Senate
13 September 1978

31st Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 31st Parliament
  3. 1978

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Condor Laucke) took the chair at 2.15 p.m., and read prayers.

page 515

PETITIONS

Education Funding

Senator RYAN:
ACT

– I present the following petition from 456 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members ofthe Senate in Parliament assembled.

The petition ofthe Federation of Parents and Citizens Associations of New South Wales respectfully showeth:

That as citizens of N.S.W. and parents of State school children, we are most concerned that the quality of education available in our school be of the highest possible standard.

We believe that this can only be achieved if adequate Federal funds are provided. The recently announced policy of direct cuts to Government schools for 1 979 must have an adverse effect on them.

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

Withdrawal of the Guidelines to the Schools Commission for 1979 and acceptance of its recommendations for Government schools.

An increase of a minimum of 5 per cent in real terms on base level programs for 1979.

Restoration of the $8 million cut from the Capital Grants for Government Schools.

Increased recurrent and capital funding to Government schools.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Maternity and Paternity Leave

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 25 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That Australian Government employees strenuously oppose the proposal by the Australian Government to abolish Paternity Leave and restrict the provisions relating to Maternity Leave which are currently contained in the Maternity Leave (Australian Government Employees) Act 1973.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should reject the passage of any legislation which has as its purpose the abolition of Paternity Leave and the restriction of the Maternity Leave provisions.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Woodchip Industry

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 154 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled, we the undersigned citizens do hereby petition you to control the forest damage caused by the woodchip industry.

Petition received and read.

Budget 1978-79

Senator COLSTON:
QUEENSLAND

-I present the following petition from 42 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the latest Fraser Budget will severely contract the Australian Economy, reducing employment and the standard of living of Australian workers.

That increases in taxation and the abolition of taxation concessions will boost the cost of living for the average Australian worker by some $ 1 2 a week. The average Australian earning $200 a week will be forced to meet the following additional costs from the weekly pay packet: $1.80 for petrol $2.00 for cigarettes and drink $ 1 .50 for clothing and footwear $3.50 for mortgage repayments $3.20 for the income tax surcharge

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate will request the Fraser Government to abandon its present restrictive economic policies in favour of the expansionary alternative Budget outlined to the House of Representatives by Opposition Leader Bill Hayden on August 22, as this alternative Budget would reduce the cost of living, boost employment and generate strong economic growth.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Television Transmission in Northern Tasmania

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– I present the following petition from 282 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate:

We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth, in Tasmania respectfully showeth:

That lack of access to television transmission in the Lilydale- Underwood area in Northern Tasmania is a severe disadvantage to the wellbeing of those in the area.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should urge the Federal Government to take action to rectify this situation.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Abortion: Medical Benefits

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– I present the following petition from 320 citizens of Australia:

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

That the provision of payments for abortion through items ofthe Medical Benefits Schedule is an unacceptable endorsement of abortion which has now reached the levels of a national tragedy with at least 60,000 unborn babies being killed in 1977.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will so amend the Medical Benefits Schedule as to preclude the payment of any benefit for abortion.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Postgraduate Research Awards

Senator PUPLICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

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

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned, members of the Sydney University Postgraduate Representative Association, and like minded people, respectfully showeth that the Government decision to tax Commonwealth Postgraduate Research Awards will result in:

a further serious decline in living standards for postgraduate scholars performing valuable low cost research for the Australian community, and

a reduction in the standard of research at the universities as top scholars will be forced to reject offers of inadequately financed Research Awards.

Your petitioners strongly urge that the Commonwealth Government take appropriate action to revert to the former policy of award adjustments in line wtih the Consumer Price Index.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Omega Navigation Station

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 553 citizens of Australia:

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

That Omega is the only worldwide navigation system, whose continuous Very Low Frequency signals can be used by submarines to determine their position, while remaining completely submerged.

That in particular the missile-firing submarines of the USA can improve their destructive potential by using Omega signals.

That it represents a major escalation of the arms race, and directly involves Australia even further in nuclear war strategies.

That therefore an Omega station built in Australia would be a prime nuclear target.

That such a station would therefore represent a further deterioration of Australia’s independence and initiatives towards a non-aligned and peaceful foreign policy.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Australian Government will reject any proposal to build an Omega station on Australian soil.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Budget 1978-79

Senator MCINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 1,181 citizens of Australia:

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

That we deplore the increased hardships imposed by the terms of the recent budget.

That we believe that the changes to Medibank will cause many to place their health at risk in an attempt to maintain their standard of living.

That the Government’s budgetary actions will sharply increase the economic gap between those who have and those who have not.

That the cutting back in real terms of monies allocated for pensioners will cause extra burdens to those already under great stress.

That the actions of the Government can do nothing but increase the already dangerous level of unemployment.

That we as citizens of Australia with a great love and concern for our country, fear that this budget will bring dishonour and disgrace by increasing poverty and crime and will sow the seeds of violence within our democratic community.

Your petitioners therefore respectfully ask that the Government move to lift the onerous burden placed upon them.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

South Australian Country Rail Services

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 152 citizens of Australia:

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

That any downgrading or closures of Country Rail Services in South Australia would have grave consequences for the Railway Industry, Primary Industry, Individual Country Communities and the State as a whole and calls on the Parliament to ensure that the Federal Minister for Transport takes the necessary action to maintain all existing services.

That continued and increased Public Subsidy is fully justified in the long term National Interest.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Postgraduate Research Awards

Senator MASON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 161 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned, members of the Sydney University Postgraduate Representative Association, and like minded people, respectfully showeth that the Government decision to tax Commonwealth Postgraduate Research Awards will result in:

a further serious decline in living standards for postgraduate scholars performing valuable low cost research for the Australian community, and

a reduction in the standard of research at the universities as top scholars will be forced to reject offers of inadequately financed Research Awards.

Your petitioners strongly urge that the Commonwealth Government take appropriate action to revert to the former policy of award adjustments in line with the Consumer Price Index.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Postgraduate Research Awards

Senator RYAN:

– I present the following pet ition from 54 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned, members of the Sydney University Postgraduate Representative Association, and like minded people, respectfully showeth that the Government decision to tax Commonwealth Postgraduate Research Awards will result in:

a further serious decline in living standards for postgraduate scholars performing valuable low cost research for the Australian community, and

a reduction in the standard of research at the universities as top scholars will be forced to reject offers of inadequately financed Research Awards.

Your petitioners strongly urge that the Commonwealth Government take appropriate action to revert to the former policy of award adjustments in line with the Consumer Price Index.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Education Funding

Senator SIBRAA:

– I present the following petition from 25 1 citizens of Australia:

The Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the Federation of Parents and Citizens Associations of New South Wales respectfully showeth-

That as citizens of N.S.W. and parents of State school children, we are most concerned that the quality of education available in our school be of the highest possible standard.

We believe that this can only be achieved if adequate Federal funds are provided. The recently announced policy of direct cuts to Government schools for 1979 must have an adverse effect on them.

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

Withdrawal of the Guidelines to the Schools Commission for 1979 and acceptance of its recommendations for Government schools.

An increase of a minimum of 5 per cent in real terms on base level programs for 1979.

Restoration of the $8m cut from the Capital Grants for Government Schools.

Increased recurrent and capital funding to Government schools.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Ukrainian Prisoners of War

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

That certain members of the Ukrainian Army (UPA), the list of which is attached hereto, have been held in Soviet prisons and labour camps for a period of about 30 years, and that their rights as prisoners of war in accordance, specifically, with Articles 4 and 25, and Section V, of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949, have been denied to them. In essence, they are treated inhumanely; they are in close confinement; personal belongings have been confiscated; they are denied freedom of religious belief and attendance of church services.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will recommend that the government of Australia, being signatory to the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 1929 and 1949, will express its concern about the treatment of the abovementioned prisoners of war of the Ukrainian Army (UPA) to the government of the USSR, and will seek relief of the said prisoners of war in accordance with the said Geneva Convention and with specific regard to (i) obtaining Red Cross assistance, (ii) ensuring medical services, (iii) ensuring the right of religious worship, (iv) obtaining recognised status as prisoners of war and not criminal prisoners and ( v) securing their long-overdue freedom.

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

Petition received.

Radio Station 3CR, Melbourne

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

That radio 3CR Melbourne, be made to adhere to the required standards of broadcasting, as laid down for all other radio stations.

The petitioners request that the Federal Government and Broadcasting Tribunal should enforce the required standard of broadcasting as laid down for all other stations, on community radio 3CR call on Federal Government to legislate against incitement to racial hatred and violence.

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

Petition received.

page 517

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 517

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ANTARCTIC TERRITORY

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

-I ask the Minister for Science whether he recalls saying on 23 February that the Government had not made a decision in relation to waters surrounding Australian Antarctic Territory? At the recent Antarctic Convention in Buenos Aires did the Australian representative insist that any agreement concerning the exploitation of a 200-mile off-shore zone in Antarctica would have to recognise Australia’s sovereign rights in the area? In other words, has the Government now decided to claim sovereign rights in the 200-mile off-shore area of Australia ‘s Antarctic Territory?

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

-The honourable senator will recognise that his question deals with a matter on which a response should come first from the Minister for Foreign Affairs. But, as Antarctic research comes under my portfolio, I believe I would be correctly reflecting the situation by saying that Australia has not made a decision relating to its claim over the 200-mile limit off the area which it claims on the continent of Antarctica. That matter is under constant review by the Australian Government. I am not able to say whether Australia’s representative at the Buenos Aires meeting used words as mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition or reflected the situation correctly. If the representative said that Australia by no means gave away its claim but in line with its Antarctic treaty obligations agreed for the time being to set aside its claim in the interests of general agreement with the partners to the treaty, that reflection is correct. I imagine that in due course the Minister for Foreign Affairs will make a statement on Australia’s claim to the Territory.

page 518

QUESTION

CAT SKINS

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development. Since all wildlife experts are agreed that the feral cat is almost impossible to catch, and also in view of the fact that domestic cats are disappearing at an alarming rate and that animal lovers throughout the nation are becoming greatly disturbed, I ask the Minister: Will a Federal ban be placed on the sale of cat skins to the fur market and the export of cat skins in an effort to prevent cat-napping of domestic cats?

Senator CHANEY:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Education · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I think by answering this question I am likely to incur the displeasure of my colleague the Minister for Science who, I understand, has made a specialty of feral cats. For the question to be addressed to me seems a little unreal. This is a matter on which I do not have any information. I will refer it to my colleague and seek a reply for Senator Bonner.

page 518

QUESTION

ELECTORAL REDISTRIBUTION INQUIRY

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

-I ask the AttorneyGeneral: Can he give the Senate an estimate of the total cost to the Government of the McGregor Royal Commission?

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I cannot give the Senate an estimate of that cost. I doubt whether the full cost could yet be estimated, but I will endeavour to find out what is the state of costing. There are probably several matters yet to be decided in relation to it, which will affect the total cost. 1 certainly will let the Senate have those details as soon as they are fully available.

page 518

QUESTION

CUSTOMS SURVEILLANCE: USE OF NOMAD AIRCRAFT

Senator LEWIS:
VICTORIA

– My question which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs is about the specifications which are set by the Bureau of Customs for three aircraft which it wishes to have for its work. Has a 220-knot airspeed been specified by the Bureau in its requirements? Does the Minister now realise that the specification of such an airspeed would exclude Australia’s Nomad aircraft? What is so special about 220 knots compared with the acknowledged assets of the Nomad aircraft as a specialised surveillance aircraft? Will the Minister consider changing the specifications to ensure that the Nomad aircraft falls within them? Further, will the Minister investigate why officers of his Department came up with specifications which appear to be tailor made for a United States aircraft?

Senator DURACK:
LP

- Senator Lewis has asked a very detailed question in relation to this matter. I will refer it to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs and endeavour to obtain an answer.

Senator Bishop:

– And reply to Senator Bishop, too.

Senator DURACK:

-Senator Bishop, I thank you for reminding me of your question. I will also remind the Minister of your question and endeavour to obtain a full answer on this matter as soon as we possibly can.

page 518

QUESTION

EXEMPTION FROM UNION MEMBERSHIP

Senator EVANS:
VICTORIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations aware of widespread Press reports of the utterances of one Miss Barbara Biggs in the last week when she was recorded as saying, among quite a number of other things, that she had been a member of other unions in the past and might again be in the future and that in the proceedings before the Industrial Registrar or his delegate on the conscientious objection exemption matter she was ‘virtually forced to say what she didn’t believe’, namely ‘that all unions and the concept of unionism are bad ‘? Is the Minister prepared to table the transcript, minutes or other notes or record of proceedings when Miss Biggs ‘s claim for exemption was heard before the Industrial Registrar or his delegate? Is the Government prepared to amend the present section 144A of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Act in the light of these recent events to give a right of representation and cross-examination by the relevant union at the hearing of such exemption proceedings, to require the Registrar to state bis reasons, if any, for granting or refusing an exemption and to give a right of appeal to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission or the Federal Court to a union aggrieved by an exemption decision?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I will refer that question to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and endeavour to obtain an early answer from him.

page 519

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH POLICE CHEQUE SECTION

Senator PETER BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Minister for Administrative Services. How many people make up the Cheque Section in the Commonwealth Police Force? How many alleged offenders have been identified and are now awaiting further processing before charges can be laid against them in relation to complaints being dealt with by the Cheque Section of the Commonwealth Police? How many outstanding cases are awaiting action by the Cheque Section of the Commonwealth Police?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I have made some inquiries about the matters which have been raised by Senator Baume. I am advised that there are 24 people in the Cheque Section of the Commonwealth Police Force. I am further advised that there are about 460 people awaiting processing before charges can be laid against them. I am also advised that there are 17,318 individual cheques which are awaiting action by the Cheque Section of the Commonwealth Police.

page 519

QUESTION

PARLIAMENTARY REFRESHMENT ROOMS

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Mr President, my question which is directed to you, follows my question yesterday. Will you study the report in today’s Canberra Times on the statement of Mr Aper and ascertain whether or not it implies that there has been an attempt to mislead this Senate in the statements that have been made? I draw to your attention, Mr President, and ask whether you remember, the second prepared statement which you read to the Senate yesterday and in which you said:

  1. . I was informed by the Secretary of the Joint House Department that a meeting had been arranged with Mr Dearson, the manager of the refreshment rooms, and Mr Aper to discuss the report in the Canberra Times. Mr Dearson informed Mr Aper -

Mr Dearson said this, not Mr Aper; that at no time during the interview had Mr Aper said that he was fighting unions or that he was black banned or that he was against unions. Mr Aper did not dispute this -

You will see that the statement did not say that he agreed with it but said that he did not dispute it- but said . . . that the report in the Canberra Times was inaccurate. I understand that he left the meeting with the stated intention of going to the offices of the newspaper to ask that a correction be published to what he agreed was a misleading report.

I refer you, Mr President, to the report in the Canberra Times today which states that Mr Aper did not go to the newspaper but that the newspaper called on Mr Aper and Mr Aper did not contradict what he said yesterday but contradicted what Mr Dearson said. The report states:

However, when contacted at his home by the Canberra Times, Mr Aper told a reporter that the only mistakes he thought the article contained were that what he referred to as The Builders Workers Industrial Union’ was published as Builders Labourers Industrial Union’ and the word ‘unions’ in one section of the story should have been singular.

He was asked specifically if he thought the section and quotes dealing with his interview for the job as kitchen hand were accurate. He replied ‘ Yes ‘.

Would you not agree, Mr President, that your statement yesterday led us to infer that this was not discussed at the interview? Mr Aper repeats that it was discussed. Your statement yesterday did not say that Mr Aper confirmed this but said that he did not deny it.

The PRESIDENT:

– Yesterday I made a statement in response to you in which I said that the matter had been reported to me. The statement which I addressed to you was the absolutely correct report that I had received. I can say no more than that.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I agree with that; but I am asking whether you are receiving reports which when delivered to the Senate could be for the purpose of misleading the Senate.

The PRESIDENT:

– I must say that I would under no circumstance seek to mislead the Senate.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Not knowingly.

Senator Wriedt:

– He is not saying that. It is a suggestion that you were given misleading information.

The PRESIDENT:

– I reported to this chamber what had been said to me. I can do no more than that. The report came from the Secretary of the Joint House Department, who was one of the three persons to whom I referred yesterday.

page 520

QUESTION

WORK PERMITS FOR PAPUA NEW GUINEANS

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. How many residents of Papua New Guinea engaged by Torres Strait Island trawler and lugger owners have applied for work permits in Australia in the last 12 months? What is the normal period of the work permit? Are the Papua New Guinea citizens returned to their homeland at the expiration of that permit?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I am not aware ofthe number of residents of Papua New Guinea who have been engaged in the activities mentioned by Senator Maunsell but I am aware that Papua New Guinean citizens employed temporarily on a seasonal basis on Australian pearling and other vessels in the Torres Strait have not applied in the past to Australian immigration authorities for permission to engage in such employment. From information made available to me by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, I understand that on average the pearling season in the Torres Strait extends over nine months and that at the conclusion of the season it is customary for pearling vessel operators to return those Papua New Guineans employed on their vessels to Papua New Guinea. The task force formed in the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to inquire into the movement of Papua New Guineans in the Torres Strait area and in mainland Australia has examined the matter of Papua New Guineans employed temporarily on Australian pearling vessels in the Torres Strait, and policy considerations involved in regularising the situation from an immigration point of view are currently under review by that task force.

page 520

QUESTION

SPECIAL YOUTH EMPLOYMENT TRAINING PROGRAM

Senator MELZER:

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. By way of preamble I point out that in his policy speech the Treasurer said that experience had suggested that the Special Youth Employment Training Program is unduly advantaging younger age groups to the detriment of older age groups. Is this why the Government has refused further funding to the Farmhouse in Mitcham, Victoria, which for the past two years has been run as a project to improve the self-confidence and jobseeking abilities of young people in the area? As the State Government refuses to supply further funds and as the number of participants in the project has doubled sinced last February in this area of rapidly increasing unemployment among young people, will the Government reconsider the matter and the urgency of the problem and prevent the closure of this most important project?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I have not any information in regard to the specific matter raised by Senator Melzer. I will refer her question to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and endeavour to obtain his answer at an early date.

page 520

QUESTION

COMPULSORY STUDENT UNIONISM

Senator PUPLICK:

-Is the Minister for Education aware of the case of a student, Michael Farrell, of the University of New South Wales? Is it a fact that Mr Farrell sought to mount a legal challenge to the actions of the University compelling him to join a student union, to which he had a conscientious objection, and that Mr Farrell ‘s challenge was unsuccessful? Have the consequences of that challenge been that Mr Farrell sought to appeal against the decision but that the appeal judge refused to hear his appeal until Mr Farrell had paid the costs of the first case and lodged a bond for half the costs of the appeal, which Mr Farrell was unable to do? As a consequence, has the University of New South Wales moved to place Mr Farrell into bankruptcy and denied him permission to complete his studies, thereby effectively ruining the career of this young man? As the Minister responsible for funding tertiary institutions, does not the Minister think that this case reflects very gravely upon the concept of academic freedom as practised by the University of New South Wales, the fact that one can get justice only if one has the money, and the failure of the State Labor Government to end compulsory membership of student unions? What can this Government do to assist Mr Farrell as a conscientious objector, recognising that conscientious objection is not a crime, as some honourable senators would imply?

Senator CARRICK:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-Senator Puplick has asked me six questions. I am aware that a student named Michael Farrell of the University of New South Wales sought exemption as a conscientious objector from the payment of the sociopolitical component of his student fees. I am equally aware that he failed in that attempt and mounted a legal challenge against the University which also was not successful. I am informed that he then sought to appeal and that- I do not have first-hand knowledge of this matter but am seeking it- he was asked to lodge certain prepayments by way of guarantee of costs. I understand that the young man does not have the finances so to do and that therefore he is threatened financially and as a student by this situation.

I do not have the precise details of the matter. I have asked the young man to write to me and to set out in detail what he asserts are the facts so that I can get a true understanding of the situation. In reply to Senator Puplick, I point out that the primary situation is that the university concerned- the University of New South Wales- is an institution under New South Wales State law, and therefore both the university and the State have a responsibility in this situation. The Senate will know that the Fraser Government has established a principle which it proposes to implement in Commonwealth territories. That principle is that a person genuinely not wanting to be involved in the socio-political activities of students should not be compelled to do so. Indeed, my Government has conveyed to every State Premier its views and a request that the States themselves might, as Victoria and Western Australia have done, take action to provide for such a freedom which, after all, is inherent in the Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations Charter and which therefore ought to be acceptable to all.

I think it is a bad thing that the State Government concerned- the New South Wales Government- has not sought to amend its laws. Indeed, the New South Wales Opposition has sought in the Upper House to bring about such amendments but the Wran Government would not acquiesce. I think it is a pity that the institutions concerned have not looked to their own regulations and ordinances to provide for proper approaches in this regard consistent with the principle that the Commonwealth has laid down. It is true that the Commonwealth does fund universities and colleges. The Commonwealth believes that, consistent with the rights of institutions to maintain their academic freedoms, they should demonstrate their responsibilities to maintain the democratic freedom of the individuals within those institutions, because those individuals in the institutions should be as free as other individuals. We have asked the institutions to react in that regard. Some have; some have not.

The Commonwealth has sought to set an example and to encourage others. Two States have followed that example. The Commonwealth does not propose to use its financial weapon as a bulldozer to make others follow. Nevertheless, it must regret that any individual should be threatened with the lack of freedom to pursue studenthood simply because that individual refuses to pay a fee that has no relationship whatsoever to studenthood. Let me make it perfectly clear that the fee involved has no relation to the proper proceedings of studenthood. It can be only a matter of great and serious regret that a student should be denied, if indeed any student has been so denied- I do not know the full facts in this matter- the right to studenthood because of such a refusal.

page 521

QUESTION

MAKINA PLAINS STATION

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development: Were 500 acres of Marina Plains station freeholded in 1974 or later with a plan for development as a tourist resort or as a possible area for mineral exploration? Marina Plains station, incidentally, is on Cape York in North Queensland. If the area was freeholded for use as a tourist resort, was a feasibility study carried out on the instructions of the Japanese tourism developer, Mr Iwasaki? Was an environmental impact study, in accordance with the provisions of existing Federal legislation, carried out or asked for? Is the Federal Government exercising any supervision over the Queensland Government when land is sold in that State to non-resident foreign nationals?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I will refer the honourable senator’s question to the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development and will get a reply for him.

page 521

QUESTION

EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Education. I refer to a report which the Minister tabled in the Senate yesterday. The report covers a number of areas of education, but apparently makes no reference to the area of pre-school or kindergarten, or what I prefer to describe as childhood education. Does the Minister recall an important reference to this area of education, which was made in a report on teacher education by a Senate committee in which the committee stressed the value of childhood education to communities? Has the Minister noticed a Press report yesterday which links these communities with literacy and libraries, or total education? Does the Minister have any information on the apparent omission of childhood education from the report he tabled yesterday? Has the Government any plans or does it envisage setting up any inquiries relating to this area of education? If not, will the Minister give consideration to ways by which the needs of childhood education might receive inquiry and public attention?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Within education circles, particularly amongst those people who could properly be regarded as educators, there is a growing volume of support for the idea that the most important area of education is that in early childhood- that is, from birth, through those formative years, until school age. Indeed, there is a growing support for the argument that the primary school teacher must be the parent and that in the evolution of the young person towards adulthood and marriage there should be an understanding of education in the equipment of these people for parenthood and to be teachers. That is emerging now against a preoccupation throughout the world in the past with postsecondary and secondary education as the primary areas of education. I strongly urge that the pendulum should be swung back towards early childhood.

The basic reason that in the report I tabled yesterday no reference is made to early childhood is that the Commonwealth Department of Education does not have that responsibility. Responsibility for child care falls upon the Commonwealth Department of Social Security and its Minister, my colleague Senator Guilfoyle. Within the various States various departments undertake child care and pre-school responsibilities. Sometimes they fall within the area of health, sometimes that of social security and sometimes that of education. The key problem with this is that there is a difference throughout Australia. At the initiative of the Commonwealth, in the Australian Education Council we are moving through a working party to obtain uniform information throughout Australia towards the evolution of policies which would do two things- place greater emphasis on this area and bring some degree of uniformity of approach. I do recall the Senate standing committee report on teacher education and its insistence on the importance of this matter.

page 522

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH RESEARCH GRANTS

Senator MASON:

-Is the Minister for Education not concerned at implications to Australian research programs of provisions in the 1978 Budget which would reduce payments to Commonwealth research grant scholars with families to little more than what a man with similar family responsibilities would receive on the dole?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Everyone would like to increase the supporting benefits to students whether they be primary degree students or postgraduate students. In recent years it has been my happy responsibility to be able to do so for all, as distinct from what occurred under previous regimes. Nevertheless, at a time when the whole community is experiencing some restraint towards the alleviation of inflation and the reduction of interest rates, and at a time when those policies are being acknowledged internationallyif not by the Senate Labor Opposition- as being highly successful and as setting a world pace for success, there must be some restraint in this area. Indeed, the people to whom the honourable senator referred, along with other people, must bear some weight of that restraint.

page 522

QUESTION

SCHOOLS: SEX EDUCATION

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Education. I refer him to Pinkney’s column in the Australian today headed: ‘Schools hit by deluge of sex’. Can the Minister inform the Senate who is responsible for the Centre for Equal Opportunity referred to in the report? Is the Centre supported financially by the Commonwealth Government? Is there any truth in Pinkney’s allegation that the Centre has produced material promoting lust and leftist vices?

Opposition senators interjecting-

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I wish that the Senate Labor Opposition would show equal enthusiasm for other avenues of education.

Senator Georges:

– Who is showing any enthusiasm?

Senator CARRICK:

– I can measure the enthusiasm only by the decibel level of the interjections from the Labor Opposition. I asked the Schools Commission to give me information relating to the article in the Australian newspaper this morning. To the infinite disappointment of the Opposition, I have to give this information. Firstly, the facts are that the Centre for Equal Opportunity in Melbourne is a Victorian Government centre operated by the Victorian State Minister of Education, Mr Thompson, who no doubt, upon proper application, will supply the necessary documents to the Labor Opposition. Secondly, the Centre was established and made possible by a Schools Commission grant of $18,000 following an application by the Victorian Department of Education, which is the official grantee. The policies of the Centre are the responsibility of the grantee. The Centre has not produced the material referred to in the Pinkney column. Its newsletters, I understand, much to the regret of the Opposition, are a straightforward promotion of more equal opportunity for girls.

Senator Wheeldon:
Senator CARRICK:

– That is general opportunity for girls, Senator Wheeldon. The honourable senator might restrain his mirth. The references in the column are from a comment in a particular journal. Basically one must believe that the reference is derived from privately published information. The Director-General of Education in Melbourne has assured the Schools Commission that the Centre is in close contact with his office and he believes, that its publications are proper. From time to time, material is published and circulated which seeks to perform what can be described only as social engineering; that is, it seeks to bring about the viewpoint of the individual teacher or writer, which is distinct from that of the ordinary community, and seeks to change, by a form of social engineering, the structure of values of the community.

I wish to make it clear, as I have done previously, that my Government believes that it is not the right, and certainly not the privilege, of educators to attempt social engineering. They must understand and respect the basic values of the community and not attempt to distort or pervert them. They can show, in balance, alternative values, but they must never at any stage attempt to thrust their views on others. Above everything, the materials that are taught in the schools ought to be subject to the scrutiny of the parents and the community concerned. This is a primary test of the need for parents to have closer contact with the schools themselves.

page 523

QUESTION

STATES’ RIGHTS

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In view of the Liberal Party senators’ craven acceptance of the dictates of the member for Wannon, when the latter by fiat gave them their new leader and deputy, can the Leader of the Government in the Senate assure the Senate that it will hear no more cant or humbug from Liberal senators about States’ rights or their sturdy independence?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Stripped of rhetoric, the answer is that throughout the whole of Federation governments of Liberal philosophy have permitted their Prime Ministers at all times to nominate the leader and deputy leader in the Senate. Therefore, quite contrary to what

Senator Walsh is trying to suggest, Mr Fraser has followed the pattern of all Prime Ministers of Liberal faith throughout Federation, who have entrenched themselves with high reputation in Australia. The action of the Prime Minister needs only the support of those who have gone before.

Senator WALSH:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question. Are we to understand from the Minister’s answer that all the toadies who sit behind him will accept anything that the Prime Minister hands out?

Senator CARRICK:

– Quite clearly, Senator Walsh can understand what he wants to understand. He reminds me every day of a little poem that goes:

The rest to some faint meaning make pretence, But Shad well never deviates into sense.

I ask honourable senators to substitute ‘Walsh’ for ‘Shadwell’

page 523

QUESTION

DELIVERY OF WHEAT TO CHINA

Senator ROCHER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry: Is Australia unable to deliver to China approximately 250,000 tonnes of wheat which is the balance of an order calling for delivery in the period January to August 1978? If so, when will the balance be delivered? Has China purchased approximately one million tonnes of United States wheat to make up for a shortfall in deliveries of wheat from Australia and Canada? Is Australia able to supply further wheat to China during the remainder of 1 978? If so, how much?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I was advised by the Minister for Primary Industry whom I represent that, by mutual agreement with China, the shipment of 250,000 tonnes which originally was to be shipped during the period January to August 1978 and to which the honourable senator made reference had been deferred. The shipment of the deferred quantity will take place in December 1978 and January 1979. Further to the honourable senator’s question, I am advised that China recently has purchased wheat from the United States. The latest report suggests that about 2V4 million tonnes has been purchased by China and that China also has purchased about 3 million tonnes from Canada for shipment from September 1 978 to August 1 979. It is not commercial practice for reasons to be given for purchases. I understand from the Australian Wheat Board that the question of further sales by Australia to China has yet to be discussed.

page 523

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN LEGAL AID OFFICE

Senator TATE:
TASMANIA

– My question, which is directed to the Attorney-General, follows an aspect of the question asked by Senator Puplick earlier. Is the Attorney-General aware of the widespread concern expressed by competent professional institutes concerning the Government’s declining financial and philosophical commitment to the provision of legal aid for those without sufficient assets to engage a private legal practitioner? Is it a fact that the Australian Legal Aid Office very successfully confronted the old slogan ‘guilty until proved wealthy’? Did the student mentioned in the previous question apply to the Sydney office ofthe ALAO for legal aid in the matter referred to? If so, with what success? Is it a fact that the Estimates reveal that 44 fewer legal officers will be employed by the ALAO this financial year than last year?

Senator DURACK:
LP

- Senator Tate raises a number of matters in relation to the funding of legal aid. In particular he inquires as to the application for legal aid by Mr Michael Farrell. The position is that a case by another student, who made an application in Victoria- I think his name is Clark- was funded as a test case in relation to these matters. It is a fact that Mr Farrell ‘s application raises somewhat different technical legal questions from those in the case of Clark. However, in view of the fact that there were a number of such claims in various parts of Australia and that there would have been an enormous cost in relation to Australian Legal Aid Office funds for the support of all such claims, some efforts were made to endeavour to have the Clark case accepted as a test case. As a result of that Mr Farrell ‘s application for legal aid was declined. The Government has subsequently expressed, through my colleague the Minister for Education, an attitude to this problem in an endeavour to resolve the issue by means other than legal process. I believe that there are still hopes that that will be achieved.

As to the other matters raised in Senator Tate ‘s question, I am not in a position to indicate the actual numbers being employed by the ALAO this year as against last year. But I think that the statistics which appear in the Budget- I will look into this in further detail- must be taken into account in relation to the Government’s policy of establishing State legal aid commissions and for those commissions to take over the responsibilities of the ALAO in the States in which they are established. It is anticipated in the course of the present year -

Senator Gietzelt:

– Passing the buck.

Senator DURACK:

– It has nothing at all to do with passing the buck. It is the Government’s policy that legal aid is better delivered and more appropriately delivered by independent bodies rather than by a government bureaucracy. That is the basis of the policy. Therefore where this occurs the numbers of ALAO officers would be reduced. In view of the question Senator Tate has asked about numbers and my not having the actual details, I will consider that question further and provide a further answer to Senator Tate.

page 524

QUESTION

INTERNAL AUDITING IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE

Senator WATSON:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In view of the Auditor-General ‘s acknowledged criticism of standards of internal auditing in the Public Service, will the Minister give an assurance to this House that the standards will be upgraded and that adequate professional staff will be allocated to this important function?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The Prime Minister has indicated that the Government will insist on generally increased efficiency along the lines that the Auditor-General has defined and of course there will be adequate staff to carry that out.

page 524

QUESTION

FAMILY ALLOWANCE OVERPAYMENTS

Senator COLSTON:

-Can the Minister for Social Security advise the Senate whether in Queensland last year family allowance was paid for school leavers up to 27 December? Was an instruction given to Queensland staff this year that payments should have been terminated on 29 November and that recovery procedures should commence? Is it usual for recovery procedures to be insitituted for relatively minor amounts when the Department is at fault?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I will inquire into the matters which relate to the dates of the payment of family allowance and any instructions that may have been given. There is a requirement under the legislation for certain steps to be taken for the recovery proceedings to be instigated in the case of overpayment. If it is shown that an overpayment has occurred through wrong information or departmental error, this is usually taken into account in establishing what action will be taken. I will have investigated the matter with regard to family allowances that was raised by Senator Colston.

page 524

QUESTION

HOUSING: USE OF CARAVANS

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development. I preface it by saying that no doubt the Minister is aware that many people in Australia are forced for one reason or another to live in caravans. No doubt he will agree that, whilst such accommodation is inexpensive, long term accommodation in this manner is not something the Government should encourage. Is the Minister able to say how many people are permanently forced or choose to live in caravans in Australia at present? What is the present trend in regard to this style of accommodation? What action is the Government taking to solve this problem?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I have made some inquiries of the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development on this matter. I am advised that there are no reliable statistics on the number of people permanently living in caravans in Australia. Apparently there has been some Press speculation recently about a number but that is believed to be based just on estimates, not on official statistics. In many areas there are restrictions on people living permanently in caravan parks. But of course the growth of mining developments in remote areas of Australia has contributed considerably to many workers living semi-permanently in caravan parks. A rough estimate of the number of caravans currently used as permanent dwellings is between 100,000 and 150,000. The range of the figures shows that it certainly has all the marks of a rough estimate. About 75 per cent of those are believed to be in caravan parks. I will have to make further inquiries of the Minister whether any Government action is being taken in this matter and I will let the honourable senator know the response.

page 525

QUESTION

PARLIAMENTARY REFRESHMENT ROOMS

Senator BISHOP:

- Mr President, my question is directed to you. It refers to the dispute in the Parliamentary Refreshment Rooms and follows the question asked of you by Senator Cavanagh requesting information. Possibly the dispute has not left us and the matter again may come before the Senate. In the light of the question that Senator Cavanagh put to you as to the disparity between the report given to you and what has become public knowledge now, I ask whether you will investigate the matter and report the facts to the Senate so that we and the public will know the facts relating to the employment of the person concerned.

The PRESIDENT:

– Yes, I shall certainly do that.

page 525

QUESTION

ECONOMIC ACTIVITY IN NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator LAJOVIC:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer: Is the national economic recovery being stifled by the stagnant economic situation in New South Wales? Can the Minister inform the Senate of the latest statistics on new investment in New South Wales?

Senator McLaren:

– Is there an election on in New South Wales?

Senator LAJOVIC:

– I believe that some of the honourable senators opposite are able to read the newspapers. Further, is it a fact that the statistics demonstrate that New South Wales has fallen from its traditional pre-eminent position in manufacturing investment- attracting around 40 per cent of new investment- to fourth position behind Western Australia, Victoria, and Queensland, attracting a mere 10.7 per cent of new investment?

Senator Georges:

– He gave the information. He answered the question himself.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– A double blessing is a double grace, if Senator Georges recalls Polonius. So I will give him the answer and he will have both a double blessing and a double grace. A Labor Attorney-General in New South Wales, Mr Walker, a colleague of those honourable senators opposite who are now calling out, is, I understand, on record as describing private enterprise as hogwash. Therefore, I presume it is the policy of Labor governments not to encourage or to stimulate free enterprise.

I am advised that it is true that the latest survey, completed by the Commonwealth Department of Industry and Commerce as recently as August, of total investment in New South Wales in manufacturing industry plus mining investment shows New South Wales running a poor fourth behind Western Australia, Queensland and Victoria- a poor fourth behind those three States which, of course, have nonLabor governments.

Senator Georges:

– That is tedious repetition. We have already been told that.

Senator CARRICK:

– One would understand that Senator Georges would describe as tedious anything which shows the Labor Party’s poor performance in its true light. New South Wales has traditionally attracted up to 40 per cent of new manufacturing investment. I am advised that now under Labor it is attracting only 10.7 per cent of the nation’s new investment. The latest survey shows that New South Wales will get $ 1,600m in new manufacturing investment.

This compares poorly with $5,000m in Western Australia, $2,200m in Victoria and $2,000m in Queensland. On a per capita basis the record of new investment in New South Wales under Labor is even more alarming because it has attracted $325 worth. Victoria has attracted $587, South Australia has attracted $793, Queensland has attracted $947, Tasmania has attracted $982 and Western Australia has attracted $4,273.

page 526

QUESTION

ECONOMIC ACTIVITY IN NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator WRIEDT:

-My question also is to the Minister representing the Treasurer. In view of the answer he has just given about the alleged lack of interest in the private sector by the Labor Government in New South Wales, I ask whether he is aware that approximately 40 per cent of contracts to the private sector in that State are due to government spending, both State and Federal. Is he aware that this year general purpose capital payments to New South Wales by this Government have been frozen at $463m, which in real terms is a decline of 7 per cent? Is he also aware that specific payments to New South Wales this financial year for capital purposes have declined from $492m to $469m, which in money terms is a reduction of $23m and in real terms a reduction of approximately double that amount? Is that a reflection of this Government’s concern for the welfare of the private sector in New South Wales?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The real picture emerges when the total amount of money that is available to the State to spend is revealed, not the amount in respect of any one segment.

Senator Wriedt:

– That is a different argument now. Yes, we will follow this through now.

Senator CARRICK:

- Senator Wriedt of course chooses to take one little piece but not the rest. The fact is that the volume of revenue provided by the Commonwealth Government, which is the major proportion of the money that constitutes a State’s Budget, has been increased by in excess of 10 per cent at a time when inflation is running below 7 per cent. Quite clearly, to New South Wales there has flowed a real increase in money value. That has been reflected in the capacity of the New South Wales Government and the Tasmanian Government yesterday to increase their spending and the capacity of the Tasmanian Government to cut its taxes and increase various revenues through the moneys flowing from the Commonwealth Government. You cannot have it both ways. The fact is that the Budgets of the Tasmanian Government and the

New South Wales Government show that those governments are capable of providing for an increase in real money spending.

page 526

QUESTION

SUSPENSION OF PILOT’S LICENCE

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. I preface it by referring to a court case in Geraldton in Western Australia involving a light aircraft pilot who was convicted of what was referred to in the court as ‘buzzing’ traffic along the north-west coastal highway. As no application was lodged to revoke or suspend the pilot’s licence, would the Minister consider ensuring that if necessary the law is amended to allow the courts to impose the penalty of suspension of licence for a conviction of this severity, as is the case when the driver of a motor vehicle is convicted of dangerous driving?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I am unable to inform the honourable senator whether a court in a prosecution of the sort he has mentioned has the power to suspend a licence in the same way as a traffic court does for a traffic offence. I can tell him, however, that the Secretary to the Department of Transport has that power, which to date does not appear to have been exercised in this case. I shall make inquiries about the particular questions that have been raised by the honourable senator and let him have a further reply.

page 526

QUESTION

OPINION POLLS

Senator GEORGES:

-Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate able to inform the Senate of the popularity of the various parties in New South Wales based upon their performance? So that he can give an informative answer, I ask: Is he aware that the recent Morgan poll -

Senator McLaren:

– In today’s Bulletin.

Senator GEORGES:

– I thank the honourable senator. Is the Minister aware that the Morgan poll in today’s Bulletin shows the Australian Labor Party’s popularity rating at 61 per cent, the Liberal Party’s rating at 25 per cent and the National Country Party’s rating at 4 per cent? That is a total rating for the Liberal and National Country parties of 29 per cent, as against the Australian Labor Party rating which, I repeat, is 61 per cent. Can the Minister explain those figures? Can he give some reason why such support is flowing to the Labor Party in New South Wales?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-What a short memory Senator Georges and his colleagues of the Labor Party have. As honourable senators know, the public opinion polls published three weeks before the 1977 Federal elections showed that the

Labor Party would win handsomely. Can the Labor Party explain what happened at the ballot box in 1977? We will wait for the result at the ballot box, as we waited in 1975 and 1977. We will take the verdict of the people there.

page 527

QUESTION

LOAN FUNDS

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Can the Minister representing the Treasurer say when the Government will be in a position to announce Loan Council decisions concerning the applications by the States for loan funds?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I take it that Senator Jessop is referring to infrastructure financing in respect of which a number of applications were to be submitted and processed. I understand that that is in progress. I do not know when the decisions will be announced. I will seek the information and let the honourable senator have it.

page 527

QUESTION

PAYMENTS TO THE STATES

Senator WRIEDT:

-Does the Minister representing the Treasurer recall speaking in this chamber on 17 April 1976 and giving an unqualified assurance to Senator Walsh that total payments to the States- the very thing to which he referred in a previous answer he gave this afternoon- in the first three years of the Fraser Government would increase in real terms by 58 per cent? Has that, in fact, occurred in the first three Budgets of this Government? If it has not, what is the correct figure that he should have used then?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I did seek a detailed answer to that question and I am sorry that I have not obtained it. I will ask the Treasury people to put the information together.

page 527

QUESTION

NUCLEAR SAFEGUARDS

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister and concerns recent statements in the media which allege that the Commonwealth Government in its dealings with foreign buyers of Australian uranium is not adhering to the nuclear safeguards which the Prime Minister announced on 24 May last year. Can the Minister inform the Senate whether there is any foundation to these reports? Is the Minister willing to assure the Senate that, in addition to the undertaking that nuclear material supplied by Australia will not be used for military or explosive purposes, the Government will continue to require that Australian consent be gained before any of the nuclear material it supplies is transferred to a third party, enriched beyond the level of 20 per cent U235, or reprocessed by the buyer?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– My understanding is that there has been no change in the safeguards policy that the Government announced in detail last year and distributed to all honourable senators and members. That policy is on record and is accepted as being the most stringent policy on nuclear safeguards in the world. It has not changed. Nevertheless, I will refer the question to the appropriate Ministers in another place to see whether there is any further information that can be given.

page 527

QUESTION

ALLEGED FLIGHT OVER AUSTRALIA BY RUSSIAN AIRCRAFT

Senator HARRADINE:
TASMANIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence and refer to an article in the Sunday Independent of 27 August 1978 over which appears the heading, ‘Red spy plane flies over the coast of Western Australia’. The article states:

This official photograph of a Russian TU9S long range strategic bomber cruising off WA’s coast was released this week by the United States Defense Department.

Will the Minister advise the Senate when the photograph was taken, how far off the Western Australian coast the bomber was cruising and what was the base from which the bomber was operating?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have not had my attention drawn to the article in the Sunday Independent and I would be grateful if Senator Harradine gave me a copy of it. I do not therefore have any primary information on the matter. I will seek the information and provide it to him.

page 527

QUESTION

SPECIAL YOUTH EMPLOYMENT TRAINING PROGRAM

Senator DURACK:
LP

– Earlier today Senator Melzer asked me a question, to which I now have an answer, in relation to the funding of the Farmhouse project at Nunawading in Victoria. She seemed to be under the impression that the funding of this project was under the Special Youth Employment Training Program but in fact it was under the Community Youth Support Scheme. The position is that the funding of the Farmhouse project under the CYSS was suspended upon the decision of the State CYSS committee following the failure by the people involved in the project to supply information on the expenditure of funds provided. The information required is the number of young people attending the project and details of activities undertaken there. Other CYSS projects in the area are functioning well and providing a good service to young people. I might add that in the Budget the Government has increased the funds allocated to the Community Youth Support Scheme from $5.7m last year to $9m this year, a rise of more than 50 per cent.

page 528

SOUTH SEA ISLANDERS IN AUSTRALIA

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present a summary of the report of an interdepartmental committee on South Sea Islanders in Australia. Copies of the full report have been lodged with the Parliamentary Library. I seek leave to make a statement relating to the report.

Leave granted.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– Following representations from the South Sea Islanders United Council in 1975 the then Prime Minister arranged for the establishment of an interdepartmental committee with the following terms of reference: Firstly, to estimate the numbers of South Sea Islanders in Australia and examine their demographic distribution; secondly, to assess the economic and local characteristics of the Islanders and to decide if they are in any way disadvantaged as a group, relative to other groups in the Australian community; and, thirdly, to evaluate their special needs if any, and to recommend appropriate forms of government assistance to meet their needs.

Following the 1975 elections, the Minister for Social Security gave approval for the committee to continue its work in April 1976. An extensive field survey was conducted on the committee’s behalf in Queensland and New South Wales. Evidence was also obtained from other sources including both a written submission from the Australian South Sea Islanders United Council and verbal evidence from four of its representatives. The committee has now completed its report and has made a number of recommendations. Copies of the full report have been lodged with the Parliamentary Library and some copies can be made available by my Department to interested persons on request. The report reaches the conclusion that, on the best evidence available, there are approximately 3,500 persons in Australia who identify as descendants of those Pacific Islanders recruited during the latter part of the last century to work mainly in the Queensland sugar industry. These South Sea Islanders now tend to live in or near the coastal regional centres in Queensland and northern New South Wales. The Islanders have a reputation for reliability and hard work but, at the same time, after 80 years in Australia, as a group they have the appearance of being economically and socially disadvantaged in comparison with the community as a whole.

The Government has considered the report and has taken steps to provide assistance to South Sea Islanders. In particular, the needs of South Sea Islanders will be given specific attention by a social worker within my Department working in conjunction with other staff in regional offices serving the areas of significant South Sea Islander population. There is a summary of the main findings of the inquiry of the interdepartmental committee and I seek leave to have that incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

SOUTH SEA ISLANDERS IN AUSTRALIA

Summary of the main findings of the Inquiry by the Interdepartmental Committee

Following extensive representations from the Australian South Sea Islanders United Council during 1974 and 1973, the then Prime Minister requested that an Interdepartmental Commute be convened under the chairmanship of the Department of Social Security to inquire into the condition of the descendants of these South Sea Islanders brought into Australia during the labour trade between 1863 and 1904. Following the 1975 election, approval to continue the operation ofthe Committee was given by the Minister for Social Security in April 1 976.

The terms of reference of the Committee were as follows:

To estimate the numbers of South Sea Islanders in Australia and examine their demographic distribution.

To assess the economic and local characteristics of the Islanders and to decide if they are in any way disadvantaged as a group, relative to other groups in the Australian community.

To evaluate their special needs if any, and to recommend appropriate forms of government assistance to meet their needs.

The best evidence available suggests that there are between 3,000 and 3,500 persons in Australia who identify as South Sea Islanders and who are the Australian- born descendants of the labourers recruited last century to work in the Queensland sugar industry. In addition to these there are also some hundreds of persons living in Australia who identify as South Sea Islanders but who are overseas born and who mainly arrived in the last thirty years. Many of these are overseas students.

In the eighty years since the original labourers became established in Australia they have settled in the coastal areas of Queensland and northern N.S.W. Their socio-economic status and conditions have generally been below those ofthe white community, thus giving the group the appearance of being a deprived coloured minority.

The Committee feels that it has accumulated sufficient evidence that Islanders suffer some disadvantages. The Committee is also of the opinion that Islanders in general are not fully aware of existing community programs and benefits and that a systematic effort should be made to ensure that such programs, particularly those concerned with welfare and education which are available to the community as a whole, are brought more directly to the attention of, and are utilised by, eligible Islanders.

Islanders are dispersed in small communities in a semirural environment where there is little incentive for change. The achievements of Islanders are low with regard to both education and career. They lack the financial resources and organisational skills necessary to overcome the problems of dispersion and to develop programs of self help and improvement.

Many Islanders receive some of the student assistance benefits designed for Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders by claiming entitlements in their own right because of mixed racial origin or because of inter-marriage with Aboriginals or Torres Strait Islanders. The possibility of obtaining these benefits may cause some Islanders to play down their cultural and racial heritage which tends to undermine the formal status of the ethnic group as well as its cohesiveness.

The Committee does not recommend a general extension of the special assistance available to Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders to South Sea Islanders, nor does it recommend the creation of new and similar benefits especially for South Sea Islanders, lt is felt that the special needs of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders, for which this complex structure of programs has been evolved, are different to those of South Sea Islanders. A minority of the Committee however does recommend the provision of student assistance benefits along the lines of those available to Aboriginals.

The Committee recommends that wherever possible young South Sea Islanders should be given opportunities to extend their career options beyond those traditionally available in the semi-rural localities in which most of them have grown up. The Department of Employment and Industrial Relations has indicated that it would be practicable to extend to young South Sea Islanders born in Australia special assistance available under the NEAT scheme. This includes cost of fares to employment, a livingawayfromhome allowance, the first week ‘s board, provision for visits home and a clothing grant.

The Committee recommends two full-time positions be added to the existing pilot Welfare Rights Program administered by the Department of Social Security. These officers would be made available to assist South Sea Islanders for a period initially for 12 months. They would travel extensively and regularly around the Islander communities. It is envisaged that these officers would be fulfilling a welfare rights role with a main aim being to increase the effectiveness of the Islanders ‘ access to normal social welfare processes. Four task areas are relevant to this aim: information dissemination to the Islander communities about existing programs; advocacy, i.e. working on behalf of Islanders to ensure effective use of social welfare opportunities; community development to assist the Islanders to achieve self-help; and research into extent of disadvantage, adequacy and effectiveness of existing programs and the effect of the welfare rights intervention. In the Committee ‘s view these positions should be attached to the Department of Social Security for administrative and other support.

  1. The Department of Finance noted, however, that the Welfare Rights Program is approaching the end of its pilot stage and is currently undergoing evaluation. This evaluation will be finalised during the 1977-78 financial year and decisions on the future of the program will be taken in the context of this evaluation.

There is very little evidence brought to the Committee’s attention of overt racial discrimination against Islanders at the present time. The only consistent area of complaint was in regard to obtaining rented accommodation although other isolated cases of discrimination have been brought to the notice of the Committee. The Committee was informed that in most respects the Islander and white communities interact with very little tension but the Committee feels that this is in part due to an unconscious and mutual acceptance of limits imposed on the Islanders by the white community. The Islander people are respected and valued for their ability to work hard at physical labour and the greater majority remain at jobs of a labouring or semi-skilled nature with low expectations and aspirations.

The Committee gave some consideration to the position of the Australian South Sea Islanders United Council which has only been established for a few years and which was largely responsible for the initiation of the inquiry.

The difficulties facing the Council are very great since Islanders generally do not have the financial resources to support it or the experience necessary to run it. The geographic spread of the Islanders along coastal Queensland and northern NSW makes communication difficult and expensive. The Committee is of the opinion that the provision of the two Welfare Rights Officers would enable support and guidance to be given at the local level and so strengthen the purpose and effectiveness of the Islander communities in a more realistic way than providing funds to the national organisation. The Department of Social Security has given some guidance and training in the Brisbane area to persons seeking to establish or to run community organisations, including some South Sea Islanders.

I understand that the report states that the socio-economic status and conditions generally of South Sea Islanders have been below those of the white community. However the Government does not propose to take any great deal of action despite what the Minister has just said, namely, that included in the field survey team there will be an officer of the Department of Social Security. I ask too whether the report states that a systematic effort should be made to make South Sea Islanders aware of existing community programs and benefits. Is this going to be confined to appointing the two people whose appointment I understand has been recommended in the report, or will it be confined to appointing one person, as the Minister has mentioned in the summary which has just been presented to this chamber?

Apparently the report states also that the achievements of Islanders are low in regard to both education and career, yet we are going to walk away from the responsibility of trying to improve the situation. I understand too that the committee does not recommend that a financial grant should be made to the South Sea Islanders United Council. I think that somewhere along the line the interdepartmental committee when it was making its investigations felt that there was some dissention within the South Sea Islander community. Of course, there are dissentions in every section of the Australian community. There are dissentions amongst people of European descent in the community but we do not withhold assistance from a particular group of people because they do not happen to agree with each other. In fact, it is healthy to have differences in the community.

I want to know too whether it is a fact that the committee has recommended the appointment of two welfare rights officers to provide support and guidance at the local level. Have those officers been appointed or is it a fact that, as the Minister stated in her summary, only one officer from the Department of Social Security will be seconded to this job? Apparently the committee did not recommend a general extension of the special benefits available to Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders to make them apply to South Sea Islanders. I wonder whether it is a fact also that the committee did not recommend the creation of new and similar benefits to be payable to South Sea Islanders. Apparently the committee did recommend that this should be done.

I understand also that a minority of the committee members recommended the provision of a student assistance benefit similar to that now made available to Torres Strait Islanders and

Aborigines. I understand that the committee also found that there was very little evidence of overt racial discrimination against Islanders. If the committee did not find this discrimination, obviously it did not do very much work on the issue because it is fairly obvious in parts of northern New South Wales and in Queensland that in fact similar racial discrimination is applied to South Sea Islanders as is applied to Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders.

I finish on this note: I ask the Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to do any more than to have the Minister for Social Security appoint or second an officer to help the Pacific Islanders. They are a disadvantaged group of people. They did not ask to be brought into this country. Many of them when they were repatriated were not taken back to the islands from which the blackbirders had taken them in the first place; they were dumped on the nearest island. It was considered to be a very smart operation if they were not taken back to their homelands. Murder and rape were the order of the day when these people were originally brought to Australia. A whole host of publications set out the history of the slave trade that existed, particularly in Queensland, around the turn of the century. There were people who shot on sight. I am sure that some of the blackbirders got caught up in their own network. There were people who were reluctant to be taken away from their islands. They were either murdered at sea or murdered before they were actually put on the boats.

We have discriminated against this group of people right from the very start. I think that in 1974 or 1975 when the then government set up the interdepartmental committee the idea was for it to carry out a survey and to see where help could be given. The committee’s report has now been brought in. We do not propose to give any help. We are virtually saying: ‘You’re on your own. The Government does not care what happens to you. Bad luck that you are suffering discrimination at the hands of people of European descent in this country. We are not going to do a thing about it’.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-I welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion which is before us. I have not seen the report of the interdepartmental committee, but it seems to me that it is a report that should have been produced quite a number of years ago. If this had occurred, some decisions to assist these people would have flowed. There is no doubt that the South Sea Islanders form a special group that has been in some way ignored. It has not been properly recognised that this group has been caught up in the area of discrimination against the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islands people. For many years this group has been caught up in this discrimination and deprivation. The assistance which has lately flowed to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islands people has been denied to the South Pacific Islanders.

My view, and I think the view of all, is that perhaps this was not the intention, that perhaps the assistance given to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people should also have flowed to the South Pacific Islanders. Perhaps Senator Bonner will take the opportunity, in the few minutes that are available, to give us his opinion on this. I think it is very important that the Senate should consider immediately the provision of some form of assistance- assistance at the same level as is being given to the Aboriginal people. I know that the deprivation of the Aboriginal has been very severe and deep-rooted, as his culture is in the very land itself. Perhaps the South Sea Islanders have not the same kinship with the soil. Nevertheless, they have suffered alongside the Aboriginal people. Perhaps the Act which seeks to assist the Aboriginal people is limited and cannot be used in assisting Pacific Islanders.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Under the relevant section all people of a particular race can be assisted.

Senator GEORGES:

– If that is the case, I would like to be informed of it. My view is that the assistance should have flowed readily and easily to the Pacific Islanders. I cannot quite understand why it has not.

Senator Cavanagh:

– There were other reasons.

Senator GEORGES:

-Whatever the other reasons may have been, now is the time to expose them, so we can put them under scrutiny and make some quick decisions. I think Senator Cavanagh will agree that the South Pacific Islanders have been in an underprivileged position. There has been a very strong element of racism throughout Australia. We are endeavouring to recover from that, but the Pacific Islanders, with other peoples, have been caught in the trap of discrimination. The few words that I have had to say at this time have been directed towards the Government, through the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) with a view to having prompt attention paid to the plight of these people.

I do not know what are the recommendations of the report. It appeared suddenly, as most reports and statements suddenly appear in this place. I am not being critical. I am saying that that is the nature of the place. We set up a committee of inquiry, its report comes down, suddenly it is before us, we do not have an opportunity to speak to it because we do not have access to it. This is a complaint that we have made from time to time. We do not have access to a report for a sufficient period prior to the sitting of the Parliament to scrutinise it and be able to enter into some sort of debate on it when it is tabled. What usually happens is that we move that the Senate take note of the report, it goes on the Notice Paper, and on some future Thursday night we come back to the debate on the problem. By that time, of course, events may have passed us by. Really, we should be debating the matter at an opportune time. The opportune time is when the report is presented. Some very critical matters which need attention may be raised in the report. However, I am being diverted. My appeal, in support of what Senator Keeffe has said, concerns the need quickly to help the Pacific Islanders and to bring them under the umbrella of the assistance that is given to other people who are in a similar economic position.

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

-I welcome the tabling of the report by the Minister for Social Security, Senator Guilfoyle. Whilst I, like other senators, have not seen the full report and look forward to examining it closely and making my own assessment of it, by the same token I welcome its tabling and what the Minister has had to say concerning it. It has, surely, taken some time to bring down the report. It was not something into which one could rush. There were a lot of people to be interviewed, a lot of examinations to be carried out. I am also very happy to see that some of the Pacific Islanders were consulted in the whole affair. Unfortunately I find in too many instances, that when reports concerning minority groups are brought into this Parliament the minority groups themselves are not even consulted. Expertise is derived from somewhere or other, and that is the kind of report we get.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Sometimes an expert chairs the committee that brings in the report. In your case, you did chair a committee.

Senator BONNER:

– Yes. I am grateful for that, Senator Baume. This is an area that has been neglected ever since the Pacific Islanders were brought here under the blackbirding system, which, as has been pointed out by my colleague Senator Keeffe, was a very cruel and certainly inhumane system that was pursued by certain people around the turn of the century. Many of the Islanders died in transit. Many were murdered in transit. They were brought here under false pretences, or in chains and leg irons, and were used- I say the word advisedly because that is exactly what happened- to build up one of the main industries in my State of Queensland. I refer to the sugar industry. After that industry had been established, and because of pressure, the blackbirding and slavery of these people were stopped.

All of a sudden a government said ‘We have had the use of you; now you can all go back to your islands if you wish’. Some did not wish to do that. Having been torn away from their homeland, from friends and relatives, brought to a foreign country and used as they were, having suffered prejudice and discrimination of the worst kind, they had lost their ties and were not willing to go back. They remained here, living under much the same conditions as their counterpart- we, the Aborigines and the Torres Strait Islanders- suffering prejudice, discrimination, lack of opportunity for employment, decent housing, education and everything else that we, the indigenes of this country, suffered.

I certainly hope that the Government will take note of this report and that some assistance will be given to this group of people. I do not believe that the Government could go as far as it would have to go in relation to the Aboriginal or the Torres Strait Islanders, we who are indigenous to this country. I certainly believe some assistance is warranted, particularly in those areas where they suffer the same handicaps that we suffer- in education, health, housing and job opportunities. I hope that the Government would find it possible to give some assistance to this disadvantaged group of people, who are here not because they wanted to come here but because they were brought here in such a cruel manner under the slave trading and blackbirding days of the turn of the century. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 532

QUESTION

BUDGET PAPERS 1978-79

Debate resumed from 23 August, on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Senate take note of the papers.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

-In case listeners to this broadcast wonder why I do not speak for my full allotted 30 minutes, I point out that I expended about 12 minutes of my time in speaking in this Budget debate on 23 August. At that time I spoke about the Government’s promises on pensions and the performance that had followed those promises. I outlined what the Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, had said in various statements about pensions and especially about pensions for people aged 70 years and over. He virtually stated that those people would not be subject to a means test. Of course we now have a type of means test under which, as I pointed out three weeks ago, certain pensioners who are aged 70 years and over will not receive the increases that other pensioners will receive in November.

When my speech was interrupted to commence the adjournment debate on 23 August. I was about to refer to a promise made by the Minister for Social Security, Senator Guilfoyle, in the last election campaign. A Liberal Party advertisement of December last year reported Senator Guilfoyle as saying:

We believed it was important to take politics out of pensions and that’s why we altered the legislation … we said that when we came into Government we would have an automatic increase. We’ve done that and whilst the Act remains as it is there is, every six months, an automatic increase to take account of the cost of living. I’ve had lots of people say to me ‘You’ve given us dignity because you don’t argue about our rises every six months ‘.

That is what the Minister was reported to have said in a Liberal Party election advertisement last December. But of course politics has now been brought back into pensions. The legislation is destined to be altered. It will be altered so that pensions will not be increased, every six months, and a type of means test will be placed upon pensioners aged 70 years and over. So, promises that were given to us by many spokespeople on the Government benches have not been carried out. The promises have not been backed by performance. In fact, the promises have been broken. The dignity about which Senator Guilfoyle spoke in that advertisement has now been dashed away.

I mention also Medibank. Mr Fraser, in his policy speech on 27 November 1975, said quite clearly: ‘We will maintain Medibank’. The statement was clear and precise. But now Medibank has all but disappeared. I would like to mention as well some other statements by spokespersons on the Government benches. Mr Fraser, in 1976, on the program A Current A Affair said:

We are committed to maintaining Medibank and we are going to do so.

In his policy speech in 1977 Mr Fraser said:

The Medibank reforms give Australians choice in health insurance.

As late as March this year the Minister for Health, Mr Hunt, was asked this question:

Will the present basic concept of Medibank remain? Will Standard Medibank continue plus Medibank Private competing with the private funds?

Mr Hunt replied:

Oh, I would think so. I wouldn ‘t have any reason to recommend otherwise. That isn’t in anybody’s mind.

That statement was made in March this year. Now, after the muddling with Medibank and the cutting of Medibank to ribbons, the Government, whilst at all stages posturing as Medibank ‘s champion, finally has dealt a fatal blow to one ofthe greatest social advances in this decade.

It is incumbent upon anyone looking at the Budget Speech to consider the problem of income tax, the problem that was introduced in this Budget. Again let us look at some of the statements which were made in previous years. Mr Fraser, in his policy speech in 1975, said: ‘We will reduce the tax burden’. Then, in his 1977 policy speech, he boasted of a reduced burden of taxation. Naturally at that time no mention was made of the increased ‘hidden’ tax- hidden in that it was a compulsory Medibank levy or a compulsory payment for health insurance. Yet Mr Fraser said in 1977: ‘Our personal tax reforms are essential for economic recovery’. Although tax reforms are essential to economic recovery, Mr Fraser, in 1978, increased the income tax rates by Vi per cent. It was a most strange procedure. At one stage Mr Fraser was saying that tax reforms were essential; later he increased the tax rate. Perhaps this was the reform of which he was speaking.

I would like to quote from an article which appeared in the edition of the Taxpayer issued on 29 August 1978. The article sets out very clearly the conflict that seems to have arisen between previous statements made by the Prime Minister and what has happened. Under the heading ‘Lower taxes were good for us: Why not now?’ the article states:

Back when voters were being wooed, back in 1975 and again in 1977, there were promises of tax reductions which came, and then went. Under the revised personal tax scales, most taxpayers are back to ‘square one’.

If during an election, the best economic advice is to restore incentive and give businesses and people the wherewithal to get the economy moving, is the position so different now? Reminds me of the economics student who went to his tutor, surprised that the exam questions were the same as last year- only to be told ‘Ah yes! But this year the ANSWERS are different! ‘

That is what the article stated concerning the about-face on tax increases. Whilst the income tax rates themselves have been increased by 1 Vi per cent, the actual increase in tax paid is far in excess of Vh per cent. From tables that I have here it seems that the average increase is somewhere in the high 3 per cent to low 5 per cent area. 1 seek leave to have incorporated in

Hansard four tables which show the actual increases in tax paid because of the increase in the tax rate. I have shown these tables to the Minister and he has agreed to their incorporation subject to the will of the Senate.

Leave granted.

The tables read as follows-

Senator COLSTON:

-If one examines Table 1, which relates to situations where there are no dependants, one will see that on an income of $4,000 a year the actual increase in taxation which will be payable because of the increased income tax rates is 4.69 per cent. One can see in that table the increased taxation rates applying to incomes up to $40,000, where the increased taxation payable is 3.43 per cent. Incredibly, Table 2 shows that a person on $6,000 a year with a wholly dependent wife will have his tax increased by 40 per cent. To say that the taxation rates are increased by 1.5 per cent does not show the full picture. One should really look at the actual tax increase itself and the percentage it represents which is extra and payable. Table 3 shows increases ranging from 12 per cent to 3 per cent. The higher the level of income the lower the increase in tax as a percentage. The other table shows increases ranging from 3 per cent to 34 per cent. These tables are worth studying. They show that the tax increase is more than 1.5 per cent. Certainly, the rates have been increased by that but the actual tax payable is more. The Treasurer when he was speaking about the tax rates said that for the Government the decision was a severe disappointment. Whether or not it was a severe disappointment for the Government to have to increase tax rates, the decision was certainly a disappointment to the taxpayers of Australia, especially in light of the promises that were made in previous years. Mr Deputy President, it would be only too easy to document further promises that were broken by this Budget but let us look back to 1975 and recall what Mr Fraser said in relation to employment. He said:

Only under a Liberal-National Country Party government will there be jobs for all who want to work.

As we all know, unemployment has increased since and has shown no signs of abating. We might also remember that rather prophetically in the same speech in 1975, Mr Fraser said:

There will be no more jobs for the boys.

How right he was. Not only are there no jobs for the boys; there are also no jobs for the girls. I would like to look at the situation which prevails in Queensland. I look at the latest employment statistics, those for the end of August 1978. 1 look at these statistics because Queensland is the State I represent. The employment statistics for August- I have chosen August because that is the latest period for which figures are available; they were made available last Friday- show that in every employment district in Queensland except one there has been an increase in the number of unemployed since August 1977. It is not much use nowadays looking at the employment figures for one month, say August this year and comparing them with those of the previous month, July, this year. One must really compare a month from the previous year with the same month for this year, because there are no seasonally adjusted figures available. That is why I have compared August 1977 with August 1978. To save reading all the figures in this table that I prepared using these statistics I seek leave also to incorporate this table which is entitled ‘Unemployed in Queensland- August 1977 and August 1978’. I have similarly shown this table to the Minister.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Senator COLSTON:

-I thank the Senate. One can see from this table that there are a number of employment districts in Queensland. They are listed in this table. First of all are detailed the non-metropolitan districts in alphabetical order from Atherton to Warwick. In all of these nonmetropolitan districts bar one in that 12-month period there has been an increase in the number of unemployed. One can see from glancing at the table that one of the areas with the highest increases is Ayr where there has been a 76 per cent increase in unemployed, from 459 to 808. A number of other high increases are shown in this table. There are two areas with marginal increases. Mermaid Beach and Mt Isa both had an increase of one per cent. The Mt Isa figure is not surprising because if one becomes unemployed in Mt Isa one is inclined to leave the area. There is only one employment district which had a decrease during this period and that is Gympie which had a decrease of about one per cent. The unemployment figure there for August 1977 was 702 and in August 1978 it had decreased to 692- a decrease of ten. If we have a look at the figures for metropolitan Brisbane we will see that in the last 12 months there has been an increase there; an increase of 20 per cent. If we look at Queensland as a whole we see that over those 12 months there has been an increase of 22 per cent in the number of unemployed so there has not been an improvement in the employment situation. The figures that are available show quite clearly that the promise that we were given in 1975, that there would be an increase in the employment prospects for youngsters and people who were unemployed, has not been fulfilled.

I doubt whether this Budget’s strategy is the type of strategy that will alleviate this situation. I become quite disturbed when I look at the figures for unemployed people throughout my own State and throughout the Commonwealth. Too often we tend to think of these figures as just statistics. We tend to look at percentages only. We tend not to think that behind every one of these figures there is a person who is unemployed. Breadwinners and people who do not know from where the money will come for next week’s groceries are often unemployed. This is why we should have a clear look at the figures to understand what is behind them. The social implications of the unemployment that we have now are frightening, not only for young people who have been preparing to enter the work force for many years only to find that they cannot obtain work but also for the people who have families to support. It is important that we tackle this problem as quickly and as effectively as we can. Mr Deputy President, as I pointed out earlier I am not able to speak today for a full 30 minutes. With my time almost finished, I reiterate that I consider this to be a brutal Budget, and a dishonest Budget and I am convinced that it is a Budget which will become a significant nail in the coffin of the Fraser Government.

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

- Mr Deputy President, it is appropriate that I add my congratulations to those which have been expressed previously to the incoming senators who now take their places and who have made their maiden speeches in the Senate. Today and over the next few days we will hear further maiden speeches. The quality of the speeches delivered already assures us that those who will be members of the Senate in the ensuing six years will do great credit to this Senate. Mr Deputy President, I congratulate you on your election for the first time as Deputy President of the Senate. You understand what great pleasure it gives one such as I, from your own political party, to see you in that office. You know that you have our great support. I also give my congratulations to Mr President, Senator Condor Laucke, on his re-election. (Quorum formed) The Opposition’s reaction to the 1978 Budget reminds one of the lines that run:

For undemocratic reasons and for motives Not of State,

They arrive at their conclusionsLargely inarticulate.

Two of the outstanding features of this Budget period so far have not received wide expression and perhaps the understanding that they deserve. One reflects great credit on the FraserAnthony Government and the other equally great discredit on the Australian Labor Party. Several Labor spokesmen have gone to some pains in this debate, as did the previous speaker, to claim that the Government can no longer blame the Whitlam Government or that era between 1972 and 1975 for the problems which beset the Australian economy today. One can well understand this. They desperately want to believe that. The burden of guilt that they carry for the havoc that they wrought during those days is enormous.

Senator Walsh:

– Idi Amin blames Milton Obote.

Senator WEBSTER:

– We can hear the bleating of Opposition senators such as the one from Western Australia who is bleating at the moment. When Labor was in power it brought this country to its knees and regrettably it is not willing to acknowledge it at present. Those who now plead innocence and ignorance of the cause of the problems in Australia should reflect on and recapitulate some of the well documented events of the early 1970s when a Labor socialist government was in power in Australia and had the opportunity to bring down several budgets. I remind honourable senators of the United States of America edition of the Reader’s Digest published in January 1977. In it is an article to which I refer all Australians. Whenever they are preparing to go to an election they should read The Sobering Story of Australia’s Big Spending’. The article gives a succinct account of what happened to a long-stable economy when subjected to a Labor socialist management. The article states:

Three years of profligate government spending brought one of the world ‘s wealthiest nations to the brink of economic disaster. And then the people rebelled.

The article goes on to say that Australia -

Senator Georges:

– I wonder whether for the benefit of the debate the Minister will identify the article. He has mentioned that it is in the Reader’s Digest. Can he give us the name of the writer as well?

Senator WEBSTER:

– I realise that Senator Georges does not hear well. I have just given the name of the article. I suppose he will attempt to take up all the time he can while I am attempting to advise him wisely. I said that the article was in the January 1977 edition of the United States Reader’s Digest and is titled ‘The Sobering Story of Australia’s Big Spending’. Senator Georges would be familiar with that type of article. He must have read it a dozen times. The article states:

Australia, the ‘Lucky Country’, as Australians began calling it in the 1960s, has one ofthe world’s highest living standards. With a population of 13.5m, it produces most af the West’s wool, wheat and sugar. Minerals abound: a near monopoly of titanium ore; one quarter of the noncommunist bloc’s uranium; plentiful supplies of coa), iron, copper, bauxite, silver, lead and zinc.

According to World Bank figures, Australia also has the West’s most egalitarian economy, with the smallest gap between rich and poor.

When Labor came into office in late 1972, unemployment was just 2.4 per cent and inflation 4.5 per cent- an economic performance matched only by West Germany. And with 70 per cent of Australia’s oil coming from local wells, she should have been relatively insulated from the world inflation that the oil-producing countries’ sudden price increases in 1 973 would bring.

Nevertheless, by 1974 Australia’s economy was in a frightening mess. Inflation had soared as high at 28 per cent in a single month. Why? A July 1 975 International Monetary Fund survey stated it bluntly: ‘The origins of the Australian recession are to be found in domestic developments’.

Within days of taking office, the Whitlam Government plunged into a socialist-minded restructuring of the Australian economy.

The article goes on to quote what Fred Daly, one of the Whitlam Ministers, later confessed. In the last day or so he has been reported in the newspapers as being one of the Whitlam Government’s honest Ministers. He said:

Few of us bothered to count the cost in those early days . . . We spent money as if it were going out of fashion’.

The article continues:

Almost immediately inflation accelerated: The consumer price index jumped 8.2 per cent in the first six months of Labor rule. Increased unemployment benefits and related eligibility regulations began to foster a welfare mentality. One economist estimated that 10,000 persons stopped working. Hand outs for young unemployed workers in particular more than quadrupled.

As Labor prepared its first Budget . . . senior civil servants warned that the economy could absorb a government spending increase of only $1.8 billion. Determined to have its new programs, however, Labor lifted outlays by $2.3 billion.

The article goes on to state that Labor also set out to boost wages and benefits. I interpolate here that one of the great problems that we have in our community today is emphasised in these lines from the article. It states:

In three years, Australian wages rose 70 per cent, while industrial productivity increased less than one per cent.

The article goes on to say:

All told. Australian federal spending reached an estimated S26.3 billion in 1975-76. up a staggering 80 per cent in just two years.

The article goes on to deal with other activities of a government which probably thought it was doing the right thing by its own philosophy, but that Government laid the groundwork for the economic difficulties that this country has. No doubt by far the majority of the people today who have the welfare of this country in mind would believe that even the tough decisions that have been taken by the present Government in this Budget are the correct ones and are in line with the right way to economic recovery.

Senator Coleman:

– Not the ones who were asked in the gall up poll.

Senator WEBSTER:

-The article from which I have quoted was read by millions of people overseas and was read by Americans. It was read by people who are of the utmost importance in recognising and assisting Australia ‘s trading relations and economic conditions. The Whitlam Government decimated the Australian economy in three years. In less than three years the coalition Government has, since it returned to office, achieved the early stages of economic recovery. That is an outstanding achievement and one which has not received the wide acclaim that it deserves at the present time. It is an achievement which ranks with the few great economic recoveries that have been effected elsewhere in the post-war years. There is in the Budget Papers a clear statement on our progress in economic recovery. Let me quote the facts as stated by the Treasurer (Mr Howard) in his Budget Speech. He said:

For the year ended June 1976, the rate of inflation, as measured by the Consumer Price Index, was 12.3 per cent; for the year to June 1 978, it had fallen to 7.9 per cent.

Through 1977-78, inflation fell faster than had been predicted in last year’s Budget.

Reduced inflation has relieved pressures and strains throughout the economy.

A start has been made in reducing interest rates.

Lower inflation has also boosted private sector confidence and spending.

They were Mr Howard’s words. The Treasury forecast is that by mid- 1979, or earlier, the inflation rate will be down to 5 per cent- lower than that of most or our trading partners. That is an enormously exciting prospect. This will return Australia to the favoured position that it held prior to 1972. Reducing inflation to that level and bringing down interest rates will do more to help home buyers, pensioners, businesses, farmers, and exporters and will do more for jobs than any other single act of government. That is why this Government set the defeat of inflation as the first and urgent priority. That is why we have fought inflation so vigorously and relentlessly. There is no other course open to a responsible government.

It is interesting to note that the most recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development economic survey of Australia, published in April 1978, supports the actions we are taking. The survey made the point that net gains from any short term expansionary policies would in the long term be less than gains likely to be achieved under policies broadly similar to those now being followed. I invite honourable senators to note the difference in the attitudes of the present Government and that of the Opposition. Statements by Mr Hayden and certainly by Senator Wriedt in this place indicate that the Opposition would take a different course. The OECD opinion is not an isolated one. There are other examples. I note that in a particular field of interest Sir Samuel Burston, the President of the Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers Council, stated:

The Budget is as tough as had been expected, but this is absolutely necessary in the present economic circumstances.

The ANZ Banking Group Ltd newsletter for August stated:

The Australian Government’s Budget for 1978-79 represents a clear continuation of fiscal and monetary policies designed to curb inflation, restore stability to the balance of international payments and to encourage private overseas and domestic capital investment. Initial indications are that there will be progression in achieving these aims during 1978-79, paving the way to improved economic well-being in the longer term.

The Mining Review, published by the Australian Mining Industry Council, in its July issue stated:

It would be folly to jeopardise what has already been achieved by relaxing tight control now. The Government should therefore continue the course it is currently steering.

I note that most of Australia’s national newspapers reacted favourably in editorials and special articles to the actions which this Government has taken. I do not doubt that Opposition members in their hearts truly believe that this was the only course open to the Government. They have seen the experience of what Labor had done previously, and I know from speaking to them privately how unhappy they are about the actions taken by a Labor government.

I now turn to the second major feature of Budget week- the horror prospect of a sudden relapse into the deathly economic malaise of 1972-75, foreshadowed in the Hayden alternative Budget. The heavy increases in government spending proposed by Labor would have three main results- all in the opposite direction to the successful economic strategy developed and pursued by the present Government. It would place at certain risk the hard-won victory over inflation, in which many Australian people have responded so magnificently. It would increase rather than reduce interest rates, bringing back a level of hardship suffered by industry, business and individuals for far too long. It would renew unfavourable international perceptions of the Australian economy- discouraging fresh investment and damaging prospects of sorely needed expanded overseas trade. Australians and, sadly, the people of other countries who have reason to count on our economic stability must be stunned by the knowledge that Labor would do it all again, according to the word of a Whitlam Government Treasurer. I am sure that that would be regretted by all if it occurred. It is incredible that Mr Hayden as a former Treasurer would announce that he would offset increased public sector expenditure by imposing new taxation measures that perhaps would produce negligible income in this financial year. That is the type of thinking, the same form of economic incompetence, that in large part caused the Australian people to throw out the Labor socialist Government in 1975.

Under Mr Hayden ‘s proposals it would be likely that the deficit would be about $4.5 billion or $5 billion. I have not heard of anybody who has any economic sense supporting such a deficit. It is one thing for Labor to refuse to admit publicly that its policies ravaged a stable economy and that our policies have effected a first stage of a dramatic recovery; it is another thing for Labor supporters to advocate what they are currently advocating. More importantly, Mr Hayden has exposed himself to allegations of incitement to violence when he addressed a rally in Sydney recently and called for sustained anger against the Budget and Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). Violence flowed from that rally in the form of a wild demonstration at the Sydney Stock Exchange. Why should that occur in this country? It would not unless there were incitement to violence on the part of the weakminded incitement by political leaders such as Mr Hayden.

The Hayden incident followed an earlier outburst in Brisbane by the new Federal President of the Labor Party, Mr Batt, and regrettably it is necessary to quote the comments he made on television after an anti-Budget rally. He said:

I ‘11 make two prophecies. One, the situation is going to get worse and secondly, . . . that as soon as the people really learn to understand the impact of this Budget, my prophecy is this- they ‘11 get rid of the bastard.

They were the comments of the newly elected President of the Labor Party. What esteem he must be held in by the community! Intemperate statements such as these from political leaders can only help to foster political violence in a nation which, thankfully, has known little of it in comparison with many other countries. I am forced to wonder whether some members of the Opposition really want that. It is far more pleasant and constructive to reflect on the commendable progress the Government has made towards achieving its aim of implementing essential reforms despite the overriding need to constrain expenditure.

We have said from the time we regained office that a strong and profitable private sector is the best method of creating wealth and prosperity for Australia and employment opportunities for Australians. Some of the strike activity around Australia at present certainly will set back the recovery. Let me instance just two areas of great achievement which find expression and confirmation in the 1 978 Budget. The first is taxation. Despite all the ranting and raving by the Opposition about the temporary increase in the standard rate of income tax, the outstanding fact that cannot be denied is that this Government has done more to reform the Australian taxation system and to reduce the overall burden on the taxpayer than has any previous government, whether of a coalition nature or a Labor nature. Nor will Labor’s mock outrage alter the fact that the temporary increase is not large in relation to the tax concessions already granted, particularly the standard rate scale. In 1978-79 that reform and the effect of half indexation from 1 July will outweigh the 1 1½ per cent increase by a benefit to the taxpaying community of about $700m.

The overall tax concessions package, including lower tax scales, indexation and other measures, has put more than $3,000m back into the pockets of taxpayers in the last three years. The Budget confirms the desire to assist and promote further economic recovery. No new taxes or tax increases have been imposed upon the business community.

Senator Button:

– I take a point of order.

Senator WEBSTER:

-Our primary industriesthe economic sector most savagely and severely hit by the irresponsibility of the disastrous Labor Budgets 1973, 1974 and 1975- again see significant contributions -

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Townley)- Order! A point of order has been raised.

Senator Button:

– I rose to take a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. I refer you to Standing Order 406, which states that no senator shall read his speech. Senator Webster was so busy reading his speech that he did not even notice that somebody had taken a point of order. I was prompted to rise on this point of order because he missed a line in reading his speech. I ask you to rule on this matter, Mr Acting Deputy President.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- My ruling is that I have not noticed that Senator Webster is reading his speech. I shall ask him not to read his speech if he is doing so.

Senator WEBSTER:

-The picture for the rural community is one of steadily brightening prospects because of the success of our counterinflationary efforts. The Budget provides a range of both direct and indirect benefits for farmers, the principal benefit resting in its firm stimulus to the private sector, its certain impact on inflation and the consequential reduction in interest rates. The recovery of international competiveness is critical, not just to the farmers’ viability but also to their very survival. That is something which has been of great concern to my party over recent years. For this to be achieved, further reduction in inflation and interest rates is absolutely essential.

In my own area of ministerial responsibility, I am delighted that the Budget reflects the Government’s determination to continue and, wherever possible, to accelerate the significant progress made in science in Australia in recent years. There are always new goals in science. Today, more than ever before, this Government is acutely aware of its responsibility to provide public funds commensurate with the great need for and unquestioned ability of Australian scientists to maintain their high rate of achievement. The nation as a whole and mankind in particular are the beneficiaries of this type of activity. The Government has demonstrated this awareness by increasing the total allocation of funds to science at a time of extreme expenditure restraint. This not only reflects due acknowledgment of the magnificent work of our scientists but also offers encouragement to them in terms of increased levels of funding in the future.

We rely on our scientists, much more than we care to admit, to foresee the problems of primary, secondary, manufacturing and tertiary industries as well as the effects their activities have on the ecology, the environment and social aspects of our country. Scientists must provide for us information on these problems long before they come to the public consciousness. The importance of this cannot be overemphasised in a society such as ours which demands, quite rightly I believe, higher living standards and the expectation of greater job satisfaction. The result is a compression of the lead time our scientists, technologists and managers have in which to find the solutions in these days. Funds for some areas of scientific importance are necessarily limited this year. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation proudly acknowledges that Australia’s lead in the field of scientific excellence must be pursued in the future. It faces the challenge ahead greatly encouraged by the findings of the exhaustive inquiry of the Birch Committee and strengthened by the Government’s decision made, following that inquiry, within the last few months.

I am delighted that the outstanding scientist, Dr Paul Wild, will lead CSIRO as chairman for the next seven years. The machinery has been set in motion to ensure that the management structure of CSIRO is appropriate for the years ahead and that a full and adequate flow of advice is readily available from CSIRO to industry, government and the community generally about the national needs and priorities. CSIRO has a budget of $144,344,000 this year. That is $8,893,000 above that of the previous year. The Organisation plans to redeploy staff into fisheries research in support of the Australian fishing zone- a vital matter. It expects to work on bluetongue investigation, aphid resistant lucerne breeding, the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory and the establishment of a group for international research co-operation. All these are new matters in the CSIRO budget.

New work is to commence within my Department. Approximately $100,000 is available for the assessment of a new ship for the Antarctic Division. An amount of $1.9m will be spent on new capital works in Antarctic bases this year. This year we will be spending $4.2 m on the installation of equipment for the receiving and processing of data from the United States series of LANDSAT satellites. With the support that has been given to the learned academies, which will receive about $500,000 in special grants this year, I believe that those bodies are well served. There is a special grant for the Australian Academy of Science of $68,000 for its exchange program with its counterpart in Peking. That is of importance. In addition, the budget of the Department of Construction will allow for construction to commence on new facilities in New South Wales for the Department of Science, as well as the headquarters for the Antarctic Division and the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories which will be built near Hobart. The New South Wales building, of course, is the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories in Pymble.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT-

Order! The Minister’s time has expired.

Senator Colston:

– I rise on a point of order. Under Standing Order 364, if Senator Webster were not a Minister of the Crown, I would be able to move that he lay on the table a copy of the Readers’ Digest from which he quoted. However, as he is a Minister of the Crown I cannot do so. Could I, through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, ask Senator Webster whether he would table that document?

Senator Webster:

– The honourable senator has asked whether I would table a copy of the United States Readers’ Digest. He is well aware that I said during my speech that I was quoting from the January 1977 United States edition of the Readers’ Digest and gave the title of the article. However, as the honourable senator has asked that it be tabled, I will go even further to his great advantage and ask that the Senate allow me to incorporate in Hansard the balance of the address which I did not read so that the whole article from which I was quoting will be recorded in Hansard.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT-Is it the wish of the Senate that that be so ordered?

Senator Colston:

– No.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Then it is not to be incorporated.

Senator Walsh:

– I rise on a further point of order. If Senator Webster intends making the document available perhaps he would tell us the source of the quotation that inflation in one month peaked at over 20 per cent, since the consumer price index is not measured on a monthly basis.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT-

There is no point of order.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-The Senate is debating the 1978 Budget and we have just listened to a lengthy speech by the Minister for Science (Senator Webster), who was whistling in the dark. He denied that he was reading his speech when I raised the question during the course of it but some five minutes later has offered to table the whole speech. It will be fascinating reading for those of us who were not able to read it over the Minister’s shoulder. I want to talk about education in the Budget context.

Senator Webster:

– Are you going to read it?

Senator BUTTON:

-I do not intend to read it because I do not need to read it. The Minister does need to read it and that is something of which everybody listening will be aware.

Senator Webster:

– What are all the papers you have in front of you?

Senator BUTTON:

-I intend to quote from some of them and the first document from which I will quote is the Budget Speech. I want to deal with that very brief section of the Budget Speech which relates specifically to education. The Budget Speech states:

The Budget provides for Commonwealth expenditure of almost $2,500m on education . . .

It goes on to say where that money is to be spent, that is, in universities and colleges of advanced education. The Speech then states:

In April a Working Party of the Tertiary Education Commission issued a draft report recommending that present arrangements for study leave in universities and colleges of advanced education be tightened up; the Government proposes to take action, effective from1 January 1979, to that end but will await the Commission’s final report before announcing its decisions.

The only other reference in the Budget Speech to education, apart from those passages, relates to taxation of postgraduate awards. During Question Time in the Senate today Senator Carrick was asked a number of questions about education, particularly in the 1978 Budget context. One of the questions he was asked was about student involvement in universities andhe gave a very interesting answer which showed quite clearly that the Minister for Education does not as yet understand the concept of university autonomy about which he so frequently talks. He just does not understand the concept. He was also asked by Senator Mason a question about postgraduate awards. Let me deal with those two specific issues which are mentioned in the Budget, firstly, study leave and, secondly, the taxation of postgraduate awards. University study leave has been the subject of an inquiry by the Tertiary Education Commission which has not yet finally reported. Nevertheless, the Government announced in this Budget that despite what that report contains it has made up its mind that the present arrangements for study leave will be tightened up. The second specific reference to education in the Budget is the Government’s decision to tax postgraduate allowances, a decision with which I do not personally disagree, but one which I find extraordinary in view of the fact that in January 1978 the Government said that postgraduate allowances were not enough and increased them to $4,200.

In its August 1978 Budget it has imposed taxation on those allowances which will reduce them to about $3,800.

I have mentioned these two specific matters which were dealt with in the education part of the Budget Speech just to illustrate some simple points. The Government’s policies in relation to education are confused and result from ad hoc decision making. There is uncertainty about the Government’s and the Minister’s attitudes to important issues such as university autonomy. For example, how is the Minister going to stop study leave without telling universities that their budgets will be cut or without interfering in the autonomy of universities? These two issues are quite illustrative of the Government’s confusion about education policy and the importance which it continually attaches to the lip service it pays to its ideology. Why is it important in the context of a Budget Speech to mention the taxation of postgraduate allowances which will amount to $0.6m a year? Why is it important to mention study leave before the final report which was commissioned by the Government is presented? It is all related to the Government’s obsession with what I suppose it would be pleased to term, good housekeeping.

At the same time as it is talking about good housekeeping in respect of these quite peripheral education issues, it still has on board plans to develop Casey University at a cost of $ 100m, a socalled university to cater for 1,450 students belonging to the Services, students who could be accommodated equally well elsewhere. Of course, this is a grandiose commitment which has not yet been finally abandoned. It is an enormous commitment compared with these two smaller issues dealt with in the Budget. It is important to contrast that sort of grandoise commitment with the petty minded housekeeping issues to which I referred.

Senator Carrick illustrates again and again, in relation to all these problems, that he does not understand the issues about which he is talking. His attitude displayed today at Question Time reminded me of an advertisement I saw in the Bulletin recently by Kinnears, the rope people, relating to knotty problems, which Senator Carrick certainly has. Illustrated in that document- I will hold it up for Senator Webster because he might think I am reading from it; it is an illustrated document- is what is described as the ‘Carrick bend’, a type of knot with which we are fully familiar in the Senate. During Question Time today he got himself into an even greater problem called a ‘multiple Carrick bend ‘.

What I specifically want to discuss in the context of the Budget debate is the Government’s schools policy and the direction in which it is taking this country. This policy also is characterised by ad hockery, the pursuit of narrow sectional interests- a traditional avenue of Liberal Party governments- and, more specifically, by the total absence of a foresighted commitment to Australian children, something which has characterised all Federal Liberal Party government education policies for many years, in favour of the piecemeal pursuit of a narrow ideology. It has always been difficult for Federal governments to grapple with education. It is not a matter which is reserved for the Federal Government of this country under the Constitution. There are always difficulties about grappling with the education policy.

One should look at the Liberal Party tradition of government in relation to the involvement by the national Government in education policy. One should go back over the history of it. It is not very long. In the 1950s, of course, Sir Robert Menzies made the first concessions to the private schools sector in Australia by introducing tax concessions to independent schools. In 1963, in response to very real electoral pressure, we had science laboratories offered as an election gimmick to independent schools. We had further federal aid for schools during the 1960s. In 1967 we had again a piece of ad hockery when Mr Harold Holt as Prime Minister offered school libraries to independent schools. In 1969, under the looming pressure of electoral defeat, for the first time, under Mr Malcolm Fraser as the responsible Minister, capital and recurrent grants were offered for independent schools.

The point I make simply about all this is that these offers of electoral bait at three elections brought about federal involvement in the Australian educational scene, as far as schools are concerned. They were all ad hoc responses to electoral pressure. There was no real education policy involved in any of those matters. The only policy which was reflected at that time was reflected in letters which the then Minister for Education, Mr Malcolm Fraser, wrote to constituents. In those letters he said that the Liberal Party was dedicated to the support of wealthy private schools because they produced the leaders of this country. There are all sorts of value judgments in that statement with which even Senator Carrick in his most loquacious moments- I shudder to think what they would be like- would have difficulty in agreeing. I refer to the sorts of total inegalitarian assumptions in these remarks which were made by Mr Fraser as Minister for Education.

The point is that there is no real policy involved in it at all. The first time that this country had a national educational policy that could possibly be called so, as distinct from a whole series of ad hoc emotional gestures in response to perceived electoral threat, and which was concerned in a foresighted way with the needs of every Australian school child was in 1973 when the Karmel Committee adopted the needs policy. That is the first deliberately considered policy on socially equitable grounds upon which a national government of this country has ever embarked. The important point about that policy is that it settled in a very real way the most divisive political issue that this country has probably known, and that was the so-called State aid debate. Our position and the position of the Government between 1973 and 1975 was quite clear on that issue, namely, that irrespective of whether children were being educated in private schools or in government schools every child in this country was entitled to the maximum assistance which a government could give based on the needs of that child. For the first time we put an end to the attitudes which were very prevalent in this country- in a sense they still are, particularly amongst government members- in which education is seen as a means of advancing one’s own child as against other children in the community. For the first time there was a national effort to tackle that problem. For example, the Karmel report at page 48 said:

  1. . in all school systems and in some independent schools, the level of resources for teaching falls considerably below that in the better endowed ones.

It therefore suggested a system of levels of resource. That was in 1973. The Schools Commission Act of that year specifically charged the Commission to advise on needs of both government and non-government schools. It recognised that the primary obligation in relation to education was for governments to provide and to maintain systems which are of the highest standard and which are open to all.

Now in 1978 we look back through the mists of retrospect at the period of the Whitlam Government. Senator Webster did that for half an hour today. He reminded me of Glendower recalling the demons from the vasty deep, or whatever it was. Senator Webster did that for a long time. If we look back to that period we can see, as I said, that for the first time there was a diffusion of the very divisive social issue of State aid. But, more importantly, the national policy on education of the Labor Government stimulated the States to invest more in education. There was a national surge forward in education spending and in interest in education, sponsored by the Federal Government of the time, sponsored by the Schools Commission and followed by the State governments. For the first time there was introduced the principle of equity in school funding.

When we look back to that period we still have to bear in mind, of course, the values, the spending and the attitudes of that time can be questioned and ought to be questioned. There is nothing new in questioning the approach to educational values, to raising again and again the question of concern to all Australians, namely, the question of quality in education. But Senator Carrick, the Minister for Education in the national Parliament, keeps saying again and again that Australian people are more concerned now about quality in education. They are not concerned so much about educational expenditure and things of that kind; they are concerned about quality. I really do not know what all that means. I do not know what that means in terms of a Greek migrant child in the inner suburbs of Melbourne who is told that Senator Carrick is concerned about quality in education, but I know that it is very important for that Greek migrant child to have the benefit of multilingual teaching in the school, to have the benefit of teachers who can speak in his language and in that of his family, who can speak to his parents, and who can help him to assess his identity in a difficult situation and in a difficult environment.

I do not know what Senator Carrick is talking about when he says those things, but I do know what is important in terms of those things to the average child. It is no good just going on with this parrot cry of concern for quality- of course, that is important- if it is in fact a meaningless phrase. It is repeated again and again by people in Australia that there is a swing back to concern for the three Rs in education, to concern about standards and to concern about the product. Of course, that is an equally legitimate matter for debate and concern. The latest issue of Education News gives a very strong pointer in an article on the core curriculum in Australian schools to some of the difficulties about that simplistic approach to the problem of standards, to the alleged decline in the three Rs and so on. The article states:

The influx of postwar migrants has made it impossible to perpetuate the myth of one language, one cultural heritage, and one set of shared beliefs and customs in Australia. Equally important have been the social, economic and political changes which have challenged the nature of society’s dominant institutions and the basis of their authority. Many groups in society are now asserting their right to a greater role in redefining the culture that has traditionally accorded them little status or power.

That is a very important comment about the sorts of difficulties -

Senator Peter Baume:

– The three Rs don’t have high cultural values.

Senator BUTTON:

– I am not saying that, senator. The point I am making, which I thought you would have been able to follow, is that what your Government’s policy in relation to education and everything else is concerned about is to try to turn this country to the sort of simplistic situation of the mid 1960s, for example. The point I am trying to make is that society has changed very much since that time, the educational environment has changed since then and there are very great difficulties in confronting the sorts of simplistic solutions which people, like Senator Baume, would probably like to advance in answer to some of these problems.

The second point I make about the initiatives of the Labor Government in relation to education and the development for the first time in this country of a clear national policy, as distinct from a set of ad hoc responses, is simply this: There is now a very real threat to the social compact by the actions of this Government over the past two and a half years. There was a social compact. There was an agreement about educational needs in this society. It was an agreement which united people concerned in education. It flowed from the Catholic sector and other areas of the non-government sector and into the Government sector as well. It had a mutual concern for the needs principle and the needs of every Australian child. That is all now in danger because this Government persists in pursuing a policy which is based on ideology rather than social equity.

As I said before, the ideology was revealed by the present Prime Minister when he was Minister for Education in 1969 and wrote to constituents saying that he supported the wealthy schools in this country because they produced the leaders of our society. It is important to contrast that statement with the sort of statement which I just read about the work of the Curriculum Development Centre. The trend of this Government in trying to reverse that social compact and to introduce diversiveness into the Australian education system has been very clear in the last sets of guidelines given to the Schools Commission. There has been a decreasing responsibility for State schools. It is all very well for Senator Carrick to claim that the States are in a position to put more money into State schools. The fact is that none of the States has given an undertaking to do so. As recently as last week when the New South Wales Budget was presented the concept of new federalism, which according to Senator Carrick is going to benefit these people, was specifically rejected.

In the last two sets of guidelines there has been very great concern for the interests of the wealthy private schools as distinct from the interests of the poorer independent or non-government schools and as distinct from the interests of children in government schools. The Government’s narrowest prejudices show even within the Budget allocations to the independent or nongovernment school sector. This year, in response to the Government’s publicly justified policy of increasing all independent school funding to at least 20 per cent of State costs, Level 1 and Level 2 schools in the non-government sector received increases in basic grants of up to $28 a pupil whilst Level 6 schools, the poorer Catholic primary schools, had increases of $5 a pupil. That is the most classic illustration within the nongovernment sector of this Government’s commitment to inequality in education, a divisive commitment which tends to divide the Catholic child in this community from the Protestant child. Senator Walters nods her head, but she will get up and tell us all about it. It is a commitment which divides the Catholic school system child from the child in the government school.

That is an area of great concern to the Opposition and it ought to be an area of concern to this Government if it is really convinced by its rhetoric. But it is not convinced because the figures speak differently. There is a built-in inequality within the non-government sector in the allocations which have been made by this Government. The money goes to the schools which this Government most favours, with some money going to other schools for electoral reasons. How else can one explain the vast discrepancies in the allocations to schools within the non-government sector? But the situation is not even explicable in the terms which Senator Carrick has used. In September 1977, in a speech at Saint Xavier High School here in the Australian Capital Territory, Senator Carrick said:

It is also nonsense to say that non-government schools are wealthy. The overwhelming majority of such schools are in level 6, the level of greatest need.

Let us look at the figures. The allocation by the Government in the Budget to schools within the level of greatest need was $5 a pupil; the allocation to schools within the level of least need, the wealthy independent schools, was $28 a pupil. That is how Senator Carrick responds to his own analysis of the needs.

As I said, that statement contains a clear admission by Senator Carrick of where the level of greatest need is. The level of greatest need is in the government schools of this country and in the Level 6 schools in the non-government sector. If that is so, why does this Government give most of the money to the better off areas? In efforts to justify the position which Senator Carrick adopts he has even misquoted Schools Commission reports on this very issue. Senator Carrick is a man who steps in the shoes of Senator Withers, a man who disappeared from the forefront of political life partly because he mislead this Parliament. Senator Carrick should be very careful. He should walk very cautiously in those shoes if he does not wish to follow the fate of his predecessor. Let us look at what Senator Carrick is reported in an article in the Melbourne Age of 7 July 1 977 to have said. The article states:

In its July, 1976, report the Schools Commission noted that there is ‘a marked gap between the resources available to Government schools and non-Government schools’.

Senator Carrick made that misquotation to justify a position which the article indicates he developed. If we refer to the Schools Commission report to which Senator Carrick referred, we see that it states something which in fact is quite different. It states:

  1. . there is still a marked gap between the resources available to Government schools and most non-Government schools.

I stress the words ‘most non-Government schools’. Senator Carrick very conveniently left out the word ‘most’. Of course that is very significant and important because it is on the basis of that sort of omission that he seeks to justify publicly the Government’s policy on the way it allocates funds to the wealthier sector of the nongovernment school system.

The Minister also talks about the States having reached high standards. He says that they are up with targets and he just ignores the comments of bodies such as the Schools Commission, a national body which is not involved with the parochial interests of any particular State. He ignores the comments about the very big lag in providing buildings for schools. He says: ‘Most of the States are up to target’. Of course, the two States which are not up to target are New South Wales and Queensland, which have almost exactly half the school children of Australia in their schools. So it is totally misleading for the Minister to rely on that sort of argument in support of a position towards school funding which the Government has adopted in this Budget.

Of very great concern is the way in which this Government has approached this matter, As I said, the Government’s approach is inequitable, divisive and is tending to set the interests of one child in our community against the interests of another. That is quite capable of leading to divisiveness and to the revival of the old State aid debate. This comes from a government which we were promised in the 1977 GovernorGeneral’s Speech would be a government for all people in Australia, a government which one would hope at least would be a government for all children in Australia, and not a government which is dedicated to providing unequal resources for Australian school children.

Of the greatest concern of all is the way that the Budget allocation and the speeches that have been made in conjunction with it totally ignore the current problems of Australian schools. There is a great number of those problems. Perhaps the Minister should have his attention drawn to a survey made last year by the New South Wales Department of Education which showed, for example, that some 9,225 children in New South Wales schools who responded to a survey in the last year of their school education said: ‘Yes, I would have liked to have left school last year but I could not leave school because I could not get a job’. As many as 9,225 school children in New South Wales in years 9, 10 and 11 in their schooling made that statement. Of that number 884 school children were in the Liverpool area, alone, which is situated in the big Federal electorate of Werriwa, as I recall it. As many as 1 ,034 children were in the metropolitan west area. The cost of putting those children, who represent hidden factors in the unemployment figures of this country, on the dole would have been about $20m.

It is important, as a current issue in education, to consider what the education system is in fact doing for those children, rather than to consider it as some glorified form of keeping the deficit as low as possible, of keeping down the unemployment figures. That ought to be an area of concern to this Government if, of course, it is prepared to consider some of the contemporary issues. All of these things are of great concern to the future of Australian school children. They are of concern to them after they leave school, and they ought to be of concern to all senators and to all who have a serious worry about the future of the educational system in this country.

I sincerely hope that the Government in any later initiatives that it may take- if it is capable of taking initiatives- will try not to turn the clock back and reach a solution to these problems by reverting to the simplistic ideologies of the 1960s; that it will see the issue as it is now, because the issue of unemployment, for example, which I raised, and of hidden unemployment in schools, concerns all children, whether they be in government schools or in non-government schools. Of course, it concerns least those who are in the wealthy private schools, who are the greatest beneficiaries of this Budget as far as this Government is concerned.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Townley)- Prior to calling Senator Hamer, I draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that it will be his first speech in this place. I ask that honourable senators attend him the usual courtesy.

Senator HAMER:
Victoria

– I should like at the outset of my Senate career to pay a tribute to my predecessor, Senator Sir Magnus Cormack. Sir Magnus was a great senator, a member of this chamber for 18 years and its President for three; but above all he was a fighter for the Senate, for its prestige, its organisation and its power. He made a great contribution to all three. It will be a difficult task to follow him. For myself, it is an honour to be elevated to the distinction of membership of this upper House after some years of labouring in the nether regions. There are. not many of us who have made this transition but, curiously enough, in recent years three of us have been so elevated. Upper Houses have a long tradition. An historian has recorded that the ancient Goths had the wise custom of debating all important questions twice, once drunk and once sober- drunk that their decisions might have vigour, and sober that they might have discretion. Of course, I draw no modern parallels. I am all in favour of vigour and discretion, but I am not sure that Gothic methods would be acceptable today. Perhaps they lived in a simpler age.

Every generation probably thinks that theirs is a peculiarly difficult age, but ours does seem more difficult than most. Every established institution is under attack. Democracy itself is under siege all over the world. We must not assume that the democratic system is bound to succeed, or even survive, without any effort by us. After all, there are not more than 47 true democracies left in the world today, and even to get that many one has to count tiny ones such as Nauru, with a voting population of 1,798. It is probably true that if one counts only significant democracies there are fewer today than there were 50 years ago. Democracies certainly now represent a very much lower proportion of the total number of independent nations than they did then. So we surely have no grounds for complacency. Disraeli once said, ironically, that in a democracy it is sometimes necessary for a government to bow to the will of the majority. Not so ironically, if our democratic system is to work there must be the consent of the governed: Not just the bare majority but the great bulk of the population must accept the system. That is what is so worrying about the alienation of so many, particularly of the young, and their feeling that the system is too remote and too unresponsive to their needs.

Responsible government is, or any way used to be, a dynamic concept. With our too-rigid Constitution, we are in danger of embalming this dynamic concept in the state that it was in the 1890s. Democracy must remain dynamic. Like a cannon ball, once it stops advancing, its usefulness is over. The tragedy of the Constitutional Conventions is the chance that is being missed. True, some agreements have been reached on minor matters, but little has been done about fundamentals. It is disappointing to see the way the Conventions divide on party lines on key issues, with the left hand undoing what the right hand has done, or possibly the other way around. There is no future there. Even if it were possible to bulldoze a resolution on party lines, through a Convention, such a controversial proposal could never survive a referendum.

One relatively minor problem that has not yet been solved is that of the holding of simultaneous elections. It is possible to make a good case that the present three-year term for the House of Representatives is too short. It is five years in Britain and Canada, for instance. With a short term for the House of Representatives most governments- although admittedly certainly not this one- would be reluctant to put forward tough, long-term policies that they know to be necessary, because of the imminence of an election. The situation is made much worse if the already too-short interval between elections is further shortened by a separate Senate election. This is a perfect recipe for short-sighted government, and short-sighted government is bad government. The proposal on simultaneous elections that was put to the people last year, and rejected by them then, was produced by the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Review in 1959 and was endorsed by the 1976 Hobart Constitutional Convention. It was proper to be put to the people, but I do not think that it was the best solution. The problem was tackled the wrong way around. Instead of bringing the Senate into line with the House of Representatives, we should have brought the House of Representatives into line with us by giving it a fixed threeyear term. Then both Houses would always be in line.

There would, of course, be one consequential problem. Such a fixed term would remove the power effectively given to the Prime Minister to dissolve the House of Representatives before the end of its term. I know of nothing in the theory of responsible government that necessitates giving a Prime Minister the power to hold an election at a time which suits his political advantage. All that would be needed would be to have a constitutional provision that if a government could not be formed in the House of Representatives there should be an election for a new House of Representatives to complete the unexpired portion of the fixed term. I should like to see this issue of simultaneous elections, through fixed terms of both Houses, go to a referendum at the next general election without bringing in other issues, such as a longer term for Parliament. I would hate to argue on the hustings for a 10 year term for senators. I would like to see the simultaneous election issue stand or fall on its own. I think it would stand. Although the matter of simultaneous elections is not an issue which should be swept under the carpet, just because it is not likely to be a problem in the near future, there are other much more important problems. The role of this upper House is the dominant one. I hope that it will not seem presumptuous of me if I comment on this issue, but now that I have been a member of both Houses perhaps I have a different perspective. In any case, I think it is proper that a new senator declare where he stands on this critical issue.

I think one must start back at first principles. The perceived role of upper Houses is changing. In the 18th and 19th centuries an upper House was seen as a check on change and on the advance of democracy, and upper Houses usually had appropriate membership restrictions. ‘All second chambers’, says one authority, ‘have been instituted, not from disinterested love of mature deliberation but because there was something their makers wished to defend against the rest of the community, especially inherited possessions and status’. Madison, the principal author of the United States Constitution, campaigned for a strong Senate ‘as a check on the democracy: It cannot therefore be made too strong’. The Australian colonial upper Houses, which originally were the focus of our selfgovernment, undoubtedly became constituted on this basis. They were designed to protect property and until quite recently for most of them one had to have a property qualification before one could be on the electoral roll.

It was this anti-democratic role of upper Houses which led Abbe Sieyes to make his famous, but actually rather fatuous, comment that ‘if the upper House agrees with the lower it is superfluous; if it disagrees it ought to be abolished ‘. This defensive role of upper Houses gradually ceased to be politically acceptable, and following a sort of political Parkinson’s law- or perhaps necessity was the mother of inventionother justifications of upper Houses came to the fore. The political guru of the nineteenth century, Walter Bagehot, was tepid about upper Houses. He wrote ‘that with a perfect lower House it is certain that an upper House would be scarcely of any value, but with the actual lower House a revising and leisured legislature is extremely useful if not quite necessary’. The Bryce report of 1918 on the House of Lords held that the main function of second chambers ‘was the interposition of so much delay and not more, in the passage of a Bill into law as might be necessary to enable the opinion of the nation to be adequately expressed upon it’. But who was to say when the opinion of the nation had been adequately expressed, and what that opinion was? How was the upper House to be limited to imposing no more delay than was necessary? These were and are the unsolved questions.

This role, too, has been overtaken by events. In all Westminster style parliaments this century has seen, through the strength of party discipline, the domination of the lower House by the Cabinet. This has been reflected in a dramatic expansion of the bureaucracy, a multiplication of statutory authorities and an extraordinary growth in administrative law and subordinate legislation. The power of the courts to constrain the Executive has been reduced. The lower House has almost none. The restraining role, if it is to be performed at all, must fall largely on the upper House.

The House of Lords, which once stood guard over the actions of a too powerful House of Commons’, wrote another authority, ‘now stands guard over a too powerful Cabinet’. We have done something unique in this country to restrain the power of the Executive. The Government deserves great praise for the appeals system it has set up to review administrative decisions; and the Senate has its own Regulations and Ordinances Committee. Both these bodies are very valuable, but they look only at the legality and propriety of ministerial and bureaucratic decisions. The desirability of the legislation itself is not really looked at by anyone.

It is not very rewarding to examine what the authors of our Constitution meant to achieve. We are left with what they did; not what they meant to do. They combined the British concept of responsible government with the American concept of a strong Senate, and hoped for the best. The principal author of the Constitution, Griffith, was clearly of the opinion that the logical inconsistency would work itself out in practice, presumably through constitutional amendments. This has not happened. The Chief Justice recently gave his theory of the Constitution by which the Government is responsible to both Houses of Parliament. To put it mildly, it would be difficult to see how this would work except on occasions when one party was in firm control of both Houses. This is likely to be the exception rather than the rule because of the radically different electoral systems of the two Houses. If the Constitution means what the Chief Justice says it means, then, as one of Dickens’ characters said: ‘The law is an ass ‘. For what it is worth, that interpretation was not considered seriously by the authors of the Constitution. I believe that we have a duty to turn away from the role of setting ourselves up as a rival lower House, with all the enormously disruptive political consequences of that, and to look for more useful and rewarding complementary roles. I believe that we have immense scope in that area.

Clearly, the Senate was set up originally for the first of the upper House purposes I outlinedthe defence of the rights and privileges of the previously independent colonies. This has been a common worry both in old federations such as the United States and in new ones such as West Germany and Australia. But is the role sensible or even possible? There are certainly difficulties. Deakin summed it up very well at the Constitutional Convention 80 years ago when he said: The contest will not be, never has been and cannot be between States and States. It must be and will be between the representatives of the States according to the different political principles upon which they are returned ‘. Deakin was very much in a small minority then, but his prescient words, in my view, have been exactly borne out, as anyone studying the records of this chamber would speedily conclude. But others do feel that senators are effectively protecting and promoting the interests of their States, presumably in secret. No doubt I will find out the true answer in due course.

But there is one important aspect of protecting the States collectively which seems always to have been neglected. That is the decentralisation of Executive power. In any large organisation, whether it be the Army or the Commonwealth Public Service, there will always be pressure towards centralism. It is usually called ‘empire building’. The consequence is that advice coming to Ministers from the Commonwealth Public Service will always be biased towards centralism in Canberra. This is an inescapable fact of bureaucratic life and, coupled with the very natural inclination of Ministers to get the full political advantage out of the political risks they run, means that legislation introduced into this Parliament will always tend to be biased towards overcentralisation, whatever the political colour of the government- though no doubt this will occur less flagrantly with some than with others.

The proper way for a federation to be run is for the Executive power to be delegated to the body closest to the people in which that power can be effectively exercised. I believe that a prime role of the Senate should be to examine every relevant piece of legislation to see that the Executive power is appropriately decentralised. If we do not do it, it will not be done. I give notice now that I shall carry out such an examination, as objectively as I can, and in consultation with State Ministers where appropriate, and I will propose any necessary amendments.

What about the problem of controlling the excessive power of the Executive, which is straining and vexing all countries which are using the Westminster system of government? Such control cannot be carried out by the House of Representatives because any government whose measures are consistently altered in the lower House must be assumed to be in the last stages of impotence or dissolution. Party committees are a frail reed, and in any case they meet in secret. I do not think the option of the American system of a rigid division of powers is an acceptable alternative. In the post-Nixon era the American system of checks and balances seems more check than balance. But we can learn from the Americans. For instance, the United States Senate for the last year or more has been holding hearings on President Carter’s energy package. No doubt excessive lobbying and political pressures are involved, but have uncovered major flaws in the Administration’s original proposals, and the process is infinitely preferable to the way in which a major decision such as our decision to raise oil prices immediately to world parity goes through this Parliament with almost no serious discussion, despite the enormous environmental, economic and oil exploration implications and the dramatic structural effects on the car industry and the energy consumption profile. Certainly, we have heard no evidence from experts on the consequences of this decision- a decision for which this Parliament, not the Executive, must ultimately take responsibility. I am not arguing that the decision is wrong; I am merely saying that most of us do not know whether it is right or wrong and are making no collective efforts to find out.

As we are operating at the moment we are accepting responsibility without power. I think the answer lies in the gradual development of the Westminster system to a point somewhat closer to the American system, with a strong questioning Senate balancing the Executive. In this process the Senate, unlike any other chamber in the Westminster system, is uniquely placed to play a key role. Unlike any other second chamber, we cannot effectively be whipped into line by the threat of an election or of abolition.

For this role an effective committee system is essential. Remarkable advances have been made in our committee system in the last decade. These perhaps have been more noticeable in the field of inquiry than in legislative review, although even there the response by the Executive has been patchy. I do not believe that we can ever function effectively as a House of review of the proposals of the Executive while we have Ministers here. The five Ministers are, in effect, five Trojan horses here on behalf ofthe Executive. Of course the Ministers are charming people, but the Trojans thought their horse was charming tooand look what happened to them. I cannot conceive how this chamber can act as an effective House of review while five of its most distinguished members are devoted to getting Government legislation through with a minimum of fuss, a minimum of alteration and a minimum of delay. There is to my mind an inherent and insoluble conflict of interest in this.

There is also one odd minor effect of having Senate Ministers and that is that naturally they like to introduce their own Bills in this chamber. This makes the members of the House of Representatives the reviewers, a role for which I can say with some experience they are uniquely unfitted. The decision on whether or not we continue to have Ministers appointed from this chamber is in my view crucial to the future development of the Senate. I suspect that the majority of senators might be in favour of the cessation of such appointments. If that be true it would be intolerable for the Executive to continue to be able effectively to dictate the method of operation of the body supposed to be reviewing its actions. We should create an early opportunity for this chamber to make its opinion on this crucial question crystal clear.

I am of course delighted that the recent change in Standing Orders has resulted in some Bills going to committees. We will not have achieved the aim of having a proper house of review until all Bills automatically go to the appropriate committees. Of course, some will be dealt with very quickly but the appropriate committees must have the right and the duty to deal with the Bills. What Bills go to committees must certainly not be decided by the Executive. In fact, prima facie, any Bill the Executive does not want reviewed should be one which should be given the most searching examination as to why it does not want it reviewed. What we have done so far is just a first step, though maybe a prudent first step. What we must aim for is for all legislation that comes to us to be seen by the community to be reviewed. When considering Bills, we must call for evidence from expert groups and where appropriate, from the general public. Only by doing this can we remove the very general alienation of the community from the parliamentary process. The average voter does not feel that voting for a kind of shopping list of proposals at a general election, some of which he probably does not agree with anyway, gives him any significant influence on the machinery of government. If we wish the democratic system to thrive we must involve the community more in its processes.

It is not enough, incidentally, to allow a Bill to lie on the table of the Senate. As far as I can see the public comments then go not to the senators but to the relevant Minister and through him to the public servants who are in fact the authors of the Bill. That is not legislative review at all. We must have legislative review in this chamber and not be satisfied with review by the bureaucracy. It is perhaps symptomatic of our problems that lobbyists do not really bother to go to much more than token efforts to lobby members of Parliament. I am not against lobbyists, who fulfil a valuable role, provided they are forced to give their evidence in public. At the moment the wise lobbyists concentrate on public servants in secret. Mr President, what we have in this country to a very considerable extent is not only government by the Public Service and ministry but also legislation by the Public Service and Cabinet rather than by Parliament. This must change.

Three things would flow from what I propose. Firstly, as I have said with great regret, it would be necessary to dispense with Ministers in this chamber. Secondly, there would be substantially less legislation passed. This would be an unmitigated blessing. We have far too much legislation as it is. Thirdly, it could be necessary for the

Government to be prepared to compromise much more in order to get its legislation through. That, too, would be a great blessing. The idea that legislation as produced by the Public Service and accepted or modified by the Cabinet should be sacrosanct is utter nonsense. It could nearly always be improved by thorough public examination. We all know the way in which rigid Party attitudes melt away when a committee is gathered around a table hearing public evidence and that there is a very general desire on the part of the committee to get the best answer to the particular problems before it. Incidentally, we would not have to be too worried about the sort of stalemates which develop in America between the Executive and Congress. Unlike us, America has no procedure for resolving deadlocks; a procedure that prevents any Australian Senate pressing too hard when out of tune with public opinion on a major issue.

Two things will no doubt be said about what I propose. It will be said that this will be a vast increase in the Senate’s power; and also that the giving up of Ministers would be a remarkable act of self-abnegation by senators. This Senate has always been potentially powerful. I do not want during my maiden speech to enter into the area of our power over Supply. I think my views on that are known. But the use of our existing power in a different area along the lines that I have suggested would I believe be wholly beneficial. We do not need more power; we just need to use beneficially the power that we have already. What about the question of the loss of ministerial privileges and power? On the question of privileges I think it would be appropriate, in place of Ministers, for the chairmen of major committees in the Senate to have the pay, privileges and most important of all, the personal staffs of Ministers, working not for themselves but for their committees as a whole. So much for the privileges. If it is power we are talking about, we have only to compare the power of a chairman of a major committee of the United States Senate with the power of a Minister in one of our recent governments. I have no doubt where the greater power lies.

But it is not individual privileges or powers that I am talking about. This Senate has become a remarkable instrument of public inquiry into key political issues. I believe we must turn away from the role of trying to compete with the House of Representatives on its level, for the end product of that will be the destruction of responsible government. Let that House remain the electoral college for the government and a rubber stamp forthedecisionsoftheexecutive.thoseprizes are not very rewarding; let it have them. We are desperately needed in roles which we alone can perform, as a watchdog on the proper decentralisation of Executive power and as a public chamber of review of the implementation of the policy decisions of the Executive. We have the chance over the next few years to make the most important and dramatic advances in the system of parliamentary government to occur this century. I hope we will seize our chance.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

- Mr President, may I be the first to congratulate Senator Hamer on an excellent speech. It was so well delivered and it was, if I may use his own term, a speech worthy of review. Perhaps we ought to take his advice and send his speech to the appropriate committee for review and consideration. Whilst I have been here for some time I have not reached the point of cynicism where we can push such a speech to one side and say: ‘That is merely the advice that comes newly to us’. It was an excellent speech and it is in keeping with the other speeches which have been made by other senators on first coming to this place. It has certainly set a standard for those who have to follow him. I do not doubt they will reach an equal standard. Some of the propositions that he puts are to me exceptionally welcome. One is that for the moment we should dispense with the five Ministers that we have in this chamber. That would suit this side of the chamber well. Of course, we will change our minds when we get back to government. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) at the moment appears to be directing his attention to that very matter. When the Labor Party was in government at least there were seven Ministers. Now we have six and for one period it seemed as though we were to have only five.

**Senator Hamer's** proposition could be supported for another reason; that the workload that is placed on Ministers in this chamber is far too oppressive. For five, maybe six, people to represent 27 responsibilities is a task which should not be placed on any one person. The proposition that **Senator Hamer** places before us is not a new one; honourable senators will remember that **Senator Sir Magnus** Cormack putting a similar proposition. However, at a later stage perhaps he would like to introduce those matters again and we will take them up by way of debate and also by way of interjection. The honourable senator's speech was so interesting that interjection was not brought to mind. Having said all those things, the honourable senator can now expect a less tolerant attitude in thefuture. The purpose of my entry in this debate of course is the usual one. We will proceed to hear further maiden speeches at 8 o'clock. It would be unfair for anyone making his maiden speech to speak now for a brief 15 minutes, to be interrupted for two hours and then to finalise his first speech in this place. Therefore I take the opportunity to make my speech on the Budget. I refer to a matter which has concerned me for some time and on which I have asked questions in this place. By way of my speech on the Budget I shall ask some further questions. The matter is the Iwasaki project in Queensland. We have debated the matter here and received assurances from Ministers in this place that before the Iwasaki project would be approved by governments environmental aspects would be considered. A report has appeared in the *Age* which now raises the question. I ask whether the attention of the Minister concerned has been drawn to a report in the Melbourne *Age* of 1 September that the Federal Government approval for the Iwasaki tourist project was given despite strong objection by the Department of Foreign Affairs and the express reservations of the Departments of Defence, Industry and Commerce, Transport, Primary Industry and Immigration and Ethnic Affairs? That is a substantial array of departments that have expressed strong objections. The question needs to be answered by the Government. In the face of such objections, did it proceed to give consent to the project? In view of this disturbing information- the *Age* story was backed up by direct quotes from Cabinet documents and confidential departmental minutes- will the Minister agree to table documents referred to in the newspaper article in question? I would like to be assured that the Minister is satisfied that the Federal Government has made the correct decision in this matter. Those who have raised this matter in debate in the Senate have been accused of taking a narrow view of a worthwhile economic project. Some of us have been accused of taking a racist position because Japanese capital and a particular Japanese gentleman are involved. But we showed concern because of certain procedures that the Queensland Government allowed which seemed to have expedited the project in the face of strong objections. I know that **Senator Collard** has put a case for the venture as being a wise economic project that will bring substantial capital into Queensland which will be followed by a substantial flow of tourists which would lead to an influx of much needed money. But he seemed to avoid or to evade the points that were raised that this project was of a particular nature. We made complaints that a foreign enclave- I think that term was used- specifically directed to obtaining foreign support in a special way may be established in this area. This project would lead to the escalation of values in this area, and rightly so. If money is poured into the area and certain facilities are provided there- let us for the moment forget the environmental problem- of course the value of surrounding land escalates. That brings into question the decisions made by the Queensland Government- perhaps I should not say the Queensland Government but the Queensland Premier- in giving preferential treatment to- providing easy access to substantial tracts of land to **Mr Iwasaki.** We see the accumulation, the promotion, the development, the escalation of value involved with a project that it excludes Australian participation except in a secondary and subservient way. It would be done in a way which would lead to alienation- I hesitate to use the word- of land in an area which will exclude Australians both physically and monetarily. {: .speaker-3V4} ##### Senator Chipp: -- Hasn't the Treasurer specifically promised that Australian equity can be offered after a certain time? {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -- I would like to be assured of that but I would have thought that that would have been firmly established in the terms of the agreement with Iwasaki. But there are reports which now appear in the Senate which seem to indicate that the Iwasaki project has certain aspects and characteristics that were not revealed in the first announcement. In the short time that I have available and because of the manner of which I came to enter the debate I cannot give the details. The questions which I raise I would like the Minister to answer. For convenience I will place these questions on the Notice Paper. But I support the questions in the way that I have. I have made requests regarding the confidential departmental minutes and quotes from Cabinet documents which seem to be the basis of the newspaper article. Since the newspaper article has used such confidential material it is reasonable to ask that that confidential material be placed before the Parliament. I have a feeling that the Government gave consent to the project without the necessary conditions of the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development being met. I am not certain of my grounds here. But, if that has been the case, I am certain that the Minister will give an explanation, and I trust that that explanation will be satisfactory. I wonder what were the strong objections of the Department of Foreign Affairs to the project. Did it object because of external implications or because the project was concerned with the alienation of Australian territory? To what extent does this approach indicate what has happened in the past? Has any survey been made by any government department as to the amount of land which has come under external control? If I recall correctly, the policy was that Australian land could be held on lease but freehold was difficult to obtain. The policy appears to have changed; it certainly has changed in Queensland. If it has changed and freehold is available to people 'offshore' that is the word that is being used these days-to what extent has that facility been used? Is it correct that a large section of Cape York Peninsula is in the hands of foreign interests? Is that land freehold? My information is that a substantial mass of land is freehold and is in the hands of foreign interests. What has happened in Western Australia? What will happen under the pressure of a mounting need for external reserves, for instance in Japan, where Japanese capitalists- perhaps **Mr Iwasaki-** would like to hedge their financial position by investing in and developing Australian land? What will happen if the power of those reserves is such that the diminished Australian dollar cannot withstand the onslaught? Is it the case now that Australian land is held equally as much by foreign interests as it is by Australian manufacturing industry? If that is the case then of course the sooner that we make an investigation the better. I am rather disturbed to hear that the Australian Bureau of Statistics is no longer concerned with accumulating, analysing and reporting on the level of foreign investment. That office says that it has neither the staff nor the facilities to engage in research in this very important area. If foreign investment is not in any way to be supervised and information is not to be given to us, perhaps we may find that our interests are being undermined by stealth. Is this a chauvinistic point of view? Is this a racist attitude? Is this over-nationalism? In order to be truly international in our own right we firstly would have to be guilty of some nationalism, guilty of some protection of those things which we as a people have inherited. We should not in any way allow that heritage to be undermined or to be given away. How can we as a people accept our responsibility internationally if we do not accept the responsibility nationally in perhaps this narrow way? I seem to have drifted away from the Iwasaki project, but it seems to me that that project is symbolic of what is happening. We seem to be prepared to make substantial considerations for people like **Mr Iwasaki.** Yet we seem to restrict our generosity in a much more limited way when it comes to the people on Mornington Island and the people of Aurukun who are simply requesting some land tenure, some right to exercise their own influence over land with which they have been associated for so long. We seem not to show them the same sort of generosity. In fact, we take it that the Aborigines in those places should not receive rights over and above those given to any other Australian. I suggest that perhaps we ought to offer to the Aurukun and Mornington Island people the same rights and privileges as we have given to **Mr Iwasaki.** Of course, we have discriminated in favour of **Mr Iwasaki.** Discrimination has definitely favoured **Mr Iwasaki.** I suggest that this favouritism should have rested and stopped at the Queensland border. It should not have penetrated to the very heart of the Government in Canberra. It seem that it has done so. Perhaps the Minister for Social Security **(Senator Guilfoyle)** could consider the article in the *Age,* look at the serious questions raised in that article and come up with a review of the situation. Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m. {: #subdebate-33-0-s5 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I call **Senator Elstob,** and I inform honourable senators that this will be his initial speech in this place. I trust that the traditional courtesies will be extended to him as he delivers his first address to the chamber. {: #subdebate-33-0-s6 .speaker-JYI} ##### Senator ELSTOB:
South Australia **- Mr President,** please accept my congratulations on your re-election as President of this chamber. In this, my maiden speech in the Australian Senate, I must begin by placing on record my thanks to my supporters, especially those in the Labor movement. I feel honoured to be an elected representative of South Australia, which I consider to be one of the best States in the Commonwealth, and to be a member of the oldest and biggest political movement in Australia- the Australian Labor Party. It is a party which for over three-quarters of a century has stood for the ideals and aspirations of the Australian people. It has been represented in Parliament by people who stood for the ideals and aspirations of the working class. Forces against that Party have made sure that it has not received the recognition which it deserves. I must place on record my thanks to my wife and family for their encouragement and help, and especially for their inspiration. My colleagues in the Waterside Workers Federation and the Australian Labor Party also deserve my gratitude for their encouragement over the years. I wish to record my respect for the man whom I have succeeded in this place, former **Senator Donald** Cameron. He is a man of great honesty and sincerity. I am sure that I and many others will benefit from his continued advice. **Mr President,** I come into the Senate at a most challenging time for Australia. It is a time when our system of government is under many pressures. Our Federal Constitution is outdated and failing. It was formulated at the start of the century and it has failed to adjust to the changes of a developing nation. Recently there was a conference to discuss constitutional matters at which only certain interests had representation. The whole of the Australian population should be concerned and involved in the planning of the Constitution. One way this could be achieved is by open debate in all Federal electorates. Each district electorate office, with additional staff, could then gather and organise the information and report its findings and recommendations to a special referendum committee. I stress that these matters are the concern of all the people and should, therefore, be dealt with on non-political lines. This, I believe, is true democracy. Governments in the past have been concerned with piecemeal solutions to our national problems. There has been too much emphasis on short term planning of the economy. Each year people wait anxiously for the Budget to be brought down. Too often mini-Budgets are brought in at the drop of a hat. It is impossible under these ad hoc policies for any worker or the public or private sector to plan ahead with any real confidence. Each political party discloses its policies to the people at election time. There should be a moral obligation for the elected government to carry out without changes its expressed policies until the next election. This is a time when the Australian people are being subjected to hardships and uncertainties, resulting in many cases in the breakdown of the family structure. There is an ever-present fear of unemployment and a fear of being without. This fear affects people from the top executive to the youngest apprentice, if a young person is lucky enough to be an apprentice. Is it any wonder that we see so much social upheaval in the community? Marriage breakdowns, crime, suicide, child delinquency and other ills are brought about by insecurity. Is it any wonder that politicians have a poor image? If Australia is to be a great nation- and I believe it can be- we should be trying to solve our present problems and planning for a future with the many technological changes taking place. Until now we have accepted technological changes without any real planning. We have drifted along, accepting changes as they come. I am not opposed to technological changes, but any change that does not take the present and future workers into account is bad and unacceptable to the Australian people. Governments, employers and unions should all be involved in forward planning. Where new technology is to be introduced, automation should be so organised that it benefits not only the workers in a particular industry but the community as a whole. Machines will never buy machines. An illustration of the change that can occur is that of the Port Adelaide waterfront where I have worked. In 1952, 2,500 men were employed. Today there are 565, and employers recently declared a further redundancy of 65 men. The last two intakes of men took place in 1965 and 1967. The men recruited in 1967 became compulsorily redundant in the early 1970s under the first permanency agreement. Containerisation was introduced, but it has not benefited anyone. The cost of transport has continually risen and the purchaser pays more for goods despite the fact that the throughput has increased threefold. When containerisation was discussed the Waterside Workers Federation put forward a submission that Australia would be better served by unitised roll-on roll-off ships than by the pure container ships. Under the second permanency agreement hours of work were reduced to 35 per week, four weeks annual leave was achieved and there was no compulsory redundancy clause. But no new recruits have been drawn into the work force. The youngest men still working are those who were employed in 1965. These figures show that when new technology replaces workers it does so for all time. They also show that proper planning is needed by all concerned with an industry if our young people are ever to have the opportunity to work. People must be given the right to work. I said earlier that Australia could be a great nation, but if it is to achieve this great nationhood Australia must belong to Australians. There are two ways of conquering a country. One is by the force of arms and the other is by financial takeover. If a government refused to give an order to its armies to resist invading forces it would have to be considered traitorous. What then do we call governments which allow their country to be taken over by foreign interests and foreign investors? I am concerned that transnationals are acquiring an ever-increasing share of our mineral resources, industry, commerce and the very land itself. With the huge profits flowing out of this country, Australia can never hope to manage its own affairs; it will always be dominated by foreign investors who hold the purse strings. We often hear the argument that transnationals provide employment. Let us look at this argument. In 1976 the Utah mining company made a profit of $137m with a work force of 3,000. In the same year the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd made a profit of $63.5m with a work force of 60,000. The Australian investors who paid the Utah company $ 1 70m for their 20 per cent share certainly helped the company onto its feet. To add insult to injury, the company employs foreign seamen on foreign vessels to take away Australian coal. It is high time that contracts with transnationals were written to benefit Australia and the Australian people. Senate committees have carried out valuable inquiries into many varied subjects. I hope that in the near future a Senate committee will be set up solely to look into the question of foreign ownership of Australian resources. Political parties will never agree on many issues but one thing we should all agree on is that as Australians we must work for the good of this country, not only for this generation but also for future generations. Efficient land, sea and air transport for the movement of people, goods and raw materials is essential for the development of any nation. This is particularly so in Australia where large, sparsely populated areas are separated by long distances. As part of our forward planning we should be concentrating now on our future transport needs, keeping in mind that world oil supplies are expected to become scarce and very costly within the next 10 years. We should be working out ways of conserving our present stocks of oil and supplementing the supplies with alternative forms of energy. I would like to see liquid petroleum gas more readily available to consumers in Australia and sales tax exemptions on equipment necessary for the conversion of vehicles to the use of LP gas. Now is the time for the Federal Government to fund pilot schemes in the use of vegetable matter such as sugar cane and other renewable sources of energy. There has been general agreement on the need to standardise rail gauges. This work must be accelerated. Unfortunately, many so-called uneconomic rail lines have been closed at a time when there should be a re-assessment of their possible future use. At present we are depending far too much on road transport for long distance haulage without any thought being given to the amount of oil being used. Electrification of busy interstate, country and suburban rail transport should be considered. For the not so busy lines steam turbine engines using powdered coal should be developed to replace the present diesels. If planning in this area of transport is not begun soon our primary producers will face prohibitive costs and will find it impossible to compete on world markets. For an efficient, economic service, all rail transport should be controlled by the Australian National Railways. The Federal Government must help to fund and encourage the development in all States of public transport powered by electricity. The electric car being developed in the Flinders University in Adelaide is one area where Federal funding is now urgently needed. A joint committee on defence recommended that the Australian shipbuilding industry be retained. Unfortunately, this advise was ignored and we saw the closure of the Whyalla and Newcastle shipyards. An efficient maritime industry is essential not only for the defence of this country but also generally for an island continent, and it is absolutely necessary to meet our transport needs. We should be designing and building our own ships, ships for the future that will use not oil but probably powdered coal. I remind the Senate that this technology already has been developed. In the next decade there is a possibility that our oil supplies will have to be reserved entirely for aircraft although in the aviation industry also there is too much fuel wasted. Flight times are almost identical for the two airlines and the aircraft on many flights are not filled. Fair and reasonable agreements to benefit the airlines and the travelling public must be made to reduce the cost of air travel and the consumption of fuel. Australia should be looking into the idea of bringing icebergs to this country. Eventually water will be one of our very scarce commodities and if the Federal Government does not become involved in the development of technology that is being undertaken by many countries, Australia will pay very dearly in the very near future. We certainly will need to use this resource and one of the tragedies is that we are not participating in its development. The matters I have raised are important for the future development of Australia. They can be successfully implemented only if Federal and State governments, employers and unions cooperate and are involved in the planning and carrying out of the various schemes. If all sections of the community work together, better progress will be achieved. Needless union bashing benefits no one. Finally, I would like to thank you, **Mr President,** for arranging and conducting the familiarisation sessions for the new senators in July. They were most valuable and I hope that such sessions will be continued in years to come. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I shall next call upon **Senator Teague** but before so doing may I again say, as I did before calling on **Senator Elstob,** that the speech we are about to hear will be the first in this chamber by **Senator Teague.** I trust that honourable senators will extend to him the traditional courtesies as extended to other honourable senators delivering their first addresses in this chamber. {: #subdebate-33-0-s7 .speaker-PJ4} ##### Senator TEAGUE:
South Australia **- Mr President,** I congratulate you on your re-election in this chamber to your high office. I will value your proper guidance to me and to all honourable senators and I support you in your high responsibilities. This is my first speech in the Parliament and I understand that I may take some liberty to speak in a general and introductory way about my own political philosophy as a Liberal. I will also go on to speak directly about the industrial and political situation in South Australia, to which I am constrained by the urgency of some present developments. I refer to the Redcliff petrochemical project, the car manufacturing industry and the Riverland grape growers and the brandy industry. As I see it, politics is both a science and an art. It is a science in that it demands the truth; it demands solid evidence and sound argument. Politics is also an art. As **Sir Robert** Menzies once put it, 'the art of politics is to convey ideas and, if possible, persuade a majority to agree; to create or encourage a public opinion so soundly based that it endures and is not blown aside by chance winds; to persuade people to take long range views'. Politics is also about authority- the responsible use of authority. I see the authority of parliament as a delegated authority. As a democrat I believe that the parliament's authority is given by the people of Australia. As a Christian I believe that parliament's authority is derived from God and, thus, it is entirely right that we begin our parliamentary sittings each day in prayer asking the Lord's blessing and direction that our work be the glory of God and to the true welfare of the people of Australia. As to my own politics, I am a Liberal. Without the spirited support of my fellow Liberals in South Australia I would not be in this Parliament today. What does it mean to be a Liberal? Liberalism is about freedom; Liberalism is about people. The Liberal objective is to establish and maintain a society in which individuals can develop their own personalities in their own way, always subject to the rights of others. Liberalism is based on an understanding of the individual 's qualities and aspirations. It is a philosophy of the heart and mind, seeking more than material fulfilment. I believe in a society which is a free association of its members. I believe in a democracy where government is restricted, accountable to the people and close to the people. Liberalism is not a collectivist philosophy, as is centralistic socialism. Liberals look to the individual, not to the State. The Government is not an end in itself but is a means of helping people to achieve their own goals. The Government's role, I believe, is the limited one of creating favourable environments in which people make their own decisions for development, for it is free enterprise with effective competition which is the crucial factor in achieving general economic progress. However, Liberals reject the doctrine of laissez faire which abandons the true responsibilities of Government. A government has the right and the obligation to intervene to ensure effective national development, to conserve the environment, to stimulate competition and to achieve equity. More especially, liberalism recognises the traditional role of government to protect the weak. I refer to the provision of adequate social security benefits to help those who cannot support themselves, the availability of a high level of education to all and the insistence that health services are within the reach of everyone. In these welfare and education services the dignity and freedom of choice of every individual must be ensured. In this regard Alfred Deakin said: >In this country liberalism has been identified with every broad movement based on 'equality of political rights without reference to creed' and 'equality of legal rights without consideration of wealth' . . . The reconstructive clement in liberalism must in the future come to the fore . . . Liberalism will now inculcate a new teaching with regard to the poorest in the community, that all shall have what is their due, and wealth will be prevented from taking any unfair advantage of the needy. The values and commitments of the Liberal philosophy have, I believe, since Deakin 's day come to be accepted and supported by a majority of the Australian people. Australian voters have not been unmindful of what the foundations of a Liberal government are all about. Any Australian can support these principles and, especially in 1975 and 1977, very many Australians did support them. Australians on every income level, in every kind of employment, can identify with Liberal principles. **Dr David** Kemp wrote in his assessment of the 1977 landslide Liberal victory: >It has now reached the point where it is absurd to talk of the Labor Party as representing the low income and less educated sections of society and the Liberal Party the more well to do and better educated. But myths die hard . . . The alternative view in explaining political partisanship is not a person 's location in the social structure, but his location in the culture. Provided he can make a link between his own values, norms and beliefs, and one of the political parties, he will tend to give his loyalty to that party regardless of occupation, income or education. As I have observed it, the Liberal Party's grass roots support comes from hardworking, cheerful and enterprising people, both in the cities and in the country, who have in their families and in their work place set themselves goals and worked hard to go on towards reaching them. These people have learned to value constructive work and to value family life, not in a wowserish reaction to the distorted radicals of recent years but by positive search for fulfilment and enrichment of life and by encouragement of those things which are strong and lovely and of good report. If this is a formula for middle class values, then so be it. Let it be recognised that today's middle class comprises more than 60 per cent of our country. If it is a reference to a 'silent majority ' of decent community-spirited Australians, then so be it, and by the ballot box let them determine the government of the day. I believe that dynamic and people-oriented liberalism has the best capacity to guide Australians to solutions for our most pressing social problems. One of these problems is unemployment, especially youth unemployment, which continues in the face of innovating technologies. This problem involves a comparison between the importance we place on soundly planned employment transitions compared with the importance we place on efficiency. How can we reassure the public that the new productivity arising from computers will nevertheless be accompanied by new kinds of work, such as that which may be found in the tertiary service industries, and by new employment arrangements such as job-sharing, part-time work, a flexibly earlier retiring age, the moderation of wage expectations and so on? The recent Telecom dispute, as much as the hastening rush towards computerisation in the banking and insurance industries, is a salutary instance of what the *Australian* newspaper has been describing so aptly as a pending computer holocaust. That holocaust must not eventuate. I am confident that Liberal approaches to these problems will have every prospect of success. This is because Liberalism is primarily committed to people- to ordinary people, to people as they are, to people as they wish to develop and to be fulfilled. This commitment is greater than the secondary commitment to the sound principles of productivity, efficiency and economic growth. However, I do not presume that there is a simple or ready-made solution to the complexities of new technology. It is a matter of sifting the evidence and applying Liberal principles to the facts that may be found. Our political philosophy is not an ideological set of pigeon holes. Liberalism is not some automatic know-all that, computer-like, spits out a party policy. Hard work is involved and must be involved. Finally, on this theme, I note that for one particular group in the community Liberalism has still to gain widespread positive attention, and that is the group of academics in our universities and colleges. I refer to the lecturers in politics departments, the writers of political biography and those who greatly influence opinion in these matters, the political historians. Quite frankly, liberalism in our generation is the least researched and least publicly scrutinised of the political philosophies significantly espoused in our country. All this is so, despite its majority support and enormous influence. On the other hand, there have been endless books written about the Labor movement, about socialism and about all the subcultures of socialism. Indeed, it has become commonplace that academics in Australia are exercising a subjective, selective bias in their teaching and in their research. Too many propagate that which is of inward looking interest to themselves rather than that which is of public interest. There is a failure to focus squarely on the ideas and programs which, since the 1 940s, have had the most weight in shaping the politics of our country. The Liberal political philosophy has been the foundation of our Australian government for 25 of the last 28 years. It ought to be thoroughly analysed; it ought, in depth, to be understood. I have emphasised that I came to the Senate as a Liberal. However, I am not so one-eyed as to recognise that not all honourable senators are sitting on this side of the House. I respect the political position of every senator. Every senator on this side, as on the other side, has a right to be here, be they Liberal, Democrat, Independent or Labor, because every senator has gained a sufficient proportion of support from the Australian people: I now want to refer briefly to my attitude towards the Senate itself. I do so because, for a minority of Australians, the role of the Senate has become controversial. Under the Australian Constitution the Senate has very important responsibilities as a part of the Commonwealth Parliament. I believe that we must ensure that in all of its roles the Senate will continue to be effective. The Senate is rightly described as a House of review- a check and a balance- both in respect of the legislation of the House of Representatives and as **Senator Hamer** put so very well this afternoon, it provides a check and a balance in respect of the executive government of the day. The Senate is also rightly described as a States House. This was a very prominent part of its original conception. I understand the term States House' to mean not merely some narrow excuse for parochialism but a broadly motivated nationwide concern that each of the States and all of the States should be treated fairly by legislation, by taxation and by every decision of the Parliament. A special genius of the Senate's procedure is the standing committee system which I believe should be strengthened. This point of excellence in the Parliament's conduct ought to be more fully portrayed to the public. The soundness of the committees in gathering evidence and the fairness and co-operation of members of parliament from all parties is a powerful base for the findings and recommendations of the committees being given high attention. Yes, **Mr President,** I have the highest expectations of the Senate. It is capable of developing a truly national viewpoint and of maintaining a kind of wisdom in having wide perspectives. A senator's electorate is not a narrow constituency. In these lights I find any call to abolish the Senate to be grossly irresponsible. The centralistic socialists who propose this I understand also want to abolish the States and to scurry towards a potential totalitarianism here in Canberra. I reject this utterly. As I said earlier tonight, I believe in a democracy where decisions are made close to the people, where government is restricted and accountable and where there are checks and balances. I am also opposed to any suggestion of abolishing the money powers of the Senate. If this were to happen, the Senate would lack power and credibility and its constitutional roles would be emasculated. What I do favour is that, in the event of a blocking of Supply leading to a deadlock between the Houses, the Parliament, including the Senate, should face the people in a general election. To go on from these general statements of my political philosophy, I come now to apply their thrust to some specific developments right now upon us which are, I believe, of the highest importance to my State of South Australia. South Australia is on edge at the moment. The future is uncertain. I find that, despite my natural sense of optimism, I have become increasingly angry that the foundations of our State's prosperity are in danger. My anger arises on two counts. First and foremost, the State Labor Government in South Australia needs to be thrown out of office. Industry is turned off by the high-cost strategy of the socialist program. There are threats too of novel government-induced legislation for worker control of industry and this unreasonable policy is driving new investment even further away. The level of unemployment in South Australia rose from 27,000 to 40,000 in the 12 months to the end of June this year and in the coming six months it is heading on for 50,000, an intolerable level. Moreover, prospects for employment recovery lag behind the rest of Australia. The situation of youth unemployment is horrific. At the end of June this year South Australia had the highest unemployment rate of any State for the 15-year to 19-year age group. The rate was 19.3 per cent. This depression stems in the main from a collapse in maufacturing industry, which looks like becoming semi-permanent. Overall the State's share of the national work force is expected to decline. It follows that the rate of population growth, an important determinant in market demand, also will fall below the Australian average. Yes, the State Labor Government must be thrown out of office because its ideologically based policies do not work in practice and they are too expensive anyway. They are driving industry out of the State. I am angry also because of the second major menace that we face, that is, the inward looking, big State mentality of too many people in Victoria and New South Wales. I believe that it is not enough that Australia as a whole is seen to prosper. It is vital also to ensure that each part, each region, each State is seen to prosper. For example, let us consider the car manufacturing industry. The Government's decisions may aim to ensure prosperity in Australia as a whole, but they may do so in such a way that General Motors-Holden's Limited, to instance a company, may be encouraged to make centralised economies of scale whereby the company comes to abandon its South Australian operations in favour of the eastern States. At the same time another company- let us take Chrysler Australia Ltd, for instance, which is totally located in Adelaide- may happen to be forced out of the industry altogether, closing down its Australian plant, with devastating consequences for Adelaide. It would be little satisfaction then to see that such a general Australian prosperity based on the big States was in fact achieved at the expense of denuding South Australia in the process. 1 am not yet assured that these fears can be set aside. Indeed, there are decisions before the Government right now which have vital implications for Chryslers' operations in Adelaide. I hope that the weight of the submissions that have been made will lead to a favourable outcome in this matter. Another present example of my fears is the absolutely vital proposal for a petrochemical project at Redcliff. It is an economically viable, natural resource development which will lead to the spending of $900m in capital equipment manufacture and will create, in addition to the employment of 4,500 people in the establishment phase, a set of permanent jobs for 1,500 people. There are unavoidable deadlines in this process which imply that the go-ahead decision will be determined this year or never. The people of South Australia await one final barrier, that is, the impending announcement of Australian Loan Council authorisation for South Australia to contract a $ 1 86m loan four infrastructure purposes. This final barrier is to be determined in the context of competition with the big States over loan program applications. If the big States push South Australia aside, I am convinced that it will be because of crude political muscle rather than sound economic good sense. If South Australia 's application receives the green light- I must confess this is widely expected and the decision should be known within the next few weeks- it will be an illustration of our Federal Government having a proper sense of safeguarding our whole Commonwealth. My third and final example springs directly from the Budget which is before us and concerns the Budget proposal for an 83 per cent increase in the excise on brandy. In general I support the Howard Budget. It is a Budget of economic responsibility. It is an honest Budget. It reflects the Fraser Government's economic policy, which has been clearly stated and overwhelmingly supported in the last two general elections. On 15 August, in introducing the Budget, the Treasurer **(Mr Howard)** said: >In framing all our decisions, we have been guided by a desire to fairly share burdens throughout the Australian community. In general this is true, as is evidenced principally by the temporary measure to raise income tax rates by 1 *lA* per cent for all incomes rather than to concentrate the new tax burden on only one section of the community, as would have been the case if the family allowance had been reduced significantly. Yes, the general strategy of the Budget has been to share the burdens fairly throughout the Australian community. However, this is not true of the proposed 83 per cent increase in excise on Australian produced brandy. This will be a catastrophe, to be borne by ons small sector, the 35,000 people of South Australia's Riverland, and these people are part of my electorate. This is a sectional tax. It is not a fair share. This brandy tax is calculated to bring to government revenue an increase of only $4m, an almost insignificant one six-thousandth part ofthe total revenue. What are the facts? The facts are that whereas for wine production, South Australia's share is 60 per cent of the Australian total, for brandy it is 92 per cent. Indeed 85 per cent is from the Riverland alone. The industry has established an econometric model to estimate the effect on clearances- on sales- of excise changes and other industry costs. On the basis of this model, and with confirmation by alternative means of estimation, the Budget decision means a reduction in Australian brandy clearances of 39 per cent in a full year. Accordingly, the industry 's previous 3.9 years' holding of stocks became overnight a stock cover of 6.3 years. In these circumstances there will be no new production of brandy for the next two years. The industry will not take in any grapes at all. No new brandy will be distilled. As a direct consequence, grapegrower earnings will be reduced from $3.6m to nothing, and Riverland-based distilling and bottling operations will be reduced from about $8.4m to nothing. A total of $ 12m in income will be lost by this community this year. Government revenue will, in the process, rise from $30m to $34m. That is the very small rise of $4m that I mentioned earlier. Considering also the losses in income tax revenue from the Riverland community, even this small amount will be whittled away. The effect of the whole exercise on government revenue will be that no significant gain at all will be made and, as already experienced in 1951, and 1973 under a Labor Government, as a result of the taking of similar action, there could even be a net loss to government revenue on account of the brandy excise increase. This is a very serious situation. In these circumstances, how can I be silent over such a pending disaster to the people of my own State? How can I be credible as a Liberal and as a senator if, the facts being as they are, I do not voice the strongest protest? I have not yet been reassured by anyone as to how this catastrophe will be avoided, but it must be avoided. There must be a remedy. In the War of Independence for the United States of America, some fundamental principles of democracy were enumerated. One of these principles, which arose from a government-imposed tax on tea- hence the celebrated Boston Tea Party- was: 'No taxation without representation'. This principle is at risk here. The parliamentary representatives of the community involved in the brandy industry were not consulted prior to the tax on that community's industry being decided. Furthermore, there is no South Australian representative in the Cabinet. I have received no reassurance that adequate representations were considered when the decision was made. It gives me no pleasure to be critical of one aspect of my own Government's Budget decisions; but criticism of this kind, honestly given, is the very stuff of Parliament's process. How weak and tame we in this chamber would be if, because we so strongly supported and contributed to our Party's policies, we felt obliged to remain silent when a remedy was so dramatically needed. When 90 and 9 are safe it is still right to act for one that is lost. To do otherwise would undermine our parliamentary purposes. Indeed, we would undermine our public credibility as representatives of all of the people we serve. What we must now ensure is that a remedy will soon be found. For my part, I will continue to do all that I can to assist the Government to determine that remedy and to pass it on to the people. In conclusion, I return to my introductory theme. I am a Liberal and, as a Liberal, I have an overriding aim before me. That is to serve the people. I am very conscious that it is the people of South Australia who have elected me to the Senate, and I will aim to represent the people in all that I will do as a senator. {: #subdebate-33-0-s8 .speaker-9V4} ##### Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania **-Mr President,** may I before I speak briefly on the Budget tonight, congratulate you on your reelection. I have not had an opportunity to do so before this. May I also give the traditional congratulations to those who have made their maiden speeches during this Budget Session. I can assure them that they were listened to with interest. I cannot assure them, certainly not the last gentleman who spoke, that they will be heard in silence in the future. I am not known particularly for having an over-concern for the traditions of this country, of any country, or of the traditions of this place; but if one wishes to trample all over the traditions of this place one can expect the consequences. I would make one final comment: In my time in this place I have noticed that intellectual arrogance quickly is cut off at the knees, and I suggest that may happen in this case. The Prime Minister **(Mr Malcolm Fraser),** in his electoral speech at the weekend, said: 'Illness takes time to cure and healing is not without pain'. The illness to which he was referring was what he calls our sick economy. It was a typical statement of the Prime Minister, the sort that goes well with his more notorious statements: Life was not meant to be easy', 'There is no such thing as a free lunch', and the like. Some of the Prime Minister's more conservative supporters have taken up this cry about pain and sickness. For instance, **Senator Messner** on 23 August, in his speech on the Budget, said: . . . there is still some pain to be borne in this community by virtue of tax increases to put the Australian economy back on a better basis'. All this talk about pain and suffering smacks a bit of sado-masochism, especially on the pan of those Government members and supporters who continually utter these calls for pain and suffering. It really is just sadism, because all the suffering is to be borne by others, not by the Government, not by Government members and not by those who back them. It is this aspect of suffering and sacrifice, that we are told by the Government is essential, that I wish to deal with mainly tonight. The fact is that those who are asked to suffer are those who can least bear it. This is typical, I believe, of the attitude of this Government. An aspect of this redistribution of the burden of recovery in this country which is even more disturbing is the fact that many of the Government's actions are quite contrary to promises that it made to citizens very recently, certainly in the last election and for some time since then. Much has been made, of course, in the community of the fact that the Government has reneged on its promises to reduce taxes. Tax reductions which were promised by the last Government had, in fact, already been eliminated by the changes to health insurance; but they are completely negated by the increases in taxation in this Budget, an increase which goes under the guise of a levy but which is, of course, just a straight tax increase. The nature of the tax levy is such that the low income earners suffer more than the high income earners. The tax increase on very low income earners in this Budget is almost 5 per cent. On middle income earners it is about 3 per cent, and on the highest incomes it is, in fact, only 2.5 per cent. This demonstrates clearly where the Government's priorities lie. The lowest percentage increase in taxation goes to those who earn the most. In the field of social security, in which I am particularly interested, the priorities are equally revealing. I suppose the first and best thing to talk about to demonstrate this strange set of priorities is the Government's actions on the indexation of pensions. In 1972 pensions in this country were 20 per cent of the average weekly earnings. In the next three years pensions were increased twice yearly at a rate higher than the rate of inflation. So, at the end of 1975, pensions were in fact 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. The then shadow Minister for Social Security and for a short time the caretaker Minister for Social Security, who is now an Australian Democrat senator in this place, promised, on behalf of the Government- he has said repeatedly since then that he had the support of both the Liberal and National Country Parties- that pensions would be automatically and immediately indexed to the consumer price index twice yearly and that pensions would be taken out of politics. When the Government came to power at the end of 1975 this promise was not carried out. After some prodding by the Opposition, by the pensioners and by the then disillusioned exshadow Minister for Social Security who was still then a member of the Liberal Party, legislation was introduced to index pensions twice yearly. The pensions were not indexed immediately although they were indexed automatically. There was a delay of some four months from the time the CPI figures became available until the pensions were increased on each occasion. It is worthwhile looking at some of the comments that were made at that time and at some of the comments that have been made since. We heard loud cries of self-congratulation by various members of the Government about the commitments that were made. I will quote some. **Senator Guilfoyle,** on 5 December 1977, said: >We have altered the legislation so that there is an automatic increase every six months and we do accept that this is an increase in the social welfare bill. **Mr Fraser** said on 1 3 March: >We are committed to take the politics out of pension increases by giving automatic increases in line with price rises twice a year. **Senator Guilfoyle,** again on 5 December 1977, said: >I've had lots of people say to me: 'You've given us dignity because you don 't argue about our rises every six months '. Others made great play of indexation, particularly when speaking in the Budget debate. One can well remember **Senator Baume** crowing in this place about how the Liberals had indexed pensions and how it was the greatest change in social security legislation in history. Who would have imagined that such an action could be reversed so quickly and so callously for $ 1 50m or less? Commitments are worth nothing; promises are worth nothing. The delay for pensioners in receiving compensation for increased prices will be 16 months, not four months. The question may well be asked: Why should the pensioners, of all people, have to bear the brunt of the Government's economic policy? Are they any less in need than the industries in this country which will receive and have received hundreds of millions of dollars by way of the investment allowance in the last couple of years? The next group of people who are asked to bear the brunt are the unemployed. Those with dependants, like all other beneficiaries, will receive compensation for price rises only yearly instead of twice yearly as was the case. So, they will suffer and bear this burden like all other beneficiaries. But those without dependants will not receive any automatic increases at all. They will have to await the Government's pleasure. The single 18 to 2 5 -year-old unemployed people- that great and increasing mass of people whose unemployment rate in this country is a disgraceful 25 per cent and who were referred to by **Senator Teague** who believes somehow that the Government is looking after such peoplewill receive no increase at all unless they have the temerity to marry while receiving benefits and to take on dependants. The 40-year-old, 45-year- old or 55-year-old bachelors or spinters who are put out of work because their skills are inappropriate or because of technological changes and who can find no other work because none is available are to be treated as second class citizens and will receive no increase at all. Again, they must await the Government's pleasure. Those unemployed persons under 1 8 years who have received no increase for three years will again receive none. The Treasurer **(Mr Howard)** in the Budget Paper is admitting that unemployment will increase and that the number of unemployment beneficiaries will increase by 25,000 each month this year. The Government's policies in fact are ignoring unemployment. This is a continuation of the Government's campaign of denigration of the unemployed, the so-called dole bludgers as Government supporters like to call them. The Prime Minister, when in Opposition and when first in Government, claimed that he had a different attitude. The *Daily Mirror* of 9 September 1974 reported **Mr Fraser,** the then shadow Minister for Labour, as suggesting higher unemployment benefits if the number of jobless got much worse. He said that the Government should pay the minimium wage of about $80 a week if the number of people out of work exceeded 250,000. He was quoted in the Melbourne *Age* of the same day as saying that he accepted the principle that as unemployment rose so too should unemployment benefits. He said: >The principle would be designed to protect individuals who quite innocently are caught in the turmoil of a mismanaged economy. He said, on 27 November 1975: >We will be generous to those who cannot get a job and want to work. On 17 July 1977 he said: >Unemployment is a dispiriting experience that not only undermines self-respect but creates social problems. Its effects are not just confined to the person unemployed, but they are felt throughout the whole structure of family life. On 19 November 1976 he said: >The strategy we are pursuing aims at a gradual and sound recovery. It is designed to achieve a reduction in unemployment by mid- 1977. That reduction has not occurred. The Treasurer, and through him the Government, admits that unemployment will get worse; yet the Government in fact takes action to reduce the benefits and assistance available to the unemployed in this country and takes no action to counteract the ill effects of unemployment or to bring down the level of unemployment. The Government will be condemned enough for its deliberate policy of creating unemployment and depression to fight inflation. For its callous disregard of those it deliberately throws out of work by cutting their benefits and reducing their eligibility, it deserves double condemnation. The next item in the social security section of the Budget is the freeze on pension increases for those over 70 years of age who have a free of means test pension. This action, of course, is also contrary to the Liberal-National Country Party policy so confidently put forward by the then **Mr Chipp.** It is also contrary to subsequent policies. In the policy speech of 1975, the Government in fact promised to abolish the means test for those 65 years and over. Immediately on achieving office it abandoned that policy. Some concern was expressed that the Government might in fact alter pension eligibility for those over 70 years, but those people were assured that this was not so by the Government and they planned their lives in that belief. The *Sydney Morning Herald* of 5 April 1977 stated: >The Fraser Government will continue to exempt pensioners over 70 from any means test ... **Mr Fraser** told a questioner that pensioners over 70 were 'quite happy and secure ' in not being forced to undergo a means test to qualify for a pension ... I don't think we can really get back to the situation where the pension is means tested over 70. No one in this country can be happy and secure with anything that this Prime Minister says. One can almost guarantee that he will go back on any promise he makes except when he promises that life will not be easy or that there will be pain and suffering for those who come under his care. Family allowances are also looked after in this country by the Department of Social Security. This Budget contained originally an extraordinary proposal to means test children's pocket money. Even the Government in its shame had to withdraw this a few days later. Welcome as the Government's withdrawal was, this diversion should not cloud the important fact, that by not increasing family allowances since their introduction the value of these allowances has been eroded. The low income families so dependent on them have suffered a loss in real income and those pensioners with children and pensioners with rented accommodation who have not had their children's allowances or rent allowances increased since 1975 are now well below the poverty line, as pointed out by Professor Henderson who conducted the poverty inquiry and by almost every welfare agency in this country. The payment of family allowances was not an increased government expenditure; it was a transfer of moneys from the old tax rebate system. The extent of the erosion of family income, which has occurred since this Government came to power, was demonstrated in a table prepared by the Legislative Research Service of the Parliamentary Library. It showed that families with children which had one bread winner earning an income on or below average weekly earnings were up to $ 1 1 a week worse off as a result of the present Government's tax policies and family allowance changes. Since that table was produced- and it has been reproduced widely in this country- we have had a further increase in taxation in the form of the levy that was introduced in this Budget. We can see that the Government has aimed at the very aged- the over 70s- by introducing a means text on pension increases for these people. Its actions have been aimed at the pensioners and beneficiaries by cutting back on the frequency of indexation of their pensions and they are aimed particularly at the single unemployed, by depriving them altogether of indexed pensions. As I said, the Government originally intended to income tax test the pocket money of children. It also originally intended to tax blind pensions for those under 65 years but this also has been reversed by public pressure. But there are those other handicapped people who will also feel the clutches of the tax man unless the Government, as it has done in the case of the children and in the case of the blind, again feels some sense of conscience for what it has done and changes its mind. I hope that there are some Government supporters who believe that it should do this. Allowances paid to rehabilitees will be taxed for the first time in this Budget. So will living away from home allowances, travel allowances and sheltered workshop allowances paid to rehabilitees. Those who are handicapped by blindness who were to be taxed for the first time in this Budget have had that decision reversed by the Treasurer. I believe that pressure should be applied to the Government to reverse the decision to tax these other allowances. Only some 10,000 people are affected. The revenue forgone would be little. This action will tend to destroy the initiative and independence of these people and force some of them back into dependence and some back into institutions. It is important that Government supporters look at this matter and apply pressure on the Cabinet to reverse this decision. We have a Government which has sought to reduce expenditure by extracting funds from the aged, the pensioners the beneficiaries of all types, the school children, the blind and the disabled. Some have been saved by public protest but others will still be affected. Other areas of welfare expenditure will also be affected. Aged persons housing expenditure has fallen well behind promises. The $225m triennium which was promised in 1976 now has no hope of being fulfilled. It is $75m and one year behind target. Home care subsidies which are subject to legislation in this Parliament at the moment and to debate in another place have been reduced from $2 to $1 to $1 to $1. Emergency relief has been completely ignored despite the pleas of voluntary agencies that action is necessary, especially in view of rising unemployment and despite promises by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Social Security that a policy was being developed and was well on the way. I suppose the final example of meanness and injustice is seen in the Government's treatment of its own injured ex-employees and their widows. Increases in compensation payments to injured employees and to survivors of deceased employees when the constitutional difficulties occurred during 1975 were deferred and were not in fact approved until a year later in 1976. No cost of living increases have been given since despite the wage and salary increases which have been given usually at six-monthly intervals. So we have had a two-year period without increases. Previously raises were always given at yearly intervals. The implication by the Government in answer to questions was that in future increases would be given every two years. Increases are surely worthy of being given much more frequently than that. These people are employees getting compensation for injuries or sicknesses sustained at work or widows or other dependents of people killed in the course of their work. This year the Government has again deferred the increases and it seems that they will not be given for another year. That is a disgraceful discriminatory act to those who served it; an act that would be condemned in any other employer. The domiciliary nursing care benefit which was promised by the Minister for Health **(Mr Hunt)** in the 1978 Budget for those aged from 16 to 65 years is ignored. We may hear from **Senator Missen** about the million dollars that has been wasted on the housing allowance voucher experiment which he supported, which I opposed and which has now been abandoned with little explanation and with no information left to us. {: .speaker-KUU} ##### Senator Missen: -- I don't suppose you are complaining about that. {: .speaker-9V4} ##### Senator GRIMES: -- I am complaining about the fact that we have the worst housing situation in 15 years and the lowest employment in the housing industry for 16 years. The housing allowance voucher experiment was doomed to failure. I am grateful it has been abandoned but nothing is left in its place and there is no prospect for those who are seeking houses or employment in this industry in the near future. It is one thing for the Government to announce that we must tighten our belts and introduce anti-inflationary policies; it is another thing to aim these policies at the disadvantaged, the unemployed, the low income earner and every one else in the community who can least protect himself against these changes. At the same time the Government has introduced various measures, which have been spoken about by other speakers, such as the increase in petrol prices which will further aggravate the difficulties of underprivileged people, particularly those living on the edges of urban regions with inadequate public transport, for whom the cost of purchasing goods will go up because of increased transport costs. In the Governor-General's Speech in February 1976 the Prime Minister said that the government would not permit economic recovery to take place at the expense of those who were less well off. Two and a half years later we have a Budget which purports to promote economic recovery, though no-one outside the Government believes that it will, contains measures that are aimed directly at the less well off. The welfare aspects of this Budget have been universally condemned and deservedly so. They have been condemned by the Press and they have been condemned by such authorities as Professor Henderson. They have been condemned by the councils of social service, they have been condemned by various welfare agencies, I am pleased to say that aspects of them have even been condemned by supporters of the Government itself In the short time I have remaining I would like to bring up another aspect of social security which arises indirectly out of report of the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General's report deals extensively with the over-payment of benefits, particularly in the unemployment area, although it is not directly to this aspect that I wish to refer. On 8 February this year, questions were raised in the Press and the Parliament about the fact that the Department of Social Security was embarking on a mass raid on those on unemployment benefits. It was to be a socalled saturation raid, which was to involve inspectors of the Department of Social Security seeing all the unemployed in Australia to see whether they were entitled to their benefits. Protests were made by the Opposition, and by me. In reply to the protests that were made in and out of this Parliament, a statement was made by the Director-General of Social Services at the time commenting on reports that field officers' activities had been stepped up. He claimed that this activity was a normal function and a routine part of the administration of the Department of Social Security and that this was going on continuously. Protests were also made by people such as **Mr Ian** Yates, the Secretary of the Australian Council of Social Services. On the radio program *PM,* he expressed his views on this subject. He was followed on the same program the next night by **Senator Walters** who, quite correctly, had sought information from the Director-General of Social Services, **Mr Lanigan.** He had told her that this was a routine administrative procedure which had been carried out for years. As a Government senator should, **Senator Walters** supported her Government and the Department. The next night it was reported on *PM* that many people had telephoned informing *PM* that **Senator Walters** had been wrong: In fact this was not a routine administrative procedure; these were saturation raids which had suddenly been introduced. My complaint is that **Senator Walters** and I and the Parliament have been misled. The Minister for Social Security also reported that her Director-General had stressed that the inquiries that had been made at the time were routine administrative inquiries. Very few people I know believed this story that was coming from the Department at the time. But still the Parliament was informed that this was a routine matter. We now find in the Auditor-General's report that the Auditor-General was told at the time by the Department of Social Security: . . saturation checks of unemployment benefit eligibility were currently being conducted in all States on the basis of locality. These were being conducted as a result of suggestions that people were being overpaid the unemployment benefit. The simple fact of the matter is that this House, a Government senator, the Opposition and the public were informed by the Department that these raids were not occurring, that all that was happening was that there routine checks of unemployment beneficiaries in this community. That is patently not true. That was a deliberate untruth. At the same time the Department was informing the Auditor-General differently. I believe that in future we will all have to view with a jaundiced eye information coming from the same source as that from which this information came. It is wrong for people in this Parliament responsible for legislation and the administration of the government of this country to be so misled. {: #subdebate-33-0-s9 .speaker-KUU} ##### Senator MISSEN:
Victoria -- I rise to support the Budget and to make some comments on it. I would like first to make some comment upon the two speeches we have heard from my two colleagues who have made their maiden speeches tonight. I refer firstly to the speech of **Senator Hamer,** my colleague from my own State of Victoria. What a distinguished speech that was. What a great opening it was for a career in the Senate. Of course **Senator Hamer** has already had some experience of Parliament but we see that we have gained the benefit of having heard the interesting views which he holds on the role of the Senate. We look forward to his further speeches in this area and others. These remarks apply likewise to **Senator Teague** from South Australia who provided us with an interesting insight to his views upon Liberalism and the Senate and his trenchant support for his own State and its interests. These two senators, as do other senators on the other side who have made their maiden speeches, show great promise of performance in this Senate. We will gain considerably from new senators on both sides who will be making their contributions from now on. We have just heard the conclusion of one of the most mournful speeches that I suppose it would be possible to hear in this Budget debate. But one can never be sure. We might even hear a more mournful one. It is interesting that **Senator** Grimes at the height of absurdity talked about the Government's deliberate policy of creating unemployment. No one in the community in his right senses would believe that. That was just one of the things to which **Senator Grimes** referred and one of the things which I am afraid one can expect. He talked about social services provisions. I will also make some critical remarks but I hope constructively critical ones. When we listen to members of the Australian Labor Party speaking in this Budget debate, we must realise that they have put forward a curious document called the Hayden alternative budget. One would expect that the matters they criticise would attempt to be remedied by the policies proposed in that alternative Budget. But for the sake of the record let us remind ourselves that in that alternative budget suggestion the Labor Party has dropped the policy of free of income tax age pension. It makes no mention of restoring maternity allowances, indexing family allowances, indexing additional pensions for children or of increasing those pensions below the Henderson poverty line to the poverty line. If that Hayden alternative budget is to be of any use, then let it be a guide to form for us it should show what would be done in regard to the criticism the Opposition makes of the Budget. But these are not matters the Opposition would alter if it were in government. We now have a Budget before us in a year that is not altogether easy. We know that over last year there was a deficit substantially in excess of the original estimate. Of course that was a primarily because of a revenue shortfall. Fortunately there was a major reduction in inflation. That was the major achievement and emphasis of the previous Budgets. But we know that there was a persistence of high unemployment. I will speak more on that subject. Of course also there were exessively high real wages which have been a continuing cause of unemployment in Australia. Company profits have not increased sufficiently and there has been only modest real growth in economic activity. So there are problems which the Government must face and which it has faced up to in this Budget. It had set itself the task of achieving long term economic stability in Australia and it has been working hard at that effort in the three years it had been in office. It has determined in this Budget to reduce the deficit and to restrain spending. The general outlays increase of 7.7 per cent indicates that this is a policy to which the Government very much holds firmly. That is not a popular policy. We criticise reductions on individual items and we wish that some might not have been chosen for reduction. Nonetheless, we recognise that this is an area in which there must be considerable restraint by this Government. We recognise that the increase of 1 *Vi* per cent in the income tax rate- a temporary increase- is one which is regrettable and one which runs contrary to what were the ambitions of this Government. It is one which we certainly note as being temporary, and we will certainly be very ready to draw the Government's attention to that fact. It is a temporary increase, and we hope that the need for it will soon pass away. In the Budget there are major decisions that are of great importance to this country such as the decisions in regard to health care financing which appear to be gaining very considerable support in the community and which appear to promise a reduction in the cost of health care but at the same time will provide substantial health cover for people in this very necessary area. We also note in regard to crude oil the very dramatic decision to raise the price to the import parity level. This was something that had to be done in order to recognise that, in this country, there is a limited supply of oil. Instead of using our oil recklessly, we should make proper use of it. The Budget raises important issues which I generally support and which I find in my own judgment are very necessary. At the same time there are criticisms which one would make. There is one area I particularly mention tonight because I feel that while one has an overall objective which is good perhaps more should be done in the area of unemployment. The unemployment level in this country is high and is dangerous from the point of view of the social and economic future of individuals. One recognises that the matter of unemployment is a matter of very great concern to the public. I refer to the results of the poll printed in the *Age* on 3 1 August which set out the very issues that the public feels are the most important. Unquestionably unemployment was regarded as the most important issue as far as the voters in Victoria were concerned. In the table which was published unemployment overall was shown to be the most important issue according to 48 per cent of the people surveyed. The nearest most important issue was investment at 1 8 per cent. This was followed by 'strikes' at 13 per cent, 'environment' at 7 per cent, 'public transport' at 4 per cent, crime ' at 3 per cent and 'drugs ' at 3 per cent. In other words, unemployment was far and away regarded as the most worrying issue. {: .speaker-NJ4} ##### Senator Tate: -- What does the Budget do about the unemployment benefit, senator? {: .speaker-KUU} ##### Senator MISSEN: -- If you will be patient senator, I will get on to that subject. I was about to say that in my opinion the Budget needs to provide more than it has covered in this area. I have recognised that the overall intention of the Budget which is to reduce the rate of inflation to 5 per cent, will be tremendously important in a long term attack on unemployment, but I believe that we cannot wait for a long time and that people cannot be expected to accept long periods out of a job. I believe that there is probably a need for more expenditure, and I intend to speak on this subject. In the Budget itself training programs do get an important mention. It is pointed out that last year's expenditure on training programs increased by 56 per cent to $ 120m, and a further increase of 44 per cent to $ 173m is provided for this year. That of course is a useful and important development. One should take into account that in a country like Australia the retraining of people is proceeding at a low rate of, I think, 0.2 per cent compared with 2 per cent in Sweden. It is important to have increased expenditure in this area. It is important to acknowledge that as at June of this year more than 1 1 1,000 people were being trained under Commonwealth assisted training programs. That is important. In addition, the Special Youth Employment Training Program has been altered in the Budget to reduce the training period from six months to four months because the Government felt that the program was unduly advantaging younger age groups to the detriment of older age groups. In this area of employment and increasing the employment opportunities I suppose that the other important proposal of the Budget involving the manufacturing industry and consequently employment in particular, is the export incentive scheme which has been announced. The Budget provides a total of $5 8m by way of direct assistance to exporters. That is $27m more than last year. Likewise in the area of industrial research and development grants an amount of $24m is being provided this year, which is $10m more than last year. So in those areas one sees a considerable and useful attack on some areas of both training and employment but, as I said, I personally do not think that this goes far enough. I recognise that this is a view which the Liberal Premier of Victoria, **Mr Hamer,** holds, and a number of other persons have suggested that this requires attention. There are a number of views on the expenditure of money by the Government, the effect of increased public investment and what it might do to the economy. The Finance, Industries, Trade and Development Group in the Parliamentary Library has prepared for me a paper on investment. It puts the various arguments in this way: The crowding-out' view of public investment sees the government sector as a competitor with private enterprise redirecting resources from the private to the public sector through various mechanisms. The most obvious level of crowding-out' is the possibility that government will engage in productive activities which would otherwise be provided by the private sector so that public spending would simply supplant private investment. I think we recognise that would be undesirable if that is the effect of additional public investment at the present time. On the other hand, the opposing expansionary view of public investment covers arguments that call for public investment on the grounds that it will provide a buffer against the worst effects of unemployment during recession. This view argues that not only will unused resources be made productive but also the increased incomes and consumer demands resulting from this investment will produce secondary developments within the economy as the new and increased incomes are spent, making new investments in the private sector profitable. Those two views on public investment are held by different people. I happen to hold the view at this time that there is a need for some increase in public investment. {: .speaker-NJ4} ##### Senator Tate: -- The Government holds the first view, though. {: .speaker-KUU} ##### Senator MISSEN: -- The Government holds the first view at the moment, and I am arguing that there is a case not for any overall change in the Budget strategy but for some further public investment. I am arguing in favour of that. I believe that that argument should be further considered. I think this argument also has been adopted by **Sir William** McMahon who on 1 August this year pointed out that 75 per cent of usable manufacturing capacity is all that we are employing at the present time and therefore there is a large capacity that is not being used. My belief is that there are areas in which we could usefully encourage the economy at the present time, in a way in which we could, I think, obtain greater employment without at the same time affecting the Budget strategy on inflation or causing increased inflation. One area in which we spend a lot of money in this community or cause individuals to incur additional expenditure is in the area of tariffs. I do not expect that in this area I will get much support from honourable senators opposite because it seems to me that the present use of tariffs for the purpose of keeping jobs is not being very successful at all. In an article in the *National Times* of 1 9 August entitled ' The Tariff Bludgers ', Peter Robinson wrote: >In 1972, when an international comparison of tariff levels was made within the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the average of Australian tariff rates was more than three times higher than the world average on all industrial products, and almost three times higher on manufactured products. > >These tariffs are really a form of tax on the community. Between 1971-72 and 1977-78 . . . the annual cost of the tariff structure to the Australian nation increased from $4.3 billion to $6 billion. That's about $400 for every man, woman and child in the country. If this kind of assistance had been handed out to industry in the form of subsidies (the way the farmers get their superphosphate bounty, for example), it would have increased the size of the Federal Budget for 1 977-78 by 20 per cent. He further said: >The value of the tariff assistance which went to the textile and footwear industries in 1977-78 has been estimated at around $800m. > >Yet even that level of assistance is not preventing a general erosion of jobs in textiles and footwear. The remaining jobs are becoming more and more expensive to support. The IAC estimated in its report on Textiles, Clothing and Footwear that in 1975-76 the cost of preserving each job in the textile industry was $3,800 and in the footwear industry, $5,600. Some textile jobs were much more expensive. Tariff assistance to bed sheeting, for example, was put at $12,700 per employee and in bed linen it was a massive $20,000. The writer went on to refer to the motor industry. He pointed out that Canada employs 35,000 people in a protected industry, compared with the 44,000 people employed by Australia's top four manufacturers; but in Canada the value added is $1 billion, compared with $360m in Australia. I believe that we must face up to the fact that we are spending too much money and are increasing costs for the community to try to save jobs in some of these industries. I believe that there are other areas where this money could more effectively be devoted. Consideration ought to be given to directing attention to those areas over a period. One of the industries which I believe should have more attention at present is the housing industry, which is in a state of considerable depression. Only 600 government dwellings were approved in July, compared with 1,400 in June and 900 in July last year. The number of private dwellings approved in July was 8,500, compared with 8,900 in June and 9,800 in July of the previous year. I believe that an increase of expenditure ought to be undertaken in this area. In the Budget itself, as was pointed out subsequently by the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, the honourable Ray Groom, some action was taken that might be thought to increase the amount of activity in the housing area. The decision to reduce the prescribed assets ratio of the savings banks by 5 per cent will enable the banks to increase lending for housing as the year progresses. But I believe from other information that this is not likely to add very considerably to housing activity. In the Budget there were some increases in homes savings grants and, of course, the major attack which the Government is making on inflation will, it is hoped, have the benefit of reductions in interest rates which will cause savings to anyone who wishes to borrow. {: .speaker-NJ4} ##### Senator Tate: -- That cannot be right. I thought that homes savings grant would be unavailable to applicants until 1 July next year as a result of the Budget. {: .speaker-KUU} ##### Senator MISSEN: -- I do not know that that is so. The view the Minister expressed is that the anti-inflationary stance of the Budget will again moderate the rate of inflation in housing costs during 1978-79, so increasing the ability of intending home buyers to purchase a home. He further said: >A reduction in the interest rate of 0.5 per cent on a savings bank loan of $25,000 would reduce monthly payments by approximately $9. Over the full term of a 25 year loan the borrower would save about $2,600. That is the Minister's considered view in regard to the effect that the reduction of interest rates will have. I think that is helpful. Nonetheless, I believe that in this area some further attention must be given to increasing activity in an industry which is very labour intensive. Increased activity in home building could well have the effect of providing income and bringing into production capital items which are not at present being used. It would have flow-on effects in other parts of the industry. Housing is one example, but I believe that there are some further areas in which we could expect some improvement. To take the other side of the coin, the contractionary effect which recent Budgets have had on activity was referred to recently in the Annual Report on Australian Federalism by the Centre for Research on Federal Financial Relations. It stated: >The severe contractionary impact of the Budget on the level of economic activity has been commented on in Chapter I of this Report. The cut-backs in capital expenditure on goods and services and in advances for purposes of capital spending are especially unfortunate, not only because such expenditures provide the most convenient means of bringing unemployed resources into production without inflationary consequences but also because there are so many urgent tasks which need to be performed in order to improve the level and equality of Australia 's economic and social infrastructure. Many of these tasks are known to honourable senators. Various States have made a number of demands for additional money. Many very exciting projects could be performed which are necessary for the development of this country. I shall refer briefly to some of the worthwhile capital projects that are awaiting finance. For example, the New South Wales Government has been seeking extra funds for road projects and to build a new Port Kembla coal loader. The Queensland Government is seeking additional funds for welfare housing. The South Australian Government is after finance for the Redcliff petrochemical project and the Western Australian Premier is seeking additional funds for various developments in the form of infrastructure projects. There are, of course, many other areas such as hospital development, community health facilities and urban public transport which will be known to honourable senators. In the desire to stimulate areas that are labour intensive recent requests have been made by the Honourable R. J. Hamer, the Premier of Victoria, for a national conference on unemployment. These requests have been met, although perhaps not to the degree he sought, but there certainly will be meetings of State and Federal representatives. He has pointed out, as was reported in the *Age* of 1 1 September, the great need for such a conference so that much more can be done in the employment area. I hope that we will avoid the depression mentality which we knew in the 1 930s. It took us so long to get out of it and back into good economic development. I hope that something more will be done and that the proposed conference will have this effect. I also want to say something briefly about social security. **Senator Grimes** has criticised this area; but, of course, there have been some really great developments. In the Budget this year there is an expenditure of $8,0 15m on social security, an increase of 7 per cent overall. This amount can be broken down into different areas. I seek leave to have incorporated in *Hansard* a statement on the various areas of social security and welfare expenditure for 1975-76 compared with 1978-79. The ACTING **DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Robertson)-** Has it been shown to the Minister? {: .speaker-KUU} ##### Senator MISSEN: The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Perhaps, **Senator Missen,** you could continue your speech and seek leave to have it incorporated later. {: .speaker-KUU} ##### Senator MISSEN: -- In this table there are shown very substantial increases in the overall expenditure on these various forms of assistance. Payments in respect of the age, invalid and widows pensions and the supporting parents benefit are up 11.5 percent this year to $4,643m. {: .speaker-NJ4} ##### Senator Tate: -- Subject to a means tests for those over 70 years of age, of course. {: .speaker-KUU} ##### Senator MISSEN: -- That is so, but that is only in respect of increases and not in respect of payments generally. Expenditure on the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service is up by 22 per cent to $ 18.3m, and expenditure under the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act is up by 37 per cent to $52m. These are important increases for us to recognise. I have received complaints in respect of some of these areas. I am concerned about the move to annual indexation because it is a very considerable worry for pensioners. Although pensions have been considerably improved and increased over the years, pensioners feel that they should have six-monthly indexation. Now it has gone out to a year. I regret this and hope that it is only a temporary change. {: .speaker-GD5} ##### Senator Ryan: -- Is that all? You regret it. {: .speaker-KUU} ##### Senator MISSEN: -I regret it. {: .speaker-GD5} ##### Senator Ryan: -- Will you vote against it? {: .speaker-KUU} ##### Senator MISSEN: -- I will not vote against the Budget because the majority of provisions in it are excellent, but I certainly express the hope that this will be only a temporary change. It seems to me unfortunate that pensioners will not receive pension increases as speedily as they have done in the past. At least they will be indexed but will not be indexed as frequently as I would like to see them. I have received complaints also about the funding of home care services for the aged but this is one area where there has been considerable growth in expenditure in recent years. Expenditure under the States Grants (Home Care) Act has increased from $9.9m in 1975-76 to an estimated $ 15.5m in 1977-78. Under this Act, services such as the provision of welfare officers for the aged, home care services and senior citizens centres, are funded. Criticism has come to me from people about the reduction in the funding formula from $2 for $1 to $1 for $1 announced at the time of the recent Premiers Conference. Nonetheless, we must recognise that expenditure under the Act will rise from $ 13.8m to $ 15.5m in this new year, an increase of 12 per cent. Overall about 79 additional welfare officer positions and an additional 22 home care services have been approved. In Victoria 41 additional welfare officer positions and 20 more home care services have been approved. Victoria has done very well. It has been very far advanced in creating these new positions. It may well be, and I would hope that the Victorian Government will join in meeting the additional amounts that are called for. As a result more positions will be made available and there will be a greater spread of the use of these facilities. I trust that the States will be able to meet their contributions to the cost. While many people were frightened at first that there would be a lessening of facilities and that some people might go into hospital instead of being kept at home, I believe that this will be found not to be so. I trust that Governments, State and Federal, will be able to contribute well towards this increase in facilities. Overall the Budget provides for a steady improvement. We must look for a great reduction in the rate of inflation. In general terms the Budget provides well for the future of this community. The ACTING **DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Robertson)-** During the course of his speech, **Senator Missen** sought to incorporate a document in *Hansard.* Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. *The document read as follows-* {: #subdebate-33-0-s10 .speaker-GD5} ##### Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory -- The Howard Budget which the Senate is debating this evening is in many ways a predictable document. It is predictable in that it restates in tedious and monotonous terms all the ideological prejudices, class biases and outdated and discredited economic theories that have characterised the Fraser-led coalition Government since it. first sought, and grabbed power. As we would have suspected, obsessed with the pursuit of reduced inflation, the Budget does not even attempt to tackle the scandal of unemployment. On the contrary, the Treasurer **(Mr Howard)** admits that unemployment will grow in the next 12 months. The half a million or thereabouts unemployed Australians are told to wait in their poverty and hopelessness until some future time, unstated, when the Fraserian economics start to work. Of course, Fraser 's economics will not work. All the evidence shows that. Already we have had a decline in inflation but at the same time we have had a rapid and continuing escalation in unemployment. The familiar attack on wages and wage earners is repeated again and again throughout the Howard Budget which failed entirely to face up to the real issues, such as the structural problems in the local economy, the weakness in managerial and entrepreneurial skills in the private sector, the huge profits which are made by foreign-owned companies and are taken out of the country, the destabilising effect of the unplanned introduction of new technology in the work place, and the failure of consumer demand in this period of economic depression. Failing entirely to confront these problems, the Government resorts to its single familiar theme- the attack on wage earners. **Mr Howard** tells us that real wages are still too high and this remains a major cause of the unacceptable level of unemployment. That is all he has to say. The attack on the public sector and on the public employees continues. The Budget Speech contains a thinly veiled threat that any increase in Public Service wages will lead to sackings in the Public Service and these sackings, we must presume, will be over and above the 15,000 jobs in the public sector that will have disappeared, having been eliminated by the Fraser Government, by the end of the next financial year. Again in the Budget we recognise the Government's fraudulent approach to the consumer price index. The Budget contains further evidence of the Government's determination to play tricks with this figure. We are told that the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission should discard all the real increases in the consumer price of alcohol, cigarettes and petrol as a result of the new indirect taxes when considering the consumer price index so that the index can be kept artificially low and the Government can persist with its dubious claim that inflation is under control. {: .speaker-NJ4} ##### Senator Tate: -- Thank goodness the Arbitration Commission is independent. {: .speaker-GD5} ##### Senator RYAN: -- Indeed. There are very serious further threats to the independence of the Commission in the Budget. The Treasurer made the point that if the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission refused to act as the creature of government in these matters and maintained its independence in determining what the wages of Australians should be, the Government as an employer would respond to this persistence of independence by abolishing even more jobs. That is stated quite clearly. Predictable as the Howard Budget was in these ways, it also contained some surprises. It did come as a surprise to the community that the Government of tax reform, the Government that has touted around the electorate promises to reduce taxation, has proceeded to make changes to our taxation system. For example, it has introduce taxation on post graduate scholarships, the pittance that post graduate scholars receive to the extent that they will have their real income reduced by up to one-third. It has withdrawn taxation rebates for taxpayers supporting people overseas. That is another attack on the ethnic communities. It has imposed taxes on all pensioners and recipients of benefits, no matter how disadvantaged they are. It proposes to tax the income of children. Finally, of course, it has imposed a tax surcharge on 1 1½ per cent of the income of all taxpayers, thus wiping out for most taxpayers the tax reductions which were so famous or, should I say, notorious during the 1 977 election campaign. Even the most cynical citizens in Australia were shocked by such a blatant disregard for public promises made by public persons and commitments made by governments. It is a matter of concern to me not only that the Prime Minister **(Mr Malcolm Fraser)** has brought himself into disrepute by this complete about-face from that which he promised and that to which he committed himself in 1977 but, also, to me as an elected representative ofthe people, that this sort of about turn, this breaking of promises, calls into disrepute the whole of our Parliament and the whole of our parliamentary system. How can the citizens of Australia be expected to have confidence in and to trust their elected representatives when we have performances of this kind from the Prime Minister and his Cabinet? Of course, the Government is now backing down on some of its more gross and callous tax excesses. There seems to be a backdown by the Treasurer, **Mr Howard,** on the matter of the taxation of blind pensioners. Some sort of withdrawal has been published by the Treasurer in relation to that matter. There seems to be a backdown by the Minister for Social Security **(Senator Guilfoyle)** with regard to the provision to tax the income of children. The Minister has told us that it was not intended that the income earned by children in their own right should be taxed and that she will introduce regulations to change the situation. One must ask what these late backdowns mean. Do they mean that the Government is completely incompetent and that it does not understand the effects of the provisions it introduces? That is one possible interpretation of the change of heart. Does it mean that the Government is totally cynical, that it introduced all these callous measures but that it did so with the knowledge that it could back down and so appear to be responsive to expressions of community concern after the event? I would like an answer to those questions from the responsible Ministers in the course of this debate. {: .speaker-NJ4} ##### Senator Tate: -- I think it was sheer incompetence. {: .speaker-GD5} ##### Senator RYAN: -- Thank you, **Senator Tate.** Then we come to the bizarre changes in the health insurance scheme. Even the most vociferous opponents of the national health insurance scheme- I am referring to members of the Australian Medical Association- were astounded by the irrational and eccentric changes introduced in the Budget. The changes are costly, chaotic, confusing and do not necessarily lead to a reduction in expenditure by the Government on health. They are changes which seem to have only one purpose, and that is again to artificially deflate the consumer price index. By removing the Medibank levy from the measurement of the CPI there will be in the short term an artificial deflation of the CPI. That seems to be the only positive effect in terms of the Government 's own ideology, of the changes to the health insurance scheme. At this point of the debate I would like to register my total opposition to the provision which will require doctors- medical persons- to judge who in our community are socially disadvantaged and who can be entitled to have their medical bills met. {: .speaker-5V4} ##### Senator Coleman: -- What audacity to ask a doctor to pry into their private affairs. {: .speaker-GD5} ##### Senator RYAN: **- Senator Coleman** says that it is an audacity. It infringes the famous doctorpatient relationship about which we hear so much from the AMA and supporters of the coalition. It is an entirely repugnant measure. During the Senate Estimates committee hearings questions will be asked about the cost to the taxpayer of advertising this series of changes to the health insurance system in an effort to inform people about what they are up for at this particular stage. After the proud boast of the Minister for Social Security last year that she had taken politics out of pensions by legislating for an automatic sixmonth CPI adjustment to pensions, we were surprised and disgusted to see that that particular boast proved hollow, to see pensions reduced to a yearly adjustment, and to see age pensioners condemned to a 16-month lag behind increased prices. I now proceed to other matters in the Budget which have received little attention to date. I deal, firstly, with the budget for the Australian Broadcasting Commission- the body which has the vital, crucial function in our society of providing a national broadcasting service to all Australians. The Budget appropriation for this year is $ 160.6m, which is 3 per cent more than last year's allocation. The inflation rate is 8 per cent. That reduces the ABC's budget in real terms by over 4 per cent on last year's level of funding. In order to maintain last year's level of funding $167m would have been necessary. Since 1 974-75 funding has declined in real terms each year. Taking into account CPI inflation rates since 1974-75, an appropriation in 1978-79 of $197m would have maintained merely the 1974-75 level of funding. However, all that has been allocated is $ 160m. So this year the Budget allocation to the Australian Broadcasting Commission represents a 19 per cent reduction on the 1974-75 level of funding. The problems facing the Australian Broadcasting Commission as a result of these progressive reductions in funding centre around where the economies are to be made. The public is being cheated. It is not getting the high standard of national broadcasting services for which it is paying. The production of new programs will suffer. More repeat programs will be broadcast. Current affairs programs have been cut and will be cut further. As far as staff ceilings are concerned, the Minister made an announcement only last week that yet another 168 jobs are to go. The staff ceiling is now down to 6,075 jobs. That represents a reduction of one in every five jobs since 1975. This reduction in the staff ceiling has had an effect mainly in the creative and production areas of the Commission, while the managerial and administrative sectors remain comparatively well off. The result is not only that the pool of available production talent in the ABC has been depleted but also that fewer people are being trained in production work. The shortage of money and the concomitant vulnerability to political pressure has caused much frustration amongst Commission staff. Talented, creative personnel have been leaving and they are not being replaced. The run-down in production staff has provoked industrial problems within the Commission. In March of this year there was a dispute over the use of outside contract labour. In an answer to a question in the Senate the responsible Minister stated that the necessary production skills for the job in question were not available from within the ABC. That was as a result, of course, of the staff ceilings policy. In answer to questions on notice which I put to the Minister I received the information that in 1975-76 $6.1m was spent on outside contract labour by the ABC and that in 1976-77 $5.5m was spent on outside contract labour. This expenditure is a waste of the taxpayers' money. It is money which is being spent to employ people outside the ABC to do the work which the ABC, if properly resourced and managed, should be doing. Apart from that, it is a trans.ferance of public money to the private sector, to the profits made by the outside companies which have performed the work which should properly have been performed by our national broadcasting service. The money allocated to broadcasting in this Budget is to be distributed as follows: 95.8 per cent is to go to the ABC; 2.3 per cent, which is $3. 6m, to the Special Broacasting Service; and $2.9m, which represents 1.8 per cent of the total allocation, to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. I would like to question this figure of $3. 6m which is to go to the Special Broadcasting Service. The Special Broadcasting Service, it is claimed by the Government, has been set up to provide broadcasting services for ethnic groups throughout our community. However, the legislation was so drawn that the Special Broadcasting Service has the possibility of becoming and could easily become something which is properly described as a propaganda machine for the Government. If that is what the Special Broadcasting Service is to become, the expenditure of $3.6m for this purpose is scandalous. If, on the other hand, the Government is sincere in its intentions to make the Special Broadcasting Service a broadcasting service to which all ethnicgroups in Australia have access, the expenditure of $3. 6m for this purpose is ludicrously small. My comment on the allocation of a mere $2. 9m to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal is again that this is inadequate. The Broadcasting Tribunal has new and important functions, functions with which in principle the Opposition agrees. But it is quite clear from the actions of the Tribunal in recent times that it is inadequately resourced. A new and I think very encouraging venture in public broadcasting has been undertaken by the Broadcasting Tribunal. But at the very outset we found the procedure of the Tribunal receiving applications from public broadcasters and proceeding to try to consider these applications to be a complete fiasco. Half of the applications in the first instance *were* ruled to be ineligible because the Broadcasting Tribunal had not collected them by the due date. When the matter was investigated it was found that inadequate resources within the Tribunal rather than dilatoriness on the part of the applicants was the cause of this fiasco. The Minister for Post and Telecommunications **(Mr Staley)** solves the problem by intending to introduce retrospective legislation, a very clumsy way indeed of solving the problem, which would never have come about if the Broadcasting Tribunal had been given adequate resources. The inadequate funding of the Australian Broadcasting Commission indicates a lack of interest in this very important area and a lack of imagination by the Government. There is a complete failure by the Government to provide measures which would enable the ABC to raise its own revenue through entrepreneurial activities. The ABC would be very well placed to do just that if it were assisted. The ABC runs orchestras, conducts concerts, issues records of ABC orchestral concerts and publishes various items arising from its own programs. All these sorts of activities could be developed in such a way as to be revenue raising for the ABC, but the Government, because of its total prejudice against any sort of public enterprise, seems totally blind to the possibilities in this direction. When we proceed to consider the funding of the Australia Council again we see Budget figures whose accuracy is dubious and which are intended to mislead the public as to the extent of funding for the arts in Australia. An appropriation of $25. 95m is made for the Australia Council, a monetary increase of 9.3 per cent or $2. 2m. The program expenditure for 1977-78 was $124m, $660,000 over the actual allocation of that year. That extra money is for the two Elizabethan Theatre Trust orchestras which are likely to be transferred to the opera and the ballet. The excess money was not returned to revenue but was withheld because of the pending transfer. It should have been included in the 1 977-78 Estimates but was included this year. So the $2m increase that appears in the figures presented in the Budget is in fact only a Sim increase. An increase of only 3.6 per cent over last year's funding of the Australia Council is being made. This cut follows a decline of 12.7 per cent in real terms in 1976-77 and of 24.8 per cent in the two years 1975 to 1977. The staff ceilings set for the Australia Council have been reduced to twice the extent of the Public Service as a whole. Last year the Australia Council complained that the shortage of funds would severely hamper its community arts program. Although the Council allocated 31.5 per cent of its program budget to community arts in 1976-77 it was worried whether it would be able to fulfil this, its most socially important function. In 1976-77 the arts paid out $400m in salaries. So the arts industry is a very significant employer and the erosion of the arts budget means more than simply a cut back on the esoteric pursuits of the few. The arts could be a potential area for greatly increased employment in Australia, but again the Government, with its bias against public activities of this kind, has been too short sighted to see this. Over one half of the Australian population has direct contact with subsidised arts activities. A Morgan gallup poll taken in 1977 showed that 70 per cent of the population believed that cultural activities needed more not less financial support from government. Nevertheless, the Government has continued to deny the Australia Council sufficient funds, so that many of its projects have been either chopped altogether or simply limited. For example, reductions have been made in support for Aboriginal arts. Literary fellowships have almost halved since 1973 and their real value has declined by one third. Grants for the Visual Arts Board for the conservation of art works are well below the needs. On the other hand, the Government has demonstrated its willingness to interfere in the arts when it disagrees with funding decisions. The refusal of the Minister who is responsible for the arts, the Minister for the Capital Territory, **Mr Ellicott,** to accept the majority decision of the Australian Film Commission to proceed with the film *The Unknown Industrial Prisoner* was a case of direct political interference. More recently, the Minister intervened in the Theatre Board's decision to discontinue funding of the Old Tote Theatre. This was done with the supreme assurance of executive power, despite the fact that the Australia Council is a statutory authority. In the view of the Australian Labor Party, government funding of the arts is desirable only when there is a guarantee of freedom of expression. The Fraser Government is not committed to free expression and will make its influence felt both directly and indirectly through funding. The arts budget demonstrates the elitist view of this Government with respect to the arts. It would appear that according to the Fraser Government those people who want the arts can pay for them and the rest can do without. In this respect the Government has been completely unimaginative. It fails to see the area of the arts and the Australian film industry as a potential area for both job creation and increased productivity. The Government has provided tax concessions to encourage investment in the film industry. But what it fails to see is that cutbacks in the Australian Broadcasting Commission reduce the training possibilities for the Australian film industry. It is very clear to anyone interested in this area of activity that most of the people who are currently having success in the Australian film industry were trained through the Australian Broadcasting Commission. But such training opportunities have now been severely restricted. It should be pointed out to Government also that we cannot have a film industry without actors. Yet the great Government tax reform has failed completely to make any changes to correct serious inequities in tax requirements for actors. Not only is there an unemployment rate of something like 80 per cent in the acting profession, but also are the tax burdens quite inequitable. For example, actors cannot average out their earnings. They are taxed at a normal rate on lump sum termination pay. Of course, this is very burdensome. An actor's minimum wage is $ 149.50 a week, although I know many actors who work for less than that. So tax savings for periods of unemployment is not possible. They get no recreation leave or sick pay and they have no security of tenure. Previously employers could issue a statement of earnings but this Budget forces employers of actors to deduct pay-as-you-earn taxation. The making of television commercials represents sustenance for many actors in Australia. Often large amounts are paid in a lump sum for such work between long periods of no work or low pay. Under the present taxation provisions performers must pay tax on the lump sum and, as I said, they are unable to equalise their earnings over a period. So the Government has shown a complete insensitivity to the needs of the acting profession, an insensitivity which is all the more deplorable as it comes at a time when the Australian film industry is, as I have said, an area with a great deal of potential for development, forexpansion,forproducingproductsthatcould be sold overseas, for creating employment and so on. On the one hand, the Government appears to want an Australian film industry and to be prepared to encourage investment in such an industry, but on the other is unprepared to look at the problems facing actors without whom, as I have said, there could be no film industry. Again, in its decision to introduce rebates for taxpayers who make gifts to certified institutions such as art galleries, museums, et cetera, the Government has failed to come to grips with the problems of people working in the arts in Australia. Certainly, a provision like that might assist the growth and the collections of galleries in certified institutions but, of course, it must be the case that those who are in a position to make these gifts and attract these concessions are the affluent. Very rarely are they the actual producers themselves, the artists. At the same time, the Government has failed to address itself to the problems of the actual producers, craftspeople, jewellers and others engaged in that sort of production who, similar to actors, must face iniquitous tax provisionsprovisions which make it very difficult for them to continue in their line of production and to conduct what this Government should see as commercially successful enterprises. {: .speaker-ME4} ##### Senator Peter Baume: -- You would need a greater revenue base to do all these things, wouldn't you? {: .speaker-GD5} ##### Senator RYAN: -- It just seems to me that this Government has an elitist, narrow view of the arts. It fails to see that the arts are, firstly, important to all Australians, not only those who can afford to make donations to art galleries or invest in films; that the arts are a very exciting area for future development in economic terms, in job creation, in the development of skills and the expression of creativity. All it has done, really, is to provide assistance to those who have simply an entrepreneurial interest in the arts. I repeat that this Budget has been a combination of the predictable and the surprising, the predictable in that there is nothing new by way of solutions to unemployment; nothing new by way of the use of the public sector to create jobs, to create wealth for the country; nothing new by way of taxes on excess profits of multinational companies operating in this country. There are plenty of the same tired, old suggestions that wage earners are to blame for everything, that only by the reduction of the living standards of the average Australian can profits rise to the desirable extent. There is a totally unexpected attackonthemostseverelydisadvantaged people in our community through the decision to cut back the indexation of age pensions from a six-month to a 12-month frequency; by imposing new tax burdens on other recipients of social security pensions; by taxing family allowances through the mechanism of taxing children's incomes; by abolishing the maternity allowance, which was a very minor form of assistance to families; by imposing a totally inequitable form of increased taxation through indirect taxes which, of course, fall more heavily on the poor than on the rich; and by failing entirely to raise new and proper sources of revenue from the very rich and fruitful enterprises which are carried out in the minerals and energy sector of the country. The Budget is a deplorable document, one which I believe has been criticised throughout the community for its various failures and one which it seems even the Government itself cannot defend as it has already begun to reduce, amend or change the various provisions in it. {: #subdebate-33-0-s11 .speaker-KKD} ##### Senator JESSOP:
South Australia **- Mr Acting Deputy President,** I take this opportunity to congratulate the President upon his re-election to the office of President of the Senate. I wish to congratulate **Senator Scott** upon his appointment as Chairman of Committees, and as you, **Senator Robertson,** are in the chair I congratulate you upon your appointment as Temporary Chairman of Committees. {: .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator Mulvihill: -- And the other Temporary Chairman of Committees also? {: .speaker-KKD} ##### Senator JESSOP: -- There are one or two that other honourable senators might care to refer to at a later stage. I listened with interest, as always, to **Senator Ryan,** who always seems to come through with some sort of a paranoia with respect to foreign-owned companies operating in Australia. I think she referred to the fact that these companies were taking profits out of this country. The Australian Labor Party tends to dwell persistently on this subject, forgetting of course the job opportunities that are presented by foreign investment. It also forgets that the taxation revenue that is derived by this country from foreign investment is considerable; that the amount of money that is taken out of the country is infinitesimal compared with the benefits that are derived from that kind of investment. The Labor Party seems to forget that Australia cannot develop adequately without the assistance of foreign investment. I was pleased to note that immediately after the Budget was presented there was an upsurge in overseas interest in investing in Australia. I believe that is a good thing. We have an example of the most powerful country in the world, the United States of America, right before us in that regard. That country was developed essentially on foreign investment. I would venture to say that under our present type of government, with encouragement of that nature, in 50 to 100 years Australia will be in a similar position to that of the United States of America. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- Talk about Canada. {: .speaker-KKD} ##### Senator JESSOP: -- I know that the honourable senator gets excited about it. I am talking about the truth, something that the honourable senator does not like: He does not like the success that has been demonstrated by private enterprise in the United States of America. He possibly denigrates the fact that foreign interests want to invest in this country, which is the country of the future. I wish to refer to the excellent speech that was made by **Senator Hamer-** his maiden speech in this chamber. I thought his observations concerning the role of the Senate were very well thought out and considered. I agreed with everything that he said. The importance of the Senate cannot be over-estimated. The honourable senator was quite correct in stating that the role of the Senate was to exercise proper surveillance over the executive government, no matter which party happened to be in power. I believe that is one of the fundamental roles of the Senate. As long as other colleagues on this side of the House and I- and perhaps even **Senator Wheeldonpursue** that policy we will ensure that we demonstrate our responsibility in this regard. I was also interested in the maiden speech of my colleague from South Australia, **Senator Teague** who, among other things, drew attention to the need to face up to the problems of technological change which confront this country. The Budget, as far as I am concerned, is a responsible one. I have been a member of this Parliament for a number of years; in fact, it is about 1 1 years since I was first elected to the lower House of the Parliament. I do not suppose there has been one Budget of which I have not been critical. This one is no exception, and I shall make critical comments on certain aspects of it a little later. {: .speaker-KTJ} ##### Senator Mcintosh: -- Are you going to oppose Supply? You have done it before. You are no stranger to it. {: .speaker-KKD} ##### Senator JESSOP: -- One thing which we on this side of the House have, and which always seems to get under the skin of the Opposition, is that we have independence, which is quite important. Whenever we on this side note that the Government of the day, irrespective of which party it happens to be, has made an error of judgment, there are those of us who are prepared to demonstrate that independence. I commend the Government on its record in reducing inflation. The former Government had an abysmal record in this area of economic management. It plunged the country into economic chaos, and the inflation rate rose to quite severe proportions. We have managed to bring the inflation rate down. {: .speaker-CJO} ##### Senator Wheeldon: -- Was that when you were working for an insurance company? {: .speaker-KKD} ##### Senator JESSOP: -- The underwriter opposite keeps on interjecting. I suggest that our record is quite commendable and must be the envy of the Australian Labor Party, which failed miserably in this area. We have managed to reduce inflation to 7.9 per cent. At the end of June 1976 the rate of inflation was 12.3 per cent. The record speaks for itself. It must be embarrassing for the Labor Party to note that Australia's inflation rate currently is running at the average of our trading partners in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. It is vitally important that the Government succeed in its determination this financial year to reduce inflation to 5 per cent, the prediction of the Treasurer **(Mr Howard).** The Treasurer, in his Budget Speech, said: >In a world of subdued demand and fierce competition for markets, our comparative performance in domestic economic management is of acute and increasing significance. > >It will not be sufficient for us merely to hold our own with the average performance of our trading partners. > >We must do better. I personally fear that if we do not do better Australia could be relegated to being considered solely as an international supplier of raw materials. This conclusion became obvious to me after visiting Japan two months ago as a member of an Australian parliamentary delegation. The prospect of an economy even more heavily dependent on international commodity markets supported largely by the fragility of service industries is not an encouraging one for our future. I believe that we are facing a crisis. I say that because our consumer market is small and manufacturing industry in this country has been largely shaped by a policy of import replacement brought about by high levels of tariff protection. This has meant a number of things including diversification in place of specialisation and a degree of unresponsiveness to the technological challenges which have taken place abroad. That seems to be obvious. Australian industry is suspended between a high wage structure and inferior technology. Our manufacturing base, generally speaking, is not well suited to international competition. On the other hand, most of our Asian trading partners enjoy a flourishing and competitive manufacturing base because either wage costs are comparatively low- an advantage that is likely to continue- or - {: .speaker-5V4} ##### Senator Coleman: -- They have been exploited for many years. There is still child labour in most of those Asian countries. {: .speaker-KKD} ##### Senator JESSOP: **- Senator Coleman** talks about exploitation in Japan. The Japanese have a higher wage structure than Australia. They have industry unions, which I think is an important factor. Australia should be having a look at that. Perhaps my saying that surprises the honourable senator. An interesting aspect about the Japenese is that, faced with pressures coming from low cost countries such as Taiwan, Korea, Mexico and the Philippines which are capable of producing high quality electronic equipment and so on, they came to grips with the problem. How did they do it? I visited the Matsushita company which produces National radio and television sets. It is a company which had sales last year of $9.2 billion. It employs no less than 80,000 people in Japan and 2 1,000 people overseas. It recognised a few years ago that it was necessary to compete with those low cost countries to which I have referred. The company decided that over a threeyear period it would have to reduce its factory floor staff by 50 per cent. It did so, not by retrenchment but by technological change. It introduced numerically controlled tools and computerised production line technology. It was able, in that period, to increase its staff by 3 per cent and to integrate the people who were displaced from the factory floor into other areas of the company that required more staff because of the company's increased productivity. In that time the company was able to increase its productivity substantially. I think that at present Australia can learn something from Japan. We are faced with the need to restructure our industry. We are faced with the need to examine technology in Australia. {: .speaker-KTJ} ##### Senator Mcintosh: -- Who are 'we '? {: .speaker-KKD} ##### Senator JESSOP: -I am talking about Australians- the Government, industry and the trade unions. I totally agree with what Bob Hawke said the other day. {: .speaker-KTJ} ##### Senator McIntosh: -- Which industries? {: .speaker-KKD} ##### Senator JESSOP: -- All industries. It is necessary for those three important sectors of our community to come to grips with the problems of technological change in a co-operative sense and with a sense of nationalism which I find it very difficult to detect in Australia at present because of the incessant strikes that are perpetrated on the people of Australia and the threats that are posed to our reputation as a credible export nation, a credible international trading partner. The way in which militant left wing, communist unions try to take government away from where it should lie is a disgrace as far as I am concerned. That is the truth that everybody in Australia recognises. Until we develop a spirit of Australian nationalism- and that means a team approach by government, industry and trade unions working together and not pulling each other apart- we will find that Australia's industrial reputation, our industrial competence, will continue to slide. That is what is happening at present. {: .speaker-5V4} ##### Senator Coleman: -- How do you expect that will happen, given the biased attitude of members of the Government towards trade unions? {: .speaker-KKD} ##### Senator JESSOP: -I do not think that senators on this side of the House have a biased attitude towards trade unions. I have referred to what I believe is the minority element within the trade union movement which seems to be determined to continue to help to wreck our economy. This is what has been happening over the years. The trade union movement must recognise the importance of this teamwork. I am just as critical of industry. Sometimes it goes along in its own sweet way and does not recognise some of the points that I have been mentioning. Do not let me give the impression that I am lambasting the trade union movement exclusively. On the way to Japan I took the trouble to call at Taiwan. That country is a rapidly developing industrial force in South East Asia. I took the trouble of going to a place called Kaohsiung where there is a very modern steelworks. Alongside that modern steelworks is a modern shipbuilding facility. On the slipways of that shipbuilding facility I saw no fewer than 12 ships in various stages of construction. They ranged from a 450,000 tonner to about a 9,000 tonner and there were about 28 more ships on order. Anyone who saw that sort of facility would not be surprised to know the reasons behind the failure of our shipbuilding industry. There were two reasons. First of all in Australia the industry did not recognise the need for technological change. I am critical of the industry in that regard. But also the trade unions did not co-operate very well. Even at a time when some of us in Canberra were talking to **Senator Cotton** and trying to help the shipbuilding industry the employees at Whyalla were going on strike. That seems to me to have been a quite incredible thing to have done. When I look at a shipyard which has 1 1 or 12 ships on the slipways and a 450,000 tonner which was built for Woodside-Burmah and was delivered on time I worry about our attitude in Australia. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- Why were they on strike? {: .speaker-KKD} ##### Senator JESSOP: -- Simply because some character did not want to allow a New Zealand ship to go on sea trials. What a stupid thing to do. It did not help his fellow trade unionists and as far as I am concerned he certainly did not help his cause here by carrying out that sort of action. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- Who was this character? Name the character. {: .speaker-KKD} ##### Senator JESSOP: -- I do not want to be sidetracked in this debate by my friend from South Australia. I intend to proceed. It is my opinion that the South East Asian market is of fundamental importance to Australia's future as a trading nation. I think, with respect to market potential, that we sometimes become preoccupied with the European Economic Community. {: .speaker-5V4} ##### Senator Coleman: -- You should have told your Ministers that when they were trying to flog ofl* Australia in the European Economic Community. {: .speaker-KKD} ##### Senator JESSOP: -- It is not a question of flogging off Australia. I do not deny the importance of the EEC to Australia. I do not want to give that impression. But I do say that we ought to be devoting far more time to markets in South East Asia. As a matter of fact in Taiwan, for example, which we do not recognise diplomatically, we are presently dealing to the tune of I think $500m- a trade which is about $65m in our favour. The potential growth there is quite staggering. The steel industry by 1982 will require something like twice the amount of iron ore it is currently receiving from Australia. In January this year I visited an automatic reactor, the first that was commissioned. Two more are under active planning and will be constructed within the next year or so and five more are in prospect. That represents an immediate market for uranium oxide of 1,000 tonnes a year with a value of $87m. We do not want to become mercenary about it but that is an area of potential development. In that area there are other demands for raw materials in the form of steaming and coking coal, bauxite, copper, lead and zinc. A recent example of the potential was a shipment of three containers of cuts of mutton sent there from South Australia. This could lead to perhaps 18 containers a month. That sort of exercise is currently being carried out through the back door because we do not recognise the country diplomatically. But there are other countries which do not recognise Taiwan diplomatically. Japan, for example, had a diplomatic post there before diplomatic relations were broken off. It had 35 people manning that post. Today it has a commercial office there under the name of the Eastern Trading Co. or some such title with 48 Japanese working very hard to continue building trading relationships with that country. What is wrong with Australia? We are the only country that does not bother to increase trade there. Qantas is to my knowledge the only airline that does not fly in and out of Taipei. Why does it not do so? Why do we not set up a commercial office? Why do we not show an interest in trebling our trade, which could be easily done in 12 months? Other countries seem to be taking advantage of these opportunities; why are we not doing so? I am sure my colleague **Senator Sim** would support that argument. {: .speaker-CJO} ##### Senator Wheeldon: -- He would not know what it is. He has just come into the chamber. {: .speaker-KKD} ##### Senator JESSOP: -- I will refresh his memory. I am talking about the need for Australia to establish some sort of trading office in Taipei so that we can take advantage of the markets in that region. What happens now? People go to the department of trade in that country and say: 'We want to buy from Australia '. The department has to say: 'We cannot do anything about that. You will have to go to Hong Kong and arrange it through the Australian High Commission there '. In my view that is crazy. Taiwan is buying materials from Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Japan, Canada and the United States and is even getting uranium from South Africa. Is that not dreadful? {: .speaker-CJO} ##### Senator Wheeldon: -- Don 't look at me like that. {: .speaker-KKD} ##### Senator JESSOP: -- I know that **Senator Wheeldon** has some regard for South Africa. I have noted a certain moderation in some of the statements that he has made in recent times and I commend him for it. I think he is a very astute senator and has some knowledge in this area. The trading potential in South East Asia is quite remarkable. Korea, for example, has embarked onaprogramofnuclearpowerdevelopment which again reflects the interest in these countries of ensuring an adequate supply of energy. I was able to talk to atomic energy scientists and engineers in Japan. They are anxious to expand their production of power through atomic nuclear energy to something like 60 million megawatts by 1 990. They are also actively examining the possibility of fast breeder reactors. A note of warning was given by President Carter of the United States of America when he said that we should be providing uranium to those countries in order to fulfil their energy requirements. I believe that those countries, as they continue to develop industrially, will certainly be requiring more of our rural commodities. Already the Japanese are showing interest in our beef. I am afraid that the price structure there is rather incredible. Perhaps there is room for the Japanese Government to re-examine its price structure for beef. The fishing industries in all those countries are very anxious to enter into joint ventures with Australia particularly as we have now approved the 200-mile nautical limit. In my opinion it will be vital to Australia, if we are to exploit that tremendous resource effectively, to go into joint ventures with countries like Taiwan, Korea and Japan. They have a great expertise to offer Australia. The existence of the 200-mile limit means that we have a tremendous resource. Those countries have demonstrated an interest in joining us in research and development of that important fishery resource. In Japan I was interested to note that 10.3 million tonnes of fish are consumed in that country each year. Japan produces 70 per cent of that amount from its own waters and only 20,000 tonnes comes from Australian waters. This is a small proportion but it is high quality fish. The Japanese like our blue fin tuna and our squid. They use this in their sashimi, a fresh fish dish which they regard as a delicacy. I tried it for the first time when I was in Japan and I liked it. There seems to me to be a tremendous opportunity for Australia to expand greatly our trading opportunities in the fishing area with those countries. I know that there are companies in Australia that are anxious to take advantage of the opportunity to join with Japan and Korea and other countries in joint ventures that can result only in profit to Australia and benefit to many people in the South East Asian countries. {: #subdebate-33-0-s12 .speaker-K1M} ##### Senator PRIMMER:
Victoria -In rising to speak on this Budget I feel that I can say only that the dead hand of Liberalism, the dead hand of Fraser, the Prime Minister, lies o'er the land. The August edition of the Victorian journal *Taxpayer* described this Budget as the harshest Budget in over 30 years. That is a comment with which I totally agree. The *Taxpayer* contains an article headed: 'Killing the goose that lays the tax-egg. ' The article states: >It's the harshest budget since the 1940's-with taxpayers hit: left, right & centre > >This year's Budget was a shrewdly prepared document because it paved the way to take away spending power, to lift prices, to remove some benefits and raise a lot more revenue. > >Many taxpayers were not only hit: 'left, right and centre' but they were hit both coming and going. Not only were income tax rates summarily increased but many people will find their taxable incomes will go up. A double-take. > >A whole series of extra pensions and benefits are to become taxable. The rules for taxing some part of retirement lump sums involve retrospectivity, and future additions to long service leave (if taken in cash when you are retrenched or simply get old ) will be mostly fully taxable. > >There is a reversal on many policies. Now for the over-70's, increases in social security pensions are to be means-tested. Now there's no claim to be made for homeloan interest. Now migrants genuinely maintaining parents back home are to be denied the claim for them. > >Lower taxes WERE good for us: Why not NOW? > >Back when votes were being wooed, back in 1975 and again in 1977, there were promises of tax reductions which came, and then went. Under the revised personal tax scales, most taxpayers are back to 'square one.' > >If during an election, the best economic advice is to restore incentive and give businesses and people the wherewithall to get the economy moving, is the position so different now? Reminds me of the economics student who went to his tutor, surprised that the exam questions were the same as last year- only to be told: 'Ah yes! but this year the ANSWERS are different! '. > >The Budget Speech says we'll pay a whole year's extra instalments over eight months. But the fine print at the back (page 158, if you're interested) tells the bald truth that between 1st November and 30 June the arrangement is to take an EXTRA month's increase and it will be refunded in 1979-80. That means about a S77m interest-free loan you and I are forced to make. This Budget truly takes away from those who have not and gives to those who already have, showing in effect the complete elitism of this Fraser Government. **Mr Fraser** claimed in 1975 that he wanted three years to get the economy back into gear. Those three years are almost up and today the Australian economy is in a worse mess than ever with unemployment up and increasing. When this Government took office in 1975 registered unemployment stood at 280,000 people. Today the figure is around 400,000 with tens of thousands, or perhaps hundreds of thousands, more people who have dropped out of the work force altogether and consequently are not included in any official figures. So it is not unlikely that there are some 600,000 people in Australia today who would take employment if such were available to them. I want to deal particularly with the situation in country Victoria. At the end of July last there were 95,149 people registered as unemployed in Victoria. Of those, 30,700 or 32.3 per cent were registered in non-metropolitan offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service. That figure compares with 28.8 per cent of Victoria's population living outside Melbourne. On current trends, and boosted by this Budget, it is not impossible that registered unemployed in country Victoria will reach 55,000 next year, or an increase of 45 per cent between July 1978 and February 1979. I have a table based on CES figures which shows the distribution of unemployment in country Victoria as at 3 1 July last. I shall seek leave later to have this table incorporated in *Hansard.* I shall instance unemployment in three of the worst areas of unemployment in rural Victoria. The ratio of unemployed to vacancies for youths in the Shepparton area is 75.25 registrants for each job. In Mildura the figure is 175.2 young people registered for work for every job that is available at the CES. But worst by far is the area around Gippsland in the electorate of the Minister for Transport, **Mr Nixon,** where there are 258 youths unemployed for every job that is registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service. That is surely a tragic situation for young Victorians. In my opinion worst hit are young women residing outside the metropolitan area. I cite an example of a case that I have on my plate at the moment. A 16-year old girl left school at the end of last year in a provincial country area. Because there was no employment she applied for and received unemployment benefits. After a month or six weeks, and following the guidelines laid down by this Government that people should not sit at home and expect work to come to their door but rather go out to search for it, she, with a carload of her mates who had also left school, travelled some 550 kilometres to north eastern Victoria to search for work. They had an indication that some work of a seasonal nature was available. They were fortunate enough to get work in that area when they arrived. However, in the case of the young woman the work cut out after a few short weeks, and she again reapplied for the unemployment benefit. She was visited by a field officer of the Department of Social Security who alleged that the young woman was living in a de facto relationship and therefore was not entitled to the unemployment benefit. The allegation is that the field officer used the words: 'You live in a house with males; they must support you'. As a consequence, as I said, she was denied the unemployment benefit. The question I raise is this: Here is a young girl 16 years of age, 550 kilometres from home, with no means of transport and out of money. What type of immorality are we breeding in our society? If those young men and I suppose the young women with whom she was living in the house were to turn her out onto the street because she was not bringing in any income, what would happen to her? What type of immorality is this Government forcing on to the people? Was this young woman supposed to go out on to the streets and prostitute herself to find a bed for the night? That is the sort of situation into which this Government is pushing women particularly young women. There are reports in Victoria that young women are transporting themselves from country areas to the metropolitan area to work in the massage parlours to get money. They work in these places for a short period and then move back to their home towns. I do not know whether the reports are correct, but this situation is indicative of the sort of thing that is happening particularly in relation to young women in country areas. I was astounded at a relatively recent outburst by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations **(Mr Street).** The Minister was reported in the Press about two to three months ago as saying that he could not understand why young people lived in a communal type situation in this day and age. It is patently obvious that **Mr Street** is so far out of touch with what is going on in his own community in particular that he does not realise the sort of rents and bonds that landlords are asking even in the country areas of Victoria from persons requiring rented premises. It is not uncommon even in the remote areas of Victoria for landlords to ask for $35 or $40 a week rent on a flat or if one is lucky an old two or three-bedroom house. The landlords also require a bond of $ 1 00 or $ 1 50. There is just no way that young unemployed people can by themselves get together that type of finance. The only way they can survive is to get together in twos and threes, rent accommodation in common and live together. The situation is that many young people have reached a crisis point in their lives. Unfortunately some have done away with their lives because of the unemployment problem hanging over their head. These young people have lost all selfrespect. They wonder what is wrong with them. Highly intelligent young men and women who call at my office and to whom I speak cannot quite understand why they are in this situation. As 1 said, they have lost all self-respect. Unfortunately some of them have been out of work for so long that it is extremely doubtful that they will ever work again. I do not say that in a disparaging way. It seems to be a syndrome- a psychological effect that this non-work process imposes on the youth of this country. How on earth these young people are ever expected to get work experience to fit them for some form of secure employment I will never know, and I am sure that they do not know. I again refer to the table which I cited earlier. There are 17.2 registered unemployed persons for every vacancy in Victoria, and 26.6 for every vacancy in rural Victoria. In view of those sorts of figures it is little wonder that young people have lost all self-respect and respect for our society. In this regard I think I can best illustrate the attitude of the Liberal Government, the Prime Minister, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and the Department of Social Security by reading the best thing that I have read for a long time, and that is Malthus on the Effects of the Knowledge of the Principal Causes of Poverty'. {: .speaker-9I4} ##### Senator Messner: -- When was it written? {: .speaker-K1M} ##### Senator PRIMMER: -- I understand it was written in the late eighteenth century or the early nineteenth century. {: .speaker-9I4} ##### Senator Messner: -- When was the last time he was proven right? {: .speaker-K1M} ##### Senator PRIMMER: -- I think this statement epitomises the sort of thinking that is inculcated in this Government. Malthus said: >Nothing would so effectually counteract the mischiefs occasioned by **Mr Paine** 's Rights of Man, as a general knowledge of the real rights of man. What these rights are it is not my business at present to explain; but there is one right which man has generally been thought to posses, which I am confident he neither does nor can possess- This is the crunch line- a right to subsistence when his labour will not fairly purchase it. Cannot honourable senators hear the Prime Minister, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and field officers of the Department of Social Security running around the countryside labelling every young person who happens to live in a communal situation as living in a de facto relationship, inferring that young women are living in sin, that they are going to bed with every Tom, Dick and Harry? My information is that that is the situation in which these young women are being placed. It is of little use for them to come into my office and to be indignant, to cry their eyes out and be upset because of the moralistic attitudes of this Government. That is the situation in which the Government which **Senator Messner** supports has placed these young people. One other little item that I dug out of some archives recently is this. It would do **Mr Fraser** well in relation to unemployment to go back to his party's predecessor, the United Australia Party, which in the run-up to the election in 1943 was putting forward a plan for a national insurance scheme on a contributory basis beginning with insurance against unemployment. That is to be done immediately victory was achieved and peace returned. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. {: .page-start } page 578 {:#debate-34} ### PARLIAMENTARY REFRESHMENT ROOMS {: #debate-34-s0 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -Yesterday I informed the Senate of the events that culminated in the decision of the staff of the Parliamentary Refreshment Rooms to go on strike on Monday and Tuesday of this week. One of the terms of a return to work was that action would be taken to secure the intervention of the Public Service Arbitrator in the matter. In pursuance of this condition a private conference of the parties involved was held this morning. A recommendation was made to **Mr Speaker** and to me by the Acting Public Service Arbitrator, **Mr R.** H. C. Watson, that **Mr Aper** should be stood down with pay until a decision has been handed down on his application for exemption from joining a union on the ground of his conscientious beliefs. I have now to inform the Senate that the Speaker and I have decided to accept the recommendation. {: .page-start } page 578 {:#debate-35} ### ADJOURNMENT Human Rights- Aurukun and Mornington Island- Industrial Dispute in Parliament House- Access to ASIO Records- Energy Resources {: #debate-35-s0 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate I formally put the question: >That the Senate do now adjourn. {: #debate-35-s1 .speaker-VD4} ##### Senator EVANS:
Victoria -- I rise to share with the Senate the following extraordinary communication which I, in common I understand with **Senator Missen** and the honourable member for Lalor **(Mr Barry Jones)** in another place, yesterday received from the Premier of Queensland in the form of a telegram: > **Senator Gareth** Evans Parliament House Canberra > >I am considering protesting to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights over the violation of human rights in your home State of Victoria in New South Wales and now in Canberra. I refer to attempts by trade unions to prevent workers from earning a living unless they join a union. As you know compulsory unionism violates the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. I was astounded at your silence during the case of Barbara Biggs right in your own backyard in Melbourne particularly in view of your public statements about so-called violations of human rights at Aurukun and Mornington Island in Queensland. Barbara Biggs' rights were grossly violated despite a legal certificate of exemption and her treatment at the hands of the unions disgusted the nation. Now you have the chance to prove that you are genuine and not just the publicity-seeking hypocrites many people suspect. I assume you will be raising the case of the Parliament House kitchenhand when you take your seats in the very same building today. I await your reply with interest. > >From Joh Bjelke-Petersen, Premier of Queensland. I shall make just three points in answer to that extraordinary communication. The first is this: For the Queensland Premier to adopt a high moral tone on any question of human rights and to accuse anyone else of publicity seeking hyprocrisy in any context whatsoever is to demonstrate a capacity for sheer gall and effrontery which is unrivalled, I suggest, in the experience of any member of this chamber, as hardened as this chamber undoubtedly is to demonstrations of those qualities. The reality is that the condition of liberty in Queensland has assumed all the dimensions of a national scandal. Indeed, it is fast assuming the standing even of an international scandal which is deeply embarrassing both to the nation as a whole in international forums and even to the present Federal Government, not itself notoriously sensitive on matters of civil rights. The United Nations Human Rights Commission, which **Mr Bjelke-Petersen** has had the temerity to call in aid on his own behalf, would, I suggest, be only too delighted to have an opportunity to scrutinise the state of liberty in **Mr Bjelke-Petersen** 's own backyard and to consider not only the treatment of Aborigines in Aurukun and Mornington Island, which the Premier himself concedes to be at least controversial, but also the systematic denigration of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders generally in that State which is embodied in the legislation of that State which purports to govern the affairs of those people. It would be delighted to have the opportunity to consider the electoral gerrymander which, with the possible exception of Western Australia's, is probably the most spectacular in the present Western world. I am sure that it would like also an opportunity to consider the behaviour of the Queensland Police and those responsible for their administration in the succession of very well documented scandals which have occurred in that State in recent years. Above all, I suggest that the United Nations Human Rights Commission would be delighted to have, and would welcome with open arms, an opportunity to scrutinise against the international standards of the covenants and documents on human rights that symbolic centrepiece of everything that is most intolerable and offensive to democratic principles in that State. I am referring, of course, to the blanket ban on street demonstrations which celebrates its first unhappy anniversary this week. The second point I make is that it is just not true that I or my colleagues have remained silent on the Biggs conscientious objection affair or, for that matter, on the sordid affair of the parliamnentary kitchenhand which is currently the subject of discussion in this chamber. I do not know whether the Queensland Premier shares the inability or unwillingness of **Senator Withers** to read daily newspapers but I, for example, published quite a detailed statement of my views on the question of conscientious objection in Monday night's Melbourne *Herald.* This is not the occasion to state now in any detail that argument- I certainly hope to have the opportunity to do so before too many more sitting days are out- but I would put to the Senate that a perfectly reasoned argument, if indeed the Queensland Premier is susceptible to reasoned argument on this or any other topic, can be made in support of the unions' position in these recent controversies and, in particular, in support of the proposition that one does not have to abandon or compromise civil libertarian principles in order to support the general position which the unions have adopted. In essence, if I might try to summarise the matter very briefly, the position is that there is a difference- a very important and a very crucial difference- between an objection simpliciter on the one hand and a conscientious objection on the other. It is not just any old objection, however deep-seated or long-standing or vigourously it might have been held, which will satisfy the statutory description of a conscientious objection. The very notion of a conscientious objection implies that that objection is held on moral grounds. {: .speaker-ME4} ##### Senator Peter Baume: -- You are looking behind the certificate given by the court. {: .speaker-VD4} ##### Senator EVANS: -- I will come to that matter, if the honourable senator will only wait, because that is one of the greatest problems in the way in which the legislation operates at the moment. I draw to the attention of the honourable senator that the certificate is not given by a court, it is not given after an opportunity for cross examination, it is not given after an opportunity for representation by competing viewpoints. That is one of the crucial problems. Let me get to that point firstly by saying that what matters in identifying a conscientious objection- God knows this has been recognised often enough in the national service cases which were only too relentlessly pursued by this Government in years gone by- is that one's conscience rebels against the imposition in question, not just one's intellect or one's taste buds. If I might assert it without going into it in detail now, there is no evidence that any such conditions or criteria were satisfied in the case of Miss Biggs. In fact, such public utterences as she put on record suggest entirely the contrary. The real objection of the unions is not to the existence of conscientious objection clauses as such in legislation. After all, such legislation was recognised and indeed introduced by the Labor Government between 1 972 and 1 975 under the ministerial leadership of **Mr Cameron.** The real objection of the unions consists of three points. The first is their inability to be represented before the Registrar or his delegate to put to the Registrar the competing evidence which, goodness knows, lay about in abundance in the case of Miss Biggs and to cross examine the applicant as to the sincerity, depth and durability of the beliefs that are being claimed. Secondly, the union's objection lies in the absence of any requirement that the Registrar state any reasoned grounds whatsoever for granting the exemption in question. It is just not known what irrational or perhaps rational considerations govern the decision in question. Thirdly, as I foreshadowed a moment ago in reply to an interjection by **Senator Baume,** the next ground of opposition is the absence of any right of appeal to either the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission or the Federal Court of Australia to be able to test after the event the validity or otherwise of the Registrar's decision. To wind up, the last point that I make is this: The outburst of the Premier was not just intemperate, illogical and wrong headed- indeed extraordinarily so given the position and status which he occupies in our constitutional systembut it also raises, I would suggest, quite serious questions about the privileges of the members of this Parliament. It has long been recognised that intimidation of members of parliament in the exercise of their electoral and parliamentary duties is one of the most basic and central considerations giving rise to a breach of this Parliament's privilege. I would suggest that the tone, the flavour, the colour and the content of this extraordinary missive are such as to raise a prima facie possibility of a breach of privilege having been committed by the Queensland Premier. Accordingly, **Mr President,** I request that you study this document overnight with a view to this quite serious question of privilege being further considered by this chamber should you form the opinion, having considered the document, that there might be grounds for this chamber pursuing the matter further. {: #debate-35-s2 .speaker-KUU} ##### Senator MISSEN:
Victoria -- I am the other senator who was a happy recipient of the telegram but I do not propose to argue it or to advance the same suggestion to you, **Mr President,** that you should worry yourself overnight about it. However, I did take the opportunity yesterday of replying to the telegram which **Mr Bjelke-Petersen** so kindly sent to me. I replied in these terms: >I am delighted to hear you are at last considering protesting to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights over the violation of human rights, but perhaps you should be warned of the fate of those who live in glass houses. I am sure Miss Barbara Biggs will be relieved to hear that you are springing to her rescue at this late stage. She certainly should have been allowed to put her case to her fellow employees and not be treated with the denial of civil rights which is such a common feature of the situation in your own State. The widespread criticisms I have received from Australian citizens at your Government's cynical dismissal of the Aurukun and Mornington Island Councils, and your repeated attempts to deny decent self-management to the Aboriginal inhabitants has had and will have my constant attention. I will leave the problems of the Parliament House kitchenhand to others more attached to the culinary arts. > >ALAN MISSEN > > **Senator for** Victoria I do not propose to dignify the telegram I received with any further comment. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- It is not for the President to rule on whether any breach of privilege has been committed; that is a matter for the Senate. Honourable senators have available to them the forms of the Senate under which they can submit by way of motion any matter of privilege for the judgment of the Senate. {: #debate-35-s3 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia -- I rise to speak to a matter not far removed from the subject which has been raised already, the question of conscientious objection. However, I question whether any case could be made out by the conscientious objector associated with the kitchen dispute in Parliament House. **Mr President,** I noted your statement tonight that at least for the time being there has been some settlement or holding over of this dispute. I understand that the individual concerned has such a conscientious objecting to joining a union that, I am told, he was prepared to join the union if the union took his joining fee out of his pay each week so that he could pay it by instalments. The union rejected this request because it did not think that he should have a privilege not extended to other new members. That is the basis of his conscientious objection to joining the union. **Mr President,** I apologise for rising on the adjournment. I have not been in the habit of doing this in latter years but I felt that I must take the earliest opportunity to correct a wrong impression that I could have given today, and to some extent yesterday, in a question I asked. The adjournment debate is the first opportunity I have had under our Standing Orders to correct that wrong impression. I am inclined to the belief that as a result of the rambling question I endeavoured to ask today the impression could be gained that I was casting some doubts upon your honesty or integrity or suggesting that you were trying to mislead the Senate to some degree. I say definitely that at no time was it my intention to cast such doubts. I have the greatest admiration for your conduct in the august position that you hold and have no hesitation in saying that I accept your honesty and integrity. On no occasion would I accept that you would deliberately misinform the House. Nevertheless, I gathered the impression that you were the conveyor of information by reporting a statement made in what I think was a deliberate attempt, not on your part but on the part of those who used you to convey the information, to misinform the Senate. I take a serious view of that. I do not want to speak at length about this dispute because I know that there is the possibility of a settlement. I think that the man who has caused this dispute will be branded a scab for the rest of his life. This is a terrible thing to have to bear. No one is more lonely and no one does a greater disservice to the community than a person who is branded a scab for the rest of his life. I do not want to support the union on this occasion although, as **Senator Evans** has said, I think there is justification for the union's attitude. But be that as it may, my concern is whether there was an attempt to mislead this House. When you made your statement yesterday, **Mr President,** I recalled an article in the *Canberra Times* which reported what **Mr Aper** said when applying for the job. The article pointed out that **Mr Aper** said that he talked to someone he thought was **Mr Dearing** or something like that, but he found out it was **Mr Dearson.** The article reported him as saying: >I explained I was in trouble with the unions, that I was fighting unions, that I was blackbanned and that I was against unions. The article stated: >The man interviewing him - this apparently was **Mr Dearson-** had replied that he looked 'strong' and would be the right man for the position. I raised the questions whether the strength he appeared to have was his strength to fight against unions and whether, as he had no qualifications for the position of a kitchen hand other than fighting unions, there was an attitude in the administration of the Joint House Department which follows the government policy of being anti-union and anti-working class. This was reinforced by an earlier report that someone from the administration of the Joint House Department was discovered behind some bushes on the hill outside Parliament House at 5 o'clock in the morning spying through binoculars on employees as they came into Parliament House. {: .speaker-ME4} ##### Senator Peter Baume: -- Allegedly. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH: -- Allegedly. This has not been decided. I am anxious to know whether we have lost the co-operation that has existed since I have been here between the staff of the dining room and the kitchen and the members of parliament. There has been a continuity of courteous service from this staff. Has this situation been changed by the administration since the present Government took office? Did the manager of the refreshment rooms employ this man because of his qualifications for fighting unions? **Mr President,** you set my fears at rest in the second prepared statement you made yesterday in which, when referring to the *Canberra Times* article, you said: >I must advise the Senate that earlier today I was informed by the Secretary of the Joint House Department that a meeting had been arranged with **Mr Dearson,** the manager of the refreshment rooms, and **Mr Aper** to discuss the report in the *Canberra Times.* **Mr Dearson** informed **Mr Aper** that at no time during the interview had **Mr Aper** said that he was fighting unions or that he was black banned or that he was against unions. **Mr Aper** did not dispute this but said- this was in the tripartite discussion this morning- that the report in the *Canberra Times* was inaccurate. I understand that he left the meeting with the stated intention of going to the offices of the newspaper to ask that a correction be published to what he agreed was a misleading report. Everyone was satisfied following the statement made by you, **Mr President,** that there was no accuracy in the report in the *Canberra Times* and that the inaccuracy arose as a result of unreliable reporters making a false report and making ac- not correct. Later during Question Time I asked you to look into this matter as it had been reported that he had made such a statement on the Australian Broadcasting Commission's news service. I waited to see the denial of that statement in today's edition of the *Canberra Times,* but, much to my surprise, **Mr Aper** verified what was reported in the previous edition of the *Canberra Times* and did apparently what it was assumed he would do at the meeting. The *Canberra Times* said that, although he did not contact that newspaper, the newspaper contacted **Mr Aper** at his home. **Mr Aper** told a reporter that the only mistakes he thought the article contained were that what he referred to as the Builders Workers Industrial Union was published as the Builders Labourers Industrial Union and that the word 'unions' in one section of the story should have been in the singular. He was asked specifically whether he thought the section and quotes dealing with his interview for the job as kitchen hand were accurate. He replied: 'Yes'. So that is verification of the statement he made on the ABC's news service. He refused to deny in the *Canberra Times* of the following day that that was said. We were given a statement in the Senate which left us all with the impression that the statement was not made. But when one examines the statement one finds that it does not contain any inaccuracies. The statement does not at any time say that **Mr Aper** said that the matter was not mentioned. It says that **Mr Dearson** said that it was not mentioned. **Mr Aper** did not deny what **Mr Dearson** said, but he did not confirm it. **Mr Hillyer** was the third party at the meeting, but there is no report, when he heard this statement, of him saying: 'Do you verify this?' or anything else. Then **Mr Aper** said: 'I will go to the *Canberra Times* and get it to correct an inaccurate statement'. The *Canberra Times* contacted him and he corrected the inaccurate statement. The inaccurate statement he corrected was in regard to the name of a union. Whilst what was reported obviously did transpire, the situation is that three men in the hot seat come up with a statement which could leave people with no other impression than that the statement was never made. But the overwhelming evidence is that it was made. No one can contradict the fact that it was said, because at the present time **Mr Aper** is sticking to his statement that it was said. If this carefully prepared statement were to refute what was claimed one would think that it would say: 'At the conference today it was agreed that the statement was not made'. But the preparedstatementdoesnotsaythat.Itsaysthat **Mr Dearson** said that the statement was not made, and **Mr Aper** did not deny that. Either the three people conferred and arranged for this tale to be told or **Mr Hillyer** is the innocent party who went to hear something that **Mr Dearson** and **Mr Aper** had arranged to say so that it could be reported back to you, **Mr President.** However one looks at the matter, this is a deliberate attempt to give wrong information to this Senate. Ministers have lost their portfolios for misleading the Senate. **Mr President,** I repeat what **Senator Bishop** asked today and that is that you investigate this matter to see who is responsible for the attempt to mislead the Senate. I ask that he be reprimanded according to the seriousness of the complaint. {: #debate-35-s4 .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLAREN:
South Australia **- Mr President,** when this matter came to the attention of the Senate yesterday, I attempted, as a member of the Senate House Committee, to catch your eye in order to speak on it. Unfortunately, after you put down a second statement the Leader of the Government in the Senate **(Senator Carrick)** gagged the debate and I was prevented from doing so. {: .speaker-ME4} ##### Senator Peter Baume: -- He did not gag the debate: He adjourned it. {: .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLAREN: -He had no right to adjourn the debate and my remarks will tie in with that situation. I am a member of the Senate House Committee and that was where 1 was going to lodge my complaint. The Senate House Committee, which is an elected body of this Parliament, was completely ignored over this matter. In my view the Committee should have been called together to debate it. I want to criticise the Committee, or the people who convene its meetings. Apart from my own notices of meetings I have ascertained that since 20 October last year the House Committee has met on four occasions. That was on 20 October 1977, 3 November 1977, 16 March this year and again on 4 May. We have a very important matter like this which has hit the headlines in every daily newspaper and which has been on the national news, yet the Senate House Committee, which is an elected body of the Parliament, was completely ignored. Why was it ignored? **Mr President,** I wanted to ask a question of you today but I did not get the call. I wanted to know whether you, as chairman of the Senate House Committee, would consult with the chairman of the House of Representatives House Committee and call an urgent meeting of the two Committees so that its members could be acquainted with all the facts pertaining to this particular case. We are completely in the dark. But now the matter has come into the chamber, of course we can say something about it. I remember what happened some years ago when I and two other members of the Senate saw fit to wear shorts into the chamber. A meeting of the Senate House Committee was quickly called to discuss that matter. But when we have a very important matter like this on our plate the committee is completely ignored. I have asked previously in this chamber that a set of Standing Orders be laid down for the meeting dates and the conduct of the Senate House Committee. But as yet that has not happened. We are at the whim of the Joint House Department as to when we will have meetings. When meetings are called there is never enough time to get through the whole of the agenda. We are just wood and water joeys about the place. We are called in when the secretary of the House Committee decides that there should be a meeting. Something ought to be done about that. I hope that you, **Mr President,** will take action to see that the House Committee meets on a regular basis, and that when matters of such great import as this are abroad its members will be given the opportunity to discuss them. **Mr President,** you put down a statement tonight which causes me even greater concern. I shall refer to part of it. You said in your statement: >A recommendation was made to **Mr Speaker** and me by the Acting Public Service Arbitrator, R. H. C. Watson, that **Mr Aper** should be stood down with pay until a decision has been handed down on his application for exemption from joining a union on the ground of his conscientious beliefs. In view of what **Senator Cavanagh** has revealed tonight I do not think this man has any conscientious beliefs as far as joining a union is concerned. **Mr President** I am concerned that you and **Mr Speaker** have agreed that this man should be stood down with pay. Will the people in the kitchen, who had to go on strike for two days, have to sacrifice two days pay because of the actions of this despicable person who said that he was opposed to trade unions? He has said on two occasions that he told the person who interviewed him that he was opposed to trade unions, and that he was a stirrer. Yet he was still engaged. He was given the job. What is the Joint House Department going to do about paying the employees. I hope that you will make a recommendation to the Department so that those employees too will not lose any pay because of the actions of this person. I want to congratulate the kitchen staff for the action they took. They are to be highly commended for their actions in standing up for their rights. If they are to lose two days pay because of the actions of this person much more will be heard in this Parliament of this episode because they do not deserve to lose two days pay when the person concerned was employed after having told the interviewer of his views on trade union matters. I ask: Was this man deliberately employed to provoke a strike in the kitchen? If the House Committee had been called together we could have thrashed all this out. We could have got the members of the Joint House Department before us and asked them whether the statements which have been made by **Mr Aper** in the Press are in fact true. They would have had to tell us. Now we have to get the information second-hand and we still do not know what the truth of the matter is. I still say that an urgent meeting of the House Committee should be called so that we can get to the bottom of this whole episode and not just hope that the matter will be swept under the carpet, as no doubt **Senator Walters** would wish. I shall leave it at that, **Mr President,** and ask you whether, in all honesty and in justice to the kitchen staff, you, with your co-chairman, will endeavour to call an urgent meeting of the House Committee so that we can discuss fully this whole episode. Most important of all, I ask you to ensure that the kitchen staff and the dining room staff who had to take the action they took will not lose two days pay when this fellow, who should not have been engaged in the first place, is going to be paid. {: .speaker-JYA} ##### Senator O'Byrne: **- Mr President,** I wish to speak also. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Do you wish to speak on the same matter, Senator? {: .speaker-JYA} ##### Senator O'Byrne: -- Yes, **Mr President.** {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- You may proceed. {: .speaker-9I4} ##### Senator Messner: -- On a point of order, **Mr President,** I raise the question that since this matter is Order of the Day No. 100 on the Notice Paper it is a matter which already is before the Chair and it should not be raised during the adjournment debate. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- No. On the point of order, **Mr President,** the matter which is an Order of the Day is a statement you made relating to the strike by the kitchen staff. The discussion tonight bears insignificant relevance to that. It relates to a question I raised about an attempt to deceive the Parliament. It does not enter into the question of a dispute in the kitchen. It concerns an attempt to mislead the Parliament. It is an entirely different subiect. {: .speaker-9I4} ##### Senator Messner: -- With respect, **Mr President-** {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- How many times can an honourable senator speak on a point of order? {: .speaker-ME4} ##### Senator Peter Baume: -- As many times as he wishes. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- Let us get the President to rule on that. I think his knowledge is as great as **Senator Baume** 's knowledge. {: .speaker-9I4} ##### Senator Messner: -- With respect to **Senator Cavanagh** 's remarks, **Mr President,** the point is that the statement you made yesterday clearly referred to the matter of the kitchen staff and clearly referred to the matter to which **Senator Cavanagh** has referred, namely, the matter of the interview between the Manager of the Parliamentary Refreshment Rooms and **Mr Aper.** It clearly covers the whole area of the debate. On those grounds I hold that the point of order ought to be upheld by you, **Mr President.** {: .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLaren: **- Mr President,** on a point of order - {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- No, I shall rule on the point of order now. I believe that the matter which **Senator Cavanagh** has brought forward in the way he has tonight is sufficiently removed from the subject matter of the statement I made yesterday not to require me to uphold the point of order. That is my estimation of the situation. {: #debate-35-s5 .speaker-JYA} ##### Senator O'BYRNE:
Tasmania **-Mr President,** in your usual inimitable style you have shown your impartiality and your ability to handle the very delicate situation that we have before us in the Senate. I too am among those honourable senators who were unable to raise this matter at Question Time today. There are some points on which I wish to have your guidance, **Mr President.** Perhaps when you finally make a report you will incorporate in it some of the questions and will supply an answer in due time. What alarms me about this whole situation is that the Joint House Department has as its function the provision of the normal facilities and amenities for the Parliament. It is the responsibility of that Department to see that the administration of that area is carried out with tact, with discretion and with sympathy to enable this Parliament to maintain the level of dignity that it should maintain. I am alarmed that you, **Mr President,** have been placed in a most invidious position by being unwittingly involved in a pattern of union baiting which, in the last few weeks, has manifested itself in industrial disputes in three States and Territories of this Commonwealth- Victoria, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory. The steps have been carefully retraced of how you became involved in it and why you were obliged to make a statement to the Senate about the crisis that had arisen amongst the kitchen staff. In due course, I would like an answer to this question: Should not the administrative officers of the Joint House Department have sought your advice when this situation first arose? After all, the person who was to be appointed evidently was known to them to be involved in a court action. Regardless of whether **Mr Dearson** has denied that the person who was to be engaged as a kitchen hand had informed him that he was involved in this type of court action- that he was anti-union, a self-employed man, a sub-contractor who perhaps was not entitled to unemployment benefit under the Social Services Act- this person was able to get the appointment. I would like to know whether this particular person had any experience as a kitchen hand. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- Yes, he was mixing concrete. {: .speaker-JYA} ##### Senator O'BYRNE: -- This is the point. I would like to know whether any other people who were experienced as kitchen hands were available. {: .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLaren: -- And applicants. {: .speaker-JYA} ##### Senator O'BYRNE: -- I would like to know whether any other applicants were available through the Commonwealth Employment Service to carry out this job, particularly in view of the fact that this man was notoriously an antiunion person. After all, it is the responsibility of officers of the Joint House Department to carry out the duties of providing the amenities and facilities in this Parliament in the smoothest and most tactful way. Those people have failed in their job of carrying out those duties that they have been asked to perform. They may think that they are placed in the position of an employer but they are not. They are subject to the Presiding Officer and, in turn, the Presiding Officer reports to this Senate. In my view they are not entitled to be able to conduct a running fight with employees without consultation with the people who eventually will be involved in and concerned with this matter. **Mr President,** I would also like to know whether at any time there was any consultation as to whether any experienced kitchen hands were available as an alternative to this man who obviously- there was no alternative- would cause industrial disputation on his engagement. Was the selection of this man made and information purposely withheld from any other person, particularly yourself, **Mr President,** your cochairman, or the Joint House Committee? If so, why, in view of the fact that this dispute was likely to occur, was it withheld from you, your co-chairman and the Joint House Committee? Finally, I point out- and this has not previously been reported to the Senate- that there is deep discontent amongst the kitchen staff in Parliament House. It should be a good job. It should be a pleasant job. The people who are there are very pleasant indeed. I have been a member of this Parliament for longer than has any other senator, and I must say that in that staff one comes in contact with some of the finest and most obliging and thoughtful people one would find anywhere in this country. Why are they discontented? They are discontented for the simple reason that the people who are administering that Department are not handling their job properly. This has put you, **Mr President,** in this very invidious position. I do not want to see the Presiding Officer of this Senate in that situation. It is very serious and I hope that it will be a lesson that the officers of the Joint House Department are not just ordinary employers in the sense that they can throw their weight about and perhaps get in their own little pet idea that they can have a non-union man to show their own contempt of unionism; but that they have also to consider the smooth running of this Parliament. I hope that it will be a very serious and strong lesson to them so that in the future they will not do these things entirely on their own initiative; so that when a situation such as this arises they will consult people other than people within their own little circle. {: #debate-35-s6 .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales -- My assignment is a two pronged one but is not lengthy. I rise first in relation to a request from **Dr Jan** Reid and 120 petitioners of the Australian Anthropological Society, drawn up at their recent national conference, for the intervention of the Federal Government in relation to Aurukun and Mornington Island- a topic that I know has been raised by many other honourable senators. I have shown the petition to the Minister. The fact is that it was simply addressed to the Prime Minister **(Mr Malcolm Fraser)** and did not fully meet the requirements of the Standing Orders for presentation as a petition. Therefore, I table the document and ask for its incorporation in *Hansard.* Leave granted. *The document read as follows-* > **Sir,** > >Whereas the Queensland government > >1 ) has shown that it has not now, nor has it ever had, any intention of ensuring self-management for Aurukun and Mornington Island communities, > >has issued eviction notices (14 July 1978) to Commonwealth and Church staff at Aurukun, > >has failed to implement the agreement that lease lands would be set aside for the communities, > >has appointed an absentee Acting Shire Clerk (who lives in Brisbane) against the wishes of the Councils, > >has placed Department of Aboriginal and Islander Affairs staff in the Shires without the consent of the Councils, > >has refused to pay Shire wages (only offering to pay them in a highly improper manner unacceptable to the Councils), > >has insisted against the wishes of Council and community that Aurukun must accept a liquor canteen, > >has stated its intention to send in police to force the children to go to school (and thus to end the outstations), > >has sacked both Councils and appointed an administrator. > >We, members of the Australian Anthropological Society and participants in its annual conference in Sydney, most sincerely urge you to heed the requests of the two communities to acquire the former reserve lands and provide necessary funding to ensure, in keeping with your government's policies, that Mornington Island and Aurukun will be able to achieve effective self-management. {: .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator MULVIHILL: -- My other query is directed to the Attorney-General **(Senator Durack)** and refers to a topic which I have raised frequently, namely, whether people outside this Parliament have access to Australian Security Intelligence Organisation evaluations which is denied to us. There is no need to belabour the point. When the famous Townley Committee met **Mr Barbour,** the then ASIO chief, confidence was not breached and we did have an opportunity to have a close look at our security agency. I know that reforms were proposed for more effective collation of material than had existed in the past. Anybody who read last Saturday's *Sydney Morning Herald* book review section would have seen on page 17 a reference to a recent bookquite a readable publication- called *Comrades Come Rally* by John Sendy. It is the history of his own membership of the Communist Party of Australia in South Australia from 1942 until recently. What did strike me- the Minister may put a different interpretation on it- was that this book was reviewed by **Dr Stuart** Firth, lecturer in politics at Macquarie University, who had recourse to a reference to South Australian politics in which he quoted an ASIO agent's concept at that time. What I am interested in is whether the author, who apparently has left the Communist Party, or the reviewer, had access to ASIO documents that are denied to honourable senators. I am not. embarking on a muck-raking expedition; but, as the Minister knows- or before he was Attorney-General another Minister would have known- we had the case of an ASIO agent who went bad and finished up in the Canberra court. The judge in chambers had access to certain ASIO internal operations. Then we have had other cases of people who have made certain allegations in books. If honourable senators look closely at book reviews they will find that one or two academics seem to have the inside running. I have my own views- I know they are not shared by everyone hereabout some people employed by *Quadrant* who seem to get the inside information. *News Weekly* is another journal that gets it. Now, apparently, we have people of the far Left who may have recanted. They have information. I simply say that the Senate and Australia would be a much more healthy society if we had a monitoring committee that at least watched the guidelines of our security agencies. I repeat that the Townley Committee, with six members of divergent political philosophies, did not breach any confidences when it exercised certain supervisory functions in relation to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. I simply say to the AttorneyGeneral that I would like to know whether we have an equal society in relation to security because I doubt it. If **Mr Sendy,** the author of the book, or the reviewer, **Dr Stuart** Firth, can quote from ASIO reports with impunity, I want to know why, when my illustrious South Australian colleague, **Senator McLaren,** and I start to question Estimates committees we are told flatly that we cannot probe into them. That is what I want to know. Is there one law for senators and another law for other people who might have mates in ASIO and who get feedback? {: #debate-35-s7 .speaker-5V4} ##### Senator COLEMAN:
Western Australia -- It is not my intention at this late hour to delay the Senate for any length of time but I want firstly to comment on the matter of the noncalling of a meeting of the Joint House Committee. I am a member of that Committee and I am concerned that until now no action has been taken by the Presiding Officers to make sure that we met and discussed this issue. I recognise, as **Senator McLaren** said, that since October last year we have met but four times and I have attended two of those meetings because they happened to be called on a Thursday at a time when the Senate Standing Committee of which I am also a member normally meets. One must question whether in actual fact meeting on a Thursday is not by design of the secretary of the Joint House Committee. We could quite easily meet on a Tuesday when neither of the parties has its caucus meeting. It is at the beginning of the week. We could have more time to discuss the matters on the agenda and in actual fact we would have time to raise issues before the end of the sitting week is upon us. This brings me to the reason why I have entered the adjournment debate tonight and that is to talk once again about the irresponsible attitude of the Press. This seems to be the only occasion when I ever need to rise in the adjournment debate. I want to quote a little article from the *Daily News* of Tuesday, 12 September. It is entitled 'MPs turn to self-service.' The article states: >Canberra, today: A number of Federal MPs brought their own food and drink to Parliament House today to counteract the effects of a strike by catering staff. > >All MPs have their own small refrigerators in their rooms. Let me assure the Press at large that I do not have a refrigerator in my room. My room is nine feet by six feet. It contains a desk, three chairs, all the necessary shelves for the books that I try to read and a filing cabinet. There is no room for a refrigerator and I think it is a gross impertinence on the part of the Press to publish that all members have their own small refrigerators in their rooms. No less impertinent is an article also contained in the *Daily News* of 12 September 1978- it is the early edition, the airmail editionwith a glaring headline which states 'Gallup Poll shows: Most Favour WA N-Unit, which is presumably the nuclear unit. I want to read this particular article. I think it is vitally important because it demonstrates the completely immoral and irresponsible attitude that is being adopted by the Press throughout Australia to endeavour to encourage people, the consumers of news, to believe that something is what it is not. Honourable senators will be aware that the headlines of the first edition normally constitute the billboards which advertise that day's news. Yesterday, on my way to the airport, I was greeted by the headline 'Most Favour WA N-Unit ' on the billboards. I was quite surprised by what I read in the article. I will quote it in its entirety. A couple of important paragraphs were excluded from a second edition of the newspaper. The article reads: >Most Australians are in favour of constructing a nuclear power plant in Western Australia, according to a recent poll. > >Forty-six per cent of Australians said they were in favour, while 42 per cent were opposed to the idea, reports the Gallup Poll. The article does not make any mention of the other 12 per cent. One must presume that they were undecided or did not know. The article goes on: >However, compared with four other possible sources of energy which Australia may be developing, the nuclear support was small. > >Seventy-nine per cent of people said should be developing solar energy as a potential energy source. > >The next most favoured energy sources were oil from coal (35 per cent) and hydro power (34 per cent). > >Nuclear power rated fourth with 22 per cent, and tidal power ( 1 7 per cent) last. The last paragraph, incidentally, was left out of the later edition. The article by then, of course, had been relegated to page three. The article continues: >These results came from a Gallup Poll conducted in August among 1958 people aged 16 and over, in all States and the ACT. So the poll is not really relevant to what people would like to see in Western Australia. How can it be relevant to people on the eastern seaboard if **Sir Charles** Court goes ahead with his plan to put in a nuclear energy unit in Western Australia? The people on the eastern seaboard would be only too happy to see the unit in Western Australia. They do not want it themselves. The article goes on: >Those interviewed were first asked: > >In view of world shortages of oil and coal, which ones of these various sources of energy, if any, should Australia be developing?'- Solar energy; Hydro power; Oil from coal; Nuclear power; Tidal power; None of these. > >They were then asked: > >Do you favour or oppose the proposed construction of a nuclear power station in Western Australia?' > >Men and women were in fairly close agreement on each of the first four sources of energy named on the card, but nuclear power was favoured by nearly twice as many men as women (29 percent against 15 percent). > >Nuclear power was also advocated by twice as many Liberal-NCP voters as ALP voters. > >Solar energy received somewhat greater support from the 16-39 age group (83 per cent) than from the 40-and-over group (74 per cent). > >On the question of constructing a nuclear power station in Western Australia, there were some very marked differences of opinion. > >The proposal was favoured by definite majorities of men, older people and Liberal-NCP voters, but opposed by women, younger people - One would presume that as the word 'people' is used some men would be amongst them- and ALP supporters. Considered by States, the biggest majority in favour occurred in Western Australia itself (52 per cent to 37 per cent- though the sample here was necessarily small ), It does not say how small- and next highest in New South Wales (50 per cent to 40 per cent). The first question asked on the various sources of energy was previously asked in a Gallup Poll conducted in June 1977. The next paragraph, which once again was excluded from the second edition, reads: >Comparison of the results of the two polls shows a pronounced upwards swing (from 68 per cent to 79 percent) in favour of solar energy, and a swing from 29 per cent up to 34 per cent in favour of hydro power. What the article also does not say is that there was a downwards swing in support for nuclear energy over that same period from June 1977, when there was 24 per cent support, to August 1 978 when there was only 22 per cent support. We have three daily newspapers in Perth. I suppose that we can count the *Australian,* as it is now published in Western Australia, as a daily newspaper. Some people, because of the increased costs over recent months, no longer buy both other daily newspapers. There are some who buy both newspapers in the hope that they will get the full story. There are some who cannot afford to buy any and they rely on other forms of the media. But I am most concerned that we continue to allow the Press to fabricate a story, as I have just proved with the actual story it has published. I am concerned that it should fabricate a front page story to provide a billboard to publicise something that does not even exist. According to the same gallup poll, there is not the support, either in Western Australia or in the rest of Australia, for a nuclear energy station. Yet the Press has the audacity, the hide, the gall to put up as a headline: 'Most Favour WA N-Unit'. I know that I can report this matter to the Press Council. I cannot see any value at all in reporting a matter to the Press Council when I am asking the Press to adjudicate on one of its own members. I know that other members of the community can also report the matter to the Press Council, and I question now whether it is not time that we in this Parliament insisted that the Press Council should accept some of the responsibility for its member newspapers. {: #debate-35-s8 .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP -- A number of honourable senators have spoken tonight in the adjournment debate. The only matter raised which comes within my responsibility is the matter raised by **Senator Mulvihill.** Indeed, so far as I am aware, all the other matters raised do not affect any Ministers' responsibilities but seem to affect your responsibilities, **Mr President. Senator Mulvihill** has drawn the attention of the Senate to an article in the *Sydney Morning Herald* on Saturday, 9 September. He was good enough to draw my attention to it earlier today. As a matter of fact, I had read the article and noted the particular section which caused **Senator Mulvihill** some concern. There is a reference- it is not perfectly clear whether it is by the author of the book or by the reviewer- to an Australian Security Intelligence Organisation spy who infiltrated the Communist Party of Australia in South Australia in 1961. The article goes on to indicate what she reported on, which is not part of the matter complained of. I must say that I did not read that reference in the article as having the same meaning put on it by **Senator Mulvihill,** namely, that there had been any briefing or disclosure by ASIO of the activities of this so-called ASIO agent. There could be many explanations for it. It is all unrelated. No names and no circumstances are mentioned by which one could check the matter. It could quite easily be the result of someone claiming to have been an ASIO agent and having made the information available himself or herself. I cannot agree that the construction **Senator Mulvihill** places on it should necessarily be so. In fact, that was not the interpretation I placed upon it when I read it. Because **Senator Mulvihill** had drawn my attention to the article earlier in the day and I expected him to ask a question on it, I referred the matter to **Mr Justice** Woodward, the Director-General of ASIO, and asked for his comment on it. As yet I have not been able to obtain any information from him. However, as **Senator Mulvihill** has now raised the matter, I will treat it in the nature of an inquiry, the answer to which is to be sought from the DirectorGeneral of ASIO. Whether it is an appropriate case for a detailed answer is another matter. As to the policy of ASIO on these matters and the concern which **Senator Mulvihill** has raised-- {: .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator Mulvihill: -- My concern is about the role of committees in the future? {: .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator DURACK: -- I am aware of **Senator Mulvihill** 's views on that aspect and he is aware of my views. No doubt the subject will be debated at greater length when the legislation is introduced soon in this chamber. The matter of ASIO's policies in relation to giving any briefings is one on which the present Director-General takes the very strictest views in accordance with the views expressed by the Royal Commissioner appointed by the Government of which **Senator Mulvihill** was a supporter, **Mr Justice** Hope, who investigated some of ASIO's past practices in relation to these matters and made some very strong comments on them and recommendations which should be followed. I have discussed these recommendations with **Mr Justice** Woodward who fully accepts them and assures me that he and his Organisation are acting upon them. So I do not think there is any reason for **Senator Mulvihill** to have any fears about people being given unauthorised briefings, inside information and that sort of thing by the present DirectorGeneral or his staff. As I have said, I believe that the matter of what other methods should be employed for the oversight of a security organisation will be the subject of debate at a later stage of this session. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Honourable senators I have taken full cognisance of all the matters addressed to me tonight. I will have the necessary inquiries made, will consult with my colleague, the co-Chairman, **Mr Speaker,** and will furnish a statement to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 12.3 a.m. (Thursday) {: .page-start } page 589 {:#debate-36} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS The following answers to questions were circulated: {:#subdebate-36-0} #### Solar Energy (Question No. 143) {: #subdebate-36-0-s0 .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator Keeffe: asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 2 March 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Is the Minister aware of recent statements made by Professor Stuart Butler of the University of Sydney who has indicated that it would cost the Federal Government less than $ 1 Om over the next five years to enable scientists to perfect solar energy processes. 1. Will the Minister undertake to investigate the possibilities and feasibility of the research projects mentioned by Professor Butler and, if encouraging, will he recommend funding at the level requested immediately. {: #subdebate-36-0-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The Minister for National Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) and (2) The Government's announced policy is to expand energy research and development in Australia and this includes solar energy. The Government has established the National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Council to advise me on the co-ordination of energy research and development in Australia and on what energy research and development projects should be supported. I announced the establishment of the Council on 26 May, its terms of reference and its membership. Professor Stuart Butler has been appointed a member ofthe Council. The Council is now seeking submissions from organisations and individuals on energy research and development projects, including solar energy, which the Government may support. The Council will, through standing committees of high technical competence, assess such submissions in accordance with the Government's policies and priorities and advise me as to whether a particular project should be supported, the degree of support and any conditions which should be attached. In the light of the generous allocation of funds for this purpose in the Budget, I expect that in the very near future funds can commence flowing to the approved projects, including those concerned with solar energy. {:#subdebate-36-1} #### American Nuclear Power Plants (Question No. 158) {: #subdebate-36-1-s0 .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator Keeffe: asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 2 March 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to recent allegations of a design flaw in about half of the United States of America 's operating nuclear power plants. 1. Will the Minister advise of details of this design failure. 2. Is it true that this particular design risk could result in the failure of the nuclear power plants' safety system. 3. Does the notification of this potentially serious design flaw necessitate a review of the recently announced nuclear safeguards policy; if not, v/hy not. {: #subdebate-36-1-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The Minister for National Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. and (3) I am advised that the alleged problem and its implications are fully described in the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission's report NUREG-0305, published in July 1977. This document is available in the Library of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. 2. No. I am advised that the alleged design flaw is a reactor safety matter. This has nothing to do with the nuclear safeguards policy which is designed to prevent nuclear material being diverted to non-peaceful or explosive purposes. {:#subdebate-36-2} #### Australian Embassies: Repairs (Question No. 602) {: #subdebate-36-2-s0 .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator Mulvihill: asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 1 6 August 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What is the priority for repairs to Australian Embassies. 1. When was the interior ofthe Australian Embassy in Lisbon painted. {: #subdebate-36-2-s1 .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator Chaney:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Contractual and legal payments (e.g. electricity, rates ) generally have the highest priority followed by emergency and unforeseen repairs (e.g. storm damage, equipment breakdown). Preventative maintenance to avoid equipment breakdown (e.g. airconditioning plant servicing) and maintenance of a cosmetic nature such as painting are carried out as funds permit. Government owned property is given priority over leased accommodation wherever possible. 1. 1971. {:#subdebate-36-3} #### Social Security Appeals Tribunals (Question No. 642) {: #subdebate-36-3-s0 .speaker-9V4} ##### Senator Grimes: asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 17 August 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many appeals in which the Social Security Appeals Tribunal has recommended in the appellant's favour were referred to the Director-General of Social Security in each State from April to June 1978. 1. What proportion of appeals considered by the Social Security Appeals Tribunals does this represent. 2. How many of the appeals referred to the DirectorGeneral which the Tribunals determined in the appellant's favour were upheld by him. 3. What proportion of the appeals considered by the Director-General does this represent. {: #subdebate-36-3-s1 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: {: type="A" start="1"} 0. I ) The numbers of appeals in each State in which the Social Security Appeals Tribuna 1<= have recommended in the appellant's favour and which were referred to the DirectorGeneral of Social Services from April to June 1978 are as follows: New South Wales- 94; Victoria- 39; Queensland- nil; South Australia- 17; Western Australia- 6; Tasmanianil; Northern Territory-nil; Australian Capital Territory- 2; Australia- 158. {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 2 ) The figures in question ( 1 ) represent the following percentages of the number of appeals considered by the Social Security Appeals Tribunals- New South Wales- 15.4 per cent; Victoria- 4.4 per cent; Queensland- nil; South Australia- 8.3 per cent; Western Australia- 3.0 percent; Tasmania- nil; Northern Territory- nil; Australian Capital Territory- 7.1 per cent; Australia- 5.2 percent. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. and (4) The numbers of appeals referred to in Question 1 which have been upheld or partly upheld by the Director-General and the percentages of the total numbers considered by the Director-General are as follows: New South Wales- 21, 22.6 per cent; Victoria- 17, 45.9 per cent; Queensland- nil; South Australia- 5, 31.25 per cent; Western Australia- 5, 83.3 per cent; Tasmania- nil; Northern Territory- nil; Australian Capital Territory- nil; Australia- 48, 3 1 .2 per cent. Of the figures shown in Q. 1, the Director-General has yet to consider 4 cases, viz., 1 from New South Wales, 2 from Victoria and 1 from South Australia. {:#subdebate-36-4} #### Department of Construction: Engagement of Private Consultants (Question No. 666) {: #subdebate-36-4-s0 .speaker-ZI4} ##### Senator Rocher: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Construction, upon notice, on 23 August 1978: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) To what extent did the Department commission consultant architects, engineers, quantity surveyors and other specialists to prepare documentation for tenders called during 1977-78. 1. On what projects were consultants engaged. 2. Will the practice of involving consultants in preparation of detailed tender documents be maintained or increased during 1978-79. {: #subdebate-36-4-s1 .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster:
NCP/NP -- The Minister for Construction has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The total value of commissions by the Department of Construction with private consultants in 1977-78 was $ 12.6m; this included new commissions in 1 977-78 valued at $9.1m and commissions valued at $3m carried forward from 1976- 77. Commissions valued at $0.5m were also placed as agent for the Australian Development Assistance Bureau for aid projects. Payments totalling $7.6m were made to consultants in 1977- 78 against the $12.6m of commissions current in the year. The majority of the foregoing commissions related to the preparation of design documentation for tendering; however, not all of the work reached tender stage during 1977- 78. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. In all, approximately 400 new commissions were placed during 1977-78. **Major projects** on which consultants were engaged to assist the Department included: Greenslopes Repatriation Hospital, Queensland Heidelberg Repatriation Hospital, Victoria Darwin Casuarina Hospital, Northern Territory Hobart Mail Exchange, Tasmania Exhibition Telephone Exchange, Victoria North SydneyTelephone Exchange, New South Wales Haymarket Telephone Exchange, New South Wales Williamstown Dockyard Pier, Victoria Parliament House Air-Conditioning, Australian Capital Territory Bankstown Government Aircraft Factory, New South Wales O'Halloran Hill Laboratory, South Australia Randwick Army Accommodation, New South Wales High Court of Australia- Interior Design, Australian Capital Territory North Ryde Animal Research Laboratory, New South Wales Geelong Australian National Animal Health Laboratory, Victoria Restoration of Buildings, Darwin, Northern Territory Hobart, Antarctic Headquarters, Tasmania. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. The practice of involving consultants in design activities and preparation of tender documents will increase in 1978- 79. The total value of commissions by the Department with private consultants this year, including those as agent for Australian Development Assistance Bureau for aid projects, will be approximately$14.5m; payments will be approximately $8. 5m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 13 September 1978, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1978/19780913_senate_31_s78/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant