30th Parliament · 1st Session
The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Condor Laucke) took the chair at 3.30 p.m., and read prayers.
page 1755
-I present the following petition from 212 citizens of Australia:
To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Australian Capital Territory respectfully showeth:
The present method of valuing land for rates is inequitable in that ratepayers are paying greatly varying rates for essentially the same municipal services.
Ratepayers in inner Canberra are subsidising municipal services in the newer suburbs.
Since valuations were carried out in January 1976 the housing market and resultant values have become severely depressed.
The decline in demand and consequent drop in unimproved land values in the newer suburbs resulting in the increase in unimproved land values in the inner suburbs has been brought about by the Government’s economic policies applying to Canberra.
The steep increase in rates is directly counter to the Government’s stated policy of reducing prices and incomes as expressed by its strong support for the wages and prices freeze ‘ earlier this year.
Purpose clauses contained in residential leases are ignored when determining valuations for rates.
The percentage increase in rates in many instances is far greater than the percentage increase in real incomes.
Many bona fide long term residents living in inner Canberra living on fixed or low incomes may be forced to sell their houses and move to outer suburbs away from familiar surroundings and friends. Others, in order to meet their rate payments, may have to reduce their standard of living.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate ensure that:
The Minister for the Capital Territory honour the Government’s commitment to reducing costs by substantially reducing unimproved land values particularly in the inner suburbs where housing is used for bona fide residential purposes.
The Minister for the Capital Territory urgently implement a more equitable means of valuing which relate rates to the costs of municipal services provided to each ratepayer.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received.
– I present the following petition from 48 citizens of Australia:
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate, assembled, the petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That many pensioners who are holders of the Pensioners Health Benefit Card, have suffered undue hardship as inmates of Private Nursing Homes, because the Federal Government subsidy was insufficient to meet the charges as laid down.
Many pensioners whose spouse was an inmate of the Private Nursing Homes suffered poverty in an endeavour to sustain their partner while in the nursing home.
Only in rare cases was the statutory minimum patient contribution as laid down adhered to.
That the telephone was a matter of life and death to many pensioners, but because of the cost of installation of the telephone many are unable to afford the installation.
That those pensioners who have only their pension and very little else to live on and are forced to pay high rents, are in many cases living in extreme poverty.
The foregoing facts impel your petitioners to ask the Australian Government as a matter of urgency to-
. Make sure that subsidies paid to Private Nursing Homes are such that each pensioner holding a Pensioners Health Benefit Card will pay the Private Nursing Home no more than the statutory minimum patient contribution, which will allow six dollars per week to be retained by the pensioner patient for their personal use.
That a pensioner holding a Pensioner Health Benefit Card shall have a telephone installed free of charge, or at a very nominal charge.
That those pensioners who have only their pension and very little else to live on, shall receive a subsidy to assist them. The subsidy to be governed by a Means Test.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Petition received and read.
– I present the following petition from 23 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 objection 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.
-On behalf of Senator Ryan, I present the following petition from 64 citizens of Australia:
To the honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Australian Capital Territory respectfully showeth:
The present method of valuing land for rates is inequitable in that ratepayers are paying greatly varying rates for essentially the same municipal services.
Ratepayers in inner Canberra are subsidising municipal services in the newer suburbs.
Since valuations were carried out in January 1976 the housing market and resultant values have become severely depressed.
The decline in demand and consequent drop in unimproved land values in the newer suburbs resulting in the increase in unimproved land values in the inner suburbs has been brought about by the Government’s economic policies applying to Canberra.
The steep increase in rates is directly counter to the Government’s stated policy of reducing prices and incomes as expressed by its strong support for the wages and prices freeze ‘ earlier this year.
Purpose clauses contained in residential leases are ignored when determining valuations for rates.
The percentage increase in rates in many instances is far greater than the percentage increase in real incomes.
Many bona fide long term residents living in inner Canberra living on fixed or low incomes may be forced to sell their houses and move to outer suburbs away from familiar surroundings and friends. Others, in order to meet their rate payments, may have to reduce their standard of living.
Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate ensure that:
The Minister for the Capital Territory honour the Government’s commitment to reducing costs by substantially reducing unimproved land values particularly in the inner suburbs where housing is used for bona fide residential purposes.
The Minister for the Capital Territory urgently implement a more equitable means of valuing which relate rates to the costs of municipal services provided to each ratepayer.
And your petitioners as in duty bound do humbly pray.
Petition received and read.
– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate, assembled, the petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:
That many pensioners who are holders of the Pensioners Health Benefit Card, have suffered undue hardship as inmates of Private Nursing Homes, because the Federal Government subsidy was insufficient to meet the charges as laid down.
Many pensioners whose spouse was an inmate of the Private Nursing Homes suffered poverty in an endeavour to sustain their partner while in the nursing home.
Only in rare cases was the statutory minimum patient contribution as laid down adhered to.
That the telephone was a matter of life and death to many pensioners, but because of the cost of installation of the telephone many are unable to afford the installation.
That those pensioners who have only their pension and very little else to live on and are forced to pay high rents, are in many cases living in extreme poverty.
The foregoing facts impel your petitioners to ask the Australian Government as a matter of urgency to-
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Lajovic.
Petition received.
To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, will take the most urgent steps to ensure:
That the Prime Minister and the Federal Government voice emphatic protest to the Vietnamese Government about the continued imprisonment of the Most Reverend Francis Nguyen Van Thuan, Co-adjutor Archbishop of Saigon, and call for his immediate release.
We also call on the Federal Government to inquire into the whereabouts and well being of Archbishop Thuan who has been under house arrest since15 August 1 975.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Drake-Brockman.
Petition received.
page 1756
– I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move five motions to approve redistribution of the States of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland and Western Australia into electoral divisions.
page 1756
Senator KNIGHT (Australian Capital Territory) I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:
page 1757
page 1757
– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security and refers to two answers the Minister gave to me last week. The first answer was given on 1 8 October when the Minister said:
I am not aware of whether Karen Green’s case specifically is before the Ombudsman.
The second answer was given on 21 October when the Minister referred to claims that Miss Green and her family had approached members of the Government parties to see that no further personal publicity was given to her case. I now ask: Is it not a fact that some three weeks before 18 October the Ombudsman wrote and informed the Minister, as he was obliged to do under the Act, that he was dealing with the case of Miss Karen Green of 34 Allumba Street, Howrah, Tasmania? Secondly, is it not a fact that Miss Green, although she said that she did not want her name used in demonstrations about which’ she knew nothing, has said that she never said to anybody that she did not want her case aired as a public issue because she believes that it is an important public issue, and that no Government member has a right to make such a claim?
– There is nothing that I want to add to the answer I gave last week with regard to the matter of the Ombudsman and the release of private information that is under his investigation. As far as the latter part of the question is concerned, I was advised by members of the Government’s federal parliamentary party that Miss Green had requested that further publicity not be given to her. I will have investigated the matter raised by Senator Grimes of Miss Green’s attitude on the matter and ascertain whether there is any response that I wish to make.
– I ask a supplementary question. I repeat: I ask the Minister whether she will stick by her answer in which she said: 1 am not aware of whether Karen Green ‘s case specifically is before the Ombudsman.
To further make my point, I ask the Minister to investigate whether a copy of a letter from the Ombudsman to the Minister, initialled by the Minister on the day it was delivered, informing her that the Karen Green case was before the Ombudsman is an accurate and a genuine letter.
I am perfectly happy to table the letter in the Parliament.
– I said last week that I was not personally aware of the matter that had been raised and I would investigate it. I did investigate it and I made a response to it. I have made a further response today, that is, that following discussions with the Ombudsman by my Director-General it was revealed that the Ombudsman does not feel that matters of this kind should be discussed publicly. I have also responded in the same way on many occasions with regard to individuals and matters which are being dealt with on a personal basis by our Department. I have nothing further to add to that. If Senator Grimes wishes to table a letter which bears my initials to show that it had been seen by me, that is a decision which Senator Grimes may make.
page 1757
– My question is directed to the Minister for Education. Does the Commonwealth Government have any role in paying the levy to the Australian Union of Students which is charged compulsorily to all students enrolling in universities and colleges of advanced education?
– The primary answer is that the Commonwealth Government has no direct role at all in that a decision as to whether an Australian Union of Students levy of $2.50, or whatever it is, is paid arises first of all out of the decision of each individual campus, taken by its student body, as to whether it will affiliate with AUS. If it decides to affiliate, the $2.50 is taken out of the students’ funds. The bulk of those funds are paid by the students. The Commonwealth does not directly pay students’ nontuition funds, but it is true that the student assistance branch of my Department is responsible for paying compulsory non-tuition fees levied by an institution which are paid by former scholarship holders. Commonwealth scholarship holders of some years ago who still have tenable scholarships receive from the Department virtually a reimbursement of their non-tuition fees. I think there is a residue of some 3,000 cases in that regard. Indirectly and as a result of the decision of a college or an institution one could say that part of that amount may end up with AUS.
An incidentals allowance is paid under the Tertiary Education Allowance Scheme. It relates also to pre-school teacher education allowances and to the adult secondary education assistance scheme and post-graduate awards. It is intended to assist in meeting compulsory non-tuition fees and other costs such as books and equipment.
The rates of payment for this allowance are: Universities, $100; colleges of advanced education, $70; and technical colleges, $30. It may well be that if some of that money is used to pay a student’s representative council fee or a student’s sporting and recreation fee, some of that amount may find its way indirectly to AUS as a levy. I make the point that whether an institution will belong to AUS is a decision of the student body on each campus. I think that in some institutions there is a need for the institutions and their students to look at their rules to see that that situation is constantly reviewed so that the true will and decision of the students is known, is up to date and is not some decision made many years ago.
page 1758
-My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer, relates to an answer which the Minister gave to my colleague, Senator Melzer, at Question Time yesterday when Senator Melzer suggested that the Government had rejected a proposal by the Commonwealth Bank for the creation of the Commonwealth Development Bank as a bank in its own right. The Minister responded that he had heard nothing of the matter and that it had never been before Cabinet. I ask the Minister whether he will agree that in the Senate on 17 February last Senator Tehan asked him a question concerning the establishment of a national rural bank and that the Minister, in responding to the question, said amongst other things that he would provide Senator Tehan and others with a copy of a submission which had been provided by the Commonwealth Bank about the matter, that he had had a talk with bank officials the previous week on the subject and that they had presented a very solid range of proposals. Will the Minister agree that on page 2 of that submission the Commonwealth Banking Corporation said:
The Board of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation sees considerable merit in retention of the present structure and broad functions of the Commonwealth Development Bank and would not seek to promote any reduction in the breadth of its operations.
What action has the Government taken on that section of the Bank’s report?
-Had the original question been framed to seek information along those lines I certainly would have agreed that in response to a question asked by Senator Tehan I had said that the Bank had made a case. But the case was much more detailed. That case has not come before Cabinet, as I said. The Treasurer certainly had access to it and I am sure he had read it.
I have forgotten the fine details of this matter, but if I remember correctly the case contained a proposal for the Development Bank and a proposal for some expansion of its activity. It was in the context of the discussion about the national rural bank. Nothing that I had said would in any way have detracted from the case the Bank put up nor would I have, I think, in any way given the Senate information that was not quite accurate. I did indicate at the time that I would make available whatever I had to Senator Tehan. I think I did that. I think I made it available to everybody else as well.
The matter of the national rural bank is very close to finality and the detail that Senator Melzer was apparently seeking, and which I think the honourable senator has now made clear, would have been taken into account. Some of these things would have been taken into account as well when the overall proposal was looked at. There were many other proposals. I think the Australian Bankers Association made some proposals. I did not see them. I believe some primary producer organisations made proposals. I have not seen those. The honourable senators can be sure that in the consideration of the national rural bank all bona fide cases would have been taken into account.
page 1758
-It is just as well that I once went to a Gilbert and Sullivan show. Otherwise I would not have understood the burden of the honourable senator’s question. I do not know in what role I stand- it is certainly not as one of the pirates, I hope. Maybe it is as the Mikado. The honourable senator has asked an interesting question. It involves a matter which he would realise is totally within the jurisdiction of my colleague in another place. I will certainly pass his question on to him and ask that it be treated urgently.
Mr TERRY LANE: TALKBACK PROGRAM
– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. Can the Minister give the reasons for the demise of Mr Terry Lane’s talkback program on 3LO? In view of the many protests coming from listeners to the program, will the Minister consult the Australian Broadcasting Commission with a view to reviving this extremely popular program?
– I am unaware of any reason why the program may have been terminated. I will ask my colleague in another place to approach the Australian Broadcasting Commission and to seek the information and let Senator Primmer know.
page 1759
– I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to the answer he gave yesterday to a question asked by Senator Wood about uranium. Senator Withers said: it is true that during the term of the Whitlam Government encouragement was given to mining companies to mine and export uranium.
Senator Withers also referred to the Labor Government taking 50 per cent of the capital in Peko Wallsend Ltd for 70 per cent subscription. I ask the Minister: As these facts sit oddly with the Labor Opposition’s present stance on mining and export of uranium, can he confirm that the Labor Government led by Mr Whitlam did in fact have this quite different attitude when it was recently in office? Can he give the Senate any further particulars about this quite extraordinarily different attitude that honourable senators opposite were supporting a couple of years ago?
-I recall Senator Wood’s question yesterday. The burden of it, as I remember it, was: Why should there now be demonstrations about the present Government’s policy to mine and export uranium under very strict safeguards when some years back when the Whitlam Labor Government was adopting exactly the same policy one never saw hide nor hair of the demonstrations? I thought that the answers that I gave yesterday were accurate but to make certain that I was correct I sent for some papers on the subject. I can inform the Government Whip of a number of matters. On 30 October 1974, the Whitlam Labor Government signed an agreement with Peko Mines Ltd and the Electrolytic Zinc Co. of Australasia Ltdknown as Peko-EZ- for the development of the Ranger uranium deposits and that agreement was tabled in the Parliament on 31 October 1974, almost three years ago. My memory is not terribly good but Senator Wood’s memory is great so perhaps he can recall whether on that date there were protestors outside Parliament House or marching in the streets of Brisbane.
That agreement was elaborated by a memorandum of understanding dated 28 October 1 975- only two years ago- between the Whitlam Labor Government and Peko-EZ. I again invite Senator Wood to recall whether there were demonstrators either outside this building or in the streets of Brisbane then. The memorandum of understanding dated 28 October 1975 is between the Commonwealth of Australia and Peko-EZ and, whilst I cannot read the names of the persons who signed for Peko-EZ, certainly the signatory for Australia was one ‘E. G. Whitlam, Prime Minister’.
It is a long time since it has been my purpose in life to read legal documents and I am not terribly good at it any more but on a quick skim through this document I saw a couple of things which may be of interest to honourable senators. The memorandum of understanding starts off in this way:
The parties to this memorandum desire to procure the development and mining of uranium ore deposits in the Ranger Project area in the Northern Territory and the production and sale of uranium concentrate from that ore.
I skimmed through this document very quickly and I do not say that I have picked up the operative parts of the agreement. However, one clause states:
The Australian Atomic Energy Commission, Peko and EZ shall carry on a joint venture in the Northern Territory for.
the development and mining of uranium ore deposits on behalf of Australia . . .
I take it that that is Mr Whitlam and his Government- in the Ranger Project area;
I take it that would also mean Mr Whitlam because at that stage he thought he was Australia- of uranium concentrate produced from the uranium ore treatment plant.
The memorandum of understanding goes on to say that the ‘Ranger Project shall be conducted as a commercial venture’ and so on. I am out of touch with reading documents quickly but I noticed that in clause5 the memorandum talks about the scale of operation. I think that this is important, remembering the date, 28 October 1975. I am one of those who believe that succeeding governments ought to honour legal commitments entered into by their predecessors. On 28 October 1975, the present Government had this injunction or obligation placed on it by E. G. Whitlam for Australia:
The treatment plant shall:
be promptly constructed near the Ranger Number One ore body (the precise location to be determined by the Board of RUM);
have an initial annual capacity of not less than 3,300 short tons of U3O8 in uranium concentrate conforming to the quality specifications of Allied Chemicals Corporation, USA;
be operated at optimum capacity consistent with good engineering practice and with sound commercial practice. When commercially practicable the annual capacity shall be increased to 6,600 short tons ofU3O8.
The document further states:
The uranium ore deposits in the project area shall be progressively developed and mined (commencing with the Ranger Number One ore body).
Let me refer to the cut up of the cake between Mr Whitlam, then playing his role as Australia, and the companies. What I stated yesterday was wrong and I apologise to the Senate for this. The relevant proportions of contributions of capital from time to time shall be: The Commissionthat is Australia-72½ per cent; Peko, 13¾ per cent; and EZ Industries, 13¾ per cent. As I said yesterday, and I again confirm it today, the profit was to be split 50-50.I would have thought that Australia, then represented by Mr E. G. Whitlam who is presently the Leader of the Australian Labor Party in the other place, for a 72½ per cent investment of capital would want to receive a 72½ per cent share of the profit. But the Labor Government was so keen to get this operation off the ground it was prepared to put in 72½ per cent of the capital for a 50 per cent return of the profit. I think that is an indication of how important the Whitlam Labor Government, two days short of two years ago, thought it was to mine and export uranium from the Ranger area of Australia.
-Mr President, I raise a point of order. The Minister apparently was quoting from documents. I ask that the documents be tabled.
– I ask leave to have the document incorporated in Hansard.
-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.
The document read as follows-
page 1760
Parties to this memorandum-
The Commonwealth of Australia-( Australia)
Peko Mines Limited -(Peko)
Electrolytic Zinc Company of Australasia Limited
– (EZ)
The parties to this memorandum desire to procure the development and mining of uranium ore deposits in the Ranger Project area in the Northern Territory and the production and sale of uranium concentrate from that ore.
To these ends, Ministers and representatives of the com- panies signed an agreement dated 30 October 1974 (‘the 974 Agreement’), a copy of which is attached. It is now desirable to elaborate and supplement the 1974 Agreement and to set out agreed understandings on major issues affecting the development of the Ranger Project to facilitate the early preparation of formal, definitive and binding contracts in relation to it.
Contracts to give effect to this Memorandum of Understanding to which Australia is, or is to be, a party shall not become effective until Australia has affirmed them following consideration of:
a report by the Interim Aboriginal Land Commissioner on any claims by aboriginals in respect of land within the Ranger Project area.
The Australian Atomic Energy Commission (The Commission), Peko and EZ shall carry on a joint venture in the Northern Territory for:
In particular, Australia-
In particular, Peko and EZ-
There will be no royalties imposed in respect of the Ranger Project of a kind similar to the royalty that would have been imposed under a mining title granted under the Northern Territory Mining Ordinance.
The joint venturers shall engage RUM to be the manager of the Ranger Project. RUM shall be responsible for the planning, development, construction, operation and maintenance of the Ranger Project and shall, for that purpose, be furnished with all necessary funds by the joint venturers and shall have possession and control (but not ownership) of all joint venture assets. All contracts entered into by RUM in connection with the Project shall be as agent for and to the account of the joint venturers.
Project decisions
Scale of operation
When commercially practicable the annual capacity shall be increased to 6,600 short tons of U3O8.
All uranium concentrate produced at the treatment plant shall be delivered to the Commission as agent of Australia.
The Commission-721/2 per cent
Peko- 131/4 per cent
EZ-131/4 per cent and project assets shall be held in like undivided percentages. There shall be no interest charges on capital contributions to the Ranger Project.
In any year in which uranium concentrate produced by the Ranger Project-
The joint venturers shall acquire at cost or at current market value, whichever is the less, the tangible assets of the Peko-EZ joint venture in the Ranger Project area or otherwise held by RUM.
All minerals products, other than uranium concentrate produced at the treatment plant, shall be sold by Peko and EZon behalf of the joint venturers.
The Vendor’s stockpile of Ranger production shall be maintained at a level determined by the Commission from time to time having regard to existing and forward commitments and production rates. The stockpile shall not exceed a tonnage equivalent to the nominal production capacity of the Ranger treatment plant for three months of continuous operation unless the joint venturers otherwise agree.
If the Commission is unable to sell Ranger production on world markets on reasonable terms and conditions, the joint venturers will confer in the Ranger Project committee as to what action should be taken, consistent with good commercial practice, in relation to the continued operation of the mine and treatment plant.
If the Commission withholds uranium concentrate from sale on the market for commercial reasons and thereby causes an increase in the holdings of Ranger uranium concentrate above the maximum level specified in paragraph (a) above, the Commission will inform Peko and EZ of the fact and Peko and EZ may request the Commission to offer for sale at the prevailing world market price that share of the Ranger production the nett proceeds of the sale of which they are entitled to receive. If such a request is made to the Commission, the Commission shall forthwith inform the Minister for Minerals and Energy of the request and, if the Minister so directs, the Commission shall comply with the request. In considering whether such direction should be given the Minister will have regard to and give due consideration to any financial hardship which Peko and EZ may suffer if such direction is not given.
In the event that in the national interest Australia withholds from sale uranium concentrate produced by the Ranger Project, an arbitrator shall be appointed to decide what compensation, if any, but not exceeding world market price, should be given by Australia to offset the adverse financial effect on Peko and EZ resulting from this action. If the purpose of withholding from sale is to establish a stockpile for enrichment or strategic reasons, the Government will pay world market price.
Contracts with Japanese utilities
Assignments
If either Peko or EZ wishes to assign its interest in the joint venture, then the other of them shall have a pre-emptive right of purchase. If this pre-emptive right is not exercised, then the party wishing to assign may assign to Australia or to a corporation nominated by Australia. If the Commission wishes to assign its interest in the joint venture, then Peko and EZ shall nave a pre-emptive right of purchase. If either Peko or EZ defaults, then the other of them shall have a preemptive right to take over the rights and obligations of the defaulter.
When the last of all contracts necessary to give effect to this Memorandum of Understanding has become effective, Peko and EZ shall relinquish all interests held by them under the Mining Ordinance of the Northern Territory within the Ranger Project area. for Australia Signed:
E.G. WHITLAM
Prime Minister for Peko Mines Limited Signed:
JOHNS. PROUD
for Electrolytic Zinc Company of Australasia Limited Signed:
NORTHERN TERRITORY URANIUM
Signed:
E.G. WHITLAM JOHNS. PROUD
R.X. CONNOR
-Mr President, I direct a supplementary question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Most honourable senators, like Senator Withers, are unaccustomed to reading long legal agreements. Will he tell the Senate whether what he has read means that the Australian Labor Party two years ago was supporting the mining and milling of uranium?
-The Australian Labor Party was not just supporting it; it was anxiously trying to get it going. I must say that honourable senators opposite ought to be congratulated for then having a proper national attitude and a proper concern to give the poor, the sick and the handicapped people of the world food, shelter and light. It is rather remarkable that less than 1 8 months later the Australian Labor Party at its conference in Perth, at which none of the alleged heavies of the Party spoke, determined that the poor and disadvantaged of the world would freeze and starve in the dark.
page 1763
– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Education, refers to the cut up of adult migrant spending in New South Wales. I ask the question on the assumption that New South Wales sought $5. 43m and that the Minister responded with an offer of $3.09m plus another $150,000. What will be the New South Wales share of this further $2.5m grant that is proposed?
– To answer this question will require a fair amount of consultation because some of the new programs are being developed. So I cannot answer it at the moment but as soon as I can I will let Senator Mulvihill know the answer.
page 1764
-I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. Is the Minister aware that Telecom Australia is losing $200,000 a day because of work bans imposed throughout the country and that the total cost to Telecom as of today is in excess of $3m since the bans were imposed? I understand that an application has been made by Telecom to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for a stand-down clause to be inserted in the technicians award. Can the Minister comment on the effect of a loss of this magnitude, particularly if it is to continue at the rate of $200,000 a day, on the financial structure of Telecom with particular reference to the charges fixed for telephone rentals and charges?
– I have information on this important matter. My information generally is to confirm that the weekly loss is of the order of $1.5m. If Telecom itself suffers that loss, in the end the Australian taxpayers or subscribers to Telecom will pay. I understand that the Australian Telecommunications Employees Association has placed a number of bans on the maintenance of telephone equipment following a breakdown in discussions with Telecom on arrangements for the introduction of new equipment in telephone exchanges. The new equipment is basically an updating of existing cross-bar exchanges to provide additional customer services. This will reduce the maintenance cost for telephone exchanges.
Following the breakdown in negotiations Telecom applied on 19 October to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission for standdown clauses to be inserted in ATEA awards. The application for stand-down clauses was adjourned to private conference. On 20 October an interim agreement was reached which would have meant the bans being lifted on 24 October. The Federal Council, of the ATEA in fact, rejected the agreement and advised that meetings of union members in all States would be held to ratify the rejection. On 24 October a meeting of ATEA members in Perth rejected the Federal Council resolution by 240 votes to 170 votes. As a result all bans were lifted in Western Australia at 3 p.m. on that day. The application by Telecom for stand-down clauses was to be further considered before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.
The types of bans imposed vary from State to State. The principal bans still in force except in Western Australia include bans on repair of revenue recording equipment in all States. The revenue loss to which Senator Tehan referred is approximately $210,000 a day. There is a ban on the maintenance of telegraph telex equipment in Victoria where 17 services are awaiting repair. There are trunk room bans on all DATEL services in Victoria, and 25 services are involved. There is a ban on disconnections for nonpayment of accounts in New South Wales and Queensland, and 405 services are affected. There is a ban on the repair of public telephone faults if the faults are advantageous to the subscriber. These bans exist in New South Wales and Queensland, and 140 public telephones are affected. There is a ban on new connections to international subscriber dialling in Victoria and New South Wales, and 170 applications are held up. There is a ban on commissioning of the new PABX for Brisbane Hospital and the commissioning of a new broadband route to the Gold Coast.
That is a very sorry story. The direct revenue losses to Telecom for the ban on repair of recording equipment alone is approximately $1.5m a week. This is a significant revenue loss. It is not possible at this stage to assess the effects overall on Telecom’s financing for this year. This will depend on how long the bans are in force. This demonstrates, as all such disruptions demonstrate, how a handful of people can penalise the community in an attempt to blackmail to gain their own ends. The result will be major delays to vital services. Therefore, if there is a build up in the loss of revenue to Telecom only the subscribers or the taxpayers can pay.
page 1764
– I ask the Minister for Social Security a question. I am concerned with the allegations contained in the question asked by Senator Grimes today. As Senator Grimes has a letter which indicates that the Minister received advice from the Ombudsman before 18 October, was her reply to the Senate on 1 8 October that she had no knowledge of the case being sent to the Ombudsman false? Alternatively, is the letter which Senator Grimes claims to have a fraud?
– The honourable senator must not accuse a Minister of making false replies.
-I am not accusing her. I am asking her what is the position.
– When Senator Grimes asked me about a certain application before the Ombudsman I indicated that I was personally not aware of the facts as he stated them. I said that I would investigate the matter. At a later date he asked a further question and I then gave him the portent of the discussion that had been held between the Director-General and the Ombudsman, with the latter quoting to us sections of his Act and the need to observe privacy.
The question asked by Senator Grimes today indicated that he had in his possession a letter from the Ombudsman advising me of certain cases that were. before him. I am aware that from time to time I receive advices from the Ombudsman of cases that he has under his consideration. My answer to the original question indicated that I was not closely aware of the matters that he raised, and that I would investigate them.
page 1765
-My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services. The Minister may remember that a few months ago I asked whether he would consider asking his Department to issue up-to-date photos of members of parliament for the Press, and for use in election brochures, because if one makes a quick survey of the daily newspapers one sees that many photos of politicians show that politicians are ageless; indeed, unlike old soldiers they do not even fade away. I therefore ask, in view ofthe recent talk of elections: Will the Minister consider altering the Electioral Act so that photos of politicians on election brochures, which may soon fall like confetti from the sky into letter boxes across Australia, would be required to have the year in which the photo was taken printed across the chest, somewhat as a convict has a number across his chest, which I am sure some people would feel was quite appropriate.
-I do recall the honourable senator’s question. I would not be prepared to advocate spending taxpayers’ money to have members of parliament photographed for their own personal political purposes. There are more than enough people in this community already who have their fingers in the taxpayers’ pocket, and we should not encourage members of parliament to have their photographs taken at public expense. As for the photographs that members of parliament use for electioneering, I am still waiting to see someone photographed on a bear skin and sucking his dummy! It has almost come to that in some cases. Of course, there are some who are perhaps like Dorian Gray, in that they change not from election to election.
– That is right.
– Whether that is because of their inner spirit or otherwise I would not know. The honourable senator has made an interesting suggestion, but I have sufficient faith in the common sense of the electorate to believe that it knows whether it is having a false photograph placed before it. Certainly, the worst thing one could put before the voters would be a passport photograph, because one would not be recognised even by one’s own mother. As for the idea of putting a date on members’ photographs, I do not know whether honourable senators believe that people can be tricked in that way these days. After all, some people might be used to having numbers on them. These days, where so often members appear before the electors via the television medium, I doubt whether it would profit anyone to publish a 20-year old photograph and appear on television in person the next day. I suppose the only conclusion an elector could draw would be that the campaign had been so tough that the candidate had aged 20 years in 20 days. In short, I do not believe that the Government ought to interfere in this matter, which is one for the sense of honesty of candidates themselves. I am quite certain that the electors can sort out the phoney representation from the reality.
Mr TERRY LANE: TALKBACK PROGRAM
-I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecom.muncations a question following upon a question asked by Senator Primmer regarding the Australian Broadcasting Commission in Victoria removing Mr Terry Lane from a talkback program at 8.30 a.m. each week day morning. As this has brought almost unanimous criticism from both the community and ABC staff members and as this program had the highest ratings in that time slot, thus indicating its popularity, what steps can members ofthe public take to indicate to the ABC the sort of program that they want produced for their entertainment and enlightenment?
– All honourable senators would know that the Australian Broadcasting Commission is an independent statutory corporation and that the decisions which it makes regarding its internal self government, including its programming, are entirely its own. That is desirably so. In fact, one of the basic reasons that it is a statutory corporation is to give it the independence to carry out what is called adequate and comprehensive programming under the Broadcasting and Television Act. So, first of all, if the decision has been made, as Senator Melzer will understand, it obviously has been made by the Commission itself.
Two honourable senators have said to me that this program has very substantial public support and that therefore there is public demand for its renewal. I have undertaken on the one hand to pass that message through the Minister concerned to the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. As to the second part of Senator Melzer’s question, which concerned how members of the public can indicate their desires to the Commission, they can do it in two ways. They can do it by telephoning or writing to the ABC. Virtually all public bodies respond to such situations. I imagine that the ABC receives the results of McNair-Anderson surveys, if they cover these things- I do not know whether they do. It would have some measurement. I understand that the ABC does its own polls and therefore knows from the statistics in front of it what is allegedly the percentage of support. The second way, of course, is to do precisely what Senator Melzer has done, that is, ask a question in the Senate and have it directed to the Broadcasting Commission with consideration invited of it. I will do exactly that.
page 1766
– I direct a question to the Minister for Education. In view of the increasing importance of technical education in Australia, will the Minister inform the Senate of the major conclusions drawn by the national conference of directors of technical and further education held in Canberra last week?
-I understand that Senator Lajovic is referring to a conference of technical and further education directors held in the Australian Capital Territory some days ago. After their meeting the TAFE directors in fact made available a handout. I have a copy of that handout. I have read it with interest. I was interested particularly in their decision that the primary purpose of their meeting should be one of self evaluation- that they should look at TAFE and its delivery of education and ask themselves whether what they were doing was relevant in relation to quality, quantity and the priorities. I think that is refreshing and good news because technical and further education makes a direct approach to more than 750,000 members of our population. I hope that situation will widen.
I understand that the directors looked at the role of TAFE in Australia in terms of many of the current issues affecting it, such as the transition of young people from school to work, the continuing importance of preparation for skilled occupations, the retraining of adults for new occupations, the contribution of TAFE to middle level courses and the need for diversity in learning opportunities at TAFE institutions. The directors also had with them, very importantly, Mr Eric Wilmott from the National Aboriginal Education Committee, who gave them some indications of the needs of Aborigines as a migrant group and, of course, reflected upon the importance of a -
– As a migrant group?
– As a minority group, I am sorry. I suppose it was a Freudian slip, but they were once a migrant group. They just happened to get here before us and stake their claims. But I will not go into that kind of argument. I was referring to minority groups. Fundamentally, I think the conference itself was of very great significance because TAFE is now moving into a situation of equality of opportunity with colleges and universities. We look so much now to TAFE for the upgrading of our basic skills, and indeed for lifelong education, because that in itself is a fundamental thing. I think that TAFE is to be congratulated on the steps it has taken.
page 1766
– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Is the Minister aware that half a million migrants remain outside the electoral process because they have little information or access to information about citizenship and enrolment procedures? Does the Minister believe that the increase in the number of migrants who are disadvantaged in this way necessitates the reintroduction of mobile vans to distribute multilingual information on these matters in areas with particularly large concentrations of recently arrived immigrants.
– I am aware that the need for information on all Government services and the rights of individuals is sometimes lacking as far as migrants are concerned. I am not aware of the actions that have been taken with regard to advising migrants of their electoral responsibilites. I will refer that matter to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to see whether he has some information that can be given to Senator Sibraa.
page 1767
– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and refer to the current bans on wheat shipments to Indonesia and Chile. Does the Minister agree that, firstly, with regard to our overseas reserves it would be sound business practice to procure every available overseas market? Secondly, does the Minister agree that it is hypocritical of the trade union movement to continue to allow its travel agency, ACTU New World Travel, still to promote tours of Indonesia? Thirdly, as the travel agency has stated that it would go out of business if the tours to Indonesia were stopped, does the Minister think that the unions pay little regard to farmers going out of business?
-I certainly agree that the current bans on trade with Chile and Indonesia represent a serious setback to Australia’s wheat trade, especially in the circumstances of the world wheat surplus and the intense competition which is evident in the area of wheat marketing. The Australian Wheat Board is trying to meet the challenge as far as it can in the circumstances, and that is in very sharp contrast to the attitude being adopted by the trade unions. As to the other part of the honourable senator’s question relating to the Australian Council of Trade Unions maintaining its travel agency, I think that only emphasises further the contrariness of the union attitude on this matter.
page 1767
– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and relates to action that he himself took some months ago in respect of the proposed sale of land held by the Defence Service Homes Corporation, when the Government decided to reduce the general benefits under that legislation to servicemen and others. I now ask: Will the Minister advise the Senate of the position now in respect of the holdings which the Corporation had at the time? In particular, has the equivalent of 1,000 blocks held in South Australia been disposed of? Did the Minister consider at the time compensating in any way those who were on the waiting list for homes by using some of the funds that might be derived from the sale of the land? If he has not done so already, will he consider that suggestion?
-Senator Bishop has referred to a matter that was decided when I was Minister for Veterans’ Affairs. However, that is now some time ago and in order to get an up to date answer for him on the details of his question I will refer it to the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs.
page 1767
– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate a question. In view of the very interesting information he gave the chamber this afternoon indicating the prominent part played by Mr Whitlam as Prime Minister in encouraging the development of uranium mining in Australia, is he aware that -since this Government continued that policy Mr Whitlam has led demonstrations against the mining of uranium? He has opposed it. Does this not indicate that Mr Whitiam is unreliable because he changes his mind? Does it not indicate that in Mr Whit lam’s mind what Labor does when Labor is in office is correct but that when another government of a different political colour does the same thing, it is wrong?
– What about simultaneous elections?
-Senator Robertson asks: ‘What about simultaneous elections?’ As I recall the matter, the Prime Minister in answering a question in the House of Representatives the other day reminded Mr Whitlam that he had said some months ago that there ought to be a twin election this December. So I do not know why Mr Whitlam has been running around like a headless chook for the last fortnight talking about the possibility of an election.
The question that the honourable senator asks is very interesting because I recall my answer earlier this afternoon. I am informed- I have no personal knowledge pf the matter- that an antiuranium march was held in the city of Perth in Western Australia in recent weeks. One of the participants- I do not know whether he led the march; I do not think he could lead a horse to water- was the honourable E. G. Whitlam, the Leader of the Australian Labor Party in the House of Representatives. I suppose we ought not be surprised that it is something short of two years since he signed a memorandum with two companies in Australia for the urgent and expeditious mining of up to 6,600 tonnes of uranium a year and that the honourable member should be part of such an operation.
I do not think the honourable senator needs to remind me, the Senate or the Australian electorate that we cannot take Mr Whitlam at his word. I thought that that was well shown and proven on 13 December 1975. But, of course, Mr Whitlam signs all sorts of interesting documents. I know that, because I think it was on 13
December 1973 that he signed an Executive Council minute to authorise the raising of $4,000m overseas for 20 years for temporary purposes and he was about to use a gentleman by the name of Mr Khemlani to help. Of course, he later denied that he knew Mr Khemlani or had heard of him, and nor had any of his Ministers.
– The Libs knew him. They brought him out here.
-Senator McLaren is getting excited. Mr Khemlani is a very interesting gentleman. As I said yesterday, I should have thought that on 28 October 1975 there would have been an enormous exodus from the Whitlam Ministry upon Mr Whitlam signing that document to mine and export uranium from the Ranger field. As I understand the situation now, not one of yesterday’s men in the Parliament does not now say- whether he believes it or not, it is in accordance with directions laid down by his masters in Perth at the Australian Labor Party Conference earlier this year-that he is opposed to the mining and export of uranium. I thought that all these people were of such courage and character that they would have resigned from the Ministry. Admittedly, I recall hearing Mr Clyde Cameron the other day get up and make a personal explanation that he did not resign as Minister for Labor and Immigration and take over the portfolio of Science and Consumer Affairs; he was sacked. He wished to make a personal explanation to put the record straight. But he did not resign over the uranium issue. Nor did Senator Cavanagh, Senator Douglas McClelland, Senator Wheeldon- I am trying to remember the previous Ministers -
– Nor did Senator Wriedt.
-Nor did Senator Wriedt. I should have thought that people who felt so deeply about the matter less than two years ago would have resigned. I pose the question: Why did they not resign? Did they like the fruits of office so much, or since that time have they become like Saul of Tarsus? Have they been on the road to Damascus?
page 1768
-I ask the AttorneyGeneral whether he is aware that a former Attorney-General, Mr Bob Ellicott, M.P., spent considerable time with the Governor-General on 25 October 1977? Is he also aware that another person prominent in legal circles in this country also visited the Governor-General on the same date? Can the Minister now inform the Parliament whether the purpose of the visits was to apply pressure to the Governor-General in order to ensure that he, in turn, would refuse permission for the dissolution of the Parliament and thus eliminate any possibility of a general election this year?
– I do not have any knowledge whatever of the matters referred to by Senator Keeffe.
page 1768
– Is the Minister for Education aware of recent reports containing allegations of the misuse of funds by the Australian National University? Because of concern about this matter, particularly among people at the Australian National University, can the Minister inform the Senate whether there is any basis for the allegations?
-I did read such allegations in the Press. I think they originated in a Bulletin article. I think also that they were the subject of a question asked in the Senate. I have some minor disability in that I seem to recall reading somewhere that there was to be some legal action in respect of this matter. In view of this, I hope that I do not trespass.
I have had correspondence from the Australian National University setting out for me the substance of the situation. The substance of the matter as I understand it and as reported to me is this: The publicity relates to the Australian National University’s use of funds obtained from the taxpayer. The truth of the matter is that the Australian National University operates a fund whereby it is able to provide to staff, both academic and administrative, a number of facilities considered normal on the part of an employer. The moneys for this fund are not a claim on the taxpayer but are derived by the University from commissions paid by bodies for whom the University makes staff payroll deductions in respect of such matters as group assurance premiums, medical and hospital fund contributions and trade union dues. In no way are superannuation moneys involved.
The fund has been in operation since 1966 when the University Council, the governing body of the university and a body which has on it representatives of both Houses of Parliament, resolved that these commissions should be paid into the fund for use in the provision of amenities for all categories of staff at the university. The amount collected each year is relatively small and it has taken nearly 1 1 years for the money in the fund to accumulate sufficiently to enable some worthwhile amenity to be provided.
I have satisfied myself, on this information, that this arrangement made by the Australian National University is not a misuse of funds and that any moneys that are spent by the university are spent only after full and careful consideration by the University Council, which is a widely representative and experienced body. That is the information as I understand it. I hope it will clarify the matter.
Mr TERRY LANE: TALKBACK PROGRAM
-I direct a question to the Minister for Education in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. As the Minister will be consulting his colleague on the removal of Terry Lane from his weekly morning program on radio station 3LO, will he also ask the Minister to ascertain from the Australian Broadcasting Commission, promptly if possible, what survey results there are relating to the listening audience of the Terry Lane’s program? Will he inform the Senate of such information in due course?
– I will be happy to do so. If I can obtain the information I will be happy to convey it to Senator Button, and if so required, to the Senate.
page 1769
– I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate in his capacity as Minister for Administrative Services. Is the Minister aware of ‘dead rent’ payments revealed in the recently tabled AuditorGeneral ‘s report in respect of buildings leased by the Federal Government which remained unoccupied over an extended period and amounted to $1.2m? Can the Minister say what steps will be or have been taken to tighten up departmental control in order to effect a minimisation of such occurrences?
-I recall the comment of the Auditor-General on this matter. It is a matter which the Public Accounts Committee is either looking at or about to look at. I cannot recall the exact details of the procedures which have been put in hand but certainly I have issued instructions to the Department that this practice ought to cease and that we ought to have a better performance in this area. I will obtain the exact details and let the honourable senator have them.
page 1769
– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Acknowledging, as I am sure we all do, that there is a vast and lucrative fishing potential around the Australian coast, especially now that Australia’s territorial waters responsibility will embrace a 200 mile limit, what is the current promotional program for the Australian fishing industry? In view of Australia’s relative inexperience in this area, has the Government given any consideration to joint venture programs, firstly to assess fully, if possible, and to evaluate the situation and, secondly, to exploit this important and potentially very lucrative primary industry?
– I have been quite a deal involved, but not in an expert sense, in discussions at various specific meetings that I have attended, on behalf of the Government and the Prime Minister on the question of the fishery resources that will result for continental nations from the new territorial limits that are coming up before the United Nations. It is true that Australia does acquire an immense resource capacity under the proposed legislation. It is equally true that a great deal of the resources is yet to be explored and assessed fully. In many cases it is clear that we will need joint ventures because other nations have quite a lot of knowledge of both the resources and the harvesting of them which we do not possess.
There could be a very strong argument for us to have joint ventures with other nations which have these skills. As I have been working in this field and done as much as I have had time to do, I have been impressed with the capacity of Australia to develop a completely new resource. The area of extra territory that we acquire in the sea is about the size of the Australian continental land mass. I will take the honourable senator’s suggestion seriously. As I listened to his question, I thought that we should ask the Minister for Primary Industry to make a definitive statement to the Parliament in due course about the developments that possibly will come out of this proposal. That may need to wait upon the determination of the final United Nations conference but it could be well worth doing.
page 1769
– My question is directed to the Minister for Education and follows the question asked by Senator Knight. Is the Australian National University a Commonwealth authority? In other words, is it owned by the Australian Government?
– The Commonwealth Government.
-The Commonwealth Government. Is the Minister saying that university staff and equipment are used to provide a service in the community in competition with private industry? Do the commissions received by the ANU total $90,000? Is the Minister seriously suggesting that that sum of money may be validly used by the ANU to provide staff amenities?
– The Australian National University, in common with all universities and colleges, is set up under statute- in its case, Commonwealth statute. It is set up under Commonwealth statute to provide self governance in order to protect its academic freedom. It has a council and the membership of that council is widely representative of the community. I did not understand the significance of the second part of Senator Lewis’s question. He may seek to ask it of me again as a supplementary question. As I have been advised by the University, in the performance of its work the University collects certain moneys for health funds and so on from the staff. This is something which pretty well every employer in Australia does in one way or another. As I understand it, some funds, such as the health funds, pay a commission to have that done. The council has agreed that that money should go into a fund for staff amenities. Over a period of 1 1 years, it has built up to the level at which it is now. I did not hear clearly the second part of the honourable senator’s question. However, I would be happy to respond to it.
- Mr President, I direct a supplementary question to the Minister. Will the Minister refer this whole question to the AuditorGeneral to ascertain whether this is a valid use of income received raised by a Federal Government authority?
– I could get an opinion on that. But these are not funds raised by an authority. As I understand it, these are commissions paid by various voluntary bodies, such as medical and benefit funds, for the discharge of a service which is the collection, presumably, of health dues and so on. I must stress that that is a very common thing done by employers throughout Australia. The next point I must make is that I am advised by the University that its governing body- the University Council-decided that this particular part of the moneys should be set aside for staff amenities. I imagine it is a valid provision-
– Is the ANU a Commonwealth Government department? Did you call it a Commonwealth Government department?
– No, it is an independent statutory body of the Commonwealth.
-That is right, but it is not a Commonwealth Government authority.
-It is not a Commonwealth Government authority as such. It is an independent statutory body set up with academic freedom and given a council for selfgovernment. This decision has been made within the Council. I am not utterly clear still why the honourable senator feels that there is some impropriety suggested. As I would not want in any way to fail to search that if he would like subsequently to direct a question to me or indicate to me the nature of the inquiry, I will carry it further and I will ask if the Auditor-General would have any objections to it.
– I will do that.
page 1770
– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to the Minister’s answer to Senator Melzer and to Senator Douglas McClelland this afternoon concerning the creation of a Commonwealth Development Bank in its own right. Did the Bank in its submission to the Government on a proposal to establish a national rural bank state that it had examined the feasibility of creating within the Commonwealth Banking Corporation structure two new banks to replace the existing Commonwealth Development Bank? These were, firstly, a Commonwealth Rural Bank and, secondly, a Commonwealth Industrial Development Bank. Has the Government agreed to the establishment of a Commonwealth Rural Bank but not a Commonwealth Industrial Development Bank?
-As I remember the document- it is a long time since I read it- what the honourable senator said is correct. That was the proposal from the people who produced the document. The Government decided to set up a national rural bank not of the same character as that which the Commonwealth Banking Corporation thought it would like to see. The Bank also put forward proposals for a Commonwealth Industrial Bank. The Government has not made any calculations to set up that bank because it seemed to us that the Commonwealth Development Bank itself carried out those functions and, we thought, did so quite admirably. That is the sum total of my information. I have only my memory to rely upon. We will look at Senator Mcintosh’s question and at the questions asked by Senator Melzer and Senator Douglas McClelland. If there is anything more that can be usefully added, we will certainly get it for the honourable senators.
page 1771
– On 25 August last Senator Archer asked me whether an investigation could be carried out to assess the possibility of using the existing sound reinforcement system to provide honourable senators with the Australian Broadcasting Commission news at 12.30 p.m. and 7 p.m. each day. I am now in a position to inform the honourable senator that the necessary investigation has been carried out and the proposal has been found to be technically feasible. Also, the Australian Broadcasting Commission has been approached and it has given approval to the broadcast of the news sessions being relayed in this way.
I am therefore able to inform honourable senators that Mr Speaker and I have agreed that the ABC news bulletins will be heard over the sound reinforcement system commencing at 7 p.m. this evening. The service will be available when Parliament is in session but not at any time that either chamber is sitting.
-by leave- Mr President, I thank you for the information that we will be hearing the news over the reinforcement system. Could you make some approach to those who control the music which is played over the system to have it upgraded from the type of music which one hears at airports and in other places?
– Crematorium music.
-It is not even at that level. Seriously, Mr President, would you approach those concerned to see whether the standard of music can be improved?
– I shall be happy to make those inquiries.
page 1771
-I seek leave to table the document to which I referred at Question Time.
-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.
-I table the document.
page 1771
– I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter dated 26 October, 1 977 from Senator Gietzelt:
Dear Mr President,
In accordance with Standing Order 64, 1 give notice that today I shall move that, in the opinion of the Senate the following is a matter of urgency:
The serious economic uncertainty caused by the Prime Minister’s election manoeuvring’.
Yours sincerely, Arthur Gietzelt
Is the motion supported?
More than the number of Senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places-
– I move:
In moving this motion the Opposition wants to place on record its concern at the continuing debate- there is a lack of debate in some areasabout the election manoeuvring that has characterised parliamentary life since the beginning of the spring session of the Parliament. The constant speculation has unnerved the business community. It has created a degree of uncertainty throughout the land. It flows in the wrong direction if we are to achieve what are claimed to be the strategies of this Government, that is to bring about business confidence and stability in the Australian economy. No one could say that we are in a period of stability, that there is any long term planning by this Government or that there is any justification for a fourth election in five years. This all adds up to the fact that in this country there is some concern about the inability of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to make up his mind. This situation has reached the stage of absurdity and stupidity.
The Fraser Government came into power on the promise that it would give to the business fraternity a sense of confidence and security which would enable increases in consumer spending and capital investment and some stimulation in the private sector. The whole thrust of the election policies put forward by the Liberal and National Country Parties was to that effect. Anybody who voted in 1975 for those policies and for the Government did so under the impression that economic recovery was a priority, that it was imminent, that real wages would increase, that industrial disputation would decline and that our international financial standing would increase substantially. We are entitled to say two-thirds of the way through the normal three-year term of office that those objectives have not been realised. It was Mr Fraser himself who said when he was undermining confidence in the then Liberal Party leader, Mr Snedden, that a government was elected for three years and that it was entitled to serve its three-year term in office.
When he came into office he said- he was echoed by Mr Lynch- that the Government needed three years to rectify the economy. Yet, since the beginning of this parliamentary session we have had nothing but innuendoes, rumours, uncertainties and the lack of confidence that flows from all those factors. The needed improvements that I referred to- in regard to economic recovery, wages and industrial disputationhave not occurred. The Australian economy is ridden with the worst unemployment since the Depression. Although there has been a decline in the quarterly consumer price index I think it is true to say that one swallow does not make a summer, that one indicator suggesting some improvement does not mean that we have, as I will seek to show, an improvement also in business confidence. On the basis of the Commonwealth Statistician’s figures, the actual rate of inflation, on a September to September basis, up to the last quarter was 13.1 per cent. This hardly corroborates the Prime Minister’s view, as supported by his Little Sir Echo Treasurer, that the economy is on the mend. In addition, we find that eminent banks such as Hill Samuel Australia Ltd have openly criticised the Government for causing an outflow of capital funds and having exacerbated the necessity to borrow heavily overseas.
The reason why I use such sources of information as, for example, the London Times and other newspapers to substantiate the view that I express is that one cannot say of any of them that they have a bias against this Government, or the Australian Labor Party, which the Prime Minister criticised for, as he termed it, attempting to put the country into hock. It is one of the proud achievements of our party that, despite much criticism, it did not put this country into hock. It introduced substantial reforms which gave the ordinary wage earner the hope of increased purchasing power and an improvement in real wages.
In total now, however, what has happened? This Government has borrowed in excess of $3,00Om in its first two years of office- yet it seeks to criticise the attempts of the Whitlam
Administration to borrow a similar amount in the three years that it was in office. This Government has created a substantial liability overseas for future years, and has failed to instil confidence in the business community. Though some of the indicators are showing improvement, this improvement is only marginal. There has been an increase in capital investment, but that has been concentrated mainly in the mining industry, disguising the fact that there are large proportions of primary, secondary and tertiary industry at the point of despair. Small businesses are quickly going bankrupt. That, of course, is what has prompted the Government to take special steps to assist the small business community. Many primary producers are seriously considering applying for social security payments and only 78 per cent of average manufacturing capacity is being utilised. Even the Bureau of Agricultural Economics estimates project for 1977-78, in respect to the rural sector, a real decline in income of some 16 per cent. That on top of the decline of some 12 per cent in the previous year!
There was some chance that this hiccup type of recovery may have developed into a substantial trend if the Government had adopted Labor’s recommendations for economic recovery and, more importantly, the Prime Minister had decided to end the rampant speculation about the date of an election. Many business leaders, as well as numbers of people within the Liberal Party, have clearly stated that the Prime Minister should have made his intentions clear. Even the State branches of the Liberal Party are on record as having misgivings about the uncertainties that his actions have created. What a travesty it is of the operation of the democratic process when one man can hold such a secret in his hands- to the extent that even when he canvasses his own Ministers he apparently receives a response which does not enable him to make up his mind. What sort of parliamentary process is it that enables this one man to determine whether or not we shall have an election, whether or not we shall have a settling down period in the Australian economy?
If we go through the editorials in all the major metropolitan daily newspapers- which lean traditionally towards the Liberal and Country partieswe find increasing criticism of the Prime Minister’s approach to this whole matter. It is pertinent to look at a number of these, because almost no one in the Australian community is supporting the holding of an early election. If so, who are they other than the Government parties; who are they outside of the Prime Minister’s colleagues? What does the Canberra Times of 1 8 October have to say? It says:
Mr Fraser has no valid excuse for not putting an end to the speculation. Exploiting a speculative political advantage is not a sufficient excuse to justify the cost in money and disruption of Government functions and of business activity which another election now would entail.
On 12 October the Melbourne Age said in an editorial:
Election jitters are a damaging distraction to the country and Mr Fraser and his Cabinet colleagues- by their hints and evasions- are doing as much as anyone to fan the rumours. The Prime Minister alone has the power to kill those rumours once and for all.
We all know that he has refused to do this; that he went on television after a dramatic exercise at his farm at Nareen and said: ‘We have still got two options’. How could anyone suggest that this sort of uncertainty would contribute to what is supposedly the strategy of this Government? On 1 1 October the Australian Financial Review had this to say:
To suggest that an election is necessary when a government’s moves are challenged by significant elements in the community is either the refuge of weak and uncertain leadership or the desperation of election mania.
Most importantly, the Financial Review says further:
The electorate is treated to Ministers wandering around like rag and bone men scouring for election finds, their perceptions and decisions warped by electioneering necessities.
Yesterday the same newspaper said:
We have had an extended period of pre-election jitters, which cannot be totally unrelated to the fact that the capital account of the balance of payments has remained weak despite the shoring up program of foreign borrowing and standby facilities.
One could go on and talk of what was in the Age, the Courier-Mail, the Sydney Morning Herald of today’s date, the Launceston Examiner and the Adelaide Advertiser. They have all carried similar editorials.
The mere fact that these editorials have appeared and reappeared, and have been reinforced by the errors and omissions of the Government, has created incredible business uncertainty. It has led to smaller businessmen, to companies, to manufacturing industries and to primary producers deferring investment decisions. Why would they not do so, if they believed that a change of government would change the emphasis here or there? Only the large mining companies and one or two other enterprises looking to long term exploitation of Australia’s resources have made new investments in recent times. The Government could hardly claim that this represents an overall air of confidence and a feeling that the vast savings bank deposits that are locked up against the prospect of a further depression could be released.
The Prime Minister should assume the statesmanlike pose to which he so often pretends, and make a clear, unequivocal statement about what is proposed; but, of course, we are not going to get that from him or from this dishonest Government. We are not going to get it from a hotchpotch Prime Minister who reacts to situations from day to day as they occur, who refuses to set about the task of reorganising the economy and making the decisions that are necessary to get regenerative processes under way.
Just to look at one or two other examples that one could give, the Associated Chambers of Manufactures of Australia and the Bank of New South Wales survey of industrial trends of September 1977- which is less than one month oldconducted a survey of business houses, the traditional supporters of the Liberal Party, asking the question: ‘Do you find it now harder, easier or the same as it was three months ago to get finance?’ Some 82 per cent answered ‘The same’, some 9 per cent answered ‘Harder’. Interestingly enough, the figures for Queensland totalled not 9 1 per cent but 96 per cent, so things cannot be too good in Bjelke-Petersen land.
If one considers the survey results in regard to capital expenditure on buildings one finds that 74 per cent of businesses surveyed had some question as to whether in the coming 12 months it would be greater, the same or less than in the previous year. The survey also took into consideration the employment situation. The businesses surveyed were asked whether they thought there would be an increase in employment opportunities. Eighty-four per cent of those surveyed said that the situation is going to be either the same or worse. It is interesting to note that the figure for Queensland was 9 1 per cent. If one compares the figures for Queensland with those for the rest of Australia one can only come to the conclusion that the situation in Queensland is lagging considerably behind that in the rest of Australia. Yet this Government has the audacity to suggest that the economy is picking up. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer have been saying that the economy is picking up. The Ministers in the Senate also have been saying it in recent days in replying to questions asked of them.
If the economy is picking up, why have a premature election? If things will be better in 1978, why not let the House of Representatives serve its full term of office? I think the Australian
Labor Party would support the general proposition for the two Houses of Parliament to be brought into line, in accordance with the majority opinion expressed in the referendum. We take the view that May would represent a reasonable compromise in this area. We take the view that this would not compromise the present Governor-General or the future GovernorGeneral. If the Government is concerned about the Australian economy having a chance to pick up, we would seriously suggest to it that the Prime Minister should put an end to speculation and take the necessary steps to carry out the mandate that the Government was overwhelmingly given in 1 975 to get our economy back onto an even keel.
– This motion began life in another form. Apparently one order of business was issued and then it was withdrawn because the urgency motion was wrong and another order of business was substituted. I imagine that what we are really dealing with now is what the Australian Labor Party has finally concluded following a state of uncertainty as to what it really means and that this motion is what it is really talking about. It would have been very hard to detect that from what Senator Gietzelt said. If one reads the second manifestation of this so-called urgency motion one sees that it really talks about three things- economic uncertainty, election manoeuvring and the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). Perhaps I should take this opportunity to respond to certain things that have been said by Senator Gietzelt and others.
Australia’s economic uncertainty was at its absolute top in the years 1973 to 1975, which are called the years of disaster, mistake, error and almost unbelievable incompetence. The economic uncertainty of Australia has been very largely removed since then. It is to be expected that as time goes on it will be removed even further. I think economic uncertainty ought not to be talked about by the Opposition. I will discuss that a little more broadly later and still leave time for my colleagues to add particular material to that. The second subject is the so-called election manoeuvring. I have been a little involved in this matter. It all began with newspaper speculation and Australian Labor Party speculation. It is like lighting a small fire and throwing large pieces of wood on it. The newspapers and the Labor Party have been fanning the fire and complaining bitterly when people have not responded to their actions. They have been saying that an election is on and then saying that one is not on and doing that sort of thing. I have watched this manoeuvring performance. Having been involved in some of the areas of so-called election decisions, I say that this speculation is a complete load of nonsense. It is absolute nonsense.
– Like the little bull at Nareen.
-If Senator Primmer had been involved in this scene, as I have been, he would know what nonsense honourable senators opposite have been talking. The third proposition is that the so-called election manoeuvring and uncertainty is all due to the Prime Minister. That equally is complete nonsense. I do not know as I am standing here what is in the Prime Minister’s mind, but I can tell honourable senators one thing, that is, that the Prime Minister has consulted carefully and broadly with all his colleagues on the whole political scene. I have been involved with Prime Ministers of Australia in one way and another for quite a while. I have never worked with a man who works harder, who consults his colleagues more, who takes into account their opinions more, who has a more balanced and careful mind and who is more dedicated than the current Australian Prime Minister. As far as I am concerned he will do me for a long time yet and he will do the Australian people for a long time yet. I think the Opposition’s claims ought to be put to one side as being basically something that is a figment of somebody’s imagination and that bears no relation to the truth.
When people are talking as they are in this sort of scene they have to think about what happened yesterday and what could happen today or tomorrow. All these considerations are involved in politics. But we have all been around for long enough to know that in the end the people decide when the right time has come. They have decided on previous occasions. I have always accepted their decision. When the people next decide I will accept their decision once again. I have great faith in the Australian people. I suggest that the Labor Party should have the same faith. When the Labor Party was thrown out of office by the Australian people it did not set about trying to rehabilitate itself, as we did. It did not set about trying to think out its position, as we did. It engaged in all kinds of innuendoes, speculations, rumours and leadership challenges. It was going to be somebody one day and another person the next. What will be the situation? Who will be the leader? Nobody knew the answers to those questions. We had that sort of stuff fed to us by the newspapers. That is no way in which to run a country. The Labor Party had, I think, five Ministers responsible for manufacturing and three Treasurers in 2Vi years. A group of people with the sort of record that the Labor Party has should not talk about uncertainty.
Let us look at the Labor Party’s record. What was life like under the Labor Government? Let us contrast that with what was passed over to it by the Australian people for it to take care of on behalf of the Australian people. The situation that the Labor Government inherited is worth repeating over and over again. In the 20 years prior to the Labor Party’s three years of disaster our gross domestic product rose from $10.7 billion to $27 billion at an annual rate of 5 per cent. Our exports rose from $1.6 billion to $4.7 billion, which represented a rise of 6 per cent per annum. The rate of inflation was only about 4 per cent. Wage levels were very satisfactory indeed. Our overseas reserves were in a very good state and we were in a very good and stable position. That was the state of the country that the Labor Party inherited. What did it do in 3 years? Inflation rose under it by 40 per cent. Average weekly earnings went up from $96.70 in June 1972 to $156.30 in June 1975-a 60 per cent increase.
We had a cost disability with the rest of the world that moved from a surplus in our favour with our principal trading partners, such as the United States, to a deficiency against them. Our gross domestic product fell. In the final year it went into a nil position. Unemployment grew from 1 .8 per cent to 4 per cent and is still taking a lot of time and causing a lot of trouble to haul down. The Labor Government imposed an intolerable tax burden on the community to enable it to pay for its extravagances. It raised its receipts from personal income tax by 89 per cent in its first two years in office. The Labor Government taxed age pensions and abolished the income tax age allowance. It imposed huge levies in the form of indirect taxation. It would not index personal income tax. It reduced the concessional allowances. The Labor Government abolished the investment allowance for the manufacturing sector. It also abolished it in relation to primary industry. The Labor Government brought in discriminatory forms of taxation.
It brought in a 25 per cent across the board tariff cut, which saw manufacturing industry employment decline by 5 per cent, clothing and footwear employment decline by 21 per cent, transport employment decline by 1 1 per cent and other machinery employment decline by 8 per cent. It saw 30,000 people go out of the textile industry. Interest rates were put up by the Labor
Government. That has done an immense amount of harm. Finally, at the end of those three terrific years of what is called economic competence by the Labor Party, the people threw the Labor Government out of office. It did so summarily and, without any doubt at all, unmistakably.
Honourable senators opposite talk about somebody else not being able to do certain things. They should look at their own record and tidy up themselves. They would know what their inflation record was for a start. In 1973 the rate of inflation was 8.3 per cent. In 1974 it was 17 per cent and in 1975 it was 17.6 per cent. What are the latest figures? During the first half of 1977 the consumer price index rose by an annual rate of a little over 9 per cent. That was less than the average increase recorded by our major trading partners. There has been quite a dramatic improvement. The latest figures indicate that our record is better now than that of the United States, Japan, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Italy or Canada. That is not a bad reversal of the situation in a short time.
We said when we came to office that inflation was our principal target for attack. The consumer price index for the September quarter indicated quite clearly the trend line. I have been saying in this chamber for quite a long time in response to daily queries about inflation and the health of the economy that the inflation rate is clearly coming down. If one looks at the figures for the consumer price index for September and makes allowance for the number of factors that add to price increases one will see that a remarkably good result has been achieved. If one looks at the figures for the non-food items one will see that the increase is only 1.5 per cent. One is looking at economic recovery, economic certainty, economic gain and economic improvement. Company profits are up by 23 per cent. The Chamber of Commerce states in its survey that 53 per cent of companies had said their profits were satisfactory to good compared with the lower figure in the previous quarter. According to the Chamber of Commerce-National Bank survey, industry costs are shown to be coming down. Savings in the Australian society are beginning to move into consumption expenditure because people now have a confidence that they can afford to do things for themselves rather than being perpetually frightened at what might happen.
At the time the Labor Government put up interest rates we were very critical. I was particularly critical. I thought it was a great mistake. We are beginning to get interest rates down. The first evidence in four years of a downward movement is appearing now, and that has been confirmed by the conversion loan announced by the Treasurer (Mr Lynch). It should be remembered that the assets people buy during their lives tend to be houses, motor, cars and what are called consumer durables-all big ticket items. In many cases these assets have to be financed on instalment credit. The interest rates that were finally achieved under Labor’s administrative processes because of its higher overall bank rates were such that many people found it hard to buy a house, difficult to buy a motor car, and were reluctant to buy consumer durables. All that is beginning to change. It will change more and more as inflation is brought down further and interest rates follow it down. That is the critical factor. We have held down our money supply expansion to a rate below about 17 per cent at the present time. That has been a critical factor in managing the economy. It does not argue, as the Opposition has suggested, for economic uncertainty. It argues for wise management, economic certainty, discipline, and a commonsense approach.
Let me deal with the investment program. The Bureau of Statistics announced the other day that a very strong upsurge in investment is forecast for the six months to December. It has calculated an upsurge of up to one-third in manufacturing and 66 per cent in mining. That is what the Bureau believes is going to happen as a result of surveys it has taken right across Australia. Senator Gietzelt talked about small business. We were the first government to announce any policy initiatives whatsoever for small business. We were the first, and those initiatives were announced and made available to the Senate. Small business knows that. It knows who performs. Small business knows who destroyed it. It knows what talk is worth- precisely nothing. As to economic growth, the gross national product of all the countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in the year ended June was 4.3 per cent; our GNP was 3.4 per cent. The GNP for the previous year was almost nil, and for the year before that it was minus under Labor.
Those are the facts of economic life, not a story that is a figment of somebody’s imagination, dreamed up and changed to another form so that nobody knows quite where they are. Our balance of payments position is strengthening, and the figure can be put to prove it. Our export-import balance is improving, and figures can be put to prove it. A distinct turn-around in seasonally recorded trade is coming. These are figures to which the Opposition has access if it chooses to use them. I conclude by referring to some comments made in an address given in Sydney on Monday by Professor Gramm of the United States of America. I spoke to him at the luncheon, and he said to me the sorts of things he is reported to have said. For example:
The unemployment throughout the Western World today was not due to inadequate spending. The problem was inadequate investment and the impact of inflation on the capital market had simply made the problem worse.
Inflation has stifled thrift, created long-term capital shortages, disrupted the equity market and made it very difficult to invest in private industry and agriculture,’ said Professor Gramm
You put people to work basically not by spending money but by investing.’
That is why I quoted the figures on the investment programs that lie ahead. The comments continued:
Inflation dated back 5,000 years and there had never been an inflation in recorded history that had not been preceded by, or directly related to, a growth in the money supply where the demand for goods and services had grown at a more rapid rate than industry and agriculture.
Look at the Labor Party’s three years! Look at its record!
Australia’s runaway inflationary period had been caused by a massive increase in spending between 1972 and 197S. The fall off in the rate of growth in the past year was a direct result of a slowdown in Government spending.
I do not believe that re-inflation will combat unemployment,’ Professor Gramm said in an interview after the luncheon.
The best thing that could happen from an economic point of view in Australia would be that the Government stays on its current course for another two years. ‘
I commend that thought to the Opposition.
– The Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Cotton) commenced his speech by referring to the years of disaster, mistake and error of the Whitlam Labor Government. Might I say that for the 23 years before the Whitlam Labor Government was elected by the people in 1972 this nation had been held in harness with reins tight. Since the Whitlam Labor Government left office this nation has again had the reins held tight, and indeed the blinkers have been put on. In the three short years of the Whitlam Labor Government Australian society was transformed. For the first time in a quarter of a century the nation was on the go. Forward-looking policies were being projected in the interests of the Australian people. The first thing that we did was to take Australian troops out of Vietnam and abolish the conscription that had been carried out by our predecessors in office for a period of some six or seven years. We transformed the educational scene and increased education expenditure from $400m in round figures when we came to office in 1972 to $ 1,700m in 1975. We made all university education free for Australian citizens irrespective of where they came from, irrespective of their place in society. We transformed the situation in regard to the media with the introduction of public broadcast stations, ethnic radio, and frequency modulation broadcasting, something that our opponents had deferred as long ago as 1949. We recognised the People’s Republic of China and opened up great trading outlets for the Australian community, particularly for the primary production section.
– We gave money to local government for the first time.
-As Senator Gietzelt has said, we gave aid of a direct nature from the Federal Government to local government organisations throughout Australia, on the recommendations of the Commonwealth Grants Commission, having regard to the needs of local government organisations and because the needs of rural communities had been neglected for so long by our predecessors in government. If one considers the recommendations that were made by the Grants Commission to the Whitlam Labor Government, all of which recommendations were accepted, in our first year of operation some $53m was made available directly to local government organisations throughout the length and breadth of Australia and in our last year of office $79m was made directly available. We established trade union training schemes. We established the great Medibank scheme in order to give fair and equitable health insurance to all Australian citizens. We were the first to give real assistance of a substantial nature to isolated children throughout Australia.
I have instanced only a portion ofthe matters that we carried out as a Government, despite the frustration that we suffered in this chamber, in the three short years that we had in office. We all remember the situation in 1972 when the Whitlam Labor Government was elected. There was a majority in this chamber of Liberal Party, Country Party and Democratic Labor Party senators. It was a tripartite Opposition in those days- a troika, if I might use that expression. They combined to say to the Labor Government of 1974: ‘If you do not hold an election we will not give you Supply.’ So we had an election. The gun was held at our heads; it was pointed deliberately at us. We held an election and we won it. We all know what happened as a result of the sacking which occurred another 18 months later.
It was the Opposition’s tactics of 1974 in this chamber which held up the Government’s fight against inflation for some six months. For three months we were shilly-shallying about Supply in this place and for three months afterwards we were looking closely at election results. The same thing happened again in 1975. Now here it is in 1977, two short years after the present Government came into office, two years after the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) went on record in his policy statement, and two years after the present Federal Treasurer (Mr Lynch) took office and said: ‘We need three years in office to overcome the economic problems which confront this country’. Not only now but also for some months past, since the Budget was introduced in August, the Government has been floating out rumours and comments that an election might be held.
Uncertainty has existed over the preceding months, especially since the Government brought in the Budget which has created the economic uncertainty to which my colleague. Senator Gietzelt has referred. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Cotton, during the course of his speech said that the rumours which have been floating around in this place, in the columns of the metropolitan daily newspapers and in the Press Gallery seem to be a figment of the imagination of the Australian Labor Party. I remind the Minister that Dr Richardson, the honourable member for Perth, recently resigned from the Liberal Party because of his concern at the way in which the nation is being run. An honourable member who has been in the Parliament since 1949, a former Minister in, I think, the Gorton Government, Mr Wentworth, has decided to resign from the Liberal Party.
- Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. There has been a misdescription of an honourable member in another place as the honourable member for Perth.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Drake-Brockman)- There is no substance in the point of order.
– I am sorry if he is not the honourable member for Perth. He represents an electorate in Western Australia. He was a member of the Liberal Party and certainly he has decided not to contest the seat for the Liberal Party, whichever one it might be. Certainly, if he represents the seat of Tangney he will not hold that seat for very long because it will soon be returned to an Australian Labor Party candidate. Mr Chipp, the honourable member for Hotham, a former Minister in a Liberal government, has decided to quit the Liberal Party and form a party of his own. Mr Ellicott has resigned from Cabinet.
All this uncertainty has been going on in the ranks of the Liberal Party for some considerable time. I recently saw a television program in the week Parliament was not sitting, about four or five weeks ago, and I saw a Tasmanian member of the House of Representatives- I am not quite sure of his name-urging the government not to hold an election. I saw that the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) had made statements in the Press that the time was not right for the holding of an election. So I assure the Minister for Industry and Commerce that these rumours that an election is in the air are not merely a figment of the imagination of members of the Australian Labor Party. Some supporters of the present Government parties who have resigned or who still remain in the Government’s rank are concerned at the possibility that the Prime Minister might renege on his earlier statement that the Government needed three years to get the economy on a fair and stable keel.
Of course, the Prime Minister seems to be a natural disturber. He disturbed the balance of the Gorton Government. He disturbed the equilibrium of the McMahon Government. He disturbed the Opposition when it was led by Mr Snedden. He decided to disturb the conventions in this place in November 1 975 when it was decided that the Opposition in this chamber should refuse Supply to the then government. The Fraser Government is currently in the process of pouring forth a series of palliatives to the Australian people and to badly hit sectors of the economy. It appears it is setting the stage for an early election. I say ‘appears’ advisedly because the Government brought down a budget in August. The Budget was challenged by cattle producers who marched on Canberra in their hundreds, if not thousands, and then overnight as a result of that attitude and pressure the Budget strategy was transformed.
There have been other snippets of bait going out to set the stage for an early election. This spiel of election promises and promised policy relaxations that we have seen in the past few weeks are rather cynical if not hypocritical in view of the existing backlog of broken or unfulfilled promises which have been made by this Government. Its electioneering activities I suggest became abundantly clear, as I have already mentioned, with the announcement of its August Budget. The so-called policy package which supposedly outline the Government’s economic strategy for the ensuing year was the subject of an outrageous last minute decision to win electoral support. The Government jettisoned all previous strategy for economic recovery and opted for tax cuts. That decision was taken in the hope of winning popular appeal should an early election be called. When we looked at the tax indexation being proposed we saw it was not a policy of full tax indexation. I think it was a seven-month policy on full indexation, a five-month policy on half indexation and then, for the ensuing economic year, 1978-79, the Government undertook a policy of 50 per cent tax indexation.
Because of this preoccupation with an early election, as I have indicated, the Government seemed to decide to forgo much needed stimulatory increase in public sector spending. Such spending could have been accommodated within the Government’s overall planned Budget deficit without implying any necessary expansion of the money supply. However, the Government’s election manoeuvring overpowered any concern it may have had with the rising levels of unemployment in this country; so much so that today, in this year of 1 977, we have the greatest number of people out of work in Australia since the Great Depression of 1932. We are told that as a result of the number of school leavers coming on to the labour market at the end of this year the number of people unemployed towards the beginning of next year will exceed 420,000 people. The reason the Government is postulating an election now is that it knows it will not be able to face the Australian public at large when the unemployment rate exceeds that staggering number.
We can hardly blame members of the business community if they are becoming increasingly uncertain of this Government’s economic policies. A survey by the National Bank and the Australian Chamber of Commerce recently showed that 73 per cent of respondents believe that the August Budget, the Government’s so-called policy package for the coming year, will have little or no impact on business activity this financial year. There has been the Prime Minister’s rash statement that there will be no further public sector spending cuts, which is a meaningless promise, given that it follows only a few weeks after the announcement of yet another contractionary budget. There has been a promised expansion in the relocation assistance scheme and the community youth employment scheme. Finally, perhaps the most blatant example of the Government’s election manoeuvring was a recent meeting between State Premiers and the Federal Government about which the Age of 22 October delightfully commented.
There were gifts and co-operation on a scale that only the imminence of the ballot box can bring.
As a result of the uncertainty created by this Government as to whether an election will be held, business is uncertain and there is serious economic uncertainty caused by the Prime Minister’s election manoeuvring. I therefore suggest that the motion moved by Senator Gietzelt should be supported.
-There is some uncertainty about the urgency motion we are debating. It is true that the motion relates to economic uncertainty and I propose to say quite a deal about that later. The urgency motion originally proposed accused the Government of dishonouring a number of election promises and it was substantially in the same form as a motion debated yesterday by the other House. We have just listened to Senator Douglas McClelland go back through history. However, one would have thought that Opposition members in this place today and in the other place yesterday would have regarded a debate of this nature as a golden opportunity to put forward positive policies that presumably they propose to put to the Australian people at the next federal election, whenever that might be.
I want to get the debate back on an even keel. The Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Cotton) listed two areas of alleged contention, namely economic uncertainty, which I submit to the Senate is the meat ofthe motion, election manoeuvring and the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). First, let me deal with the election manoeuvring and the Prime Minister. It is true that there has been endless speculation both in the media and by members of the Opposition about when there will be an election. They are worried because they do not know when the elec-, tion will take place. We all know that there has to be a half Senate election. I know that because I am up for re-election before the end of June next year.
I endorse the tribute paid to the Prime Minister by the Minister for Industry and Commerce in his speech this afternoon. Honourable senators on this side of the chamber regard our Prime Minister as an able and prudent Prime Minister. One of the essential qualities of an able and prudent Prime Minister is the ability not to telegraph his punches, particularly in respect of when an election will be held. I know that members of the Opposition and certain sections of the media are upset that the Prime Minister has not indicated the date of an election. However, the Prime Minister is under no obligation to say any more than he has said to this stage about when an election might be held. Before I leave the subject, I might point out that if any election manoeuvring has taken place it has been entirely due to Opposition and media speculation.
I now turn to the question of economic uncertainty and to the record of the Government in respect of the economy. This Government has reduced the rate of inflation which, when it took office, was raging at over 17 per cent. The rate of inflation has been reduced to a figure that will be well below 10 per cent by the end of 1977. This economic fact is creating economic certainty in the business community. I might mention also the tax cuts introduced by this Government. Tax cuts were at the forefront of our election promises. Senator Douglas McClelland had a great deal to say about the Labor Government’s record. However, he did not mention the 10 per cent escalation of wages in 1974 that wrecked the economy. The present Government came into office with a wrecked economy. The present Government said during the last election campaign that it would reduce the tax burden and put an end to Labor’s tax rip-off. As I said in my Budget speech a few weeks ago, the proposed tax scales will mean that from 1 February next year every Australian taxpayer will pay less and 225,000 taxpayers at the bottom of the scale will, for the first time, pay no tax at all. Surely one could not wish for a more vivid illustration of the certainty of the economic future of the nation than the Government’s policies on tax reform announced in the Budget.
I could go on and on. I refer to the Government’s decision to restore and considerably extend the homes savings grant. This Government raised the government grant from $750 to $2,000 and introduced a more relaxed field of eligibility for people to participate in this very worthwhile reform. Contrast that with the record of the building trade in Victoria. When we look at the question of responsibility for any economic uncertainty in the community we must remember that there are a great number of unauthorised stoppages and strikes which create and breed an atmosphere of economic uncertainty and which must be looked at as a major cause of this uncertainty. I would like to give some figures in respect of industrial stoppages in the building industry in Victoria. In the Collins Place project there was a peak figure of 1,850 workers idle for seven weeks until the end of September. In the Knox shopping centre project there was a peak figure of 525 people idle for four weeks. In the State Bank project, which has been referred to here repeatedly during Question Time, several hundred people were out of work. Some 4,000 jobs in Victoria were lost in recent months as a result of the guerrilla tactics in the building trades.
I come now to the Latrobe Valley situation. Now that the employees have returned to work we can look at the tornado-like effects that this sort of irresponsible action, industrial unrest or strike has had on the economy.
-Do you think this is going to -
– As I said on Friday, Senator Button, this situation was caused by the unauthorised action of shop stewards who have acted completely outside the trade union movement. The honourable senator should read the speech I made on Friday if he wants more detail.
I would like to quote from an article which appeared in today’s edition of the Melbourne Age. The article, in part, states:
The crisis is over for most Victorians, but tens of thousands of people will still be out of work for at least a fortnight.
Scores of businesses face crippling liquidity problems for the rest of the year.
Employers said last night that at least 3,000 workers stood down during the strike would not be re-employed.
The article also stated:
The chairman of the SEC, Mr Charles Trethowan . . said there had been no winners in the strike, which was the most prolonged and disruptive in the 56-year history of the SEC.
The biggest cost to the SEC was the loss of vital hydro supplies which had been stored to give security of supply until 1 980-the planned starting date for the Newport power station.
We are now vulnerable to power shortages. The considerable insurance we had built up in the system has been evaporated.’
The subject of this debate is economic uncertainty. But how can we expect a person in business, be he a member of a company, an investor of an industrialist, to invest in Victoria when there is uncertainty as to the future of power in that State? Over the last 1 1 weeks we have had half a million workers idle, factories idle, and companies and small businesses going bankrupt. I remind Senator Gietzelt that this type of activity sends more small businesses bankrupt than any so-called wrong initiatives of this Government. Let me continue. Mr Trethowan also hinted that power tariffs were likely to be increased as a result of the strike which had cost the State Electricity Commission several million dollars. He said that the power restrictions introduced a month ago had cost $300m in lost reduction, $150m in lost wages and at least 75m in lost retail sales. An article in today’s Australian said:
The strike has left in its wake bankrupted businesses, $450m worth of lost wages and production, and an estimated 3,000 jobs permanently gone.
A further article in today’s Age states:
Another 3,000 Victorian workers are likely to lose their jobs in the aftermath of the power strike.
The jobs are in small businesses which according to the Victorian Chamber of Manufactures have been hardest hit . . .
We have some new found sponsors or disciples of small business-
– What has this to do with the subject, Senator? Tell us that.
– It has a great deal to do with uncertainty in the economy and that is what this debate is all about. An article in today’s Melbourne Sun reported:
The bill for the strike was around $500m- and that was just for loss of wages, loss of production, sales and orders . . .
There are costs yet to appear such as sales which will be permanently lost and jobs which will no longer be available.
So, the litany goes on. I have quoted those articles because they are a vivid and timely illustration of the disastrous effects on the Australian economy of unauthorised irresponsible stoppages generated by a small section of irresponsible trade unionists. They work to the great detriment of the Australian economy. A recent example of this was provided last Thursday when the Prime Minister received a deputation from the Victorian Chamber of Manufactures. I and some my Victorian colleagues, including colleagues from the other side of the chamber such as Senator Melzer and Senator Primmer, went over to the Lakeside Hotel to meet them.
– You did not have to do that and you know it.
– One member of the deputation told me- this is germane to this debate; but I do not think I should name the company although this member of the deputation said that the information could be used- that his company had intended setting up a frozen food factory employing upwards of 100 people and involving an expenditure of capital but was now moving to the South Island of New Zealand where the workers had a strike free record and where his company would not face the power shortages and unauthorised industrial stoppages which we have in Australia. This is happening all over the nation. So, if we are talking about economic uncertainty, let us place the blame where it belongs. Despite this factor which is of great concern to the Government and which the Government is endeavouring to grapple with, the Government’s record in the economic field remains good.
Finally, I shall quote an investment figure which shows that confidence has been generated by the Government. The Bureau of Statistics forecasts a strong upsurge in private investment in the six months to December. Manufacturing investment would be up 33 per cent, mining investment would be up 66 per cent and investment in all industries would be up 14 per cent. This debate has afforded an opportunity of pinning the blame for economic uncertainty where it fairly and squarely belongs. The Government is confident that its progress will continue despite the problems created by the irresponsible element in the trade union movement- I am not being critical of the whole trade union movement- and that, if we are looking for the cause of economic uncertainty, we must look elsewhere than at the policies of the Government.
-The Senate is debating the serious economic uncertainty caused by the election manoeuvring ofthe Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). That, as I understand it, is supposed to be the subject ofthe debate although one would not have gained that impression from listening to the last speaker, Senator Tehan.
– You want to make sure, though.
-For Senator Missen ‘s benefit, I am sure although nobody having heard his colleague speak a few minutes ago would be. The Australian Financial Review of 4 October this year had this to say in an editorial regarding the present Government:
The second main feature of the Fraser Cabinet is a preoccupation with short term political considerations, minimal attention being paid to governing. The reason Mr Fraser wants an early election is that he feels he can get himself another three years by going now. He has absolutely nothing else in mind, no long term economic strategy, no major issue on which he is seeking a genuine mandate.
It is in the light of that comment that the subject of this debate- the speculation about an early election and the effects of that speculation on the Australian economy- is raised by the Opposition. A survey conducted among businessmen by the National Bank of Australasia Ltd and the Australian Chamber of Commerce recently showed that, of those businessmen interviewed, 73 per cent believed that the August Budget would have no real positive effect on the general business climate over the next 12 months. Twothirds of those interviewed thought that the proposed tax cuts would have little or no effect on demand. The Australian Chamber of Commerce believes that the only way to stimulate employment in Australia is a major program of capital works, which I point out to the Senate was a program advocated by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) and Mr Hayden two months ago. That is the sort of climate amongst businessmen at the moment and it is not improved by speculation about an election. However, it does confirm the view which the Opposition has put that the reason an election might be sought by the Government is that the problems to which I have referred are likely to be much worse next year than they are this year. There are other problems which the Government Parties have in Victoria and elsewhere which are likely to be much worse in the next few weeks than they are now but those matters already have been the subject of debate in the Senate.
The Prime Minister is on record as saying that continued speculation about an election is damaging to the economy. We had this from a highly authoritative source. On 28 September this year when speaking in Brisbane, the Prime Minister said that continuous speculation about an election is damaging to business confidence and to the economy. He went on to say:
I very much regret the nature of the speculation that is taking place. I wish it did not occur.
Of course, there is a lot of cynicism about that comment coming from the Prime Minister because there are various views about the source of election speculation and one source which is quite widely pointed to is the Prime Minister’s office itself. This sort of speculation is consistent with the number of elections we have had in Australia in the past five years and the methods by which other elections in the past five years have been brought about. If an election is held this year, it will mean that we have had national elections four time in five years. Three of those elections have been brought about prematurely by the coalition parties behaving in a manner not dissimilar from the manner in which the Prime Minister is now behaving. I remind honourable senators that the first of those elections was in May 1974 when the Senate threatened to reject Supply. That was a result of coalition initiative. We have the word of Senator Withers, another authority in these matters, that that election had been planned since the Labor Government came to office in December 1972. From December 1972 until May 1974 plans were in progress to subvert the normal procedure for holding elections in Australia to bring about an election prematurely in a way -
– Hear, hear!
-‘ Hear, hear’, says Senator Withers. He is proud of taking the Australian people to elections on so many occasions in five year. He is proud of the money which his Department will have to spend in conducting those electionstaxpayers money which he is -
-Mr Whitlam wants one.
-Senator Withers is proud of the taxpayers’ money which he has caused the people of Australia to spend. It is immaterial to me in the context of this debate what Mr Whitlam wants. The subject of the debate is not what Mr Whitlam wants. The subject of the -
– Are you speaking for the Senate members?
– I am speaking for myself. The subject of the debate is what the Prime Minister wants, what the Prime Minister is doing by way of speculation and what he is causing by way of. speculation. Mr Whitlam ‘s wants are no different from or more significant than those of any other person who is elected to this Parliament. As I see it, the subject is the attitude and conduct of the Prime Minister. I refer to the May 1974 election and his part in that election. I refer the Senate again to 1975. Mr Snedden will remember the Ides of March in 1975 when he was deposed as Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia. He will remember the way in which the election was subsequently brought about in 1975. It was brought about by speculation of the kind we are used to now. Numbers in the Senate were used ultimately to bring about an artificial and premature election. The coalition Government has an interesting track record in relation to the forcing of elections prematurely at great cost not only in terms of the cost of those actual elections but also in terms of the cost to the interruption of ordinary life in this country and particularly interruption to the economic life of this country.
The facts are that in 1974 some five months of governing was lost through the period of the Labor Government as the result of that election which was brought about precipitately. In 1975 another period of some three to four months was lost because of the conduct of the then Opposition and the way in which the election was forced. In each of those cases, of course, there could not but be speculation amongst businessmen about what would happen and the incapacity of the government of the day to get any leadership in relation to economic matters in the normal sense of the term. Again, we are threatened with that situation in 1 977 in a period of record unemployment and sadly lacking business confidence. Again, it looks as though the people of Australia are to be the subject of speculation and probably an election which will cause the interruption to economic management which I have indicated.
– Surely you should want that. If you regard the present Parliament as illegitimate surely you would want to bring it to an end as soon as possible.
– That is a very specious sort of view. I am surprised that Senator Missen should be so flippant about a matter which is so serious. It is very disappointing indeed. Senator Missen obviously is not concerned for a moment about interruptions to the business life of this country so long as he and his colleague the Prime Minister -
– You and Mr Hawke want an election.
– Can seize the advantage of the day to try to maintain power again. I was coming to that subject.
– Tell us about the Latrobe Valley.
-Poor Senator Chaney from Western Australia is still bleating about the Latrobe Valley as if that was of particular concern to the people of his State. The fact of the matter is that Senator Chaney probably will talk about the Latrobe Valley for the next ten years because he has precious little else to talk about in this Parliament. I was making the point about continual interruption to business management and the economic life of this country. It is surpassed only by the continual interruption that I have had from honourable senators opposite during the course of this debate. I have referred to the Prime Minister’s view that speculation was damaging. But strangely the Deputy Prime Minister does not find it damaging or does not find it damaging to the same extent. He puts a completely different view from the view of the Prime Minister. I wish to quote a memorable passage of the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Anthony, which appeared in the Age today. I have already quoted it in the Senate. When dealing with the question of industrial relations, he said:
Sooner or later, the Government has to face up to this issue and go to the Australian people and say: ‘We’re prepared to govern with courage ana with a sense of responsibility, but you ‘ve got to back us.
We can’t do that knowing we’ve got only six months life in the Parliament.
You’ve got to know that we are going to stand up there and be firm and know that we ‘ve got a period of two or three years in front of us to try and get this country under control ‘.
On the one hand the Prime Minister says that election speculation is damaging to business. I am quite sure that it is. I agree with him. On the other hand, the Deputy Prime Minister has said that election speculation is a good sort of thing. He states that perhaps the Government does not have the courage to govern now with the biggest majority in the parliamentary history of this country but if we have an election somehow it may get that courage. If ever there were cause for speculation it would arise from that sort of remark from the Deputy Prime Minister. The results of that sort of speculation will lead the average Australian elector to scratch his head and say: ‘If they cannot govern now with a record majority for God ‘s sake what will they be like if we have an election and the majority is reduced? They will be worse’. We have this extraordinary dichotomy of views between the purported Leader of this country and the purported Deputy Leader of this country which are quite different and really quite contrary one to the other.
I said at the beginning that this Government has a concern with the maintenance of power. I referred to the Financial Review editorial which pointed out that the speculation about an election was not a question about speculation of policies which this country so desperately needs in the manpower area, in the industry area and in the industrial relations area, as Government spokesmen tell us. It is not a question about those matters. As far as the Government is concerned, it is purely a question of power. I will conclude my remarks by referring again to the editorial in the Financial Review of 25 October 1977 which discusses this very issue that is the subject of debate in the Senate. The heading to the editorial was: ‘Economy the first election casualty’. No doubt there will be others on the Government side. But according to the article, the economy is likely to be the first casualty. The article states:
Much of the damage to domestic and international confidence could have been minimised by a short, sharp election campaign. But instead we have had an extended period of pre-election jitters, which cannot be totally unrelated to the fact that the capital account of the balance of payments has remained weak despite the shoring up program of foreign borrowings and stand-by facilities.
For this the Prime Minister must take full responsibility, and it is something that should be taken into account when striking the balance of pros and cons on his economic management.
As that article states, the Prime Minister must take full responsibility. It is that matter about which the Opposition is concerned in moving the motion to discuss this matter of urgency.
– I rise to speak against this quite amazing matter of urgency. I regret that we have fallen into the pattern of these Wednesday waffles, as they have become known. But this matter of urgency is even a little more unusual than most. I find that we face it with even less enthusiasm than usual. I see the question that has been raised in two pieces. The motion mentions both economic uncertainty and election manoeuvring. Let me examine the first matter of economic uncertainty. I suppose that we really need to look at what creates economic uncertainty. Undoubtedly, the thing that creates economic uncertainty most is high inflation. It just so happens that Australia has the lowest inflation rate since 1972. So it is not that. Would it be rising interest rates? I do not think that it would be that either because at present our interest rates are falling and the lowest they have been for some years. Would it be rapidly rising costs and wages? I do not think it is that either. To support that view I quote from the same document as Senator Button quoted from selectively. It states only 69 per cent of the firms reported higher labour costs in the September quarter compared to 76 per cent in the June quarter. Only 66 per cent of firms reported higher overhead costs in the September quarter compared with 74 per cent in the June quarter. The price index of manufactured goods rose only 0.4 per cent in August. So it is not rapidly rising wages and costs. Would it be massive tax increases? No, there have been no massive tax increases either. It was in the two years before we came to government that tax went up by 89 per cent.
– There has been a reduction.
– We have had a reduction in tax. We have had tax indexation and various other benefits. Would it be the abolition of industrial benefits, investment allowances and the constant hacking of the private sector? I do not think that has happened since about 1974-75 either. Is the Government wildly and irrationally throwing industry to the wolves? For instance, is it striking a 25 per cent tariff cut across the board? That is not right either. The Government has been looking at selective industries very carefully in both the primary and secondary sectors. It has treated them on their merits. Would it be speculation on the currency? The Government has not been speculating on the currency. But there has been speculation on the currency. If there is anything that will create economic uncertainty it is certainly speculation on the currency by people who choose to destroy it. Would it be crazy changes in the ministry and in policy such as was exhibited between 1972 and 1975?
– We could never compete with that.
-We could not. There have not been any changes since then. The policies of this Government have been steadfastly followed right along the line from where we started. I hope and trust that we will continue to follow them. Is it weakening trade? Australia is a trading nation. Perhaps we should look at the figures for the June quarter. Exports of goods and services rose by 2 per cent. Imports of goods and services fell by 5 per cent. Preliminary figures for the September quarter increased by one per cent despite its being a difficult period. Recorded imports fell by 5.5 per cent in the same period. What is the trading position in the September quarter? After a deficit of $31m in June there were surpluses of $77m in July, $88m in August and $117m in September. The position is expected to strengthen even further as the year progresses. Is our trade letting us down?
The whole question of economic uncertainty can an be answered by the points I have raised. If it is not economic uncertainty, we had better look at the election manoeuvring. Two years ago various options were open to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), bearing in mind that there were two main constraints. There had to be a Senate election before May 1978. There had to be a House of Representatives election at the end of 1978 or in early 1979. The referendum held in Australia showed that voters wanted simultaneous elections. They included members of the Australian Labor Party. They included Senator Douglas McClelland who spoke a lot about when the election will be held. They included Senator Button. They included Senator Wriedt. They included the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam). It was shown that concurrence of the elections is preferred.
The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have both said they believe it should be so. Taking that into account, the options are reduced. Elections have to be held by May of next year. So who has been doing the manoeuvring. It was established months ago that the options will run out by May next year. To make the elections coincide they will have to be held within the next few months. We all know that. What we are really talking about now, in spite of all the eloquence, is a matter of three or four months at the most. Who is doing the election manoeuvring? Who started it? The first person I heard speculating on when the election would be held was Mr E. G. Whitlam.
Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.
– Earlier I raised the question that there had been much unwarranted and pointless speculation on the part of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Whitlam. Upon reviewing the record further, I find that when he was Prime Minister he had two opportunities, one in 1974 and one in 1975, to call for elections, but that his track record on those two occasions was not terribly impressive. I really wonder why he feels that he would be any more competent to call an election when we are in government than he was when he himself was in office.
It was the Leader of the Opposition who began fostering speculation and trying to get uneasiness going in the country. It is easy to get an audience in the media, if one can get things on the move. It is certainly not the Prime Minister who has been talking about an election, nor has it been the Government in general. It has been talked about only by those who would like to have the say in this country. God spare us from a situation in which either they or the media will ever have that say.
Let us now try to tie the two together a little and consider where points of economic uncertainty exist- and there certainly are some. Before the dinner recess Senator Tehan mentioned, in fact, that there is economic uncertainty in Victoria. With more than half a million people stood down, of course there is economic uncertainty. For the 3,000 who have lost their jobs permanently there is great uncertainty. I do not think any of those people would blame the Prime Minister for that. In the building industry also there is uncertainty. It too is plagued by this handful of barbarians who are dedicated to the destruction of the Australian economy. While we have that situation continuing there will, of course, be uncertainty. Nobody in bis right mind would in such economic circumstances be prepared to suffer the vagaries of trying to construct a building. Is that the fault of the Prime Minister.
In regard to primary industry, let us consider our overseas exports of wheat and of live sheep. Both of these industries are in a state of uncertainty at the present, but is it the Prime Minister that we have to look to lay the blame for that uncertainty? The uncertainty that exists is being engendered by those who do not wish to see Australia continue to settle down, continue to hit the prosperity curves. We must be careful not to fall into the trap of excessive spending and wild extravagance.
On glancing back to the Budget debates of the last few weeks we find that one by one senators from the Opposition side have been speaking about spending, spending, spending- wantonly, recklessly, thoughtlessly- and guaranteeing one thing only a return to the glorious halcyon days of 1973 to 1975. The Opposition can promise only a return to those hazy, crazy days that we thought we were at last rid of. I have come to accept their growing unhappiness with the improvement in the economy, because so much of their hope for a return to government must of necessity be built around disaster, and as that danger moves further away, so too do their chances of governing. I understand this and find it regrettable, but at this stage there is no question that the motion before the Senate could be even semi-seriously considered, and accordingly I oppose it.
– According to the view put forward by Senator Archer, the economic indices are all moving in the right direction. If the honourable senator or the Government really believed that, we could expect that there would be no election this year, because recent polls have shown that an election, if conducted now, could be won by either side. Given the rumour currently circulating that the Prime Minister tonight has visited Yarralumla-and one must wonder why he waited until after sundown to do so, and that on the night of the full moon- on wonders, how Senator Archer will reconcile the view he has just expressed with the suggestion that the Prime Minister will ask the Governor-General for a premature and totally unjustified dissolution of Parliament.
Over the last six months we have seen demonstrated once again the political style of the Prime Minister, which is based on the false rumour judiciously planted, the political stunt and, finally, the political coup. The technique he has used ever since his clash in 1971 with former Prime Minister Gorton has been to feed to the media frequently inaccurate information on a nonattributable basis. We saw the same technique used against Mr Snedden in 1 975 over the blocking of the Budget; in late 1975 in regard to a change of mind falsely attributed just a few months ago to Mr Justice Fox concerning the export of Australian uranium; and finally, of course, the speculation, which the Prime Minister has over the last four months fed, about a premature election.
In that speculation, of course, he has been supported by his deputy, Mr Anthony, who before the National Country Party Council some two or three weeks ago castigated the Australian Labor Party for allegedly circulating or initiating rumours about a premature election, stating how damaging it was that the dastardly Labor Party had so acted and adding that it would be quite unreasonable to expect the Prime Minister to refute the rumours and make an unequivocal assertion that there would not be an election for the House of Representatives this year. Leaving aside the fact that nobody who looked at the record would take seriously such an unequivocal guarantee, the Prime Minister of course has always had that option available. He did not take it up and the reason why he quite properly did not, according to the ludicrous logic for which the Australian Country Party has become famous as demonstrated by its present leader, was that, if the Prime Minister said there was not going to be an election earlier than 12 months hence he would lose the last method available to him for controlling the irresponsible, militant left-wing unions. In what way the threat of a premature election would influence union behaviour Mr Anthony did not explain.
Then, last Wednesday, as my colleague Senator Button has mentioned, he returned to this theme of controlling the unions and expressed the fascinating belief that since the Government had, as he said, only six months of life left it could not, of course, effectively control the unions. The implications of that statement are fascinating. Mr Anthony tacitly admitted that the Government would not be able to win an election six months hence; thus the reference to the six months of life remaining to the Government. With that commendable, although unconscious clarity and honesty- which he has displayed on previous occasions- Mr Anthony admitted that the reason why the speculation about a premature election was initiated by the Prime Minister and himself, and why it has been fuelled by both those gentlemen ever since, is that they fear that the electors will by next year be fully conscious of the magnitude of this Government’s economic mismanagement and the horrendous level of unemployment which will by the early months of 1 978, be staring us in the face.
Let us look at the record of this Government in relation to the economy and in other areas. Who remembers the statement by the Prime Minister in his November 1975 policy speech that Australia does not need a tourist as a Prime Minister’? Since then we have seen the Fraser
Chinese safari, the Fraser Canadian fishing expedition and no less then six other overseas junkets. Who remembers that statement in the same policy speech that there will be ‘no more jobs for the boys’? Since then we have seen the former Liberal Party Attorney-General, Sir Nigel Bowen, appointed Chief Justice of the new Federal Court of Australia; a former Liberal Party Minister, Sir David Fairbairn- one of the most undistinguished members of the Great Public School old boys association which has run this country for most of the last 25 years- appointed as Ambassador to the Hague; the former Tasmanian Liberal Party State Treasurer, Mr Gunn, appointed as a Commissioner of the Australian Broadcasting Commission; Sir Henry Bland, Mr Fraser ‘s old mate, appointed as Chairman of the ABC until he could tolerate Mr Fraser ‘s interference no longer; Sir Gordon Freeth, a former Liberal Party Minister, appointed as High Commissioner to London; and Paul Gerber- one of the very few academics in Australia who was sufficiently willing to prostitute himself in 1975 that he backed the tactics used by the parties which are now governing Australia in blocking Supply- appointed to the Taxation Review Board. They are just a few I can remember off the cuff. No more jobs for the boys indeed!
I turn now to the stunting. Every time this year there has been a prolonged industrial dispute, Mr Fraser and his lackeys and sycophants pull a parliamentary stunt. They introduce into the House of Representatives on a Wednesday or Thursday industrial legislation which they claim is urgent and which they imply is required to solve a current industrial dispute and then on the Friday of that week, in an atmosphere of engineered crisis, the Senate has a special sitting and this House of review, with the support of the 36 lackeys and sycophants who sit across the aisle, passes this allegedly urgent industrial legislation which has been introduced into the House of Representatives 24 or 48 hours before. We have a stunt as a substitute for policy in an atmosphere of engineered crisis.
Last week another stunt took place at the Premiers Conference. According to Press reports, Mr Fraser said that the Government has agreed to share off-shore sovereignty with the States. The details were somewhat nebulous, as they usually are with Mr Fraser ‘s announcements, but I wonder how he reconciles that statement with the extract from the telex which he sent the Premier of Western Australia on 8 November last and which was subsequently leaked to and published by the National Times when he said:
The Government has had regard to the advice received from its law officers that the Commonwealth could not legally accede to the States’ request on this matter.
That is the request to which, according to Mr Fraser after last Friday’s Premiers Conference, the Commonwealth has now acceded. Then we had a fascinating statement that the States would be able to borrow money overseas independently of the Loan Council. Sir Charles Court, who has been puffing out his chest on this matter in characteristic style for about the last 12 months, returned to Western Australia and made a dramatic announcement that he had wrung a bucket full of concessions and promises out of the Federal Government and that he had got tough with the Feds and shown them what a hairy chest he had and they had bucked under the force of his will and intellect. We were told simultaneously that the States ‘will be able to tap foreign finance markets’. We were then told ‘that the borrowings would have to be within the Federal Government’s overall money supply targets and fiscal policies’. So on the one hand we were told that the States would be able to borrow overseas independently and on the other we were told that this borrowing would have to be within the Federal Government’s money supply targets and fiscal policies. That, I submit, is self contradictory clap-trap. It is a perfect example of Orwellian double talk. It is another stunt that has been pulled on by the present Prime Minister in collaboration with some of his more egocentric State Liberal Party colleagues or egomaniacal State Liberal Party colleagues to boost-
– Order! Watch your words, Senator Walsh. Use parliamentary language.
– I am sorry, Mr President. This stunt was pulled on by the Prime Minister and the Western galah in order to boost the chances of the Liberal Party in the election that it plans to pull on prematurely on 10 December-
– I rise to a point of order, Mr President. There has been continued use of unparliamentary language, which is a matter to which you have drawn the honourable senator’s attention. I object to the use of the words ‘Western galah’ and say that they should be withdrawn.
– I wish to speak to the point of order. The world ‘galah’ has been thrown across this chamber several times. It has been directed sometimes by Ministers to honourable senators on this side of the House. I remember distinctly the word being used rather strongly by Senator Cotton. Surely we are not going to be so sensitive in this chamber as to object to the use of the world ‘galah’. If I recall correctly, Senator Carrick also referred to ‘several birds chirping on this side’. I believe that we ought to be able in this place to take some invective without resorting to complaint. I think the Government Whip is resorting to an idle complaint. The words that Senator Walsh has used may have an edge to them that perhaps we are not used to. Nevertheless-
– He is just taking up his time, that is all.
– I am sorry, I also should not be taking up his time.
– I shall just say in respect to the need for the use of parliamenary language that good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language. The use of parliamentary language is never more desirable than when an honourable senator is canvassing the opinions and conduct of his opponents in debate. Please remember that that is the basis for the usage of language which is in accordance with that expected in this national chamber.
-If Senator Chaney finds the words I have used to be offensive I shall gladly withdraw them, Mr President. Nevertheless the fact remains, no matter what expression is used, that this was a stunt. It means nothing. It is self contradictory nonsense. It has been supplemented by a vague assurance given by the Premier of Western Australia about a confident expression of belief that interest rates would be down by 2 per cent or 3 per cent within the next 12 months. Three and a half years ago the same Premier, who was then Leader ofthe Opposition, confidently asserted that he would put things right in Western Australia within six months. Since he made that confident prediction unemployment has gone up by 250 per cent in Western Australia. That was one of the Premier’s confident assertions. We have now had another of that Premier’s confident assertions. It is all coherently tied in, in a sense, that it is designed to induce and to build-up an expectation or to engineer a sense of phoney crisis for a premature election and false expectations about the economic performance in the future.
Let us look at the economic performance of this Government. The Prime Minister said in August of last year and again in March of this year that confidence has returned to important sections of industry, that investment in plant and equipment has increased by 3 1 per cent, and that dwelling approvals, new motor vehicle registrations, real profit consumption and capital raisings are up. Let us look at the facts. Firstly, the unemployment situation is 64,000 higher than it was a year ago. Secondly, new money raised by private companies in the quarter to June 1977 is less than half what it was in December of last year. The March and June quarters- the two most recently available- were the lowest in terms of new capital raisings for private business that we have seen for more than 18 months. Seasonally adjusted gross capital expenditure for the June 1977 quarter was $1,2 13m. Again, at seasonally adjusted constant values, that figure is at its lowest for more than 18 months. Alternatively, if we look at financial years we find that the figure for 1976-77 is only $200m higher than the figure two years previously, and the cost of that very modest improvement of $200m is $450m in terms of the investment allowance. New dwelling approvals totalled 1 1,400 for the most recent month against a 17 month average to November 1976 of 12,400.
– Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.
-In reply to Senator Walsh, I should like to quote from an article in the Age of 2 1 October by Mr Kenneth Davidson, the economics editor, which started with these words:
The Fraser Government has achieved ‘single digit’ inflation within a year of a massive devaluation despite predictions by the Treasury, the Reserve Bank (and the author) of an inflation rate in the order of 1 5 per cent for this year.
This is quite an achievement. It opens up the prospect of less stringent monetary and fiscal policies next year and even the prospect of a further interest rate reduction before December.
That comment was made by a very astute, I believe, economics writer who in the past has not been noted for favouring the Fraser Government’s economics policies. It clearly, against his own forecasts, outlines the success of a policy which has been pursued under a great deal of criticism, especially from the Opposition following on its free-wheeling spending position when in Government, with a great deal of determination. That policy is now providing the first real glimmer of recovery that has been available in the economic community since the three Labor Treasurers dealt their blows to this community whilst the Labor Party was in office between 1972 and 1975.
I listened with amazement when Senator Gietzelt criticised this Government for borrowing $3,000m overseas, as he totalled it, to support the dollar in our trading relationships. Senator Gietzelt tended to equate the $3,000m with the $4,000m mentioned in regard to the discredited overseas loans affair. If there is any uncertainty in this community could it have any greater source than that Executive Council meeting at which the then Prime Minister, with his senior Ministers, signed a document to borrow overseas $2,000m for temporary purposes? The great discredit that devolved upon that Whitlam Government was something that all the Senate could see in its examination of the totally indefensible position in which the Government put itself by claiming temporary purposes for a loan which was in prospect to build great and long-term public works in the community? What could be more demoralising than the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam), as he then was, having breakfast with dubious charactersand he was spurned by his own party for that action- trying to raise election funds before the 1975 Federal election? If we look for uncertainty we find it in the Labor years from 1972 to 1975. We find there all the causes which Labor so glibly skates around in this debate with the false claims that it makes in attributing the great culmination of inflation and unemployment to this Government when they so clearly began with our predecessors in office- clearly began according to the admission of those who took part in that Government, particularly Mr Whitlam, who is now one of the number of people endeavouring to lead the Labor Party. As my leader said in this chamber today, how peculiar it is that Mr Dunstan and Mr Hawke will be the chief actors in the television series to promote the Labor Party at this supposed Federal election. As I have said here before, who does lead the Labor Party? What greater uncertainty could there be in this community, when one surveys the political scene, than trying to guess who would be the Prime Minister of Australia in the unlikely event that Labor was elected at the next election?
– You did not see This Day Tonight.
-Can the honourable senator who interjects tell us clearly and with confidence who would be the Prime Minister after three months or six months in office?
- Mr Hawke.
-Of course he could not when even his spokesman in that election campaign, as Senator Young has indicated, may be in the running. Would it be Mr Hawke? Would it be Mr Dunstan? Would it be Mr Whitlam? Would it be Mr Hayden? Are there any other contenders? Who will be in the auction? That figure is one of the great uncertainties in Australian politics today. As I said in another debate recently, and I believe it is worth repeating, if we talk about uncertainty, who has built up that uncertainty? Let us go back to Mr Whitlam s statement on *Monday Conference a few weeks ago when, in referring to 1972, he said:
When we came in the place was awash with overseas speculative funds and there nad been an inflationary Budget, Billy Snedden ‘s Budget under Billy McMahon, I mean that was the biggest origin of our economic troubles in Australia. We inherited an inflationary situation.
Let us look at some of the promises made by the Labor Party in 1972 when it contemplated office. Today I took the trouble to refresh myself by getting a copy of the speech delivered in 1972 by Mr Whitlam, who claims- I emphasise the word claims ‘-at this time to be the Leader of the Labor Party. He said then:
Do you believe that Australia can alford another three years like the last twenty months?
He made that claim and then proceeded to lead a Government which had three Treasurers in three years. They brought down supplementary Budgets, and I instance the case of Mr Crean who, following a last minute effort at a Caucus meeting which utterly cut to ribbons the Budget which he brought into the House, read a document which made no sense at all because of the deletions that Caucus had demanded of him minutes before he strode into the House to give some economic news of importance to Australians. That is the sort of uncertainty that existed under Labor’s management. Mr Whitlam ‘s 1972 speech referring to the previous Liberal Government, continued:
Or to the same men who presided over the worst inflation in twenty years?
How pale and insignificant does that extremely minor bout of inflation in 1972 look now when compared with the high inflation established by the extravagant three years of Labor in office; an inflation which happily is being brought into rein by the significant and determined policies of the Fraser Government?
– Tell us why you supported us?
-Senator Bishop would have been interested to hear, and no doubt supported, the economic news of the last week or so that the rate of inflation for the last quarter was down to 2 per cent. How does he reconcile that with his leader’s action and the action of the many Labor Treasurers when his party was in office? I refer again to the speech of 1972 and remind honourable senators opposite of what it said:
We will exert our powers against prices.
What did Labor do? Do we need to ask the Australian housewife when she goes to the supermarkets and other places where one buys the necessities of life in order to keep a home going? We know, and every person in Australia knows.
– Increases of15 per cent or 1 6 per cent.
-Absolutely, and people are aware enough of the political consequences of the actions of Treasurers to know that Mr Crean’s Budget, in which he increased expenditure by such an enormous amount- I think approaching 40 per cent-stands behind the high prices still being paid in the supermarkets today. It is this Government which has brought the first real diminution in the rate of increases in prices in this community. Mr Whitlam stated:
Labor’s first priority will be to restore genuine full employment . . .
Has anyone heard of such an unfulfilled promise as that? When Labor came to office unemployment was an important but minor consideration in the economic community. When we came to office in 1975 it was an extremely major factor in the community, as it is today. The level of unemployment can be reduced only as a consequence of a reduction in the rate of inflation when job opportunities will be created and Australia generally will become more competitive in the manufacturing and service areas. It is the determined attack on unemployment which separates this Government so clearly from its socialist opponents. Mr Whitlam in 1972 went on to state:
It is because of the automatic and inevitable massive growth in Commonwealth revenues that a whole range of Labor proposals denounced and derided by the Liberals for years and years have suddenly become possible . . .
He went on to emphasise this. Under the heading of taxation he stated:
The huge and automatic increase in Commonwealth revenue ensures that rates of taxation need not be increased at any level to implement a Labor Government ‘s program.
In other words, from a buoyant economy in 1 972 the community was yielding to the Federal Government’s immense and rapidly increasing sums in taxation. Labor was content to reap that harvest without returning anything significant to the taxpayers so that Labor could implement its socialist policies. It was a gigantic rip-off.
– Even that was not sufficient with a tremendous deficit.
-As Senator Young reminds me, to rip taxpayers off was not sufficient. The Labor Party decided to move beyond that barrier and into a very heavy and significant deficit. It is that deficit which, of course, has basically created the unemployment in the community. The Labor Party simply mortgaged the future. It mortgaged the jobs of Australians by running into consistent and heavy deficits and thereby sending prices rocketing. This destroyed so many industries in their competitiveness in relation to export markets. The great rural industries and the significant industrial sector languish today because of the lack of export markets. They know that the cause resides in the fiscal mismanagement of Labor while in office. I go back to this fabled 1972 Whitlam document. For Senator Bishop’s benefit I read this. Mr Whitlam stated:
Labor’s industrial policy will be: to put conciliation back into arbitration.
One remembers now how the great union movement of Australia has lost control of the very organisations it represents. The last strike on the Victorian coalfields was caused and maintained by shop stewards in defiance of their own unions. The people who said they would put conciliation back into arbitration are unable to control or assist the very organisations which have put them here. I digress for a minute. Even Senator Gietzelt who inadequately moved this motion on behalf of the Australian Labor Party said that the choice in relation to any prospective election was properly between May and December. We are not talking about a separation of a year or 1 8 months between some prospective and improper- by Labor Party definition- date for an election. We are talking about six months. That is all. In regard to whether the election will be in December or six months later, I say to the Labor Party that the only uncertainty and concern which the business community and private individuals who are involved in the situation have is whether Labor will be defeated. That is all those people are worried about. Because of those words which I have read to the Senate, the great fear in the Australian community is not the fear of an election; it is, what I believe is a quite unjustified fear, that Labor might have some chance of winning. That is the fear in the community. As soon as an election is held, whether it be December or May, and the Labor Party is again defeated with the Liberals victorious, there will be no uncertainty in the community because the election itself will remove that fear. With the confidence that the electors whenever they are called upon to make this decision will make the correct decision, I move:
Question put.
The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Condor Laucke)
AYES: 28
NOES: 18
Majority ……. 10
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Original question put:
That the motion (Senator Gietzelt’s) be agreed to.
The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Condor Laucke)
AYES: 18
NOES: 28
Majority……. 10
AYES
NOES
Question so resolved in the negative.
page 1790
– Pursuant to section 102 of the Postal Services Act 1975 I present an extract from the annual report of the Australian Postal Commission 1977.
page 1790
– Pursuant to section 9 of the States Grants (Dwellings for Pensioners) Act 1974I present the annual statement on the operation of that Act during the year ended 30 June 1977.
page 1790
– For the information of honourable senators I present the Review of Australian Quarantine Arrangements undertaken by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet at the direction of the Prime Minister.
-by leave- I move:
I seek leave to continue my remarks.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
page 1790
– Pursuant to section 25 of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Act 1973 I present the annual report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission on Special Assistance for States 1977.
-by leave- I move:
I seek leave to continue my remarks.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
page 1791
Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK (Victoria) by leave- Honourable senators may recall that on 10 November 1976 I informed the Senate on behalf of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence of which I am the Chairman that the Committee had agreed under section la. of its terms of reference to undertake an inquiry into the status of Soviet Jewry. I also indicated that due to the Committee’s commitments at that dme in relation to other inquiries there would be considerable delay before the Committee could undertake investigation of this subject. However, public hearings on the status of Soviet Jewry commenced on 7 October of this year.
The emerging issue is that the Committee is faced with the problem of elucidating what the officially established Soviet ideology means in relation to any form of dissent, any form of separate national or ethnic sentiment, and form of religious conviction. In any case, in undertaking the considerable task of investigating alleged discrimination against Jews in the Soviet Union the Committee needs to make comparisons with other groups in the Soviet Union which may or may not be disadvantaged. What for instance is the bearing of the Soviet Government’s general religious policy on Judaism in particular? Is it selective against Soviet Jews?
It has therefore been decided by the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence to rename the Sub-committee on the Petition Regarding Soviet Jewry the Sub-committee on Human Rights in the Soviet Union. However, the Sub-committee will concentrate at least its initial attention on the status of Soviet jewry in order to honour its advertisements which appeared in the national Press in late September. Whenever it is expedient and work loads permit, the Sub-committee will take evidence in parallel for the following much broader terms of reference:
Human rights in the Soviet Union bearing in mind Australia’s support for the principles contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Final Act ofthe Helsinki Agreement.
I make this statement with the authority of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence.
-by leave- I must express concern- possibly this concern has exercised the minds of other honourable senators and of members of Parliament- that the
Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence should have embarked upon an inquiry which is selective. I do not object to an investigation into the subject of human rights providing the investigation relates to the United Nations Declaration and is not selective. I have no objection to the investigation covering the Soviet Union providing it is also- and this is an argument which has been put quite often by honourable senators on the Government side- an investigation of human rights in a number of other countries. I know that one’s mind begins to boggle when one endeavours to limit the scope of my proposition because where does the violation of human rights end? Do we commence with the Soviet Union and proceed right across Eastern Europe? Do we go down to the Mediterranean? Do we go to India, Indonesia, the Philippines, South America -
-What about Queensland?
-I was about to come to Queensland as my final remark. Senator Hall anticipated my thoughts. We have come to the stage in Australia when we would have to consider what our own position is before we begin to consider the position of humans in Rhodesia and South Africa because even we neglect the conditions of humans, both black and white, in Queensland. I was led into those remarks by Senator Hall. Without his interruption I might have mentioned Queensland only and not been lead to further comments.
I return to the seriousness of the proposition which Senator Sir Magnus Cormack puts. In other words our Committee is now to engage in an investigation of human rights in the Soviet Union in particular. I caution against it because we might in some way expose our own position at the same time. I would prefer that the investigation be not selective. I, like Senator Missen, belong to Amnesty International. I am the patron of Amnesty International in Queensland. From time to time we present reports. For a period we may seem to be concentrating on the problems of human rights and political repression in Eastern European countries and in the Soviet Union. But Amnesty International makes a point of clearly investigating the problem in a range of countries. Unless our Committee quickly moves away from a selective investigation to an overall investigation, it could be open to criticism. Senator Sir Magnus Cormack has indicated how difficult the Committee’s task will be. He indicated how difficult it will be to investigate the problem in the area he has mentioned. But it may not be as difficult if the investigation covers a number of countries rather than just one. We must consider the position of our country in relation to the Soviet Union, the People’s Republic of China and many other nations. We must consider our relations with them. The Committee, I fear, if its investigation is as selective as has been indicated, will have to tread very carefully indeed.
-by leaveBriefly, I applaud what the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence is doing in taking up this particular reference. It is taking a broad view of that reference. This was the purpose of the statement which Senator Sir Magnus Cormack made. Certainly it is widening the investigation to the Soviet Union. I was surprised to hear what Senator Georges said tonight. It is very easy to say: ‘Let us not deal with this particular country because we should be dealing with that country or with another country’, but we may never deal with anything if we act in that way.
I recall that the genesis of the matter which has been taken up by the Committee was when a group of Jewish people came to the Parliamentthey were electors from Victoria- complaining about the treatment of Soviet jewry. They came in a freedom bus and made representations. It was as a result of Mr Wentworth ‘s representations following that visit that this matter came to the attention of the Committee. Therefore it is a matter of concern to the electors of Australia who raised it and who are concerned about the treatment of Soviet jewry. This is a matter about which I had a chance to obtain some information when in the Soviet Union last year. I believe that there is an excellent reason for this Committee to examine this matter and human rights in the Soviet Union.
Senator Georges spoke of Amnesty International. Amnesty International deals with many different countries but it has concentrated considerably in the last year or two on the appalling situation of human rights not only of Jewish people but also of other religious and national groups in the Soviet Union. It is a matter to which a great deal of the publications of that organisation have been devoted. There is a great need for work to be done in this area and the Committee is right to take it on. It is true that there are many other places and situations to be investigated and we would all like to spend more time dealing with them. I regret that Senator Georges should have taken a defensive view and decried the work which the Committee is undertaking. The Committee is concerned with one massive country and is not dealing with every other country. I hope that the Committee presses on with what is intended and will have the warm support of members of this chamber.
-by leave- I join with Senator Georges in expressing concern about the selective attitude taken by the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence which is chaired by Senator Cormack. I was interested to hear the remarks of Senator Missen that the reference now before the Committee was taken up at the instigation of Mr Wentworth. Mr Wentworth is well known for his views on the Soviet Union. I am concerned that the Soviet Union should be the one country designated as the subject of this inquiry. I am interested to know whether the Committee intends to visit the Soviet Union to further its inquiries or whether it is going to conduct its inquiry within Australia. If it does not leave Australia, I feel that it cannot conduct an inquiry in a proper way and get proper evidence- verbal, visual and writtenbefore it. If it is going to conduct this inquiry without leaving the shores of Australia and going to the Soviet Union, it will not come up with a right and proper report for a committee of its standing. This causes me grave concern. As Senator Georges pointed out, we ought to be conducting an inquiry into the human rights of many people who live in this country before we go far afield to such places as the Soviet Union. Senator Georges, on the prompting of Senator Hall, made reference to the human rights of people in Queensland. We know from recent events there that many of the human rights of the citizens of Queensland have been stripped away from them by the Premier of the State, BjelkePetersen. He denies the people of Queensland the human rights to which they are entitled as citizens and voters of this country.
I want to join with Senator Georges in expressing my very grave concern at the reference that this Committee has now taken unto itself. It is stated on the Notice Paper that the reference regarding the status of Soviet jewry came before the Committee by way of petition. Senator Sir Magnus Cormack, as Chairman of the Committee, has sought leave of the Senate to make a statement regarding the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, sub-committee on Human Rights in the Soviet Union. I was not paying great attention to what Senator Cormack said when he made his statement. I might have missed hearing some of the things he had to say. I do not know whether he said there would be a further reference to the Committee on human rights in the Soviet Union and a withdrawal of the reference which is now before the Committee as is set out in the Notice Paper-that is, the reference regarding the status of Soviet jewry. I do not know whether that reference has now been deleted or whether the Committee will carry on with it and the Committee will have a further reference dealing with this subject about which Senator Cormack spoke, namely, human rights in the Soviet Union.
-by leaveSenator Sir Magnus Cormack sought leave to make a statement relating to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, Subcommittee on Human Rights in the Soviet Union under the business heading of presentation of papers. I feel that the Senate and the Parliament as a whole are intruding into an area and creating a very dangerous precedent for any government. We are widening a field of investigation to within the borders of another country. Can honourable senators imagine the uproar there would be in this country if some group of nationals came to Australia to examine, for instance, the scientologists, the Ananda Marga, the lack of migrant English classes or the like. This Committee will be set up with parliamentary approval virtually to interfere in the domestic affairs of another country.
The matter of Soviet jewry and the history of religious groups in the Soviet Union present a very sore and long-standing problem. It is a sore point in the Western world where religion is a very important part of the state activities. Religions and states are very closely united. For example, our Queen is also the head of a church. This used to be the case in the Soviet Union when the Russian Orthodox Church virtually dominated the activities and the life of the Russian people. A revolution in Russia overthrew this regime of the Russian Orthodox Church. People in the Soviet Union have been very intolerant towards the revival of the Russian Orthodox religion; although while I was in the Soviet Union I attended a Russian Orthodox Church service not far outside Moscow. There were pilgrims from different parts of the Soviet Union and people in a teaching school who were studying to become priests or rabbis-
– Very few.
-There were not many. But considering the size of the church, there seemed to be an adequate number. Their activities were very restricted. They were almost confined within the walls of this area. It is perhaps a very ambitious project on the part of the Sub-committee of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence to aspire to go to the Soviet Union, if that is what the Committee hopes to do. After all, if the members of the Subcommittee do not go into the Soviet Union it will not get factual evidence. It will make a report on hearsay evidence or perhaps biased or prejudiced evidence together with the factual evidence no doubt it will get. Senator Lajovic knows that the Jewish people have been persecuted practically wherever they have been.
– Not in Slovenia.
- Senator Lajovic lived in Europe during the period when we saw the most degrading treatment of the Jewish people. I do not know whether the honourable senator agreed then or now with what happened to them at the time, but it was an insult to mankind.
- Mr President, I object to that.
-Senator O ‘Byrne, Senator Lajovic has taken objection in respect to the imputation you have made. Please withdraw the remarks.
-I am pointing out in Europe that during the time-
- Mr President, I rise to order. I ask the words be withdrawn.
-Senator O ‘Byrne, will you please withdraw the words?
-I withdraw, Mr President.
– Unconditionally, please.
– He has withdrawn the words.
-I have. For example, it would be quite useless to go into Europe and to examine the bestialities of the Germans who inflicted these degrading conditions on the Jewish people during the war. We cannot do anything about it. It is history. Some of the people were able to find refuge in Israel. Some of them are happy and others are not quite as we are led to believe they are by having migrated to Israel. Nevertheless, the point is that Australia is being committed in this way on the highest national level. A parliamentary committee will be set up in a democratic way to investigate affairs inside another country.
– It is a joint committee.
-It does not matter whether it is a joint committee, or any other committeeeven a committee of judges of a court.
– What do your own members say?
-It does not matter what honourable senators on this side of the chamber say. The principle involved is that we are embarking upon something that is completely new in the history of Senate committee work in this country. I do not know whether the members of the Sub-committee will wish to go into another country. I do not know how the report will be prepared unless they do. Perhaps they will read the Sydney Morning Herald or the Australian, get reports from those newspapers and then report back to the Parliament. But what use will the report be to the Parliament if that is the source of the Sub-committee’s information?
– You sought to do it in regard to Timor.
– And South Africa and all that.
-What about your attitude to South Africa? You have never been there.
-I am speaking on the assumption that the Committee will be able to enter the country. But it cannot expect to be given entry into the Soviet Union.
– It would not get the funds, anyhow.
– Even if the Committee received the funds to make the trip, I do not think the Soviet authorities would allow the Committee’s members to enter the country.
– You are telling us they would not?
-I am certain that they would not. The Indonesians would not give us permission to go into East Timor. I do not think that any country would give a committee permission -
– Sit down and stop looking after your mates.
-Senator Chaney should mind his own business. I do not think that any committee should be permitted to go into another country unless it were invited to do so. We are treading on pretty dangerous ground. I just want to dissociate myself from this matter.
-by leave-I believe that the Sub-committee of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence is treading on rather dangerous ground in this area. I am well aware of allegations that have been made about civil rights and civil liberties in the Soviet Union. We all are very much aware of that. But it seems to me that the drive for this inquiry has come from the right wing of politics in Australia. For this Committee to conduct such an inquiry without going further and conducting an inquiry into many countries around the world will bring no credit to the Committee or the Parliament. This Committee could well look at human rights and civil liberties in Iran, South Africa, Pakistan, India, Zimbabwe or Rhodesia, Indonesia, the Philippines, East Timor, West Irian, countries in South America such as Brazil, Argentina and Columbia, Thailand, Queensland as it is at present, and Cambodia. Where do we stop?
– And Yugoslavia, Hungary and Czechoslovakia.
-By the interjections, I think the Senate agrees that one does not know where to stop when we get into the field of civil liberties and human rights. It is an extremely damaging exercise when we try to poke our noses into the internal affairs of one of our best trading clients. One might disagreethat that should be the criteria, that because a country is one of our best customers we should not do this sort of thing. I wonder what the reaction of this Parliament and this nation would be if the Soviet Union were to conduct an inquiry into the rights of Aborigines in Australia or Queenslanders at the present time in absentia.
– I seek leave to make a further statement in order to allay some of the apprehensions of honourable senators.
-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.
-For the benefit of honourable senators I recall to their minds how this situation arose. This was touched on in part by Senator Missen who referred to a deputation that attended upon the Parliament. What happened was that a petition of many thousands of signatories was presented in the House of Representatives. The House of Representatives discussed the matter. In an unusual device in that place- I think it was in accordance with Standing Order 192 -the House ordered by a unanimous vote that the petition be printed. There was no dissent whatsoever; the motion was carried on voices. Honourable senators will recall that one of the patterns which has evolved in the Senate is that petitioners have the right to have their petitions at least acknowledged. The Senate refers all its petitions to standing committees of the Senate to examine them and, if necessary, report back to the Senate.
In this context the resolution of the other place was conveyed to the Joint Committee on Foreign
Affairs and Defence. The Committee consists of 21 members, 14 of whom are members of the House of Representatives and seven of whom are honourable senators. The Committee took this into consideration as I explained in the statement I put down by leave of the Senate. Because of the scope of the whole matter the Committee decided that it should be related specifically to the problems of Soviet Jewry. In other words, it decided to narrow the terms of reference in reply to the petitioners. That is what it amounts to. However, for many reasons which are proper to the Committee’s consideration and which it has debated from time to time it came to the conclusion that this was an exclusive area of analysis and examination which should not be confined to the area of Soviet Jewry alone but should relate to the question of minorities inside the Soviet Union in the context of both the Declaration on Human Rights and the Helsinki Accord. In the Helsinki Accord it was expressly agreed by the Soviet Union and other participants that matters relating to the freedom of individuals and minorities in countries which accorded in the signing of the Helsinki Agreement could be examined. There is no question as to whether the sovereign Parliament of Australia has a right to examine matters which concern a large number of people inside the society in which we live.
Senator Mulvihill remarked earlier today that 40 per cent of the people in this country came from other countries. I say in terms of a soft impeachment that I have never heard as many queries made about the categorisation of Australians as have been made by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in various public bodies and in other parts of the world. It has been a constant critic of Australia’s administration of Papua New Guinea, including the Trustee Council, the No. 4 Committee and the General Assembly. Members of the Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee, which is a joint committee composed of members drawn from all parties of both Houses of Parliament, have considered this matter. They have given it very grave and deep thought. They anticipated all the arguments that had been put forward. They anticipated the apprehensions that have been expressed in the Parliament this evening. I assure honourable senators that there is no intention of exacerbating the relations that properly should exist between sovereign nations. I merely remark that if the Soviet Union has something to hide- it may have something to hide- it should offer no objection.
In order to satisfy Senator O ‘Byrne I say simply that the Sub-committee which has been authorised by the Joint Committee to examine this matter is chaired by a distinguished member of the House of Representatives, Mr Beazley. He is a member of the Opposition and he was a Minister of State in the last Administration. I do not think anyone could doubt the Honourable Kim Beazley ‘s attitude of fairness and objectivity.
– He will not be here after the next election.
-I am not here to anticipate events which may occur. I have known Mr Beazley far longer in parliamentary life than any member of the Opposition with the possible exception of Senator O ‘Byrne. He is a man of the highest and utmost integrity. I will not hear him adjured in this place or any other place. Mr Beazley has informed me as Chairman of the Sub-committee that as a result of discussions which he and I have had, he has approached the Ambassador to the USSR who is accredited to this Government in Canberra. His Excellency had informed Mr Beazley that he would be happy to see him. Mr Beazley and his Sub-committee intend to call upon His Excellency and discuss things in an amicable and, I hope, amiable way. Therefore the apprehensions felt by honourable senators at least at this stage are unjustified. I suggest that their apprehensions are false. As long as I am the Chairman of the Committee and Mr Beazley is the Chairman of the Sub-committee I am sure that the rights and proprieties which exist between governments will be protected. In the final analysis this Committee, in the terms of the resolution under which it operates, can determine its own business and proceed in its own way. Until such time as the Parliament sees fit to change the terms under which the Committee operates or to change the constituents of the Committee it intends to proceed in that manner.
page 1795
-I present the report on Advisory Opinions by the High Court by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs together with the submissions received by the Committee in relation to the reference.
Ordered that the report be printed.
– by leave- I move:
This matter was referred to the Committee on 3 1 May 1977. This question has been the subject of legal and political consideration since the early days of federation. In 1910 the Commonwealth Parliament attempted to confer an advisory opinion jurisdiction upon the High Court by the Judiciary Act 1910. In 1921 the High Court held that this Act was invalid as it was outside the legislative power of the Commonwealth. In 1927 a royal commission was established to review the Constitution and in 1929 it presented its report. One of this recommendations was that the Constitution should be amended to enable the High Court to give advisory opinions. No action was taken on the royal commission’s recommendation. The matter is presently on the agenda of the Constitutional Convention which has not, to date, come to any conclusion in relation to it.
In the course of its consideration of this reference the Committee had to consider the following questions:
The Committee reports affirmatively on the first two questions and sets out in detail the jurisdiction it considers should be conferred upon the High Court. The resolution of these three questions involved the consideration of issues fundamental to the role of the Courts in Australia today.
In the course of its inquiry the Committee has considered submissions from the Law Council of Australia and other professional associations, from interested academics and the AttorneyGeneral ‘s Department. The Committee has also reviewed the practice and procedure in other common law countries. From the evidence and material before it, the Committee became aware that the current system of reviewing constitutional changes can and does create serious problems, the most important of which arises out of the delays which occur in having the validity of legislation determined by the High Court. This was illustrated to the Committee by material provided to it by the Attorney-General’s Department. The Committee is of the opinion that the legislative process would be considerably improved if the High Court was given the power to give advisory opinions.
Another matter which had considerable significance in the Committee’s deliberations was the fact that the States have the power to seek advisory opinions from State courts and that in fact one State, New South Wales, has passed legislation requiring the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal to give advisory opinions on a limited range of matters. The curious situation arises that there would be a right of appeal from an advisory opinion of a State Supreme Court to the Privy Council but no appeal could be made to the High Court.
The report is the unanimous conclusion of the all-party Committee which consists of members of the three political parties represented in the Senate. In summary the Committee’s recommendations are:
That the Constitution should be amended so that the Attorneys-General of the Commonwealth and the States or a person authorised by the fiat of an Attorney-General may seek the advice of the High Court:
-My purpose in rising at this stage is mainly to invoke those forms which will provide the Senate with an opportunity to engage, at perhaps some more appropriate date, in a debate on this important matter. I would hope that at that time the Senate would indicate its acceptance and adoption of the Committee’s recommendations. The report is very important in that it is directed to the means which ought to be employed to correct what the Committee believes is a deficiency in our present system. The recommendation that a referendum be conducted to correct this deficiency is itself an indication of the importance of this matter and I hope that between now and when the report is more fully debated honourable senators, especially those interested in legal and constitutional matters and processes, will give it their close study.
The question of clothing the High Court of Australia with the responsibility for giving advisory opinions has, as the Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs pointed out, been an issue in this country for well over 50 years. As he noted clearly and succinctly, the Judiciary Act was passed in 1910 but it was not until 192 1 that the High Court rendered an opinion that that Act was invalid. This highlighted the fact that the High Court did not have jurisdiction in the area of advisory opinions, a function that has been exercised for many years now in certain countries whose constitutions were drafted along lines similar to our own. Some countries have persisted in the use of advisory opinions. Some States of the United States of America, in particular, have departed from that practice.
It was obviously the view of this Parliament in its early days that the High Court had advisory opinions jurisdiction, but in 1921 that belief changed. The Committee is unanimous as a result of its investigations and the views that have been expressed to it and having regard to the sources from which those views have emanated, that the High Court should have such jurisdiction.
– Only in limited areas.
– Yes. The area in question, which is that of advisory opinions jurisdiction, is clearly set out in the report now before the Senate. I would hope that honourable senators would consider the report closely, because it is no light matter to go to the country and seek by referendum the authority of the people to change the Constitution in order to permit a particular function, which Parliament believes is appropriate, to be put into effect. I sincerely hope that in the intervening period between now and when the report is debated honourable senators will turn their attention to it so that we all can be better informed. I know it would be the wish of all members of the Committee that the Senate would uphold its recommendations and would ensure to the best of its ability that they are adopted. I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
page 1797
Senator KNIGHT (Australian Capital Territory) I present the report of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory on a proposal for a variation of the Plan of Layout of the City of Canberra and its Environs, 64a Series.
Ordered that the report be printed.
-by leave-The report I have just tabled deals with a single item omitted from the 64th Series of Variations to the City
Plan tabled last week. The proposal involves a road variation in Corinna and Keltie Streets at Phillip in the Woden Town Centre to enable the construction of boom-gate parking adjacent to shops at the Centre. Similar proposals relating to Civic were contained in the report on the 64th Series and the Committee recommended their implementation.
The introduction of boom-gate parking is, in the Committee’s view, an appropriate innovation in Canberra at present. The new system is intended to ensure that parking costs are distributed more equitably between those wishing to park all day and those making short visits for the purpose of shopping or other business. It will also mean that parking can be controlled more effectively and that parking charges are paid. The Committee recommends implementation of the proposal. However, the Committee is firmly of the view that the public should not be inconvenienced by construction work being undertaken during the Christmas period and that work should not begin before 1 January 1978. It is noted that the project is planned for completion by March 1978. The total cost with associated works is estimated to be $850,000. I commend the report to the Senate.
page 1797
Debate resumed from 25 October on motion by Senator Cotton:
That the BUI be now read a first time.
– I seek to utilise the time that is accorded to me under the Standing Orders concerning the motion for the first reading of a money Bill to raise a matter that I believe is of great importance to this country. Quite frankly, I believe that the nation by and large has been sold a pup in this regard. I refer to the proposal to build an Omega station in this country. As far as I can ascertain at the moment it is to be built in the South Gippsland area. Honourable senators may know that the previous Liberal-Country Party Government- that is, the one in office before 1 972- received overtures from the United States of America about the building in this country of an Omega station. In 1972, if I remember correctly, the Labor Government decided, as a result of a decision taken by the Federal Conference of the Australian Labor Party in the previous year, to set up an inquiry. That was done through the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, which brought down. a majority decision in favour of the building of such a station. There was also a minority report at that time.
The Australian Labor Party’s conference in Perth early in July of this year agreed by a majority of one- a very narrow majority- to go along with the building of this Omega station. That is a very brief rundown of what has happened in the last five, six or seven years.
On 2 1 September of this year I asked a question on this matter of the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, In part, I asked: ls he aware that the Norwegian Parliament set up a Commission of Investigation in April 1975 to inquire into the establishment of Loran C and an Omega station in that country? Did this Commission find that Norwegian public servants had misled the Norwegian Cabinet and Parliament by understating the importance of Omega for American military plans?
On 19 October- this month- I received the following answer to my question from the Hon. P. J. Nixon, Minister for Transport:
Dear Senator Primmer,
I refer to the question which you directed to my colleague, Senator Carrick, in the Senate of 21 September 1977. You asked a question about Omega and referred to an inquiry that was held in Norway during 1975.
I am advised that the Norwegian Parliament set up a Commission of Investigation (the Schei Commission) in April 1 975 to inquire into the establishment of Loran C and Omega. The commission concluded its work on 23 December 1975 and an official summary of the findings was released. In brief, the Commission found that the information which was given to the authorities on the matters under consideration was accurate. It also found that no official had acted in any way to justify criticism. The conclusions of the Committee were reached on a unanimous basis.
The Schei Commission was the only Norwegian official inquiry into the establishment of Loran C and Omega. The official findings show that no attempt was made to misrepresent the role of these navigation systems by Norwegian officials.
Part 5 of the report of the Commission contains documents which are confidential to the Norwegian Parliament, but I am endeavouring to obtain a copy of the official summary and to have it translated.
That is a problem that I had about a month ago when I tried to get hold of the official summary and a translation thereof. The pertinent part of this reply from the Minister, I think, is contained in the second last paragraph, wherein he states and I reiterate:
The official findings show that no attempt was made to misrepresent the role of these navigation systems by Norwegian officials.
I suggest that the letter should read that the officially released findings show no attempt was made to misrepresent the role of these navigation systems by Norwegian officials because information that has come to me recently suggests that a very different role has been played by the Norwegian officials, the Norwegian Defence
Department and the American Defense Department and, I believe, go on to show that the Norwegian Parliament, politicians and Cabinet were gravely misled at the time of the inquiries into the establishment of an Omega base in Norway.
In 1975, Captain Anders Hellebust Norwegian Army intelligence officer, compiled a political science dissertation on the decisionmaking processes responsible for Omega and Loran C stations being built in Norway. He showed that civil servants had deliberately misled the Norwegian Cabinet and Parliament by understating the importance of Omega to American military plans, in particular missile submarines. That was done to assist the construction of navigation stations. The Norwegian Omega station, as we know, has been in operation since 1972. The Hellebust study was to have been an unpublished thesis. However, it was leaked to a daily newspaper, which led to a report in the Soviet Army newspaper Red Star and an immediate political row swept through Norway about the Omega and Loran C stations in that country. As a result of that the Norwegian Government appointed the investigating committee. I understand that an investigating committee in Norway is similar to a royal commission in our parliamentary language. That investigating committee was set up on 4 April 1975 and was known as the Schei Commission. It was set up to investigate Captain Hellebust ‘s allegation.
The Commission reported in December 1975, but its deliberations and conclusions were classified secret. At the same time there was published a censored version about half the length of the original. This report was discussed in the Norwegian Parliament on 7 June of this year. Little information about this meeting was given. The Parliament decided not to make the issues in the case publicly known. Shortly after, however, the newspaper of the Left Socialist Party- New Times- published leaks of the proceedings of the secret parliamentary meeting, together with the ultimatum of the Party’s President on the publishing of the secret report. Then it all happened. The contents of the secret report were revealed by Berg Furre, the Left Socialist Party’s President and a member of the Norwegian Parliament. The next day the entire report was published illegally by Pax Publishing House. The first print ran to 3,500 copies and sold out on the first day. I understand that the title of the Schei Commission report is ‘Loran C and Omega. Investigations and Conclusions from the Commission for Investigation in the matter of the Establishment of Loran C and
Omega Stations in Norway. Commission Established by Royal Resolution April 4, 1 975 ‘.
I go on to say what I understand the Schei report to have revealed. It revealed, amongst other things, that the Norwegian military intelligence service and officials of the Foreign Affairs Department believed in 1964-65 that Omega was intended for missile submarines. I intrude into the matter that I have raised to say that that was something that was vehemently denied by officials from the Department of Transport, the Department of Defence and all the other people in this country who came before the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence during its inquiry. I was a member of that Committee and I recall very vividly that official after official from varous departments came before us and denied that Omega had any relevance at all to missile submarines. Yet we have here, in what is unfortunately a leaked document but one which purports to be the report of a royal commission or its equivalent in Norway, the statement that Omega is intended for missile submarines. The material continues:
For example, on page 67 of the Schei report, as published by Pax, it says:
In a note of October 14th, 1964 Secretary Ostende ofthe Foreign Department stated amongst other things that- . . There is no specific military interest for Norway in having an Omega Station located in this country as I understand it, it is a foregone conclusion that Omega will cover purely American needs, and NATO consequently will not enter into the picture.
Another important aspect is that the Omega system will probably be used by Polaris Submarines’.
Also, in a note of 14 October, Bureauchief Graver refers to a telephone conversation he had with acting Bureauchief Bergesen in the Defence Department, and stated amongst other things-
It is very important that the matter is decided upon immediately as construction of the trial station has to be started now if it is to be ready by the winter. It is of great importance for the future NATO communication station that this be done as it will give important experience in antenna icing problems. Bureauchief Bergesen informed me at my request- that the Omega station would be operated by Norwegian personnel and that it was part of a global navigation system which could, but was not intended exclusively to serve submarines . . .’
In a later note of 17 October, Secretary Ostende further stated: . . . Omega is believed to be a general navigation system for planes, surface vessels and submarines. Omega can cover enormous areas on all oceans. Loran C which is more precise only covers a limited part of the oceans. A polaris submarine consequently can use Omega on all oceans of the entire globe, and an Omega receiver is supposed to be less expensive than a Loran C receiver . . .’
The matter goes on:
In the brochure ‘How Omega Operates’ published by the US Navy’s Omega Project Office, it is stated-
Omega is the only navigation method that is as wellsuited for submarines as for aircraft or surface vessels. Its low frequencies penetrate sea water to appreciable depths. They also travel through sea ice. Thus a completely submerged submarine can be guided by Omega through any seas, including those that lie beneath the frozen polar regions. Only reception is required, so the submarine user does not reveal his position’.
That quotation is from pages 87 and 88 of the Schei report. The matter continues:
On the committee’s meeting on 22 October, a representative of the Defence Staff gave a testimony on the military uses, and concluded that the Omega system was of great importance to the Polaris submarines.
Under those circumstances I found it worthwhile to order investigations on the sources, and I have been through what is to be found in the archives of the Foreign Department. It was found that the political office (under then bureau leader Graver) had been aware of these special aspects. In a top secret note of October 16th, 1974, it is however stated that: According to Colonel Rorholt the Omega system cannot be said to nave any specific importance to the Polaris submarines.’
Further on, the material which I have available to me states:
Thereafter, it is stated that later reports show that signals from the Omega stations can be received by submerged submarines, and that a single manipulation in Washington is enough to change wavelength so that none but special vessels (the submarines) can receive the signals.
That question was raised during the inquiry of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence into the uses of Omega. Again, officials of the various departments in this country denied vehemently that Omega signals could be utilised in that way, that they could be turned on or off or set in such a way that, in the event of an emergency, only certain vessels could pick them up. To quote again from the information I have:
It is stated: ‘. . . Thus, at any moment, as a crisis unfolds, Omega can go secret and thereon frequent random variations of band can maintain that secrecy; American Polaris-type submarines alone can pick up signals for more accurate targeting fixes. Not only is this notion of Project Omega technically feasible but also strategically plausible.
To quote further from the same material, the officer states:
. We need to know:
I stress that without regard to the answers that we receive to the above questions, it is possible that we should enter into an agreement with the Americans on making the (Norway) station permanent. After all, we are living under the American nuclear umbrella, and have to take the consequences of this. But we have to know what we are doing, and my investigations of the documents to be found in the Foreign Department does not convince me that so is the case.’
End of secret quote . . . The Schei report also reveals that a senior Defence Department official recognised that Omega would ‘place a considerable stress on our relations- that is the Norwegians ‘ relations- with the Soviet Union’. This is revealed in the previously mentioned note of October 14th 1964 by Bureau Chief Graver, referring to a telephone conversation he had with Acting Bureau Chief Bergesen in the Defence Department. The note says-‘ . . . Regarding the realities of this case I would point out that any agreement to operate (Omega) for the US Navy, will place a considerable stress on our relations with the Soviet Union. . .’
Also, in a note of December 1st 1969 to the Deputy Director Vibe, in the Foreign Department, Lieutenant Colonel Torp of the Defence Staff Intelligence Service said-
. Omega makes the following possible:
If one takes this into account and then considers the sort of military uses that will be served by Omega then one cannot avoid the conclusion that the Soviet Union will find ample grounds for objecting to a permanent station being established . . .’
The material goes on to state:
The Schei report therefore reveals something which until now has been totally unknown- that between 1 964 and 1969 there was an internal debate within the administration concerning the military importance of Omega.
While representatives of the Defence staff clearly stated that Omega would be used by Polaris submarines, there was also at that time an official denial from the US on the grounds that it was not accurate enough.
I intrude here to remind the Senate, the Parliament and the people of Australia that in 1973 we had a similar denial by the American Ambassador to Australia, one Marshall Green, when he stated that Omega had no military function. The existence of this internal debate was not made known to the Parliament, that is the Norwegian Parliament, and the Schei report does not say whether the Cabinet came to know of it. But the Defence Minister’s memorandum to the Cabinet on 14 April 1970 mentioned only the American denial and this decided the issue for the Foreign Department and the Cabinet. This was despite the fact that even immediately after the United States denial the representative of the intelligence service of the military general staff repeated the conclusion that Omega was linked to missile-carrying submarines.
The report, in my opinion, documents active collaboration between American defence officials and Norwegian civil servants to misrepresent the purpose of the navigation systems, that is Omega and Loran C. On several occasions there were tactical discussions going on between American and Norwegian officials to decide how these military matters could best be presented so that they would be approved by the Parliament. However, if the Norwegian Parliament had deficient and partly misleading information from the Cabinet, the matter I have before me believes that Parliament and Cabinet cannot be freed from some of the responsibility for the decisions about Loran C and Omega being made on such an insecure foundation.
When the Omega case was being considered in Norway in 1971 there was not a single representative in the Norwegian Parliament who asked any question or made any criticism, even though it was evident to them surely that the installation was to be financed by the United States Defence Department. The Schei report shows clearly that neither of these military systems were being proposed through NATO but were the subject of purely bilateral arrangements between the United States and Norway. Both Loran C and Omega had as their sole end the satisfying of American military needs, although in the case of Omega civilian use was also offered as public justification for the base. I believe that the leaking of this report fills a large gap in the to-ings and fro-ings of the whole debate on Omega. To my mind it certainly fills in a very large gap in the questions which were asked and the answers which were given in the advice which was offered by civil servants from all departments in this country. When I think back over what was a rather lenghty exercise they seemed to duck for cover or hide behind all sorts of excuses when one started to ask pertinent questions about the role of an Omega base. I hope that the Minister for Transport, Mr Nixon, who will be responsible for any proposal to build that base in Australia will have another look at this matter in the light of the material which has latterly come out of Norway.
– I take the opportunity on the first reading of this money Bill, the Oilseeds Levy Bill 1977, to refer to two subjects which are of particular interest to me and which 1 believe are of considerable interest to the Australian people. I gather that you, Mr Deputy President, would have received two volumes today from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Division of Soils. These are two of a series of four such publications. They are entitled Discovering Soils. I found this material of interest to me because, as honourable senators are aware, I have just completed an inquiry into the woodchip industry and the effects of woodchip and forestry generally on the environment. Therefore I found these publications of great interest. The first volume is a fairly technical one and deals with matters such as: What is soil; formation of soils; soil chemistry and plant growth; soil chemistry and soil physical property; soil chemistry and corrosion problems; soils and water; soil biology; soil testing and tests for agricultural and garden soils. It is a very worthwhile document which I commend to honourable senators and to the public generally.
– These excellent documents were presented by the Minister for Science.
-I was’ coming to that. I think it is a tribute to the Minister that his Department is producing documents like that which are of great significance to Australia.
– Australia has the greatest resource.
– I was going to refer to Discovering Soils No. 2 and to the section which is entitled ‘Soil- Australia’s Greatest Resource’. Under the heading ‘Soils and Science ‘ it states:
The second half of the 19th century was a period of rapid expansion in the use of soils for agriculture in Australia. Inland arid regions were explored and extensive sheep and cattle stations established, the southern wheatlands were cleared of their native vegetation, irrigation areas were established along the Murray River.
The second half of the 19th century was also a period of rapid expansion in science and technology in Europe and America. Discoveries in chemistry, physics and biology made possible a host of new industrial products, and they also provided a basis for the solution of many agricultural problems. For example, the discovery that plants needed certain nutrients usually obtained from the soil, led to the manufacture of fertilizers such as superphosphate. Studies of soils, particularly those of Russia and America led to the development of methods of classifying and mapping soils and of methods of combating erosion.
Some of these discoveries came only just in time for Australian agriculture. Already by the 1880s yields of wheat were declining in many areas. Experiments at Roseworthy Agricultural College in South Australia had shown that this was due mainly to phosphorous deficiency . . .
High levels of salt in irrigated soils were eventually reduced by extensive drainage systems.
These matters, of course, are increasingly becoming more of a problem, particularly in South
Australia. I know Senator Davidson only recently referred to a report of the Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution of which he was Chairman. He asked questions, this week I believe, concerning what the Government was doing about certain recommendations that were made in that report. Some things have taken place because attention was given to the report. In South Australia we depend very largely for our water on the River Murray. It was with some pleasure that the other day I saw that the Government had seen fit to set up a three-State plan to reduce salinity in the River Murray. I understand that a team of Federal and State officers has been appointed to develop a coordinated plan to deal with this very serious problem. The salinity problem in the River Murray is costing South Australia $4m a year. I understand that the cost is escalating at about $100,000 per annum. Therefore it is a very serious problem as far as South Australia is concerned. South Australia is in a different position from the other States that use the River Murray water supply. Water from the River Murray supplies our orchards and vineyards as well as just over 30 per cent of our domestic water supply in normal years. This year we are facing a drought and I have no doubt that we will be using over 50 per cent of River Murray water for our domestic water supply. I think that the use made of River Murray water by South Australia contrasts quite dramatically with the use made by New South Wales and Victoria of the River Murray for the irrigation of green forage and pastures.
I am very interested in the volumes because they point out matters related to land management, the effect of agriculture on soils and so on. This aspect was highlighted during the examination made by the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment ofthe woodchip industry. We saw evidence in some parts of Australia where indiscriminate farming had caused salinity problems in Australian inland waters. I believe this highlights the need for the Commonwealth Government and the States to look towards the day when we can establish some national policy with respect to land use planning. I shall again quote from the document entitled: ‘Soil- Australia’s Greatest Resource’. Under the heading ‘Problems’ the document states:
What about: the continuing march of erosion in many cropped areas the effects of overgrazing by rabbit, sheep, cow and goat in dry inland areas massive losses of production through soil-borne pests and diseases the effects of high prices for fertilizers, leading to less use and lowered production the effects of high and rapidly increasing costs of fuel on a highly mechanized agriculture the depletion of reserves of raw materials for fertilizers the limits to a system that is a one-way track from mine to field, kitchen, sewerage system and sea the alienation of good agricultural land for houses, factories and roads competition for land between agricultural, commercial and recreation interests the effects of pollutants of all kinds on soils
That again highlights the need to have a very close look at the question of an appropriate land use plan for the future. I recall recently something that was said by Professor Peter Schwerdtfeger, a very prominent Professor of meteorology at the Flinders University and a friend of the Minister for Science (Senator Webster). He suggested that Australia ought to be very concerned about the marginal farming areas and how they are gradually becoming deserts. He put a view that I thought was quite logical- it is one that bears consideration by the governments not only Federal but also State, because in any case this is probably more a State matter than a Federal matter. He said we ought to be examining the possibility of establishing forestry plantations in these marginal areas not only in the interests of preventing the spread of desert but also as a means of employing people at a time when our employment level is not as good as we would like to see it. Therefore I would suggest to the Minister that he might examine that proposition.
– Hear, hear! senator JESSOP- I am glad to know that Senator Button is interested m that proposition which may not be quite as significant in Victoria because that State has a higher rainfall than does South Australia. Also Victoria does not have the marginal fanning areas that we have in our State. I believe that this proposition is deserving of the support of people from Victoria as well as people from the other States that enjoy a higher rainfall than does South Australia.
I would like to conclude my speech by referring to the water filtration program in South Australia. Of course, water filtration is quite an expensive proposal. Earlier this year I examined the water filtration project at Anstey Hill and Hope Valley in company with Mr Corcoran who at the time was the South Australian Minister for Works.
– Who else was with you, Senator?
-I think the honourable senator might have been there too.
-Senator Messner and Senator Bishop were there.
– Yes, there were quite a few senators from South Australia who were interested in the project. I have no doubt my fellow senators from South Australia made representations concerning the need to continue funding this project as an on-going program. It is regrettable, of course, that the State government did not proceed with this program earlier because if it had done so we could have had a water filtration program in South Australia for about half the cost. It was quite encouraging to me to know that something like $ 10.3m has been allocated so that that program can be continued in South Australia.
– That was a commitment made by the Whitlam Government.
-That is quite right The present Government recognised the importance of continuing that program. I was rather disturbed though by the South Australian Premier’s undertaking during the recent election campaign in South Australia to provide filtered water for metropolitan Adelaide. However, he made no comment about the need to provide filtered water for places like Port Augusta, Whyalla and Port Pirie which have suffered from the water borne disease amoebic meningitis. I think that was an omission that deserves some reprimand.
– It should have been the first priority.
-I would have thought so. This is a typical State Labor government attitude which is more anxious to gain votes in the metropolitan area. I have given my support to the ongoing program which involves, I think, about seven installations in metropolitan Adelaide, in the Victor Harbour area and in the Barossa Valley. I certainly support the idea that we should be supplying filtered water to the northern Spencer Gulf area as well. I will continue to press in that direction. I think the people must recognise, though, that the provision of filtered water involves a considerable expenditure. I wonder sometimes why we cannot devise a way in which, rather than pouring 90 per cent of filtered water on to lawns and gardens, we can provide domestic filtered water only. It seems to me that we should not be flushing toilets or watering lawns with this valuable commodity.
– Something like Senator Hall was suggesting.
– That is certainly right.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Davidson)- Order! I am mindful of the South Australian interest in the debate which is proceeding in the chamber at the moment. But I think Senator Jessop should be allowed to continue to address the Chair rather than to be distracted.
-Thank you for your observation, Mr Acting Deputy President. It occurs to me that it would be an economic proposition to provide each householder with a domestic filter to supply water which could be used for cooking and so on. In my view it would be an economic proposition but perhaps it would be complicated by the fact that it may be difficult to service that facility.
– It is not difficult at all. I am quite happy to show you mine.
-It may well be that Senator McLaren can put forward a way in which this can be introduced. I am sure that, if we could provide Senator McLaren and other residents of South Australia with a ‘free’ domestic appliance, it could be done for a cost less than $ 1 54m. That is a proposition that probably would be unacceptable in any case but it is worthwhile thinking about. I have discussed two subjects-the soil, which is Australia’s greatest resource, and water, which is South Australia’s very rare resource and one that needs to be guarded closely. Certainly we have to do all we can to prevent a continuing salinity problem in the River Murray.
Senator Jessop has largely been talking about agricultural matters in this first reading debate on the Oilseeds Levy Bill 1977. 1 want to talk about cultural rather than agricultural matters and refer particularly to two questions which were asked in the Senate this morning by Senator Melzer and me regarding the removal of the Terry Lane program from radio station 3LO in Melbourne. I will indicate at the beginning some of the public concern that has been aroused by this matter in Melbourne by referring to this morning’s Melbourne Age in which in a section entitled ‘Access Age’ under the heading ‘Unanimous Outrage at the Axing of Terry Lane’ a number of telephoned views have been published. Perhaps they express more eloquently than I can the feelings of people who have been listeners to that program.
– But try, senator.
– I do not know what is upsetting Senator Baume at this time of night, and I did not even catch his interjection, but if he listens he may be better informed. The views to which I refer are all short. One comment is:
It was only because of Terry Lane’s voice of sweet reason that I listened to 3LO. The ABC chairman, Mr Norgard, is cutting his own throat, I hope!
That comment may be unkind to Mr Norgard because he as Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission may have had nothing to do with the decision to remove the Terry Lane program. Nonetheless it expresses the concern of one listener. Another view is:
If this gentleman is so dangerous that he must be silenced then heaven help Australia.
Another reader stated:
When the gentle Terry Lane and his millions of listeners have had their talk-back program wiped out, our Government begins to look hypocritical in mouthing prim platitudes about South African repression. It is sad that open discussion of issues cannot be tolerated in Australia.
Another view reads:
With the removal of Terry Lane from morning radio, it’s back to the kitchen sink and the soap opera for women who must comprise the majority of his audience.
– Are you suggesting that the Government has removed it?
-I did not suggest that at all and if the honourable senator would be good enough to listen he would understand what I am saying.
– Do you think that we should be instructing the Commission?
-If the honourable senator is prepared to wait I will come to the point about which he expresses concern but about which he is not really concerned at all because he is leaving the chamber. That view continues:
Is this the latest move in a planned campaign to set women back to their former situation of ignorance and impotence?
Another comment was:
We are extremely upset by the ABC’s decision to transfer Terry Lane. His knowledgeable and even-paced presentation has given thousands of listeners extreme enjoyment. This is just another example of the commissioners’ gutlessness.
I do not think that is fair to the commissioners of the ABC because I believe that they have not discussed the question of the removal of the Terry Lane program. However, it may be an example of the gutlessness of the management of the Australian Broadcasting Commission to which I shall refer in a moment and, in so doing, I will allude to the point which is concerning Senator Chaney.
– Who has come back into the chamber.
-Who has come back into the chamber. Another view was:
It is with distress and amazement that I read of the cancellation of Terry Lane’s talk-back program. It had appeared that there was general agreement in the community on the high quality and fair-mindedness of this program. Surely, this decision will be reconsidered.
Questions were asked about this matter in the chamber this morning because it is a matter of concern to thousands of people in Melbourne. Mr Lane conducted a thoughtful discussion program of the talk-back variety and it has been common knowledge in broadcasting circles for some months that it was the intention of the ABC management to dismiss Mr Terry Lane when it got the opportunity. I am not suggesting that there was any particular reason for this except that it may be because of the sort of gutlessness to which one of those telephone callers referred. But it is extraordinary that Mr Lane was dismissed yesterday after on Monday in his talkback program, as is his wont, he had taken an item from the newspapers to discuss with his talk-back listeners. The item he took from the newspapers on Monday was the uranium demonstrations in Brisbane. He discussed that item and on Tuesday he was dismissed. I am not prepared to say that he was dismissed because of that program. But one can only suspect that that might have been the catalyst which resulted in the removal of this program from 3LO. If it was not the circumstance which resulted in the removal of the Terry Lane program from 3LO the management of the Australian Broadcasting Commission is very stupid because thousands upon thousands of listeners will think that it was the reason why Mr Lane was dismissed from this program which he conducts every morning.
Whatever the reason, the dismissal itself was either wrong- and I believe it to be profoundly wrong- or most absurdly timed, and the ABC should be very quick to account for it. The extraordinary thing about all this- and this should be of interest to Government senators- is that, whatever one says about the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, the fact is that thousands of people in Melbourne think that Mr Lane was removed because of an atmosphere which has been engendered in the Australian Broadcasting Commission by this Government. After all, we live in a society in which the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) boasted before he became Prime Minister that he would take politics off the front pages of the newspapers. I do not know whether he thought that he was appealing to the bikie section of the electorate or to people of that kind when he made that statement; but the statement must be a matter of concern to any country which has aspirations to be anything other than a banana republic. The fact is that by this act it has been perceived by many people that not only has an attempt been made to take politics off the front pages of the newspapers but also has an attempt been made to stifle the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Commission in a variety of ways. We live in a very strange society in Australia. In every other country of equivalent sophistication and pretentions to democracy the national broadcasting service is always referred to as the state broadcasting service and the other broadcasting services, here known as the ‘commercials’, are referred to as the independent broadcasting services.
In Australia we do it the other way around. The independent broadcasting services are conducted by the state. Those broadcasting services which are regarded as not independent, and quite rightly so, are the commercial broadcasting services, both radio and television.
If, as I suspect, the decision to remove the Terry Lane program was taken by some rather mealy-mouthed and small-minded bureaucrats in the Australian Broadcasting Commission in the hope of pleasing their political masters, that is a dreadful thing. But I believe that the sort of atmosphere in which that type of decision can be taken has been engendered over quite a period of time by the actions of various Ministers of this Government and more specifically by the repeated threats to the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Commission which have been evidenced in the continued cuts in its appropriations made by this Parliament since the present Government came to office. We have seen continued cuts in the ABC budget and consequential cuts in its capacity to make programs of a great variety.
Not only have there been cuts in the funds of the Australian Broadcasting Commission; there have also been a considerable number of quite thinly-veiled threats and other approaches to the Australian Broadcasting Commission by various Ministers of this Government. Mr Nixon, the Minister for Transport in the present Government, has continually made threats against the Commission, has had its program This Day Tonight monitored by a Melbourne monitoring service and, on at least one occasion I know of, referred the contents of a This Day Tonight program to the Prime Minister for comment. Mr
Sinclair, the Leader of the House in the other place, has been a frequent user of the telephone to ABC management to complain about particular programs which he does not like. These are Ministers in the Government which repeatedly mouths cliches about the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. It is in this sort of atmosphere, engendered by what is sometimes overt and in many cases covert interference with the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, that this situation has come about in which members of the management staff of the Commission feel that they might be attracting favourable attention of their political mentors by taking the sort of action which has now been taken in Melbourne.
I wish that we heard a little more talk from Government senators about this important issue. I do regard it as important in terms of the values which I believe and hope that people like Senator Baume and Senator Lajovic hold. The mark of the sort of vital democracy which we hope to be is the independent and free discussion that takes place both in private and on the air waves in Australia- on television and radio- and which is reflected in the media in a variety of ways. The lack of reflection of that sort of discussion is the subject of a much wider debate. But when we have instances like this of quite direct interference, as I see it, with the affairs of the Australian Broadcasting Commission as an independent broadcasting authority and the consequences which flow from that I believe that we have a very serious situation for this country.
I seem to be quoting the Financial Review quite a bit lately. However, the newspaper stated in a recent editorial that Mr Fraser has now given a new definition of loyalty in this country. One wonders what sort of definition of loyalty he will be giving next. If the Prime Minister expects that sort of loyalty from the Australian Broadcasting Commission, we are on our way to living in a very grey society and one which I do not believe any of us can be particularly proud to live in. These sorts of things could not happen in Great Britain. They could not happen in countries like Sweden and West Germany, countries which are vital democracies ofthe kind to which I hope Australia would aspire to be.
– But they do happen sometimes; in the BBC, too.
-That is the sort of halfbaked, half-ignorant interjection which -
– It is not ignorant. If you look-
– It is the sort of interjection I would expect from Senator Lajovic in the context of this matter.
– If you read BBC publications you will find that it does the same thing.
-Senator Lajovic undoubtedly will make a speech about this subject which is dear to his heart and explain to the Senate what a iniquitous organisation the British Broadcasting Commission is. It is unfortunate that not many people agree with him on this matter. Of course, not many Australians agree with him about the sort of attitude which he apparently condones towards the ABC. Some 75 per cent of Australian people have a high degree of confidence in the news and current affairs programs of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. They will not continue to have that confidence if this sort of thing continues to take place. The problem with which I am concerned is that the Australian Broadcasting Commission, which has been under attack from a great variety of sources recently and more particularly from this Government in terms of economic strictures which it has placed upon it, will not have many friends left and much respect left as a broadcasting service if this sort of thing takes place at the management level. It is that concern which I want to voice in the Senate tonight in respect to the removal of the Terry Lane program.
The Government would be very well served in the current political environment if the responsible Minister did as he can do; that is, inquire of the Australian Broadcasting Commissioners, none of whom has considered this matter of the removal of this program, whether they might review the decision which has been made by the Victorian management eschelon presumably with the approval of Mr Keith Mackriell, the Director of Radio Services.
- Senator, you draw a fairly long bow. You assume that this man was dismissed for some reason which was political.
-Yes, I have assumed that.
-It may be true or it may be untrue.
-He may have been removed because he had a beard and red hair. I do not know. But the point I am making is that the perception of his listening audience in Melbourne is that that is why it has happened. In the circumstances of this Government s treatment of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, it is not a bad perception at all. What I am suggesting to Government senators is that they should be a little active in seeing that this does not continue to happen. If they do, people will say that this sort of thing happens under the Fraser Government which wants to put politics off the front pages of the newspapers and which wants to discipline the ABC, as certain Ministers have said. That sort of thing happens and people are saying that. I draw that to the attention of Government senators because if they are concerned about this matter and if they are concerned about having a genuinely independent national broadcasting service, they should stand up and say so. None of them, in fact, has done so in this chamber nor have their colleagues in the other chamber since this incident took place.
– Do you want us to tell the ABC what you want it to do?
-No. I understand the point which the honourable senator is seeking to make. The point which I am making is a different one and I hope that the honourable senator will devote some attention to trying to understand that. The point I make is that Senator Lajovic as a politician would be well served if he stood up occasionally and expressed some genuine concern about the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Commission in the broadcasting debates which take place in this chamber. Perhaps he will have an opportunity to do so next week when we debate the broadcasting and television legislation. That legislation will be available for all honourable senators to debate next week.
I am concerned that in relation to the Australian Broadcasting Commission and in particular in relation to what has happened m Melbourne there is another example of the grey palsied hand of conservatism resting on a great national institution with very grave and detrimental effects to the freedom of information and the dissemination of news in this country. If that is so, it is something about which this Parliament ought to be very concerned. I hope others will join me in expressing that concern. I am very worried that if what I have suggested does happen we will more rapidly than I otherwise would have expected attain the status of some sort of banana republic which has the respect of no country which would aspire to democratic freedoms equivalent to those to which I hope members of this Parliament do.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a first time.
– I move:
– It is about time.
– I could not agree more, but who stopped the Bill proceeding to the second reading stage? The purpose of this Bill is to provide for the imposition of a levy on the production of certain oilseeds in Australia. The moneys raised by the levy will be used to finance a research scheme for the Australian oilseeds industry. Provisions for the research scheme are contained in the related Oilseeds Levy Collection and Research Bill 1977. The commencement date of the Act will be fixed by proclamation. It is expected that this will be 1 November 1977, a date chosen to coincide with the seasonal pattern of production.
Initially, the levy will be applied to the production of sunflower seed, soybeans, safflower seed, rapeseed and linseed. However, there is provision for other oilseeds to be brought into the scheme at a later date by regulation. The legislation provides for an initial levy of $1 per tonne with provision for the rate to be varied up to a maximum of $2 per tonne. Any subsequent alterations to the operative rate of levy will be prescribed by regulation. The Bill provides that any action to prescribe additional oilseeds for the purpose of the levy and any change in the operative rate of levy shall take into consideration any relevant recommendation of the Australian Wheatgrowers’ Federation which incorporates within its organisational structure an Oilseeds Committee representing growers in the oilseed producing States.
The legislation provides that the grower is liable to pay the levy. Levy is payable where the grower delivers the oilseeds to another person or processes the oilseeds. For convenience the levy is collected from the crusher or other person to whom the grower delivers the oilseeds. However, it is uneconomic to collect small amounts of levy as the administrative costs associated with their collection are not very different from those involved in collecting larger amounts. Accordingly, provision is made to exempt from the levy a crusher or other person to whom less than 15 tonnes of oilseeds is delivered in any levy year. Similarly, a grower who himself processes less than 15 tonnes of oilseeds in a levy year is exempt. It is expected that given normal seasonal conditions the levy will raise around $200,000 annually. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.
– The Opposition is prepared to support the Bill that is before the Senate, principally because we understand that the initiative and the suggestions for the imposition of the levy and for a research program has come from the farming community itself. I think it has become obvious to the Government as well as to the farming community generally that the production of oilseeds is now to be regarded as an important industry. In many rural areas in the eastern States and in the south west of Western Australia, it has become a significant supplement to wheat income and has provided diversity in general farm activities. As we have noticed from some of the changes that have taken place in the rural sector in recent years, many farmers have moved into areas of diversification, and the oilseed industry is an important new industry that has developed. It is now producing some $40m worth of revenue for the farming community. When we take into consideration that we still have to import half of our needs, it is clear that the legislation can fulfil a very important adjunct to activity in the farming communities. A wide range of oilseeds is being produced -
- Mr President, I take a point of order. I understand that it has been arranged that there should be a cognate debate on this Bill and the Oilseeds Levy Collection and Research Bill. I omitted to mention this fact at the end of my second reading speech. I thought I should raise it now to see whether the Opposition is agreeable.
– We are aware that it is a cognate debate and consequently we are dealing with the principal Bill and with the Bill to implement the levy. A wide range of oilseeds is being produced in Australia, the more common ones being linseed, rapeseed, safflower and sunflower. Production of the various oilseeds has fluctuated as a consequence of seasonal conditions and variations in the prices of wheat, livestock and other products. Of course it has become an important alternate industry to those geographical areas of Australia where the industry is flourishing and where there is potential for further growth. I think it is important to draw attention to the fact that some research has been undertaken by various State departments of agriculture but until now there has been no concerted national program. So, the research proposals that we are considering will follow somewhat similarly to those which have been developed in regard to the wheat industry research program which of course has been administered conjointly by the Commonwealth and the State for some years. The Opposition supports the principle of the proposals put forward in the Bill and believes that there is a potential that should be developed. This potential is significant and every assistance should be given to ensure that Australian producers are technically competitive with their counterparts in Canada, the United States and Europe. There are prospects of improving the sales of oilseed and oilseed products to countries such as Japan, but at present the Canadians have a certain edge on us in this respect. They have certain technical advantages which result in some price differentials. Arising from this legislation and the experience that will flow from it, the hope is that Australia will be placed in a much more competitive position.
The Opposition believes it is important that there is some form of co-ordinated research in the industry and that the most equitable way of financing that research into the production side is for it to be raised by a levy on the production of oilseed. Because ofthe diversity of other authorities and the fact that there is no single marketing organisation equivalent to the Australian Wheat Board, the collection of the levy poses some administrative difficulties. The Opposition is of the view that the procedures set out in this legislation, while having some faults, are the most administratively simple which are available. We assume therefore, arising from that fact, that the collection procedures will be kept under constant review and that in the event of deficiencies arising, amending legislation will be introduced. In other words, to some extent we will have to feel our way in regard to how the levy is applied.
The Opposition, however, does have some concern about the formation of Federal and State research committees to administer the research program. The structure, apparently, is to be similar to that of the State wheat research committees which are dominated by member organisations affiliated with the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation. While it is difficult to judge specifically the operation of the State research committees, I think it is interesting to note that Professor Keith Campbell, Professor of Agricultural Economics at the University of Sydney, has been particularly critical of the way in which State committees allocated funds and has indicated that anybody seeking research funds but who has been critical of the way in which wheat research is handled is unlikely to receive an allocation of research funds. He quotes his own personal experiences of several years ago.
My concern in one which can in part be handled by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair), but I feel that the real remedy rests with the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation. The membership of the Federation is not entirely balanced in that there are no representatives of the Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia, the Stock Owners of South Australia, the Graziers Association of Victoria and the United Graziers Association of Queensland. While these organisations are not as numerically large as the organisations now affiliated with the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation, their members do have a large interest in oilseed production and will be paying a substantial part of the levy proceeds.
On the basis of equity therefore it would seem appropriate for the Minister to suggest that the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation might recommend to him persons for appointment to the State committees for the administration of the oilseed research funds who come from the organisation I have just mentioned. It is important that the research program should be innovative and that the best expertise should be available. I will not go so far as to suggest that the existing composition of the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation is such that it cannot provide a good cross section of persons involved with the oilseed industry. But, on the other hand, I am aware that there are some well known innovators who could make a substantial contribution but who are outside the membership of organisations of the AWF. These are the only reservations that the Opposition has about the Bills. We hope that the end result of raising the levy and initiating research is to the advantage of the Austraiian oilseed industry, and will give further impetus to the development of this industry in Australia. We hope that the co-operation essential to the success of the scheme will be forthcoming from both State and Commonwealth authorities.
– I support the Oilseed Levy Bill 1977 and the Oilseed Levy Collection and Research Bill 1977. 1 am glad to observe that the Opposition also supports these Bills. They are important. They refer to an important industry in the general context of agriculture in this country. The proposition that there should be an expanded oilseed research scheme first came into prominence in June 1975 when the Oilseed Committee of the Australian Wheat Board sought to bring such a scheme into operation. I believe it is appropriate that an organisation as large, as important and as efficient as the Australian Wheat Board should have within it committees such as the Oilseed Committee capable of looking after the interests of its own industry within the wider context of agriculture. After a considerable number of discussions within the industry, between industries and with State and Federal governments it was finally decided that a statutory research scheme should be established for the oilseed industry. This scheme was put to the Australian Agricultural Council. The Ministers concerned agreed to it in February 1 977.
The purpose of the scheme is to provide the money seen to be necessary for a proper measure of research into this important industry. It is to provide by way of levy moneys to research the areas involved in the production of sunflower, safflower, linseed and two other oilseeds, rape seed and soya bean. It also has the capacity to add by regulation any other oil bearing seed product as such addition may become necessary. In a discussion of this nature it is probably worth reflecting on a few areas in which research may be of great value to this industry. I call to mind in the Senate tonight only two or three such areas. Of course, there are many more. In the Australian production of sunflower, for instance, in perhaps the driest continent on earth where the conservation and economic use of moisture is immensely important it is essential that we develop a sunflower plant that does not have a stalk which measures 516 feet to 7 feet in length. That sort of stalk uses an excessive amount of moisture. If research can produce, as unquestionably it can, a dwarf variety with a stalk half or even one-third of that length the conservation of moisture which will result will be of great significance to the industry.
That is just one instance of the sort of objective that research in the oilseed industry referable to sunflowers in particular may well have. In the production of unseed the objective should be to produce an earlier flowering strain which flowers at a time which avoids frost but which at the same time develops a pod and seed which will receive the least possible harm from the heat of the summer. That is the ideal strain to develop. Similarly with rape seed where shattering is of enormous importance, sometimes causing losses of 30 per cent and 40 per cent of seed, the objective of research in the first instance must be to establish a plant with a pod which is not as susceptible to shattering as is commonly the case. The proposed levy is to be $1 a tonne in the first instance. There is a capacity to increase that amount to $2 a tonne by regulation. The $1 a tonne will produce $200,000 to be matched by a Commonwealth grant of similar amount. The initial $400,000 should presumably enable a very significant measure of research to be carried out in this industry. The proviso also exists that unless 1 5 tonnes are produced a grower will not be held responsible for paying the levy.
I turn very briefly to the Oilseed Levy Collection and Research Bill. This establishes a Research Trust Account. The levy is to be deducted from the grower by the purchaser. The purchaser is to be held responsible for paying the money into Consolidated Revenue, from which revenue will be taken and placed in the Research Trust Account. It will then be matched by the Commonwealth contribution. To oversee this research scheme a committee of nine people will be established. Five of them will be producer or grower representatives. There will be one representative from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, one representative from the universities, one representative from the Department of Primary Industry and one person representing the Australian Agricultural Council. The purpose of the committee will be to advise the Minister for Primary Industry as to the proper and appropriate avenues of expenditure in carrying out research in the oilseed industry.
I do not want to speak at any great length on these Bills. I shall close my remarks with a few general comments on the oilseed industry. I believe it should be acknowledged that this industry has a considerable potential in the field of Australian agriculture, relative to both irrigation and dry land agriculture. In a few years it will give a greater measure of flexibility and variability to our agricultural industry and so will add significantly to its strength. Research programs in this industry are in line with the Government’s insistence on maintaining a high level of research across the whole area of Australian agriculture. We have seen significant efforts in research in the wool, wheat, meat and dairying industries- in fact, right across the canvass of agricultural products. The dividends paid to those industries and to the Australian economy by a high level of research are very significant.
The oilseed industry in Australia at the moment produces about $40m in products. It is interesting to remember that the Australian market for oilseed is only half served by our own local production. Obviously there is considerable potential within as well as without the Australian scene. Linseed production in Australia in particular has considerable aptitude to the agricultural scene. It is a plant which fits into the agricultural cycle either at the beginning or at the end. It is a product which is not susceptible to some of the diseases found in highly fertile land such as foot rot and take-all. Consequently, it is a good first plant. Equally, in the final link ofthe cycle, in association with the production of linseed it is extremely easy to establish pastures in the form of legumes, lucerne and subterranean clover because these are not as dense as the traditional cereal product; they are open to much more air and sun and are therefore much more effective as a cover. I have pleasure in supporting the legislation. I believe that research is essential and that the legislation provides the system and method by which it can be implemented.
-The Senate is debating the Oilseeds Levy Bill 1977 and the Oilseeds Levy Collection and Research Bill 1977 as cognate measures. The Opposition supports these Bills, but I would like to make a few remarks concerning them. The Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Cotton) pointed out in his second reading speech on the Oilseeds Levy Collection and Research Bill that the legislation provides for the establishment and operation of a joint Commonwealth and industry research scheme for the oilseeds industry. The funds raised by means of the levy will be paid into the Oilseeds Research Trust Account and the Government will provide a matching contribution on a dollar-for-dollar basis to meet expenditure from the Trust Account on approved research projects.
This action by the Government is in keeping with the recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission with respect to its inquiry into the financing of rural research. It has often been said in the Parliament that the Australian Labor Party has no interest in the welfare of primary producers and others who live in rural areas, but I would emphasise that the Government’s action here is in keeping with the recommendations in the IAC report concerning the inquiry into the financing of rural research. This particular matter was referred to the IAC by the Whitlam Government, through the Special Minister of State, Mr Lionel Bowen, under section 23 of the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973. The first matter referred was in these terms:
Whether funds should be provided, or continue to be provided, by the Australian Government to finance, or assist in financing, rural research and, if so:
what should be the nature and extent of the assistance provided, or continue to be provided by the Australia Government.
what criteria should be used in determining and apportioning research expenditure.
For the purposes of this reference rural research includes research into fisheries.
The second matter referred was as follows: specify the period commencing on the date of this reference and ending 30 June 1976 as the period within which the Commission is to report on the matter described in paragraph 1 of this reference.
That reference was dated 29 January 1 975.
The report, which is dated 25 June 1976, included in recommendation (A) the following paragraph:
provide additional funds:
That is the very thing that this legislation is doing. That is conclusive proof that the Whitlam Labor Government did have the interests of primary producers and country people at heart in referring this, among many other matters, to the consideration of the Industries Assistance Commission. I am gratified that the Government is now seeking to bring into being legislation that conforms with the recommendations of the Commission.
Elsewhere in his second reading speech on the Oilseeds Levy Collection and Research Bill the Minister said:
The proposal for an oilseeds research scheme was initiated by the Oilseeds Committee of the Australian Wheatgrowers’ Federation. The Government has expressed its willingness to participate with the oilseeds industry in a jointly financed research scheme. The Australian Agricultural Council has also endorsed the proposed scheme.
Over the years other research and levy schemes have been agreed to by the Australian Agricultural Council, but unfortunately they have foundered, because the co-operation of the various State governments has been lacking. Consideration of the legislation now before the Senate prompted me to review the Poultry Industry Levy Collection Act, which legislation was introduced by a Liberal-Country Party government when Mr Adermann was the appropriate Minister. Many aspects of the legislation now before the Senate run parallel to it. It was commonly referred to by the poultry farmers as the CEMA scheme, derived from the name Council of Egg Marketing Authorities. I hope that this legislation, too, does not find support in this Parliament and then be opposed in the States.
I well remember the Poultry Industry Levy Collection Act being passed by the other House, at a time when I was not a member of parliament but was taking a prominent part in the poultry industry. Despite the fact that it was passed by a Liberal-Country Party Government, a Liberal Party Minister in South Australia refused to sanction its operation in that State. The Act was in limbo until 1965 when a change of government occurred. A courageous Labor Government and its Minister, Mr Bywaters, sanctioned the implementation of the scheme. However, he lost his seat in Parliament because of the dispute which arose, and we lost the Government. I hope that does not occur with this legislation because of some party parochial interests coming to the fore. The Opposition supports the Bills. I express the sincere hope that this legislation gets off the ground and does not founder because members of certain State governments see fit to make it a political issue. It is a good thing that research has been legislated, and I can see nothing but advantage resulting from the proposal.
– I thank the Senate for its support of the measure and would express the hope that it would have a speedy passage.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without requests or debate.
page 1810
Debate resumed from 20 October, on motion by Senator Cotton:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate.
page 1810
– Order! It being 1 1 p.m., in accordance with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question:
That the Senate do now adjourn.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Senate adjourned at 11.1 p.m.
page 1811
The following answers to questions were circulated:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice, on 27 April 1977:
– The Minister for National Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
Prosecution of D. P. McMahon and J. Moule (Question No. 1134)
asked the AttorneyGeneral, upon notice, on 16 August 1977:
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice, on 6 September 1977:
– The Minister for National Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
Please see the Acting Treasurer’s answer to question No. 1272 (Hansard, 1 1 October 1977, pages 1276-7).
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 25 August 1977:
– The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2) and (3) I refer the honourable senator to the answer provided to Question No. 1272 by the Acting Treasurer. (Hansard, 1 1 October, 1977, pages 1276-7).
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 6 September 1977:
– The following information is provided in answer to the honourable senator’s question:
Military Activity in Irian Jaya (Question No. 1361)
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 22 September 1977-
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question appeared in Hansard on 11 October 1977, page 1278.
asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 18 October 1977:
– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 26 October 1977, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1977/19771026_senate_30_s75/>.