Senate
30 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 2205

PETITIONS

Metric System

Senator WOOD:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 43 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objecton to the Metric system and request the Government to restore the Imperial system.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Australian Heritage Commission

Senator RYAN:
ACT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

ANU Students’ Association Fees

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– I present the following petition from 1 1 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 Students’ Association of the Australian National University has supported many non-university causes and, in particular, has given money to the Abortion Law Reform Society.

That a student of the University, Peter Berzins, who consequently has a conscientious objection to paying the membership fee, has been advised by the University that, unless he pays the membership fee, his academic results for 1976 will not be released and his application for reenrollment in the University in 1977 will not be accepted.

That the Australian National University was established by a Federal Act of Parliament and that the Federal Government has directed responsibility for the University.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate will act to remedy the injustice of compulsory fees for membership of the Students’ Association at the National University.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Aboriginal Land Rights

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I present 3 petitions from 85, 8 1 and 87 citizens respectively, as follows:

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 the 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 the 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 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 itself be 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.

Petitions received and first petition read.

Aboriginal Land Rights

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 123 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 forland in the Northern Territory.

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

  1. 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.

  2. Amend the Bill to ensure:

    1. a ) 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.
    2. The control by Aborigines of all roads passing through Aboriginal lands.
    3. The restoration of the Aboriginal Land Commissioner’s powers to hear claims based on needs as well as traditional claims lodged by Aborigines.
    4. d ) The restoration of all powers vested in Land Councils and the Land Commissioner in the 1975 Land Rights Bill.
    5. 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.
    6. A provision that land-owning groups of Aborigines may apply to form separate trusts if they wish.
    7. 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.

Uranium

Senator KEEFFE:

– I present the following petition from 12 citizens of Australia:

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

That the use of uranium as a source of energy is currently unacceptable as it presents problems including radioactive waste, military implications and environmental degradation.

That there can, at present, be no assurances that radioactive materials exported for peaceful purposes will not be used in the production of nuclear weapons.

That there is not, as yet, any known safe method of disposing of radioactive wastes, nor is there likely to be.

d ) That the export of uranium from Australia is internationally irresponsible and is not, in the long term, of benefit to Australia.

That the export of uranium from Australia discourages importing countries from investing research and development funds in finding viable alternatives.

That only the overdeveloped industrial nations will benefit from Australian uranium and the gap between these countries and the energy-starved third world will increase yet further.

That the securing of land rights by Australian Aborigines, promised by successive governments, is prejudiced by uranium mining.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government will immediately cease the mining and prohibit the export of uranium until perfectly safe methods of final disposal for radioactive wastes have been guaranteed; will greatly increase expenditure on research into safe, clean and inexhaustible sources of energy; and will aid underdeveloped countries in their efforts to secure a fair share of the world ‘s energy resources, while at the same time honouring its obligations to the future of humanity.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Child Care Services

To the Honourable President and Senators in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain parents and citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That we, the undersigned, declare that we are concerned at the increasingly alarming child care situation, where only one place is available for every ten pre-school children and where, in N.S.W., only 184 out of the 891 child care centres in existence offer long day care for the children of working mothers, despite the changing socio-economic conditions in Australia and the increased numbers of working mothers.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you make funds available urgently for long day care centres and that all funds allocated for child care be directed only to those child care centres willing to provide long day care pre-school and after-school care, holiday care and emergency day care for children.

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

Petition received.

Aboriginal Land Rights

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:

  1. 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. Aborigines should not be penalised.

  2. Amend the Bill to ensure:

    1. 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.
    2. The control of Aborigines of all roads passing through Aboriginal lands.
    3. The restoration of the Aboriginal Land Commissioner’s powers to hear claims based on needs as well as traditional claims lodged by Aborigines.
    4. The restoration of all powers vested in Land Councils and the Land Commissioner in the 1 975 Land Rights Bill.
    5. 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.
    6. A provision that land-owning groups of Aborigines may apply to form separate trusts if they wish.
    7. 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. by Senator Georges.

Petition received.

Education

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the recent budgetary allocations endanger the quality of Australian education, especially for disadvantaged groups, and, in particular, for migrants, Aborigines and tertiary students from poor backgrounds.

Your petitioners believe that all persons admitted to institutions of tertiary education in Australia have a right to adequate living conditions and that it is the responsibility of Government to ensure that sufficient funds are allocated to protect that right.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

  1. That the quality of education in schools and tertiary institutions be not eroded but extended through the provision of adequate funds.
  2. That in view of the sub-standard living conditions forced upon many tertiary students as a consequence of a totally inadequate student assistance scheme, there is an urgent need for a substantial increase and indexation of grants provided under the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme to the level of a living wage, and, further, that the needs-based grants scheme be in no way jeopardised by any other program of student assistance.
  3. That in order to preserve the quality of higher education in Australia and so as to prevent discrimination against disadvantaged groups there should be no introduction of fees for overseas students, second degree students, higher degree students or any students.

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

Petition received.

Uranium

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

  1. That the use of uranium as a source of energy is currently unacceptable as it presents problems including radioactive waste, military implications and environmental degradation.
  2. That there can, at present, be no assurances that radioactive materials exported for peaceful purposes will not be used in the production of nuclear weapons.
  3. That there is not, as yet, any known safe method of disposing of radioactive wastes, nor is there likely to be.
  4. That the export of uranium from Australia is internationally irresponsible and is not, in the long term, of benefit to Australia.
  5. That the export of uranium from Australia discourages importing countries from investing research and development funds in finding viable alternatives.
  6. That only the overdeveloped industrial nations will benefit from Australian uranium and the gap between these countries and the energy-starved third world will increase yet further.
  7. That the securing of land rights by Australian Aborigines, promised by successive governments, is prejudiced by uranium mining.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government will immediately cease the mining and prohibit the export of uranium until perfectly safe methods of final disposal for radioactive wastes have been guaranteed; will greatly increase expenditure on research into safe, clean and inexhaustible sources of energy; and will aid underdeveloped countries in their efforts to secure a fair share of the world’s energy resources, while at the same time honouring its obligations to the future of humanity.

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

Petition received.

Australian Broadcasting 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. Subscribe to the view that the Australian Broadcasting Commission belongs to the people and not to the government of the day, whatever political party.
  2. Eschew all means, direct or indirect, of diminishing the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Commission.
  3. Reject all proposals for the introduction of advertising into A.B.C. Programmes.
  4. Develop methods for publicly funding the Commission which will prevent the granting or withholding of funds being used as a method of diminishing its independence.
  5. Ensure that any general enquiries into broadcasting in Australia which may seem desirable from time to time shall be conducted publicly and that strong representation of the public shall be included within the body conducting the enquiry.

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

Petition received.

page 2207

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2207

QUESTION

DEVALUATION: GOVERNMENT POLICIES

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I ask: In view of the gagging by the Government of a full debate on devaluation in the House of Representatives a few minutes ago, does the

Minister agree that that action is ample evidence of the Government’s admission of the total failure of its economic policies?

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

-No, I would not think so at all. I would not think that in any way. All I would say is that on behalf of the Government I will make a ministerial statement here in the Senate this afternoon and we can then have a debate about it tomorrow. Perhaps that is the wise thing to do. Perhaps we will hear a little less of this nonsensical catcalling that we are getting.

page 2208

QUESTION

THE QUEEN’S SILVER JUBILEE MEDAL

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I ask: Have the Federal and State governments agreed to participate in the distribution of a medal to commemorate the Silver Jubilee of Her Majesty the Queen? Has it been agreed that distribution should be to members of the armed forces and to other nominated persons? Does this mean that all servicemen and servicewomen, all local government councillors, members of Parliament and senior public servants will automatically receive the medal? What consideration has been given to distributing a medal to the many ordinary people who, although their work may not have been acknowledged as spectacular, have rendered a lifetime of service to the community?

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

-In response to the 4 questions asked by the honourable senator, the answer to the first question is yes. As to the second question, the medal will be issued to members of the armed forces, the public services and to others who have performed service to the Crown in the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth countries. The answer to the third question is no, there are no provisions for the making of automatic awards to persons.

As to the fourth question, I am instructed that the Commonwealth Government will ensure that its recommendations cover as wide a field of service as possible. It will be for State governments to decide on their own recommendations. I draw to the attention of any honourable senator who desires further information on this matter a Press statement issued on this question on 15 November 1976 by Mr David Smith, the Official Secretary to the Governor-General.

page 2208

QUESTION

RURAL BANK: ESTABLISHMENT

Senator KEEFFE:

– I preface my question to the Minister representing the Treasurer by reminding him that when the Liberal Party conducted its ‘turn on the lights’ campaign in 1975 it made the following promise:

We will establish a rural bank for long term finance.

Can the Minister inform the Parliament whether the bank has been established? What amount of finance has been made available in loans to needy people engaged in rural industry? If the bank has not been established, is there any intention by the Government to set up such an organisation?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-I notice that the honourable senator, indefatigable as he is, is always in the chamber at question time. I should have thought that over the last month or so he would have heard me give at least 3 answers to questions concerning this proposition. They have been totally consistent answers.

Opposition senators interjecting-

Senator COTTON:

-We do not need any more of this cawing from the other side. My answers have been totally consistent. I said that the Minister for Primary Industry is having the matter investigated. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics is preparing the papers. The situation is just the same as I have always stated it to be; there is no difference. We do not need the help of Senator McLaren, who was trying to interject, any further.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question. How long is it anticipated that this long-ranging inquiry will take? Can the Minister please answer the question: Will the bank be set up?

Senator COTTON:

-My understanding is that it is intended to set up the bank. I cannot give the honourable senator details about how much longer the work of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics will take. That statement is no different from the statements I have made right through. Let me repeat what I have said: The intention is to set up the bank. Investigations have been going on. The BAE has been conducting those investigations. The Minister for Primary Industry has been preparing to talk to the trading banks about the matter. That is the sum total of my information. If any other Minister can add to that information, I shall get the additional details for the honourable senator later.

page 2208

QUESTION

IMPORTED FROGS LEGS: SALMONELLA

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Has recent evidence from the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories indicated strains of salmonella not previously known in Australia to be present in samples of frogs’ legs imported from India? What is the extent of contamination of imported frogs’ legs, and what danger of food poisoning can these represent to the Australian community?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · VICTORIA · LP

– I understand that laboratory tests on 2 containers in 2 separate consignments of frogs’ legs imported from India disclosed evidence of salmonella contamination. Although no cases of food poisoning associated with frogs’ legs have been reported, State and Territory health authorities have been advised of the laboratory results. Because of the risk of food poisoning which could be associated with such contamination, as well as for animal quarantine considerations, steps are being taken to prohibit the importation of frogs’ legs from the Indian sub-continent and from South East Asia, unless the product is contained in an hermetically sealed can with an indefinite shelf life.

page 2209

QUESTION

MINISTRY: RESHUFFLE

Senator MCAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– Will the Leader of the Government in the Senate deny that there are rumblings among Government back bench members about the manner in which certain Ministers are handling their portfolios? Is it a fact that the Prime Minister is contemplating upon the adjournment of the Parliament a major reshuffle of ministerial responsibility? Are the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of Defence, the Department of the Capital Territory, the Department of Post and Telecommunications and the Department of Finance involved?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I think the honourable senator has been listening to his pre-lunch stomach rumblings. I think that is the reply the question deserves.

page 2209

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION STAFF

Senator COLLARD:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. During the stoppage yesterday by members of the Australian Broadcasting Commission staff in southern States, messages were delivered over the ABC stations in Queensland, which were still operating, by members of the ABC Staff Association. These were not news items but rather commercials putting the particular point of view of the Australian Broadcasting Commission Staff Association of proposed Government legislation. I ask the Minister the following questions: Was the Staff Association given permission to do this by the Commission? Recognising that when any union or employer group wants to get a particular point across to the public, other than by way of using news releases, it has to pay either for time on the electronic media or space in the Press, did the ABC Staff Association pay for the time used in these advertisements and, if not, why not? Recognising that the ABC is a public body funded by the taxpayer, does the Minister consider that this action by the Staff Association as compromising the independence and integrity of the ABC?

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

-I understand that the circumstances which Senator Collard has outlined occurred yesterday. I am not able to say specifically what were the approaches of the Staff Association, if any, to the Australian Broadcasting Commission to seek any kind of permission to undertake its broadcasting. However, what I will do in relation to the honourable senator’s 3 questions is to bring them to the attention of the Minister for Post and Telecommunications in another place and seek a specific answer to each of them.

page 2209

QUESTION

THAI STUDENTS IN AUSTRALIA

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

-Is the Minister for Education aware of a letter circulated to Thai students studying in Australia by the Thai Embassy calling for students to spy upon other students? Does not the Minister agree that such surveillance is an infringement of the rights of students while studying in Australia? Further, will the Government call upon the Thai Embassy to cease such activities? I remind the Minister of a decision taken last year to grant residence status to Indo-Chinese students in Australia. In view of this precedent, can he inform the Senate as to when the Government will provide residence status to Thai students who are deeply concerned about their prospects of liberty upon return to Thailand following the brutal coup in October 1976?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have not seen such a letter. Since underlying Senator Primmer ‘s question is the implication that he has such a letter, I now invite him to let me have the letter. I will have it investigated and study the substance of it. I am not aware of any such invitations as he has mentioned. The question of residence status is, of course, a matter for my colleague the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in another place. I will bring it to his attention.

page 2209

QUESTION

BROTHERHOOD OF ST LAURENCE: JOB CENTRE

Senator LAJOVIC:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Has the Minister been made aware of a new project by the Brotherhood of St Laurence to operate a job centre in Melbourne to assist the unemployed? Will it, in fact, represent an alternative employment service and does its establishment not indicate that there is no more than qualified satisfaction with the job which the Commonwealth Employment Service is able to perform? In view of fairly widespread criticism of the Commonwealth Employment Service, its functioning and its effectiveness, will the Minister undertake to co-operate closely with the Brotherhood of St Laurence to facilitate an assessment of its new initiative with a view to improving Commonwealth procedures and the capacity of the Government’s own service to respond to the needs of the unemployed?

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

– The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, whom I represent in this chamber, has been informed of the proposal of the Brotherhood of St Laurence and is giving it detailed consideration or has asked his Department to provide him with a detailed assessment of it. The Brotherhood has indicated that this proposal is a pilot project aimed at new ways to assist the unemployed. It will be working closely with the Commonwealth Employment Service and will be providing also, of course, additional service and information. At this stage, apparently, it is proposed that it should run for a period of 12 months to have its effectiveness evaluated. I can assure the Senate that the Minister whom I represent welcomes the Brotherhood’s co-operative approach in the project and that his response will be a positive one. As far as the Commonwealth Employment Service generally is concerned, I remind the Senate of the inquiry into the Service which is being conducted by Mr Norgard. That is expected to be completed in June of next year.

page 2210

QUESTION

DEVALUATION: PRICE INCREASE MARK-UPS

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

-Will the Minister for Industry and Commerce inform the Senate and the nation of the power he has to counter, or the action he intends to take to counter, the 1 7lA per cent increase in prices that retailers in Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra were busily marking up this morning?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-I would think that this very probably belongs to the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs, which administers the Prices Justification Tribunal. I am equally quite sure that the attention of the Tribunal will be directed towards these exercises of undue exploitation of the public.

Senator Keeffe:

– Your promised to get rid of it.

Senator COTTON:

-No, we did not.

Senator Keeffe:

– Yes, you did.

Senator COTTON:

– Read the papers again. At the same time one will find that various State governments are doing the same sort of thing. I notice that Mr Einfeld of New South Wales is making comments of this sort. I would hope that all governments will be watching these matters very closely.

page 2210

QUESTION

DEVALUATION: EFFECT ON TASMANIA

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I preface it by saying that no doubt the Minister is well aware of the importance to Tasmania of things like minerals, forestry and primary products and that no doubt he is also aware that the value of Tasmanian exports far exceeds the value of imports; at least that was so in the last year for which figures are available to me, that is, 1973-74. I ask: Can the Minister say how Tasmania will benefit from the recent devaluation?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I cannot quantify by amount or area in an amount how Tasmania will benefit specifically, but it is true in relation to the export industries that Tasmania does rely upon a great deal- minerals, woodchip and forest products- that Tasmania could be a substantial beneficiary. It would be valuable to have the actual figures. If possible, I shall get get them for the honourable senator.

page 2210

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT: SCHOOL LEAVERS

Senator GEORGES:

-I direct a question to the Minister for Social Security. I have previously drawn the Minister’s attention to the social distress created by the decision not to permit school leavers to receive unemployment benefit from 12 November to the commencement of the next school year. Who made the decision to declare school leavers ineligible for unemployment benefit? Under what Act and what regulations was such a decision made? Has the Minister received any advice relating to this decision which might question its legality?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– Earlier this year the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations announced the Government’s policy with regard to the payment of unemployment benefit to school leavers. Broadly it was that unemployment benefit would not be paid to school leavers during the long vacation; it would be available to them if they decided not to return to school at the commencement of the new school year. This announcement was made in about March of this year. As far as the advice that has been received by me or by the Commonwealth Employment Service is concerned, unemployment benefit is paid under the Social Services Act. Within that Act there are the requirements that the DirectorGeneral be satisfied that reasonable steps have been taken to obtain employment before unemployment benefit is payable to a person in the category that we have mentioned as being subject to a delay in the payment to him. I think that the answers on matters that have been the subject of questions in past weeks have provided information with regard to this policy. But it is under the Social Services Act and the requirements of the Director-General that we will be taking this course of action.

Senator GEORGES:

-I ask a supplementary question. Is the Minister for Social Security saying that it was at the discretion of the DirectorGeneral that the policy was laid down? Is it a discretionary decision and is that decision subject to challenge, perhaps by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I am saying that the decision was taken by the Government earlier this year that unemployment benefit would not automatically be available to those students who left school at the close of this year. It is stated within our Act that the Director-General of the Department must be satisfied that reasonable steps have been taken to obtain employment. One of the ways in which the Government has interpreted that part of our Act is to say that there is not an automatic entitlement at the cessation of the school year but that reasonable steps must be taken to obtain employment. It will be within that framework that a determination will be made as to whether those reasonable steps have been taken.

Senator Georges:

– But how can they take them? They have just left school.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– They have left school and we have said that there is not an automatic entitlement 7 days after leaving school but that they should take reasonable steps to obtain employment. There is no conflict in the Act on these matters. This is the interpretation of the Government policy and the way in which it will be implemented this year.

page 2211

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING SERVICE BOOKSHOP

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Administrative Services. Is it true that the Government proposes to close the Australian Government Publishing Service Bookshop at Albury? If so, why? In view of the Prime Minister’s statements on open access to government information, have alternative arrangements to closure been considered, such as incorporating the facilities offered into the services of the Upper Murray Regional Libraries at Albury or Wodonga?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-It is correct that we intended to close the bookshop, basically because of the amount of loss it was incurring each year and the demands upon it. At the moment we are exploring ways and means whereby we may be able to co-operate with other groups in the region to keep a service going in AlburyWodonga.

page 2211

QUESTION

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Administrative Services. In view of the serious financial situation in which the Government now finds itself and its repeated call for wage earners to bear the main brunt of its economic policy decisions, I ask: What are the reasons for my not being provided with an answer to my question on notice No. 796, given on 3 June and seeking information regarding expenditure being incurred by ex-Prime Ministers? I further ask: What are the reasons for the delay in answering my question on notice No. 1227 of 19 October regarding the amount of overtime payments to the Prime Minister’s staff for the periods 11 November 1975 to 30 June 1976 and from 1 July 1976 to date?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-It is in the interests of accuracy that these answers have not yet been put down. I have had some answers; I have queried them. They have been sent back because I have not been satisfied that the answers provided have been correct. They have come back with different figures. I have sent them back again and they have come back with different figures again. I must say that the accounting in some areas of the Public Service leaves a lot to be desired. Until I am satisfied -

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Because of your staff ceilings.

Senator WITHERS:

-It is not a matter of the staff ceilings; it is a matter of the odd sort of accounting procedures in which the Public Service indulges.

Senator Cavanagh:

– So you blame your officers too.

Senator WITHERS:

-No, it is a matter of the system. I do not believe that it produces accurate results. As soon as I am satisfied that the answers are correct and have been properly checked I will put them down. I have nothing to hide. There is nothing to hide. They will be put down as soon as I am satisfied as to the accuracy of the information supplied to me.

page 2212

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION SYMPHONY ORCHESTRAS

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. Following the reply of the Minister for Post and Telecommunications in the Commonwealth Record of 9 November this year relating to speculation that the Australian Broadcasting Commission symphony orchestras were under some sort of Government threat, I ask whether the Minister is aware that concern is still being expressed as to the future of these orchestras following his statement of that date in which he stated:

All we have proposed is that while the ABC continues its entrepreneurial activities, particularly in relation to orchestras, the real cost of these activities should be reflected by the Commission in its annual reports.

As there is still this concern, will the Minister make a further definitive statement on this matter to clarify the position, particularly in relation to the Government’s attitude?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I personally am not aware that there remains concern in any section of the community regarding the future of these orchestras. My understanding is quite clear; that is, that the Minister’s statement was plain and unequivocal. In essence, that statement said that it is the Government’s policy that the real cost of these orchestras should be identified and made known. That is the intention. As to the future of the orchestras, the ABC is the responsible body which makes these decisions. As to the question of proper accountability for money spent, it is the task of this Parliament and of the members of the Parliament to ensure that costs should be identified so that they can be measured.

page 2212

QUESTION

DEVALUATION

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. In view of the Prime Minister’s statement delivered to the Stanford Research Institute in Sydney on the evening of 15 November 1976 in which he claimed that his Government was steadfastly opposed to devaluation, can the Minister inform the chamber what developments have taken place in less than a fortnight which have prompted the Government to devalue the Australian dollar by a massive 1 7.5 per cent?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I suggest that the honourable senator contain his impatience until my colleague Senator Cotton puts down a statement later today.

page 2212

QUESTION

LIQUEFIED GAS

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

-My question is directed to either the Minister representing the Acting Minister for National Resources or the Minister representing Acting Minister for Overseas Trade. I ask: Is either of the Ministers aware that the Iranian Government recently cancelled a US$5.6 billion project to export liquefied gas to the United States and Europe, the American company named being the El Paso Natural Gas Company? If so, has either of the Ministers explored the feasibility of further developing our country’s reputed vast reserves of this commodity on a viable basis so as to capture part of the lucrative overseas market in the United States and selected European nations, thereby providing a further valuable international market for Australia?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-I am not aware of the cancellation of the Iranian contract with El Paso, but I do know that there have been a lot of exploratory talks between American consuming companies and people involved principally in the north-west shelf gas reserves and to a minor extent Bass Strait. That is as much as I know. I will try to find out if there is any more information and I will make it available to the honourable senator.

page 2212

QUESTION

SCHOOL LIBRARIES

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Education. Parents ‘ organisations in Victoria were of the opinion that an amount of $900,000 had been made available by the Commonwealth Government for library grants through States grants. Confusion reigns in Victoria as none of these grants have been paid to schools, although they are usually paid in July. The State Minister for Education on 20 October, when asked when the grants would be made, agreed that there had been some delay in making available to schools these funds which are to be provided in that general area. He went on to say:

As I understand it, the Commonwealth Government made some changes in its capital allocation that affected the amount, which has to be individually determined on the maintenance side.

Can the Minister advise the changes relating to capital allocation which have affected the amount allocated to school libraries, what amount of money is now available for school libraries, and when schools can expect to receive the money, much of which has been spent in anticipation?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– This is the first occasion on which any such suggestion has been brought to my notice. I am not aware that such a suggestion has been made in Victoria. I will have the matter investigated and will give the honourable senator a reply.

page 2213

QUESTION

ANU STUDENT ASSOCIATION FEES

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Education and follows a question I asked previously regarding a student at the Australian National University who has a conscientious objection to paying fees to the student association. Bearing in mind that the university results are due in 6 days time and that the closing date for re-enrolment is 24 December, I ask the Minister: What progress has been made in the investigations, following the Assistant Registrar’s threat to withhold the student’s results until the fee is paid?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– My recollection is that earlier this month Senator Walters asked me a question regarding a student at the Australian National University who had declined on grounds of conscience to pay the Students’ Representative Council fee. He had elected, as I understood it, to pay part of the fee or the whole of it to a charity rather than to have it used for political purposes. In my reply I indicated that some universities and colleges were providing an opportunity under their by-laws for students to opt out or to contract out in this regard. I indicated that I would bring the matter to the attention of the Australian National University. Within a few days of that question being asked, I did so; I wrote to the Vice-Chancellor enclosing a copy of the question and answer and drawing attention to the matter. I stated that I believed the matter to be a significant one. I have had a reply recently from the Vice-Chancellor indicating that the ANU has the matter under serious consideration. I expect that the matter will be resolved and resolved, I hope, satisfactorily. In the knowledge that time is running out I shall certainly keep the matter under surveillance and will endeavour to bring it to a suitable result.

page 2213

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE STAFF CEILINGS

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister: Did the Treasurer last weekend on behalf of the Government, when announcing a currency devaluation of 1 7½ per cent, state that Ministers and their departments are currently preparing forward estimates of expenditure for the next 3 years in the knowledge that the Government faces a long haul in restoring a better balance between the public and private sectors of the economy and that Ministers will be identifying further reductions in their existing programs? Does that statement mean that existing staff ceilings imposed on the various government departments will be further tightened and that employment opportunities in 1977 with the Commonwealth Public Service will be even more severely limited? Has the Public Service Board already been instructed to review its recruitment intake for next year? Will the Minister agree that there is now no justification for the Government to keep secret its existing staff ceiling decisions? Will the Government, in the public interest, make public any review it makes of restricted recruitment to the Commonwealth Public Service?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I thought that what the Government had said the actual numbers in the Public Service were at I think approximately this time last year and what we expected those numbers to be at 30 June next year was a matter of public knowledge. I did not think there was any secret about that matter.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am talking about individual government departments.

Senator WITHERS:

-I am talking about what the Government said. All I am saying is that there is no secret about the matter.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– What about the individual government departments?

Senator WITHERS:

-There is no secret about what the gross figures are.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Yes, there is.

Senator WITHERS:

-No. As I understand it, the gross figures were to be the number of operatives as at some date in December 1975.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I am talking about individual departments.

Senator WITHERS:

-Well, I am not. I am saying that the Prime Minister has made quite clear what was the size of the Public Service as at a time last year and what we expect it to be as at 30 June next year. The whole matter is quite simple. We saw over 3 years that there was such a shift of resources from the private sector to the public sector that the previous Government almost bankrupted this country and brought about the greatest amount of unemployment we have seen since the Depression years.

Opposition senators interjecting-

Senator WITHERS:

– Whether one likes it or not, the only way the economy and full employment will be restored is by a shift back from the public sector to the private sector. The Government is committed to that and will continue to pursue that aim.

page 2214

QUESTION

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I shall draw the honourable senator’s question to the attention of the Prime Minister.

page 2214

QUESTION

RADIOACTIVE WASTE

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development. Is he aware of a question asked by Mr Barnard of Mr Garland on 14 September 1972? Mr Garland said the following day:

All radioactive waste buried at three places in Australia, Monte Bello, Emu and Maralinga, resulted from experiments conducted at those places.

Is the Minister able to say what radioactive material is buried at those places. What is the lifespan of the material or of the containers in which the material was buried? Has the maintenance of this area been brought to the attention of the Government? What precautions have been taken in the past or are proposed to be taken in the future to ensure that the radioactive waste is not exposed to the atmosphere or interfered with? What measures have been taken to ensure that the full knowledge of the existence of the material is passed from government to government and generation to generation? In view of the Government’s decision on the Fox inquiry and the potential danger to the Australian people from the lethal legacy of the past, will the Minister undertake to raise as a matter of urgency with the appropriate Minister the issues I have raised which he may not have had brought to his attention.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-It probably will not surprise honourable senators to learn that I am not aware of a question asked on 14 September 1 972. That being so, I ask the honourable senator to put his question on notice.

page 2214

QUESTION

DIVORCE APPLICATIONS IN VICTORIA

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– Has the attention of the Minister representing the Attorney-General been drawn to a Press report concerning delays in the hearing of applications under the Family Law Act in Victoria? According to the report the defended cases involving custody, maintenance or property issues face a delay of up to 3 years; preliminary hearings to find out whether any agreement can be reached between the parties will not be held for about 5 months; and divorce applications face a 7-month wait. While conceding that there has been a flood of divorce applications since January which has probably contributed to the delays, I ask: Will the Minister have the matter investigated to see whether steps can be taken to appoint more judges and initiate other steps to reduce the delays?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-The Attorney-General’s attention has been drawn to the article. He does not dispute the projections of likely delays based on the present number of judges. However, it should be borne in mind that the rate of filing applications for divorce in the Melbourne registry has fallen from a weekly average of 500 to 600 earlier in the year to fewer than 200 at present. The Family Court judges in Melbourne are certainly faced with a very heavy volume of work. They are working extremely hard to do the best they can. The Attorney has already indicated- I think I have already said this in the Senate on his behalf- that he is considering the appointment of further judges to the Family Court in Melbourne. However, there is a problem. That is the availability of premises. The accommodation which was arranged by the previous Government for the Family Court in Melbourne provided space for only 6 judges. At present there are such 7 judges in Victoria and the Attorney has had to take steps to acquire larger and more permanent premises. He has done this in Marland House but these premises will not be ready for occupation until March 1977. If more judges are to be appointed immediately there is the problem of how they will be fitted in before March next year.

page 2215

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT IN THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY

Senator RYAN:

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations inform the Senate of the extent of unemployment in the entertainment industry, in particular the number of actors and musicians registered as unemployed? Will he confirm or deny the report that such unemployment has now reached 80 per cent? Is there any attempt by the Government to monitor increased unemployment where it is the direct result of Government policy, for example, the unemployment caused in the entertainment industry by the Government’s refusal to allocate adequate funds to the Australian Broadcasting Commission?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I certainly do not carry figures of that sort in my head; nor would I expect the Minister whom I represent to do so. I will pass the questions requiring specific details on to the Minister whom I represent and endeavour to obtain an early answer.

page 2215

QUESTION

DEVALUATION: OVERSEAS AID

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, relates to the effect of devaluation on Australia’s development assistance and overseas aid program. Will the devaluation decision adversely affect the amount and value of the present program? If so, and in view of the Government’s claim that there will be an increase in the amount of Government aid in the current year, can the Minister say whether there will be any review of the program in a number of spheres, particularly in relation to the activities of voluntary agencies?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I will seek that information from the Foreign Minister.

page 2215

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION STAFF

Senator HARRADINE:
TASMANIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications aware of the decision of the Australian Broadcasting Commission Staff Association and the Australian Journalists Association in Tasmania not to participate in the current strike activity? Is he aware that the decision of the leaders of those organisations was supported by the rank and file of the organisations in Tasmania? Is he further aware of the appreciation of the people of Tasmania of the ABC’s services and their preference for a high degree of local content in ABC news and current affairs programs? Is he also aware of the concern that there may be cuts in ABC staff in Tasmania which could result in news and current affairs programs coming under the control of people in Sydney and Melbourne and Tasmania thus being flooded by the miasma from the mainland? Will the Minister raise these matters of concern with the ABC so as to ensure that there is no dislocation of the work force of the ABC in Tasmania?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– My understanding is that, as Senator Harradine said, in Tasmania the ABC Staff Association and the Australian Journalists Association resolved not to participate in the current strike activity and that this resolution was supported by the rank and file. Equally, my understanding is that the people of Tasmania have a high interest in and regard for the type of service, particularly local news and local information services, provided by the Australian Broadcasting Commission. That is a viewpoint shared by many people throughout Australia. I am not aware of a suggestion that there will be significant staff cuts or the implication that they will result in a loss of local content in news and information reporting. I can understand the concern of the people of Tasmania in that regard. I will bring the matter to the attention of the Minister for Post and Telecommunications and invite him to discuss it with the ABC and, in the course of so doing, to stress the importance that the people of Tasmania place on local news content and reporting.

page 2215

QUESTION

DAIRY INDUSTRY

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Can the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry say whether the recent devaluation decision could alter the recommendations in the Industries Assistance Commission report on dairying industry marketing arrangements presented in September this year? Will the Government delay any action on this report in order to observe the effects of the devaluation on the industry and to provide time to assess the effects of the downturn in production due to changes in seasonal conditions since the recommendations were made?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-I think it ought to be expected that assistance to any sector will have to be subject to, in effect, new scrutiny as to the effects from now on. One cannot say any more than that. I have noted with great fascination the facile comments of some people as to how all these things ought to be handled although it has not been said in this chamber. Quite clearly this is a situation which requires new examination factor by factor in every case.

page 2216

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. It follows previous questions asked about the Australian Broadcasting Commission. I refer the Minister to Press reports of the 2 previous meetings of the Commission. I ask: Has the Chairman of the ABC, Sir Henry Bland, yet made any approach to the Government for increased funds to the ABC to meet current cost increases? I particularly refer the Minister to current public concern regarding this matter of which he may be aware.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I am not aware that the Chairman of the ABC has yet made such an approach. He may well have done so in the immediate past. I will seek the information for the honourable senator.

page 2216

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Senator CHANEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications is in part pre-empted by the question just asked by Senator Button. I ask the Minister: Can he advise the Senate whether the Australian Broadcasting Commission budget for 1976-77, which was approved by the Government, included any allowance for increases in wages of employees of the Commission during that year? If it did not, is the effect of quarterly Conciliation and Arbitration Commission decisions to impose costs on the ABC for which no provision has been made in the Budget, resulting in a need to prune budgeted activity? The last part of my question is really the point Senator Button raised- whether there was any approach to the Government on this point and whether the Government had made any decision- and that of course has been answered.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– My understanding is that in the original Budget appropriations some provision was made for cost escalation by way of wage and salary increases.

Senator Button:

– A misunderstanding, senator.

Senator CARRICK:

– If that is a misunderstanding then I will have it investigated. If it is I will have it reported both to Senator Chaney and to Senator Button, but it is a normal situation to include such provision. It is equally my understanding that the most recent meeting of the ABC discussed the question of such costs and it was with that in mind that I considered that there would be in the future an approach by the Chairman of the Commission to the Government on this matter. I was not aware whether that had in fact taken place already.

page 2216

QUESTION

TELECOM AUSTRALIA: PURCHASE OF MATERIALS

Senator WRIEDT:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. I ask the Minister: Will he send me a copy of the answer to the question he has just been asked, because I asked him the same question a fortnight ago and I still have not received a reply? I further ask: Is the Minister aware that $252m worth of materials will be manufactured in Australia for Telecom Australia in the financial year 1976-77? Is he also aware that of that figure only $1.1 5m worth of materials, or less than half of 1 per cent, will be manufactured in Tasmania? In order to give a greater impetus to industries in the smaller States, will the Minister propose to the Government that manufacturing suppliers in the larger States be assured of future purchases of their products if they are prepared to establish industries in such States as Tasmania? Is the Government prepared to initiate discussions with the Tasmanian Government with a view to achieving this objective?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am certainly happy to let Senator Wriedt have a copy of the answer. I am not aware that there is a question of his with an answer outstanding. I will correct the situation and certainly let him have an answer. As to the question concerning Telecom Australia, I simply draw his attention to the fact that the present Federal Government has acted with promptitude in setting up a major inquiry into Tasmanian industry. It is an inquiry which could well have been undertaken some years ago to ascertain the kind of manufacturing and the kind of industries, particularly labour intensive industries, that could best be set up in Tasmania and how best Tasmania could be helped. I remind the honourable senator that because of the freight equalisation policies that have been brought in by the Fraser Government Tasmania has some chance at last to have some equality of competition with the other States. I shall seek out the information in regard to the remainder of the honourable senator’s question and let him have it.

page 2216

QUESTION

YELLOW PAGES BUSINESS DIRECTORY

Senator BAUME:

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. Are the yellow pages business directory telephone books for Sydney now issued in 4 volumes divided on a geographical basis? If so, do subscribers in any one area receive from Telecom Australia only the directory for their own area? Does that mean that many subscribers do not receive a directory covering the central business district for their city? Will the Minister seek from Telecom a re-examination of the present distribution practice to take into account the undoubted need for businessmen living in one of the suburban business centres to have readily available to them the classified directory for the central business district as well as that for their own suburban area?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have some information on the yellow pages business directory. Information on that matter has been sought from me on previous occasions. The information I have is that under the new arrangements whereby 4 regional buying guides are printed, one for each of the areas outlined on the map which appears on the outside back cover of the new books, all subscribers receive their own local area buying guide directory and business subscribers receive in addition the single volume commercial /industrial issue covering the full metropolitan area. However, a copy of the commercial/industrial book or any regional buying guide not initially supplied will be available to any metropolitan subscriber free of charge on request to his local Telecom Australia business office or the larger post offices.

page 2217

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, concerns the Australian Broadcasting Commission. Has the attention of the Minister been drawn to the wide support in South Australia for actions taken by those who want the implementation of the recommendations of the Green inquiry stayed and who want to restrict the present cuts, particularly in local news broadcasting? I refer to the retiring Governor of South Australia, to Dr Tonkin, the Leader of the Opposition in South Australia, and to the State Premier, the latter two of whom yesterday said during a public appeal which was made in Adelaide to a very large audience that they had made representations to the Government asking for those 2 things? Will the Minister examine those statements and have them transmitted to his colleague for consideration at some future date?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I have not seen the comments. I will have them sought out and brought to the notice of my colleague.

page 2217

QUESTION

URANIUM: FOX REPORT

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 the reports that Mr Justice Fox and his colleagues have written to the Minister urging extreme caution on the interpretation of their first report. If these reports are true, will the Government deem the entire Alligator River system off limits to uranium extraction and regard the area as being suitable for acceptance as part of the world heritage under the Convention for the Protection of World Culture and Natural Heritage?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I presume that Senator Mulvihill is referring to a newspaper report this morning.

Senator Mulvihill:

– The Australian Financial Review.

Senator CARRICK:

-Senator Mulvihill is referring to a report in this morning’s Australian Financial Review claiming that the Ranger inquiry commissioners had written to the Minister criticising the Government for its interpretation of the first report. I am instructed that the Minister has indicated that such a letter has not come into his hands, nor has his office or Department been able to locate such a letter. That is my instruction. As to the second part of the question, as I understand it, no decision will be made in respect of the matter until after the second report of the Fox Commission is received.

page 2217

QUESTION

THE SENATE

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– My question, which is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, concerns the importance of the Senate in the legislative process of Australia and particularly as it relates to the less populous States. As the maintenance of the Senate is something that I would expect all members of this chamber to defend strenuously, can the Minister advise what effect there would be, particularly on Tasmania, if the Senate were abolished as is proposed by the so-called Bowen constitution?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-As I have always understood the voting patterns in Australia, the abolition of the Senate would deliver Australia into the hands of the voters of Sydney and Melbourne. I thought that that was the greater part of our problem in the past 3 years under the Labor Government. It was a government which was interested in Sydney and Melbourne, a government which neglected the rest of Australia. We saw the rural industries ruined and the mining industries wrecked as part of its policy. As I understand it, the whole of the federal system was brought about by the fact that there had to be a balancing between those who lived in the less populous States and those who lived in the major population centres of Australia. Without the Senate there would not have been a federation. Why the members of the Australian Labor Party still persist with what is to them their very interesting notion of abolishing the Senate rather escapes me. The most that can be said about their reason for wishing to have the Senate abolished is that its abolition would give them unfettered power arising out of the more populous States of Australia. One would have thought that senators coming from Tasmania, Western Australia or South Australia could never see much merit in that sort of proposition.

The other thing that has always interested me is why the Australian Labor Party should continue with its wish for the abolition of the Senate when, by its own admission, the Senate is the only democratically elected house of parliament in Australia. That, as I said, is the Labor Party’s admission. Honourable senators will recall that in 1 974 as part of the 4 referendum proposals put up by the Whitlam Government there was one concerning democratic elections. The interesting part of that proposal was that it sought to reform the voting habits of every parliamentary chamber in Australia except the Senate. One assumes, therefore, that there must already have been democratic elections for the Senate and, on Labor’s own admission, that there were not democratic elections for any of the other chambers in Australia, not even for the House of Representatives where at the time Labor held power. Apparently, the members of the ALP thought that they came to power undemocratically in 1972 and that their colleagues in a number of States also had come to power undemocratically.

Senator Grimes:

– You are off the air now.

Senator WITHERS:

– As I say, on their own admission, this was the only chamber in the Australian parliaments which had been elected democratically. I say to Senator Grimes, who interjected, that I do not care whether my words are being broadcast. What I am saying is so good that even the honourable senator ought to listen; he might learn something. Obviously, he has not learnt much in the years since there was written into the Labor Party’s policy and platform the proposal that the Senate ought to be abolished. I note with great interest that whilst the Whitlam

Government in a period of some 6 or 7 months promoted 6 different referenda, it never at any stage had sufficient courage to promote one on the abolition of the Senate. So whilst members of the Australian Labor Party may talk in that way, they evidently do not have the courage to take that proposition to the people.

page 2218

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT: SCHOOL LEAVERS

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– I direct a question to the Minister for Social Security. In answer to a question by Senator Georges earlier this afternoon the Minister said that reasonable steps to obtain employment have to be taken by unemployed persons in order to be eligible for the unemployment benefit. Are reasonable steps to obtain employment a prerequisite for all payments of unemployment benefit? Is this requirement applied individually to all persons applying for the unemployment benefit? Will this criterion apply individually to all school leavers? Does not the Minister agree that such discretionary powers cannot apply to a section of the community collectively? In the light of confusion in the minds of many thousands of Australian school leavers and parents, will the Minister make a public statement clarifying her instructions about eligibility and entitlement to unemployment benefit?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

-Several statements have been made throughout this year with regard to the Government’s policy concerning unemployment benefit for school leavers. In recent weeks several questions have been asked on this subject in the Senate which have also received some publicity. The matter with regard to reasonable steps being taken to obtain employment is something that is capable of interpretation. As to those who are already members of the work force, their applications to the Commonwealth Employment Service for employment are regarded as taking steps to obtain employment. As to those students who have just completed their years at school it is not regarded as having taken sufficient steps simply to make application for employment to the Commonwealth Employment Service. Many students are at this stage awaiting the results of examinations. They are unable to present themselves to employers with the qualifications which they may hope to hold later in the year. We have made certain requirements with regard to taking steps to obtain employment and those have been made public. If it is felt that further statements should be made with regard to this matter I would be quite happy to make them. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has also made clear the Government’s policy in this connection. All officers of the Commonwealth Employment Service and the Department of Social Security are aware of the Government’s policy and the way in which it is to be interpreted. If the honourable senator feels that further public statements should be made I shall be happy to make them if that will clarify the position for him.

page 2219

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I ask: Can the Minister tell us what occurred between 22 November and 28 November that resulted in the deterioration of Australia’s financial standing overseas? On 22 November the Treasurer, speaking to the Queensland Branch of the Economic Society of Australia, stated:

  1. . Australia’s international credit standing is second to none . . . The fact that the Government is readily able to borrow overseas is, of course, a sign of strength.

On 28 November, when there was a reduction of 17½ per cent in the value of the Australian dollar, the Treasurer stated:

The Government has been forced to devalue . . because of the deterioration that had occurred over recent years in Australia ‘s underlying external situation.

What happened between those 2 dates to cause the change from the great position of second to none in the world to a deterioration of Australia’s external situation?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-I recommend to the honourable senator that he wait to hear the full statement.

page 2219

COMMONWEALTH GRANTS COMMISSION

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– For the information of honourable senators, I present the third report, for 1976, of the Commonwealth Grants Commission on financial assistance for local government. Due to the limited number available at this time, reference copies of this report have been placed in the Senate Records Office and the Parliamentary Library.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– by leave- I move:

That the Senate take note of the paper.

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted, debate adjourned.

page 2219

PETROLEUM SEARCH SUBSIDY ACT

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– Pursuant to section 12 of the Petroleum Search Subsidy

Act 1959,I present a statement on the operation of that Act during the year ended 30 June 1976.

That the Senate take note of the paper.

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2219

INTERNATIONAL SUGAR AGREEMENT

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

– For the information of honourable senators I present a resolution concerning the further extension of the International Sugar Agreement of 1 973.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

-by leave- I move:

That the Senate take note of the paper.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2219

AUSTRALIAN APPLE AND PEAR CORPORATION

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

– Pursuant to section 37 of the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation Act 1 973I present the annual report of the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation for the year ended 30 June 1 976.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

-by leave- I move:

That the Senate take note of the paper.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2219

DAIRY ADJUSTMENT

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 South Australia relating to that Act.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

-by leave- I move:

That the Senate take note of the paper.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2219

SCHOOLS COMMISSION PROGRAMS

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– Pursuant to section 59 of the States Grants (Schools) Act 1973I present a statement on financial assistance granted to each State through Schools Commission programs during the 1975 calendar year.

page 2220

POSTGRADUATE AWARD SCHEME

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present a report on the Postgraduate Award Scheme. Due to the limited number available, reference copies of this report have been placed in the Senate Records Office and the Parliamentary Library.

page 2220

MEDICAL RESEARCH ENDOWMENT

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– Pursuant to section 9 of the Medical Research Endowment Act 1937 I present a report on the work done under that Act during 1974.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2220

A.C.T. ELECTRICITY AUTHORITY

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

– Pursuant to section 33 of the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Supply Act 1962 I present the annual report of the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority for the year ended 30 June 1976.

page 2220

ANIMAL FOODS

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans ‘ Affairs · LP

-For the information of honourable senators I present the report of the Industries Assistance Commission on animal foods, etc.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

-by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2220

AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION TO INDONESIA, SINGAPORE AND MALAYSIA

Senator McINTOSH:
Western Australia

-I present the official report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia, the visit of which took place between 23 June and 15 July this year. As only a limited number of copies of the report are available, copies have been lodged in the Senate Records Office for the information of honourable senators. Mr President, I seek leave to make a brief statement relating to this report.

Mr PRESIDENT:

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

Senator McINTOSH:

-On reading the draft of this report I realised that there was not much time to add anything to the report but I felt that I should pass a few remarks on the report. On page 6 of the report the delegation which visited Malaysia stated that in Malaysia there were signs of the development of certain industries manufacturing materials, parts and finished goods for export to Australia. One particular firm which we visited bragged quite openly that it would be paying off some 400 or 500 men in the Australiabased firm because of the amount of goods it was exporting from Malaysia. In looking through this factory I found that all the machinery had been introduced in 1973, 1974 and 1975- it was rather sophisticated machinery- and that people were being paid about $ 1 a day. A home-based firm in Australia, no matter what it did- even if the workers worked for absolutely nothingwould not be able to compete with an overseasbased firm. The report mentions that the Government may be called upon to make some serious decisions about the future of certain manufaturing industries, and I hope that the Government will pay attention to this report. I repeat that if an Australian worker worked for absolutely nothing there would still be no way in which the Australia-based company could compete against industries abroad, and there seems to be no restriction on the outflow of capital to those industries.

Further on the report refers to Timor, and anyone reading page 1 5 of the section on Timor will find reference to discussions with the Indonesians. General Panngabean was rather frank and decided to drop all the diplomatic jargon. He was very frank indeed and we replied in the same frank manner. No punches were pulled in the meeting with General Panngabean, and I thought I should report that to the Senate. The outcome of the confrontation, and that is all it could be called, was a mutual respect for our opposing views on East Timor. The General eventually invited me to accompany him on a visit to East Timor at some future date. That is not important in itself, but it is important that the record is kept straight. It would appear from a reading of this report that the affair was one sided, and I can assure the Senate that it certainly was not.

page 2221

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave- When this Government came to office the Australian economy was in the grip of its most serious post-war recession and inflation was still well into double digits. At the end of 1975 the private sector was employing no more people than it had been 3 years earlier, although the labour force had grown by 370 000. Unemployment was at about 4.5 per cent and had remained at that level throughout the year. Nonfarm production was still about 5 per cent below its level 2 years earlier and the farm sector was in a state of collapse. Company profits had fallen absolutely in 1974-75 and their share in total income remained depressed well below the longrun average and business investment was falling. The consumer price index in December was 14 per cent higher than a year earlier, and inflation showed no real prospect of a sustained downward shift. Right at the heart of the problem, particularly the inflation problem, was the unrealistic view held by the Labor Governmentour opponents in this House- as to the role of the public sector.

Quite unrealistic views were also fostered in the community about future incomes and the capacity of the economy to sustain those incomes. The expectations aroused by our predecessors have bedevilled the economy to this day. Even so, under the policies that have been pursued by this Government significant progress has been made in reducing the rate of inflation and in setting the economy on a path towards sustainable growth in output and activity. Suggestions that the Government’s economic strategy has failed are without foundation; what has not been possible is the continuation of efforts to hold the exchange rate. It has not been possible because of the obvious limitations in the extent to which reliance can be placed on any single instruments of economic policy. Let me repeat: Assertions that the Government’s economic strategy has not worked neglect the achievements that are the result of that strategy.

The rate of inflation has moderated in each quarter since the 5.6 per cent increase in prices recorded in the December quarter of last year. Prices increased 3 per cent in the March quarter, 2.5 per cent in the June quarter and 2.2 per cent in the September quarter. Figures published recently show that Australia ‘s rate of inflation is now broadly in line with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average. Industrial production has firmed since July. Activity in the housing sector remains buoyant. Registrations of new passenger vehicles have recovered to more normal levels, following the sharp decline in July and August due to the introduction of more stringent emission control standards. The weakening in the labour market has been largely arrested over the course of the September quarter.

There are also currently some fundamental differences in the economy compared with a year ago which, taken together, point clearly in the direction of continued growth. First, the growth in the June half year occurred despite a decline in government demand- momentum for growth lay entirely in the private sector. Secondly, recovery in many of the world’s major economies has consolidated. Thirdly, as a result of these factors, and the moderation in the rate of inflation, many of the distortions inflicted on the economy during 1974-75 have begun to correct themselves; for example, business profitability has grown and the saving ratio has declined. Fourthly, and connected with the foregoing, consumer confidence and business confidence have been improving and are higher than a year ago. Fifthly, the shake out in stocks which depressed products during 1975 appears to have run its course.

I turn now to the measures that the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) announced on behalf of the Government on Sunday evening. In large pan, the devaluation was forced on the Government by the deterioration in the underlying external situation which occurred during the period of the previous Government. When our predecessors came to office, Australia’s international reserves stood at an all time record level of $4.6 billion. By the time the present Government took office a substantial part of those reserves had been squandered away. They fell by no less than $ 1,600m during the previous government’s period of office to stand at less than $3,000m at 12 December 1975. The number of months’ cover of reserves to imports fell from 13.5 in 1972-73 to 4.4 in 1975-76.

There were a number of fundamental reasons for this extreme weakening in Australia’s external position. An important element in the deterioration was the falling away of overseas investment. During the 3 years from the beginning of 1973 to the end of 1975 annual total private capital inflow averaged only $2 15m, compared with an average annual inflow of $1,0 80m in the previous 5 years. The factors behind this fall-off are well known. Our opponents in this House literally drove overseas capital away by their hostile and narrow ideological attitudes to foreign investors and by the domestic economic policies they pursued.

These policies completely failed to come to grips with inflation- indeed they greatly exacerbated it. The Labor Government, by its own policies, initiated a wage explosion of unprecedented magnitude. First, it lent general support to excessive union claims, particularly in submissions before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Secondly, it deliberately pushed up wages, and more significantly, promoted improved conditions of service for Commonwealth employees in a pace-setting way that had highly significant flow-on effects throughout the community. As a result there was a dramatic deterioration in the international competitive position of Australian industry. After allowing for the effect of exchange rate changes, wage costs in Australia increased by 15 per cent more than the increase in our trading partners between 1972 and 1975.

In the last 6 years, wages in Australia’s manufacturing industry increased by 130 per cent, compared with 53 per cent in the United States and 70 per cent in West Germany. This single fact, more than any other, serves to demonstrate the extent of the problem which the present Government inherited when it took office. Not only did we have to get Australia’s cost inflation rate down to that which was being experienced by our competitors; we also had to try to make up the ground that was lost during those 3 disastrous years. From the outset this Government sought to hold the exchange rate as part of our anti-inflation strategy. We did so with the full knowledge that the Australian dollar was overvalued and that economic developments, particularly the disparity in Australia ‘s cost structure compared with other countries, could have justified a variation in the exchange rate earlier this year. To this end we resumed official borrowing overseas as necessary to support the overall level of reserves. At the same time we moved to bring down, as rapidly as possible, cost and price increases in order to restore our competitive position. In addition we have acted to encourage a resumption of private capital inflow more consistent with our development needs. We have made it clear to foreign investors that they have a role to play in Australia’s development and that we welcome their involvement in partnership with Australians. These efforts led to the development of extensive investment proposals that were, in spite of approval in many cases by the Foreign Investment Review Board, not being implemented.

I turn now to a vital determinant in the weakening of Australia’s external position, particularly in recent months- speculation about the Australian dollar. It is a matter of the greatest concern that senior members of the Opposition in the House of Representatives should have fuelled speculation about devaluation by their public comments since December of last year. It will be recalled that the former Treasurer, the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) predicted during the last election campaign that a Liberal-National Country Party Government would devalue the dollar if confirmed in office at the election. Those remarks, made during a halfhour television debate with Mr Lynch as Treasurer in the then caretaker Government, greatly added to the speculation during the Christmas-New Year period of last year when Australia lost in excess of $600m of reserves. On 19 February of this year, the Opposition spokesman on economic matters, the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) said:

Costs of production in Australia are out of line with overseas costs at the present exchange rate, so that the import competing sector will continue to lose ground to imported goods. And a further devaluation scare . . . must be expected at any time.

On 7 September the honourable member for Oxley said publicly that Blind Freddy and his dog could see that the Australian dollar was over-valued and he went on to say that devaluation was inevitable and gave support to the figure of 15 per cent. Those grossly irresponsible comments were headlined in all of Australia’s major newspapers and led directly to a weakening of Australia’s reserves position. The honourable member for Oxley is quoted in some parts of yesterday’s Press as saying that the decision was inevitable and, in other parts, describing it as madness. His comments yesterday reflect only his naked complicity in developing a climate for profiteers to make a killing at the expense of the nation. In recent weeks the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Uren) has persistently questioned Mr Lynch in the Parliament about the exchange rate and loss of reserves. In one such question on 1 1 November, having listed the loss in reserves in previous months, the Deputy Leader described the position as a disaster.

It is also a matter for concern that the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission should have been part of the general speculation about devaluation. In awarding its recent wage increase, which was contrary to the whole thrust of the Government’s attempts to restore Australia’s competitive position, the Commission saw fit to cast public doubt on the future position of the currency. By doing this the Commission greatly worsened a situation which was in no small way due to its previous decisions to increase wages at a rate beyond the economy’s capacity to absorb. In all these circumstances, the Government was unable to prevent the continuing decline in reserves. The rate of loss of reserves, aside from Government borrowing, in fact increased significantly in recent months, with a fall of around $850m since the end of July- almost 4 times the amount the Government was able to borrow overseas in that period. In September reserves declined by $204m, excluding overseas borrowings; in October reserves fell by $269m; up to 26 November there was a further fall of over $260m.

This decline in reserves had continued despite the additional monetary measures announced on 7 November and left official reserves at 26 November at around $2, 100m, sufficient to cover less than 3 months’ imports. To be precise, reserves were covered by just 2.7 months of imports last Friday. Moreover, the level of reserves, net of borrowings, was becoming increasingly untenable relative to the current account position that was in prospect. I emphasise, in this connection, that the Government faced the prospect of an even greater rate of outflow around the end December/early January period and I remind the Senate that more than $600m flowed out of Australia during the equivalent period last year.

As Mr Lynch said on Sunday night, to have allowed the situation to deteriorate further would have been to admit the possibility of enormous speculative gains, with consequent costs to the authorities. The fact is that, faced with the rundown in reserves, there were only 2 alternatives. The options put to the Government by its advisers were devaluation or borrowing on official account of the order of $1 billion to shore up the reserves position. In these circumstances the Government could have allowed the situation to drift on and attempted to arrange further borrowings overseas to finance what could inevitably have been further outflows of private capital. The announcement of large additional borrowings, in a situation where our underlying external situation remained out of line with our competitors would have had perverse effects leading to an escalating increase in the rate of loss of reserves. Such a loss, together with any additional borrowings the Government had been able to undertake, would have involved enormous costs to the authorities in the event that we were forced to make an exchange adjustment.

Further to that, the most recent decision of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission effectively put paid to any prospect of restoring, within a tolerable time span, the competitiveness of Australia’s industries by purely domestic policies. Beyond all of the foregoing considerations the Government would not have been able to borrow funds on private markets sufficient to cover the rate at which reserves were running down over recent months and, particularly, to cover the loss that was in prospect over the Christmas period. A possible drawing of some $ 1 billion from the International Monetary Fund would only have bridged the situation temporarily. Given these facts no responsible government would have acted differently to the present Administration. We were not prepared to put the national interest in hock. We were not prepared to let profiteers take this country to the cleaners. I have no doubt that our opponents in the Senate would have chosen the opposite course- they would have employed another person to raise $4 billion.

Senator McLaren:

– Why did you not mention Khemlani as Mr Lynch did?

Senator COTTON:

-I refer to the name Khemlani.

Senator McLaren:

– It is in the statement.

Senator COTTON:

-Yes, it is. I shall read it again. I have no doubt that our opponents in the Senate would have chosen the opposite coursethey would have employed another Khemlani to raise $4 billion.

I turn now to the size of the devaluation. It should be clearly understood that nothing would have been achieved by a devaluation that was insufficient. An inadequate devaluation would have failed to restore our competitive position and would not have been believed. That would have left great uncertainty in the minds of business and investors. The Government is fully aware of the potential for increased capital inflow. Indeed it is a primary objective of the devaluation to increase the level of inflow. We will be monitoring closely external developments, including developments in capital inflow. The Government has indicated that the rate will be administered flexibly. Adjustments will be made to the rate having regard to overall external and domestic policy objectives, particularly the monetary policy objectives. Under the new pattern of management of the exchange rate a trade-weighted average rate will continue to be computed daily on the same basis as previously. However, the exchange rate will no longer necessarily be pegged on a fixed relationship to the basket of currencies. Instead it will be kept under review and varied as appropriate in the context of overall management of the economy.

The new pattern of management of the exchange rate will enable more frequent, more timely and smaller adjustments to be made to the rate; is appropriate to the changing nature of the world economy and to Australia’s international trade relationship; is designed to avoid the build-up of and expectations of major changes at long intervals in the rate; will permit the use of the exchange rate as appropriate as a more flexible arm of policy; and will require little or no institutional changes.

The new arrangements are a further step in the development of the Australian foreign exchange system. A close watch will need to be maintained in order to see how things develop from this point. There are elements in the new system which must be held close, in particular the management objectives used in determining the variable link to the basket of currencies. Otherwise, the system would lose flexibility and there would be a strong possibility of speculation against the central bank. Exaggerated fears have been expressed about possible effects of increased capital inflow on domestic liquidity. The Government will not allow any such developments to occur. Such investment capital will be an important ingredient in ensuring the continued recovery in economic activity. The reserve losses of recent months should be reversed as the delays in export receipts and early payment of imports, which have been induced by exchange rate uncertainties, are in turn reversed.

The Government’s action has been criticised on the grounds that it will lead to further inflation. Unlike the devaluation of our predecessors in September 1974 that took place at a time when inflation was running at a quarterly rate of some 5 per cent, Sunday night’s announcement was against the background of a moderating rate of inflation from 5.6 per cent in the December quarter of last year to 2.2 per cent in the most recent quarter. The devaluation will, of course, affect prices to some extent, even though stringent offsetting measures have been simultaneously taken. In particular, the price of imported goods will be higher, in terms of Australian dollars. But imports account for only around 16 per cent of the gross domestic product and, further to that, the prices of all imported products would not be expected to rise by the extent of the devaluation.

The overall price-raising effects of devaluation depend very much on the circumstances in which the measure occurs; devaluation necessarily has a lesser impact at the early stages of recovery than it does when activity is at full swing. When demand is still short of capacity, as it is at present, there is scope and incentive for business to increase output rather than to increase prices. In fact, some costs should actually fall as a result of devaluation. An overvalued exchange rate has prevented import-competing and export industries from approaching their most efficient scale of output. In these circumstances devaluation can be expected actually to lower unit costs in some industries. The price impact must also be assessed against the accompanying measures. Unlike the circumstances of the last devaluation in September 1974, when there were no offsetting measures taken by the former Government, there has been a significant toughening of monetary, fiscal and wages policies. The favourable effects of devaluation will therefore be allowed to work through the economy in an appropriate domestic setting, by comparison with the former Government’s devaluation which was followed by a substantial easing of fiscal and monetary policies.

I emphasise that the package has been designed to counteract, to a significant extent, the inflation impact of devaluation. The monetary measures will contain the effects of devaluation on domestic liquidity; they will not, and I repeat ‘not’, lead to any excessive tightening of liquidity. The Government’s policy remains that monetary growth will be sufficient to underwrite economic recovery without being accommodating to inflation. Normal financing requirements of business and the housing industry will be met. The fiscal measures will support the Government’s monetary policy and maintain a balance in overall policy. The measures which will be taken on the wages front will prevent, to the maximum extent possible, the feed-through of any price rises into general wage increases.

Our opponents in the House of Representatives and in the Senate, who have sought to undermine Australia’s external position, have demonstrated again their capacity for hypocrisy and double standards. The devaluation of September 1974 was a panic reaction to the credit squeeze which the former Government’s policies caused. It devalued at a time of near record high inflation and when average weekly earnings were running at unprecedented levels. It took no measures at all to counteract the price effects of devaluation. It acted at a time when reserves were at a level of nearly $3 billion, or almost $ 1 billion higher than recorded at the end of last week. At the end of September 1974 the ratio of reserves to imports was equal to 4.8 months cover; as at 26 November of this year, last Friday, the equivalent figure was 2.7.

In addition to all of this, our predecessors leaked their decision to devalue in such a way that speculative profits were made on the London Stock Exchange. The former Government’s decision to devalue was taken at around 10 p.m. on Tuesday, 24 September. The announcement was timed for 6 a.m. on Wednesday, 25 September, when financial markets would be closed. The record shows that the Melbourne Sun reported the devaluation, including the figure of 12 per cent, and the story in question was put together at around 1 1 p.m. on 24 Septembersome one hour after the decision was taken. Subsequently, at around 1.30 a.m. on 25 September, Reuters reported the Melbourne Sun story. The Reuters news report was made public at around 4.30 p.m. on 24 September in London and led to immediate trading action on the London market during the final part of the day’s trading. The present Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives (Mr E. G. Whitlam) refused to answer questions in the Parliament on the following day and refused to initiate an appropriate investigation. In short, the scandal surrounding the leakage of information- an act which under our parliamentary system of government requires the resignation of the Treasurer- was covered up by the present Leader of the Opposition and his ministerial colleagues. What I have said illustrates the blatant opportunism of the criticism that has been made by the Opposition of my announcement last Sunday.

The Government’s measures have support. For example, the majority of State PremiersPremiers Hamer, Court and Petersen and Labor Premier Neilson- have welcomed the package. The Government’s measures have, undeniably, a number of major advantages for important sectors within the economy. The devaluation of the dollar will greatly improve the profitability of

Australia’s export and import-competing industries and underwrite Australia’s external situation. The rural sector, which has suffered a disastrous fall in real income in recent years, will now receive substantially higher prices for its exports and its ability to expand market shares will be enhanced. The annual rate of rural exports, currently running at $4.5 billion, should increase by at least $700m.

In the mining sector, which is an important focal point for economic growth, new ventures had become unprofitable and some existing mines had closed. The devaluation will restore the long run growth prospects for this sector and increase annual export returns significantlyperhaps by approaching half a billion dollars. The devaluation will also go a long way towards offsetting the effect of excessive wage increases on costs of manufacturing and service industries such as tourism, enhancing their competitive ability. The removal of uncertainty about the exchange rate will restore investor confidence. Firms will be encouraged to borrow overseas and long term foreign equity investment will increase.

In summary, the devaluation will restore balance between economic policies, easing the excessive burden that has built up on the external side. It will restore balance between economic sectors, easing the burdens on those vital areas of the economy that depend on world markets for their livelihood. Above all, it will remove uncertainty. Uncertainty about the exchange rate has bedevilled many aspects of the economy in recent days. Energy has been diverted from more productive ends into efforts to avoid the losses that large changes in the exchange rate entail. Uncertainty has stifled investment, most particularly investment from abroad. All that can now be put behind us. These are very substantial benefits.

There are, we acknowledge, costs in the decision we have taken. There will be an early addition to prices from the higher costs of imports. But we have acted, in the fiscal and monetary sphere, to do what we can by off-setting action. We have put in hand an examination of Commonwealth outlays to see where further restraint can be imposed. I look to this review to produce a final expenditure outcome that will be even lower than the Budget figure. The monetary measures announced are designed to soak up any excess liquidity that devaluation may bring in its train. No one can know with precision what may develop by way of capital inflows, but we stand ready to meet the situation as it emerges.

The Treasurer (Mr Lynch) stresses that the aim will be to soak up the extra liquidity that may result from devaluation. In that context, any talk of a credit squeeze is nonsense. The general monetary objectives remain- to foster conditions that will be conducive to economic recovery while keeping inflation to a minimum.

These actions, important though they are, will not be enough in themselves. Action will also be needed on the wage front. But others must play their part- in particular, of course, the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.

It is vital that the price effects of devaluation are not translated, through the indexation process, into a spiral of wage-price increases. Such an outcome would negate the benefits that devaluation will bring. The Government will not stand by and see that happen. Clearly, we need good sense by all who participate in the wagedetermination process. Given that, there is every reason for confidence in the gradual emergence of stable, prosperous conditions from which all Australians will benefit. The Government has acted in the national interest to give greater balance, and thereby greater strength, to the basic economic strategy that has been pursued since we came to office.

I move:

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The lengthy document just read by Senator Cotton on behalf of the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) is significant for 2 reasons: Firstly, it surely must rank as one of the most dog-in-the-manger statements that we have heard in this Parliament. Secondly, one would assume that if the case for devaluation set out in the statement was so convincing action would have been taken some time ago instead of the Government allowing to develop the very conditions for which it appears to condemn the Opposition because of statements which have been made by certain Opposition spokesmen. I will come back to that later.

It is a known fact that decisions to revalue or to devalue very often must be taken in the light of factors which a government does not completely control. It would be absurd to suggest that any Australian government is entirely responsible for its own decision to revalue or devalue the currency. During the term of the Labor Government we revalued twice and we devalued once. There were factors in our reserves position which have been referred to in the statement which amongst other things caused us to take those decisions.

The same also applies in respect of this Government. So it would be futile, I believe, for either side to suggest that these matters are entirely the fault of governments in isolation. There are to be considered factors such as world prices particularly and our capacity to earn overseas income which are of an international nature.

I do not intend to speak at length on this statement because having only just read it, it is too long a statement for one to comment on at length. But I must take issue with certain points which have been made in the statement. The first 2 pages are devoted entirely to an attack on the Labor Government during its 3 years in office. We are told in the statement that unemployment was at about 4’A per cent at the time the present Government took office and had remained at that level throughout the year. According to the latest figures that I have from the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) unemployment as at October 1975 was 4. 1 per cent. It surprises me that a document prepared by the Treasury could not be more specific than it has been. We now find that unemployment has increased since this Government took office and it now stands at 4.4. per cent. Unquestionably by the new year it will be well over 5 per cent when the full impact of this year’s school leavers is felt on the industrial market.

We are also told in this statement that the farm sector was in a state of collapse. Further on in the speech we are told that the farm incomes fell during the period of the Labor Government or in recent years, the implication being of course that the incomes of the rural sector declined. On page 1 5 of the statement it says:

The rural sector, which has suffered a disastrous fall in real income in recent years . . .

That is absolute garbage. It astounds me that the Treasury and the Treasurer would put their names to something that is factually incorrect. Anybody who had any knowledge of the rural sector during the last few years would know that net incomes in the rural sector in Australia were at their highest level during the period of the Labor Government, particularly in 1974, not because of any geniuses in the Labor Government at the time but because the market prices were right. It is just rubbish that a document of this nature can put down that sort of factually incorrect information. If that is the pattern of what is in the rest of this statement we can assume that the rest of it is just as factually unreliable as that part I have quoted.

The statement talks about unrealistic views which were also fostered in the community about future incomes. It was this very Government that opposed the powers that we sought over prices and incomes in 1973, powers which this Parliament should have and which I would suggest this Government today would give its right arm to have because it realises now the difficulty of containing these factors without those powers. The Press may have got on to something. A story in the Daily Mirror of today’s date, under the heading ‘Fraser seeks new powers’, reads:

The Fraser Government is planning ways to impose a virtual wage freeze on Australia ‘s 6 million workers.

The Government will introduce legislation to give it payfixing powers.

The article goes on about the Cabinet being angry about certain things, etc. It would be ludicrous to suggest that this Government is not wanting those very powers itself now and well may it want them. We were the ones who tried to impress on the Federal Government, on our opponents in 1973, and on the Australian people the need to have those powers at the federal level. We were not doing it just for the purpose of putting on a wage freeze. We realised the explosion in incomes which had to come as a result of the increase in liquidity which we inherited from our predecessors. That was why we had to impose restrictions on our overseas investments and the rate of inflow of capital into this country. We did not do it because we were antagonistic towards overseas investment as this garbage document would have one believe. We imposed those restraints because of the enormous increase in the money supply that was going on at that time. I notice in this statement that this Government is not unmindful of that because at page 1 7 it says:

The monetary measures I announced are designed to soak up any excess liquidity that devaluation may bring in its train … I stress that the aim will be to soak up the extra liquidity that may result from devaluation. In that context, any talk of a credit squeeze is nonsense.

In other words, this Government is saying it will keep a proper rein on the rate of increase of overseas capital into this country. It might well do that because if there is one area in which there has been a more common approach towards the problems of management of this country by the 2 major parties it has been specifically this area. The objectives of the Foreign Investment Review Board, which was established by this Government under a commitment during last year, given its flexibility, were far removed from the policies which were adopted by the McMahon Government on overseas investment in this country and the rate at which capital inflows were permitted, and much more in line with the policies which were followed by the Labor Government itself.

In respect of those matters I would place on record the obvious inconsistencies that exist in this statement. I have one last comment. Two pages are devoted to attacks on Mr Hayden for his statements and also I think Mr Hurford gets a mention somewhere, but there is nothing about similar statements that were made by Mr McMahon and Mr Wentworth who were crying out, especially Mr Wentworth; Mr McMahon 3 months ago predicted a 1 7 per cent devaluation as I heard on the program AM this morning. They were saying exactly the same things. So do not let us confine these remarks, these allegedly grossly irresponsible comments, to Labor spokesmen. Presumably the Treasurer is saying that both Mr McMahon and Mr Wentworth are also grossly irresponsible people. In fact the Minister had some more choice things to say of them but again I cannot put my finger on that at the moment.

Sufficient to say that when everybody got over the shock of this announcement it became quite clear that the Government was admitting that it was in real trouble. Its policies were failing. It had said on numerous occasions that devaluation was not part of the Government’s inflation controlling strategy. That was said many times. Yet now we find that this massive devaluation has taken place. One would not criticise or one would not be so ready to judge if in fact the Government had been prepared to take the view all along that devaluation may be part of its exercise; but we were told it was not because, as we know, this will be an inducement to increase the prices of imported goods and will remove to some degree the competitiveness of the local industries.

Let me examine the contradictory statements that were referred to by Senator Cavanagh at question time. I refer to statements such as the one to which he referred as having been made by the Treasurer on 22 November when he said:

Similarly, Australia’s international credit standing is second to none, and it would be anomalous if we could not take advantage of that during the period of temporary sluggishness in private capital inflow.

He went on to say:

Moreover, there can be no question of over borrowing, is what the Treasurer said 8 days ago, but yesterday the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) said that we had been approaching that situation. For a government that is supposed to express one point of view, that is a remarkable inconsistency. Of course we have heard the comment that the improvement in the stock market yesterday was indicative that already we are seeing the signs of a reaction. According to the stock market report I heard at lunch time, this morning more mining stocks fell in price than improved. That is hardly a suggestion of any massive re-stimulation of confidence in the stock market, if under these conditions we cannot see some response from the mining industries which are supposed to benefit from this move.

We in no way begrudge the benefits which will flow to the rural sector as a result of this move. As I have mentioned earlier, the level of net income of the rural sector during the first 12 months under the present Government has been much worse than it was in the period when the Labor Government was in office. Again this has occurred because of factors which, it must be admitted, are very largely beyond the control of the Government. That is all the more reason why the nonsense we have heard in the Treasurer’s statement today ought to be exposed for what it is. It obviously means that the cost of imported raw materials will rise. Interest rates will also rise. We will find that the interest rates on short term borrowings will be higher. They will probably be as high as 16 per cent. Naturally we can expect a 4 per cent or 5 per cent increase in the inflation rate, which will probably take the rate again to something like 1 5 per cent or 16 per cent. They are not my personal views; they are the views of persons better qualified to make such judgments than I am. Consequently it will be more difficult for the ordinary wage earner to meet those increased pressures and costs which he will have to face as a result of the falling value of money, coupled, as I said earlier, with the intention of the Government, if it can get away with it, to freeze wages in this country.

There is only one other matter upon which I wish to touch very briefly. I come back to one other comment that was made in the Treasurer’s statement, and that is the allegation about the proportion of the gross domestic product going into profits. It was the same Minister who some months ago put down a statement here which talked about the historical levels of profit as a percentage of the gross domestic product. He remarked at the time that 1 5 per cent was an historically acceptable level. There is no doubt that that level did fall during 1974 and 1975. But the latest figures which I have seen indicate that the rate has now gone back to those historically acceptable levels- that is what the Government calls them- of about 14 per cent. I know that different accounting methods can influence these figures, but it is quite evident that the profitability of the private sector has come back quite significantly in the last few months, mainly of course because the real value of wages and incomes has been reduced. That is a deliberate part of the Government’s strategy.

I assume that in the next two or three weeks there will be an opportunity to debate this issue in greater depth. I conclude at this stage by saying that the Opposition accepts the fact that the devaluation had to take place. We condemn the manner in which the Government has handled it. We condemn all the more the Government’s constant harping on the fact that the problems which it has brought on its own head are the result of 3 years of Labor administration. We were putting the economy back into a position of real growth at the end of last year, and that growth continued on into the early months of 1976. That was evidenced by increasing consumer demand, declining unemployment levels and increasing investment. Yet all of those factors have now changed directly as a result of the policies of the present Government. It is long past the time when spokesmen for the Fraser Government can harp in the Parliament on the so-called economic mismanagement of the previous Government. I say to the Government mat it is on its own now. Everything that goes wrong with the economy will be entirely the result of its own ineptitude.

Senator MESSNER:
South Australia

– It is perhaps not surprising that we notice that the Australian Labor Party has pulled out its usual ideological targets in these matters, namely, the rural industries and the mining industries. It has totally forgotten the effects of cost increases on the import competing industries in Australia. The collapse of those industries during the last 3 years of Labor administration, due to high inflation, has been the source of rising costs and has resulted in the loss of an enormous number of jobs in the Australian community. People have only to look at the examples of the white goods industry and the furniture manufacturing industry in Adelaide to understand that the substitution of imported parts in refrigerators, washing machines and things of that sort has resulted in a huge rise in unemployment.

But devaluation is the answer to those problems to which the Government has addressed itself. It is important to realise that devaluation is not an independent policy but rather part of a total monetary control policy. That, of course, is what the Government was about during its first year in office, namely seeking to control the flow of funds both into and out of Australia and in that way determining the overall liquidity rate in the economy. We know that the economy presently is highly liquid and in fact that monetary growth has been of the order of 18 per cent per annum, whereas Budget Paper No. 2 sets out the required growth rate of about 10 per cent to 12 per cent.

The objective of that, of course, was to try to reach a single digit inflation rate by June of next year.

The signposts in the total administration of the monetary package were, of course, the wage indexation cases and the effects on the economy of commodity price fluctuations overseas. In the last week we have seen handed down the wage case decision which passed on the full amount of wage indexation and ignored the previous decisions on plateau indexation. Obviously that has set the stage for further wage increases and further cost increases in the economy. That was perhaps the first and most important decision. Because the Australian economy has come to rely on export industries, commodity prices have fallen very sharply in the last few weeks, and I mention particularly the prices of copper, tin, lead and zinc. The fall in these commodity prices, driven on by the fall in the exchange rate of the pound sterling, has caused significant problems and represents a real signpost as to the future flow of funds into and out of this country. The Government had to act now. If it had waited longer, import competing industries would have been put under further pressure and, of course, our reserves, which had already fallen quite significantly, would have fallen even further. That has not been helped by the speculation engendered by the Labor Party spokesmen, in particular Mr Hayden, whom I suppose we would call the shadow shadow Treasurer, and Mr Hurford. We notice that when Mr Hayden first made his statement about this matter in September he was roundly rebuked by all financial journals in Australia because in that week there was a flow of currency out of Australia of the order of $600m. Of course, the Labor Party gets a great deal of pleasure from realising that the prophecy that it has been sprouting for a number of months has now come to pass.

We heard the question asked today by Senator Cavanagh about the borrowing standing of the Australian Government overseas. He sought to make the point that there is some connection between what occurred last Sunday and the fact that apparently we are unable to raise $ 1 billion overseas. The truth of the matter is that if the Government were to seek $ 1 billion overseas to shore up the currency at this point, the cost of that with a future devaluation would be astronomical. Honourable senators can see that by looking at the effect of the 17 per cent devaluation on a sum of $ 1 000m. An amount of $ 1 70m would go down the drain; that would be the cost to the nation, its taxpayers and the people in general.

Certain things have been spouted about, particularly by people spurred on by the Australian Labor Party and its propagandising on this issue. That is precisely what the ALP has been doing in the last few months in seeking to force the Government to its second option in regard to monetary controls. We see, as I mentioned earlier, that the credit squeeze which members of the ALP are now spouting about is dependent upon control of the liquidity in the economy in the next 6 months. As I mentioned earlier, the economy is highly liquid and running well ahead of demands within the community. Consequently, by soaking up the amount of money that is envisaged by the Treasurer in this statement, we will be able keep the monetary situation on an even keel. But more importantly, we must recognise that the devaluation will result in funds flowing into Australia. It is important that those funds be monitored and controlled, for by controlling the flow of money into Australia we will be better able to control the liquidity levels which in turn will keep a tight rein on any possible emergence of future inflation.

The other issue which the Labor Party has sought to exploit in the last few days is that of costs. Senator Wriedt stated a few moments ago that the effect of this devaluation will be to drive up costs some 5 per cent in this year. It is not at all clear how he formed such a judgment. He leaves that to other economists. Some economists estimate that the cost will be no more that 2 per cent in this year.

Senator Walsh:

– Are you quoting from the Age?

Senator MESSNER:

-Yes, from Dr Norman of the University of Melbourne. If one uses some common sense in this regard, one takes notice of the movement in the consumer price index over the last few months. It is well recognised that the main movements in this index in an upward direction have derived from increases in food costs. Imported food is not a big item in the overall level of costs in Australia. Consequently, it will not be expected that devaluation will have a major effect on that. More importantly, there is this major issue for Australian firms competing with imports: By obtaining increased volume as a result of less competition from imported goods they will be able to achieve greater economies of scale. In fact, over the last 3 years there has been a contraction in this area. The contraction of overseas export markets, as well as the contraction of local markets as a result of imports arriving on the Australian market, has caused manufacturers to shorten their operations to such an extent that unit costs have risen dramatically. This is quite outside the effect of other costs that have driven up the average cost of manufactures, anyway. It is that which devaluation, with its major thrust, will seek to amend.

I refer finally to the support which has been offered by the Tasmanian Premier in this regard.

He might have particular reasons for so doing, because an election is just around the corner in that State and is due to be held on 1 1 December. That indicates to me quite clearly that there must be some political popularity in this measure, especially in Tasmania. I do not think that it is at all untoward to mention that I have been in Tasmania during the last week as a member of the Senate Select Committee on the Mount Lyell Operations and taking part in the Committee’s hearings. This devaluation will assist the Mount Lyell Mining Company to quite a marked degree. I support the statement and welcome the sentiments expressed by the Treasurer.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– A year ago the Liberal and National Country Parties succeeded in regaining the government of Australia. The rationale behind that seizure of power under unprecedented and highly suspect circumstances was the alleged economic incompetence of the Labor Government. In particular, reference was made to unemployment, inflation, the lower level of capital investment, overseas borrowing, the level of the deficit and interest rates. When we look back a year later at all of those indices of economic performance, what do we find? Unemployment is higher than it was a year ago. It is going up whereas a year ago it was coming down. The rate of inflation was down in the September quarter to 2.2 per cent. Everyone agrees that inflation will be about 5 per cent or perhaps even higher in the December quarter. The rate of inflation for the calendar year 1976 will be 14 per cent, the same as it was for the calendar year 1975. For the second half of 1976, it will be higher than it was in the second half of 1975. Now, of course, with this latest about-face on a crucial aspect of economic policy we can confidently predict that the inflation rate in Australia next year will be at least 15 per cent. I note that one informed commentator in the Australian Financial Review was predicting an inflation rate of 20 per cent.

I turn to deal with capital investment. The Treasurer (Mr Lynch) as recently as a fortnight ago was claiming ‘a measure of success for the Government’s investment policies’. Three days after, the Australian Bureau of Statistics publication on fixed private capital investment, reference 57, published on 23 November 1976 was issued. What did it say? It showed that the total fixed private capital investments for the September quarter of 1976 in real terms was 8 per cent lower than it had been in 1975. Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to incorporate this table in the Hansard record.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Davidson)- Is the table quite capable of being incorporated in Hansard?

Senator WALSH:

-It is a standard ABS publication.

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

The table read as follows-

Senator WALSH:

– In relation to overseas borrowings, it was grossly irresponsible and highly dangerous a little more than a year ago to contemplate borrowing as much as $2 billion overseas. In fact, this year in its attempt to maintain the exchange rate of the Australian dollar, an attempt largely induced by the record of the Liberal-National Country Party governments and the statements of a number of their Ministers to which I will return later, the Government in a totally futile exercise actually borrowed $1 billion. It will now cost $170m to pay back that $1 billion. The deficit which was alleged to be absolutely disastrous last year is for the first 4 months of this financial year $250m higher than it was in 1975. That is the case even without the adjustment which really ought to be made because of the Treasurer’s fiddling with the books and putting Medibank prepayments into the 1975-76 financial year when they rightly belonged to the 1976-77 financial year. If the true level of the deficit were adjusted for that piece of accounting chicanery, the level of the deficit in the first 4 months of this financial year would be $450m higher than it was last year.

Finally, interest rates are going up. Now, after all these things and after this inferior performance in all those areas, on the one very crucial area of policy on which this Government had constantly asserted its intention to maintain a firm line, it has now completely repudiated its policy and all its statements of the last 12 months. The statement which the Treasurer has put out must be the most puerile document ever presented to an Australian Parliament. It is riddled with obfuscation, with self-contradiction, with a blatant denial of responsibility from someone who so ruthlessly sought power and responsibility, with factual error and technical incompetence. He cannot forever run away from the responsibility which he so ruthlessly sought and obtained in becoming Treasurer of this country.

I will go through some of the more outrageous and erroneous assertions in the Treasurer’s statement. He said that the farm sector last year was in a state of collapse. Apparently he still has not learned not to say that. The making of the allegation that the farm sector last financial year was in a state of collapse is hardly likely to be beneficial to this Government because prior to the devaluation the Bureau of Agricultural Economics had forecast a decline in real net farm income of 36 per cent this financial year, which begs the question: How can a sector in a state of collapse sustain an income decline of that magnitude and still survive? Now, of course, the Government has devalued. There will be some minimal gains to the agricultural sector arising from that devaluation. I will return to that later. But I noted in this morning’s Australian Financial Review a report that the BAE still forecasts a 2 1 per cent fall in the money income in the farm sector this year- in real terms that is likely to be something like 27 or 28 per cent- notwithstanding the devaluation. We then found the Treasurer boasting about the economic progress which allegedly has been made under this Government. He said:

  1. . under the policies that have been pursued by this Government significant progress has been made in reducing the rate of inflation and in setting the economy on a path towards sustainable growth in output and activity.

Highly questionable though that statement undeniably is, if it is accepted as being even remotely accurate why has this Government repudiated the policies upon which its alleged success was based? On 22 November, before the Queensland Branch of the Economic Society of Australia, the Treasurer asserted:

First and foremost we have seen and still see the need to get inflation down.

He continued:

It follows, therefore, that inflation has to be brought down before a return to full economic prosperity can be achieved.

If that was the Treasurer’s belief why, 5 days later, did he embrace a policy which nobody denies will increase the rate of inflation? If the Treasurer believed that statement and if he had any integrity he would have submitted his resignation.

In the Treasurer’s grand boast in the early part of his statement today he claimed that devaluation was forced on the Government by the deterioration in the underlying situation which occurred during the period of office of the previous Government. I would like to make 2 comments on that. Firstly, just when are the Treasurer and the Government going to accept responsibility for economic management? When are they going to cease blaming previous governments for their own incompetence? More pertinently, as Senator Cavanagh mentioned in a question that he asked about an hour ago, only 2 or 3 weeks ago the same Treasurer as the one who now asserts that there has been a decline in our ability to borrow abroad was then boasting about our Al credit rating and our capacity to borrow abroad.

The Treasurer went on to talk about the situation at the time the Labor Government came into office. He would rather talk about what happened four or five years ago than the mess into which his policies and the policies of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) have got the economy. The Treasurer said that Australia’s international reserves then stood at an all time record of $4.6 billion. I should have thought that it would have been advisable for the Liberal and Country Parties to forget the fact that at that time our overseas reserves stood at $4.6 billion. They stood at that level because the Liberal and Country Party Government in 1 97 1 deliberately maintained an undervalued Australian dollar. As a result of that, in calendar year 1972 nearly $2 billion- most of it hot, liquid money- poured into the country. The money supply exploded in the last quarter of 1972 at an annual rate of 34 per cent. According to this Friedmanite Treasurer, the increases in the money supply are directly linked with the rate of inflation with about a 12 months or 18 months time lag. So I would not have expected the Liberal Party to consider that the level of reserves at December 1972 was anything to boast about. Indeed, when one proceeds further into his statement one sees that the Treasurer himself has forecast future attempts to stop the runaway accumulation of overseas reserves and the inflation which is likely to flow from it.

The Treasurer then claimed that during the period in office of the Labor Government- 3 years- our overseas reserves fell by no less than $1.6 billion. If that is thought to be reprehensible, how does he escape from the simple fact, which is once again apparent from his own statement, that in 12 months under this Government the overseas reserves have fallen by $1 billion. If a measure of a government’s performance is to be the degree to which it accumulated or reduced overseas reserves, a fall of $1 billion in one year must surely be far more reprehensible than a fall of $ 1 .6 billion in 3 years.

The Treasurer asserted in many places throughout his statement that the Government knew in January that the Australian dollar was over-valued. If the Government really knew that in January, why did the Treasurer put out a statement on 4 January in which he said:

I therefore state on behalf of the Government, and with the full approval and endorsement of both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, that there is no need or reason for the Australian dollar to be devalued and that devaluation is not part of the Government’s economic strategy.

That statement was made by the Treasurer on 4 January. He now says that at the beginning of the New Year he and the Government knew that the dollar would have to be devalued.

The Treasurer then proceeded to castigate the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) who, to quote from the Treasurer’s statement, predicted during the last election campaign that a Liberal-National Country Party Government would devalue the dollar if confirmed in office at the election’. Does the Treasurer want to endorse, substantiate or establish the honourable member for Oxley ‘s record as an economic prophet? That is precisely what this Government has done, as the honourable member for Oxley accurately predicted more than 12 months ago.

Why is it reprehensible for the honourable member for Oxley to have been absolutely correct about the sort of policy which this Government would follow? The Treasurer then proceeded to castigate the honourable member for Adelaide (Mr Hurford) for saying on 19 February that the costs of production in Australia are out of line with overseas costs at the present exchange rate, and so on.

The Treasurer had the audacity to claim that as a result of such statements by those 2 leading Australian Labor Party spokesmen on the economy the Government had been forced into devaluation. He neglected to mention that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) said before the New South Wales Chamber of Manufactures that the then rundown in reserves ‘is due to the fact that our traditional deficit on current account isn’t being offset by capital inflow’. Putting the devaluation kite 1000 feet high, the Deputy Prime Minister continued:

So when you put these things together I can’t see any reason for complacency about the balance of payments.

That was said by the Deputy Prime Minister on 13 September. Yet the Treasurer has had the audacity to castigate spokesmen for the Labor Party for pointing out in some earlier period precisely those same underlying difficulties and for accurately predicting this Government’s weak response to those difficulties. The Treasurer said that those comments were grossly irresponsible and that, having been headlined in all of Australia’s major newspapers, they led directly to a weakening of Australia’s reserves position. I do not know why he thinks that that is reprehensible, anyway, because if one reads three or four pages of the Treasurer’s selfcontradictory statement one is led to believe that devaluation will prove to be a boon to Australia and that through devaluation lies the path to economic recovery. If one accepts that argument, which I do not, the Treasurer ought to be commending the Labor Party spokesman whom he alleges helped to bring this about.

Perhaps the most audacious comment of all was the Treasurer’s reference to profiteers making a killing at the expense of the nation because certain people had been prophesying devaluation. Does he believe that we all have forgotten the story written by Kenneth Davidson and published in the Melbourne Age on 9 November, which reported from a Cabinet leak the factsince absolutely confirmed, of course- that the Prime Minister and most of his Ministers were soft on devaluation? That story was not leaked by a member of the Australian Labor Party; it was leaked by one of the 12 Cabinet Ministers -or in this case 1 1 Cabinet Ministers- in this Government who were present. The Treasurer now has the audacity to talk about investigations into Cabinet leaks and alleged scandals arising from previous devaluations, when this very month someone in the Cabinet leaked the details of the Cabinet discussion on this very sensitive question and leaked the fact that the Prime Minister and most of his Ministers were soft on devaluation. Who did leak it? Was it the Prime Minister himself? Was it Mr Sinclair? Was it Mr Nixon? Was it the Treasurer? If it is so reprehensible that sensitive information such as this should be leaked, the Prime Minister should be ordering an inquiry or a royal commission to establish who among the 1 1 Cabinet Ministers who were present at the meeting leaked that sensitive information.

Perhaps the most puerile misrepresentation of all was the attempt to thrust the blame for the Government’s current irresponsibility back on to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. In referring to the recent decision of the Commission to increase wages by 2.2 per cent in accordance with the rise in the consumer price index in the September quarter the Treasurer said:

That was contrary to the whole thrust of the Government’s attempts to restore Australia ‘s competitive position.

According to the Treasurer, that made it quite impossible for the Government to hold the line any longer. In the Budget, which this same Treasurer brought down on 18 August and which presumably was prepared some time before, it was forecast on page 1 17 of Budget Paper No. 1 that there would be a 12 per cent increase in average earnings in this financial year as against last financial year. If utter disaster follows the awarding by the Arbitration Commission of a 2.2 per cent increase in one quarter, it is logically inescapable that utter disaster must follow a 12 per cent wage increase in a year. This Government believed at least in July that earnings would increase by 12 per cent- at least that is what its own Budget Papers say. So we are left with 2 choices: Either the Government knowingly inserted a false statement in the Budget Papers- this statement was included in the section which forecast taxation collections and the Government might have thought that it had a vested interest in artificially inflating the figure- or it is now attempting to put on to the Arbitration Commission the blame for something which it knew would happen and which it forecast several months before, at a time when it was still claiming that it could hold the line on the exchange rate. That is one of the most puerile deceptions which anyone has ever attempted to put over in an Australian parliament.

I turn now to borrowings. The Treasurer said that the Government was not prepared to let profiteers take this country to the cleaners with respect to currency speculation. The Government already has done that. The Government borrowed $ 1 billion overseas this year in a futile attempt to maintain the exchange rate or to make it seem as though it was attempting to maintain the exchange rate. At least one Minister in the present Government leaked the details of the Cabinet discussion on 5 November. As a result of that leak, how much money has been withdrawn from Australia by international companies which are holding liquid funds in Australia? The Esso company, for one, took money back to the United States. How many other companies took money back to the United States as a direct result of that leak? How much has been taken back? Will the Government attempt to establish how much has been taken back? Of course all those companies which withdrew funds from Australia to their base countries during that 3-week period can now repatriate them to Australia and pick up a IVA per cent capital gain in the process. Because of its own negligence or worse, the Government not only has allowed the country to be taken to the cleaners but also will reward the people who took it there.

On page 12 of his statement the Treasurer got around to acknowledging that the consequences of devaluation were not all positive and pleasant. He acknowledged that devaluation would have some effect on inflation. He said:

In particular, the price of imported goods will be higher, in terms of Australian dollars. But imports account for only around 16 per cent of the gross domestic product and, further to that, the prices of all imported products would not be expected to rise by the extent of the devaluation.

Then he skipped off the subject. There yet again he displayed his technical incompetence. It is not just the price of imports which will be affected. Wherever Australian exports are sold in a competitive market- what I mean by ‘a competitive market’ is one where the domestic price is determined by export parity as it normally is for most types of meat, for example; and in other sections of this speech there is mention of a significant appreciation in export prices for commodities such as meat- domestic prices will rise with export prices and that will feed directly back into the consumer price index. If anyone doubts the importance of that potential contribution to the consumer price index, I suggest that he look at what happened in 1973 and 1974 when in the 12 months ended March 1974 no less than 25 per cent of the total increase in the consumer price index was attributed to increased meat prices.

On page 1 5 the Treasurer goes on to assert that the annual rate of rural exports- I presume that is interchangeable with agricultural exports since it makes sense only in that context- which is running at $4.5 billion, should be increased by at least $700m. Implicit in that statement is the belief that the prices of agricultural exports in terms of Australian dollars will increase by about 16 per cent. That is highly unlikely to happen. For some particular commodities, depending on the particular state of demand and the elasticity of demand, prices received might increase by 16 per cent, but that certainly will not happen across the board. It is quite obvious from the Bureau of Agricultural Economics predictions published in the Australian Financial Review this morning that the BAE does not expect an across the board increase of 16 per cent in agricultural export prices.

The Government, or the National Country Party in particular, probably has successfully conned the more simplistic members of the farming community into believing that there are massive gains for the agricultural sector in the devaluation. In fact the gains will be very patchy and regressive. It is most unlikely that there will be appreciable gains for the sectors of agriculture which are depressed already. Relatively well-off wheat and wool producers may receive price increases of somewhere between 10 per cent and 15 per cent, but the depressed fruit growing sectors, the depressed dairy industry and the depressed beef producers are highly unlikely to receive price increases in excess of 10 per cent and in some of those cases the increases could be less than 5 per cent. I ought to add, perhaps, that wheat farmers who are badly affected by drought and who therefore have no crop this year will receive absolutely nothing. All farmers, but most particularly those who are in the hardpressed sectors, will become victims of the consequential credit squeeze which will flow on from this irresponsible decision and from the increase in interest rates. Farmers in the depressed sectors in particular will become victims of that squeeze. All farmers, and indeed everyone else in the community, will become victims of the consequential inflation which this irresponsible move will undoubtedly generate.

Senator Messner referred to the article by Dr Norman in today’s Age. I said yesterday that there would not be an academic economist in Australia who would support the Government on this issue. I was wrong. I will not be at all surprised if Dr Norman receives some sort of sinecure from this Government in the next 12 months as a reward for being the only academic economist in the country who has supported the action. In his apologia for this move Dr Norman made the facile assumption that prices would only increase by 2 per cent on one crucial condition; that is, if wage earners did not attempt to get wage increases to offset the higher prices which would be caused directly by the devaluation. What sort of expectation is that? Can anyone, whether he happens to hold an academic post at a university or not, expect to be taken seriously as a commentator on this subject when he comes out with that sort of puerile rubbish? Of course if wage earners and profit takers and everyone else would voluntarily reduce their demands and reduce their incomes inflation could be cured, with or without a devaluation or in spite of a devaluation. Of course inflation would be cured if everyone voluntarily reduced the price charged for everything he sells, whether it be commodities or labour. What effect that might have on the level of employment is another matter, but of course inflation could be cured if everyone could be persuaded to do that.

In conclusion, there is perhaps one ray of hope which can be gleaned from the statement by the Treasurer and the policy which it ushers in. It has cast the die for the demise of the Fraser Government. Of course, it is well known by now that this Treasurer will not survive as Treasurer for very long. He will become a scapegoat; he will become the newest sacrifice for the continuing failure of this Government’s economic policy. But the real villain is not the Treasurer. The real villain is the Prime Minister, whose ignorance in this area is matched only by the ferocity of his ideological prejudices, and that combination of ignorance and prejudice is directly responsible for the savage deterioration in the economic situation in Australia in the last 2 years, a deterioration which will accelerate even further in the next calendar year.

Senator SCOTT:
New South Wales

– I rise briefly to support the statement that the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) has brought down. In doing so, I might say that I am rather glad Senator Walsh’s logic is in no way relevant to the pitch of his voice or his use of adjectives. It is something of a shame that that sort of attitude should be adopted by the Opposition in the circumstances which confront Australia, circumstances which have been growing now for some years. If we are all Australians, and I assume we are, then I think it is about time that we stopped having a crack at every measure which is a genuine attempt to get this country back on the rails of its enormous potential, which is where it should be. In the past 3 or 4 years we have had a wage structure which was encouraged by a socialist Administration, until towards the end of that Administration when a certain distinguished Minister for Labor was in charge. We have encouraged a wage spiral which has literally robbed the Australian work force of real opportunity. We have been led to a point in time where we are observing job opportunities running outside Australia. It is that very situation that the devaluation, along with other matters that are consequential upon it, is aimed at arresting. I assume that no country in the world would look upon devaluation as something about which it should throw its hat in the air and shout hooray. Nobody wants to take that sort of action. Such action is the result of internal and external pressures, and this devaluation is no exception to that rule.

I will refer very briefly to one or two things I noted in the remarks of the Opposition spokesmen. Senator Wriedt complained, perhaps with some reason, that the Government of his day, like the Government of today, had no control over prices and wages. That is indeed a problem, but what was his Government’s contribution? What was Senator Wriedt ‘s contribution to that problem? Senator Wriedt, in his 3 years in the Government that he represented, made no attempt whatsoever to move into the courts and to suggest that the wage structure of the country had in some real measure to be related to the capacity of the economy to pay. He made no such effort at all, but virtually encouraged the problems which developed into the problems of today and indeed of yesterday. That was Senator Wriedt ‘s contribution, when faced with the fact that he could not freeze wages and prices.

In the circumstances which confront us now there is an immense responsibility in relation to the action which this Government has been compelled to take. There is an immense responsibility on management, on government and on unionists alike to come together and look at the whole package as a measure of interdependence. Unless it is looked at in that light it too may well fail. For some years we have observed members of the present Opposition suggesting that certain things are going to happen, that devaluation of the currency is around the corner. The best way to ensure that sort of thing, the best way to ensure lack of confidence in an economy which is climbing out of the problems of the last 3 or 4 years, is to keep on making those irresponsible suggestions. We are confronted today with circumstances in which we have had to devalue the Australian currency by a very significant percentage, but I do not think one could justify any criticism of the manner in which it was done. Firstly, the devaluation is significant in size, and it would have been insignificant and ineffectual had it been a tiny movement. Secondly, it was done with complete secrecy, as such a measure should be taken and as the only manner in which such an undertaking can be effectual.

Senator Walsh suggested that, with one exception, no academic economist in Australia would approve of this move. When I heard that remark I thought that it could indeed be a compliment to the move and may well mean that the move is going to be highly successful. One of the problems with academic economists, like a lot of other theorists, is that when their massive theories are cast loose into the economy, into society in general, where they no longer have applicable to them the atmosphere of the laboratory, they are completely meaningless and they break down. I am not so sure that if academic economists disapprove that it necessarily is a sound criticism of the measures the Government has taken. Senator Walsh drew attention to the fact that in nearly 3 years Australia’s overseas credit had fallen by some $1.6 billion. He said that this was not very much when compared with a fall of nearly $1 billion in just over 12 months. But he did not say that when the Whitlam Government came to office, Australia’s overseas standing, its overseas credit, stood at an all time high and that confidence in this Australian economy was quite extraordinary. He failed to mention those things. Of course those factors are very significant in the gradual nature of the down turn during the Labor Party’s term of office.

The other thing that Senator Walsh failed to tell us- this is significant- is that in those few years of Labor Government, the export industries that earn these massive overseas credits enjoyed the highest prices that this economy has ever known. I refer to minerals, beef, wheat and a number of other items. The extraordinary levels of the beef and wool markets of 1973 and 1 974 seem to have been conveniently forgotten. Yet they are the predominant reasons why Australia’s overseas earnings, Australia’s overseas credits had declined relatively slowly. On the contrary, in the 12 months that this Government has been in office, we have been subjected to prices for these significant earners of overseas credit which have been among the lowest on record. We have seen a dramatic and continuing fall in the price for Australian beef. We have witnessed in the last few months a very significant fall of about 25 per cent or 30 per cent in the overseas price of wheat. So there are very significant reasons why we have seen a fall in overseas credits, which has been somewhat more rapid than it was in the previous 3 years.

It does not alter the fact that in the circumstances of fairly dramatically falling overseas credit it has been found necessary by this Government to either devalue its currency or enter into massive borrowings. It is not the nature of people of our political philosophy, of our particular economic theories, to enter needlessly into massive borrowings because massive borrowings must leave only an immense burden to the communities, the societies that follow us. We do not believe that the making of such borrowings, whether or not they be possible- indeed Mr Whitlam seemed to have extraordinary difficulty in making borrowings reputedly of $4 billion and sometimes said to be $8 billion overseasis a viable and proper method to use to deal with the present situation. Consequently we have seen fit to devalue the currency. In the short and intermediate term, and ultimately with a proper measure of restraint and a proper flexibility of control of exchange value, and perhaps even with some reference to tariff levels, we believe that this measure will definitely help to move this economy out of the problematic area to which it has sunk.

The rural industry provides quite a massive amount of overseas credit- something approaching 50 per cent of the total overseas holdings. The devaluation will obviously help to raise the price of rural products, whether they be grain, wool, meat, or whatever. Insofar as it does that, quite clearly it will be of significance to that industry and to the total economy. The rural industry, perhaps more than most industries in Australia, literally has no control over its price structure. Basically it depends on overseas markets for the prices it receives. Yet it has a cost structure that is totally and absolutely tied to the internal economy in which it finds itself. This is a problem that has been extraordinarily damaging to the rural industry in Australia over the past few years. It is a situation that has been equally damaging, I believe, to the mining industry- an industry which has a great potential as an earner of overseas credits.

I refer to the tourist industry in this country which has an enormous potential and which in the last 2 years or 3 years has sunk to an extremely low level. This sort of economic management must help the tourist industry in some real degree to climb out of the duct into which it has fallen.

Perhaps more important than all these things, this move is designed basically to stop Australian investment money and capacity from moving out of this country and providing jobs to people in other lands. It is designed to arrest that circumstance. It is designed to bring about a circumstance in Australia whereby jobs will return to what once again will become a profitable primary and secondary part of this economy. It is to that end that the devaluation is basically directed. I believe that no one could genuinely disapprove of that objective.

One of the extraordinary difficulties that confronts us as a country right across the canvass today is the way in which we are going to meet, acknowledge and control the threat to jobs that is contained on the surface by computerisation and ever-increasing technologies. We have to recognise that in this community there has to be a real measure of proper and constructive discussion between all sides if we are to survive. The devaluation is a reasonable and proper economic measure which is designed to arrest the somewhat drastic circumstances that have brought about a situation in which jobs are virtually being exported from Australia and in which Australia’s basic primary and mining industries and her tourist industry are suffering a position from which they can see little return. I believe that this is a responsible devaluation. It has to be looked at in the context of the various measures that will be taken to control its movement over the months and years that lie ahead. I believe that as an answer to circumstances which have developed inside and outside this country, it is a real and responsible contribution to the development of the Australian economy.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– At the outset of my brief remarks I should like to express my sympathy for my friend, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Cotton, at having had today’s shoddy little exercise tossed into his lap. It is well known that he is, and always has been, a firm opponent of devaluation. We can recall him in answer to a question in this place a few short weeks ago stating positively: ‘Devaluation is just not on’. Yet it must have been rather painful for him today to have to stand up and deliver this almost inarticulate apologia- one of the most pathetic documents that I can recall being put down in this place in the lime thai I have been here. Far from facing up to the fact that it represents an admission of failure of all the policies of this Government which was going to turn on the lights, it blames Labor collectively, it blames Labor individually and it suggests that somehow or other a man, who had ceased to be Treasurer and was not exercising any fiscal power in this country, by predicting devaluation was in some way to blame for the present position. It goes to the extreme extent, as pointed out by Senator Walsh, of suggesting that a 2.2 per cent increase in wages allowed by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in some way or other forced the Government’s hand and left it with no alternative but to take this drastic step, when, as Senator Walsh points out, the Government had always bargained for a 12 per cent increase in wages in the ensuing year. We have the dramatic picture of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) tearing up the note which was handed to him on the plane telling him that the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission had committed this heinous act of giving a 2.2 per cent rise.

One thing has to be said about this announcement. It marks a watershed in the history of this Government. Anybody who has been in the Parliament for a while is familiar with the tired, old political game of blaming one ‘s opponents for all the ills of society. The Labor Government did that during its first year in office when its difficulties mounted. We constantly pointed to what we called the irresponsible Budget that had been introduced by Mr McMahon in 1972 in a desperate attempt to stave off defeat. There was certainly something in that charge. Naturally, in the way of politicians, we kept that one going as long as we could. There is no doubt that the present Government has been able to get away with the story to the public up to now that all the problems of the country are due to the fact that it inherited this awful load of burdens from what it said was the most inefficient or incompetent govern ment in Australia ‘s history. I must say that up to now the present Government, despite its failures and its inability to deliver the goods, has held up remarkably well in the polls but I think we can safely predict that those days are past and that from now on the Government will be judged on its own performance or lack of it.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The party is over.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The party is over, as my colleague points out. I have never been one to suggest that Labor did not make any errors. I freely concede that 1974 was a disastrous year in that it saw an increase of some 28 per cent in average wages, which is more than any modern economy can possibly bear. However, I maintain- I have always maintainedthat during the last half of last year, as Senator Scott was generous enough to concede, we had the ship of state steered in the correct direction. That is supported by some of the figures. The inflation rate had come down from a disastrous level of 17.6 per cent to about 13 per cent at the time we were tossed out of office. Wage increases in 1975, compared to the 28 per cent for 1974 which I have mentioned, were of the order of 12 per cent. As Senator Wriedt pointed out, the reason why our term was cut short, the reason for the disgraceful events at the end of last year, was not the mistakes we had committed in the past but that we were beginning to look like a good and responsible government. I believe that if we had been allowed to remain in office the country would not be in the mess it is in today. It would not have been necessary for the Australian people to have been dragged through the confidence trick put over them last year that the present Government somehow or other had a magic wand in its equipment and knew of some cures to our economic ills.

I find one thing terrifying in the document that has been read to us today. Most of it is pathetic and woeful but hidden in a few threatening lines is the promise of an awful confrontation in the year ahead. No matter what can be said about the alleged benefits of devaluation, one thing which cannot be gainsaid is that devaluation will increase inflation which we have been told by this Government is its main target. We have constantly been told by this Government that if we cannot beat inflation we are no good and we are doing nothing for the country. This document implicitly concedes that this change of policy is an inflationary one. How is it proposed to counter the ills of a mounting inflation? How does the Government propose to counter the fact that the public will see that it has been sold a pup and that the Government does not have an answer to inflation? The answer is to be found not only in this document but also in various statements of the Prime Minister in the recent period. He will try to take it out on the work force.

Now the consensus has been destroyed, the consensus which the Labor Government built up with great difficulty, all that is left to this confrontationist Prime Minister is confrontation. His package for the unions and the workforce generally will be to say to them: ‘You will have to pay more for your goods because of what we have done to the currency but we ask you to take less in pay because that is the only way we can keep prices down. We will also ask you, in order to cure unemployment and the stagnant economy, to consume more.’ This is a hopelessly illogical package- higher prices, a decrease in real wages and a plea to people to consume more. If this Government stands naked with as little as that to offer the people it is confessing its bankruptcy. It is confessing that all the trauma we went through last year, all the damage that was done to the people’s faith in the democratic system, all the bitterness and polarisation it produced in society, which will not go away no matter what the Government may ask, was for nought. After 12 months of total domination of the Parliament- Government members do not have to look over their shoulders at a hostile upper House the way we had to- after 12 months of being given every opportunity, the Government now has to come before the Australian people and say: ‘We have done nothing to solve the problems. We are back to square one. The situation is worse than when we took over. This is what you have for going through the events of last year.’

I concede that the Government had reached a point where it probably had no other course but to devalue. But who was responsible for that? The Government has been in charge of the economy for the last 12 months. The excuse that it was all due to the Labor Government will not wear with the public any more. I believe that we are now facing a much more difficult year, 2 years or 3 years, than would have been the case if the Labor Government had been allowed to see out its term of office. I predict- I hope I am proved wrong- that next year will see a further shattering of the consensus without which parliamentary democracy cannot be conducted, that is, that there will be a confrontation between this Government and the unions in an attempt to make the unions bear the burden of the Government’s errors. I hope I am proved wrong but I see the document that was put down today as being intrinsically a very threatening document.

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

– When Senator Wriedt opened the discussion on this matter he acknowledged the difficulty that faces governments in handling management situations. Having been through that experience perhaps he was better able to understand it than some of his colleagues. He also understood the necessity to face positions of either devaluation or revaluation when the currency and cost situations are changing. I think it will be acknowledged that the Government has tried consistently to keep out of the devaluation case all the speculation that it possibly could. The Government has not been helped, the situation has not been helped and Australia has not been helped by the numerous statements that have come from various people who have indicated their doubts from time to time in a public fashion. Those doubts, of course, have been picked up and trotted around by all kinds of people who claim to be experts.

Senator Wriedt also acknowledged; I think I understood him correctly- that the time had come in his view when devaluation had to take place. What I do not think he was prepared to accept were the reasons for devaluation at this time. One should look at the inflation record of Australia and how it behaved during the time of the Labor Government. It grew from nearly 4 per cent when that Government took office to close to 20 per cent when it left office. As indicated earlier, there is a substantial matter of very great importance in this statement. I wish to deal with it at a little more length. It is the question of the new pattern of management of the exchange rate. It will provide a far more realistic way of handling problems involved in currency management. It will enable the use of the exchange rate as a flexible arm of policy able to cope quickly with problems as they arise and to prevent unnecessary and unproductive speculation. The areas which were covered in the statement are significantly the ones which one can mention: More frequent, more timely and smaller adjustments are to be made to the rate. This is appropriate to the changing nature of the world economy and to Australia’s international trade relationships. It is designed to avoid the build-up of expectation of major changes in the rate at long intervals. It will permit the use of the exchange rate, as appropriate, as a more flexible arm of policy. It will require little or no institutional change.

Australia for a very long time has needed to be in a much more flexible exchange rate position. I am speaking of something that I have stated publicly in various areas of monetary management and fiscal and financial management. This reform is long overdue, and I am very glad that the current circumstances have brought it about. I think that from now on the whole situation will be much cleaner, much tidier and much more certain. It is to the credit of this Government that it has had the guts to face up to this and to do it. I would like to have seen it done back in the days of the Government from which the Labor Government took over or in the days of the Labor Government itself. It is a necessary thing to do. We ought not to be blind to the fact that in the world at large, and indeed in our own country, there are people who are quite happy to try to bankrupt the country and its people by speculation to their own profitable ends. That is certainly the case. We depend upon a sound government, a solid Reserve Bank and a good Treasury to defend the public interest against speculators, whether they are local or overseas. They exist; honourable senators should be in no doubt about that. In the monetary management of this country, exchange rate management in a more flexible style has been and is highly critical. It is a jolly good thing that at last it has come about.

Let us look at the substantial arguments that led to the devaluation. The Australian dollar has really been moving adversely. Our rapid inflation, relative to our trading partners, has critically eroded our competitive situation, and very massively so. It has disadvantaged our import replacement activities and at the same time has placed the rural and mining sectors in a very unfavourable position in the total society in which they work.

It is said that we are prone to blame the previous Government. I think we are entitled to lay a lot of the blame on it because of its record during its 3 years of office. The consumer price index increased by nearly 40 per cent. Wages escalated. Average weekly earnings, which were $96.70 in June 1972, rose to $156.30 by June 1975-60 per cent in 3 years. Is it any wonder that there is competitive disadvantage? There was a cost disability. Compared with the United States, which accounts for about one-third of our overseas trade, our competitive price position deteriorated by about 33 per cent between 1972 and 1975. Overseas reserves declined substantially. Gross domestic product rose by only about 3 per cent a year, which is a very low figure compared with the figures for previous years. In 1 975 the figure was almost nil. One of the problems has been to get this country back to economic growth. Unemployment rose from traditionally low figures to 4 te per cent of the work force. The corporate surplus was lower in 1975 than in 1972. So why would people invest in order to increase productivity? This is what we inherited as a management task. Of course, there was the record of 3 Treasurers in 3 years and successive changes of policies and changes of developments in the scene. Mr Connor and the Australian Labor Party policies in general put mining and rural interests at a very substantial disadvantage and in effect made them very largely unprofitable or unremunerative.

It is true in economic management in any country in any part of the world that when new economic policies are taken up there is always an economic overrun. We must wait for the bad months to come after the decision. We must wait for the good months to emerge. We do not get the result tomorrow morning. It takes a long time for the results to come through. The paper delivered by the Governor of the Reserve Bank to the Economic Society last Thursday ought to be read by all honourable senators. It shows quite clearly that on the figures economic growth and development have begun to emerge again in a sensible, managed style. He says so. He documents the evidence. This is a change from 1975, when we were headed downhill. There is also the situation that if we could have held our previous strategy our overvalued currency would have been a useful contribution to containing inflation; but that holds good only as long as our exchange rate is not subject to mischievous speculation all the time.

There have been various comments about how unfair we have been to Mr Hayden. He is a former Treasurer. We are told that he is a genius. We are told that had we adopted his policies he would have brought us into the promised land. He is the man who predicted a devaluation of about 1 5 per cent in early 1977. No man who has ever been in the position of Treasurer ought to do that publicly. The Sydney Morning Herald on 8 September- I am quoting other people, not myself- had this to say:

There is nothing to prevent the Government from continuing to borrow from abroad to bolster its international reserves, even to the extent of $ 1000m. It could be forced to abandon the exercise if unfortunate talk such as Mr Hayden ‘s encouraged a huge speculative outflow of funds which defied even the Government’s borrowing ability . . .

This is the situation we had been largely put into. The Australian Financial Review talked about the same thing. It said:

Devaluation … at some time in the next 6 months may or may not be inevitable. There are solid policy reasons why it should . . . be . . . postponed as long as possible.

But then it said:

But once devaluation is widely expected, or at least is widely regarded as having a fair degree of probability, the efforts by the authorities to hold to a particular exchange rate becomes increasingly expensive under our present system.

Since that time- about July, August and Septemberall kinds of people who ought to have known a great deal better have been speculating quite publicly. Their speculation has been widely covered. It has been reported overseas. The Economist of 20 November said:

The biggest single economic problem stems from the Government’s uncertainty over whether or not to devalue the Australian dollar. Foreign investors are holding back- or transferring capital out of the country- while the debate goes on . . . In spite of the hovering on this issue, Mr Fraser is firmly in the saddle. Mr Whitlam ‘s Labor Party, by contrast, looks bedraggled and dispirited, its energies spent on in-fighting.

There are comments about manufacturers going overseas because they cannot handle the cost situation in Australia. There are comments about manufacturers not starting because they are uncertain. The net effect of it all is that we have a situation which has been announced to the Senate and which has been reported by me in detail this afternoon. Senator Wriedt has understood. On page 1380 of Hansard of 25 September 1974 he is recorded as saying:

One must assume that as a result of the devaluation there will be some slight upward movement in the prices of imported goods … A slight upward movement in the prices of imported goods is a fact of life which we must accept as pan of the decision to devalue.

As mentioned in the statement, the Government is determined that there will not be a liquidity squeeze; that money for the purposes of sensible growth and development or expansion, including housing, will be available; and that it will watch the monetary-fiscal position very closely. The whole position, including any adverse factors, will be watched, monitored and managed. As the statement says, there is equally likely to be a reversal of the flow position in due course. Australia has a problem in currency management because of the uneven rate of its importing and the uneven rate of its exporting. This is one of the problems of managing a currency in a country such as this. I believe that there will be a reversal of the flow and that there will be a flow into this country which will call for us to look at the situation again with a different set of eyes.

I think the whole case we have adopted in this matter has restored the economic balance in Australia and has taken away the unfair load on the external trade position in order to redress that and to get the whole country back into a better position. The simple fact that has to be faced is that we had to borrow heavily or realign our currency realistically in the world in which we live and trade. The decision to realign was a decision taken wisely. A decision to borrow would have produced many problems. There would have been increased speculation. There would have been an increase in the amount of money flowing out of the country. We would have borrowed and probably sent it all overseas for no gain. This is because speculation was encouraged. This is because irresponsible people could not keep their mouths shut. This is the sort of result we get in a position such as that.

There have been comments about the Government’s statements on devaluation. I do not want to dwell on that point, but I think it can be said of me that at no stage, either publicly or privately, have I canvassed any situation of currency change. No responsible government should do that; no Minister should do that. I believe that it is a very harmful thing to do. Honourable senators may not know this, but perhaps the principal crime in some countries in other parts of the world is what is called flogging the currency. That is what people ought not to do. Part of the problem this Government has had has been irresponsible currency comment.

Now here we are in a simple situation. We did inherit a difficult position. We are doing the best we can to bring it into balance. I believe we are succeeding. I believe that if it is measured sensibly on a useful run of time from 6 months to 6 months evidence of this can be seen. We have brought the currency into its true position on the world scene. It can be managed much more flexibly from now on, which of itself is a very distinct and immense advantage. This whole problem of getting the country into a better situation of cost advantage, higher living standards and a better competitive position is a job for all Australians, State and Federal governments, the business world, the investing world, the consumer and the trade unionist. No one of them can stand apart from helping to deal with the problem. When we looked at this whole situation we were clear in our own minds that in November last year we believed the then Government could not manage the problem. The people certainly thought so in December 1975 and I am not in any doubt about these things. That is the final test. We ourselves will return to the people in due course. They will judge us. I believe they will judge us fairly and sensibly and will think of us that we did our best in a set of very difficult circumstances. I hope in the interests of Australia as a nation that all those people who stand to gain or lose in a country well or badly managed will play their part in getting the country back into better shape.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2240

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Christmas Island Agreement Bill 1976. Foreign Proceedings (Prohibition of Certain Evidence) Bill 1976.

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

States Grants (Advanced Education) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1976. States Grants ( Universities Assistance) Bill 1 976. States Grants (Advanced Education Assistance) Bill 1976.

States Grants (Technical and Further Education Assistance) Bill 1976.

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

States Grants (Schools Assistance) Bill 1976.

States Grants (Schools) Amendment Bill 1976.

States (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Bill 1 976.

Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Bill 1976.

Air Navigation (Charges) Amendment Bill 1 976.

Airports (Surface Traffic) Amendment Bill 1 976.

Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Amendment Bill 1 976.

Air Accidents (Commonwealth Government Liability) Amendment Bill 1976.

Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Fund (Distribution of Surplus to Pensioners) Bill 1976.

page 2241

QUEENSLAND GRANT (PROSERPINE FLOOD MITIGATION) BILL 1976

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Senator Withers) agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the remaining stages for the passage through the Senate of the Queensland Grant ( Proserpine Flood Mitigation ) Bill 1 976 and the New South Wales Grant (Namoi River Weirs) Bill 1 976 being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of such Bills together in Committee of the Whole.

page 2241

VOTING ARRANGEMENTS

Senator CHANEY:
Western Australia

-by leave- By arrangement between the Whips in the Senate, Senator Cavanagh will not vote in divisions this week to compensate for the vacancy caused by the death of Senator Greenwood. I simply say that should the replacement for Senator Greenwood arrive in the Senate in the meantime, of course that arrangement will be subject to revision.

page 2241

CIVIL AVIATION (CARRIERS’ LIABILITY) AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Message received from the House of Representatives acquainting the Senate that it has agreed to the amendments made by the Senate to this Bill.

page 2241

AIR ACCIDENTS (COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT LIABILITY) AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Message received from the House of Representatives acquainting the Senate that it has agreed to the amendments made by the Senate to this Bill.

page 2241

STATES GRANTS (WATER RESOURCES ASSESSMENT) 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 Withers) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · 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-

The purpose of this Bill is to authorise nonrepayable grants to the States over the 3-year period 1976-77 to 1978-79 for the assessment of the quantity and quality of their surface and underground water resources. Commonwealth involvement with the States in water resources assessment goes back to 1964. Following a recommendation by the Australian Water Resources Council, the States, with financial support from the Commonwealth, embarked on an accelerated program to establish a comprehensive network of stream gauging stations and substantially to improve knowledge of underground water resources. As well as implementing programs in its own Territories, the Commonwealth has assisted the States by making available grants of $2.8m, $4.5m, $8.2m and $ 15.9m over successive 3-year periods- a total of $3 1.4m over 12 years. The Bureau of Meteorology has also contributed significantly to the progress of the assessment program over this period with a concurrent expansion of its network of meteorological stations. In 1974, the program was expanded to include assessment of the quality of surface and underground water.

The success of the Commonwealth support for these activities is reflected in expenditure by the States at levels in excess of those required to attract the maximum Commonwealth grant. Under the impetus of the program, the number of stream gauging stations has increased from some 1450 in 1964 to about 2750 in 1975, while the area over which surface water resources are now measured has increased by some 40 percent during this period. Similarly, the area over which an evaluation of underground water resources can now be made from available data has increased by approximately one-third over the same period. Nevertheless, there remain areas of the continent in respect of which our knowledge of water resources is inadequate, either where data is insufficient, or where the available records are of too short a duration to allow reliable assessments to be made. Data concerning the quality of our water resources is also very limited, and increasing emphasis will be given to this aspect during the coming triennium.

The Commonwealth now proposes to make available a total of $6.658m by way of nonrepayable grants to the States to assist in achieving the proposed progams for 1976-77. This will enable Commonwealth assistance to be maintained in real terms at the level of assistance provided in 1975-76. The Commonwealth has also undertaken to support the program for 1977-78 and 1978-79 at levels to be determined before the commencement of each of these years.

I turn now to the Bill itself, the provisions of which are broadly similar to the 1973-74 legislation and with appropriate provisions for continuing assistance to the States in 1977-78 and 1978-79. Provision for grants in respect of expenditure by the States on approved programs is made in clauses 5 and 6. In respect of each State, Commonwealth grants for both surface and underground water assessment will be determined by the excess of expenditure over and above base amounts specified in the schedule to the Bill until total expenditure is double the base amount. Further expenditure will be funded on a dollar for dollar basis until the maximum grant as specified in the schedule is payable. The maximum grant to each State for 1977-78 and 1978-79 will be determined on an annual basis. In aggregate, Commonwealth assistance for 1976-77 has been allocated between the States in accordance with an agreement reached at the eighteenth meeting of the Australian Water Resources Council.

The Bill also contains a number of machinery provisions which are generally similar to those of the previous Acts relating to this program. These include provision in clause 4 for Ministerial approval of annual programs of assessment, and clause 9 provides for the submission of annual reports by the States on the progress of the program.

Australia has experienced severe and, in places, record droughts and floods during the past decade. Senators with a close interest in Australia’s water resources will be acutely aware of the variability of our rainfall and stream flows, the dangers of over-utilising our underground water storages and problems of water quality in years of low surface and underground water supplies. The assessment program for which Commonwealth funds are to be made available for a further three years will provide vital information on the availability and quality of surface and underground water across the whole range of climatic conditions experienced in Australia from year to year. This information is indispensable if the planning, development and management of our valuable water resources for domestic, industrial and rural purposes are to proceed on a sound and scientific basis. I have much pleasure in commending the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Keeffe) adjourned.

page 2242

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE VETERANS’ RESIDENCES 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 Withers) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · 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-

The purpose of this Bill is to widen the eligibility of former women members of the Royal Australian Air Force for benefits under the Royal Australian Air Force Veteran’s Residences Act 1953. The Act was originally passed to dispose of a prize money fund which, as a result of Air Force operations during World War II, was available for application to members of the RAAF who served during the war. Because distribution of the money to individuals was impractical, the Act established the Royal Australian Air Force Veterans’ Residences Trust to apply the fund in providing residences for former RAAF members who are in necessitous circumstances. The Trust now owns some 75 dwelling units in all States. These are occupied on a rental basis by eligible persons. Eligibility under the Act was originally confined to former male members of the RAAF. In 1965 eligibility was extended to include certain former female members. However a former female member, unlike her male counterpart, is required to have served or been liable to serve overseas on active service and also to have a dependant for whom it is necessary for her to maintain a home.

These conditions in practice render many former female members ineligible. For example, they exclude ex-members of the Women’s Auxiliary Australian Air Force raised during World War II, who were not liable for service outside Australia. As there is no overseas active service condition under the Act for former male members, the Government considers it would be appropriate to remove the distinction between former male and female members in this respect. The Government also considers that the eligibility condition for a former female member to have a dependant should be removed. Here again there is no corresponding requirement for former male members. A similar condition on exservicewomen was removed from the then War Service Homes Act in 1973.

The amendments proposed by the Bill will mean that all former members of the RAAF and of its women’s services will be equally eligible for the provision of residences under the Act. The basic test will be whether they are in necessitous circumstances. Bearing in mind the origin of the Trust, preference will continue to be given to former members who served in World War II. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland) adjourned.

page 2243

PAY-ROLL TAX (TERRITORIES) ASSESSMENT 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-

By this Bill it is proposed to raise the general level of exemption from pay-roll tax, in respect of wages paid or payable in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, from 20,800 to $48,000. Honourable senators will recall that, in his Budget Speech, the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) foreshadowed legislation to double the present pay-roll tax exemption and to phase out the exemption by $2 for every $3 by which an employer’s annual pay-roll exceeds $41,600. This would have brought Territory exemptions into line with New South Wales. Since the Budget announcement, all States have raised their pay-roll exemptions.

The Government now proposes that, from 1 January 1977, the general exemption from payroll tax in the Territories should be increased to $48,000, phasing out above that figure by $2 for every $3 by which the annual pay-roll exceeds $48,000. This is the level of exemption to apply in New South Wales from 1 January 1977.

Our changed proposal will thus ensure consistency of treatment between employers in the Australian Capital Territory and employers in New South Wales, so that pay-roll tax considerations will not affect the choice of location of business activities between the Australian Capital Territory and adjacent parts of New South Wales. The deduction of $1,733.33 at present allowable in monthly returns is to be replaced as from 1 January next by a deduction of $4,000 less $2 for every $3 by which the monthly pay-roll exceeds $4,000. Accordingly no deduction will be allowable where the monthly wages exceeds $10,000. After 1 January 1977, an employer who pays wages of $900 or less a week will not have to register for pay-roll tax purposes. The comparable figure at present is $400 a week.

The Bill will provide a welcome measure of relief for small businesses in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory and reflects the Government’s continuing concern for this sector of the economy. In considering these changed taxation arrangements, the Government has before it a series of detailed submissions from the honourable member for Canberra (Mr Haslem) and Senator Knight. The decision to introduce this Bill owes much to the effective representations made by the honourable member for Canberra, as well as Government senators. Explanations of technical aspects of the Bill are contained in an explanatory memorandum being made available to honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Keeffe) adjourned.

page 2244

INSURANCE (DEPOSITS) 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-

The purpose of this Bill is to exempt companies authorised to carry on insurance business under the Insurance Act 1973 from the necessity of having to lodge deposits with the Treasurer under the Insurance (Deposits) Act 1932 and to provide for the return of deposits in appropriate cases. Until the passing of the Insurance Act 1973, the deposit provisions of the Insurance (Deposits) Act were the only protection policy owners had against the insolvency of an insurer. Deposits were held by the Treasurer to pay policy owners with claims against companies that became insolvent. However, the far more extensive and effective supervisory provisions of the Insurance Act have superseded the Insurance (Deposits) Act and, when a company has received an authority under the Insurance Act, it is no longer necessary to retain the very limited protection given previously by the deposits provisions.

The operation of the deposits system has recently been extended by regulation until 3 1 July 1979 in order to continue the protection of policy owners of companies that have either not applied for or may be refused an authority to carry on insurance business under the Insurance Act. Companies that have not been granted an authority will still be required to maintain a deposit with the Treasurer until granted an authority or if not granted an authority, until they have demonstrated that they have adequately discharged their commitments under policies. It is emphasised that a deposit will not be released to a company in liquidation, until such time as it can be used to pay claims lodged by policy owners.

When the Insurance Act was passed, it was envisaged that the deposit requirement would be terminated after the new system of supervision of insurers was fully effective. The proposal to relieve authorised insurers from the obligation to lodge deposits is in accordance with that intention. Accordingly, the Bill will enable the deposit requirement to be continued in appropriate cases while exempting authorised insurers from its application. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Keeffe) adjourned.

page 2244

AIRLINE LEGISLATION

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Senator Carrick) agreed 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 Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill 1976 and the Airline Equipment ( Loan Guarantee ) Bill 1 976 being put in one motion at each stage, and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole.

page 2244

QANTAS AIRWAYS LIMITED (LOAN GUARANTEE) 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-

Qantas Airways Limited (Loan Guarantee) Bill 1976

The purpose of this Bill is to seek authority for the Treasurer to guarantee, on behalf of the Commonwealth, loans raised by Qantas Airways Ltd to finance the purchase of 3 Boeing 747 series aircraft. It is proposed that Qantas will negotiate the loans in its own name with the backing of a government guarantee. The negotiations will be subject to consultations with the Treasurer on the borrowing arrangements. The airline will also be required to satisfy the Treasurer that adequate and proper security is given to the Commonwealth over the 3 aircraft. The proposed government guarantee will be limited to an amount of $US 1 17m, or its equivalent which represents 80 per cent of the total cost of the 3 aircraft and associated equipment.

As honourable senators would be aware Qantas is progressively replacing its smaller Boeing 707s with the larger and more economical Boeing 747 series aircraft. The aircraft financed under this Bill will comprise the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth Boeing 747s to be operated by the airline. Qantas also wishes to take advantage of the favourable terms of purchase offered by the aircraft manufacturer at this time. It has been estimated that the terms of purchase currently available to Qantas would result in a saving for each aircraft of $US7.8m if delivered in 1 977 rather than in 1 978. 1 commend the Bill.

Airline Equipment (Loan Guarantee) Bill 1976

The purpose of this Bill is to seek authority for the Treasurer to guarantee, on behalf of the Commonwealth, loans raised by Ansett Transport Industries to finance the purchase of its seventh Boeing 727-200 series aircraft. This follows the enactment of earlier legislation under which the Australian National Airlines CommissionTransAustralia Airlines- was given access to overseas borrowed funds to acquire its seventh Boeing 727-200 aircraft.

Honourable senators will recall that it has been government policy for many years to extend assistance of this nature to the 2 major domestic airlines with a view to enabling them to obtain the funds required to purchase new aircraft and related spares and equipment. In this instance, the proposed government guarantee will be limited to an amount of $US8m, or its equivalent, which represents 80 per cent of the total cost of the aircraft and associated equipment. The guarantee will be subject to appropriate security arrangements approved by the Treasurer. The proposal will not involve the Commonwealth in any expenditure; it will merely create a contingent liability for the Government to the extent of the outstanding balance of the loan.

Honourable senators will note that the guarantee is designed to also cover loan moneys acquired by the issue of notes and securities. This is to allow the airline maximum flexibility in completing its financing arrangements to ensure that the required funds can be obtained on the best possible terms. The aircraft presently under consideration is planned for delivery in

December 1976. The Boeing 727-200 series aircraft has now been in operation for a number of years and it has proved to be eminently suitable for Australian conditions. In comparison to the earlier 727-100 model, it is noticeably quieter, provides greater passenger capacity and is less demanding on energy resources. Although the domestic airlines have experienced some setbacks in recent months- setbacks, I would point out, that were largely caused by industrial disputespresent indications are that they have turned the corner and can look forward to at least a moderate traffic growth in the immediate future.

I am sure that honourable senators will agree with me that the Australian airlines have made a very significant contribution to the development and welfare of this country, with an air safety record equal to the world’s best. They deserve our full support in their endeavours to maintain the first-class service which they make available to the Australian travelling public. The assistance provided in this Bill is one area where that support is essential. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator Keeffe) adjourned.

page 2245

ROADS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1976

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I move:

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

The PRESIDENT:

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

The speech read as follows-

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the National Roads Act and the Roads Grants Act by providing an additional $35. 8m Commonwealth financial assistance to the States for road works in 1976-77. The proposed increase in funds represents a rise of approximately 9 per cent over and above the level of funds already provided under these 2 Acts for this year. The Bill also provides for a concomitant increase in quotas for

State expenditure from their own resources on roads.

Honourable senators will recall that the Treasurer (Mr Lynch), in his statement to the House of Representatives on 20 May outlining the various budgetary measures being taken to control government expenditure and reduce inflation, announced the decision to appropriate an additional $35. 8m for road works. The National Roads and Roads Grants Acts will now provide for a total allocation in 1976-77 to the States of $433.5m after allowing for the additional funds contained in this Bill. The 1974 National Roads and Roads Grants Acts, introduced by the previous Government, provided a level of funds which was $25 5 m below that recommended by the Bureau of Roads in its 1 973 report. As a result provision for certain road categories such as urban arterials, rural arterials and rural local roads on which local government is very dependent for its road needs were reduced during the 3-year period of the legislation.

Since it came to office the Government has been particularly conscious of the fact that local government in many instances has suffered badly in competing for road funds against State government programs. We have therefore endeavoured to ensure that the needs of local government in particular are looked after. This point was emphasised by the Commonwealth at the February Premiers Conference. In advising the States of the proposed additional funds and seeking their views on the proposed allocation to categories the Minister for Transport, Mr Nixon, has pointed to the decline in funds available to local government and stressed the urgent road requirements in rural areas.

As honourable senators will be aware the 1 974 Roads Grants Act contained for the first time assistance for urban local roads. During the period of the Act allocations for these roads were increased to the benefit of urban local authorities. This was in marked contrast with rural local authorities. Following consultations with the States the proposed allocations set out in the Bill were adopted. These allocations go a considerable way towards improving the difficulties which rural local government and rural road system were facing. This has been achieved without any disruption of the overall State road programs.

As I have indicated it will be necessary for the States to also increase their own expenditure on road works by about 9 per cent in order to qualify for the additional Commonwealth assistance.

As you will appreciate both Commonwealth and State governments, together with local government, have joint responsibilities to finance the road program and it is only appropriate that the States increase their level of effort as well.

The Bill is divided into 3 parts. Part I sets out the usual preliminary information. Part II- clauses 3 to 6- relates to the National Roads Act. Part II-clauses 7 to 12- relates to the Roads Grants Act. The total increase in funds for each State is as follows:

New South Wales-$ 11.3m, Victoria-$7.5m,

Queensland- $7.5m, South Australia- $3.2m,

Western Australia- $4.6m, Tasmania- $ 1 .7m.

The allocations to the different road categories in each State are set out in the detailed schedules included in the Bill. The relevant clauses for the detailed category allocations are clause 6 for National Roads and clause 12 for the Roads Grants Act. The Bill provides for the additional amounts set out in the schedules to be added to the existing 1976-77 appropriations. I would remind honourable senators that the allocations to categories were made only after consultations with the States. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Keeffe) adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 6.3 to 8 p.m.

page 2246

ABORIGINAL COUNCILS AND ASSOCIATIONS BILL (No. 2) 1976

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I move:

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

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

The speech read as follows-

This Bill which was introduced by my colleague the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Viner) on 3 June this year is basically the same as the one introduced by the previous Minister for Aboriginal Affairs late in the life of the previous Parliament but which lapsed as a result of the double dissolution of Parliament. The purpose and provisions of that Bill have been reexamined and the principles behind it accepted by the Government. Two particular amendments are proposed which I will mention later. The Bill which I am now introducing reflects the Government’s careful consideration of many and varied views on this matter and is a tangible indication of this Government’s commitment to the principle that Aborigines and Islanders should be as free as other Australians to determine their own future and to take their rightful place as citizens in the Australian community.

In January 1972 the Right Honourable William McMahon announced his Government’s intention of introducing legislation for the incorporation of Aboriginal communities. This intention was given support by Mr Justice Woodward in the first report of the Aboriginal Land Right Commission in 1973. In his report, the Commissioner pointed out that existing legal provisions in respect of incorporation were not adequate to meet the needs of the communities with which he had come into contact in the course of his inquiries. Existing State and Territory legislation provides for a range of forms of incorporation for a variety of purposes- charitable, social, cultural and sporting organisations, companies, partnerships and other forms of enterprise. The complexities of such matters are confusing enough to anyone but company lawyers. One can well imagine the bewilderment of Aboriginal elders in remote tradition-oriented communities, who simply want to get on with their own projects, when faced by the immense amount of documentation necessary to enable them to act as a legally recognised corporate body. But it is not only to eliminate these complexities that I am now introducing this Bill. Aboriginal communities have been obliged to learn to adopt non-Aboriginal ways when it is necessary to meet government and other requirements and have already demonstrated, in the large number of incorporated communities and associations already in existence, their preparedness to do so.

What is so important about this measure is that it will recognise cultural differences between the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal societies and enable Aboriginal communities to develop legally recognisable bodies which reflect their own culture and do not require them to subjugate this culture to Western legal concepts. This is a very real manifestation of the growing recognition throughout Australia of the validity and strength of Aboriginal society- which, I might add, is clearly acknowledged in the election policy statement of the Government parties on Aboriginal affairs which recognises a special obligation ‘to provide opportunities for Aborigines to preserve their traditions, languages and customs from further encroachment and destruction where possible ‘.

The 2 distinct forms of corporate entity which may be established under the Bill are Aboriginal councils, and Aboriginal associations. Councils are geographically-based bodies which may undertake a variety of functions on behalf of an Aboriginal community of the area, provided that these include the provision of at least one of the kinds of services listed in clause 11(3) such as housing, health, municipal and related services. By providing for the incorporation of councils, the legislation will allow Aboriginal communities to incorporate without requiring registration of community membership, as in the case of associations. A council is in the nature of a community corporation based on a local Aboriginal social structure serving the special interests of that community. Aboriginal associations may be formed by a group of Aborigines for any social or economic purpose, including the conduct of a business enterprise.

Aboriginal communities and organisations receiving grants from the Commonwealth are normally required to be incorporated so that they may be legally accountable and responsible for their actions. It is not intended that Aboriginal groups already incorporated will be required to incorporate under the new legislation, and organisations may well wish to continue in their present form. The new legislation will, however, make it simpler for them to adopt structures relevant to their needs and will make its simpler for new organisations to incorporate in an appropriate manner. There is, however, no requirement that groups newly incorporating must do so under the new legislation. Some may well wish to incorporate under existing Commonwealth or State legislation, and they will be free to do so.

Concern has been expressed by some that there may be conflict where local governmenttype services are already being provided by an existing local government authority. Clause 30 ( 1 ) specifically excludes Aboriginal councils from making by-laws inconsistent with existing laws in force in the area of the council. It will be necessary for any council by-laws to be laid on the table of each chamber for 14 days, which is an addition made to the Bill introduced by the previous Government. The present Government considered it proper that these by-laws should be subject to the scrutiny of Parliament. I draw attention to the provisions of clauses 16(3) and 17(4) of the Bill. In some remote areas of Australia local government authorities do not exist, and these provisions will ensure that there will be no conflict between the establishment of an Aboriginal council in an area and any proposals for the development of local government in the area.

This Bill, though necessarily complex in part, has been made as straightforward as possible. Out of it will come major benefit for Aboriginal communities and groups throughout Australia, enabling them to establish themselves as legally recognised bodies in a form and for purposes which are meaningful to them. It will also ensure that these bodies accept responsibility for their corporate actions. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Keeffe) adjourned.

page 2248

STATES GRANTS (ABORIGINAL 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 Guilfoyle) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator GUILFOYLE (Victoria-Minister for

Social Security) (8.3)- I move:

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

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

The speech read as follows-

The Bill when enacted will be the continuing legislative authority by which funds will be made available to the States for the purpose of implementing programs of assistance to Aboriginal people. On the basis of advice from the then Attorney-General it has been the practice since 1968 to introduce each year during the Budget session the States Grants ( Aboriginal Assistance) Bills for this purpose. Such Bills have been presented in accordance with section 96 of the Constitution and have contained conditions under which the Minister may release funds to the States and recover moneys not expended for the purposes for which they were provided.

Following upon comments made by the Auditor-General in his special report of March 1974 on the administration of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, the method of appropriation of funds for State programs was changed in the financial year 1974-75. Instead of the funds being provided from the Aboriginal Advancement Trust Account, as in previous years, States grants were appropriated under division 806 in Appropriation Act (No. 2) 1974-75. This Bill, if passed into law, will replace the practice by which a States Grants (Aboriginal Assistance) Bill has been introduced each year, and will provide for the payment to the States in any year of such amounts as are appropriated by Parliament for that purpose in that year. Such standing legislation will also overcome a deficiency in the present situation in that there is at present no specific legislative authority in terms of section 96 of the Constitution for payment to the States during the Supply period, as the annual States Grants (Aboriginal Assistance) Bill has not been enacted in past years until after the introduction of the Budget.

In previous years Ministers for Aboriginal Affairs used the opportunity of the introduction of annual States grants Bills to give Parliament detailed information of Aboriginal affairs programs undertaken through grants-in-aid to Aboriginal organisations as well as through State instrumentalities. Such information on the Government’s policies will be available to the Parliament in the usual way through the Appropriation Bill and will be debated in the normal manner in the Budget session. There will, in addition, be the Department of Aboriginal Affairs annual report, which is soon to be tabled in the House. I do, however, refer honourable senators to Budget Paper No. 7, tables 39 and 1 17, which show estimates of payments to the States during 1976-77, for Aboriginal advancement and also provide some details of such payments in past years. Honourable senators will be aware that the Government has recently announced a further allocation of $25m to Aboriginal advancement. A portion of this amount will be made available to the States and when the additional estimates are introduced into the Senate later during this financial year, details of such further allocations to the States and to Aboriginal organisations will be announced. Honourable senators will be aware of the annual Bill which was introduced into the Senate on 3 June 1976. This annual Bill will lapse with the passing of standing legislation. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Keeffe) adjourned.

page 2249

ACTS INTERPRETATION AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– I move:

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

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

The speech read as follows-

The purpose of this Bill is to effect a number of changes to the Acts Interpretation Act. This Act sets down general rules that are to apply, unless a contrary intention appears, to the interpretation of all Acts of Parliament and regulations and other instruments made under those Acts. It also confers certain powers of a general nature to facilitate the operation of other Acts. The main changes to be made by the Bill are to clarify certain matters as a result of the decision of the High Court in the Seas and Submerged Lands Act case and to facilitate future changes in the Administrative Arrangements Order.

Clause 3 of the Bill replaces section 4 of the principal Act that empowers action to be taken in the period between the passing of an Act and its commencement so that the Act can have effective operation on the date it comes into force. There are doubts as to the effectiveness of the present section in relation to its operation in the case of an amending Act, and it is desired to remove those doubts. Moreover, section 4 as it stands contains a proviso that instruments made under the power thus conferred do not become effective until the Act comes into operation, but there is no similar provision as to the effective date of other things that may be done under the power. It should be clear that all such action does not take effect before the date on which the Act comes into operation and the clause so provides. If it is necessary in a particular case for appointments, for instance, to be in force before the commencement of the relevant Act, that Act, not the Acts

Interpretation Act, should provide specifically for that to be done.

Clause 4 seeks to make it clear that Commonwealth Acts, existing and future, have effect in and in relation to the off-shore area and to the outer edge of the territorial sea. This effect is to be subject to any contrary intention appearing in a particular Act. The need for the clause arises out of the decision of the High Court, in the Seas and Submerged Lands Act case, that the States end, generally speaking, at low water mark, and do not include the territorial sea. The clause also makes it clear that Acts extending to an external territory have effect in and in relation to territorial sea off that territory. Nothing in the clause is to limit the operation of any Act before the amendment comes into force.

Clause 5 rephrases the existing definitions of certain words. The extended definition of the word ‘Minister’ arises out of amendments made by clause 8 of the Bill. The new definition of Gazette’ reflects the decision of the Government to revert to the title of ‘Commonwealth of Australia Gazette’ that was in use over many years up to 1 July 1 973. Clause 6 reflects a similar decision to change the title of the office of Government Printer. Clause 7 of the Bill inserts a new clause to provide that other parts of speech and grammatical forms of a word or phrase defined in an Act are to have corresponding meanings.

Clause 8 is intended to provide a procedure to overcome difficulties in applying legislation as a consequence of changes in ministerial offices, in the names of departments and in the Administrative Arrangements Order. These difficulties exist where legislation contains references to specified Ministers, departments or permanent heads and these references do not accord with the changed administrative arrangements. The existing sections 19a and 19b have been found not to be adequate for this purpose in all cases that arise. Proposed new sections 19B and 19ba will empower the Governor-General to make orders to adapt those statutory references to the altered administrative arrangements.

I refer particularly to the provisions in new section 19ba, applicable when a function is transferred from one Minister to another without the designation of the former Minister being altered. In that case the Bill will require the tabling in the Parliament of any order that requires that the relevant references in Acts to the former Minister be applied to the latter. Either House may disallow the order, in the same way that regulations may now be disallowed.

This procedure recognises that the effect of an order by the Governor-General would be to change the operation of an Act conferring functions on a specified Minister by transferring those functions to another Minister. The opportunity is given to the Parliament to insist on the continued application of its enactment in the form in which the Parliament passed the legislation.

New section 19bb empowers the revocation of an order under section 1 9b or 1 9ba. All orders made under new sections 19b, 19ba and 19bb inserted by the clause are required to be published in the Gazette. Finally, clause 9 sets out a number of formal changes to be made to the principal Act in accordance with current drafting practices.

I have referred to the function of the principal Act as providing a valuable aid in the construction and application of Acts generally and in shortening their length. The amendments proposed in this Bill will enhance that function.I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Keeffe) adjourned.

page 2250

CUSTOMS LEGISLATION

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Senator Durack) agreed 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 Customs Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1976, the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill 1976 and the Narcotic Drugs Amendment Bill 1 976 being put in one motion at each stage, and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole.

page 2250

CUSTOMS AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 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 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 DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator DrakeBrockman) Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

The speeches read as follows-

Customs Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1976

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Customs Act 1901 to give effect to revised Rules of Origin, made under the Agreement on Trade and Commercial Relations between the Government of Australia and the Government of Papua New Guinea, and to omit the word ‘sativa’ from the definition of ‘Cannabis plant’ in the Act. Honourable senators will recall, from the statement made to the Senate by my colleague the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Cotton), after the signing of the Agreement on Trade and Commercial Relations, that the agreement establishes a Free Trade Area which is free of duties and other restrictive regulations of commerce for trade in a member State. In general the revised Rules of Origin provide for a one-half area content. However where the onehalf rule is not met and it is considered that preferential treatment should be given, the Minister may determine that another portion that is less than one-half is appropriate.

The new rules introduce a desirable flexibility by allowing this simple basic rule, the one-half rule, to operate without disadvantaging goods which do not meet the conditions of the rule but in respect of which it might be desirable to accord preferential treatment. I now turn to the amendment of the definition of ‘Cannabis plant’. The Customs Act defines ‘Cannabis plant’ as a plant of the genus ‘Cannabis sativa’. When this definition was inserted into the Customs Act in 1971 it was intended to cover all known forms of cannabis. Since that time, overseas research on cannabis has led to a theory that the plant is polytypic rather than monotypic; that is to say there are species other than sativa. As this argument has been developed in Australia and used in prosecutions, the courts have experienced some difficulty in deciding whether or not the material in question is covered by the existing definition. The amended definition will overcome these difficulties by including only the main genus description, ‘Cannabis’. I commend the Bill.

Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill 1976

This is the second of the measures required to give effect to the obligations Australia will have under the Agreement on Trade and Commercial Relations with Papua New Guinea. The Agreement requires that the incidence of sales tax on goods produced in Papua New Guinea should be no greater than that on like Australian products. This equality is provided in the present sales tax except for one group of products for which exemption is limited to the Australian products. This group comprises cordials, concentrates and food flavourings containing not less than 25 per cent Australian fruit juice, or its equivalent in concentrated form, and non-alcoholic beverages consisting wholly of Australian fruit or vegetable juice.

The Bill will provide for a corresponding exemption for juice products produced in Papua New Guinea from juices of that country. A minor amendment is proposed to the exemption provision for works of art produced in Australia or abroad by Australian artists to reinforce the established interpretation under which exemption is applied to all works of art produced in Australia and to those produced abroad by Australian artists. This will also ensure that works of art produced in Papua New Guinea will be exempt as required by the Agreement.

It is also proposed to make a number of other amendments which are of a drafting nature only and do not affect the operation of the present Act. The Bill is to come into operation on a date to be proclaimed, the intention being that it will operate from a date which will coincide with the date on which the Agreement comes into force. A memorandum explaining the provisions of the Bill in detail is being circulated for the information of honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Narcotic Drugs Amendment Bill 1976

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Narcotic Drugs Act 1967 to transfer responsibility for the regulation of the manufacture and wholesale distribution of narcotic drugs, from the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs to the Department of Health. The Narcotic Drugs Act controls the licit manufacture of narcotic drugs, provides for security of manufacture and also for control over narcotic drugs when in transit through Australia to another country. This transfer of responsibilities is being made because the Department of Health with its computer facility to monitor licit transactions in narcotics together with various inspection, labelling and quality controls is well placed to administer controls over the licit trade. Import and manufacturing quotas are also based on legitimate medical requirements and the Department of Health can best assess such requirements.

Under the new arrangements the Department of Health will be responsible for: (a) licensing and inspection of manufacturers, importers and exporters; (b) authorising importation and exportation of drugs; (c) the setting of import and manufacturing quotas; (d) in conjunction with the appropriate State Authorities, determining acreage for poppy cultivation; (e) preparation of health statistics and estimates for transmission to the International Narcotics Control Board.

The Department of Business and Consumer Affairs, of which the Australian Narcotics Bureau is a part, will continue to be responsible for: (a) ensuring that Australia’s obligations under the international drug conventions are met; (b) action against the traffic in and possession of narcotics illicitly imported; (c) also under the Customs Act, administrative control over licit importation and exportation; and (d) security (under the Narcotic Drugs Act) of licit manufacture, handling and movement of drugs. Honourable senators will be interested to know that the arrangements, which have been in operation administratively for 2 years have rationalised and streamlined functions with some reduction in staff. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator Keeffe) adjourned.

page 2251

DAIRYING INDUSTRY RESEARCH AND PROMOTION LEVY 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:

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

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

The speech read as follows-

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Act 1972-1976 to remove any legal doubts regarding the imposition of the Commonwealth levy on whole milk and butter fat which is produced in Australia and subsequently vested in State milk authorities. The need for amendment to the abovementioned Act relates to points raised by the New South Wales Dairy Industry Authority which has questioned whether it is acting within the law in making deductions on account of the Commonwealth levy from the payments that it makes to producers on whole milk which it acquires from them for the purposes of the Authority.

Under the New South Wales Dairy Industry Authority Act 1970, whole milk supplied by the producer to the Authority is vested in the Authority and the Authority is required to pay the producer for that whole milk. In order to ensure that collections by State milk authorities are properly made, the Bill amends the Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Act so as to clearly impose levy on whole milk or butter fat which is vested in State milk authorities. It also regularises deductions that have been made by authorities since the introduction of the original Dairying Research Levy Act on 1 July 1 972. The levy which is imposed under the Dairy Industry Research and Promotion Levy Act is used to finance the research activities of the Dairy Research Committee and to finance the administration and promotional activities of the Australian Dairy Corporation. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator Keeffe) adjourned.

page 2252

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE

Senator SIM:
Western Australia

– I present the report and transcript of evidence from the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on its inquiry into Australia and the Indian Ocean region.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Motion (by Senator Sim)- by leaveproposed:

That the Senate take note of the report.

Debate (on motion by Senator Keeffe) adjourned.

page 2252

QUESTION

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL AFFAIRS

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– by leave- I move:

The reason for this is that the Committee is just finishing its deliberations in respect of this ordinance. It is not ready to report today. It expects to be able to report before 9 December but desires that period to be quite sure that the report is printed in that time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2252

AUSTRALIAN HERITAGE COMMISSION AMENDMENT BILL 1976

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 18 November.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I want briefly to recapitulate the objections that the Opposition has to this clause. They are based on a comparison of the size of Australia with the United States of America and the United Kingdom and the fact that the United States has a similar body of about 1 8 or 1 9 members and the position in the United Kingdom is the same. Perhaps it is an expansion of the axiom that 2 heads are better than one. We say that it would be better to have nine or ten members than 7 members. I do not think anyone would question the calibre of the selected commissioners, but one of the difficulties is that the Australian Heritage Commission has somewhat limited powers compared with the original ideas of the previous Government. I believe that its ambit should be widened so that the commissioners can have a more detailed knowledge. The Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) said in the debate earlier on the motion for the second reading of the Bill that the commissioners would have access to expertise, which is true. But it is usually found that after somebody has put up an idea and it has gone through a chain of committees to the Cabinet and then probably to a Cabinet sub-committee- I know that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has more than a passing interest in the subject- the original idea is unduly refined. Many of the people who get such ideas could be commissioners. If there were more commissioners there would then be a more broader vision that eventually could become a reality.

Whilst the Opposition has argued that the main thrust of this Commission should come from the national capital, we accept that the States have a role to play. I know that Government senators argued on the expansion of it when they were in Opposition. Whilst I am not retreating one jot from the idea of the central activity coming from here, I do believe that some of the resistance that the States had to this matterthey also had it to the Nature Conservation Act and the National Parks and Wildlife Service, as Senator Carrick knows- has been broken down. I believe that if, in a spirit of co-operation, there were State government representatives on the Commission it would not unduly upset the situation. I think that in the first instance there would be a good cross fertilisation of ideas between the non-government and the government people. It has been indicated by the meeting of the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers that the States do not all go along the one way. There is a variance of opinion. Without unduly delaying the passage of this legislation, the Opposition feels that the original concept of a larger Commission than is visualised should be maintained, particularly, I repeat, as there would be more people of equal rank to finalise the submissions that go to the government of the day.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– The Government is opposed to the Opposition’s proposition. The Government believes that the reduced size is more efficient and effective.

Senator Keeffe:

- Mr Chairman, I do not want to enter into the debate on this clause. I want merely to indicate that I was misrepresented by the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) during a previous debate and to seek guidance on whether I should raise the matter now or after a vote has been taken on this matter.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator DrakeBrockman) I think you should wait at least until after the Committee has dealt with this clause.

Senator Keeffe:

– Would you be good enough to give me the call, please?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Was it in relation to the debate on this clause?

Senator Keeffe:

– No, on the legislation generally.

Senator Withers:

– Deal with it in the debate on the motion for the third reading of the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I think it would be better if you were to deal with it at a later stage. I shall give you an indication as to the appropriate time to do so.

Question put:

That clause 6 stand as printed.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Senator the Hon. T. C. Drake-Brockman)

AYES: 30

NOES: 22

Majority……. 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Remainder of Bill- by leave- taken as a whole and agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Senator Carrick) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-Mr President, I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator KEEFFE:

-I have been misrepresented by the Minister for Education (Senator

Carrick). I refer to page 2 1 82 of the Senate Hansard of 18 November 1976. I shall clarify the issue by reading the last paragraph on that page. In closing the second reading debate the Minister stated:

The amending legislation further provides, as an alternative, that the Commission may act in respect of the entry of Aboriginal sites on the direction of the Minister or on the recommendation of persons or organisations approved by the Minister. I wonder whether this is going to be opposed. Contrary to what Senator Keeffe says, this provision enables the Commission to take advice from, shall we say, a highly respectable agency such as the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, which of course has a great deal of information, very special information, on Aboriginal sites. It is enabled to give that information to the Commission. So I wonder really what all the heat from the Opposition was about.

At no stage did I criticise the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. I believe that it is the only section in Aboriginal affairs today that knows where it is going and is doing a good job, even with its restricted budget. I should like my comments to be noted. They should be taken in context with what I said about the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, which I did criticise. I said that I felt that this Bill gave an opportunity to pass the power over to the Legislative Assembly, and I think I passed some remark at the time to the effect that I would not trust the Assembly on the way to the toilet, or something like that. I do want my remarks noted. I hope that if there was any inference that I criticised the Institute for Aboriginal Studies it will cease at that point.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– in reply- If, by any inadvertence, I gave a misinterpretation, it was not intentional. I accept the explanation.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a third time.

page 2254

QUEENSLAND GRANT (PROSERPINE FLOOD MITIGATION) BILL 1976

Second Readings

Debate resumed from 24 August and 21 October, on motion by Senator Withers:

That the Bills be now read a second time.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– Obviously the Opposition will not oppose the Queensland Grant (Proserpine Flood Mitigation) Bill 1 976, because it is a Bill that we introduced more than a year ago; but for the sake of refreshing everybody’s memory and so that we have the record totally straight I think I ought to run through some of its provisions. The purpose of this Bill is to obtain legislative authority to provide financial assistance to the Queensland Government towards the cost of construction of flood mitigation works along the Proserpine River in north Queensland. As I mentioned a moment ago, this Bill is precisely the same as the Bill that was introduced by the Labor Government late last year.

Briefly, the works covered by the Bill consist of river improvement works, construction, reconstruction and realignment of levees, construction of spillways, overflow structures and levees to divert flood water, together with works on diversion channels and regrading of a road. The estimated cost of the scheme is $936,000, of which the Australian Government’s contribution is $374,000 or approximately 40 per cent of the total amount. The construction is scheduled for a period of 3 years. The remaining finance will be contributed by the Proserpine River Improvement Trust- $ 1 87,000 or 20 per cent of the total- and the Queensland Government$374,000 or 40 per cent of the total.

Honourable senators on both sides of the chamber will recall the serious flooding of this area in the period from December 1973 to February 1974. The necessity to carry out this work is becoming increasingly urgent. The flooding demonstrated a need for an adequate approach to flood control in areas that could be considered flood prone. At the time of the floods, early in 1974, the then Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, wrote to the Queensland Premier proposing that an investigation be undertaken, directed to the problem of flood mitigation in Queensland. Some time ago I put a question on the notice paper directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Natural Resources. I asked:

  1. 1 ) What was the estimated cost of damage caused by the floods in the Proserpine area of Queensland in 1 974?
  2. What effect did these floods have on the cane industry in the area?
  3. 3 ) What effect did these floods have on the flow of traffic along the national route?

This is, of course, Highway 1. The Minister replied to me in these terms:

  1. 1 ) Continued flooding occurred from December 1973 to January 1974 and from February to March 1974 with some 25 floods in 1 1 weeks of 878 cumecs maximum, resulting in damage and destruction amounting to some $400,000.

That amount is equal to almost half of the money provided for in the Bill we are considering tonight. The answer continued:

This estimate is based on damage caused by the main peak in December 1973 at 1973 costs and prices;

So the $400,000 mentioned is probably closer to $700,000 now. The total amount provided for in the Bill is $936,000. The answer continues:

Subsequent flooding would not have increased this amount appreciably as most damage would have already been caused with the break in the levees during the December 1973 peak.

On the basis of information provided by local organisations, losses sustained by canegrowers have been estimated as follows:

In addition, minor damage was sustained by the tramway system used to transport cane to the mill, but the mill itself was not affected.

  1. During the floods in 1973-74, the main road route, the Bruce Highway, was cut on at least three occasions for a duration of two to three days at a time, causing disruption to traffic. At times, the highway was covered in sand, silt and debris. The main north-south railway line, which parallels the highway, was also subject to similar disruption.

So in fact the figure for the damage caused by one particularly rough flood was probably considerably higher. The sum we are about to spend is little enough to avoid this sort of expenditure or loss of profits in the cane industry being repeated every two or three years. The Proserpine River is a fast flowing coastal stream which is unique in that it has a faster and bigger flow capacity at its headwaters than in its lower reaches. The effect of high flood run-offs in the headwaters is disastrous for the downstream regions, and that is obviously what causes most of the damage. In the 1973-74 floods this overflow of waters extended to and entered the town of Proserpine. It also inundated land supplying sugar cane to the Proserpine mill, which itself stands on the banks of the river. I can recall that during a previous flood in this area the main traffic bridge was almost totally washed away, and that was some three or four years ago at a time when there was also a cyclone. The flood to which I have referred and to which the Minister referred in his reply to my question was the 1973-74 flood; only 3 years before there had been another major flood.

The sugar industry in Proserpine was worth in excess of $30m in the year ended 30 June 1976. That was despite the fact that in that year much cane was left in the fields because of wet conditions and the inability of the farmers to harvest. I think some 80 000 tonnes remained unharvested in the Proserpine area because of wet conditions. The district has a potential further to increase production if the flooding periods can be combated in some way or another, and I hope that this flood mitigation scheme will serve that purpose. In addition, the Proserpine River crosses the national highway and, as the Minister mentioned in his reply, this causes considerable inconvenience, even if it is closed for only two or three days at a time.

Most tourists who travel by road are not wealthy people and if they are caught going north and caught again coming back at the same river it obviously disrupts their holiday finances, and that is without the 17.5 per cent devaluation. The Opposition supports the legislation. The New South Wales Grant (Namoi River Weirs) Bill is also being debated, and that will be handled for the Opposition by my colleague Senator Mulvihill, who is very familiar with that area. I want to say quite clearly that the Opposition strongly supports the Bill and hopes that it will be the beginning of the end of serious flooding in the Proserpine area.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I want to confine my remarks on the New South Wales Grant (Namoi River Weirs) Bill 1 976 to the third paragraph on the first page of the second reading speech of the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers) and to the third paragraph on page 2. The Bill is based on Commonwealth-State co-operation, and in relation to New South Wales reference is made to cotton in the Namoi Valley. The then State Labor Government encouraged the early development there of the cotton industry, and I know that New South Wales senators would be aware that the trade union movement was fairly easy-going when the industry was established. There was no rigid prosecution of the award. At the time the industry began we were not as pollution conscious as we are now, and the result was that some practices occurred in relation to pesticides in cotton production which would be frowned on or outlawed now.

I notice the Bill provides that in the first instance the State will be required to carry out an environmental study into the impact of agricultural chemicals used in irrigated agriculture, mainly of cotton. I am concerned about a point which is a little obscure in the Bill. Although the grant has been made, if it is discovered from the study that the river contains a high proportion of toxic matter, what will be done to dilute the poisonous effects? I know that the original water pollution committee investigated the Canadian idea that a river can be officially declared a national disaster area and the Canadian Government then lays down a program of rehabilitation. In Australia, following that momentous water pollution report, the States moved belatedly but they have not been as effective as they might have been. In my own State it is true that the Parramatta River, one of the urban waterways, is improving but it has not reached the standard which the Thames has reached in Britain, where the Government was much stricter. So the first question I direct to the Minister is: There is a requirement that the State must carry out an environmental study, but how long will it take and will the results be made public? After all, the Australian Government is a partner in this operation.

I want to go a little further than that, and I ask the permission of the Senate to have incorporated in Hansard an article entitled Waterfowl and water levels. It is taken from a Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation publication and deals with a great Australian, Harry Frith, the Director of the CSIRO Wildlife Division. I ask permission of the Senate to have this article incorporated in Hansard.

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

The document read as follows-

WATERFOWL AND WATER LEVELS

Harry Frith sat 10 metres up in a redgum tree in a swamp near Griffith. With a razor-sharp tomahawk he chopped at a limb in which a grey teal had made her nest. The limb broke- and it was then that Harry Frith decided it was not the best method of gathering breeding data, anyway. Instead he began examining the testes and ovaries of ducks shot to a regular schedule.

The year was 19S3 and Frith was making the first scientific survey in Australia of waterfowl. What he found by looking at the reproductive organs of male grey teal in the MurrayDarling area revealed evidence of remarkable adaptation to its environment and the first understanding of the species’ eccentric life cycle. His findings demanded a radical reappraisal of accepted concepts of waterfowl conservation.

A keen amateur naturalist and a qualified agricultural scientist working in CSIRO on horticulture, Frith transferred to the newly formed Wildlife Survey Section in 1950. His first brief was prompted by complaints from rice-growers in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area that wild duck were destroying their crops. But his investigation was much wider than that, encompassing the ‘ecology and bio-economics of the wild duck’.

The basic areas of information needed were diet, breeding, movement and the factors regulating them. He was able to get approval from the New South Wales authorities to conduct year-round selective shooting. Each month he began taking a variety of waterfowl including 20 black duck and 20 grey teal, Australia’s two most important game birds, to provide a steady and unbroken stream of data. He was soon able to show that ducks were not the pest rice-growers supposed them to be and that much of the damage attributed to them was, in fact, caused by other factors.

In 1953 Frith began banding duck, not just the two most common species but whatever he was able to trap. About this time the natural conditions of the Murray-Darling areawhich includes their tributaries the Ovens and Goulburn, the Lachlan and Murrumbidgee, the Macquarie and Gwydir, and the Bulloo-Paroo-Warrego systems- began to shape his observations. The flood years of 1951 and 1952 were followed by a near drought in 1954 and Frith began to see how this had a marked effect on duck behaviour and populations.

In 1955 there was a minor flood down the Lachlan and Frith drove east of Booligal where he shot several duck and found their testes were sexually mature. Then in the same day he drove 160 kilometres to get ahead of the flood waters and shot several more duck. Their testes were sexually inactive. In that moment Frith had dramatic confirmation of what he had begun to suspect: that breeding was controlled by water level. In the following two years he was blessed with good luck; floods in 1956 and then drought in 1957 pro.vided him with further evidence of how duck had adapted to their unpredictable environment to ensure the continuation of their species.

In 1 957 Frith was making an investigation of wild geese in the new rice-growing areas near Darwin, when grey teal began arriving in thousands. Frith phoned an urgent request to his colleagues in Canberra to send traps and within a few months he and others had banded 5000 birds. At this time there was already a well-established duck-banding program under way in southern Australia. Over the following years as banded grey teal were shot, the recovered bands revealed an extraordinary pattern of explosive dispersal in times of drought. Driven out of the Murray-Darling breeding area by dry conditions the teal would fly at random until they reached other water. Some might reach New Guinea and New Zealand but it was likely that many more fell into the ocean and died. Others found their haven along the east coast in the natural swamp refuges, many of which are now threatened by land reclamation and real-estate development.

Later work showed that in times of drought grey teal might not breed for several years yet within only 10 days of an increase in water level they could become sexually active and lay eggs.

When hydroelectric and irrigation schemes finally control all floods, the grey teal and many other waterfowl will have few places left to breed’, says Frith. ‘To prevent this the replenishment of billabongs along inland rivers must be ensured and the coastal swamp refuges protected. Most importantly the States and the Federal Government must agree on a common resource policy and involve biologists in the planning of water conservation. ‘

Senator MULVIHILL:

-I thank the Senate. The only regret I have is that if we had film colour printing I could have the picture of the teals included. In the article Harry Frith is quoted as saying:

When hydro-electric and irrigation schemes finally control all floods, the grey teal and many other waterfowl will have few places left to breed ‘, says Frith. ‘ To prevent this the replenishment of billabongs along inland rivers must be ensured and the coastal swamp refuges protected. Most importantly the States and the Federal Government must agree on a common resource policy and involve biologists in the planning of water conservation.

Senator Durack ‘s colleague, Senator Carrick, would be well aware that I have been probing about how far we have gone on the wetlands surveys. In fact, I think he has owed me an answer to a question for 3 weeks. While my colleagues and I are not opposing this grant, if we do not have the money to do a national wetlands survey, as recommended by Harry Frith, I should like to know in relation to the Namoi River scheme whether the wildlife people from Canberra will be involved and whether the State wildlife people will be involved. Can we have an assurance to counteract the fears of Frith that if everything is made perfect nature is destroyed and we do not have these recurring water levels. The article which has been incorporated in Hansard describes how the water level affects the sexual life of the ducks and is affecting the population. Senator Sheil, who is a medico, will appreciate that the water level does have a bearing. I am talking about ducks, not human beings. I think it is fair to say that we ought to be told what liaison is occurring. 1 have always believed that if agreements are made between the States and the Commonwealth, irrespective of the government in power it is essential that those agreements be carried out to the letter. It could well be already that the high runoff of chemicals used to combat various pests in the cotton fields has made the Namoi River not what it used to be. I am pretty certain that that is the case. So I should like to believe that a strong effort will be made in this regard and that we will be able to get readings regularly as to the purity of that river. I think also that the question of a survey of water bird habitat should be taken in conjunction with the matter. Of course we have the bald statement that the State will be required to carry out an environmental study.

Some of us, including my colleague Senator Colston, had the pleasure and honour of hearing the people in the top eschelon of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation testify before the Senate Committee on Science and the Environment. I detected that Dr Harry Frith was getting somewhat despondent that despite his extensive research we are not doing all that we could in this matter to enlarge and protect our wetlands. I, like Senator Keeffe, appreciate that water is the lifeblood of Australia and therefore it has to be preserved. We do not believe in the ravages of floods. But on the question of co-existence, I see no reason why the Commonwealth Wildlife Division and the State people in New South Wales should not come into these studies. I should also like to know whether it would not be possible, when we have completed the project and have these controls of the river and water levels are decided, for the desires of the conservationists to be considered. 1 suppose there are all sorts of instances of how peo-‘° can look at the smaller things in life.

There was a famous occasion- I think it was in the 1928 or the 1932 Olympic Games-when an Australian sculler named Bobby Pearce was sculling on a river in Holland. He was so far out in front that he waited while a flock of ducks crossed the river. He coasted along but he still won the race. He had a gold medal in his grasp but he still found time to make a gesture towards wildlife conservation. I should like to believe that in regard to our water conservation policy the opinion of people of the scientific status of Harry Frith counted where all these projects were concerned. I hope that when this particular article is read and studied, we will get some further information on the matter.

I should like to go a little further on the matter. When honourable senators give the imprimatur to this Bill I should like the Minister to convey to the people in charge the request that I should be given a pass to go and have a look at this river any time I like. I am not asking for very much because when we had a State Minister in New South Wales named George Enticknap and I was a Labor Party organiser, I asked for a pass to enable me to go into any forest and see what was happening. I see no reason, as far as this legislation is concerned, why I, or any other honourable senator, should not be able to go up there every quarter if we wish, introduce ourselves to the engineers and everyone else and find out what is happening. Far too often we give legislation our blessing here and never see what happens to it, such as whether the pious words in second reading speeches are adhered to. So I leave that advice in the hands of the Minister.

Senator COLLARD:
Queensland

– I support the Bills. I shall dwell mainly on the Bill which deals with the authorisation of financial assistance to the Queensland Government for flood mitigation along the Proserpine River. Senator Mulvihill has adequately dealt with the Bill concerning the Namoi River. Proserpine is a town in north Queensland with a population of about 3600 people. It is situated on rich alluvial plains along the side of the Proserpine River. It is in a high rainfall area and is a very rich sugar growing area. Indeed it plays a very major part in that industry and in Queensland ‘s economy. The first sugar mill was established in 1885 but it did not last long. A second mill was established in 1887. The industry has been going quite successfully ever since. The present company- the Proserpine Co-operative Sugar Milling Association Ltd- took over in 1931. The Proserpine Mill has the highest mill peak of all the mills in the Mackay nulling area. In the year ended 30 June 1975 sugar in the Proserpine area was worth $35m. In the year ended 30 June 1976 it was worth $30m and, as Senator Keeffe mentioned, that was leaving approximately 80 000 tonnes of cane still standing significantly because the fields were too wet to be worked.

Another great feature of the Proserpine area is the tourism industry. Proserpine and the beach resorts adjacent to it are the jumping off places for the Whitsunday Islands and the Whitsunday Passage. This is indeed a great place in which to live and a great place in which to holiday. I think those factors should be borne in mind when we are thinking of any advantages that accrue not only to the Proserpine area but also to Australia as a whole and as we seek to attract people to come and look at what is one of the better parts of this country.

As I said previously, Proserpine is in a high rainfall area. It is also subject to cyclonic storms. It has a rather unique problem in that research has shown that the upper reaches of the river can carry a flow of 60 000 cubic feet of water a second while the reaches below the town can carry only 5000 cubic feet of water a second. One does not have to be a great mathematician to work out the result. There is a lot of flat country around Proserpine. The Gogango Plains are quite notorious for going under water to considerable depths for a considerable period of time. When you go through the town after a flood you can still see the sandbags which were put around motels in an attempt to keep the water out. To give honourable senators an illustration of this problem I remind them that in 1970 Cyclone Ada dumped 32 inches of rain in 8 hours on this coastal area of Queensland. The estimated cost of damage at that time was $198,866 in rural areas and $279,325 in residential, commercial and railways areas. This gave a total estimated damage in terms of prices at that time of $478,191. In 1973-74 the estimated cost of damage to rural areas was $241,860 and the estimated cost to residential, commercial and railway areas was $101,900. The total estimated damage was $343,760. So if we could overcome those problems, the money we are investing by means of this Bill would be returned quite handsomely. It is considered that the average annual damage without flood mitigation would be $ 1 39,000, not allowing for inflation.

Proserpine sits astride highway one. Highway one crosses the Proserpine River. Usually the major problems arise in the wet season when most people are on the move, that is. the Christmas vacation period. A lot of people are travelling by car with caravans at that time. These floods can have rather disastrous results. They upset people’s timetables in which to get to accommodation and run them into large amounts of money that they did not bargain for, especially when travelling with their families. They have to find accommodation in caravan parks, motels and so forth.

One of the problems has been that farmers, in order to help guard their own properties against the ravages of floods, have put up their own levy banks. Of course this has been done in a quite independent and indeed haphazard manner. The result has been that whilst some farms might be protected other farms get a lot more flood run-off than they would normally bargain for. The new deal will put in new levies and control overflows, lt will protect the banks in an effort to guard against erosion and will provide proper breakways to divert flood water away from certain areas and into other creeks that can take the overflow. It has actually been designed to cope with a flood of 40 000 cubic feet a second, which is a flood of a frequency of about once in every 10 years. That has been exceeded only by cyclone Ada since records were commenced in 1 958. The sugar industry has played a great part in the decentralisation of Queensland. It is a very stable part of our economy. Tourism adds to our economy and needs to be protected. With all these things in mind, I commend this Bill to this chamber.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

– I am pleased to be able to support this Bill. It is a comforting experience to know that sometimes the Opposition and the Government in this chamber can work in conjuction for worthwhile national goals. It is worth mentioning that this Bill was really an initiative of the previous Labor Government. In fact, it had a second reading before the Parliament was dissolved last year. The purpose of the Bill is to authorise financial assistance to Queensland for flood mitigation on the Proserpine River. I neglected to mention when I began that, as a senator from Queensland, I intend to speak on the first of the 2 Bills that the Senator is now debating, the Queensland Grant (Proserpine Flood Mitigation) Bill. The New South Wales Grant (Namoi River Weirs) Bill has been excellently covered by Senator Mulvihill.

I shall mention some of the details which led to this Bill so that we can put it in proper perspective. The floods of December 1973 and early 1974 in Queensland have already been mentioned. These were disastrous floods for many areas of Queensland. In fact, there were disastrous floods in the city of Brisbane in which I live. I suppose it is the first time- hopefully it is the last time- that a lot of citizens of Brisbane have experienced a major flood. The floods affected not only the capital city but also many areas throughout Queensland of which Proserpine was one. Following these disastrous floods the then Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, wrote early in 1 974 to the Premier of Queensland proposing that an investigation be undertaken of the whole problem of flood mitigation in Queensland. Following Mr Whitlam ‘s letter, the Premier wrote on 4 July 1974 requesting a grant of 40 per cent of the total estimated cost of $1.0 17m for flood mitigation works on the Proserpine River to be carried out over the 3 financial years starting from 1974-75. Proposals for the works were set out in a report to the Proserpine Shire Council on Proserpine River flood mitigation prepared by consulting engineers to the shire.

On 1 1 September 1974 the then Prime Minister wrote to the Premier advising that the Australian Government was prepared to make available a grant of up to $ 120,000 for restoration of levees damaged in the 1 974 floods on the Proserpine River. The offer was conditional, as this Bill is, that the State match the grant on a dollar for dollar basis and that the Proserpine River Improvement Trust provided $ 1 for each $2 provided by the State. On 10 October 1974 the Premier of Queensland accepted the offer from the Australian Government. Subsequently, the Queensland Grant (Proserpine Flood Mitigation) Act 1 974 was passed. This authorised assistance of $120,000 towards flood mitigation works on the Proserpine River. Further investigations were carried out following that assistance. Those investigations led towards this Bill which provides that $374,400 be made available by way of non-repayable grant. This amount represents 40 per cent of the total cost. Forty per cent will be borne by the Queensland Government and 20 per cent by the Proserpine River Improvement Trust.

Some earlier speakers have described the area. I will mention a few other aspects of the Proserpine area where these river improvements will take place and, in fact, are taking place at the moment. In the area cane is grown to a large extent on river flats. Because it is grown on river flats it is grown on very good soil for cane. Therefore, the cane crops are quite valuable. The town is built around the river and the mill is in the town. It is probable that in hindsight the people of Proserpine would like the town to be away from the mill, perhaps on higher ground but the town is in its present position and it has to be protected against floodwaters. The area is a principal sugar producing area of Queensland. In 1974-75 about 940 000 tonnes of cane went through the Proserpine mill. The value of this was about $34m. It was mentioned earlier that this was a very wet year and thus much cane was left in the field. In 1975-76 932 000 tonnes of cane went through the mill at a value of about $30m.

Parts of the town of Proserpine are subject to flooding. It is to be hoped that some of the work being carried out at the moment will alleviate the flooding in the town. The mill would not be subject to flooding unless there were a large flood and a break in the levee close to the mill. Senator Keeffe indicated earlier the massive destruction that followed the floods in 1973-74. So far work has been carried out on the assumption, I presume, that this legislation will go through the Parliament. Levees have been built and re-built, the river has been deepened in parts and the banks have been cleared. This should assist the town and some of the farms in the area in times of normal flooding. If there is exceptional flooding, as occurred during the cyclone in 1973 and the rains that followed early in 1 974, there will probably still be some flooding of the area. However, levees have been built and works carried out to protect against the normal flooding experienced there. Many of the farmers in the area have undertaken extensive work at their own expense. A great deal of self help is evident on the Proserpine area. In fact, in the part of the river into which the floodwaters flow, which is called the breakaway, a group of farmers have built a long levee over recent times. It is about a kilometre in length and I believe that the Trust had costed this levee at about $400,000. The farmers think that they built this levee themselves probably at a lesser cost because they provided their own labour and a lot of machinery which was required. As well they built it in conjunction with the Trust so that it is in line with what the Trust would expect to have provided in that area if it had the funds and the opportunity to do more work. This levee is further downstream from where the Trust’s activities are taking place at present.

There may be a problem in the Trust’s activities with regard to the escalation of costs. The work that is being carried out at the moment is being carried out in the best way possible to contain costs, but it must be remembered that the estimate of the amount required was made some time ago and inflation will affect it. If inflation affects what is able to be done, it will be very difficult for the Proserpine River Improvement Trust to carry out the work with funds of its own, because the Trust’s only source of funds is the

Proserpine Shire, which has a very small area on which it can levy rates. The total valuation of the Shire is about Slim, and that includes government property. The total valuation for rateable purposes is about only $6m. So it would not be possible for the Proserpine Shire to bear the whole of the cost.

I believe that a further submission is being presented or has been presented to the State and Commonwealth governments for further work on the Proserpine River. I presume that this submission will be given due consideration. I am hopeful that if it comes before this Parliament it will receive the same sort of consideration as this Bill has received. As I said earlier, I am pleased to support the Bill. It is encouraging to see both sides at times working in harmony towards the achievement of what is a proper goal for this nation.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– I thank honourable senators for their support of these Bills. As Senator Colston said, it is pleasing that on a matter of such great importance to people in Australia as the question of flood mitigation and the improvement of irrigation or pastures we can have agreement on all sides of the Senate. We in this Parliament are charged with the government of a country which is particularly subject to a variety of natural disasters. Flood is one of the more common forms, but we are familiar with the problems of drought, cyclone and fire. Therefore it is an important responsibility of any government in Australia, whether it be State or Federal, to give proper attention to them and to make proper provision out of our resources to assist in these very severe problems that occur inevitably and regularly as part of our way of life as a nation.

The Queensland Grant (Proserpine Flood Mitigation) Bill arises out of very severe floodding which occurred in 1 974 and highlighted the problem. It is true that the previous Labor Government agreed to make available for flood mitigation work on that river the sums of money provided in the Bill. The present Government is meeting that commitment in the Bill now before the Senate. In relation to the provision of weirs on the Namoi River in New South Wales, it is interesting to note that the initial offer to the State in regard to this problem was made by the former coalition Government in 1972. It was confirmed by the previous Labor Government. It now comes before the Senate for completion in the Bill before us this evening.

A number of questions were raised by honourable senators in relation to these measures. I was particularly interested in the first hand knowledge of the problems that were described by those honourable senators from Queensland who spoke on the Queensland Grant (Proserpine Flood Mitigation) Bill. It is apparent that the Proserpine area is most productive and that for the expenditure of a relatively small sum of public money very considerable benefits for the sugar industry and the tourist industry, to say nothing of their importance to the people living in the town and in the district, will be achieved by this measure. It also was pleasing to hear from Senator Colston of the efforts of local authorities and local people in dealing with the problems presented by flooding in the area and their efforts at flood mitigation. This is, of course, a matter to which we as a government pay particular regard. We believe that these problems should not be left to government, whether it be State or Federal. The problem certainly should not always be a burden thrown on to the Federal Government. The people of the area and the local authorities should be prepared to shoulder some of the burden. As I said, it is most pleasing that they have done so. This is entirely in line with the Australian tradition that people themselves should be prepared to meet these obligations or some share of them.

Senator Colston raised the point of cost escalation. I am sure that the Government will look at that problem. I will refer it to the Minister whom I am representing here this evening. Senator Mulvihill raised the question of the environmental study which is to be carried out in relation to the impact of agricultural chemicals in the irrigated area that is to be developed as a result of the weirs that will be established on the Namoi River with the finance provided in this legislation. I am advised that the environmental study will cover the impact of wildlife, particularly the sexual habits of the waterbirds, in that area, for which I am sure we are most relieved. I do not know whether the expert mentioned by Senator Mulvihill will be associated with that study, but certainly the points Senator Mulvihill made and his reference to that gentleman will be taken into consideration by the respective governments concerned with the implementation of the environmental study.

The other point that Senator Mulvihill raised is a most important one. He asked what will happen if the study reveals some problem arising out of the wider use of chemicals in the area. On that point, I am advised that New South Wales has fairly strict legislation covering pollution. It would probably be wide enough to cover such matters. Nevertheless, I am sure that the Federal Government in conjunction with the State Government will monitor the situation carefully. It would certainly be a matter for further consideration if the legislation did not prove to be adequate. I take on board the point made by Senator Mulvihill that it is all very well for studies to be carried out but there is not much point in having studies done unless there is adequate power within government to deal with the problems which are revealed and adequate power to implement recommendations.

As I said earlier, I thank the Senate for its support of these measures which, on the levels of expenditure we are used to dealing with in this Parliament, are small. Nevertheless, they deal with matters of very great importance to many people in Australia. These are matters of very considerable national importance. Certainly they deal with questions which we as representatives of the Australian people should always have very much in the forefront of our considerations in this national Parliament.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without amendment or debate.

page 2261

AIR FORCE AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 12 October, on motion by Senator Withers:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The Opposition will not be opposing this legislation. The Bill basically removes any doubt that may exist concerning the introduction of the Air Training Corps scheme, a scheme which has operated for many years in conjunction with those schemes which apply to the other 2 Services. We support the intention of the Bill and accept the fact that the reintroduction of the scheme would be of benefit to the initial training period of members of the armed forces. As it is really a matter of removing any legal doubt that may exist about the reintroduction of this scheme we would not be opposing the Bill.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– I thank the Opposition for its support of this Bill. There does not seem to be anything left to be said about it.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2261

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

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 2 November, on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– The Senate is debating the States Grants (Housing Assistance) Bill (No. 2) 1976 which authorises the Treasurer to advance to the States this financial year the sum of $375m for welfare housing in accordance with the Housing Agreement of 1973-74. This legislation is important because it does provide some recognition, paltry as it is, of the needs of welfare housing. In real terms, taking into account the ravages of unbridled inflation which according to the Lynch Budget when it was presented in August this year is to continue at much the same rate this financial year as existed last year, this sum represents a cutback in the finance made available for welfare housing. If we have regard for the horrendous decision made by the Government on Sunday in respect of devaluation of the Australian dollar and the pressures this will place upon the domestic sector of the economy, particularly in the areas of credit and interest rates, this piece of legislation will prove to be very paltry indeed because in actual money terms it offers a paltry $ 10.4m more than last year or, for the benefit of those on the other side who are prepared to accept any piece of advice their Government may give them, a measly, miserable 3 per cent increase on the amount of money that was available in the last Labor Budget. If that is acceptable to honourable senators opposite all I can say is that they have no understanding of the tremendous pressures that exist within the Australian community in respect of housing assistance for those who are not able for a variety of reasons associated with the development of the Australian economy in the post-war years to save to buy land at the exorbitant price it is, particularly in the capital cities, and to finance the repayments when they build a home upon that land.

It does seem to the Opposition that the sum of money set out in this legislation which represents such a small proportional increase indicates that the Federal Government is determined not to assist where assistance is most needed. Of course, Madam Acting Deputy President, as you are aware and as we have said so many times in this place, the difference that exists between this

Government’s policies and the policies of the previous Government is the recognition of need as the starting point in all of our social welfare programs. We are aware that the federalism policy to which the Government gives a great deal of emphasis is actually beginning to squeeze the States of funds. In its day to day implementation of this policy, the Government is reducing direct assistance to the States under the shield of what must be regarded as the discredited federalism policy of the Government. The net result for those people waiting for welfare housing is that they will have to wait longer. I remember that when we took office in 1972 there were more people waiting for public or welfare housing than had ever been the case in the history of this country. The Government cannot claim that that position has improved; in fact, it has worsened. Any member of Parliament who does not appreciate the fact that increasing numbers of people are unable to compete in the private sector for housing and therefore have to rely on public or welfare housing does not understand his social responsibilities.

The Government has indicated by the way in which it has allocated funds for public housing that it will not provide sufficient funds as to enable us to catch up and provide for the housing needs of the Australian people. It prefers to turn back the clock to the disastrous years of 197 1-72 and 1972-73 when previous Liberal-Country Party administrations introduced conservative Budgets. It ignores the present needs and requirements and the endeavours of the Labor Government when in office from 1 972 to 1 975 to satisfy those needs. We make no apology for the fact that we allocated considerably more funds to the States than had conservative governments to make up for the lag which had occurred in the post-war years.

Let us look at the 1972-73 Budget which was presented by Mr Snedden when he was Treasurer in the McMahon Government. That Budget provided for a deficit of $709m. They are not my figures; they are the figures shown in the Budget Papers presented to us in August of this year. It is interesting to compare that Budget deficit of $709m- that was the last Budget of the previous Liberal administration-with the deficit of $293m in the first Labor Budget, which represented a reduction of $4 16m in the deficit. It is worthwhile examining what was done in the field of housing at that time. In that conservative Budget of 1972-73 a total of $243.9m was allocated for housing to the States, and that figure included $ 166.9m allocated by the States for housing under the Loan Council borrowing programs for housing projects similar in nature to those under the 1973 Housing Agreement. That figure has to be compared with the sum of $337m allocated for housing in the first Labor Budget. That Labor Budget reduced the Budget deficit by about two-thirds.

Yet in its 1973-74 Budget which reduced the deficit, the Labor Government increased spending on housing by more than $93m. That fact alone clearly demonstrates which Party is firmly committed to attempting to provide for the housing needs of the Australian people. The Labor Government reduced considerably the Budget deficit created by the Liberal Government and at the same time allocated considerably more funds to the States for housing than did the Liberal Government. Yet we have been maligned and traduced by Government senators and speakers and a section of the media who have said that we spent too much money in these areas in our years in government. We make no apology for the fact that we increased considerably the amount of money made available for public housing.

Notwithstanding the fact that we reduced the Budget deficit and provided more funds to meet the needs of the people, particularly for housing, the conservatives in this place brought down the Labor Government. This is evidenced by the now infamous statement made in this place by Senator Withers only a few short months after we came to office and before we even had a chance to present our first Budget. He admitted that he had conspired with his colleagues to bring down the Labor Government. The disruptive events of last year were the culmination of that strategy, which is to the everlasting discredit of the conservatives of this country. The cost to Australia, to Australians, to Australian institutions and to the States is a high price to pay for that strategy. It was all done in the name of saving the economy- of reducing the deficit and of bringing down the rate of inflation. Incidentally, they are 2 arguments which were not very heavily used by the conservatives at the time of the double dissolution in 1 974.

Of course, now we are confronted with devaluation. A fortnight ago devaluation was not on the agenda; there was no chance of it occurring. Reducing inflation was the order of the day. Yet now we are confronted with a decision which shows the infamy of the events of November last year. The failure of the Government’s strategy is already evident to large sections of the Australian people. Some people will be convinced that there will be some benefits for Australia as a result of devaluation. I am afraid some people in the rural community believe that it will be the panacea for their problems. They will learn to their bitter regret that it will not solve the problems facing Australian agricultural areas. As has already been pointed out by spokesmen for the manufacturing sector, this latest strategem of the Government may well be too high a price to pay.

Although the inflation rate was high and there was a deficit, the Budget proposals and the actions taken by this Government have indicated that at best inflation will continue to decline at the same rate that we were already achieving under the previous Labor Party Budgets. All the economists who have been asked to comment on the Government’s latest move of devaluing have predicted a further fuelling of the inflation rate. Some say that it will rise by 2 per cent and others say that it will increase by 10 per cent, but the fact is that the rate of inflation will rise as a result of the decision made on Sunday.

When we talk about this legislation and about Budget deficits, 1 think we have to examine exactly what was the deficit position which was the basis for the events of last year. It shows the hypocrisy of those people who used that issue to obtain power in this country. The estimated Budget deficit of $2,608m about which the Government speaks does not take into consideration the $200m which Telecom Australia has to seek on the local capital market and the estimated $250m obtained by the imposition of the Medibank levy. To its everlasting discredit this chamber refused to approve the legislation which sought to impose that levy when it was before it last year. As Senator Hall correctly pointed out, the Senate had an obligation to support that legislation. Of course, so many statements have been made about Medibank that one does not need to do more than refer to the fact that the Government’s approach to Medibank is quite unbelievable. It refused the previous Government the right to impose a levy for providing the Medibank service and then it went ahead in this Budget almost to double the amount of the levy.

Then, of course, the Budget Papers suggest that an estimated $240m will be returned to the Treasury by the wool and wheat industries. If these sums are added to the estimated deficit we find a very close comparison to the Labor Government’s deficit last year. It is true that the Labor Government’s deficit in 1975 was $3, 585m; but the Liberal-National Country Party Government deficit, on its own figures taken from its own Budget documents, is $3,298m. If we add the $2,608m and the $690m to which I have just referred the present Government’s deficit is a mere $287m less than that of the Labor Government. This is not accounting for the post-Budget promises of more money for Aborigines and more money for the dairying industry and other rural industries which require immediate funds to obtain a newer and secure direction.

Even today at question time we had the rhetorical nonsense of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Withers) when he spoke about last year’s deficit. All we are talking about is the relatively small sum of $2 8 7m which will be wiped out as a result of the devaluation decision. Never has so much nonsense been peddled by so few to confuse so many as we have seen by this Government in the brief year that it has been in office. In its fervour to redirect resources from the public sector and to artificially stimulate the private sector, the Fraser Government has created unnecessarily high unemployment. The result of this is that the living standards of all Australians are being reduced and undermined. Of course, the hopeful recovery that the Government promised when it took steps last year to belittle and remove from office a constitutionally elected Government has been deliberately stalled. The Government’s rhetoric blames the legitimate rights of the trade union movement to obtain wage increases commensurate with inflation for all its problems.

Added to that, in recent times there have been demeaning and unprincipled attacks that this Government’s leaders have waged upon the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. These people, in the main, were appointees of the previous conservative government. It is they who, having sat in judgment upon the wage claims of the trade union movement, which they are obliged to do, have taken into consideration the evidence and made judicial decisions based on that evidence. Who can say that from time to time the trade unions have not been dissatisfied with the decisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission? But when the Commission made a decision which displeased this Government, that hypocrite of all hypocrites, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), tore up the message that he received up in the Torres Strait Islands. He did so because he disagreed with the decision of that very authority upon which he has placed so much reliance. This is the great seer, the great knower, the person who stooped to the lowest of all lows in order to gain political power in this country. We have before us the prospect of a government in complete panic with no discernible, reliable economic policy alternative once the Budget strategy fails because of its pigheaded refusal to listen to the warnings given by even some of its own parliamentary colleagues. Honourable senators opposite would not suggest that there are not misgivings about the decisions that have been taken and about the economic policies being pursued. We know quite well that even some of the senior members of previous conservative governments have made certain criticisms. I have listened, as have many members of the general public, to the rising rate of criticism by former Ministers of the economic policies that have been pursued by this Government.

There is no discernible reason why more money could not have been spent on public housing in order to satisfy the needs of the community and to stimulate the building sector which is in a state of collapse in States such as New South Wales. Are honourable senators opposite prepared to say that a Government dollar spent on housing is inflationary but that a private sector dollar spent on housing is not? Are we to accept this incredible statement by Mr Newman, the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, in a newspaper which I do not think anybody in his wildest imagination would accuse of having any slight leaning to the Australian Labor Party. The Courier-Mail is notoriously anti-Labor. Mr Newman had this to say, as reported in that newspaper, in announcing the Federal Government’s proposal:

The Government wanted fewer houses built.

This is in today’s newspaper. He went on to say:

Building industry leaders were stunned by the announcement. They said it was a blow to an industry already working below capacity. 1 do not know whether the next statement is true or false:

Several Liberal backbenchers said they could not understand it.

That is the sort of pronouncement that is coming from the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development. He wants fewer houses built. But whom does that help? It certainly does not help the Australian people. It certainly does not help the migrants. It certainly does not help the low income groups, and it certainly does not help the young people. Only those people who have accommodation will profit from fewer houses being built because this will create a market for those who can speculate or who have more than one property to rent.

We all know the very citical problem of housing that exists in New South Wales. Mr Fraser is on record as saying that this is Mr Wran ‘s fault. He said that in July only a couple of months after

Mr Wran came to office. Last year his excuse was that the problems of housing and unemployment were the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government; therefore, we should get rid of Mr Whitlam. Then, when he took power he tried to shift the blame to Mr Wran by suggesting that this high rate of unemployment in New South Wales was the fault of the Wran Government. The fact is that 45 per cent of the Australian work force is situated in New South Wales. What ever influences governments may exert in this economic system in which we live, no one in any fair understanding of the problem could suggest that Mr Wran would in any way, shape or form be responsible. Heaven’s above; the New South Wales election was held only on 1 May and it took the best part of the month before the results were announced. He had no decisions to make. Yet Mr Fraser had the temerity to suggest that the problems of New South Wales could be sheeted home to errors of responsibility on the part of a new Labor Government in that State.

We all know- at least, I have never heard any honourable senator suggest otherwise- that the building industry is at the base of our economic survival and reliance. If the building industry is healthy, so many of the other parts of our economy flourish. If the building industry is functioning properly and is able to satisfy needs, all the other influences that relate to demand and consumer spending on household goods operate. I do not have to quote the words of any authority more appropriate than the words of the Master Builders’ Association and the Building Industry Congress. Again, honourable senators would need to knock on many doors before they would find in those organisations people who have any connection with the Australian Labor Party or the trade union movement. They are notoriously anti-Labor and notoriously pro-conservative in their general attitudes. Honourable senators have only to read their pronouncements and the submissions which have been made to this new Minister who has the gall to suggest that we want fewer houses built to know what this attitude is. He has some insane and inane theory that this will help to level out the economic situation in this country. I do not blame Mr Newman. After all, he has been in politics for only a short time. Fifteen or so months ago he was not even a member of the Parliament, but he is now paraded before the Parliament and the Australian people and has the responsibility of bringing forward the legislative program. Maybe in time he will come to understand what it is all about. If those statements correctly reflect his attitude then it is certainly to be regretted.

Every government should accept the fact that the first corollary of any public endeavour should be to see that the people of this country are adequately and properly housed. Yet the absence of an adequate housing policy as part of a credible economic policy is clearly apparent. As in so many other areas, this Government prefers to ignore the real difficulties confronting prospective home owners. It ignores the fact that a majority of the people can no longer afford to buy their own homes, even if they earn the average weekly earnings, which are now in round figures about $185 a week. The statistics show that 70 per cent of the people of Australia do not even earn the average weekly earnings. The great bulk of those who want to own their own homes cannot meet the repayment conditions of the permanent building societies and the other private housing organisations for a housing loan. So they are forced into the area of having to be considered by the various State housing authorities in Australia.

The argument that increased wages have caused inflation and that the previous Labor Government is somehow to blame for an economic system which can no longer provide for the housing needs of the community does not stand close inspection. If wage and salary earners are not earning sufficient to enable them to qualify for housing loans from the lending authorities, which is the position, the only course of action available to them is to get more money. We all know that there are those within the Australian community who say that there should be 2 incomes in a family in order to overcome the shortage of funds in that regard. We all know also that there are many people in the community who have grave doubts about whether that is a legitimate way in which to solve this problem and who feel that there are social and economic consequences flowing from that. We reached the point in my Party a couple of years ago where we were discussing whether zero population growth was a good or desirable objective. Irrespective of whether we supported it, it has come about and it has come about principally because of the prevailing economic conditions in this country.

Seventy per cent of the Australian work force cannot meet the requirements of the lending authorities and provide their own private needs for accommodation. That is a lot of people. It is a hell of a lot of people. The only way in which they can have their needs satisfied is through the housing authorities and with public funds. There is no way in which they can be enticed into the home ownership area if they cannot come within the housing authorities organised by the States, which have to be funded by the Australian Government. Of course, the biggest single factor that militates against anybody getting off the ground in respect of housing in Australia is the high cost of land. What did the Labor Government seek to do in this respect? It set out to establish land commissions. To his eternal credit, Tom Uren went from State to State negotiating in this respect. Fancy having to deal with mavericks like Court and Bjelke-Petersen! Fancy having to convince those sorts of characters about anything that was being done by the Australian Government? Even Malcolm Fraser has given up trying to convince Bjelke-Petersen. Yet Tom Uren spent the best part of his Vh years in that position getting complete agreement with the 6 State Premiers on the establishment of land commissions and he finally succeeded.

The cost of land is at the heart and the crux of the problem. Unless one has the wherewithal to provide funds to buy a block of land it is no good talking about lending money for the building of homes by one ‘s own efforts. Honourable senators opposite stand for the private sector. They are shaking their heads. Obviously they have no understanding of how the great majority of the people of Australia live. The great majority of the people of Australia, who live in Sydney and Melbourne, cannot satisfy their needs from their own efforts because of the cost of land. Yet honourable senators opposite did everything within their power, both in the national Parliament and in the States, to frustrate the attempts of the Australian Government to move into the land area by the establishment of land commissions and thereby reduce the land cost component of providing accommodation. Fortunately we finally obtained agreement.

The present Labor Government in New South Wales is going to be very much on the right side of the ledger because something like $90m was spent by the previous Liberal-Country Party Government in New South Wales, when it finally became convinced of the need to do so at a State level, on acquiring land in and around Sydney. What a bonanza for Mr Wran! Ultimately that will play a vital part in satisfying the housing needs of people in New South Wales, providing the inflation problem is surmounted, which is doubtful in view of the decision that the Government has taken in the last couple of days. When are honourable senators opposite going to start thinking for themselves and not rely upon the infamous four at the top to make all of the decisions for them? Inflation is going to increase as a result of that decision and it is going to take still more people- thousands and thousandsaway from the possibility of satisfying their needs in the private sector. I have said that there were 49 000 people on the housing list in New South Wales in 1972. That figure will rise to 60 000 or 70 000 people. The only way in which those people are going to be able to solve their housing problems is through the activities of the Housing Commission in New South Wales.

If one examines the cost of land between the years 1950 and 1970 and compares it with the increase in the average weekly earnings for the same period one will find that the cost of land actually rose 3V4 times faster than the average weekly earnings. I do not know whether honourable senators opposite will accept those figures.

Senator Archer:

– No.

Senator GIETZELT:

– If the honourable senator’s processes of understanding are so bad it is his fault and not mine. I have been referring to figures taken from the records of the war service homes sector, which were the only records kept at the time. Of course, they were for years in which a Liberal-Country Party Government was in office- 1950 to 1970. If one takes into consideration the period between 1970 and 1973 one will see that the price of land in the fringe areas of Sydney, which is where the problem is at its greatest in Australia, rose 5lA times faster than the average weekly earnings. Of course, all that leads to is a greater dependence upon public housing. Mr President, you would agree with me that the efforts of the South Australian Housing Trust under the government which I think you might have served- the Playford Governmentwere a monument to State government enterprise and activity. I have looked at the various enterprises which the Playford Government, to its credit, initiated and which have been continued by the Dunstan Labor Government.

Of course, in the period to which I have been referring the speculators made a quick dollar and they made it at the expense of their fellow Australians. Shame upon them that they should exploit a commodity in short supply in order to make a quick dollar. In doing so they exploited those whose only interest was in providing themselves with housing. Those people who did that operated against the national interest and against the interests of most Australians.

It is also against the national interest to blame the working people of Australia for trying to keep up the real spending power of the fruits of their labour. They do not obtain a quick quid or a quick dollar. They were and are the victims of the avarice of those who prefer to exploit the many weaknesses in the market system rather than to do an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay. As one who spent many years in local government in a fast developing area, I can tell honourable senators of the fortunes that were made by the private speculators in land. It is a great pity that the conservatives governments did not take the initiative to establish land commissions in the mid-1950s when what was happening in Australia became apparent.

In Australia we have reached the stage where unless direct measures are taken few people, and fewer people, will be able to achieve home ownership in their lifetime. I have indicated how much faster the cost of land has risen than have average weekly earnings, which heaven only knows have risen too fast. If the total cost of obtaining housing is taken into consideration, the picture is even more bleak. Unless mortgage interest rates charged by savings banks and permanent building societies drop, the escalating costs of homes will push even a modest home beyond the reach of average and middle income earners and will continue to make it impossible for the people earning less to find the means to house themselves. The latest economic decision made by this Government will make it more difficult, according to all of the orthodox economists and the Treasury advice, for what it is worth. Honourable senators opposite may laugh as much as they like; but, according to all the people to whom they listen- the orthodox economists and the Treasury officials- interest rates inevitably will go up and not down, despite the fact that they made it part of their platform that interest rates would be reduced.

The Australian Labor Party makes no apology for the fact that it directed most of its efforts to assisting the 70 per cent of the population earning up to 95 per cent of average weekly earnings. In the last 2 years of the Labor Government’s term in office an average yearly amount of $375m was made available in this area- considerably in excess of what is provided for welfare housing in this Budget. This is not to say that problems do not exist for those earning between 95 per cent and 135 per cent of average weekly earnings. We agree that there are major problems in that area too; that in that middle group there are people who need special assistance to provide for their own needs. The more people can be encouraged to provide for their own housing needs, the less they have to depend completely upon the public sector. But the problem of these people is related also to servicing a loan and in some instances to bridging the deposit gap. Of course we took some initiatives in this area, which have been discontinued by this Government, in respect of mortgage repayments being related to a tax concession. Undoubtedly the biggest single factor affecting housing in Australia is servicing the loan.

Whilst the Opposition will not oppose this Bill, unfortunately we must draw attention to the fact that it does very little to alleviate the growing social problem of housing in Australia. All we can hope is that somehow, by some Minister or some back benchers, some decisions will be taken by this Government which again will allocate to welfare and public housing the sort of funds necessary to enable the ordinary, average Australian to participate in a reasonable housing scheme. We hope that enlightenment finally will dawn upon this Government, that it will cast aside the philosophy it has that public spending is anathema to the development of Australia, and that it will really look at the social problems facing an ever-increasing number of Australians and ultimately will allocate sufficient funds to see that all Australians are afforded equal opportunity to live in the home of their choice.

Senator ARCHER:
Tasmania

-For 40 minutes I have listened to a discourse on how to socialise and ruin the housing industry of Australia. We have been through everything from agriculture, elections and devaluations to the arbitration courts. We are very strong on socialism; we are very weak on housing. If the previous speaker, Senator Gietzelt, had any real knowledge of either the public sector or the private sector we might have got somewhere. The whole question of the utilisation of funds, the waste, the efficiency and the inefficiency of the utilisation of funds is apparent in anything when one starts to talk on housing.

I support the States Grants (Housing Assistance) Bill (No. 2) 1976, which provides $375m for 1976-77 and $187.5m for the first half of 1977-78. I agree with the previous speaker on one point; that is, that the specific purpose of the Bill is to provide welfare housing. Particularly over the last few years, this is where the housing situation has broken down worst. One area that has been generally misunderstood, deliberately in some cases, is that the legislation makes specific mention of the fact that if special circumstances in a State warrant it amounts in excess of 30 per cent may be advanced to home builders. Some States have said that 30 per cent shall be the maximum and 20 per cent the minimum, but the figure can be considerably more than 30 per cent. Of course the more that is put out in that way the more houses it builds. If one wants to stop houses being built one reduces the figure to 20 per cent and sticks to that as closely as possible.

The main purpose of this Bill is to provide money for those who are unable to house themselves and at the same time to encourage those who, with encouragement, can do something for themselves. In the public sector housing insufficient priority is given to the old, the large family groups, the low income groups and the desertees- those who are unable to cope. Far too often money is going to those with lesser needs and to those who, with help, could help themselves. A friend of mine, who is a former Minister for Housing in Tasmania, used to get upset about the fact that between where he lived and the Hobart Airport, to which he used to travel at times, he went past a whole row of government homes, each of which had either a boat or a caravan, or both, parked outside at the expense of the people who could not afford housing.

The main weaknesses with the system are that it does not cope with the greatest needs and that once an advantage is given to someone the advantage remains. It becomes a disincentive for people to do anything for themselves. It takes no account of peoples’ changing circumstances. The more this happens the more it is at the expense of those who are in need. Due allowance is not made for improving circumstances, for working couples or for the ordinary income increase. As I said, this always works at the expense of those who are in real need.

The public sector, it was apparently imagined, could be geared to take over from the private sector, whereas in fact the reverse can be the only system to work. Public sector funding can operate only to fill up gaps that there may be in the private sector. When we consider the needy the whole principle must be produced around the ability to pay. lt has to be geared to that. To do this properly it has to be based on household income. I believe that there should be a system in which annual revisions or annual scrutiny of the welfare system should be made. Of course, this is where the voucher system would come in. There is no doubt that the voucher system will be the most outstanding advance in housing assistance in the post-war period. It will be of far greater benefit than housing loans insurance, and that was the only other thing of any major significance. It is simple, it is flexible, it is practical, and everybody who has anything to do with housing is in complete agreement with that. I noticed that a lecturer in town and country planning got space in the National Times a few weeks ago, but I would rather take my advice on housing from housing people. There are plenty of people who would dearly love to see it not work, but I can assure them here and now that it will work because it is simple, it is practical, and it is flexible. It can be permanent, it can be temporary, it can be transferable. I personally look forward very much to the pilot scheme that is to operate in Melbourne, Sydney and Hobart, which will cover a cross-section of people who have genuine need.

I see the voucher system as having a very wide application in all sorts of welfare areas, and I think it can be clearly demonstrated that in many cases the voucher system is often better than money. Its use can be directed to the point of greatest need. For instance, in the use of deserted wives it can be looked to directly. In many cases money can be spent on items other than accommodation. The degree of assistance can be varied at all times according to changing circumstances and it can be gauged according to need. I believe that it can be extended into all fields of need by all departments providing welfare assistance of any sort, and I hope that it will not be long before it is extended into the field of home purchase. I think that there would be plenty of applications there. Far from failing to succeed, I think I can assure all honourable senators that it will succeed and will turn out to be very much a part of general Commonwealth-State welfare arrangements. I think it can be carried down through many of the civic and welfare groups which are looking to the care of people.

If we have to look for the biggest problem in housing of this sort, it is the problem that help is going to those who do not need it most. In general use, it is a case of getting money going again. The first suggestion I would make in relation to this financing system is that we encourage occupant purchasing and provide some inducement to get money back into circulation. If houses were sold at valuation there would be no loss to the Government and there would be an immediate turnover of funds, which would then go towards providing more houses for more people in need. We could go a long way towards providing for more private sector involvement, which at present is unattractive because returns are insufficient to pay the interest, but the public sector cannot provide the necessary funds. Therefore, my second suggestion is that we introduce a system of, say, a 5-year reducing investment allowance on all rental housing so that a reasonable return can be provided to people prepared to build housing for the general rental market.

As far as the aged and the handicapped are concerned, certainly more help is needed, and the social requirements of the day demand it. But money being spent now is not producing the optimum return. The community is happy to contribute and will contribute if given the opportunity, and money which is currently being spent by the Commonwealth through the States on welfare housing would produce a lot more if it were taken out of the Government’s hands and used as a subsidy, perhaps through vouchers or some other system. So my third suggestion is that as far as possible funds should be directed to community and welfare groups and government involvement reduced. I believe that in that way a lot more units would be provided.

Research that is being carried out is helping. The reports of the Henderson inquiry and the Indicative Planning Council in particular have come up with a lot of very valuable material which will be used for some years as the basis of what is going to happen. I think that these reports will become handbooks, but we must not let them gather dust on the shelves. Changes are being made all the time and we will need to keep abreast of them, with revisions being made at all times. We must continue to monitor the changing needs, the changing social questions, even what might be called the fashions in housing, and the income levels of the community at large. I believe that the States should have the major part of the right to determine what is going to happen with the money to be spent in the States. Some of them will spend it wisely, some of them will spend it unwisely. Hopefully, if the States do well they will retail their positions and if they do badly the voters will be discriminating enough to make the choice.

In Tasmania at present we have the advantage of being able to look at the housing policies for this sector of both the major parties. The Tasmanian Government has just realised that there is a private sector and that there is such a thing as home ownership. Having proceeded systematically to abolish it over the last few years- and being a government of long standing it has had long standing policies. What it is proposing at the moment is a lot different from the performance it has produced, and reference to the facts would indicate what I mean. According to the 1973-74 housing agreement schedules, Tasmania has 20 per cent of available funds going to home builders. That is the lowest percentage of any State. The average is 32.5 per cent, and the figure rises at its highest to 40 per cent. But the Tasmanian Government has seen fit to provide only 20 per cent, which means of course that it has the lowest number of houses per capita. It has the lowest loan moneys available to home builders and it charges the highest rate of interest of any State in Australia. That is the record of the Tasmanian Labor Government.

Let me compare that with the alternatives being offered by a possible Liberal government. The first item in the State Liberal Party housing policy is the encouragement of home ownership. The second item is freedom of choice and the third states that departmental housing should be primarily for those who need it. The next point is that the Liberal Party believes in an overhaul, with the co-operation of the Federal Government, of the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. It then goes on to talk about State guarantees of loans, the encouragement of cooperative housing societies, repayments being geared to incomes, the deposit home scheme and the reduction of weekly payments, geared to income and family commitments, exempting couples from stamp duty on their first home, and so on. That is the alternative. Of course, I am not the only one who is slightly displeased with the performance of the present Tasmanian Government. In the Examiner of 29 September Mr Casey, the Auditor-General, under the heading Housing Dept Roasted’ accused the Government of:

Speculation on land sold cheaply by the department to help young home builders.

Leasing and selling of shops without proper procedural safeguards.

Dubious’ use of welfare housing funds to buy three properties in Hobart ‘s historic Battery Point.

Lack of Ministerial direction on land sales policy.

Inadequate departmental communications.

Failure to demand rents.

If we are going to give money to the States for welfare housing, the least we can expect is that the scheme is administered properly. The most efficient way in which to have the scheme administered is to get as much money as possible to the people who can afford to go on with the job and then to look after the people who most need help.

The whole basis of the proposals as far as the Department is concerned is that the policy must be carried out on a basis of need. The Liberal policy is built around the encouragement of ownership which, in itself, lends to community stability and dependability. It encourages everybody who can own a house to own one. It encourages the private sector to participate fully and the public sector to look after those with the greatest need. I support the Bill.

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

– in reply- as I understand it, both the Government and the Opposition support this Bill. It is a straightforward measure to provide some $375m for the current financial year for welfare housing for the States and half that amount for the first half of the following year. As I recollect, this amount of $375m is some $ 10.4m greater than the previous year’s provision and is some 70 per cent greater than the allocation for 1 973-74 when the agreement commenced.

The Australian Labor Party, through its spokesmen, has advanced a number of arguments tonight. To simplify the very lengthy speech by Senator Gietzelt, he commended very strongly the housing policies of his Party when in government and inveighed very strongly against this Government. The simple answer is to state the facts. At the end of 1972 when the then Liberal-Country Party Government went out of office, it was possible for any person in Australia receiving an average weekly wage to buy and own a home simply by paying one-quarter of his average weekly wage for that purchase. In other words, the principle of quartering was available to people on the average weekly wage. The breadwinner of the family could buy a home without requiring the assistance of a second wage. Some 70 per cent or more of Australians were home owners. After 3 years of Whitlam government it was quite impossible for any average weekly wage earner to purchase a home. Indeed, instead of being able to purchase a home at a repayment of, shall we say, $30 or $35 to $40 a week, at the end of that time the combined wages of a husband and wife running into something like $260 a week were necessary at least under the quartering arrangements. So the first success of the Whitlam Government could be measured by the fact that it demolished the ability of the average person to own a home. The second measure of success was that it demolished the home building industry. The building industry itself was ruined. The basis of unemployment in this country flowed from the collapse of the building industry. As I understand it, they were the measures of the success of the Whitlam Government.

Let us look at other measures of success which Senator Gietzelt quaintly seems to find. He claimed great success for his land commission programs. Over those 3 years the percentage that the cost of a serviced block of land had borne to the total cost of a finished home rose steadily year by year. There was a time when it was about a quarter of the purchase price. In certain States it rose to something like 40 per cent. So again, if we are measuring success, the success of the land development programs was to force up the content of the price of a serviced block in terms of the overall home. I could not think of a greater recital of disaster. If that took 40 minutes to claim, as Senator Gietzelt did, I suggest that neither the journey was good nor the arrival successful.

In the course of his comments, Senator Gietzelt drew attention to an article in today’s Courier-Mail. It quotes the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, Mr Newman, as having made certain statements. I should like the Senate to know that Mr Newman has made several statements in the media today about that matter. I now read extracts from his statement:

The Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development said today that reports in this morning’s Press had completely misconstrued a statement he made the previous day about housing.

It was absurd to suggest, as the Brisbane Courier Mail had done, that the Government was planning a financial squeeze on housing.

What the Government was seeking to do was to ensure that the housing industry operated at a maximum level of efficiency.

Mr Newman ‘s previous statement had stressed that: major sectors of the construction industry would benefit from the devaluation; any effects on the costs and availability of housing would only be marginal.

It also contrasted the dwelling commencement figures achieved in the September quarter- which were extraordinarily high by any standards- with those recommended by an independent advisory body, the Indicative Planning Council.

I am confident that the housing industry will maintain a satisfactory level of activity in 1976-77. ‘

The Government has taken a number of initiatives to assist home buyers and to promote home building: an improved Home Savings Grant scheme has been introduced to operate from 1 January 1977; an experiment is to be conducted with housing allowance vouchers to find out the best way of assisting low income renters in the private market; approximately 1500 families are to be assisted in each of three cities- Hobart, Melbourne and Sydney, and this will ease the waiting list for Housing Commission homes; a revised housing loan interest deductibility scheme was introduced to give maximum assistance to first home buyers in the first five years of ownership; the level of welfare housing advances to the States was maintained in 1976-77 despite severe budgetary constraints.

Mr Newman said that these initiatives were a clear indication of the top priority that the Government gave to housing.

I think it is fair to say that throughout Australia the building of domestic dwellings is showing a significant increase. There is a growth in the number of commencements. The general picture of domestic dwelling construction is an attractive one now and is even showing such signs in New

South Wales. On that basis I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I ask the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) whether he could clarify figures which are contained in the second reading speech and which were not subject to debate during the second reading stage. As I understand it, the Government is claiming that the amount to be expended this year is $3 75m. In the appropriation for 1974-75, the advance under the housing agreement amounted to $385m. In 1975-76 the amount was $364m. The Minister makes the following claim in his second reading speech: we have maintained the level of advances at the very high figure of the last 2 years.

He went on to say:

Moreover, all States are expected to have available greatly increased amounts of general purpose recurrent and capital funds in 1976-77.

That is under the new tax sharing arrangements- compared with 1975-76; the estimated increase in the general purpose funds is 16.5 per cent . . . These figures represent real growth for the States.

I leave the matter of general purpose grants for the moment and ask the Minister how the Government can claim an increase in real terms when one considers that in 1974-75 the figure was $385m, in 1975-76 it was $364m which was a decline, and in 1976-77 it is $375m. It seems to me that on anybody’s calculation, allowing for an increase in inflation of, say, only 12 per cent, there is a decline in real terms of between 20 per cent and 25 per cent. That is the first question I put to him.

It is claimed that the estimated increase in general purpose funds is 16.5 per cent. The Minister said that the States will be able to increase their allocation as they see fit to utilise those particular funds. It should be borne in mind that the second reading speech did not say that the States will be required also to allocate those general purpose funds to other areas in which there has been a deline in Commonwealth payments. For example, the loan funds have been increased by only 5 per cent which means a decline in real terms. Can the Minister explain to me how the Government can claim that there is an increase this year under this legislation in real terms when in fact, I suggest, there is at least a 20 per cent decline in real terms? Are not the general purpose funds barely keeping up with the rate of inflation and therefore the States do not have the capacity to increase or make up the leeway in their housing programs?

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

– The second reading speech did not say what Senator Wriedt alleges it said. It said that the amount this year is $375m. It then went on to say:

This is $ 10.4m more than was made available in 1973-76 and is 70 per cent higher than the level of advances in 1 973-74, the first year of operation of the agreement.

Further on it was stated:

Despite the importance of expenditure restraint in the Government’s overall economic strategy, we have maintained the level of advances at the very high figure of the last 2 years.

I invite Senator Wriedt to tell me where he found the statement in relation to real money terms. I have not found it. He used the phrase but did not locate it in the second reading speech. Unless it is contained in the second reading speech his argument does not relate to the speech. In the part of the speech which he drew to my attention there is no reference to real money terms. As I have said, the level of advances has been maintained at the very high figure of the last 2 years.

Senator Wriedt:

asked about the moneys available to the States. He will be well aware of the situation which the States are in for the first time in many years. Each of the States, with virtually no exception, has been able to end the previous year with a surplus both in the revenue account and, in many cases very substantially, in the loan account. Senator Wriedt has not taken that fact into consideration in any of his calculations for forward planning. I remind him that his own State, as he must know, had a $4.5m surplus in the revenue account and a $17.3m surplus in the capital account. This has not been taken into account by Senator Wriedt. Yet those moneys are available to the State Governments together with the moneys supplied by the Commonwealth and those raised by the States for their own purposes. If those funds are taken into account together- I draw attention, for example, to the huge capital accretion in South Australia in the order of $55m- quite clearly the States have very considerable funds to draw upon.

I need not remind the honourable senator that the States will this year receive approximately $89m more in general revenue than they would have received under the Whitlam Government formula. That in itself, taken into account with the happy position of Budget surpluses in the recurrent and capital accounts, and the fact that the States have in general budgeted either for a surplus in the future or for a balanced future, indicates very clearly that for the first time in a long while the States are in a pretty satisfactory condition. I add one other point for the honourable senator’s benefit. If he has studied the State budgets he must know that every State, I think, has cut its taxation and has given considerable taxation benefits back to the public and has still been able to do what it said it would do. The States themselves elected to cut their taxes. Therefore, if the States expenditure is smaller than the honourable senator would desire that decision was taken by the States and by nobody else. It would have been competent on the States not to cut their taxes. Taken overall, the statement in the second reading speech drawing attention to the funds available for the States is a modest one.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Without involving ourselves in a long debate on that aspect of the second reading speech I can only say again to Senator Carrick that when he refers to the States’ capacity to reduce taxes he is talking about one area of Commonwealth-State finance. When we get into the area of housing and many other areas, we are not concerned simply with general revenue grants. The States themselves have to transfer funds from one area to another which then involve specific purpose payments and the agreements under the Loan Council arrangements. I know that the Minister will not be convinced but the States are convinced and now realise that what happened earlier this year was very different from what they imagined would happen. The real crunch will come during 1977. Rather than delaying the Senate now we will have ample opportunity to debate that action next year.

I refer to the specific point I raised initially. The second reading speech stated:

These figures represent real growth for the States.

It may be that the Minister was referring to general purpose funds. He also said:

We have maintained the level of advances at the very high figure of the last 2 years.

I ask the Minister again to consider the expenditures in the last 2 years. In 1974-75 the amount was $385m. In 1975-76 it was $364m. In 1976-77 it will be $375m. Even in money terms the present allocation is less than the amount allocated 2 years ago. So, how can it be claimed that the Government has maintained the level of advances at the very high figure of the last 2 years? Again I ask the Minister whether he is talking in money terms or in real terms. Is it not a fact that in real terms the allocation is down by a figure, I repeat, of around 20 per cent on what it was 2 years ago? If that is true, then I suggest that the second reading speech is incorrect.

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

– I do not want to delay the Committee; but, as to the first point that Senator Wriedt seeks to make and repeatedly has sought to make, I remind him of a very simple fact: The total increase to the States, taking into acount the moneys available to them by way of revenue sharing, loan funds and specific purpose grants, is in the order of 14.6 per cent- a figure which the Budget Papers identify. I remind him that on top of that the States within their own resources- the honourable senator ought to know that the States themselves are major revenue raisers by way of taxes and charges- in the past year arrived at a surplus which they had to bring forward. They reached at least a balance or a surplus for this year and they cut taxes. If that is not a story of maximum progress, then the honourable senator is hard to please. At no stage during the 3-year journey of the Whitlam Government could any of these things have been said. At no stage could the States have been in a position to budget for surpluses or a line ball position and to cut taxes. The honourable senator should know, but he refuses to acknowledge it, that not only did the Whitlam Government double indirect taxes such as customs duty, excise duty, sales tax, etc., and virtually treble personal income tax but also it forced the States one by one to put up their taxation in a severe and crippling fashion. These are facts.

So long as the honourable senator continues to raise this matter I will continue to produce the irrefutable facts. I repeat them to him: This year we are able to say that each of the States by and large has a surplus from last year in revenue and capital acounts and has managed at least to balance its budget for the year and at the same time to cut taxes. To him that must be a source of envy because never in his time as a member of the Labor Government was that possible. In his time what was possible was a tale of woe and misery in which taxes were forced up and up. The situation this time, as I have said repeatedly, allows a greater capacity for the States themselves to expand and to commit money to purposes including housing. The statement in the second reading speech to which Senator Wriedt referred refers to money terms, not real money terms. I made that clear. I invited him to show me the words ‘real money terms’ when he repeated them, as I did when he first used them. They are not mentioned in the second reading speech. We are talking about nominal figures. The average expenditure over the last 3 years has been about $375m. A little arithmetic would identify that.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I am sorry to continue this, but the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) is not answering the question. I might just say in passing that it is true that during the 3 years of the Whitlam Government income tax did double. As a matter of fact, it increased by 104 per cent. This is the first time I have heard Senator Carrick claim that it trebled. I would like him to give some evidence of that. I remind him that in those 3 years payments to the States increased by 133 per cent, in excess of the taxation collections from the States. I am sure that he would not give a similar commitment that over the next 3 years comparisons between payments to the States and taxation collections will be of the same order as they were under the Whitlam Government. However, I come to the specific point. I am not talking about generalities. I am asking the Minister to explain to the Committee this statement in the second reading speech:

We have maintained the level of advances at the very high figure of the last 2 years.

I ask him to explain how $375m this year is as high a figure in real terms as $385m was 2 years ago. That is all I am asking.

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

- Senator Wriedt invariably does a sleight of hand. He jumps over the figure for 1975-76, which was a reduction. If the nominal level over 2 years ran at $385m and was cut back by the Whitlam Government- a fact ignored repeatedly by Senator Wriedt- to $364m and then restored by us to $375m, I put it that we are maintaining the nominal value over that period. In fact, the only people who did not maintain the nominal value were those in the Whitlam Government, who cut it back. They are plain words, but Senator Wriedt tries these sleight of hand devices every time he speaks. Of the all-time losers I know he must take the cake on this because he is constantly using sleight of hand devices when in fact the figures are against him.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– If I am to be accused of sleight of hand tricks or questions, I would not want what might be termed a confidence answer. Con men are well known around the community because they can talk smoothly, but I would think that for a fourth year primary school child the question I am asking ought to be simple enough to answer. The fact that expenditure in real terms declined last year I am not disputing. What I am saying is that we had an inflation rate of 15 or 16 per cent, which the Minister claims was the position in 1974-75. It would therefore mean that in order to maintain expenditure in real terms there would need to be an additional expenditure this year of around $60m; that is, the appropriation this year would have to be in the area of $420m. That is not to increase it but just to maintain it. In fact the allocation this year is only $375m. If the Minister is incapable of explaining it now, perhaps he can explain it to me some time later by letter.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I would not have intervened in this debate but for the attitude that is being adopted by the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick). I would have thought that the Government could have got this Bill through quite easily tonight had the Minister adopted a conciliatory approach towards questions being posed by the Opposition. I have just been listening with interest to what the Minister has said concerning the amount of $375m to be spent in 1976-77 and the amount of $ 187.5m to be spent in 1977-78. While the Minister has been speaking I have also looked at the Treasury document Payments to or for the States and Local Government Authorities 1976-77. On pages 6 1 and 62 of that document under the heading ‘Housing’ there is set out a history of arrangements made as a result of Loan Council activities from 1945 to 1976. We will not go back as far as 1945. We will start in 1 97 1 -72, which was the year in which the McMahon Government went out of office. I will quote from page 6 1 . It says:

In 1971-72 and 1972-73 there were no specific advances Tor housing, the States meeting these expenditures from within their ordinary Loan Council borrowing programs in the same way as they met other expenditures.

In lieu of the former interest subsidy on housing advances, the Commonwealth provided from 1 97 1 -72 specific revenue grants under the States Grants (Housing) Act 1971 (amended in 1973 to take account of the new arrangements- see below).

In 1972-73-

Which is the first year of office of the Whitlam Government about which the Minister is being condemnatory and but for his remarks I would not be on my feet now - the States were advanced $6.55m under the Housing Assistance An 1973, specifically for additional rental dwellings, to supplement the programs they had undertaken and financed from their normal Loan Council borrowings.

They were programs undertaken by the States and financed by the States themselves. The document continues:

These advances were provided at an interest rate of 4 per cent per annum and are repayable over S3 years.

Since 1973-74-

Which is the second financial year of office of the Whitlam Labor Government - the Commonwealth has, under a new Agreement applying for the five years 1973-74 to 1977-78, advanced funds to the States for welfare housing outside, and in addition to, Loan Council arrangements. The State Government Loan Council programs since 1973-74 have been, as a result, lower than they would otherwise have been (that is, ‘offsets’ were made).

Without reading any of the other additional material I turn to table 40 which is set out on page 62 of this Treasury document. The table is headed ‘Payments to the States for Housing 1972-73 to 1976-77’. So far as New South Wales is concerned, the State about which the Minister made some remarks and the State which he as well as I represent in this Parliament, it can be seen from that table that so far as recurrent grants are concerned in 1972-73 $2,292,000 was made available to that State. That same figure applied in 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76. The amount was the same for each of those financial years.

Senator Wriedt:

– No increase.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-There was no increase in any of those years from 1972-73. The estimate for 1976-77 is $ 1,848,000.

Senator Wriedt:

– A decrease.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is a very substantial decrease. Let me refer to advances. Again I speak about the State of New South Wales which Senator Carrick as well as I represent in this chamber. He tells me that the housing situation in New South Wales is improving. I ask him to come out with me any Saturday morning in some of the areas that I go to. I know that the honourable senator will take me up on this quite willingly. We will see if the price of land is decreasing in any of these areas despite what is happening so far as unemployment is concerned. We will see if the price of housing is decreasing in any of these areas or in the area of Sutherland from which my friend Senator Gietzelt comes, or out in the western suburbs around Blacktown, Penrith, Mount Druitt or any of those places. I come back to the figures. I have already dealt with the recurrent grants so far as New South Wales is concerned. Let me deal with the advances, again for New South Wales.

For the year 1972-73 the amount shown is $3,500,000. We know, as we have said earlier, that since 1973-74 the Commonwealth has under a new agreement advanced funds to the States for welfare housing outside and in addition to Loan Council arrangements. So in 1973- 74, the first year of that arrangement, an amount of $86m was advanced to New South Wales for housing purposes. In 1974-75 the amount was $123,41 1,000. The amount last year was the same as for the year 1974-75. The estimate for 1976-77, despite the inflation that is occurring in this country, is exactly the same as the advance for 1975-76 and the advance for 1974- 75, 2 years ago. It can be seen from this table that total payments to New South Wales in 1974-75 totalled $125,703,000. In 1975-76 the amount was $125,703,000. This year the estimate is $ 125,259,000. Either what the Minister is saying is correct or what this document is saying is correct. So far as I can understand it- and I am not a mathematician, I am only a politician- the 2 things do not co-exist. They do not interrelate.

Therefore I would suggest to the Minister that he should give some explanation of what he is now saying about offsets relating to the figures that are set out in this document. Certainly so far as advances are concerned the figure of $375m relates to the total of $375m referred to in this Bill but the amount made available under advances, according to this document, to New South Wales- and that is the State I am interested in- is $123,41 1,000 which is the same as the amount advanced last financial year and which again was the same amount for the previous financial year. Taking into account inflation last financial year at 14 per cent and, if you like, for this financial year at 12 per cent, it can be seen that the States are behind the eight-ball so far as advances for housing are concerned.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 2274

APPROPRIATION (URBAN PUBLIC TRANSPORT) BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 2 November, on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– The Opposition is not opposing the Appropriation (Urban Public Transport) Bill 1976, but there are a number of pertinent things that I think ought to be discussed. I was interested to hear the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick), when speaking to the States Grants (Housing Assistance) Bill, accuse the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt) of using sleight of hand. I am going to relate a whole series of facts which indicate that the Government in drafting this Bill has used sleight of hand extensively. I am reminded of the Weg’s Day cartoon which appears in tonight’s issue of the Melbourne Herald. It shows the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) looking at a newspaper headline which talks about the Bay City Roller riot. I think Mal is saying to Phil: ‘That’s one problem we don’t have . . hordes of screaming fans . . . ! ‘ The way things have gone for the Government over the last few months, it has been able to get into more trouble in 1 1 months than the Labor Party would have been able to get itself into in 1 1 years.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP
Senator KEEFFE:

-That is dead right, quite frankly. The Liberal Party continually criticised us during our 3 years in office for getting into trouble. The stage has now been reached where the public, without any sort of encouragement at all, has decided that the Government has got itself into a bigger mess in 1 1 months than we would have got into in many years. I know that it is not a rumour that as each Government senator leaves the chamber he puts on his dark glasses so that he will not be recognised. I have here a telegram from Mr Rogers, the President of the Local Government Association. I think it is symbolic of the general attitude to public transport, roads and so on. Mr Rogers had this to say in a telegram he sent to me quite recently:

Queensland local government extremely disappointed reported Government’s action to amalgamate Roads Bureau with Bureau Transport Economics. Understand new organisation will be responsible to Transport Department and no longer report openly to Government and public. I reiterate our strong and continuing opposition to change as outlined our meeting with Queensland members Federal Government 15 October. Urgent you press strongly to reverse decision and retain Roads Bureau as independent statutory body.

That telegram was signed by Mr Rogers, the President of the Queensland Local Government Association. The purpose of this Bill is to provide $20m to assist the States to meet the cost increases on projects already approved under the terms of the Urban Public Transport Agreement, to give it its full title. The real substance of the manner in which this money is being provided is to conduct a confidence trick on the Hayden Budget in the distribution of money. I propose to show how that is done. Obviously, whilst we do not oppose the Bill, we ought to show up its shortcomings for the benefit of the public. I shall cite some facts and figures.

On 21 October 1976 my colleague in the other place, Mr Morris, who is the shadow Minister for Transport, adequately showed that the present Government and, in particular, the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) deliberately sought to give a false impression of the magnitude and the source of the funds being made available this year for urban public transport. The Minister indicated that $44.6m would be made available from existing appropriations, in addition to the $20m provided by this Bill. That represents a real job of a political sleight of hand. If honourable senators opposite would care to look at page 38 of Budget Paper No. 4 they will see that special appropriations and estimated expenditures for 1 976-77 are: States Grants (Urban Public Transport) Act 1974, $25.3m; Appropriation (Urban Public Transport) Act 1974, $33.8m. That is a total of $59. lm of the grand total of $64.6m. It indicates, of course, that the real appropriation under the Appropriation (Urban Public Transport) Bill 1976 is only about $5.5m and not the $20m that the Government is skiting about providing under this Bill.

That is symbolic of everything that the Government is doing. It applies to Aboriginal affairs, to the health funds, to transport generally, and to this Bill in which the Government has juggled the Hayden Budget. It should be remembered that in this chamber the Hayden Budget was adopted unanimously, and it is probably the only Budget in the history of Federation to be adopted unanimously. The Government has proceeded then to fiddle that Budget by knocking off a million dollars here and a million dollars there, as has been pointed out by my colleagues when speaking te other Bills that came before the chamber for debate earlier today and tonight.

When speaking to the Bill the Minister claimed that the allocated $64.4m was in fact an increase of 90 per cent over the amount paid to the States in 1975-76, which was $33.8m. I am citing these figures in case any honourable senator opposite wants to go home tonight and have nightmares as a result of finding now, if he does not know about it already, how he has been conned. He will be able to take these figures away with him, add them up for himself and make his own mathematical calculations. What the Minister did not state was that the Hayden Budget provided $40. 3 m for urban public transport, plus an escalation grant of $2. 5m. But in February of this year the Minister, who is now making big noises about the generous people to be found in the Government parties, cancelled the escalation grant- that is, the $2.5m to which I referred a few moments ago- and further reduced the urban public transport allocation by another $2m. That makes a total reduction of $4.5m.

In addition, a total of $4.4m which had been allocated for this year, 1975-76, was unspent. In other words, the present Government, not the Labor Government, reduced the Hayden Budget appropriation from $42.8m to $33.9m. If that is not a juggling of the figures, I do not know what is. Yet the Minister said- I do not know whether honourable senators opposite are prepared to back him up- that it was an increase of 90 per cent. In fact, that is not true. The saving of $8. 9m which the Government then made- every time the Government nicks off a few bob somewhere it is supposed to be a saving- more than covers the apparent appropriation of $5.5m for urban public transport under the Appropriation Act 1 976. This information is set out in more detail in table 54 which appears in Budget Paper No. 4. 1 seek leave to have that short table incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The table read as follows-

The following table shows payments made to the States since 1 974-75 and estimated payments in 1976-77: {: .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator KEEFFE: -I want to draw attention also to the second last paragraph of page 78 in Budget Paper No. 7, which reads: >No new projects have been approved for commencement either in 1975-76 or 1976-77. The Liberal-National Country Party Governmentor the National Country-Liberal Party Government, depending on which tag one likes to put on and depending on which dog is wagging the tail on a particular day- has been telling the country since 1 1 November last year how good it would be for Australia. It does not quite work out that way. None of the money provided for urban public transport was allocated by the present Government; it all came from allocations made by the previous Whitlam Labor Government by means of 2 Bills that were passed in 1974. In July 1974 there was an allocation of $7 1.9m, and in October 1974 there was a further allocation of $66,110,000, making a total of $138,020,000. That money was provided by the Labor Government and it is the money presently being allocated under this legislation. Under those circumstances, of course, it is a Labor initiative and not a Liberal-National Country Party or a National Country-Liberal Party Government initiative at all. So if the Government is that expert at juggling figures and it leaves itself so open to criticism, it is no wonder that it is in trouble now over the change in the value of the Australian dollar. After the Labor Government came into office the first indication came in 1973 that a government of this country at long last was interested in trying to do something in relation to public transport and the road system generally. In the 1972 policy speech which was delivered by the Labor Party - Debate interrupted. {: .page-start } page 2276 {:#debate-74} ### ADJOURNMENT {:#subdebate-74-0} #### Migrant Detention Centre, Villawood -Chilean Migrants -Aviation Legislation: Compensation {: #subdebate-74-0-s0 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question: >That the Senate do now adjourn. {: #subdebate-74-0-s1 .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales -- I want to ventilate to **Senator Guilfoyle,** the Minister for Social Security, a couple of matters that come within the province of **Mr MacKellar,** the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, whom she represents in this place. The first matter is relatively minor. I have in my possession here a letter from a **Mr Syd** Hutchinson of 20 Canterbury Road, Canterbury. He is employed in the construction industry and is making a plea on behalf of his workmates for a more expansive policy in regard to visitor attendance at the migrant detention centre at Villawood. As New South Wales senators would know, this detention centre represents a new innovation. Rather than illegal migrants being sent to North Head, they are now sent to Villawood. I will ask that part of this letter be incorporated in the *Hansard* record later in my speech. **Mr Hutchinson** points out that the visiting hours are from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. We know that a number of people have come to Australia as tourists and taken a job. Some of them have made very good friends on the job. I know that in this present tight employment position, one cannot always let one 's heart dictate one 's actions. I am making a plea, as is Syd Hutchinson, arising out of the experience of this chap to whom reference is made in the letter and who was in detention pending his deportation. Some of his work mates of, say, 6 or 7 weeks wanted to wish him *bon voyage.* That is hardly the term to use, but they wanted to go out and wish him well. They were placed in the dilemma of seeking to obtain leave to do so. The correspondence I have received simply suggests that rather than confine visiting hours at the detention centre to between 2 p.m. and 4 p.m. there ought to be a second slot of between 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. I think it will be appreciated by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, or at least by the Minister for Social Security, that **Mr Hutchinson** had this to say: >I might say that all the officers of the Immigration Department and the Commonwealth Police have been most helpful. He gives the impression that he was extremely pleased with their demeanour and co-operation. It is not a case of anyone stating that the centre is like the black hole of Calcutta. We are dealing with a simple innovation in regard to visiting hours which I believe and which Syd Hutchinson believes should be introduced. To give the Minister the proper picture I will ask that half of the letter which I have marked will be incorporated in the *Hansard* record. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. *The document read as follows-* 200 Canterbury Rd, Canterbury, N.S.W.2193 26 November 1976. The Hon. J. A. Mulvihill, 12th Floor, Commonwealth Buildings, Chifley Square, Sydney 2000 Dear Tony, I refer to a recent call into your office- your secretary was of considerable help to me in my enquiry. I was making enquiries as to an illegal migrant- a friend of mine who works for one of the sub-contractors on this building site. I visited **Mr Nick** Rozos at the Detention Centre at Villawood yesterday afternoon- the hours are from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. any afternoon, and this leads me to the point of this letter. I found that as the visiting hours were between 2 p.m. and 4 p.m. only, this would tend to inhibit any visitors going out there. In this case there are four blokes who would have liked to have been with me, but of course they were hesitant to take time off during the working day. Having in mind the work load at Villawood, would it be possible to have the hours amended so that: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. visiting hours could be between say 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. each day only. 1. that the afternoon hours be retained, and an extra time be added in the early hours ofthe evening, 2. if for some reason, the visiting hours could be agreed to mutually between the visitors and the Commonwealth Police on duty. I might say that all the officers ofthe Immigration Department and the Commonwealth Police have been most helpful. The three Policemen I spoke to yesterday seemed to be most humane in the way they are looking after these unfortunate lads. {: .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator MULVIHILL: -- The other matter I wish to raise is a little more complex. Sometime ago **Senator Guilfoyle** gave me statistics concerning the intake of Chilean migrants. When I use the term 'migrants', in some cases I should use the term 'political refugees' or, more correctly people under political duress'. The figures showed that up to 1973-74 there were over 100 migrants and that in 1974-75 there was 476. Then, in 1975-76 there were another 200 or 300 migrants whose applications were in the pipeline. The difficulty in this instance arises with the term 'political refugees'. I know that this problem has been of concern to succeeding governments. We started off with the problem in Chile. We have had it in Timor, to a degree in Laos and South Vietnam, and I suppose it will take place in other areas of the world. I could indulge in a long discourse on whether we could not have a quota system. This is a personal opinion. When we take people who have been gaoled for their political convictions or trade union activities in a country that is in turmoil- I am referring to Chile- some of those people may have come from Honduras, others from the Argentine or from wherever else they have surfaced. I refer to a question on notice that my colleague in the other place, the honourable member for Melbourne, **Mr Innes,** asked recently about displaced persons and refugees. For the information of the Minister, the question was No. 1 108. In the answer to 2 (b) the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs said that the United Nations defined certain Chileans as political refugees. I shall ask for leave of the Senate to have 2 items of correspondence incorporated in *Hansard.* They are case histories. Before I do, I say quite frankly to the Minister for Social Security that people from one or two other countries have been accepted by this Government as political refugees. They said that they would have been the victims of the totalitarian Left. I am not cavilling at that, but we should have an even handed policy, and the 2 case histories to which I have referred are of victims of the totalitarian Right. I think we should adopt this concept of evenhandedness. The first case came to me from the Chilean Club Ltd which is in the electorate of Lowe in the district in which I live. The first case concerns a Chilean who lives in the Argentine at the moment. I think honourable senators would know that the secret police there have been pretty brutal in getting forced confessions. The other case deals with a Chilean who surfaced in Honduras. In the first case, which emanates from the Chilean Club, the relevant documents comprise a letter from the Secretary of the Chilean Club. It has a reference number in respect of immigration correspondence in which, I emphasise to the Minister, it is asserted that the United Nations- I take it that it would be the refugee commission- made an approach to this Government 6 months ago. There is a file number. I would like that correspondence to be given close scrutiny. So I ask permission for these 2 documents to be incorporated in *Hansard.* {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. *The documents read as follows-* {:#subdebate-74-1} #### The Chilean Club Ltd Sydney, 23 November 1976 To the Honourable **Senator, Tony** Mulvihill, Australian Government House, Chifley Square, Sydney. N.S.W. 2000 Dear **Senator,** I refer to our last conversation on Monday 8th of this month. On that occasion I presented you a case that involved a friend of mine, who is in Argentina, under protection of the United Nations. Earlier this year my friend whose name is Luis Adamir Palma wrote a letter to his cousin in Sydney, **Mr Ivan** Venegas, seeking the possibility of help, because the conditions of living in Argentina are very poor for him; and another reason is that he could not go back to Chile, basically for their political believes. As you can see, this is a very difficult situation for Luis Adamir living in another country without family. At my request, you promise me, given your help in this special case. The United Nations is backing this nomination too, it was sent to the Federal Government, after 6 or 7 months the Department of Immigration has answered by a note that you can find in this letter. The details of **Mr Luis** Adamil Palma are: Address: Urquiza No. 35 (Street) Hotel Espano San Nicolas (Suburb) Buenos Aires (City) Argentina (Country) Passport: No. 18006 Profession: Mechanic Number of file under United Nations in Buenos Aires is: 01-5104. Thank you again for your help in favour of this person. With regards. AMADOR LEAL Secretary-Manager Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Australian Government Centre Chifley Square Sydney, N.S.W. 2000 7 July 1976 Telegrams 'Passports ' Sydney Telephone 2 0342 ext. 36 1 7 In reply please quote N76/4059 1 1 Dear **Mr Venegas,** Your nomination in favour of Luis Adamir Palma has been sent overseas. An application will be invited from nominee who will then be interviewed to determine whether the usual migrant entry requirements can be met. It is not possible at this stage, of course, to forecast the outcome of the application but you may be assured that it will receive every consideration. Yours sincerely, G. W.AUSTEN Regional Director {: #subdebate-74-1-s0 .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator MULVIHILL: -I thank the Senate for its co-operation. The other case came to me from Honduras, but it was also sponsored by the Chilean Club. There is a covering letter to me. It is a letter to a **Mrs Veronica** Bull in Sydney. She is the sister of the man concerned. It is extremely detailed. It deals with the sufferings of this man. I ask that these documents also be incorporated in *Hansard.* {: #subdebate-74-1-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. *The documents read as follows-* >Tegucigalpa, Honduras, November 6, 1976 > > **Senator Anthony** Mulvihille Government House, Chifley Squares, Sydney N.S.W. 2000 Australia > >Dear **Senator Mulvihille,** > > **Mr. Amador** Leal, Secretary Manager of the Chilean Club in Australia, and **Mr. Manuel** Coronado- my brother, australian citizen, residing at 71 Tompson Road, Panania, N.S.W. 2213- have strongly advised me to write to you in order to introduce myself to you and ask for your help and assistance. My name is Luis A. Coronado, Chilean, married, three children, 2° years old, anthropologist- with a degree from Universidad de Conception, Chile (University of Conception, Chile), 1972- and rural sociologist- with a degree from Cornell University, U.S.A., 1975-prsently living at Tegucigalpa, Honduras. > >At the present moment we are in a very difficult position due mainly to our political ideas and due to our political activities in Chile during the Allende 's regime. I enclose a letter addressed to **Mrs. Veronica** Bull, of United Nations, which I think is self explanatory of our situation. > >I would deeply appreciated it if you could help us in getting the authorization for us to travel to Australia and the permit for becoming permanent residents. I an sending a copy of this letter to my brother in order that he could get in contact with you there, as well as to **Mrs. Bull.** > >Thanking you in advance for your kind consideration to the matter. > >Yours Faithfully LUIS A. CORONADO Primera Calle 501 Colonia Matamoros Tegucigalpa, Honduras C.A. w/c: > > **Mrs Veronica** Bull **Mr Manuel** Coronado > >Tegucigalpa, Honduras, November 6, 1976 > > **Mrs Veronica** Bull United Nations Sydney, Australia > >Dear **Mrs. Bull,** > >My brother- Manuel Coronado, australian citizen, residing at 71 Tompson Road, Panania, N.S.W. 2213-has strongly advised me to write this letter to you in order to introduce myself to you and ask for your help and assistance. My name is Luis A. Coronado, Chilean, married, three children, 29 years old, anthropologist-rural sociologist, living in Honduras for a period of 14 months, We came to Honduras hired by a private agency, and we though that in this country we could work and we could give our family a certain tranquility, but after a while we realized that this goal was impossible to achieve. At the present moment we are in a very difficult situation. On September we were called to the Migration Office where we were told that our visas were cancelled and we were given 90 days to leave the country being the deadline December 30. > >In this moment we do not have any place where to go. We can not go back to Chile for we are afraid of being badly mistreated or abused by the present Chilean regime. The reasons to believe that it is not advisable for us to go back home are based upon the following facts: in 196S I entered the Universidad de Concepcion, where I graduated in 1972. That same year I became a member of MIR (Movement of the Revolutionary Left) and in 1966 I joined Chilean Socialist Party (P.S.). Since then I have belonged to these two revolutionary, marxist, political movements, having the opportunity of representing them at the following posts: -President of the Student Union of Instituto de Antropologia, Universidad de Concepcion (Institute of Anthropology, University of Concepcion), for the period 1966-1968. -Representative of the Student Union of Inst, of Anthrop., U.de C, to the Academic Assembly. -Delegate from the Student Union ofthe Universidad de Concepcion to the Committee of University Reform of the Universidad de Concepcion. -Besides of being working at the university level I was acting at the city where I was living, Pena), where I was the Socialist Party's Sectional Secretary of Education. > >Through all this time I was working very intensevely with indian peasants as well as with Chilean peasants. I got involved with the take-overs of the land that peasants were carrying out throughout the southern Chilean provinces, with the support, mainly, from MIR and Socialist Party. As you can imagine those activities created me a lot of enemies, most of them occupying high positions at the Junta 's regime. > >In 1970 I applied for a professor's position at the same university where I studied, position that O obtained. For nobody at the university my political believes were a secret. I represented the Socialist Party at the Professor Assembly of the Institute of Anthropology. I continued working with Indians and with white Chilean peasants, getting involved with most of the political leaders of the zone and getting involved with the planning of the different activities which were being carried out at the rural zone. > >In 1971 the government and the Socialist Party asked me to join the Bureau of Indian Affairs (Direction de Asuntos Indigenas) having a post that was under the direct president s confidence. At the B.I.A. I represented the executive power through B.I.A., at the Senate in order to explain and to support the government perspective about Indian Policies and about the promulgation of a new law for Indians. > >I represented the Socialist Party's position at the Bureau of Indian Affairs at the Santiago's office, having strong confrontations with people who did not share the Indian interests and problems. In 1972 I became a member ofthe Agrarian Committee of the Socialist Party, which is a son of Central Committee of the Party for the Rural Zone and for the Agrarian Policies. I participated in designing the Indian Policy which the socialist government was supporting throughout the country. I strongly supported the take-over of the land carried out by peasant and specially by Indian peasants. Wrong or right I did what I thought it was right. > >During all this time I kept a double membership to the two political movements: MIR and Socialist Party. I worked at the field with peasant movements as a member of MIR and at BIA as a member of the Socialist Party. I got involved with the general take-overs of the land of the provinces of Malleco and Cautin provinces during 1 97 1 and 1 972. > >While I was a professor at the Universidad de Concepcion, and while I was anthropologist, consultant and advisor, at the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) I published several articles and pamphlets in which my political position was clearly defined, position as a committed social scientist and as a socialist militant who was strongly supporting the socialist government. Accordingly I can not hide my activities in Chile. > >On June 1972 I received a scholarship to carry out graduate studies in Anthropology. The government and the parties to which I belonged authorized me to accept such a scholarship for our country and our political process needed more professional in such a field, professional with a higher capacity which could be obtained through graduate studies. I left the country in that month and my wife left it on September 1972. Since then we lived, first, at the United States and at Tegucigalpa, Honduras. > >The consequences of our political activities have been quite dangerous for us and for part of my family: after the coup d'etat happened a warrant for my arrest was issued. Fortunately I wasn't in Chile. My mother-in-law's house was searched several times and the library that we left at home was burned by the police. Police has gone to my motherinlaw's house looking for me several times. > >In Honduras we have had problems, too. As a matter of fact, for several times we have been visited by the Honduran National Security Police (DIN), who ask us, over and over again, about our political background and activities. A couple of months ago came to our house **Mr Hernan** Reyes, army lieutenant and migration officer, telling us that we should be very careful because 1 was in a list of Chilean and Honduran to be killed, (last year 13 persons were murdered by the army, the police and DIN, among them there were three priests and one nun: they were accused of being communists by the big-land-holders of this country). As you know Chilean embassies all over the world had several officers from the Chilean National Intelligence Police who are acting very closely with the Police of the countries. In Honduras the Chilean Embassy has been clearly supporting the arrests and deportation of Chileans who supported the > >Allende 's regime. As I said before, our visa was cancelled and we have been given a period of 90 days to abandon the country. > >Dear **Mrs Bull,** I have explained to you all these personal details about our political activities in Chile in order to show you the difficulties in going back to Chile and the need that we have in going to some country in which we could consider ourselves safe and secure. We are pretty sure that Australia is the country in which we are going to find a place where to live and where to raise our children in peace and freedom. We would deeply appreciate it if you could help us in getting the permit from the Australian Government to go to Australia and to obtain the permanent residence there. > >Thanking you in advance for your kind consideration to the matter. > >Yours faithfully LUIS A. CORONADO Primera Calle 501 Colonia Matamoros Tegucigalpa, D.C. Honduras, C.A. > >C/C: > > **Senator Anthrony** Mulvihille **Mr Manuel** Coronado. {: .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator MULVIHILL: -I leave it to the Minister to take up the matter with her colleague. {: #subdebate-74-1-s2 .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland -- I direct a question to you, **Mr President.** I seek your ruling whether or not **Senator Knight** in this place, in his attitude to a Bill, and in public statements outside, has committed contempt of Parliament or whether he has merely breached the policies of his Party. I refer to a debate in this chamber on 18 November 1976 dealing with the aviation legislation. {: .speaker-ME4} ##### Senator Baume: -Which Bill? {: .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator KEEFFE: -Two Bills were debated together. They dealt with compensation. I think if I read 2 amendments that might clarify the position for the honourable senator. One was: >After clause 3, insert the following new clause: 3 a. Section 8 of the Principal Act is amended by adding the following new sub-section: "(3) The amount stipulated in sub-section (I) shall be adjusted on 1 July 1978 and on 1 July every 2 years thereafter, and such adjustments shall have regard to the average weekly adult male earnings at the relevant time. " ' That was one amendment. Another amendment was: >In clause 3, leave out '$45,000 ', insert '$67,000 '. I suppose one could call it indexation of compensation for the dependants of people killed in aircraft crashes. The $45,000 in 2 clauses was adjusted to $67,000. The Committee divided on the amendments. I note that among the 'Noes' is the name of **Senator J.** W. Knight. I am not aware that he spoke at anytime during the debate. On a day last week this Press statement was broadcast on local radio. I quote it to get it in its right context. Canberra's 2 Liberal parliamentarians say they will urge the Federal Government to legislate for higher compensation in the case of fatal civil air crashes. The A.C.T.'s Liberal **Senator, John** Knight, said yesterday a recently defeated amendment to the Ci vfl Air Defence Carriers Liability Act allowed for an increase in compensation from $45,000 to $67,000. The amendment was defeated in the Senate, but **Senator Knight** said he and **Mr Haslem** would work to have the Government introduce another amendment, allowing for a bigger increase. **Senator Knight** defended himself against accusations by the President of the A.C.T. Division of the Council of Austraiian Government Employee Organisations, **Mr Alan** Evans. **Mr Evans** said the Council was concerned that **Senator Knight** had voted against the amendment. He said it would affect many Canberra residents who travel by air, especially public servants on government business. **Senator Knight** said he'd voted against the amendment because he did not consider $67,000 to be high enough. **Senator Knight** did not even speak to the Bill. I do not know what **Mr Haslem** did. That is his business. He is a member of another place. Maybe he expressed his views at the time. But the division clearly shows that **Senator Knight** made no apologies for voting against the amendments and helping to defeat them in this chamber. I do not know whether it is contempt of the Parliament when a member of this place participates in a debate like this and then goes outside this place and endeavours to rectify his position politically with people outside by saying that he is going to come back and move an amendment providing for a larger amount. The Government will not agree to that either. It is either one thing or the other. It is either cheap political publicity, saying: 'I am a tory when I am in there but out here I am like you fellows- I am a worker. I am going to try to get the right thing done', or it is contempt of the forms of this House. I leave it to you, **Mr President,** to give the appropriate ruling. {: #subdebate-74-1-s3 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP -- I have noted the matters that were raised by **Senator Mulvihill.** I will have the subject of the comments made by **Mr Syd** Hutchinson with regard to the Villawood Hostel referred to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs **(Mr MacKellar).** I thank the honourable senator for drawing attention to it in the manner in which he did. The matter with regard to Chilean migrants or political refugees is one of some importance. I have noted that various statements and documents have been incorporated in *Hansard.* I shall draw them to the attention of the Minister, obtain a response from him and see that **Senator Mulvihill** is advised accordingly. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I advise **Senator Keeffe** that it is not for me as President to rule as to whether any breach of privilege has been committed. Honourable senators have the forms of the Senate available to them if they wish to submit by way of a motion any matter of privilege for the judgment of the whole Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.13 p.m. {: .page-start } page 2282 {:#debate-75} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS The following answers to questions were circulated: {:#subdebate-75-0} #### Department of Primary Industry: Staff Ceiling (Question No. 1247) {: #subdebate-75-0-s0 .speaker-4F4} ##### Senator Button: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry the following question, upon notice: >What is the projected staff ceiling for the Department of Primary Industry as at 30 June 1977. {: #subdebate-75-0-s1 .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator Cotton:
LP -- The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >I refer the honourable senator to the answer given by the Prime Minister to Question No. 1246 (Senate *Hansard,* 9 November 1976, page 1774). {:#subdebate-75-1} #### Department of Overseas Trade: Staff Ceiling (Question No. 1249) {: #subdebate-75-1-s0 .speaker-4F4} ##### Senator Button: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Overseas Trade the following question, upon notice: >What is the projected staff ceiling for the Department of Overseas Trade as at 30 June 1977. {: #subdebate-75-1-s1 .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator Cotton:
LP -- The Acting Minister for Overseas Trade has provided the following information in answer to the honourable senator's question: >I refer the honourable senator to the answer given by the Prime Minister in his reply to your similar question No. 1246 asked of him. This answer was: 'As I said in my answer to Question No. 2 1 8 on 1 8 August 1 976 ( House of Representatives *Hansard* pages 332-7), it is not the practice to publish the individual staff ceilings set for each department '. {:#subdebate-75-2} #### Department of National Resources: Staff Ceiling (Question No. 1251) {: #subdebate-75-2-s0 .speaker-4F4} ##### Senator Button: asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice: >What is the projected staff ceiling for the Department of National Resources as at 30 June 1 977. {: #subdebate-75-2-s1 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers:
LP -The Acting Minister for National Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >The honourable senator's attention is drawn to the reply given by the Prime Minister to Question No. 1246 on 9 November 1 976 (Senate *Hansard,* page 1 1 74). {:#subdebate-75-3} #### Department of Construction: Staff Ceiling (Question No. 1260) {: #subdebate-75-3-s0 .speaker-4F4} ##### Senator Button: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Construction, upon notice: >What is the projected staff ceiling for the Department of Construction as at 30 June 1 977. {: #subdebate-75-3-s1 .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster:
NCP/NP -- The Minister for Construction has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >I refer the honourable senator to the answer provided to Question No. 1246 by the Minister representing the Prime Minister (Senate *Hansard,* page 1 774). {:#subdebate-75-4} #### Department of Administrative Services: Staff Ceiling (Question No. 1264) {: #subdebate-75-4-s0 .speaker-4F4} ##### Senator Button: asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice: >What is the projected staff ceiling for the Department of Administrative Services as at 30 June 1 977. {: #subdebate-75-4-s1 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: >I refer the honourable senator to the answer given by the Prime Minister to Question 1246 (Senate *Hansard,* 9 November 1 976, page 1 774). {:#subdebate-75-5} #### Darwin Reconstruction Commission (Question No. 1277) {: #subdebate-75-5-s0 .speaker-KPO} ##### Senator Kilgariff:
NORTHERN TERRITORY asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Northern Territory, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What action does the Government intend to take in regard to winding up the Darwin Reconstruction Commission. 1. What authority is to take over the role of the Commission. 2. Will the Government consider setting up an authority merging the activities and roles of the Commission, the Northern Territory Housing Commission and the Department of Construction into a single Northern Territory Housing Authority. {: #subdebate-75-5-s1 .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster:
NCP/NP -- The Minister for the Northern Territory has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The Darwin Reconstruction Commission has made a remarkable contribution to the re-building of Darwin and its task will be completed well in advance of the S-year period envisaged at the time of its establishment. It is expected that a submission to Cabinet about the future of the Commission will be made shortly. 1. This aspect will be taken up in the context of the proposed submission to Cabinet. 2. Consideration is being given to the possibility of a single Northern Territory Housing Authority. {:#subdebate-75-6} #### Australian National Line: Curtailment of Services (Question No. 1280) {: #subdebate-75-6-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice: >Has there been any curtailment of shipping services by the Australian National Line since 11 November 1973. If so, what are the details. {: #subdebate-75-6-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >From 1 1 August 1976 the frequency of calls by Australian National Line vessels at Port Alma, Mackay and Cairns was reduced from one per week to one per fortnight as part of the Line's rationalisation of its Tasmania/New South Wales/Queensland service. The revised program became operable with the introduction of the new Roll-on Rolloff/Lifton Lift-off vessel *Bass Trader.* The Line has advised that the amended schedules were introduced following substantial losses on the Queensland service in 1 973-76. > >ANL is continuing to provide a weekly call at Brisbane and Townsville. Lung Cancer in Uranium Mine Workers (Question No. 1295) {: #subdebate-75-6-s2 .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator Keeffe: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What is the incidence of death by lung cancer in uranium mine workers in: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. the United States of America. 1. Canada, 2. South Africa, and 3. France. 1. What percentage of the total work force involved in uranium mining does this represent. 2. Have there been any annual percentage increases in these figures since the first statistics were documented. If so, what are they. {: #subdebate-75-6-s3 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >I do not have this information. However I have asked my Department to inquire into the matter and I will advise the honourable senator of the outcome of those inquiries. {:#subdebate-75-7} #### Teachers: Overseas Recruitment (Question No. 1298) {: #subdebate-75-7-s0 .speaker-GD5} ##### Senator Ryan: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many teachers are expected to be recruited overseas in 1976-77. 1. Are teachers included in the categories of workers generally acceptable for migration in any State or Territory. 2. Have any State Education Departments approached the Minister's Department requesting recruitment of teachers overseas. {: #subdebate-75-7-s1 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle:
LP -- The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="A" start="1"} 0. I ) and (3) The Education Departments of Queensland, Victoria, Tasmania and Western Australia expect some 333 teachers from overseas to arrive during 1976-77 in specific subject areas. The Education Departments in New South Wales and South Australia have not put forward proposals to recruit teachers overseas. Additionally, small numbers will be recruited from overseas countries by non-government schools. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Teachers, in general, are not included in the categories of workers accepted for migration but they may be considered for migrant entry in specific subject areas or specific locations for which teachers are not available in Australia on request by education authorities or nongovernment schools. {:#subdebate-75-8} #### Queensland Aboriginal Advisory Council (Question No. 1307) {: #subdebate-75-8-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice: >In relation to the reply provided to Question No. 108 1 (Senate *Hansard* 20 October 1976) in which the Minister stated, when referring to the Queensland Aboriginal Advisory Council, that 'the Council is therefore intended to be representative of the Aboriginal people living on Aboriginal reserves in Queensland ', is the Council in fact representative of those people. {: #subdebate-75-8-s1 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle:
LP -- The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator's question: >The Aboriginal Advisory Council is, under the Aborigines Act, 'constituted by all the persons who, at the material time, are the chairmen of Aboriginal Councils established for the reserves'. > >The regulations provide that Aboriginal Councils 'shall be constituted by five Aborigines of whom: > >Three Aborigines shall be elected by the resident Aborigines of the Reserve in respect of which the Council is established. > >Two Aborigines shall be appointed by the Director: Provided that if candidates do not offer for election, or if for any reason an election cannot be held, all members of the Council may be appointed by the Director.' > >With certain exceptions every adult Aboriginal resident of a reserve is eligible for nomination and election to a council and is qualified to vote at an election. The chairman of each council is elected by the members of the Council, both elected and appointed, at the first meeting of a new Council. > >Because not all councillors are elected, some chairmen might be appointed rather than elected representatives, but with this qualification the Advisory Council is representative of Aboriginal people living on reserves in Queensland. {:#subdebate-75-9} #### Northern Territory: Financial Arrangements (Question No. 1342) {: #subdebate-75-9-s0 .speaker-K2U} ##### Senator Robertson:
NORTHERN TERRITORY asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice: >In view of the lack of a composite set of accounts on which to base an analysis of the Northern Territory's financial arrangements, how does the Treasurer intend to establish a relationship between the level of expenditure and the total level of taxes and charges to be levied in the Northern Territory. {: #subdebate-75-9-s1 .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator Cotton:
LP -- The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >To facilitate the process of constitutional development in the Northern Territory, the Government has established an interdepartmental committee to advise it on the long term financial arrangements to apply to the Northern Territory and to examine and report on all the issues requiring decision between the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. The honourable senator will be aware that the Government has agreed to an initial transfer of a significant number of functions to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly- these functions all come within the portfolio of the Minister for the Northern Territory. Particular financial arrangements to apply in relation to the initial transfer of functions are the subject of consultation between the Minister and me. {:#subdebate-75-10} #### Education: Public Sector Expenditure (Question No. 1352) {: #subdebate-75-10-s0 .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: asked the Minister for Education, upon notice: >What is the percentage of public sector expenditure on education in Australia in relation to gross domestic product for 1975-76, and projected for 1977-78. {: #subdebate-75-10-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: >A preliminary estimate of public sector expenditure on education in 1975-76 in relation to gross domestic product puts the percentage at 6.0. If private expenditure is included the estimate becomes 6.4 per cent. It is not possible to provide a projection for 1977-78. Centre for Research on Federal Financial Relations (Question No. 1362) {: #subdebate-75-10-s2 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs, upon notice: >Is the Government considering a Treasury recommendation that the Government withdraw funding of the Centre for Research of Federal Financial Relations based at the Australian National University in Canberra. If so, > >when is it likely that a final decision will be taken; > >what funds have been provided by the Australian Government to the Centre since its establishment; and > >what liaison currently exists between the Centre, the Australian Government, and State Governments. {: #subdebate-75-10-s3 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: >No. > >In relation to point (b): Amounts paid to the Centre since its establishment have been: For 1976-77 the Government has provided the amount of $129,200. In relation to point (c): The Research Advisory Committee of the Centre includes representatives from Commonwealth and State Treasuries, the Commonwealth Grants Commission and other government, semi-government and academic areas. {:#subdebate-75-11} #### Australian Government Publications and Inquiry Centres (Question No. 1369) {: #subdebate-75-11-s0 .speaker-4F4} ##### Senator Button: asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. With reference to the Minister's answer to Senate Question No. 1 194, why was the Inquiry Service previously operating within the Commonwealth bookshops discontinued in July 1976. 1. Why has this source of information been denied to the public. {: #subdebate-75-11-s1 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) and (2) The inquiry service provided at the Australian Government Publications and Inquiry Centres has been discontinued to achieve cost savings. This resulted from the Government's review of major expenditures proposed in 1976-77 the effects of which, in relation to my department were announced in May of this year. {:#subdebate-75-12} #### Public Broadcasting (Question No. 1373) {: #subdebate-75-12-s0 .speaker-4F4} ##### Senator Button: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice: >In view of the absence of any statements from the Government on the future status of public broadcasting, (a) what arrangements have been made for funding the public broadcasting sector in the future, and ( b) is it intended to introduce legislation to establish a basis for the public broadcasting sector. {: #subdebate-75-12-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The Minister for Post and Telecommunications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. There are no proposals under consideration for funding public broadcasting. The Australian Film Commission does have some funds for creative development work by public broadcasters. 1. b ) Yes. On 1 8 November 1 976 the Minister for Post and Telecommunications introduced the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1976 and this Bill contains interim provisions for the licensing and administration of stations in the public broadcasting sector. Report *Public Libraries in Australia* (Question No. 1375) {: #subdebate-75-12-s2 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Why are copies of the report entitled *Public Libraries in Australia* in short supply at the present time, and in fact unavailable from the Australian Government Publication Centre in Brisbane. 1. How many copies of the report in question have been printed to date. {: #subdebate-75-12-s3 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The AGPS Bookshop in Brisbane has not been out of stock of the Report on Public Libraries in Australia since the report first became available. However, due to public interest, overall stocks held by AGPS are running low and consideration is being given to a reprint. (2)3585. Report *Some Consequences of the Radford Scheme for Schools, Teachers and Students* (Question No. 1376) {: #subdebate-75-12-s4 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Why are copies of the report entitled *Some Consequences of the Radford Scheme for Schools, Teachers and Students* in short supply at the present time, and in fact unavailable from the Australian Government Publication Centre in Brisbane. 1. How many copies of the report in question have been printed to date. {: #subdebate-75-12-s5 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. A limited number only was printed because of previous experience with other similar types of publications and the title is now out of print. As there is little continuing demand for this title an early reprint is not contemplated. 1. Total number 0 copies printed, 578. {:#subdebate-75-13} #### Report Fraser Island Environmental Inquiry (Question No. 1377) {: #subdebate-75-13-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Why are copies of the report entitled *Fraser Island Environmental Inquiry* in short supply at the present time, and in fact unavailable from the Australian Government Publication Centre in Brisbane. 1. How many copies of the report in question have been printed to date. {: #subdebate-75-13-s1 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The AGPS Bookshop in Brisbane is not out of stock of this report although, due to high demand, overall stocks of the first printing are low. Urgent action for reprinting is now in hand. 1. Total number of copies printed, 2286. Green' Report on Broadcasting (Question No. 1378) {: #subdebate-75-13-s2 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Why are copies ofthe 'Green ' Report on Broadcasting in Australia in short supply at the present time, and in fact unavailable from the Australian Government Publication Centre in Brisbane. ° 1. How many copies ofthe report in question have been printed to date. {: #subdebate-75-13-s3 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) An interim edition only was printed in the first instance mainly for official purposes. A second printing providing copies for public sale will be available within a few days. 1. Number of copies printed: {: type="a" start="1"} 0. a ) Interim edition, 450 copies 1. b ) Main printing, 2062 copies. {:#subdebate-75-14} #### Department of Productivity (Question No. 1380) {: #subdebate-75-14-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice: >Was the suggestion of the creation of a Department of Productivity canvassed at the Third National Productivity Conference held recently in Melbourne. If so, what are the details. {: #subdebate-75-14-s1 .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator Durack:
LP -- The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >No. However, continuous discussions were being held with representatives of industry, commerce, and government, through the Productivity Promotion Council of Australia and the Productivity Group Movement on the whole question ofthe Government's involvement in the productivity area. {:#subdebate-75-15} #### Birds' Nest Soups (Question No. 1384) {: #subdebate-75-15-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice: >Why is birds' nest soup not allowed to be imported into Australia, as was suggested by **Mr Gilbert** Lau in the article Making Do without Roast Goose', by Virginia Duigan, in the *National Times* dated 8-13 November 1976. {: #subdebate-75-15-s1 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >There is no quarantine objection to the importation of birds' nest soup in sterilised hermetically sealed cans. Birds' nest substance or uncanned birds' nest soup may not be imported. The purpose of this prohibition is to prevent the introduction of exotic avian disease into Australia, in particular Newcastle Disease which if introduced would be disastrous for the Australian poultry industry. {:#subdebate-75-16} #### Minister for Productivity: Personal Staff (Question No. 1388) {: #subdebate-75-16-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many members are there on the Minister for Productivity's personal staff. 1. What are their (a) names, (b) designations, and (c) salaries. 2. Which of them are (a) permanent or (b) temporary public servants. 3. From which Departments have the permanent public servants been seconded. 4. Are or have any advisers and consultants been employed by the Minister; if so, what are their (a) names, (b) salaries, (c) responsibilities, and (d) are they full-time or part-time. {: #subdebate-75-16-s1 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The personal staff establishment for the Minister for Productivity is: In addition the Minister for Productivity, in his capacity as a private member, has an entitlement to an Electorate Assistant. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The Minister has at present made only one staff appointment. The details are: Until further appointments are made, the Minister is receiving assistance from within his own Department. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. and (4) Miss White is a temporary employee. 1. No. {:#subdebate-75-17} #### Regional Employment Development Scheme (Question No. 1392) {: #subdebate-75-17-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice: >What is the total funding provided under the Regional Employment Development scheme in the State of Queensland since the inception of the scheme. {: #subdebate-75-17-s1 .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator Durack:
LP -- The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >Since inception of the scheme to 1 5 November 1 976, total funds provided under the Regional Employment Development scheme to Queensland have been $32,23 1 ,459. Department of the Capital Territory: Employment of Street Cleaners and Litter Contractors (Question No. 1413) {: #subdebate-75-17-s2 .speaker-GD5} ##### Senator Ryan: asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Is the Department of the Capital Territory replacing all street cleaners and little collectors as they resign, or retire. 1. What were the numbers of street cleaners and litter collectors employed by the Department in October 1975 and in October 1976. 2. Is the Department contracting out in 1976 many jobs formerly done by employees of the Department. 3. How many temporary day labourers will be employed over the Christmas period this year and how many were employed over a similar period last Christmas. {: #subdebate-75-17-s3 .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster:
NCP/NP -- The Minister for the Capital Territory has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. October 1975-61; October 1976-61. 2. The Department is employing some contractors for cleaning of shopping centres and horticultural maintenance but this is largely to meet workload growth and no employees have been displaced. The Department has no fewer staff in these areas than at this time last year. 3. The Department of the Capital Territory expects to employ up to 200 seasonal workers this year, compared with 198 last year. Performing Arts {: #subdebate-75-17-s4 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers:
LP -On 12 October 1976 *(Hansard* page 1116) **Senator Davidson** asked a question without notice concerning the Industries Assistance Commission report on the performing arts. The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in the Arts has now supplied the following information for answer to the honourable senator's question: >The Industries Assistance Commission report on Assistance to the Performing Arts is a draft report only, and is available for discussion among all interested parties. Further public hearings are being held and the Commission's final report is expected in the new year. The Government does not contemplate taking any action before the report is finalised. > >The Prime Minister has made it clear, however, that the Government is committed to continuing support for the arts in Australia including the major performing arts companies. > >On the matter of private patronage, a Government Interdepartmental Committee is currently looking into the question of incentives for the arts, and possible ways and means of encouraging individual and private enterprise and corporate patronage. Trade: Arab Boycott {: #subdebate-75-17-s5 .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator Cotton:
LP **- Senator Missen** asked the Minister representing the Minister for Overseas Trade on 12 October 1976 the following question, without notice: >My question is addressed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce who may answer it either in his substantive role or as Minister representing the Minister for Overseas Trade. I refer to the recent controversy in the United States of America where, it is reported, some 1 1 000 American companies have been threatened by the Arab boycott arising out of trade with Israel and where it is further reported that some 10 000 of those companies have given in to the threat. I ask the Minister whether there is information available as to the number of Australian companies that have been likewise threatened by boycott because of trade or possible trade with Israel, including the names of companies that have in fact given way to .such threats. I ask the Minister to make available to the public the names of all companies that have given way to such threats made by extremists and terrorists groups so that the public can judge whether it should give support to such companies or rather to other companies which have withstood the threat of boycott. The Acting Minister for Overseas Trade has provided the following additional information to the honourable senator's question: >The Australian Government is not in a position to provide the information requested by the honourable senator. There are no official statistics available in Australia on the impact of such measures on the commercial operations of Australian companies. > >Even if such information was available, it would not be appropriate for the Government to publish any information of a kind that could adversely affect the standing of particular Australian companies. Broadcasting and Television {: #subdebate-75-17-s6 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -On the 13 October 1976 **Senator Wriedt** asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications the following question, without notice: >In view of public concern over the future role of broadcasting and television in Australia will the Government release the report of the Green Inquiry before it determines the future structure of the industry? The Minister for Post and Telecommunications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >The structure of the broadcasting system is properly a matter for Government decision since it is related to overall communications policy and to administration of the radio frequency spectrum. > >The Government has decided to accept some of the recommendations of the Green report relating to structure, and these decisions were announced by the Minister for Post and Telecommunications on 4 November. > >At the same time, he announced that the report would be released as a public document. It was tabled in the Senate on 9 November. He also said that a number of important recommendations by the inquiry into the Australian broadcasting system were still being considered by the Government. Tents Outside Parliament House {: #subdebate-75-17-s7 .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster:
NCP/NP -On 20 October 1976 **Senator Bonner** asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory the following question, without notice: >Can the Minister inform the Senate what happened to the ordinance that was used in 1972 to remove the Aboriginal Embassy from the lawns in front of Parliament House? Can that ordinance now be used to remove those people who have set themselves up in a tent in front of Parliament House, or is it possible that there is an ordinance for Aborigines and another ordinance for non-Aborigines? The Minister for the Capital Territory has provided the following answer to the honourable Senator's question: >The Ordinance to which the honourable senator refers is the Trespass on Commonwealth Lands Ordinance. The provisions of that Ordinance can be invoked to prevent camping on unleased Commonwealth land in the Australian Capital Territory. It has not been used for that purpose in respect of the lawns outside Parliament House since 1972. As the honourable senator will be aware, since that date there have been a number of orderly demonstrations which have involved Aborigines and other persons temporarily camping outside Parliament House. Chairman of Australian Broadcasting Commission {: #subdebate-75-17-s8 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -On 20 October1976 **Senator Gietzelt** asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications the following question, without notice: >Will the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications inform the Senate of the criteria which must be satisfied before a person is considered suitable for selection and is permitted to take up an appointment to a public statutory body? Are appointees required to make full disclosures of any business interests or directorships held prior to accepting an appointment? If so. did the present Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, **Sir Henry** Bland, disclose prior to accepting the chairmanship of the independent and publicly owned Australian Broadcasting Commission his directorship of over 9 companies, Australian and multinational, including the Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd and Haematite Pty Ltd, a company which is chaired by **Sir Ian** McLennan and which administers the BHP Staff Fund and which has four directors who also sit on the Board of BHP? Did he disclose the substantial interestof Haematite Pty Ltd in two companies- Consolidated Press Holdings Ltd and News Limited- both of which are reported to have major commercial television interests? The Minister for Post and Telecommunications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >Your attention is drawn to the answer to Question No. 1 135 which appears on page 2078 of the daily *Hansard* of debates in the House of Representatives, dated 20 October 1976. The Minister is now advised that **Sir Henry** Bland is not and has never been a Director of BHF Co Ltd or Haematite Pty Ltd. Nitrogenous Fertiliser Bounty {: #subdebate-75-17-s9 .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator Cotton:
LP -- On 2 November 1976 **Senator Walsh** asked me a question without notice concerning the recommendation of the Industries Assistance Commission to phase out the nitrogen fertiliser bounty. The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >The Government considered the report of the Industries Assistance Commission which recommended that the subsidy of $78.74 per tonne on the nitrogen content of nitrogenous fertilisers be phased out over three years. > >The Government agreed in principle that the subsidy should be phased out and introduced legislation to reduce the rate to $60 per tonne from 1 January 1977. As the Minister for Primary Industry announced, a review will take place in 1 977 in the light of the outlook for the various rural industries to decide the level of future assistance. Life Preserving Equipment {: #subdebate-75-17-s10 .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator Cotton:
LP -- On 3 November 1 976 **Senator Devitt** asked me a question without notice in which he suggested an exemption from sales tax as an inducement to the fitting of life-saving and life-preserving equipment in small craft. The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >The area of safety is one where simple prudence and self interest should determine the proper course of action. Where these qualities are lacking, it is unlikely that lowering the price of an essential piece of equipment, by a few cents or a few dollars, through a sales tax exemption, will be adequate to overcome indifference or negligence. To cope with such situations a requirement that particular items or gear be fitted seems to be a more appropriate course. I understand that some authorities are moving in this direction and I welcome their initiative. Beef Exports to Japan {: #subdebate-75-17-s11 .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator Cotton:
LP -- On 4 November **Senator Gietzelt** asked me a question without notice concerning a report that Japan had deferred the importation of some 9 500 tonnes of chilled beef until December and I undertook to have the matter examined. The Acting Minister for Overseas Trade has provided the following information in response to the honourable senator's question. The suggestion that Japan has deferred until December the importation of 9 500 tonnes of Australian beef is quite inaccurate. The facts are that the Japanese Livestock Industry Promotion Corporation has advised Japanese importers that they may, subject to their commercial judgment, defer until Janauary the importation of up to 40 percent (2 000 tonnes) of the 5 000 tonnes of chilled beef scheduled for delivery in December. In normal circumstances, only about 15 per cent of any months scheduled imports are permitted to be held over for late delivery. I have no information on whether Japanese importers have, as a result, asked Australian exporters to delay shipments and whether any exporters have agreed. As far as I am aware existing contracts for chilled beef have not been affected. Representations have been made to the Japanese Government concerning problems of the chilled beef trade and in relation to the announcement of a further six monthly quota. I do not think that the Japanese Government could be unaware of the concern of the Australian Government to safeguard the interests of the beef industry. Public Service Staff Ceilings {: #subdebate-75-17-s12 .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster:
NCP/NP -- On 4 November 1976 *(Hansard,* page 1596) **Senator Kilgariff** asked me a question without notice concerning staff ceilings and their effect on maintenance works in the Northern Territory where problems have arisen because of lack of tradesmen, particularly in the Darwin Hospital and the Tennant Creek power house. I undertook to refer the question to the Minister for Construction for a comprehensive answer, and the Minister now has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >At 5 November 3 1 employees were engaged full time on maintenance at Darwin Hospital, and this is sufficient for usual maintenance purposes. Regarding the boilers there are two installed, one acting as a standby and only one is required for operational requirements. The last occasion of one boiler being closed down was in July last when the routine annual overhaul and inspection took place over a period of one week. > >The only major maintenance problem area is the laundry which includes old equipment and was due to be replaced in 1975 by a new laundry at Casuarina Hospital. The new building was delayed by Cyclone Tracy and is now due for completion in late 1977. > >The statement concerning Tennant Creek power station is not correct. There has been no reduction in maintenance staff and, in fact, routine maintenance overhauls of the diesel engines are at present in progress. The matter of the output of the power station being near capacity is not a matter affecting staff levels, but rather the provision of a fourth generating set, currently under consideration. > >On the general question of staff ceilings the Department of Construction is achieving its specified ceiling targets by natural wastage. As natural wastage occurs efforts are made to redeploy existing personnel to overcome difficult situations. Recruitment is undertaken only when the strictest tests of essentiality have been made. {:#subdebate-75-18} #### International Law: Ownership of Property (Question No. 1100) {: #subdebate-75-18-s0 .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator Rae:
TASMANIA asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. With reference to Senate Question No. 816 and the answer of the Minister for Administrative Services, what are the principles of international law which applied in this instance. 1. What steps have been taken to determine, in accordance with the principles of international law, the question of ownership of the properties in Saigon and Canberra. 2. 3 ) What further steps remain to be taken to determine the question of ownership. 3. What was the (a) cost price, and (b) last established value of each of the properties referred to in the said question and answer. {: #subdebate-75-18-s1 .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator Durack:
LP -- The Attorney-General has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator's question: ( 1), (2) and (3) It would not be appropriate to engage in legal analysis in response to a Parliamentary question. Especially is this so in relation to the properties in Canberra, as to which I may, in due course, be required to provide legal advice to the Government. As to the properties that were purchased by the Australian Government in Saigon, I have been informed that the matter has been kept under continual review by the Departments of Administrative Services and Foreign Affairs. I have also been informed that the Australian Embassy in Hanoi has maintained contact with the Vietnamese authorities with respect to the Australian properties in Saigon and that the question of ownership of those properties is not in dispute. {: type="1" start="4"} 0. (a) I have ascertained that the purchase prices of the property owned by the Australian Government in Saigon were: Head of Mission residence (purchased in May 1952)-$76,000 Chancery Offices (purchased in July 1957)-$78,260 Site for proposed chancery (purchased in October 197l)-$674,000. As regards the two properties of the former RVN Government in Canberra, referred to in the answer to the third part of Question No. 816, I am informed that the consideration for the transfer of the first-mentioned property (purchased in October 1961) was £12,750 and that the consideration for the transfer of the other property (purchased in November 1968) was $41,200. {: type="1" start="4"} 0. (b) I have been informed that no updatings of the book values of the properties owned by the Australian Government in Saigon have been made. As regards the other properties referred to by the honourable senator, no information is available as to whether any updatings of their values have been made, apart from the periodic revaluing of the land for rating purposes. {:#subdebate-75-19} #### Tax Rebate (Question No. 1104) {: #subdebate-75-19-s0 .speaker-ME4} ##### Senator Peter Baume:
NEW SOUTH WALES asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What percentage of Australian taxpayers took advantage of the automatic tax rebate in the 197S-76 tax year instead of identifying each claim for a concessional tax rebate. 1. If final figures are not available, is the Treasurer able to offer a preliminary assessment of the percentage of people using the automatic deduction mechanism. {: #subdebate-75-19-s1 .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator Cotton:
LP -- The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) and (2) Based on preliminary statistics for the 1975-76 income year, it is estimated that the $540 general concessional rebate applied in the assessments of about 90 per cent of taxable individuals who, therefore, had no need to supply details of expenditure qualifying for rebates. {:#subdebate-75-20} #### Department of Health: Northern Territory Staff (Question No. 1136) {: #subdebate-75-20-s0 .speaker-KPO} ##### Senator Kilgariff: asked the Minister repesenting the Minister for Health, upon notice: >Are the 121 officers to be recruited for the Northern Territory Division of the Department of Health to be a part of the present Departmental establishment, or is the staff ceiling to be lifted to enable staffing of projects in the final stages of construction in the Territory. {: #subdebate-75-20-s1 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >I presume the honourable senator is referring to the 121 officers mentioned in the reply given by **Senator Guilfoyle** to his question without notice concerning staff for the Northern Territory Health Service. *(Hansard,* 23 September 1976, p. 8S1). As indicated in **Senator Guilfoyle** 's statement *(Hansard,* 9 November 1976, p. 1757), the Department makes a continuing effort to recruit medical, nursing and paramedical staff in an endeavour to maintain and improve staffing levels for the provision of health care in the Territory and the action to recruit 121 officers was at that time part of this effort. > >There is also a potential requirement for additional personnel to provide staff for an expansion of activities in the Territory and, should it appear that the ongoing recruitment action will put pressure on the allocated staff ceilings, this matter will be reviewed within the context of overall ceilings of the Department and, if necessary, I will take action towards adjustment of the ceiling. {:#subdebate-75-21} #### Cedar Bay Police Raid (Question No. 1150) {: #subdebate-75-21-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice: >Has the Minister, in his capacity as Deputy Prime Minister, been in contact with the Queensland Premier, the Queensland Treasurer, the Queensland Minister for Police or the Queensland Police Commissioner concerning the recent raid by Commonwealth and State Officers at Cedar Bay, on any occasion since the raid took place on 29 August 1 976; if so, what are the details. {: #subdebate-75-21-s1 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers:
LP -- The Minister for National Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >No. {:#subdebate-75-22} #### Sealed Bitumen Road: Gilbert River to Normanton (Question No. 1166) {: #subdebate-75-22-s0 .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator Keeffe: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What is the estimated cost of construction of a sealed bitumen road from the Gilbert River to Normanton in Queensland. 1. What is the projected construction cost per kilometre for this road. 2. How much finance has been allocated this year for the construction of this road. 3. What is the projected completion date for the sealing of this road. 4. Will the sealing of this stretch of road create a completely sealed surface between Cairns and Mount Isa and greatly increase the already heavy flow of commercial and tourist vehicles on this road. 5. What is the average volume of traffic on this road for the past ten years. {: #subdebate-75-22-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) to (6) The detailed information sought by the honourable senator is not available within the Department of Transport. The information is available within the Queensland Main Roads Department from whom it was sought by Department of Transport officers. It has not been forthcoming. The Roads Grants Act 1974 does not enable the Minister for Transport to require a State to provide this type of information. {:#subdebate-75-23} #### Public Service: Surplus Staff (Question No. 1186) {: #subdebate-75-23-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What is the full text of the letter sent by the Public Service Board to all Commonwealth departments requesting details of surplus staff referred to in an article in the Melbourne newspaper, the *Age* dated 30 September 1976. 1. What action does the Public Service Board intend taking on advice received from each department. {: #subdebate-75-23-s1 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers:
LP -- The Prime Minister has provided the following information for answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="A" start="1"} 0. I ) The Public Service Board memorandum to all departments of 17 August 1976, which is the memorandum referred to in the *Age* article of 30 September 1976, comprises, with attachments, 1 1 pages. Because of its length, a copy has been placed in the Parliamentary Library for reference. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The processes being followed by the Public Service Board are indicated in paragraphs 20-23 of its memorandum. They involve redeployment to other work of staff who are identified as surplus. Bush Fire Fighting in Northern Territory (Question No. 1197) {: #subdebate-75-23-s2 .speaker-KPO} ##### Senator Kilgariff: asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Northern Territory, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a report by the Australian Broadcasting Commission on the extensive bush fires a few weeks ago, where it was said that in the Nutwood Downs area of the Northern Territory the Chief Fire Controller had stated that there was a lack of co-ordination and liaison between personnel fighting the fire and that this was instanced by two grader drivers who could not use their machines for several hours until given the direction by a senior person. 1. Will the Minister have the matter investigated with a view to attaining the utmost of efficiency in the system to help protect isolated northern areas. {: #subdebate-75-23-s3 .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster:
NCP/NP -- The Minister for the Northern Territory has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="a" start="1"} 0. l ) and (2) Some difficulties of co-ordination and liaison between personnel from different authorities fighting fires in the Northern Territory have been experienced. This has largely been caused by the distances between operation centres and problems with radio communication. The Northern Territory Bush Fires Council has been liaising with the various authorities involved in bush fire suppression and, as a result, co-ordination has improved and ways of improving communications are currently being examined with a view to further increasing efficiency. {:#subdebate-75-24} #### Meat Outlets: Northern Territory (Question No. 1199) {: #subdebate-75-24-s0 .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator Keeffe: asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Northern Territory, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Are meat outlets in the Northern Territory doubtful that their meat requirements will be met by the company that controls them, i.e. Norwest Meats; 1. Have these retail outlets, which supply the Territory with beef, since been advised by that company that they can be assured of a sure and continuing meat supply. {: #subdebate-75-24-s1 .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster:
NCP/NP -- The Minister for the Northern Territory has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) I understand that a subsidiary of Northern Meat Exporters does operate several meat outlets in the Northern Territory. The company's operation policy and supply sources are matters for its own commercial judgment and decision. Advertising on Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (Question No. 1203) {: #subdebate-75-24-s2 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) In the light of recent suggestions within the Australian community that the Australian Broadcasting Commission be forced to accept the placement of commercial advertising along the lines of the Canadian experience, will the Minister advise whether (a) radio commercials, with certain exceptions, were discontinued by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation from 31 March 1975, (b) commercial messages have been removed from television programs for children by the CBC, and (c) other advertising on CBC television is being greatly reduced. 1. Can the Minister provide any further details on 1 (a), (b), and (c) {: #subdebate-75-24-s3 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The Minister for Post and Telecommunications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1) and (2) As no reliable information on this subject is readily available, I have instructed the officers of my Department to request the information from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. As soon as this information is received, arrangements will be made to forward it to the honourable senator. {:#subdebate-75-25} #### Aborigines: Alcohol Problems (Question No. 1224) {: #subdebate-75-25-s0 .speaker-KPO} ##### Senator Kilgariff: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has the Minister read paragraphs 77 and 78 of the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs titled 'Alcohol Problems of Aborigines- Northern Territory Aspects '. 1. What action is to be taken, bearing in mind that there has been no Government action since the report was tabled in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly in 1 973. 2. Has this lack of action added to further deterioration in the Northern Territory, particularly as no amendments to the Licensing Ordinance to set up a Liquor Commission have been drafted, despite the numerous requests by the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. {: #subdebate-75-25-s1 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle:
LP -- The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. and (3) **Major responsibility** for legislative action in respect of the Adams Report rests with the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly and with the Departments of the Northern Territory and Health. It could be expected that my Department would be co-opted to assist with certain aspects, however, and it is in fact represented on an interdepartmental committee set up to consider alcohol services. It is not true to say that no action has been taken on the legislative aspects of the Adams Report. I understand that following interdepartmental discussions, the Department of the Northern Territory compiled 'draft instructions for legislation ' for consideration by the Legislative Asembly Government Departments. Departmental assistance was offered to the Legislative Assembly to develop the legislation. Setting of priorities for the drafting of legislation is the responsibility of the majority party in the Legislative Assembly. Legislation for the decriminalisation of drunkenness has been enacted in accordance with the recommendations of the Adams Report. A pick-up service has been set up in Alice Springs, and other similar services, in line with the Report's recommendations, have been commenced or planned elsewhere. {:#subdebate-75-26} #### Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Question No. 1238) {: #subdebate-75-26-s0 .speaker-GD5} ##### Senator Ryan: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What steps has the Government taken to implement the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. 1. How many staff have been allocated to the Commissioner for Community Relations to investigate complaints of unlawful behaviour under the Act. 2. 3 ) How many such complaints have been investigated. 3. Has the Government established the conciliation committees referred to in Section 23 of the Act. If not, why not. 4. Has the Attorney-General appointed the members of the Community Relations Council as provided for in Section 4 1 of the Act. If not why not. {: #subdebate-75-26-s1 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle:
LP -- The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The Racial Discrimination Act has already been implemented, all parts having become operative by 31 October 1975. 1. 10. 2. The Office of the Commissioner for Community Relations has advised that 458 complaints have been investigated. 3. and (5) The functions of the Commissioner for Community Relations as set down in the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 cover matters which involve various Departments and agencies in the Commonwealth and State jurisdictions For instance, the National and State Committees on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation operate as conciliation committees in regard to complaints of discrimination in employment and occupation. The Ethnic Affairs Unit within the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has functions relevant to the terms of reference of the Commissioner for Community Relations. Action has been taken, or is proposed, in several States in regard to racial discrimination. The Administrative Review Committee was asked to inquire into overlapping and duplication of antidiscrimination functions and activities, and its recommendations are currently being considered. {:#subdebate-75-27} #### World Food Conference, 1974: Australia's Commitments (Question No. 1240) {: #subdebate-75-27-s0 .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator Wriedt: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Does the Government intend to fully abide by the commitments entered into by Australia at the World Food Conference in 1 974. If not, in what areas does it intend to depart from the Agreement. {: #subdebate-75-27-s1 .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator Cotton:
LP -- The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following reply to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) As the honourable senator will recall from his participation in the World Food Conference in 1974, he supported, on behalf of Australia, a series of resolutions adopted by the Conference which comprised recommendations to governments and to relevant international organisations. These resolutions called for the implementation of various measures. By their nature, not all of the recommendations are applicable to developed countries such as Australia. The most helpful way of answering the question is to refer the honourable senator to the detailed information recently provided by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in answer to a similar question (House of Representatives Question No. 1073, *Hansard,* 6 October 1976, page 1612). {:#subdebate-75-28} #### Department of Treasury: Staff Ceiling (Question No. 1241) {: #subdebate-75-28-s0 .speaker-4F4} ##### Senator Button: asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice: >What is the projected staff ceiling for the Department of the Treasury as at 30 June 1 977. {: #subdebate-75-28-s1 .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator Cotton:
LP -- The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >In his reply to Question No. 1246 on 9 November 1976 (Senate *Hansard,* page 1774), the Minister representing the Prime Minister advised that the Prime Minister had indicated that it is not the practice to publish the individual staff ceilings set for each department. {:#subdebate-75-29} #### Amphetamines (Question No. 1095) {: #subdebate-75-29-s0 .speaker-ME4} ##### Senator Baume: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What are the regulations pertaining to the prescribing of amphetamines in the Australian Capital Territory. 1. What is the number of prescriptions for these drugs over each of the past five years in the Australian Capital Territory. {: #subdebate-75-29-s1 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Amphetamines are controlled in the same way as narcotic drugs under the provisions of the Australian Capital Territory Poisons and Dangerous Drugs Ordinance. 1. Statistics on the number of prescriptions written are not kept. However, the consumption of amphetamines is monitored throughout Australia. The following figures are relevant to the Australian Capital Territory: 1971- 33 475 dosage units of which 8130 were amphetamine methaqualone combinations 1972- 51 375 dosage units of which 9990 were amphetamine methaqualone combinations 1973- 47 744 dosage units of which 9600 were amphetamine methaqualone combinations 1974- 36 020 dosage units of which 6330 were amphetamine methaqualone combinations 1975- 41 180 dosage units of which 6660 were amphetamine methaqualone combinations 1976 to 9.10.76-30 090 dosage units of which 3240 were amphetamine methaqualone combinations. {:#subdebate-75-30} #### East Timor (Question No. 1213) {: #subdebate-75-30-s0 .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice: >Is the Government prepared to take the following initiatives to counter the deceit of the Jakarta generals and support fully the right of self-determination of the East Timorese people: > >authorise communication with East Timor through Telecom and provide a licence for a radio to operate from Darwin; > >call for a moratorium on defence aid to Indonesia until all Indonesian troops have been withdrawn from East Timor; > >urge the Indonesian Government to allow Australian observers to go to East Timor; > >fully support the right of self-determination for the East Timorese in the United Nations during this current session; > >refuse to send further aid through the Indonesian Red Cross and continue to press for involvement of the International Committee of the Red Cross; and > >release all details of the Indonesian invasion of East Timor held by Australian intelligence agencies. {: #subdebate-75-30-s1 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers:
LP -- The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="a" start="1"} 0. a ) This is a matter which falls principally within the area of responsibility of the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. 1. The Government could not agree to the suspension of the program of defence cooperation with Indonesia. This program, which has been proceeding for some years, is of value to both countries. 2. On 18 September a spokesman for the Indonesian Government stated that East Timor was closed to all visitors. 3. The Australian Government's commitment to the principle of self-determination already has been stated, most recently by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in answer to a parliamentary question without notice on 20 October. 4. The Government has expressed its deep regret about the loss of life and human suffering which has resulted from the fighting in East Timor. In order to help alleviate this suffering, the Government has sought ways of extending humanitarian aid to East Timor. The Government had hoped to be able to channel additional aid through the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). When it became clear, however, that the ICRC would not be able to resume its activities in Timor, the Government decided to channel assistance through the Indonesian Red Cross which was already conducting relief programs in East Timor. By doing so it is ensuring that some relief reaches people in need in East Timor. 5. In line with the established and accepted practice of all Australian Governments, the Government cannot agree to this request. {:#subdebate-75-31} #### Overseas Aid (Question No. 1235) {: #subdebate-75-31-s0 .speaker-KUU} ##### Senator Missen: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Is the Commonwealth Government committed to the internationally accepted target of providing 0.7 per cent of Australia's gross national product as development assistance. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Has the proportion achieved in recent years been reducing. 1. Is the anticipated percentage for 1976-77 now 0.49 per cent of forecast gross national product and does this include some deferments from 1975-76. 2. What are the total increases in aid to developing countries in 1976-77 excluding aid to Papua New Guinea. 3. What action is the Government proposing to achieve the accepted target of 0.7 percent. 4. Does the development assistance include aid to Vietnam, and what aid has been supplied to Vietnam since the termination of hostilities. {: #subdebate-75-31-s1 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers:
LP -- The Foreign Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The Commonwealth Government remains committed to the internationally accepted target of providing 0.7 per cent of its gross national product as official development assistance but no date has been set for achieving it. 1. The proportion of gross national product spent on official development assistance in recent years has been as follows: {: type="1" start="3"} 0. Yes. 1. The sum appropriated in 1976-77 for Australia's bilateral aid to countries other than Papua New Guinea represents an increase of $ 19.35m over last year's expenditure. In the case of multilateral aid, the increase in appropriation is $ 1 7.92m over expenditure in 1 975-76. 2. As already stated, the Government remains committed to a target of 0.7 per cent of gross national product as official development assistance. Progress towards this target has to be determined within the overall budgetary context. Aid expenditure has to be assessed along with other competing demands for public funds. It is against this background, and at a time when public expenditure is being curtailed that the Government has favourably treated development assistance by allocating a 14.6 per cent increase in 1976-77 over the previous year's expenditure. 3. Yes. From the date of termination of hostilities in Vietnam (taken as 1 April 1975) to the end of September 1976, Australia has provided that country with aid totalling $4.86m of which SI. 82m was for developmental projects and commodities other than food, $ 1.54m was for the training of Vietnamese students in Australia; and $1.5m was for food aid. {:#subdebate-75-32} #### Department of Foreign Affairs: Staff Ceilings (Question No. 1255) {: #subdebate-75-32-s0 .speaker-4F4} ##### Senator Button: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice: >What is the projected staff ceiling for the Department of Foreign Affairs as at 30 June 1977. {: #subdebate-75-32-s1 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers:
LP -- The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: >As the Prime Minister said in his answer to Question 1246, Senate *Hansard 9* November 1976, p. 1 774, it is not the practice to publish the individual staff ceilings set for each department. {:#subdebate-75-33} #### Overseas Aid Expenditure (Question No. 1274) {: #subdebate-75-33-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice: >Has Australia's overseas aid budget been increased by 400 per cent in the 1976-77 Budget, as was claimed by the Queensland Premier, **Mr Bjelke-Petersen,** in a Press release dated 13 October 1976. {: #subdebate-75-33-s1 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers:
LP -- The Foreign Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >The Treasurer in his Budget Speech on 17 August 1976, announced that the outlays from the Budget on overseas aid, excluding defence co-operation, would increase to $400m in 1976-77 and that this would be an increase of 14.6 per cent over 1975-76 expenditure. > >The Foreign Minister in a statement on the Australian South Pacific Aid Program made to the South Pacific Forum in Suva on 1 2 October 1 976 announced that the Government had 'decided to commit a total amount of $A60m in bilateral aid to the countries of the South Pacific over the three-year period 1976-1979. This represents a four-fold' increase in Australian aid as compared with the preceding three years '. Marihuana: Research into Effects (Question No. 1303) {: #subdebate-75-33-s2 .speaker-GD5} ##### Senator Ryan: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Was a grant of $20,500 from the National Health and Medical Research Council to the University of Sydney discontinued. If so, did this lead to the stopping of a research project investigating the effects of marihuana on the endocrine system in humans and its effects when combined with alcohol. 1. Will the Minister have the grant continued. If not, explain why there is apparent neglect of this important area of research. {: #subdebate-75-33-s3 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) Medical research is supported by the Commonwealth Government through the National Health and Medical Research Council. Funding is approved by the Minister for Health on the advice ofthe Council. All medical research supported by the Council is evaluated by expert committees and a peer review system and only projects of the highest scientific merit gain support. Inevitably there are more requests for support than there is money available. The present Government has restored the amount of money available for medical research in 1977 to the level prior to July 1975 when the previous Government drastically reduced the allocation for research. There were two applications from Sydney University for project grant support in 1977 dealing with marihuana: The Pharmacology of Cannabis in Laboratory Animals' has attracted $18,293 for 1977 and $19,126 for 1978. Students on the Interaction of Cannabis and Ethanol on Human Psychological Functions alone or in combination' had been previously supported in 1974 and 1975 but was unable to attract support on the basis of scientific merit in competition with other applications in 1976. I have no information whether the work proceeded in 1 976 and if it did on the source of support. The new application for 1977 was processed through the normal peer review procedures, but in competition with other applications did not attract support. I believe that the fact that there is support for research involving cannabis indicates that the Government and its expert advisers are keen to support such work but it must be on the basis of scientific merit in competition with other applications. The level of Government support for research in this area must be viewed in the light of known research as reported in the *'Fifth Annual Report to the U.S. Congress' from* the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare. This shows over 60 groups are currently working in the area of toxicological and pharmacological effects of cannabis. {:#subdebate-75-34} #### Mr Peter Clyne: Australian Passport (Question No. 1348) {: #subdebate-75-34-s0 .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator Mulvihill: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has the Minister seen the assertion in the *Australian* of 8 November 1976 by **Mr Peter** Clyne, a well known Sydney legal figure, that his Australian passport is still in the hands of the United States authorities. 1. Does the Australian Government permit foreign governments to retain Australian passports, or is there an obligation on the foreign government concerned to surrender such passports to the Australian Embassy in the country in question. 2. If **Mr Clyne** 's passport is in the hands of the United States authorities, was he issued with a travel document to return from the United States of America to Australia. 3. Has **Mr Clyne** been issued with a new Australian passport. 4. 5 ) If the answer is in the negative, is such action bound up in current Australian litigation involving **Mr Clyne.** {: #subdebate-75-34-s1 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers:
LP -- The Foreign Minister has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. Yes. It is a generally accepted international practice for a government to hold the passport of an alien against whom legal action has been taken or is pending. Such passports are normally returned to the bearer when authority as been granted for his departure from the country concerned. 2. **Mr Clyne** travelled from the United States to Canada without a travel document. He applied to the Australian Consulate-General in Vancouver for a travel document and was issued there with a restricted Document of Identity. 3. and (5) An application for a new passport is under consideration. {:#subdebate-75-35} #### Commonwealth Parliament Offices, Brisbane (Question No. 1381) {: #subdebate-75-35-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Why has the vacancy for a Clerical Assistant Grade 1 in the Commonwealth Parliament Offices in Brisbane not been filled. 1. What effect is the reduced staffing level having on the operation and effectiveness of the administration of the Commonwealth Parliament offices in Brisbane. {: #subdebate-75-35-s1 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) It has. The vacancy existed from 18 October 1976 until 18 November 1976 when a replacement officer was provided by the Public Service Inspector, Brisbane. 1. Except for isolated instances during the period of the vacancy, three of the four positions provided for the Commonwealth Parliament Offices were continuously staffed. There was some reduction in library, messengerial and inquiry counter services. The policy is to maintain a full staffing level in all Commonwealth Parliament Offices and every effort will continue to be made to maintain an appropriate standard of service. {:#subdebate-75-36} #### Minister for Productivity: Personal Staff (Question No. 1386) {: #subdebate-75-36-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice: >Have members of the personal staff of the Minister for Productivity provided the Minister with details of their respective pecuniary interests. If so, will the Minister advise the Senate of the details provided. {: #subdebate-75-36-s1 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: >The Minister for Productivity has as yet made only one appointment to his personal staff (see my answer to parliamentary Question No. 1388). In accordance with the usual requirements this officer will be making a declaration of any pecuniary interests as soon as possible. In my view it would be an invasion of privacy to make public the declarations of pecuniary interests made by the staff of Ministers and it is not my intention to do so except in the most extraordinary circumstances.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 30 November 1976, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1976/19761130_senate_30_s70/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant