local government department, for example. I would read it to mean somebody who had Deen or who might have been employed in a local government body, municipality or shire. I see no reason at all why it would not include such people. The main test is whether that person has had genuine experience which would be valuable in a grants commission.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– Nowhere in that part of sub-clause 4 (b) which I read out is printed the word ‘experience ‘. The Minister is substituting the word ‘experience’ for the word ‘associated’. I am not quite clear as to why the Bill uses the word ‘associated ‘ instead of the word ‘experience’ when the Minister is now using the word ‘experience’. Can the Minister explain that?

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs · LP

– The reason is that when reasonable people- one would hope that State governments are reasonable people- are seeking somebody who has been associated with local government they will look towards somebody whose association with local government has been real and therefore has equipped that person with real experience. That is what it means. The argument has been put forward that we should not tie down the States too much in setting up these bodies. I have heard that argument advanced in recent days. We have deliberately not specified these things too tightly.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– Some weeks ago we debated another Bill which dealt with local government. On that occasion I had reason to point out in this chamber that in some States many voters- this applies mainly to my own State- are deprived of any representation in local government because the Liberal Opposition in that State refuses to allow to be passed legislation which provides for adult franchise. So South Australia, in one instance, is now going to be affected if this legislation provides that a person who is to be a member of one of these bodies has to have had experience in local government. The people in South Australia will be under some restriction, unlike a State such as Queensland where every person on the electoral roll has the right to stand for positions in local government or has the right to vote for a person who stands for a position in local government. So it would appear from the way in which the Minister now explains this clause- he said that members of these bodies must have experience in local government- that South Australia is one State which will suffer some disadvantage.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs · LP

– I do not see the disadvantage. I acknowledge the point that Senator McLaren makes. Equally, if he so desires, I shall subsequently acknowledge the point about unincorporated areas. At a local government level South Australia presents some peculiarities which need to be taken into account and which need to be looked at for the future. But I would say that the bulk of people in South Australia have had some association with local government. There are many people who have been involved in local government. The simple test is this: Does the honourable senator believe that we should not specify that at least one person on a Local Government Grants Commission should have been associated with local government? That is the simple test. We are setting up grants commissions to determine local government equalisation. Surely, in sweet reason, the first thing you would do is say that at least one person on each of those bodies should have some real experience in local government, and that is precisely what we are doing. The honourable senator cannot tell me that it will be difficult to find in South Australia a person of real ability and real experience in local government or that he would not want such a person to be a member of that grants commission.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I can understand the concern of Senator McLaren in raising this matter, because we now find that the legislation is not clear, irrespective of the intentions of the Government. Clause 4(b) contains these words: the Minister is satisfied -

I assume we are talking about the Federal Minister in that context and that it is a matter of the Federal Minister making the judgment, even though the State commission, the State Government, or whoever is responsible for making that recommendation, may do so in good faith. But then we may find that the Federal Minister is not satisfied. So it is not just a matter of using the words which the Minister has used, as I understand it. In a matter of this nature I think the meaning ought to be more clearly spelt out so that each State government can be quite clear about the type of person who is deemed to have the necessary experience, as the Minister now says, or has the necessary qualifications to be included on the body as the local government representative.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– We may be talking at cross purposes. Clause 4 provides for the setting up of the grants commissions which the Minister points out will be the responsibility of the States as they will be setting up the commissions. Surely if the Federal Parliament is legislating for some conditions to be placed upon the States in the setting up of those commissions it must have some doubt as to the capability of the commissions which the States set up, in that the commissions might evolve as government appointed agencies whose membership comes from their own bureaucracies or their own parliaments. Therefore it seems that we are not prepared to accept any commission that the States might set up because among the conditions which we stipulate is one that says that at least one member of the body ‘is or has been associated with local government in the State, whether as a member of a local governing body or otherwise’. By saying that, we mean he need never have been an elected councillor, alderman, mayor, or whatever such officials may be called in other States.

Senator Primmer:

– It could be the local health inspector.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– It could be the garbage collector or a local fellow who has had continual disputation over paying his rates. Nobody would be more closely associated with local government than those persons. I do not think that is the intention of the Bill. But what does the use of the word ‘associated’ mean? When is one associated with local government? The person need not be a member of a local government body or he need never have been a member of a local government body, but he must be associated with it. What does it mean? Could this person be a gardener, garbage collector or a member of a ratepayers’ committee who has been fighting the council for a number of years? I do not know. That is the information Senator McLaren was seeking.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs · LP

– As honourable senators will know it is a common practice to include in legislation a clause in which it is stated that the Minister must be satisfied of certain things. Quite clearly, the Minister himself will not intervene in a vexatious way in the decision-making or legislating of the States. That is not the intention of the Bill. I direct honourable senators to Clause 4 of the Bill. It provides the minimal requirements. What objections do honourable senators opposite have? Each matter has been discussed by the Commonwealth and States at Premiers conferences and, I think, at working parties. Discussions have been held on the concept that it shall be a statutory body established by law- that it shall ordinarily have public hearings to which submissions shall be made- and that it must make reports. In a phraseology which has been deliberately devised the Government is saying that the States shall put on that body somebody associated with local government, whether he be a member of a local government body, a councillor, an alderman or otherwise. One must look towards the maturity of judgment of the States.

It must not be thought that somebody will be put on that body who does not have qualifications. I do not know whether a garbage man, if associated with local government, would be a bad member. Certainly, I would not use any inverted snobbery against such a person. Public scrutiny and the sophistication of local government will in each State look to see what kind of person should be put on the body. The pressure of the ballot box in each State will be real enough to determine that every State will ensure that the person concerned will be a person authentically associated with local government and genuinely equipped with experience to serve. If a State does not do this the first time it will surely do it afterwards. The whole thrust of the Opposition’s argument has been that the Government is dictating to the States. The Bill has been deliberately drawn by the draftsman to give the States some scope for manoeuvre. This may be valuable to Senator McLaren if his position is as he has stated.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– The Minister has mentioned my name. In an earlier answer to me he said that he agreed that some anomalies existed in the local government setup in South Australia. He has now said that people will have the opportunity to judge local government through the ballot box. That is the very point to which I have been referring. Many ratepayers in South Australia do not have the opportunity of going to the ballot box because members of Senator Carrick ‘s Party refuse to allow them to do so. As the Commonwealth Government is involved in making moneys available to the State governments, surely Senator Carrick can give the Senate an undertaking that he will use everything within his power to prevail upon members of his own Party in the South Australian Parliament to agree to allow legislation to be passed so that every person over the age of 18 years who is entitled to be on the common roll, as people are in States such as Queensland, will have the opportunity to vote for councillors, aldermen and mayors and the opportunity also of being candidates for these positions in the State.

Senator Carrick admits that anomalies exist. I would like him to give the Senate an undertakingI asked him to do this when we were debating another Bill some weeks ago- that he will do all within his powers to prevail upon members of his Party in South Australia to ensure that every person in the categories I have mentioned in South Australia has the right to go to the ballot box and use his best judgment as to who should represent him in local government. I instance South Australia because that is the State I represent.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs · LP

– I will give an undertaking, if it is necessary, to stress to the Dunstan State Government that it should ensure that under clause 4 of the Bill at least one person associated with and highly experienced in local government shall be on its State Grants Commission. I have just been given the report of the Officials Committee of the Commonwealth and States on this matter. I will read from it. Paragraph 28 (b) reads:

Membership to include at least one person from local government or with that background.

The notes on that paragraph say that New South Wales agrees with the paragraph, that the requirements are acceptable to Victoria, that Queensland will have some difficulty in setting up such a body for the moment. The committee presently comprises a State Treasury officer, a Local Government Department officer, and a representative of the Local Government Association of Queensland, who is the President. Consideration has been given by South Australia to the administrative establishment of a commission which meets all the other requirements proposed by the Commonwealth including the one that is laid down.

Senator Cavanagh:

– What are you reading from?

Senator CARRICK:

– I am reading from the report of the Officials Committee of the Commonwealth and State Public Service to the Premiers Conference. I am interpolating the decisions of the States. The Grants Commission in Western Australia at the moment comprises an independent chairman and 4 members, being one representative from each of the country shire council’s association, the local government association, the Local Government Department and the Treasury Department. Tasmania has recently passed legislation to establish a State Grants Commission of 3 persons with at least one member coming from the field of local government. Within the field of Commonwealth and State officials, and reported upon by the States, each State has said that it has carried out that principle.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

-The statement of the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) does not clarify much. He seems to be trying to justify clause 4 of the Bill by saying that he has faith in the States to elect a proper commission. Obviously, the Government has some doubt about the States insofar as it has imposed certain conditions. If it is assured that the States will make a proper appointment why is sub-clause (b) necessary? Perhaps the Government wants to be assured that the body will have open and regular meetings. Sub-clause (b)(i) imposes a condition that the Minister must be satisfied with the membership of the State Grants Commission. The Minister justifies this clause by reading from the report of the Officials Committee of Commonwealth and State officers. He does not follow that up. That report said that at least one member must be from local government or someone with such a background. Surely that means that it must be someone who has been a member of a local government body. I cannot envisage any other meaning. The term ‘with such background’ would mean that local government appoints him. He may not then be a member of such a body but he was such a member. Clause 4 (b) (i) uses the words ‘associated with local government . . . whether as a member of a local governing body or otherwise’. This is a complete contradiction of the report of the Officials Committee. We are now envisaging another category of people who that Committee did not recommend should be on such a body. We are trying to find out the category of such people. I do not disparage the garbage man. I do not honestly think that the recommendation of the Committee means that a garbage man may be on the Local Government Grants Commission; but the wording of the clause says that he can be on such a body. Whom do we want to put on it; that is what I am trying to find out. If we can find that out, the clause can go through.

We are asked tonight to agree to a proposal but no one knows what it means. The sub-clause refers to a person who is or has been associated with local government. I have fights with local councils in my area every week. They are hard to get on with. But does that make me one who is associated with them? Am I eligible to be on the Commission in South Australia? I do not know. Will the Minister explain what is intended by the use of the word ‘associated’? Such a person need not be a member of local government or a part of local government, because clause 4 (b) (i) uses the words ‘or otherwise’. Could we have a definition of the word ‘otherwise ‘?

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs · LP

– I reply briefly by saying that the report of the Officials Committee of the Commonwealth and State Public Services including its wording, which was agreed upon by the States and by the Premiers Conference, was given to the parliamentary draftsmen who assure us that the phrase means what the decision of the Premiers Conference intended. For my part, I repeat that I find no difficulty at all -

Senator Cavanagh:

– But no one is infallible. The draftsman may have made a mistake.

Senator CARRICK:

– He may have; indeed so may Senator Cavanagh or I. I accept that. I simply say that what we are doing is being done with the minimum of tight restriction and with the understanding that the electors themselves, through ministerial responsibility, State and Federal, Cabinet responsibility, the responsibility of the parliamentary parties and so on, throughout Australia, will be exerting their sanctions. What we are saying is that we are inviting the States to put on these bodies somebody who has been associated with local government. In simple terms that means somebody who has had experience of local government. In plain English that means that we are inviting the States to put on these bodies people of very real experience. If they do not do so, they will be subject to the normal sanctions. If that is not enough, it is up to this Parliament- it is quite capable of doing it- to amend the Act itself.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I am sorry to take this point up again, but I must do so. I will conclude on this point. The Minister is not inviting the States to put on these bodies people with real experience. He is inviting the States to put on these bodies people who the Federal Minister is satisfied have such an association with local government. When the States decide to put on these bodies a person such as an auditor, all they have to do is convince the Federal Minister and he will accept that the person was associated with local government. That is what the word ‘associated’ means in this legislation. I am sure that this provision defeats what was recommended by the CommonwealthState Officials Committee, namely, that someone from local government be put on these bodies. The Government seeks to have on these bodies someone who the Minister is satisfied was associated with local government, whether he was associated with local government or not. It is a matter of the Minister being satisfied. If the States are not to have on these bodies someone from local government, the stage could be reached where the States could say that a person nominated did audit the accounts of the Murray Bridge Council, which is always unfinancial, some time ago and the Minister could say that he was satisfied that the person had some association with local government. I can only see this as some backdoor method of defeating local government representation on these bodies.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I enter this debate briefly to say that I do not think for one moment that the proposition Senator Cavanagh has just put is a reasonable one. Quite apart from what the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) said -

Senator Cavanagh:

– But it is a possible one, on the wording.

Senator MISSEN:

-No, I do not agree with that. I do not think it is in any way a reasonable interpretation. It is quite clear, I suggest, that under this part of the clause there must be a real association with local government. It is intended to have somebody who has such an association. Clause 4(b) (i) uses the words:

Associated with local government . . . whether as a member of a local governing body or otherwise.

I think it would be reasonable to assume that somebody who had been on a local council, who had gone off the council and who was not at the time on the local council would come within the meaning of the word ‘otherwise’. To suggest that the word ‘otherwise’ means any other person with no association at all -

Senator Cavanagh:

– You can assume anything.

Senator MISSEN:

– No, I am not assuming anything. I am saying that it is stretching the meaning of these words far too much to say that on any normal interpretation of a provision that such a person must be associated with local government and also that he may be a member of local government or otherwise means that it -

Senator Cavanagh:

– It is only the Minister who has to be satisfied.

Senator MISSEN:

-That is true. The Minister has explained why it has been left -

Senator Cavanagh:

– No, the Minister here cannot interpret it. So how could he ever be satisfied?

Senator MISSEN:

-I think any Minister would be satisfied and would be advised by his advisers that this clause meant that it had to be a real association with local government- some experience- although it does not necessarily mean -

Senator McAuliffe:

– Such as.

Senator MISSEN:

– Such as someone who has been on a local council for 20 years but is not on it now.

Senator McLaren:

– It does not say that.

Senator MISSEN:

-It does not say that, but it also includes some people who perhaps were employed for some period; people who were not in fact members of the council but perhaps were leading officials, such as the town clerk.

Senator Cavanagh:

– The town clerk could qualify.

Senator MISSEN:

-Yes, that could be. I think that any interpretation of this part of the clause as including a garbage man, or somebody who has no association with the administration of local government, is a quite absurd and extreme interpretation. I do not think the clause is entitled to be considered in that way.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

-In reply to Senator Cavanagh Senator Missen said that we ought to ‘assume’. Senator Missen, as a very distinguished person in the legal profession, would know that in legal documents such as Bills of this nature one does not assume anything, because they are open to challenge. So, the intention should be spelled out, particularly as to the word ‘otherwise’. That is the question I posed to Senator Carrick. He did not answer it fully. He did not give me a full answer on the main question I posed, which was: Would he take action to ensure that members of his Party in South Australia would make some attempt to ensure that all persons over the age of 18 years had the right to vote in local government elections and to stand as candidates for local government?

Senator Carrick said that he would give me an undertaking that he would request Mr Dunstan- I would have thought that any request should go to Mr Virgo, who is the Minister of Local Government in South Australia and who would handle matters of this sort- to ensure that a well qualified and experienced person will be selected to sit on the Local Government Grants Commission, Nowhere in the clause under debate is the word ‘experienced’ mentioned. Yet we are to assume from what both Senator Carrick and Senator Missen say that the 2 words with which we are dealing- ‘associated’ and otherwise’- mean in effect that these people have to have experience in local government. I have pointed out to Senator Carrick that the Dunstan Government is restricted in its choice of persons with local government experience because we have a restricted franchise in South Australia. That brings me back to the point I raised when I first rose to my feet and drew the Minister’s attention to the fact that we in South Australia will be at a disadvantage compared with other States. I use Queensland as a comparison. In that State every person over the age of eighteen years has the right to vote and the right to stand as a candidate. I point out to the Minister again that it is most important that he give the Senate the assurance that he will do all in his power to speak to members of the Liberal Party in South Australia and request that they not block legislation to bring about the means by which we in South Australia may have adult franchise. In this way we will be on an equal basis with the residents of Queensland and other States.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I should like to reply to Senator Missen. I think he is right in his interpretation, but I think what I stated earlier was also a possible interpretation of this clause. I exaggerated the point simply for the purpose of demonstration. I do not think the Minister would accept a garbageman as being someone associated with local government for the purposes of this clause. Nevertheless, my point is that the only requirement is that the Minister is satisfied. Of course, if the State has appointed a local government grants commission and informs the Minister that someone who has had association with local government has been appointed to it, the Minister will sanction the appointment of members of that Commission.

The point I am raising is that the meaning of associated’ should be a question of fact. It is not essential that a member of the commission shall be or shall have been associated with local government; the fact that the Minister is satisfied that the person is or has been associated is sufficient. This is verbiage of a kind which should never be used in relation to local government. Even Senator Missen could not tell me what is meant by ‘associated’. If in all sincerity Don Dunstan in South Australia or any other Premier wants to establish a commission in accordance with this Act of the Federal Parliament, who could he appoint to that body? What is meant by associated . . . whether as a member … or otherwise’? That is all we are asking. I think it has been accepted that it could be a town clerk or someone who has audited the books of a local government authority. We do not know where it ends. I am concerned about this matter and I think it is bad legislation when the qualifications are not stated and it is enough that the Minister is satisfied as to the qualifications.

Senator MCAULIFFE:
Queensland

– I think we should feel indebted to Senator Cavanagh for elucidating the point regarding association. I am indebted also to Senator Missen for his attempt to explain it, although his explanation did not fully satisfy the Opposition. I think it is loose draftsmanship. The expression should have been spelt out more clearly. In order to satisfy myself, I ask the Minister: Does he regard an officer of the Municipal Employees Union as a person associated with local government? The list of persons associated with local government could go on endlessly. This is why I say that we should be greatly indebted to Senator Cavanagh and his analytical brain for trying to clarify the position. I have no doubt that the Minister, while he is occupying this position, will interpret this clause as he has indicated that he will, but he will not be in that position always. We have to wonder what a Minister in the future might do.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs · LP

– I direct my remarks firstly to Senator McLaren. The debate concerns the execution of the terms of this Bill. It concerns nothing else. It concerns the political realities of South Australia in terms of the sovereign government of South Australia as the electors of South Australia have elected and established that sovereign government. It is utter impertinence for one government to lecture another government on its internal structure, and that must be profoundly understood by us all. I repeat to Senator McLaren: If it is necessary, either the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) or I will convey to the Government of South Australia at Premier level the intention of this Bill. But I must repeat what I have stated earlier, that not only at the conference of Commonwealth and State officials was a comity of view arrived at but also at the Premiers Conference each of the 6 Premiers, one by one, gave an assurance to the Commonwealth that they would appoint to these grants commissions at least one person experienced in local government. This is the interpretation that the Parliamentary Draftsman has given to this clause. I should like to say that I am always interested- I am serious about this- in Senator Cavanagh ‘s ability to analyse these matters, but even if we were to tidy up the legislation in the way Senator Cavanagh has suggested and provide for the appointment of someone who has had experience in local government, what would that mean? It could mean a day in local government or it could refer to a person in local government, a person of no quality who has had limited experience in local government.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Use the words of the official conference- from local government.

Senator CARRICK:

– Even if we did, all that we would be doing is talk about a person with no qualification at all as to the quality of the person. A person might fit into the category suggested by the honourable senator but might be less wellequipped than the garbageman -

Senator Missen:

– And have no real association.

Senator CARRICK:

– And have no real association with local government at all. We must rely on the goodwill and intent as expressed at the Premiers Conference when dealing with this matter. I simply say that if the Act is not interpreted as meaning someone of recognised quality and experience in local government, if that intention can be demonstrably proved as being put aside, then, of course, the Government will consider strengthening this clause. I repeat to honourable senators opposite that the whole thrust of what has gone on in the last week has been an argument by the Opposition that we should not intrude, except lightly, into the sphere of the States. I remind honourable senators that no State has raised with us any desire to clarify this part of the clause.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– The Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) in his reply to me said that it would be an act of sheer impertinence for the Commonwealth Government to instruct a State government on how to conduct its affairs. I agree with him. That was not the purpose of the question I asked him. I asked him whether he would consult the members of bis Party who are in Opposition in South Australia. In the Legislative Council in South Australia half of the Upper House has been elected on a restricted franchise- that is, every person did not have the right to vote for its members because they have been there so long. I am asking Senator Carrick to appeal to these members of the Upper House to pass legislation, which has been put up on more than one occasion by the popularly elected House, to give adult franchise for local government elections. Until that legislation is passed in South Australia we will not be equally represented on the State Grants Commission, nor will the Premier or the Minister for Local Government, Mr Virgo, have the opportuntly to select someone who has been elected by all the people in the State who are entitled to vote, as is the case in Queensland where every person over the age of eighteen has the right to vote. This is the request that I put to Senator Carrick. I did not ask him to make any request to the South Australian Government because it has done the right thing. It is being frustrated in its efforts by a Liberal dominated Upper House which, in the main, has not been elected by a popular franchise.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs · LP

– I am sorry to take up the time of the Committee. I repeat that it is not for a Commonwealth government to lecture to any part of a State- either the government or the opposition- on what ought to be the structure of government in that State as determined, sustained and maintained by the electors of that State. The competence of the Federal Government is to deal with the State Government. That we will do.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I should like to refer to clause 4 (b) (iv). I ask the Minister why the copies of reports and recommendations must be furnished to the Prime Minister and not to the Minister concerned. I note also that in clause 10, where I daresay the conditions are different, it states that the Prime Minister has to lay on the table of each House a copy of any reports or recommendations made to him. My question refers specifically to clause 4 (b) (iv). Why do such copies have to be referred to the Prime Minister and not the Minister concerned?

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs · LP

– I think that is an important question. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has determined that in my capacity as the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs I should have the ordinary responsibility for the administration of this legislation. But clearly, not having a portfolio for federal affairs on the one hand it would be incompetent for me to take the head of power of this Bill. Equally on the other hand, of course, these being money Bills they would have to originate either with the Prime Minister or the Treasurer. They originated with the Treasurer. The intention is that the reports when received shall be tabled in both Houses of Parliament. I do not hold such a portfolio; the person who really holds that portfolio at the moment is the Prime Minister. I am responsible to him for federal affairs.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I refer to clause 5, Mr Chairman. Clause 5 gives the percentages of the base figures which each State will receive for local government purposes. Insofar as South Australia is concerned, I understand that quite large areas have not been incorporated as local government areas and at present do not share in the Federal funding arrangements. I understand that the Government has been made aware of this fact. I ask the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick): What will be the position in the event of those areas becoming incorporated? I presume that through the Federal Minister the South Australian Government will arrange a reference to the Commonwealth Grants Commission as soon as that occurs, or is it a matter of waiting until 1981? I assume that the Government would undertake to grant the reference immediately on request from the South Australian Government. I ask the Minister to indicate whether that would be the case.

Senator PRIMMER:
Victoria

– I refer to clause 6 (2) (b), which reads:

A State shall- . . . (b) allocate the remainder of the amount amongst local governing bodies in the State on a general equalization basis, that is to say, on a basis that has the object of ensuring, so far as is practicable, that each of those local governing bodies is able to function by reasonable effort, at a standard not appreciably below the standards of the other local governing bodies . . .

Frankly, I believe that this sub-clause is rather loosely worded. To me, the implementation of a provision such as that by the allocation of funds will react against any proposals for amalgamations or rationalisation of local government bodies and will, in effect, prop up uneconomic municipal councils almost ad infinitum. Coming from a country area, I am aware that throughout the State of Victoria there are quite a number of small local government bodies. I would not want without a great deal of debate to see the indigenous people in these areas deprived of their own little local government bodies, but when it comes to the question of economics there is a great amount of wastage. There may be three or four small municipal bodies geographically close together, each with an engineer, a shire secretary, a clerk and a rate collector- all the things that go to make up a local government enterprise- when in effect after some detailed discussions and with a little less parochialism in the area the whole community would be far better served by rationalisation or amalgamation. If that came about better services could be provided for all. I see this clause of the Bill as a means of propping up these uneconomic areas unnecessarily.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs · LP

– As to Senator Wriedt’s contribution, the Senate will recall that I raised initially, I think at the end of the second reading debate in response to Senator McLaren, the peculiar situation of

South Australia. I stated that the Federal Government recognises the significant differences in local government in South Australia, particularly with regard to the unincorporated areas. We have indicated to the Premiers, and indeed to the Premier of South Australia, that there would be no impediment at all to a review should there be a change in the local government situation in South Australia. The Bill provides that the long-term review is to be not later than 1981, but it may be much earlier. It is always competent to direct the Commonwealth Grants Commission to have another look at the situation, and the Commonwealth has indicated clearly that it will be happy to respond to any new circumstances that may arise in that regard and have the situation reviewed.

As to Senator Primmer ‘s remarks, as I understand it the question of the boundaries of local government in a State must be a matter for a State government. The test of economics of a particular local body will not be altered by giving it more money by way of equalisation. It will be known to the State concerned just how mendicant the body must be to survive and reach the situation. Indeed, by trying to get an optimum and moving towards that optimum as this legislation does it exposes in particular circumstances those that need to have heavy subsidy by way of equalisation. Therefore the message would be clear to the State. I make no comment at all about the question of amalgamation. I have always believed that the sole test of the viability or non-viability of a municipality or shire must not be whether it is financially successful; the real test is whether it is discharging to an optimum the services that its special community desires. I would not, on behalf of the Commonwealth Government, intrude in any way at all in that kind of decision. I do not believe that what we are doing inhibits in any way a State government from making decisions on boundaries. However, if a body which otherwise might not be financially successful is discharging good community services this Bill will have carried out its real intentions.

Senator McAULIFFE:
Queensland

– I refer to clause 3 and to the definition of base figure’. The Bill states that 1.52 per centum of personal income tax shall be the minimum base. During the course of my contribution this afternoon I said that in real terms that will deteriorate year by year because it is based on personal income tax which is subject to tax indexation and therefore it will become a no growth tax. I was hoping the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) would answer my query when he replied to the second reading debate. But he did not do so and I hope he might do it now. The base figure is to be 1.52 per centum of personal income tax. Income tax, as indexed today, becomes a no growth tax. I said that we would see some merit in supporting a proposition of a per centum of personal income tax if there were no tax indexation. I meant a gradual increase. It would keep in step with the inflation rate. That is one point.

The other point relates to the 1.52 per cent of personal income tax, but special surcharges are levied against the base. I understand that the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) said in another place that he would review the surcharges. I would like to know whether that is the Government’s intention. I reaffirm that when the transcript of the June Premiers Conference is available it will show, contrary to what the Minister said in his summary, hostility towards the minimum base rate plus the surcharges that would be levied against it. I am being kind to the Minister when I say that he gave the Senate the impression that the Premiers were in agreement. The transcript of the June Conference will show that they were hostile about the minimum charge and the surcharges being levied against it.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs · LP

– I did not have time to reply to Senator McAuliffe on the tax indexation question. As he may know, I used up my time. I apologise. The honourable senator has a misunderstanding of tax indexation. It does not in any way inhibit growth, and real growth. It stops the forcing, by the climb of nominal wages, of a wage earner into higher and higher tax scales. In the past, before tax indexation, a taxpayer who might be paying 35c in the dollar tax and whose nominal wage was raised by $15 a week would then be paying 40c or 45c in the dollar. Yet the purchasing power of that wage was not changed. Only the nominal power was changed. He was robbed by higher taxation. He went into a higher scale. Tax indexation means that he is not forced into a higher scale.

Growth occurs in a number of ways. Growth occurs in the first place, one would hope, by the natural situation. One hopes that the number of unemployed, 260 000, would be heavily reduced. One hopes that unemployment in the months ahead would decline demonstrably and that many millions of dollars would go into the revenue area. One hopes that real wages, as distinct from inflation wages, would rise. Once one gets the rate of inflation down, real wages rise. There would then be a bigger tax harvest. One hopes productivity would increase and there would be a bigger tax harvest. There is no doubt in the world that there would be a substantial growth element inside this situation, so much so that the States and the local government bodies are already calculating what they think they will get next year. They have done their own sums on this. I assure the honourable senator that this is real, that this is not illusory.

The surcharges are applied by both Bills. They apply to the determination of the quantum of personal income tax. I repeat what I said at the conclusion of the second reading debate. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), at the Premiers Conference, gave assurances to the States that if there were to be particular surcharges at any time and if they were likely to threaten the quantum or the base or the percentages that the States would get, the Commonwealth would consult the States. It is not the intention of the Commonwealth that specific surcharges should alter the general thesis that we have now. There would be such a discussion.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I am still not clear as to the assurance which the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs (Senator Carrick) gave about the unincorporated land in South Australia. I was not in the chamber, but I assure him that I was listening. Could I be informed whether South Australia would be able to make that reference to the Commonwealth Grants Commission at the time, or would it have to wait until 30 June 1981? I was not clear on the answer.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs · LP

– I made it quite clear that 30 June 198 1 was the extreme point at which a review would be made. A review could be made at any time between now and 1981. The Commonwealth has indicated that if circumstances should change in South Australia with regard to its unincorporated areas, or in any other State, it would take that matter into consideration and undoubtedly make a reference to the Commonwealth Grants Commission. This could be done in a subsequent year. If South Australia had any significant change in its unincorporated areas, it would be possible to get that reconsideration taken into account by the Grants Commission. I go one step further. Tasmania has indicated that it feels that the figures may not be doing it full justice. We have indicated that it ought to be possible, at a relatively early opportunity, to have the Tasmanian figures looked at. I share that view. I think that any review might show the need for some greater consideration with regard to Tasmania. I make that point.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The matter is becoming difficult. The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs (Senator Carrick) may recall that he used the words ‘undoubtedly’ and ‘it is possible’. So I am still not clear. He has not given the assurance that I am seeking on behalf of South Australia. Can he give that assurance?

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs · LP

– As I understand the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), he indicated that he would place no impediment in the way of an approach by South Australia, regarding its unincorporated areas, for a review by the Commonwealth Grants Commission. I think that is an assurance.

Senator Bishop:

– Would you resist it?

Senator CARRICK:

-I certainly would not. I offered the gratuitous comment, in terms of Tasmania, that I think that where there are reasonable grounds for an adjustment in the next period, that might be valid. I would be very interested.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I refer to clause 6 (2), which states:

A State shall-

allocate not less than 30 per centum of the amount to which it is entitled under section S in respect of a year amongst local governing bodies in the State on a population basis . . .

I raise with the Minister assisting the Prime Minister on Federal Affairs (Senator Carrick) a point about a State allocating not less than 30 per cent. Presumably that means that it could allocate on a population basis up to 100 per cent. I understand that already in Western Australia there has been an allocation on a very high population basis. I understand it is about 80 per cent. Does this not mean that the needs principle, which would apply to local government in so many areas of the Commonwealth could be subverted by a State government? If the Government’s intention is to ensure that the needs principle is observed, with a proportion being allocated on a population basis, which I think is reasonable, would it not have been more exacting to have required the States not to have an amount in excess of 30 per cent? Then the remainder could have been used at the discretion of the State grants commissions to ensure that the needs of particular areas were provided for. It seems to me that the manner in which this clause is now worded- that is, ‘not less than 30 per centum’ of the funds- almost makes the grants commissions redundant. In the case of a State government which was genuinely seeking to meet the needs of local government in its State, I do not think my argument would be valid; but we have no guarantee that that would be the case. I suggest that in the case of Western Australia we see the State Government already getting around the principle which I think is intended in the Bill.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs · LP

– Before responding to Senator Wriedt, let me say that I have been informed- this will interest Senator Wriedt and others- that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has just written to the Premiers saying that the funds in respect of the aspect that we have been discussing will be reviewed in 1977-78. This is in response to Tasmania’s request. So, there is a specific decision of the Commonwealth Government that there will be a review in 1977-78 of the aspect that we were just discussing. The position of South Australia as well as Tasmania will be taken into account.

Senator Wriedt:

– Does that mean that the 30 per cent will be subject to review?

Senator CARRICK:

-No. I am talking about the aspect that we discussed previously, concerning the Commonwealth Grants Commission decision on formulae. Let me make it absolutely clear that in 1977-78 every State will have the chance to participate in that review. I knew that Tasmania had talked with us; I was not aware that we had acted immediately.

Dealing with the 30 per cent provision, I should say, firstly, that the Commonwealth Grants Commission was asked to comment on what would be a minimum position regarding direct per capita grants. It was a decision of the Commonwealth Government that there should be 2 elements and that one of those elements should be a direct per capita grant. But we were not willing to be totally inflexible in saying that either a fixed percentage or no more than a fixed percentage should be direct per capita grants, because in each State the problem is entirely different. So we had some advice, if my memory serves me correctly, at the Commonwealth Grants Commission level. Equally, we had very full discussions around the Premiers Conference table. The Premiers generally sought the advice of local government associations or local government bodies. In each State, there was advice which came to us through the Premiers from local government bodies. I think I am right in saying that Victoria indicated that its local government body had thought that no more than 40 per cent as direct per capita grants would be reasonable with this total quantum of money- of course, the percentage varies with the quantum of money- in relation to what the States received last year.

Senator Wriedt:

– Was it no more than 40 per cent or no less than 40 per cent?

Senator CARRICK:

-It was no more than 40 per cent; that is my memory. Let me state this clearly: In the knowledge that this year there is to be $ 140m for both per capita grants and equalisation, and in the knowledge that last year there was $79.9m for equalisation, if everybody was to get a fair go and nobody could get less from equalisation than was received last year, with costs having been adjusted, one would not want to give more than 40 per cent to per capita grants. That is from my memory, off the top of my head, and I think it is right. My understanding is that Sir Charles Court informed us at the Premiers Conference that he had had discussions with the Association of Local Government Authorities and, in view of the configuration and distribution of population in Western Australia, that Association was interested in a much higher figure. It was talking of 70 per cent or 80 per cent as direct grants. I think this was due basically to the nature of the situation in Western Australia.

Coming back to the specifics, we were not willing to apply an inflexible rule. If this formula does not work over a period, it is capable of renegotiation and of amendment. What ought to have happened this year- I was a little surprised when some figures were read out tonight- is that no local government body of the 800-odd that received equalisation last year shoud have received this year less in real money terms than what they received last year, and the other 100 or more local government bodies which received nothing should have received some thing. Unless that has happened, the general spirit of the Premiers Conference has not been completely and faithfully carried out. I repeat that that was the general intention in discussion around the Premiers Conference table.

States (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Bill 1976 reported without amendment; report adopted.

Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Bill 1976 reported with an amendment; report adopted.

Third Readings

Bills (on motion by Senator Carrick) read a third time.

page 1997

AUSTRALIAN HERITAGE COMMISSION AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 24 August, on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– This legislation was introduced originally in 1973. While the principles behind the legislation remain valid for both the Opposition and the Government Parties, the Opposition is not altogether happy about some of the changes embodied in this Bill. Before I elaborate on that aspect, I turn to a consideration of the massive report that was presented by Mr Justice Hope. When one reads that report, one gains an appreciation of the magnitude of the task undertaken by the Royal Commission on the National Estate and one realises its objectives which relate to the 3 tiers of government. There is no question that the picture the report paints covers a very wide canvas. As a matter of fact, I think it is worth while to quote from that report. In one section, the report states:

The shock of deprivation can be partly counteracted by identifying and conserving buildings and whole areas of special quality as landmarks for our cultural past, present and future, and urban parklands, foreshores, coastlines, forests and other areas near cities, which will keep at least some opportunity for man’s nexus with nature.

I think that that is a quotation which nobody would really forget. Those who have met Mr Justice Hope in other fields would have no doubt that his was the ideal appointment. I think the report really confirms that view. No question arises as to the urgency of the need for action in this area. In common with the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick), we know the vital role that the National Trust plays in each State. One of the difficulties that must be faced in the society in which we live arises from the fact that the Australian community at large is beginning to become more aware of the need to conserve its past, but time is not necessarily on the side of those who wish to preserve our past. In matters affecting the suburbs in which we live local councils may want to do the right thing, but there is the question of what is an equitable price. The relatives of a deceased woman from the western suburbs of Sydney may want to dispose of her estate. Time is not on our side in such a case.

I come to my major criticism of the Commissions’ powers. The Opposition holds the view that a body along the lines of the Australian Universities Commission or the Australian Schools Commission would be able to make a decision more rapidly, or perhaps I should say it would be able to make an acquisition more rapidly. I know that in general terms the present Government takes the view that the restructured Heritage Commission should continue with the compilation of a register of areas that should be the subject of future acquisitions for the National Estate. Despite the best intentions in the world, in the time that it takes to compile this register some golden opportunities may be lost. I say that sincerely, because if the Schools Commission or the Universities Commission, for example, had to refer every matter to the Minister for Education for approval valuable time could be lost. This is a matter about which we are concerned.

It may be contended that when the register is completed there may be speedier action, but after talking to people in many overseas countries I am inclined to believe that the original idea of the Heritage Commission emulating the Schools Commission or the Universities Commission is better. I know the amount of work that the present Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the other place did on the establishment of this Commission. It may be argued that the Whitlam Government was slow in finalising appointments to the Commission. I know that Mr Uren spent a considerable time seeking ideal personnel. Because people whom a government may want to appoint to a body are not immediately available and because of a desire to blend in a whole host of experts, it takes time to tool up. I suppose one could say that at least the innovation of 1973 remains, but of course a lot of problems should be clarified.

The Hope report refers to coastlines. I want to refer to one matter in relation to which it is not the Minister’s responsibility to make a decision. Successive Ministers for Transport of this Government and the previous Government have been somewhat coy about whether the land occupied by redundant lighthouses should become permanent coastal landscape reserves. When the Labor Government was in power Mr Broomhill, who was then Minister of Environment and Conservation in South Australia, raised the issue of a lighthouse on land which was a valuable area for a particular breed of wallabies. Transport Ministers of both political parties did not seem to be prepared to grasp the nettle and formulate a sound land policy.

The Minister for Education, who is a fellow New South Welshman of mine, would know that with a combination of Liberal and Labor State governments and with changes in the Federal Government we still have a long way to go before we can undertake the establishment of a national park on the foreshores of Sydney Harbour. I only raise these matters to illustrate the fact that dealing with a multiplicity of Ministers sometimes creates difficulties. I say that with some feeling. Some months ago when there was a general business discussion I tried to ascertain what land around the foreshores of Sydney Harbour was occupied by the armed Service and what was used for other purposes. I do not know whether it is because of the establishment or the system, but so far there seems to be very little light at the end of the tunnel. I know that Senator Withers in his last response to me said that his political colleagues were looking at the matter. When Mr Barnard was Minister for Defence and Mr Daly was also a Minister they both gave me fairly solid assurances that in 12 months, once they got the process under way, the whole structure would be broken up. I repeat that that has not happened.

I return to my basic concern as to the speed with which the register will be completed and acquisitions will take place. Even the best of intentions can be overtaken by events. There are considerations of national interest. Senator Carrick explained this when talking about the Kakadu National Park. I am not trying to anticipate the Justice Fox findings, but Senator Carrick pointed out that the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development (Mr Newman) and the Minister for the Northern Territory (Mr Adermann) could make a decision in relation to the dimensions of this national park. In a democracy it can be irksome if somebody does not want to do something that the Government desires. Under our 3-tier form of government these people can be very obstinant and difficult. The innovators have to have tremendous confidence to cajole people in relation to desired acquisitions.

There is one other problem on which I should comment. In trade union affairs there would be a big difference between Jack Mundey and myself, but I often wonder whether the parliamentary system or the local government system would have been quick enough to have held the line in relation to works on which Jack Mundey imposed green bans. It could probably be argued whether the cause in some of the green ban disputes was worth fighting for. In a number of places in New South Wales the action taken was not according to Hoyle, much less the law, but citizens felt they had to take some action more or less on a holding basis. I think the Minister would be aware of an area called Kelly’s Bush. It is probably not high grade bush habitat, but to the people of the area it meant something. The local council concerned could have been under pressure. There was a spontaneous indication from the people on what they felt about the issue. I could almost call them middle class militants. People from the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemens Association and the Builders Labourers Federation joined forces. Sometimes the threat of a strike is more effective than the actual execution. In evaluating whether areas should become part of the National Estate we should not condemn out of hand some of the citizens’ actions that achieve something.

Senator Button, a Victorian colleague, referred to a harbourside area in Sydney adjacent to the Opera House. A group of builders labourers felt that the Moreton Bay fig trees growing there should remain, and because of their actions they did remain. We were told about their effect on parking at the Opera House. I think that a lot of people would be much fitter if they walked from the Opera House for 10 minutes or so. The point I am trying to make- I think that the Minister will appreciate it- is that perhaps we have made more people conscious of the situation. I know that at times, when the question of employment is involved, the matter becomes a little difficult.

Debate interrupted.

page 1998

ADJOURNMENT

Rhodesia- Resignation of Queensland Police Commissioner

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! It being 10.30 p.m., 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 HARRADINE:
Tasmania

– I rise to speak very briefly about a question which I addressed to Senator Withers in his capacity as the Minister representing the Ministier for Foreign Affairs. On 23 September 1976 I asked him 2 questions relating to Rhodesia. The first question concerned Bishop Lamont and his trial, and the second question concerned prospective migration from Rhodesia. In respect of Bishop Lamont I sought to have the Australian Government send an observer to his trail. In response the Minister mentioned that once a decision had been made not to have diplomatic representation in a particular country it was difficult under those circumstances to send anyone to cover trials of this nature.

I point out to the Senate that the sentence of Bishop Lamont to 10 years’ gaol was a travesty of justice. It was deserving of a criminal or a traitor- and Bishop Lamont is neither. I stand in the Senate again appealing to the Government to use its good offices to achieve a purview over the appeal which I understand is being lodged by Bishop Lamont. This great Christian stood on moral principle. He made it absolutely clear that he did not condone terrorism and acts of violence but that he would not deny medical attentionthat is, freedom of the body from pain- to anyone and he would not ask them their politics or religion in order to succour a suffering human being.

On the second question, relating to migration, I asked the Minister whether the Australian Embassy in South Africa had been directed to adopt a favourable attitude towards applicants of Rhodesian nationality for migration. I asked:

  1. . is it correct, as I have been informed, that the Australian Embassy is not even bothering to reply to such applications.

The Minister’s reply, which I received dated 5 November 1976, makes it clear that replies are sent to these people. The Minister’s reply also contains a statement of government policy which I certainly have not seen anywhere else and which I think is important enough to be incorporated in Hansard. I seek leave to have the Minister’s reply to me dated 5 November 1976 incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The document read as follows-

As mentioned in my letter of 1 9 October 1 976, the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs would provide a separate answer to the aspects of the Rhodesian question which are their concern. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the Hon. Michael MacKellar, M.P., has supplied the following answer to your question:

I understand the Minister for Foreign Affairs is replying about Bishop Lamont.

At the outset I should state that the Australian Embassy in South Africa replies to all applications for settlement from former Rhodesians and persons normally resident in Rhodesia. Applications that are received must, however, be considered against the background of the sanctions contained in the resolution of 29 May 1968 of the United Nations Security Council, whereby persons ordinarily resident in Rhodesia who have furthered or encouraged the regime in Southern Rhodesia are not to be helped to enter other countries.

Any person, therefore, who sends an application to the Embassy has his or her case considered on its merits under normal migration policy but subject to conformity with the requirements of the sanctions. Upon receipt of formal applications the Embassy in South Africa invites those who appear to be eligible to attend an interview at the Embassy when they are able to do so. Those who, at interview, are accepted or found ineligible are subsequently informed accordingly.

On occasions personal inquiries (rather than a formal application) may be made concerning eligibility. Appropriate responses are forwarded in such cases.

Senator HARRADINE:

– The reply dealing with the question of migration says:

Applications that are received must, however, be considered against the background of the sanctions contained in the resolution of 29 May 1 968 of the United Nations Security Council, whereby persons ordinarily resident in Rhodesia who have furthered or encouraged the regime in Southern Rhodesia are not to be helped to enter other countries.

There are 2 very brief things that I would like to say about that. Firstly, I do not know how that squares with the United Nations Convention on the status of refugees in respect of persons who, for example, could have a very well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race or political opinion. But that is just a passing comment. Secondly, the all embracing nature of the words furthered or encouraged the regime’ could be used to exclude most of the white population. For example, there is no doubt that some of the national service provisions in Rhodesia would have involved willing or unwilling Rhodesians in Army service. Certainly public servants could be regarded as having furthered the regime. Yet I know that there are a large number of ordinary Rhodesians with families who are gravely apprehensive of the future and who are in no way racist in character. Anyhow, who are we to make judgments in this matter? I am sorry to have delayed the Senate tonight but I simply felt that it was necessary to have this matter aired so that an adequate public debate can be engaged in.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

– This evening I wish to speak about the resignation of the Queensland Commissioner of Police. Most honourable senators would realise by now that yesterday the announcement was made that the Commissioner of Police in Queensland, Mr Ray Whitrod, had resigned his position. I think that this resignation has grave consequences for Queensland, and therefore I speak about it tonight. I speak from 2 broad bases. I speak as a representative of the Queensland people and I speak as a former colleague of Ray Whitrod. Later I will outline how I worked with Ray Whitrod and how I came to know him very well. Therefore perhaps I know more about his resignation than some other people would know. In fact I would also know something about the consequences of that resignation. I believe that yesterday, when the announcement was made that Ray Whitrod had resigned, was a tragic day for the people of

Queensland. It was tragic that the people of Queensland should lose the services of a man like Mr Whitrod- a man who had worked for a number of years in the Queensland Police Force, doing his best to make it an efficient and effective force.

I would like to point out some of the qualities and achievements of this man of whom I speak. Ray Whitrod was born in South Australia. During the war years he was a navigator with the Air Force. He has shown that he has high academic ability. He holds the degree of Bachelor of Economics and a Master of Arts degree, both from the Australian National University. He also obtained a Diploma of Criminology from Cambridge University. He used his own time on leave to pursue that diploma. In the 1960s he showed that he had high intellectual ability when he won the Queen’s Gold Medal essay competition with an essay entitled As Society Becomes Affluent, Delinquency Increases. He won that medal against competition from police officers in many parts of the world. He holds the Queen’s Police Medal. He also holds the award of Commander of the Royal Victorian Order.

Let us look at some of his achievements while working for the Australian people. At one time he was the Assistant Director of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. He was the Director of the Commonwealth Investigation Service at one stage. At another time he was the Commissioner of the Commonwealth Police. He then became Commissioner of Police in the Territory of Papua New Guinea, before that Territory became an independent nation. Following his appointment as Commissioner of Police in Papua New Guinea he became Commissioner of Police in Queensland in 1 970.

I have sketched just some aspects of the achievements and the ability of Ray Whitrod. It is also worth mentioning a couple of other aspects of his life which people do not often see. It is interesting to note that tn 1972 Mr Whitrod gained the award of Queenslander of the Year. One other aspect which people do not readily know of is his association with the scouting movement; he holds a senior position in the Scouts Association. These achievements and his ability, I think, underline the claim I made that it was a tragedy for the people of Queensland when they learnt yesterday that they will lose the services of such a man within the next couple of weeks when he leaves the post of Queensland Police Commissioner.

I think that it is encumbent upon me this evening to relate some personal reflections about the

Queensland Police Commissioner. I first met Ray Whitrod when I applied for a position in the Queensland Police Department. At that time I was a State public servant working in the Queensland Department of Education. The position advertised was that of officer-in-charge of the Planning and Research Unit in the Queensland Police Department. At that stage, of course, there was no Planning and Research Unit; so one of the duties of the incoming officer in charge was to build up the Planning and Research Unit and, I suppose, having built it up, to be in charge of its operations. When I applied for that position I was interviewed, together I presume with other applicants on a short list, by Ray Whitrod, the Police Commissioner, and the Secretary of the Queensland Police Department. That was the first occasion on which I met him, and that was in 1971. Subsequently I was appointed to the position for which I had applied. From 1971 until the double dissolution of the Federal Parliament in 1974, when by law I had to resign that position to contest the Senate election, I worked in that position in the Police Department.

From 1971 to 1974 I was directly responsible to the Commissioner of Police. He was my immediate superior. I think it is fair to say when I am recounting events such as these that Ray Whitrod and I did have differences of opinion, but they were not personal differences of opinion; they were differences of opinion on how the Force could best be organised to serve the people of Queensland. During the time when I was associated with him I found him to be a man of complete integrity. His ability and his capacity for work were extreme. I think it is well that this be placed on record now that Ray Whitrod is about to leave the scene in Queensland. Despite his ability, his integrity and his capacity for work, he was faced with a great many frustrations. Some of these undoubtedly occurred because he had been brought into the Queensland Police Force from outside; he was an outsider brought in to tackle the hard job of Commissioner of the Queensland Police Force. Of course he was brought in for special reasons- reasons which I do not think are worth recounting this evening. But, to read between the lines, if a person of the calibre of Ray Whitrod is brought in from outside it must give some indication that such a person is required.

I do not intend to relate the details of private conversations that I had with him; I do not think that that would be proper. However, I do think that it is quite proper for me to say that from conversations I had with him I was aware of the frustrations with which he was faced. Having seen a person brought in from outside the Queensland Police Force, many people were envious of the fact that he had been brought in to be the Commissioner of Police and, I think quite wrongly, worked against him rather than with him to mould the Queensland Police Force into the type of force that is required for a modern society. Even if one had not had conversations with him on these aspects, one could see from time to time just by observation what was happening and how people were putting obstacles in his path. It is worth reporting that in spite of those obstacles he still strove to do the job that he had been appointed to do.

He used modern management techniques to improve the Queensland Police Force. He used those modern management techniques when some private organisations were not even aware that they existed or, if they were aware that they existed, did not consider them to be worth using themselves. From my observation, I am sure that these management techniques that he used helped to improve the Force. He raised the standard of general education of the police in Queensland. He did not require his police officers to be intellectual giants, but he did require police officers- I believe quite rightly so- to be aware of society’s problems and how to deal with the problems in a modern society. He achieved an efficient and effective police force. As well as doing all these things, I am sure that he worked hard to develop an honest police force. From my knowledge of the man, he is completely honest himself. I mentioned before something about his integrity. His honesty is beyond doubt, in my estimation. He also worked to ensure that his force was an honest one. If he had not been faced with the frustrations that I mentioned earlier he would have achieved much more than he did for the people of Queensland. Even with those frustrations, he achieved many things.

In speaking of the impending departure of Ray Whitrod, I cast no aspersions on those people who are left at the top of the Queensland Police Force. I know Terry Lewis quite well. Some honourable senators may recall that Terry Lewis has been appointed an Assistant Commissioner of Police in Queensland. There has been some division about whether Terry Lewis should have been appointed to that position because, in comparison with other officers in the force, he is fairly junior. I have known him for a long time. It is rumoured that he may become the next Commissioner. If he does I am sure that he will do a good job. I also know one of the other Assistant Commissioners of Police very well indeed. I cast no aspersions on him. I know him quite well because when I was working for the Queensland Police Department I had the opportunity to choose a second-in-charge and I chose that man who, since I have left, has received further promotion and has become an Assistant Commissioner of Police. I could not have asked for a better second-in-charge, and I am sure that no Commissioner of Police in Queensland could have asked for a better man. As I said, I cast no aspersions on those people. What I am pointing out is that it is a tragedy for the Queensland people to lose Ray Whitrod.

I think that those people who are left at the top will inherit a divided force. It is inevitable that morale in the Queensland Police Force will drop because of the resignation of the leader and the circumstances in which he resigned. In this respect , the people taking charge will have a difficult job. They will have to try to boost morale back to its previous position. If the rumours current in Queensland tonight are true morale will drop even further tomorrow or the next day. The rumours are that tomorrow or in the next few days 4 police officers will be charged with a total of 26 offences over the Cedar Bay issue. If this happens the new people in charge will have a difficult job indeed.

I mentioned earlier that I thought the events of yesterday were a tragedy. I will quote what a former colleague of Ray Whitrod said this morning on A.M. He is Mr Norm Gulbransen who, until he retired recently, was one of Queensland’s Assistant Commissioners of Police. I got to know Norm Gulbransen quite well. I accept his word on many aspects of police administration. This morning on A.M. Mr Gulbransen said:

Well, I think it is a tragedy for the Police Department and the public of Queensland.

The interviewer said:

Why do you see it as a tragedy?

Mr Gulbransen replied:

Well, his performance was so outstanding. He endeavoured to have a completely honest police force. He endeavoured to uplift the standard of education. His record shows that he did in fact uplift the efficiency to a large degree.

Why did Ray Whitrod resign? Did he resign of his own volition? Was he pushed? Was he put into a situation in which he had no option but to resign? I think the latter is probably correct. Some honourable senators will remember that not too long ago the Minister for Police in Queensland, Max Hodges, was transferred from the Police Ministry to a lower ranking Ministry.

In that transfer he was virtually demoted. Not only has the Police Minister gone but also the Police Commissioner.

The facts about why he resigned will come out. But even before they do I think that this is a major issue. One of the stories surrounding the possible cause for Ray Whitrod ‘s resignation is that he put to the Queensland Government a short list of candidates for a vacant position of Assistant Commissioner of Police. None of the people on the short list was chosen. A person was chosen whom Ray Whitrod apparently did not think had the same ability at that time as the people he had put on the short list. This may be somewhere towards the truth. I think it is probably one of the factors, but it was probably a multi-faceted situation which made Ray Whitrod resign.

In referring to his resignation I will quote another comment from Mr Gulbransen whom I mentioned earlier. The interviewer on A.M. this morning said to him:

Do you think that possibly Mr Whitrod might have resigned, to use a phrase- maybe because he was somewhat heartbroken that all the efforts he had put in maybe didn’t receive due recognition.

Mr Gulbransen said:

Well, I can’t say that but I do know he has every reason to be heartbroken.

In this episode it is well to reflect that a Commissioner of Police must have a certain amount of autonomy or independence. I realise that there is a delicate balance. I suppose that a commissioner can have too much independence. After all, he is responsible to the political leaders of the State in which he works. On the other hand, if he has no independence the police force itself becomes just an arm of government and we may then have what is often called a police state. I believe that all Ray Whitrod ‘s autonomy and independence were taken away. Because of this I think there are grave consequences for the people of Queensland. What will happen to the incoming Police Commissioner? Will he have any independence or will he be directed by the political leaders in that State? If he is it does not auger well for the people of Queensland. I am genuine when I say that I am fearful for the future of Queensland after what has happened. Perhaps, as some people have been saying, there has been a political shift to the far Right. Whether this is so or not, it appears that there will be great political influence on the police force in Queensland if the events of the past couple of days are any indication of what is to come. As I said, we have seen the virtual dismissal of a Minister for Police and now a highly competent Commissioner has resigned in circumstances which suggest that he had no other option.

We spoke in this chamber not too long ago about civil liberties. I think that grave questions about civil liberties in Queensland have arisen from what happened yesterday. I do not want to turn this into a political debate. I entered this debate tonight, as I said, as a representative of the people of Queensland and a former colleague of Ray Whitrod. I look forward to the time when Ray Whitrod can tell all that he wants to tell about his resignation. He will not do so at the moment because he is a servant of the people of Queensland. I believe that when he leaves the force he will not do as some people do and say things which will make it awkward for the incoming Commissioner or the Queensland Government. I think Ray Whitrod will tell things straight, as he sees them, and not try to colour the facts. In the meantime, it is well to remember that a man of high ability and integrity has been lost to the people of Queensland. He did a great deal to uplift the force and would have achieved a great deal more if he had been allowed to remain until his normal retiring age of 65 years. This morning I sent a telegram to Ray Whitrod. I did not send it to him as a representative of the people of Queensland. I sent it to him as an excolleague and, I am hopeful, as a current friend. I wished him all the best for the future. I am sure that many people in Queensland will also be wishing him all the best for the future. There is an old saying that no man is indispensable. This is probably true. But whilst a man might not be indispensable, if he leaves a position he is likely to be missed. Ray Whitrod is such a man. I am sure that he will be missed by the people of Queensland.

Senator MAUNSELL:
Queensland

– In the last few weeks we have heard our new senator from Queensland indulge in what might be called Queensland politics. He has brought them into this chamber. I do not know whether Tom Burns, the Leader of the Opposition in Queensland, is a competent person. After listening to our new senator from Queensland one would believe that he is incompetent and that all the arguments that should be brought up in the Queensland Parliament should be brought up in this House. I do not know what happened in Queensland yesterday. Senator Colston does not know what happened. In an interview with Tom Burns this morning his opening remarks were: ‘I do not know’. But, of course, he proceeded to give his opinion. I suggest that the best thing Senator Colston can do- I offer to make my good offices available to him- is to appear before the Bar of the State House in Queensland, give his opinions, look after his friend and tell Tom Burns that he will do the job for him.

Senator McLaren:

– You are interested only in the Liberal-National Country Party seats on that side of the Senate.

Senator MAUNSELL:

-This is interesting. We have a long program ahead of us, but we have to sit back in this place and listen to things which should be said in the Queensland State Parliament.

Senator Georges:

– Is not this a States House?

Senator MAUNSELL:

– It would be a joke that Senator Georges ever regarded this as a States House.

Senator Georges:

– No, but you have.

Senator MAUNSELL:

-Let us get down to the facts. All these matters, such as the one we brought up the other day, would not be picked up. Tom Burns did not pick it up. Senator Georges did not pick it up.

Senator Georges:

– What? .

Senator MAUNSELL:

-That bit of interesting information that drifted down the sewer. Senator Georges did not fish it out. Even Senator Keeffe did not fish it out. After all, he is not averse to throwing a few dead cats into a few backyards. I am not saying anything against Senator Keeffe. This is the way Senator Keeffe operates, and that is fair enough. The honourable senator knows that he will fish things out, but no one here was prepared to fish those things out. No one in the Queensland State Parliament was prepared to fish out that particular document, but our new senator was prepared to fish it out. All we hear now in this place is State matters being brought up. I hope that we can settle down to the job we are here to do, and that is to look after the interests of Queensland, not to get involved in little personal politics of the State House. If Senator Colston is so keen to put his point of view, I will make available my good offices and see that the Premier will listen to him so that he can look after his friend Ray Whitrod- it does not matter who else- or Max Hodges. He is obviously a friend of Max Hodges too. He can look after him.

Senator Georges:

– Aren’t you?

Senator MAUNSELL:

-Do we have to argue in this place whether Max Hodges was doing his job? That is a State matter, and it does not worry me what happens. If our friend Senator Colston wants to fish all these things out of the sewer, that is fair enough; but I suggest that it is time we discussed the nation’s business or went home.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– Earlier this evening Senator Harradine raised a number of matters which do concern this Parliament and this Government. They arose out of a letter which, as he said, I wrote to him on 5 November. I will make certain that the remarks that the honourable senator has made are drawn to the attention of the requisite Ministers. I draw the attention of the Senate to a number of answers that have been given in the House of Representatives. There is an answer given by Mr MacKellar to question No. 262 of 26 May this year, as recorded at page 2524 of the House of Representatives Hansard. There are further answers recorded in Hansard concerning the Government’s stance. The Senate Hansard of 1 June records Senator Guilfoyle ‘s reply on behalf of the Minister ‘for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to question on notice No. 560 asked by Senator McLaren. There is an answer in the House of Representatives Hansard to question on notice No. 655. 1 cannot pick out the date or the page number from the photostat copy but I will show the honourable senator a copy of it later. Mr MacKellar answered a question put down by Dr Richardson, the honourable member for Tangney. Finally as recorded the House of Representatives Hansard of Tuesday, 5 October 1976, Mr Sinclair, I imagine in his capacity as Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs, also answered a question without notice. I just draw those matters to the attention of the honourable senator, because as I recall it he said tonight that my letter was the first intimation of some of the Government’s policy in this area. I suggest that he look also at those answers. If he still has some problems after he reads those answers, he will know how to pursue the matter.

As to the remarks of the other 2 speakers, I say absolutely- I mean no discourtesy to either honourable senator- that the matters raised do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Fraser Government.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 1 1.6 p.m.

page 2004

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Department of Primary Industry: Statutory Authorities (Question No. 942)

Senator Cotton:
LP

– On 12 October Senator Wriedt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry the following question, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Which statutory authorities come under the control of the Department of Primary Industry.
  2. What is the name, occupation, date and term of appointment, and remuneration of each holder of public office of each authority.

It has been brought to my attention that some of the details contained in the reply (Hansard pages 1135-1138) are inaccurate. For the information of honourable senators, the correct answer is as follows:

  1. 1 ) The Australian Apple and Pear Corporation; The Australian Canned Fruits Board; The Australian Dairy Corporation; The Australian Dried Fruits Control Board; The Australian Egg Board; The Australian Honey Board; The Australian Meat Board; The Australian Tobacco Board; The Australian Wheat Board; The Australian Wine Board; The Australian Wool Corporation; The Australian Wool Testing Authority.
  2. Salaries for the positions listed are set out in the Remuneration Tribunal s 1976 Report. The other details sought by the honourable senator are provided in the table below:

Education: Australian Government Outlay (Question No. 823)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What has been the current, capital and total outlay by the Australian Government on education for each financial year from 1945-46 to 1975-76.
  2. What is the anticipated outlay in each of the three areas referred to for 1976-77.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The recurrent and capital outlays on education by the Commonwealth Government in each year from 1948-49 to 1975-76, are shown in the following table. The figures include specific purpose payments to the States. Figures for the years 1 945-46 to 1 947-48 are not available.
  2. The estimated outlay by the Australian Government on education in 1976-77, as shown in 1976 Budget papers, is $2, 204m. This total includes a provisional estimate of $60m to allow for prospective cost increases during 1976-77 in the programs of the Education Commissions. The total of $2, 204.0m is composed of $ 1 , 80 1 . 9m recurrent and $402. 1 m capital outlay.

n.a.- not available. ( a )- Figures reflect the Commonwealth assumption of full responsibility for financing tertiary education from 1 January 1974, in respect of which offsetting deductions were made from general purpose financial assistance to the States.

Sources: Derived from statistics published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in ‘Public Authority Finance: Federal Authorities’. Reference 5.12 and ‘Australian National Accounts’ Reference No- 7. 1.

Education: Triennial Funding (Question No. 824)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

  1. What was the shortfall between the 1976 component of the 1976-78 triennial funding recommendations made by the various education commissions and the 1976 interim year allocation for education subsequently announced in August 1975 by the then Minister for Education, Mr Beazley.
  2. In what areas was recommended expenditure reduced and for each of these areas what was the recommended expenditure and the size of the reduction.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

For the Commission on Advanced Education and the Technical and Further Education Commission the financial recommendations in the 1976-78 reports covered the whole period without showing amounts for individual years.

The Universities Commission report for 1976-78 did not specify grants for individual years of the triennium for the total buildings grants or research and equipment grants. For the other categories of operating expenditure the table below compares the grants recommended for 1976 in the 1976-78 Report (sixth report) and the amounts included in the 1976 recurrent expenditure allocation to universities. All figures have been converted to December 1975 cost levels to give a comparison in real terms.

The recommended grants for 1976 under the various Schools Commission programs, in its 1976-78 Report, totalled $725m in December 1975 cost levels. The table below compares the amounts recommended under the various programs with the allocation subsequently made according to the guidelines given to the Commission for 1976 expenditure.

Hydrocarbons: Australian Reserves (Question No. 899)

Senator Keeffe:

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

What is the predicted date for the exhaustion of Australia’s present reserves of hydrocarbons, assuming that no new major fields are discovered.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

It is unrealistic to assume that no new major hydrocarbon fields will be discovered in and around Australia. Prospects Tor new discoveries are quite sound, and the Government has implemented a number of measures to encourage exploration. Nevertheless, the following information will give an indication of how Australia stands on the basis of current assessments of reserves and prospects.

The estimated amounts of black and brown coal which could be economically extracted with current technology and at current prices are sufficient to provide for some hundreds of years of production at current rates. Australia’s black and brown coal reserves are by no means completely delineated, and further work in this regard, together with improvements in extraction technology, is likely to lead to increases in the estimates of economically recoverable reserves.

Although production from known petroleum resources is expected to begin to decline from about 1981, this will be a gradual process, and indigenous crude oil will still be making a useful contribution to Australia’s energy requirements in the year 2000, while natural gas will be a major energy source well beyond that date.

Estimates as to quantities of undiscovered oil vary but there is reason to suppose that significant quantities remain to be found, and the Government is confident that its new incentives will result in a steady increase in exploration levels over the next few years, and thereby lead to useful new discoveries.

Present proved and probable reserves of natural gas in fields declared commercial, together with theoretically recoverable reserves in fields which are either geologically proved or are considered uneconomic under present conditions, or are awaiting further appraisal, are estimated to be adequate for domestic consumption and export until the end of the century. The likelihood of further major discoveries of natural gas being made offshore Australia are rated as good by geologists both within and outside Government.

Solar Energy (Question No. 903)

Senator Keeffe:

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

  1. 1 ) What is the estimated cost of construction of a pilot solar energy plant, capable of producing an output of at least 1000 megawatts.
  2. What is the present estimated cost of producing 1 kilowatt/hour of electricity by this method.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. A 1000 megawatt station would normally be considered a full scale commercial operation, rather than a pilot plant. I am aware of no firm proposal to build a solar power plant of anything like this size, and hence, as far as I am aware, there are no estimates of the capital cost for a plant in this size range based on a considered evaluation of the cost of a specific project.
  2. In the absence of capital cost estimates it is not possible to make a reliable estimate of the cost of producing electricity from a plant of the size contemplated by the question.

Hydrocarbons: Recoverable Reserves (Question No. 904)

Senator Keeffe:

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

What are the current estimated world reserves of: (a) natural gas, (b) _crude oil, (c) condensate, (d) liquid petroleum gas, (e) brown coal, (0 tar sands, and (g) black coal of the sub-bituminous and high volatile bituminous varieties.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

The Survey of Energy Resources 1974 published by the World Energy Conference, a non-governmental organisation composed of about 70 countries including most of the major fuel and energy producers and consumers, sets out the following information on current estimated world recoverable reserves of hydrocarbons. Recoverable reserves are defined as the portion of the total amount of known reserves considered to be actually recoverable under current economic conditions and using current extraction technology.

natural gas-52 532 thousand million cubic metres

crude oil- 9 1 525 million tonnes

and (d) condensates and liquid petroleum gas- 47 535 million tonnes.

brown coal- 160 324 million tonnes.

tar sands (excluding shale)- 208 147 million tonnes.

g) black coal-430 867 million tonnes.

Liquid Hydrocarbons (Question No. 906)

Senator Keeffe:

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

  1. 1 ) Is nuclear energy used almost exclusively for the generation of electric energy.
  2. Would the current Australian coal reserves suitably supply all of Australia’s electrical energy needs for at least the next 100 years.
  3. Is Australia’s immediate energy problem a predicted 1985-1990 shortfall in liquid hydrocarbons. If so, will the Minister attempt to overcome this by financially encouraging research into areas that might hold some potential for the generation of liquid hydrocarbons.
  4. Will the Minister recommend legislation to ban the export of Australia’s much needed natural gas and oil reserves so as to help alleviate the impending crisis.
  5. Will the Minister recommend that reprocessing of lubrication oils be compulsory so as to extend the reserves by a factor of five.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Insofar as it is possible to estimate so far into the future it could be said that the total amount of Australian coal which could economically be extracted with current technology and at current prices is probably sufficient to generate amounts of electricity equal to or greater than Australia’s electrical energy needs for the next 100 years. This is not to say that the electrical energy requirements of any particular region at any given time during this period would necessarily be best met by generation from coal, or that the dedication for the purpose of electricity generation of a sufficient pan of Australia’s coal resources to meet all our electrical energy needs over the period would necessarily represent the best use of those resources.
  3. Production from known indigenous petroleum resources is expected to begin to decline from about 1981. The measures to encourage exploration and development of Australia’s oil resources which were announced by the Treasurer in the Budget Speech are a pan of the Government’s approach to dealing with that situation. The Government also provides funds for research on the production of synthetic liquid fuels from coal which is undertaken by the CSIRO and the Australian Coal Industry Research Laboratories.
  4. Adequate controls already exist to prevent the export of Australia’s indigenous oil and gas where this is against the national interest. Exports will not be permitted unless the Government is satisfied that Australia’s needs can be met.
  5. The Government is conscious of the arguments in favour of reprocessing of lubricating oil and some reprocessing does in fact take place. It should be noted, however, that lubricating oils are manufactured from imported feedstocks, because indigenous crude oil does not contain a component from which lubricating oils can be manufactured. Accordingly, the reprocessing of lubricating oil does not affect the rate of depletion of Australia ‘s indigenous resources.

Solar Energy: Utilisation of Salt (Question No. 907)

Senator Keeffe:

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

  1. Has any research been undertaken to investigate the disposal of salt from the Murray Valley area, including the utilisation of salt in the collection and storage of solar energy and the elimination of liquid waste pollution.
  2. Have the persons involved stated that this project is capable of producing electricity from a 4000 megawatt station economically.
  3. What financial and/or other assistance or encouragement has the Federal and /or State Governments made to this project.
  4. Is the Minister aware that the Israeli Government has contacted the person involved in this project in an attempt to develop the project in Israel.
  5. Will the Minister encourage such projects to be patented and developed in Australia by Australians.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. I am not aware of any Federal or State Government assistance to the project.
  4. No. I am aware, however, that the National Physical Laboratory of Israel has undertaken work in this area.
  5. It is the Government’s policy to encourage research on alternative energy sources for Australia, including solar energy. The merits of assisting any given project, however, would have to be assessed in the light of the merits of alternative projects and competing demands upon the Government’s financial resources.

Solar Energy (Question No. 910)

Senator Keeffe:

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

  1. 1 ) What level of funding and research is being carried out into (a) solar energy research, (b) wind energy research, (c) tidal energy research, and ( d ) nuclear energy research, at the present time.
  2. Who are, and where are, the main research groups and experts conducting research into solar energy.
  3. How much money was made available to these people and groups of people for each of the past ten years.
  4. What has been the main direction and type of research into solar energy carried out by these groups.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

Much of the information sought is either unavailable or not readily available, and I would not be prepared to authorise the diversion of the efforts of the Depanment of National Resources that preparation of a comprehensive answer to the question would require. Nevertheless I offer the following information in response to the various pans of the question:

(a)At the Federal level, estimated expenditure by CSIRO on solar energy in 1975-76 is $684,000. The Australian Research Grants Committee grants of $149,05 1 have been authorised for the calendar year 1976.

In addition, some universities, other tertiary institutions and private companies have allocated funds for solar energy research from their own budgets, but details of the amounts involved are not available.

Not available.

Not available.

Total expenditure by the Australian Atomic Energy Commission (AAEC) on research relating to nuclear energy amounted to approximately $ 16.7m in 1975-76. Further details appear in the AAEC Annual Report 1975-76.

See ( 1 ) (a) above and also the answer to question 61 1 on page 2278 of Hansard of 2 June 1 976.

The following figures relating to Federal Government expenditure and funding illustrate the growth in Federal support for solar energy over the past ten years:

See also the answer to question No. 61 1 on page 2278 of Hansard of 2 June 1976.

  1. See the answer to question No. 61 1 on page 2278 of Hansard of 2 June 1976.

Power Alcohol (Question No. 911)

Senator Keeffe:

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

  1. 1 ) Is the Minister aware of the potential of sugar byproducts as an alternative energy source to hydrocarbons.
  2. Can a process be developed for the production of an alcohol product from sugar which could then be mixed in a 4: 1 ratio with petroleum. If so, would this reduce the overreliance of the world on petroleum and, would it greatly extend the life of the world s petroleum reserves.
  3. Would the production of such a sugar derived alcoholpetroleum mixture decrease the present pollution caused by the combustion of petroleum. If so, will the Government, in the light of Australia’s position as a major sugar producer, immediately appropriate sufficient funds to initiate a longterm research program into this matter.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. I am advised that processes for the industrial production of power alcohol as a direct product from sugar or a by-product of sugar manufacture have been in existence for many years, but have had a negligible impact on the world demand for petroleum, and that there is little evidence at this stage to suggest that the substantial increases in recent years in the price of internationally traded oil will change this situation.
  3. I am advised that, at an equivalent mr: fuel ratio, ethyl alcohol /gasoline blends give the same levels of gaseous pollutants as conventional motor gasolines. The reduced gaseous exhaust emissions which nave, from time to time, been claimed for alcohol/gasoline blends are attributable to the increase in the air:fuel ratio in the combustion chamber of the engine when alcohol is added to gasoline. If, however, the air: fuel ratio is not reduced to compensate for this effect, driveability and performance will suffer.

Education: Financial Recommendations for Triennium 1976-78 (Question No. 923)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

On the basis of the reports for the triennium 1976-78 of the Schools Commission, the Universities Commission, the Commission on Advanced Education, and the Technical and Further Education Committee in Australia, what was the recommended spending in each of the four areas for (a) 1976, (b) 1977 and (c) 1978.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The financial recommendations of the Commission on Advanced Education and the Technical and Further Education Commission in their 1976-78 reports covered the whole triennium without specifying grants for individual years.

The Universities Commission recommended grants for each year of the 976-78 triennium separately for general recurrent purposes, teaching hospitals recurrent costs and student residences running costs. For 1976, 1977 and 1978 the totals for these three categories were (in December 1975 prices) $5 10. lm, $533.8m and $555.2m respectively.

The Schools Commission ‘s recommendations for financial assistance to schools in the States for the three years of the 1976-78 triennium were respectively $725m, $784m and $84 lm. Further details of these totals are given in the table below.

I would refer the honourable senator to the answer to Question No. 824 for a comparison between recommended and actual allocations for 1976.

Education: Cost Supplementation Arrangements (Question No. 975)

Senator Coleman:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Was it stated in the West Australian of 12 August 1976 that the Schools Commission was worried about a statement that the Government had decided to ‘replace the existing cost supplementation arrangements by less automatic provisions for unavoidable increases in costs ‘. If so, will the Minister inform the Senate whether increases in grants in line with the consumer price index are no longer contemplated.
  2. What is covered by the phrase ‘unavoidable increases in costs’.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: ( 1 )- (2 ) I refer the honourable senator to my statement in the Senate on 4 November 1 976 on the programs of the Education Commissions for the 1977-78 triennium, where I emphasised that the Government had no intention of retreating from its undertaking to support real growth in the education programs on which the Commissions make recommendations. In that statement I outlined the new arrangements.

Underground Water Supplies: Mount Larcom (Question No. 1118)

Senator Keeffe:

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

  1. 1 ) Is there a large reservoir of underground water in the Mount Larcom area and do some bores yield up to 30 000 gallons per hour.
  2. To what extent will Darra Mining’s quarrying affect the water table level and the flow of water.
  3. Have any hydrological tests been carried out to determine these matters, by either the Depanment of National Resources or the Queensland Government. If so, what were the results of the tests.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

Responsibility for the assessment and management of water resources in the State of Queensland rests primarily with the State Government. However, on the basis of information made available by the Queensland Irrigation and Water Supply Commission I am advised that:

  1. 1 ) A groundwater reservoir exists in the Mount Larcom area but it is not large. About forty private facilities tap the reservoir to obtain water mainly for stock watering and to a lesser extent for irrigation purposes. The bores are generally low yielding and only a few have yields in the range 3 000 to 12 000 gallons per hour. Yields of 30 000 gallons per hour have not been reported.
  2. The conditions of the lease held by Darra Exploration Pty Ltd are confidential between the Company and the Queensland Government.

  3. The Queensland Government has carried out hydrological investigations in the area and it is understood that stringent conditions have been incorporated in the lease in respect of monitoring by the Company of pre-mining and future groundwater behaviour and the protection of existing supplies of underground water in the area.

    1. C. Elliott and K. J. Elliott: Extradition Proceedings (Question No. 1144)
Senator Colston:

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

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

I have not nor, I am informed, have any officers of my Department had any contact with the Western Australian Government concerning the proceedings referred to in the honourable senator’s question. The enforcement in one State under Part III of the Service and Execution of Process Act 1 90 1 of a warrant of apprehension issued in another State is a matter solely for the States concerned.

Cedar Bay Police Raid (Question No. 1 152)

Senator Colston:

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

Has the Attorney-General 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 Durack:
LP

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

No.

Fresh Fission Product Fallout (Question No. 1163)

Senator Keeffe:

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

  1. What has been the average background figure for iodine- 131, caesium-137, and strontium-90, for each of the past fifteen years, for the following areas in Australia: (a) Malanda, (b) Sydney, (c) Rockhampton, (d) Perth, (e) Melbourne, (f) Adelaide, (g) Townsville and (h) Darwin.
  2. Are any marked seasonal variations of these figures due to natural seasonal forces.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The results of monitoring fresh fission product fallout, including iodine- 131, from the 1 974 series of French nuclear weapons tests in the atmosphere over Polynesia and the results of monitoring programs to measure strontium-90 and caesium-137 in the Australian environment during 1971, 1972 and 1973 are contained in a report by the Australian Radiation Laboratory (Department of Health) in the publication ‘Fallout over Australia from Nuclear Tests’ which I tabled in the Parliament on 25 August 1 976.

The same report includes a list of earlier publications on measurements of radioactive fallout in Australia. These publications contain the results of monitoring programs in the periods prior to those referred to above.

  1. Yes.

National Highway Road System (Question No. 1164)

Senator Keeffe:

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

  1. 1 ) Is the Minister aware that the Port Hedland-Broome and Fitzroy Crossing-Halls Creek sections are nearly the last remaining link of unsealed roads in the Australian coastal national highway.
  2. Would a large volume of traffic use these roads in Western Australia if they were sealed.
  3. Have numerous complaints been made by motorists regarding the condition of these roads.

  4. Would sealed roads in these regions:

    1. aid in speedier communications;
    2. increase tourism to an area presently in economic uncertainty;
    3. decrease freight charges; and
    4. complete the around Australia all weather road.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) These sections of road are amongst the last sections to be sealed of those roads which largely follow the coast of Australia. These particular sections also form part of the National Highway system which is comprised of the most direct road links between Australia’s capital cities and is eligible for full Commonwealth funding. There are other major unsealed sections on the National Highway system in addition to those referred to by Senator Keeffe, but steady progress in upgrading is being achieved as shown by the recent completion of sealing of the Eyre Highway.
  2. Traffic may be expected to increase, although the traffic volumes on the sections mentioned are unlikely to be very large even after sealing.
  3. Yes.
  4. Benefits would accrue from sealing the Port HedlandBroome and Fitzroy Crossing-Halls Creek sections of the National Highway system. However in order to achieve maximum benefits from national highways expenditure, priorities are established which take account not only of deficiencies in the roads but also of the relative economic benefits to be gained from improvements to particular sections.

The Commonwealth and Western Australia have agreed that a major priority is to first seal the National Highway to the developing mining areas in the Pilbara. However, significant improvement works have been proceeding on both the Port Hedland-Broome and Fitzroy Crossing-Halls Creek sections of the National Highway system. Estimated expenditure on approved projects on the Port Hedland-Broome section in 1976-77 is some $2,638,000 and on the Fitzroy Crossing-Halls Creek section, approximately $200,000. The latter figure provides for completion to sub-base stage of a new 68.3 km alignment in the Christmas Creek area.

North Australian Rivers: Streamgauging Stations (Question No. 1169)

Senator Keeffe:

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

  1. 1 ) What major rivers in Queensland, the Northern Territory, and Western Australia have flow measuring devices installed.
  2. How many are installed in each river system.
  3. 3 ) What is the annual discharge of each of these rivers.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

More detailed information concerning the number of streamgauging stations installed throughout Australia and the annual discharges of rivers is provided in the publications Review of Australia’s Water Resources 1975, and Streamgauging Information- Australia, 1974, both of which are to be published by my Department and are expected to become available early in November 1 976.

Nuclear Fallout: Mururoa Atoll (Question No. 1176)

Senator Keeffe:

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

  1. 1 ) What is the estimated time of drift before radiation from a nuclear explosion at Mururoa Atoll reaches the east coast of Australia.
  2. Are there any variations in time of arrival over the length of the east coast. If so, what are they.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) The information sought in both parts of the honourable senator’s question is contained in a report by the Bureau of Meteorology Atmospheric Dispersion of Radioactive Material from Nuclear Explosions in the publication Fallout over Australia from Nuclear Tests which I tabled in the Parliament on 25 August 1976.

Nuclear Fallout (Question No. 1177)

Senator Keeffe:

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

What effect does rain have on radiation debris, such as iodine- 131, caesium- 1 37, and strontium-90.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The information sought in the honourable senator’s question is contained in a report by the Bureau of Meteorology Atmospheric Dispersion of Radioactive Material from Nuclear Explosions, in the publication entitled Fallout over Australia from Nuclear Tests which I tabled in the Parliament on 25 August 1976.

Mr Peter Barton: Legal Aid (Question No. 1181)

Senator Mulvihill:

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

Was legal aid granted to Mr Peter Barton for litigation involving the Builders’ Labourers Federation. If so, what was the extent of such aid and why was it terminated.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

I am informed that no application has been made for legal aid by Mr Peter Barton to the Attorney-General’s Department or to the Australian Legal Aid Office.

Alice Springs Railhead (Question No. 1196)

Senator Kilgariff:

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

With regard to the Minister’s answer to Senate Question No. 729 relating to the re-siting of the railhead at Alice Springs in conjunction with the new standard gauge link from Port Augusta, (a) are the authorities able to indicate to what stage the planning has progressed, and (b) whether a firm indication can be given to the townspeople of Alice Springs as to where the railhead is to be sited.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. The review currently being undertaken into construction standards and costs of the Tarcoola-Alice Springs railway propect is examining the provision of terminal facilities at Alice Springs and a decision on the future of the Alice Springs railway yards is in abeyance, pending the outcome of these studies.
  2. No.

Department of Science: Staff Ceiling (Question No. 1244)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister for Science, upon notice:

What is the projected staff ceiling for the Department of Science as at 30 June 1977?

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

I refer the honourable senator to the Prime Minister’s answer to question on notice No. 1246 (Hansard, 9 November 1976, page 1774).

Chromosome Research Foundation (Question No. 1267)

Senator Button:

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

  1. 1 ) What Commonwealth Government funding was provided to the Chromosome Research Foundation in Sydney for Research into genetics of cattle in the past financial year.
  2. Has any money been made available for such purpose in the current financial year. If not, why have such funds been withdrawn.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

  1. $12,159 was allocated from the Dairying Research Trust Account in 1975-76. $1,700 was allocated by the Australian Research Grants Committee in 1975 and $1,500 in 1976. Australian Research Grants Committee allocations are made on a calendar year basis.
  2. $10,188 has been allocated from the Dairying Research Trust Account for 1976-77, but no funds have been allocated by the Australian Research Grants Committee for 1977.

Ethnic Radio (Question No. 1276)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice:

Will the Government consider making access to ethnic radio available to ethnic groups from English speaking countries such as Scotland and Ireland in addition to allowing access to ethnic groups from non-English speaking countries.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

In deciding recently to provide funds for a permanent ethnic broadcasting service, the Government set certain guidelines for its operation and the functions which it should perform. These include maintenance of traditional ethnic cultures, dissemination of information and advice on aspects of life in Australia, particularly for those unable to speak English, and encouraging and facilitating the teaching of English. It would not be inconsistent with these goals, for ethnic radio programs to include elements of the cultures of English speaking groups.

In most respects, however, the existing English language broadcasting facilities cater adequately for English speaking migrants. In fact, prior to the introduction of the existing ethnic broadcasting stations, over 99 per cent of radio broadcasting time in Australia was in the English language. In view of this, it would seem that the needs of the non-English speaking ethnic groups should be given priority in determining the use of the relatively limited broadcasting time available within the ethnic radio system.

The Australian Broadcasting Commission has been invited to assume responsibility for providing ethnic broadcasting services and, if the invitation is accepted, the Commission would assume full responsibility for determining the content of programs.

Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority (Question No. 1302)

Senator Ryan:
ACT

asked the Minister for Educaton upon notice:

Will the Minister give assurances that when the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority is set up (a) community representation will remain unaltered, and (b) the Authority will be completely autonomous.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. The honourable senator will now be aware that the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority Ordinance provides for greater community representation than the present Interim Authority allowed. The permanent Authority will have 14 part-time members, compared with the Interim Authority’s 9, so that the wider community will be involved in its decision making.
  2. The honourable senator will probably have examined the new Ordinance and seen that it provides for the Schools Authority to have the necessary legal powers to carry out its functions. I cannot give the assurance she asks that the Authority will be completely autonomous as it is subject to the same degree of ministerial control as any statutory authority has whilst operating under the Westminister system of government.

International Airlines: Fuel

Senator Carrick: On 5 October 1976 Senator Townley asked a question without notice as to whether it was the practice of some international airlines to take on more fuel than they would safely require for the flight prior to departure from Australia because of our low price for fuel and, if so, did that mean that we were subsidising those airlines. Also, were records available showing the amount of fuel that was taken on for each flight and did the Government have guidelines relating to this matter for the international airlines.

In my reply I said that it was my understanding that this matter had been the subject of Government attention in recent weeks and months. Indeed some suggestions have been made publicly that international airlines have refuelled more heavily than was necessary for them, in order to take advantage of a price differential. I mentioned that I was not fully aware whether that was true or false or whether records were available or if there were any particular guidelines.

I have since been informed that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for National Resources and Overseas Trade announced on 29 April 1976 that export control over aviation fuel supplied in Australia to international airlines was being discontinued. Appropriate amendments to the Customs (Prohibited Exports) Regulations have subsequently been issued and the Government does not have records of the amounts of fuel supplied for individual aircraft movements. There are, however, procedures associated with flight planning for both domestic and international aircraft movements to ensure that adequate fuel supplies are carried in tanks.

Additional Income Tax: Refunds

Senator Cotton: On 13 October 1976 Senator Townley addressed to me as Minister representing the Treasurer in the Senate a question without notice relating to the charging of additional tax where tax is paid late and the possibility of interest being added where tax is refunded. I undertook to refer the matter to the Treasurer who has provided the following answer:

The income tax law provides that where tax is not paid by the due date for payment, additional tax of 10 per cent per annum on the amount unpaid shall become payable. However, the Commissioner of Taxation is authorised by the law to remit the additional tax, either wholly or in part, for reasons which he thinks sufficient. There are similar provisions in the laws relating to other kinds of tax.

The Commissioner has advised that there has been no change during the past year, as compared with the position in previous years, in the general policy regarding the remission of additional tax for late payment.

Interest has never been paid on taxation refunds, whether made to PA YE taxpayers or other categories of taxpayer. The Government is not considering changing that situation.

Statutory Authorities under Control of Department of Education (Question No. 947)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

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

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

  1. 1 ) The following authorities come under the control of the Minister for Education:

Commission on Advanced Education

Schools Commission

Technical and Further Education Commission

Universities Commission

Commonwealth Teaching Service

Curriculum Development Centre

Student Assistance Review Tribunals

Australian Capital Territory Apprenticeship Board

Northern Territory Apprentices Board

  1. Listed below are the members of these authorities. The remuneration of these members is in accordance with the 1976 Review of the Remuneration Tribunal.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 16 November 1976, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1976/19761116_senate_30_s70/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant