Senate
21 November 1978

31st Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 31st Parliament
  3. 1978

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Condor Laucke) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 2247

PETITIONS

Radio Station 3CR, Melbourne

Senator CHIPP:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 54 citizens of Australia:

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.

Petition received and read.

Education Funding

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-On behalf of Senator Melzer, I present the following petition from 27 citizens of Australia:

The Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.

The petition of the Victorian Federation of State School Parents’ Clubs respectfully showeth:-

That as citizens of Victoria 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 S 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 every pray.

Petition received and read.

Senator HAMER:
VICTORIA

– I have two petitions that were sent to former President Sir Magnus Cormack, and I present them as his successor.

Abortion: Medical Benefits

Senator HAMER:

– I present the following petition from 54 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 of the 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.

Human Rights in the USSR

Senator HAMER:

– I present the following petition from 38 citizens of Australia:

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

In the Soviet occupied Lithuania, Viktoras Petkus, a member of the group to monitor Soviet compliance with the Helsinki agreement, was sentenced to a severe punishment at the same time as other Soviet dissidents, Shcharansky and Ginzburg.

Since Viktoras Petkus, and the group he is a member of, conducted their activities openly, believing that the Soviet constitution granted them some rights not only in word but also in fact, this severe punishment is a blatant denial of human rights recognised even by the Soviet constitution.

We ask the Australian Government to make representations to the United Nations to adopt a resolution condemning Soviet violations of human rights, and to request the Soviet Government to release the unjustly incarcerated Viktoras Petkus.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Education Funding

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

The petition of the Victorian Federation of State School Parents’ Clubs respectfully showeth:

That as citizens of Victoria 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:

  1. Withdrawal of the Guidelines to the Schools Commission for 1979 and acceptance of its recommendations for Government schools.
  2. An increase of a minimum of 5 per cent in real terms on base level programs for 1979.
  3. Restoration of the $8m cut from the Capital Grants for Government Schools.
  4. Increased recurrent and capital funding to Government schools. and your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray, by Senator Guilfoyle.

Petition received.

Abortion: Medical Benefits

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 of the 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, by Senator Button.

Petition received.

Senate Elections: Optional Preferential Voting

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 on the 10th December 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which declares that, Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in the Declaration . . . ‘(Article 2) that’Everone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives . . . The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or equivalent free voting procedures.’ (Article 21(1) and (3).)

Elections for Senators meet all requirements except one. Senators are elected periodically, by secret ballot, with universal franchise, and the quota-preferential method of proportional representation ensures that the vote values within states are equal as nearly as can be.

However the provision of the Electoral Act that compels voters to show preferences for ALL candidates on the ballot paper interferes with the free expression of the will of the voters, and is unjust.

Australia, as a Member State of the United Nations, is pledged to achieve observance of Human Rights and Freedoms.

We, the undersigned citizens of Australia, therefore humbly pray that the Senate will fulfil the pledge of a Member State of the United Nations and take steps to remove the compulsion from the Electoral Act in order to allow freedom of expression for everyone who has the right to vote for Senators.

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

Petitions received.

ACT Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance

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

That the Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance (No. 16 of 1978) has the effect of prohibiting the operation of private abortion clinics in the ACT.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Honourable Senators should vote to: -

  1. 1 ) retain this Ordinance, and
  2. reject any move to disallow this Ordinance since its disallowance would enable private abortion clinics to operate in the ACT.

And you petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Gietzelt.

Petition received.

Maternity and Paternity Leave

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 Maternity Leave provisions.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Peter Baume (4 petitions), Senator Scott and Senator Carrick.

Petitions received.

page 2248

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

Notice of Motion

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

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

  1. 1 ) That, if the Senate be not sitting when the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations has completed its First Report on Statutory Authorities, the Committee may send its report to the President of the Senate or, if the President is not available, to the Deputy President, who is authorised to give directions for its printing and circulation, and in such event the President or the Deputy President shall lay the Report on the Table at the next sitting of the Senate.
  2. ) That the foregoing provision of this Resolution, so far as it is inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in Standing Orders.

page 2249

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 2249

QUESTION

FAMILY MEANS TEST

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Has a Cabinet submission been circulated dealing with means testing of the whole family in the case of payments of unemployment and sickness benefits to those under the age of 2 1 years? Has this submission been called for because the Government expects unemployment to rise dramatically over the next few months and with the intention of saving many millions of dollars at the expense of tens of thousands of school leavers who legitimately will not be able to get jobs?

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

– Nobody would know better than Senator Wriedt that whether Cabinet submissions are in existence is a matter of entire confidentiality. That was a routine observed by his government and by all governments. The Government does not expect unemployment to rise dramatically. The Government has hopes that as inflation falls, as it is doing, as interest rates are falling, as they are doing, and as the development of investment rises, so indeed there will be an increase in employment in Australia. I want to put to rest the kind of hares that Senator Wriedt is setting in action. He is doing it simply to capture a headline. The Government is not contemplating the kind of situations that he has foreshadowed of his own inventiveness.

page 2249

QUESTION

TOURISTS FROM ASIA

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

-My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce, relates to his responsibility for tourism. Does the Minister agree that with only three staff members employed in Tokyo by the Australian Tourist Commission and none in any other Asian capital, our resources for boosting Australia’s tourist industry in the Asian region are too limited to be effective?

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

– I do not quite agree with the proposition put by Senator Walters. I think that it could well be argued that we should have greater resources for encouraging tourists from the Asian region to come to Australia. It is true, as Senator Walters has said, that there are only three staff in Tokyo and no other staff employed permanently by the Australian Tourist Commission in Asia. Staff from the Commission’s head office in Melbourne make periodic trips to the area. It is worth noting that, notwithstanding the small staff number in Tokyo, the number of Japanese visitors to Australia has increased in the past five years by over 100 per cent, from over 15,000 tourists in 1972 to over 30,000 tourists in 1977. It is hoped that the Government’s recent initiative to include the travel and tourist industry in the export market development grants scheme will encourage the industry to promote more actively tourism from Japan and elsewhere in Asia.

page 2249

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. Is it a fact, as reported in the newspapers, that the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission has written to the Federal Government protesting at Government interference in the running of the ABC? Did the Chairman also warn of the effect of the shortage of funds on program content in the ABC? Was not a similar warning given to the Government by the former chairman, Sir Henry Bland, in 1976? How long does the Government take to heed warnings of this kind?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I understand that the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission has written recently to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. However, I am not familiar with the precise contents of his letter. I understand that there have been requests from the Commission about funds and there may well have been requests from the prior chairman of the Commission. Senator Button and other honourable senators no doubt will be pleased to know that, under the terms of the settlement of the dispute which has been bedevilling the ABC over the past few weeks, there are to be discussions between the management and the staff on matters of concern to the Commission, including the impact of staff ceilings and the provision of additional funding. I have no doubt that the Australian Broadcasting Commission, pursuant to its responsibilities, will continue to press the Government for whatever it thinks is a proper provision for the Commission.

Senator BUTTON:

-Mr President, I ask a supplementary question of the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. Will the Minister consult with his colleague in another place and indicate to the Senate at a later stage what is the lead time in program making in the Australian Broadcasting Commission following the provision of extra funds for program making? That is to say, how long does the provision of extra funds or the absence of funds take to have effect on the infrastructure of program making in the ABC?

Senator CHANEY:

– I think that it is drawing a long bow to call that question a supplementary question. In fact, I am not sure whether it is relevant to the present situation because the evidence given by officers of the Australian Broadcasting Commission before the Senate Estimates committee was very much in terms of what might have to be cut out of program making. Consequently, the problem mentioned by Senator Button may not arise. However, I will seek from the Minister for Post and Telecommunications the information that the honourable senator has requested and give it to him if it is available.

page 2250

QUESTION

CORPORATIONS AND SECURITIES INDUSTRY

Senator RAE:

-My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. What is the present stage of development in the preparation of a national corporations and securities industry bill and the creation of a national securities commission? Does the Minister agree that progress in this area has been more than a little slow? Can the Minister indicate what steps are being taken to expedite the agreement which, however unsatisfactory it may be in the view of some of us, at least would constitute some progress?

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I suppose that nobody in this Parliament would be better qualified than Senator Rae to understand the complexities of this whole subject. Senator Georges raised it during the Estimates debate in Committee last week and he also, by reason of his membership on the Senate Select Committee on Securities and Exchange, is well aware of the complexities of the matter. The fact is that since the Government took office it has been in negotiation with the States to endeavour to establish a co-operative system of control in the companies and securities area. Very great progress has been made in that direction. In fact, basic agreement has been reached in regard to the matter and the drafting of the necessary legislation is under way. I understand that the Ministers concerned will be meeting with my colleague the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs at the end of the month to deal with some matters of detail which are still outstanding. Certainly the matter has got to the stage where, as I have said, agreement has been reached and really it is only a matter of detail that still has to be resolved. The intention is to introduce legislation into this Parliament and to set up a national corporations and securities commission. I cannot say exactly when that commission will be set up. I will refer that part of the question to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs because, although I know that the stage is approaching when that may occur, I would not like to give a particular date without referring the matter to him. I will certainly do so.

page 2250

QUESTION

NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON UNEMPLOYMENT

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and/or the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. The Ministers will recall previous questions asked by me in which I have indicated that the Australian Council of Trade Unions has said in a number of statements that it would take part in a national conference on unemployment and that Mr Hawke has stated more recently that he and his associated authorities are quite prepared to sit down with the Government and confer about the state of the economy? I wonder whether either Minister can tell the Senate what consideration has been given to these matters in recent times.

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I have previously answered questions in relation to this matter and they were probably asked by Senator Bishop. The fact is that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations is meeting his counterparts in the various States and the Government is taking an interest in the conference which Mr Hamer is organising in Victoria. Apart from that, I will refer the question to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to ascertain whether he has anything to add.

Senator BISHOP:

- Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I speak more precisely about a statement made today by Mr Hawke in which he indicated that he was prepared to sit down with the Government and talk about the wider economic problems and to confer in every possible way with the Government. The Leader of the Government in the Senate may be in a position to speak about that at this stage. Is either Minister in a position to comment on that statement?

Senator DURACK:

– I am not aware of such a statement being made today. If such a statement has been made today, I think the matter had better wait until the Prime Minister can consider it, if he is the appropriate person to answer for it. I will draw the attention of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to any statement that was made today as well.

page 2251

QUESTION

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WAR SERVICE IN TROPICS AND LYMPHATIC MALIGNANCIES

Senator PETER BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs. It concerns claims by a Mr I. H. Davies of Nedlands, Western Australia, that there is an association between overseas war service and the occurrence of certain malignant diseases. Is the Minister aware that a limited study done by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs failed to confirm the association but that Dr Metcalf of the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research and Dr F. W. Gunz of the Kanematsu Memorial Institute at Sydney Hospital, both haemotologists of world renown, feel that the departmental study was inadequate? Is the Minister also aware that both doctors expressed the view that the interests of veterans demand the setting up of an independent inquiry involving consultation with recognised authorities in this field of medicine? Is the Minister further aware that the necessary data is available to carry out such an inquiry into the relationship between war service in the tropics and lymphatic malignancies? Finally, will the Minister undertake to ask the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs whether he would be willing to set up a more extensive inquiry, as recommended by these experts?

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

– I have no detailed knowledge of the matters referred to by Senator Baume but I undertake to refer to the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs the question whether he would be prepared to set up an independent inquiry into this matter of malignant diseases. I will seek a response from the Minister and advise the honourable senator accordingly.

page 2251

QUESTION

WHALING LEGISLATION

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question has environmental overtones, but I direct it to the Leader of the Government in the Senate because it concerns the current legislative program. What is the reason for the Whaling Amendment Bill appearing to be jettisoned, in view of the desire of most people for effective protection of our marine mammals?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I will find that out and let the honourable senator know.

page 2251

QUESTION

AUSTRALIANS SERVING IN RHODESIAN FORCES

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to the reported death of a Queensland Army captain, James William

Hardy, who died while fighting black nationalist guerrillas in Rhodesia. I ask: Has the death of Captain Hardy been confirmed? Has it been ascertained whether he was recruited in Australia to fight as a member of the Rhodesian Army? Is the Minister concerned about reports that approximately 200 Australian citizens are fighting for the Rhodesian Army and that the recruiting campaign is going on all the time in Sydney and Brisbane? Will he detail what action is being taken under the Crimes (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment) Act 1977 to ensure that the recruitment of mercenaries in Australia is brought to an end?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I saw an article in the Age newspaper ofthe 17th of this month headed Australia may have 200 in Smith Army’. So, I am in fact aware from Press reports that an Australian citizen, Mr James William Hardy, has apparently died while serving in Rhodesia’s armed forces. Mr Hardy’s death has not been reported officially to the Government; nor do I have any information about where Mr Hardy was recruited for his service in the Rhodesian Army. Senator Missen has drawn my attention to Press reports that some 200 Australians are serving in the Rhodesian Army. The Government has no information on which to assess the number of Australians serving in the armed forces of Rhodesia. Senator Missen has also asked for the Government’s reaction to these reports and others that a recruiting campaign is being carried out in Sydney and Melbourne for the Rhodesian armed forces. The Government has on a number of occasions made quite clear that it does not approve of Australians serving in the armed forces of other countries, except on official secondments.

Honourable senators will be aware that this Parliament passed legislation which, amongst other things, makes it an offence to recruit a person to serve in any capacity in or with an armed force in a foreign country, whether the armed force forms part of the armed forces of the government of that foreign country or otherwise, unless such recruitment is approved by the Attorney-General. The offence carries a penalty of $ 10,000 or five years gaol. Should the Government receive any clear evidence about such recruiting which would allow it to prosecute under that legislation, it would of course take appropriate action. I should point out, however, that the Government is unable to prevent Australians from going overseas voluntarily to enlist in foreign armed services.

page 2252

QUESTION

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

Senator EVANS:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Given the ideological and political leadership traditionally given to the Liberal Party by the Victorian Division of that Party, when can we expect last weekend ‘s vote in favour of the restoration of capital punishment by the Victorian State Council of the Liberal Party to be reflected in moves by the Federal Government to reintroduce that barbaric punishment into Federal law?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-It shows the dearth of any ideas in the Labor Party that that kind of nonsense question should be raised. The Federal Government has, as I understand it, no intention of foreshadowing any changes at all in that area of criminal law.

page 2252

QUESTION

SURPLUS OF DOCTORS

Senator HAMER:

– My question is directed to Senator Guilfoyle in her capacities as Minister representing the Minister for Health and Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Is it a fact that there is a current national surplus of doctors of about 1,000 and that the number is increasing, but that this surplus is masked by their bad distribution? Is the suggestion by a Labor member that these surplus doctors will become unemployed an absurd suggestion? Is it not a fact that what will really happen is that each one of them will generate additional medical services at a rate of about $250,000 a year? Does the present surplus of doctors cost the community about $250m a year without really contributing much to the standard of health care? While the situation is being reviewed, will the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs cease encouraging the immigration of doctors, particularly specialists, who are in gross surplus?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– This is a matter on which I had some briefing from the Minister for Health last week. Whilst I may not be able to deal with all the questions, I am able to say some things on the Minister’s behalf. I understand that by comparison with many other countries Australia is well supplied with doctors. However, as was implied by Senator Hamer, there are still some areas which cannot attract sufficient doctors and there are some forms of specialty practice which are in short supply. It is true that there is evidence of oversupply, particularly in surgery, and that there is an emerging oversupply in a number of other specialties. The non-free market nature of health care and the nature of medical practice have the combined effect of making medical services and health care relatively expensive. There is little empirical evidence, however, on the costs generated by doctors. But it appears that on average doctors do generate around $250,000 a year in costs. It is likely, on the basis of the available Australian and overseas evidence, that a large surplus of doctors would continue to generate such costs.

The Government is concerned to ensure that it has complete information on this matter. As a consequence, an interdepartmental committee comprising representatives of the departments of Health, Employment and Industrial Relations, Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, and Education, and the Tertiary Education Commission has been established and is at present studying the question of medical manpower in detail. The report of the interdepartmental committee is expected soon. Ministers will then decide on a course of action, taking into consideration the committee’s findings as well as consultations with other interested bodies. It is not a fact that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs is encouraging the immigration of doctors. Almost all doctors now entering Australia do so in response to a firm job offer extended either by health authorities or by private medical practitioners. The entry of doctors into Australia at present is being effectively determined by the medical profession itself. When the report of the committee I mentioned is available I am sure that Senator Hamer will find it of interest.

page 2252

QUESTION

FAMILY MEANS TEST

Senator WRIEDT:

-I ask the Minister for Social Security whether her Department has considered or is considering a proposal that there be a family means test for unemployment and sickness benefits for those under 2 1 years of age.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– My Department is not considering a proposal for a family income means test for the payment of unemployment benefit. It is true that at the time of the Budget preparation almost every suggestion that could have been made by departments and others was under consideration. I recall that there was a proposal of that kind. It was rejected by the Government and is not under consideration by the Government at present.

page 2252

QUESTION

PHOTOCOPYING: COPYRIGHT

Senator TEAGUE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General and concerns the Franki report on the photocopying of articles and books which was submitted by the then AttorneyGeneral in October 1976. I refer to a Press release of June this year by the Attorney-General which announced:

A new scheme to permit schools, universities and other educational institutions to photocopy literary works and textbooks without infringing copyright will soon be introduced into the Parliament.

When will the Government introduce legislation to implement the recommendations of the report? Is it still intended that the legislation will implement the report’s recommendations? If not, which recommendations are unacceptable to the Government, and why?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– Some time ago I announced the Government’s decision on the Franki report. I think it was probably in the statement I made on 25 June this year, to which Senator Teague referred. It was to the effect that the Copyright Act will be amended to provide for a licence for educational authorities to photocopy books or parts of books and to provide for the author to be entitled to a fee for such copying. Educational authorities will be required to keep records of photocopies taken. The records will have to be kept in a form that will enable a person whose works have been copied to obtain details of that copying without having to examine the details of other copying. The legislation to give effect to the Government’s decision which I announced then is in the course of preparation and is well advanced. It had been my hope that the legislation would be available for introduction in the present sittings of the Parliament. Unfortunately it has not been possible to have it ready by this week, which is expected to be the end of these sittings. However, it should be ready for introduction early in the next sittings.

The legislation will, as I said, implement the Franki Committee report in the broad. There may be some details which will be at variance with some aspects of that report. I think it was in the area of the keeping of records and how records could be kept that there might be some not so much differences as extensions of recommendations in that report. However, I am not in a position at the moment to give a detailed catalogue of such differences, if any. Indeed, I think the final picture will have to wait until the legislation is introduced and these matters can be considered. Ample time will be given to people to consider the Bill. We do not intend to bring it on for debate until all interested people have had adequate time to consider it.

Senator TEAGUE:

– I ask a supplementary question. In the meantime, is it lawful for teaching departments to photocopy half a dozen copies of articles or books for teaching purposes?

Senator DURACK:

– The honourable senator is seeking a straight legal opinion. I do not really decline to answer the question on that ground but this is a very technical area. I think it would be very unwise for me to give an opinion off the cuff on such a technical area. In fact there has been a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in regard to the matter. I think that everybody concerned in educational institutions is pretty well aware of the situation and takes steps to try to minimise any risk of breaches of the law. But it is a difficult area. There are obvious rights of copyright owners. Whether there is any breach of the law depends very much on the way in which educational institutions conduct their affairs.

page 2253

QUESTION

SENATOR THE HONOURABLE JUSTIN O’BYRNE

The PRESIDENT:

– Before I call for the next question may I personally and on behalf of the Senate tender to you, Senator the Honourable Justin O ‘Byrne, our congratulations and good wishes on the conferment upon you of the title Honourable’. May I read from the 14 November issue of the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette in which, under the heading Special Information’, this appears:

Government House Canberra 2600 31 October 1978

His Excellency the Governor-General directs it to be notified that Her Majesty the Queen has been pleased to approve that the title ‘Honourable’ be retained by Senator Justin O ‘Byrne for life.

By His Excellency’s Command, David I. Smith

Official Secretary to the Governor-General.

We congratulate you.

Honourable senators- Hear, hear!

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– I deeply appreciate that announcement of the honour that has been conferred upon me. I have become the father of the Senate and the father of the Parliament, which is rather a unique achievement. Longevity is one of the most difficult achievements in parliamentary life. There is the ever present fear of defeat or death. People usually speak well of one’s parliamentary life when one dies. It is very pleasing that this announcement has been made. I appreciate it. I hope that after I ask my question I will still retain the title.

page 2254

QUESTION

HOSPITAL CORPORATION OF AMERICA: PRIVATE HOSPITAL, MELBOURNE

Senator O’BYRNE:

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and relates to the ever-growing concern and alarm of the Australian people about the takeover and rip-off of our natural resources by multinational organisations. Has the Minister seen reports that the Australian subsidiary of the Hospital Corporation of America is to operate an $18m private hospital, which is to be built in Melbourne, and that the fees of the hospital are to return a profit of 1 7 per cent, rising to 2 1 per cent as the hospital develops? Is this expected return on investment consistent with the Government’s attempt to curb rising health costs, especially those generated by hospitals, and is it not considered almost unethical and immoral for multinational organisations not only to monopolise our natural resources but also to plan to turn the misfortune of sickness and ill-health into a profit-making investment?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I acknowledge this as the maiden question of Senator the Honourable Justin O ‘Byrne and for this reason no doubt the answer, too, will not be subject to interjection. I have not seen the report to which the honourable senator refers and I am, therefore, unaware of its substance. If he will direct me to the source of his information I will certainly have it looked at. Whether an institution has sought to set up, shall we say, a private hospital in Melbourne and to make a particular profit is one thing, but the fact is that it is within the compass of governments, both federal and State, in Australia to lay down rules which enforce just and equitable behaviour by all institutions. The belief that our community is the prey of foreign capital needs to be exploded. In this Senate I have said repeatedly that those who wish to see the effect of foreign capital should look at the early decades of this century in America when, day after day, the American people were arguing against the dangers of foreign capital from Britain and western Europe and pointing to the threat of imminent takeover of America by Europe and Britain. It is a matter of history that that did not happen; indeed, there may well have been a reverse takeover. The fact is that it is competent for any government to control the terms of investment in this country and I have no doubt that on this matter, as on others, the responsible governments will act.

page 2254

QUESTION

PASSPORTS FOR MARRIED WOMEN

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the present requirement of the Australian Passport Office that married women, when applying for a passport, provide evidence of change of name, usually in the form of a marriage certificate? Does the Minister agree that this procedure may be unduly onerous, if not discriminatory, particularly in cases where previous marriages have occurred? Would the Minister consider the possibility of amending the regulations to allow the option of issuing passports in the maiden name of the female applicant?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I have no first-hand knowledge of the requirements of the Passport Office in this respect, or the reason therefor. That, of course, would be necessary before I could answer the question expertly. I think that I should take it to the Minister for Foreign Affairs for his study and seek his comment upon it.

page 2254

QUESTION

STAWELL TIMBER INDUSTRIES

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether he will study the reply of 8 November by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to the question of the member for Lalor, who asked:

Who arranged the meeting last year which resulted in Stawell Timber Industries being given favourable treatment throughout Australia in the building of Aboriginal housing?

The Minister replied:

The meeting that the honourable gentleman referred to was arranged, as I recall, directly by a member of the company. He made a request to my office and I agreed to see him, as I see many people in the course of my ministerial duties.

I ask him further whether he will also study the answer given the next day by the Prime Minister to a question asked by the honourable member for Capricornia in which the Prime Minister said:

The company -

Stawell Timber Industries- approached me as its electoral member … I approached the Minister in relation to the matter, as I would for any constituent.

After a study of the two replies, will the Leader of the Government in the Senate make inquiries and inform the Senate which, if either, of the contradictory answers was truthful?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I have not had any reason to study the answer of 8 November by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs regarding Stawell Timber Industries. At Senator Cavanagh’s request, I will study the answer of the Prime Minister and invite comment by the two Ministers. It is quite possible, on the past record of both Ministers, that both answers are correct.

page 2255

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION BILL

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Attorney-General. I refer to comments attributed to Mr L. J. Curtis, First Assistant Secretary of the Federal Attorney-General’s Department, during a debate at the annual national conference of the Royal Institute of Public Administration in Adelaide last week. Mr Curtis was reported in last Friday’s edition of the Adelaide Advertiser to have said that the High Court’s rejection a fortnight ago of the Government’s claim of privilege for documents in the Sankey case is certain to lead to changes in the Freedom of Information Bill. Does the Attorney-General share this view? Does he consider that the High Court ruling has advanced the law and in essence supports claims that the Bill as proposed is inadequate, that the wide range of possible exemptions from disclosure will excessively limit access to information and that too much is left to the discretion of a Minister and public servants to determine what is in the public interest?

Senator DURACK:
LP

- Mr L. J. Curtis, who is a First Assistant Secretary of my Department, did take part in the seminar in Adelaide last week that was referred to by Senator Jessop, during which he said that the decision of the High Court in the Sankey case was certain to change the debate in relation to the Freedom of Information Bill. Mr Curtis assures me that he did not claim that it was certain to lead to any changes in the Bill itself. All he said was that the decision of the High Court will be taken into account in the debate in relation to the Freedom of Information Bill and will be the subject of a good deal of discussion. That is quite obvious already. I want to stress the fact that the decision of the High Court in the Sankey case dealt with a different question. It dealt with the decision that a court can make or can be called upon to make in balancing the interests of the confidentiality of a document with the interests of administering justice in the particular case before it and the interests of the parties to that case. The decision of the High Court was in that category. Of course, the situation arising under the Freedom of Information Bill is quite different in that people will be simply seeking there to obtain access to certain documents for their own information and not in relation to litigation before a court.

I have already indicated that the full implications of the decision in the Sankey case are the matter of study. They are pretty technical. I have not completed my examination of the full implications of the High Court decision. The Freedom of Information Bill has been referred to. It is now being closely studied by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. I would not like to make any comment on what changes may be recommended or may be under consideration as a result of any report of that Committee.

page 2255

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP

Senator RYAN:
ACT

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs aware of claims in La Fiamma of 6 November that migrants are not being advised of their right of appeal to the Federal Ombudsman if an application for citizenship is refused? Can the Minister inform the Senate what steps are taken by the Government to inform migrants of this right of appeal and of other matters related to gaining citizenship?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
VICTORIA · LP

-I am not aware of comments published in La Fiamma on this matter. I will refer it to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and obtain from him information on the procedure with regard to advice to migrants as to claims that can be made to the Ombudsman when migrants disagree with decisions that are given.

page 2255

QUESTION

COMPUTER EQUIPMENT

Senator WATSON:
TASMANIA

-I direct a question to the Minister for Science. Is it true that as a possible offset against future purchases of Facom Australia Ltd equipment by the Government Facom has offered to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation a computer worth $4m for a period of four years at no charge other than the cost of monthly maintenance? I further ask: Has this offer been accepted, and if not, why not?

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

-As I understand it, the Division of Computing Research within the CSIRO has the strongest computer in the southern hemisphere. A number of manufacturers within Australia and from overseas have made offers of the use of certain equipment to that Division, wherein research is carried out. I am uncertain of the exact details of the matter which the honourable senator brings forward. I do recall a paper in which I think Facom offered a substantial amount of computer equipment for testing over a period. I am unable to say at present whether that offer has been accepted by the CSIRO. The honourable senator will be aware that the CSIRO is a statutory authority.

page 2256

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP

Senator ELSTOB:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I refer the Minister to the statutory requirement that knowledge of the English language be a prerequisite for Australian citizenship. I refer also to the fact that, in 1976-77, 427 persons were denied citizenship on this ground and that, in 1977-78, the number was 694. Is it not a fact that this discriminatory policy often bars persons who have worked, lived and paid taxes in Australia for lengthy periods? Is it not also true that this policy discriminates against communities, especially the Greek and Italian communities? In view of the discriminatory and iniquitous nature of this policy, will the Government undertake to review it?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I will refer Senator Elstob ‘s request for a review of the policy with regard to citizenship to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and seek a response from him.

page 2256

QUESTION

VEHICLE EMISSION CONTROLS

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Transport aware that the introduction of stage 3 of Australian Design Rule 27a for vehicle emission control in Australia would increase fuel consumption by 5 per cent, which would be in addition to the present 8 per cent increase resulting from stage 2 of emission control? Is the Minister aware also that current emission controls are estimated to cost the Australian motorist some $500m over the next five years and that the introduction of stage 3 would add greatly to that cost? As New South Wales and South Australia are the only two States not in favour of deferring stage 3, will the Federal Government support the policy of the other States and propose that only vehicles registered in New South Wales and South Australia have stage 3 emission control and that the component parts required be fitted as optional extras? In that way the rest of Australia’s motorists will not be penalised with this extra cost and inefficiency and a great saving of fuel which is a very scarce energy resource will result.

Senator Thomas:

– Hear, hear!

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I noted a few ‘Hear, hears’ from a Western Australian senator behind me. I know that the question asked by Senator Young would strike a very responsive chord in many parts of Australia. It is my understanding that there is some difference between the responsible State Ministers as to whether stage 3 of the emission control regulations should be implemented. Some of the differences of opinion can be explained, of course, by the fact that very different conditions apply in different States. For example, in the city of Sydney, I think, there are probably some very real problems in terms of the effect on the quality of air. I am not in a position to confirm the precise figures quoted by the honourable senator with respect to fuel costs and so on, but I will seek some information from the Minister for Transport. I will also refer to the Minister the honourable senator’s suggestion that the additional emission control equipment might be fitted as an optional extra. I have some doubt as to the practicability of that suggestion, but I am not in a position to say that it is not possible to do it.

Senator Young:

– It can be done with a higher penalty in those States which are silly enough to go to stage 3.

Senator CHANEY:

– If it is possible, that may be a very satisfactory solution because the particular State governments can carry the burden of convincing their electors that that is a necessary additional cost. I think that this is a matter of some complexity because of the limited size of the motor vehicle market in Australia and the difficulty of proliferating the specifications of motor vehicles for sale. I will refer that also to the Minister for Transport and get a detailed reply.

page 2256

QUESTION

ADVANCE TO WHEAT GROWERS

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. The Minister will know that the wheat harvest has commenced in at least three States. Given that government spokesmen have been telling selected wheat growers for some weeks that the first advance will be $75 a tonne minus only half the rail freight to ports, why has no official announcement yet been made and when can we expect an official announcement to be made?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– 1 have no information on this matter from the Minister whom I represent. I will make an inquiry as to which government spokesmen have been making announcements and see whether the Minister for Primary Industry can give the honourable senator some information.

page 2256

QUESTION

OIL EXPLORATION INCENTIVES

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources. Investors supporting the exploration of off-shore oil and gas ventures are given taxation concessions to encourage development. Bearing in mind that the time is drawing nearer when Australia ‘s fossilised fuels will be depleted, does the Government intend giving the same incentives for investment to assess reserves of oil and gas on the mainland?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-The Government has introduced a number of incentives to encourage petroleum exploration in Australia. These include the removal ofthe excise levy from new oil discoveries, the clarification of foreign investment guidelines and some important taxation concessions. The off-shore shareholder rebate scheme is one of the taxation incentives now available in respect of petroleum exploration offshore. The Government considered the extension of this scheme to on-shore petroleum exploration in the Budget context, but in the light of the financial restraints it was decided that it was not possible to extend it. The Minister for Trade and Resources will consider such an incentive when the financial situation improves. In the meantime, on-shore explorers may take advantage of other incentives that are available, the principal one being entitlement to import parity pricing, exempt from the levy, for all oil produced from newly discovered fields.

page 2257

QUESTION

MR HARRY M. MILLER

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Administrative Services. By way of preface, I refer to the Minister’s reply to a question asked by me which appears on page 181 of the Hansard report of Senate Estimates Committee E of 12 October this year concerning a visit to Paris by Mr Harry M. Miller on behalf of the Government. Is the Minister aware that the meeting attended by Mr Miller in Paris was a one-day meeting? Is he also aware that the meeting room was only a few yards away from the Hilton Hotel where Mr Miller stayed and that the Australian Embassy is merely a stone’s throw away? If this is so, how does the Minister justify having a car on stand-by for a full week for Mr Miller’s possible use at a cost of $1,550? Finally, does the Minister consider that the cost of Mr Miller’s stay in Paris for a week- about $4,500- to attend a one-day meeting is a fair and reasonable charge on the public purse?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– This question is not unlike many questions asked by Senator McLaren who manages to find out all sorts of detail. I must say that I was not aware that the meeting place was just next door to Mr Miller’s hotel. I was not aware also of quite a number of the matters raised by the honourable senator and I thank him for drawing them to my attention. However, I also say to the honourable senator that, as I recall, Mr Miller has been working in an unpaid capacity, while doing this work for the Commonwealth Government. As I understand it, there was a most effective and economical presentation of the proposals that the Commonwealth has in mind for 1988. 1 understand also that the overall cost of our presentation was considerably less than anything done by a comparable country. I do not have any further information with me at the moment but I will examine the matter which has been raised by Senator McLaren. My information is that we have conducted an effective and economical exercise, and I would like it to be very clearly understood that this has been done by someone who is not receiving remuneration. I think that it is unusual for somebody to give his time -

Senator Cavanagh:

– What- $4,000 for a day is not receiving remuneration?

Senator CHANEY:

– With the greatest respect I suggest that the mounting of this sort of presentation to an international body to establish that Australia can hold an exposition, the cost of which will run into hundreds of millions of dollars, will involve something more than the oneday meeting which was attended by Mr Miller. I remind honourable senators opposite that a good number of their constituents seem to think that senators are working only when this Parliament is sitting and that they will be going off on their holidays at the end of this week. I draw that parallel. Perhaps honourable senators will continue to work for their constituents notwithstanding that this Parliament is not sitting. I suggest that Mr Miller may well have had to do more than attend a single one-day meeting to put forward the sort of presentation which was put forward on behalf of the Commonwealth of Australia.

page 2257

QUESTION

WEEKEND PENALTY RATES

Senator HARRADINE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and follows a question I asked last week. I inquired whether any guarantees of job security and job creation had been obtained by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations from employers, including David Jones Ltd, to whom Mr Street had promised support in their campaign to abolish weekend penalty rates. Is it not a fact that the records of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations show that extended weekend trading patterns already have caused a substantial loss of full time jobs in the retail trade and increased bankruptcy of small businesses in favour of increased casualisation of the industry and attempted exploitation of child labour by certain major chain stores? I ask whether it is a fact that at the Victorian State Council meeting of the Liberal Party of Australia, Mr Street repeated his promise to the employers and was backed up by his counterpart in Victoria, Mr Ramsay, who said:

If we as a people cannot harness technological change and a shorter working week to satisfactorily employ every man, woman and child who wants a job, there is something wrong with us.

Will the Minister bring to the attention of Mr Ramsay the fact that child labour was largely eradicated over 100 years ago? I again ask: Before promising support for employers to abolish weekend penalty rates, what guarantees did the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations obtain from employers to safeguard permanent jobs, to prevent exploitation of child labour, to protect small service businesses from bankruptcy and to ensure additional jobs which would be suitable at least for some of the hundreds of thousands of people seeking full time jobs, 291,000 of whom are in receipt of the unemployment benefit?

Senator DURACK:
LP

- Senator Harradine asked me a question about this matter only last Friday and I said that I would refer it to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I have not had a response from him as yet. I will add to that referral the details of the question that Senator Harradine has asked today, which covers a fair bit of ground and seeks a number of facts, such as the information in the possession of the Department. I will ask the Minister to take into consideration the matters now raised by Senator Harradine in providing an answer to the earlier question.

page 2258

QUESTION

NATIONAL HERD RECORDING SYSTEM

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. At the second annual meeting of the Australian Dairy Industry Council the Chairman of the Australian Dairy Corporation, Mr Webster, stated that he was very concerned at the possible delays in the establishment of a national herd recording system and offered whatever assistance the Corporation could provide to ensure that this most essential development is introduced at the earliest possible opportunity. For how long has there been a national herd recording program? Does it have the support of the Australian Agricultural Council? If so, when is the system expected to operate?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I will refer the honourable senator’s question to the Minister whom I represent. I have no knowledge of the comments by Mr Tony Webster at the meeting to which the honourable senator has referred. However, the matter of the establishment of a national herd recording system has been discussed at meetings of farmers from time to time. I will ascertain whether Mr Sinclair can provide an early answer to the question.

page 2258

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF MAKINE SCIENCE

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister for Science aware that, because of staff ceilings, the Australian Institute of Marine Science at Townsville has apparently not yet completed the establishment phase of its development? What action is being taken by the Government to ensure that the Institute is able, as soon as possible, to fulfil the role originally planned for it? Has the Government made, or is it likely to make, any plans for the raising of the staff ceiling of AIMS?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-I am aware that the staff ceilings proposed by the Government of the day when AIMS was first established have not been achieved. If my memory serves me correctly, it was expected that at this stage the staff would be of the order of 120. At present the staff numbers approximately 68 or 69. It certainly would be my wish that scientists and staff of a suitable type be recruited and that the staff ceiling be such as to allow the recruitment of such staff. However, in regard to the overall planning of AIMS, I think that the Parliament can take satisfaction from the fact that a great deal has been done. The honourable senator should be pleased about the activity that has taken place on the site of AIMS, which is about 30 kilometres south of Townsville. Certain facilities have been established there and, of course, earlier this month there was the handing over of a research vessel. I think it is unique in this period of shortage of funds for AIMS to be granted permission by the Government to obtain this vessel at a cost of approximately $ 1 . 1 m. As the honourable senator knows, within seven days of delivery that vessel began a six-week or seven-week research tour. I am sure that the staff required to service that type of research facility are readily available. However, I sympathise with the honourable senator because I would like to see the staff ceiling for AIMS raised as soon as it is at all possible.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I ask the Minister for Science a supplementary question. I ask him to answer the last of my series of questions, which was: Has the Government made, or is it likely to make, any plans for the raising of the staff ceiling of AIMS in the near future?

Senator WEBSTER:

-The Institute is of the view that it could certainly use a higher staff ceiling at the present time, and use it effectively. I did comment in relation to the type of staff disciplines that may be available. At times it is difficult to recruit the particular types of scientists who are required to work within the Institute. I am unable to say whether the Government will quickly change its mind as to the staff that can be made available for the Institute. That is generally provided through the levels made available to the Department of Science. Of course, the various areas of interest under that Department must take their proportionate cut, as most areas of scientific research are particularly important today.

page 2259

QUESTION

MR HARRY M. MILLER: TELEVISION INTERVIEWS WITH SIR JOHN KERR

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. It also concerns Mr Harry M. Miller. Is it a fact that Mr Harry M. Miller, acting on behalf of the former GovernorGeneral, Sir John Kerr, approached commercial television networks in Australia seeking to arrange interviews with Sir John Kerr on a commercial basis? Is it also a fact that no commercial network showed any interest in the deal and that pressure is now being applied on the Australian Broadcasting Commission to screen the interviews?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I do not think that the first part of the question comes within the ministerial responsibility of any Minister of this Government, but I will refer it to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications to see whether he does have anything to do with the advertising or non-advertising of a book on commercial television. I would have thought that that was a matter of private activity and nothing to do with the Government. Whether there has been any approach to the Australian Broadcasting Commission, I have no idea. I am prepared to refer that question to the Minister; but again I would have thought that it was a matter which lay outside the competence of the Minister.

page 2259

QUESTION

AIR FARES

Senator LEWIS:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. Is it a fact that the Government is now negotiating with South East Asian nations for a reduction in air fares between Australia and Asian capital cities? Is it anticipated that an early announcement about that may be made? Is the Government aware that it is now cheaper to fly from the eastern States to New Zealand and return than from Perth to the eastern States and return? I am wondering whether the situation eventually may be reached that it will be cheaper to fly from Melbourne to Sydney via Singapore than to fly direct on our interstate airlines.

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– Honourable senators will recollect that a quite lengthy statement was made by the Minister for Transport on the future policy of the Government relating to international air fares. That statement foreshadowed that there would be a series of bilateral negotiations aimed at achieving cheap point-to-point air fares between Australia and various other countries. The first negotiations related to the Australia- United Kingdom route. I am not sure what other negotiations have actually commenced, but I will seek that information and let the honourable senator have a reply. As far as the air fare between New Zealand and the eastern States is concerned, my knowledge of geography is not sufficient to tell me what the comparative distances are, but I suspect that there is little, if any, difference between the distance from Sydney to Auckland and the distance from Sydney to Penh. Perhaps that is something that the honourable senator and I might jointly examine and see whether, indeed, a cheaper fare might well be justified on a distance basis alone. As to whether it will ever be cheaper to go from Melbourne to Sydney via Singapore I can only say that that might make what is usually a terribly dull journey at least a little more enjoyable.

page 2259

QUESTION

FAMILY MEANS TEST

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

- Senator Wriedt earlier asked me a question with regard to income testing of unemployment beneficiaries under the age of 2 1 years. I stated, in answer to the question from Senator Wriedt, that the matter was not under consideration in my Department. He also asked whether my Department had considered the matter. The statement that I made is accurate; the matter is not under consideration. However, to answer more completely, I reiterate what I said earlier about Budget discussions and suggestions coming from different departments and others; but I wish to add that, as a follow up to the Budget Papers, my Department recently prepared a paper which showed the anomalies, the difficulties and the hardship which could arise if such a means testing scheme were introduced. This did not result in a recommendation to the Government that such a scheme be introduced and, as said earlier by Senator Carrick and me, the Government has no such intention in mind.

page 2260

QUESTION

WINE AND LIQUOR IMPORTS AND EXPORTS

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-Last week Senator Young asked me a question relating to whisky, brandy, rum and other potable spirits. The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs has supplied the following information: Whisky, brandy,rum and other potable spirits which require maturation, whether imported in bottles or in bulk for Australian bottling, must be covered by a certificate of age. The certificate must declare that the spirit- or the youngest spirit in a blend- has been matured in the wood for two years, and, in the case of whisky, for three years. In addition, brandy imports must be accompanied by a certificate of materials which declares that the brandy was distilled wholly from grape wine. Spirits which do not need a maturation period, that is, gin and vodka, and imported wines do not require special certification. However, they must be covered by import documents describing type, value, consignor and country of origin.

Imported potable spirits, whether bottled in bond, bottled out of bond, or imported in the bottle, are subject to selective sampling by Customs to test compliance with provisions of the Spirits Act. In a recent case that has had some publicity Customs sampling procedures resulted in detection of methanol in several lines of spirits imported in bulk and bottled out of bond by one particular merchant. Large numbers of samples of this merchant’s bottled product were analysed and very many were found to have been adulterated during local bottling with illicit spirit containing methanol. Large quantities of bottled products were seized under the Spirits Act as a result.

page 2260

GREAT BARRIER REEF MAKINE PARK AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Assent reported.

page 2260

PROGRESS IN EDUCATION SINCE 1976

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present a report on progress in education since 1976. This report will be of assistance to honourable senators when debating the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill and the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Amendment Bill, which I will introduce to the Senate later this week.

page 2260

JOINT COAL BOARD

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) Pursuant to sections 20 and 26 of the Coal Industry Act 1 946I present the report of the Joint Coal Board for the year ended 30 June 1978 together with the financial accounts of the board and the Auditor-General’s report on those accounts.

page 2260

NATIONAL TRAINING COUNCIL

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) For the information of honourable senators I present the report of the National Training Council for the year ended 3 1 December 1977.

page 2260

PRICES JUSTIFICATION TRIBUNAL

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) Pursuant to sections 35 and 35a of the Prices Justification Act 1973 I present the Prices Justification Tribunal annual report 1977-78 and its half-yearly report on significant price increases with which the Tribunal was concerned for the six months ended 30 June 1 978.

Senator TATE:
Tasmania

– by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2260

ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– Pursuant to section 30 of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies Act 1964 I present the report of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies for the year ended 30 June 1978. Further, for the information of honourable senators I present the second report by Mr Shann Turnbull on economic development of Aboriginal communities in the Northern

Territory entitled ‘Self-Sufficiency (With Land Rights)’.

page 2261

COMMONWEALTH SERUM LABORATORIES COMMISSION

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– Pursuant to section 44 of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Act 1961 I present the report of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission for the year ended 30 June 1978.

page 2261

FAWNMAC GROUP OF COMPANIES

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the report of the Fawnmac group of companies for the year ended 30 June 1978.

page 2261

HOUSING

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– Pursuant to section 48 of the Australian Housing Corporation Act 197S and section 50b of the Defence Service Homes Act 1918 I present the annual report of the Australian Housing Corporation for the year ended 30 June 1976. An interim report prepared by the Australian Housing Corporation was presented on 25 August 1977.

Pursuant to section 48 of the Defence Service Homes Corporation Act 1976 and section 50b of the Defence Service Homes Act 1918 I present the annual report of the Defence Service Homes Corporation for the year ended 30 June 1977. The delay in presenting this report and that of the Australian Housing Corporation, which I have just presented, is due to problems which arose in connection with the form of the financial statements which are required to be presented with reports. Notification of the approval of the Minister for Finance (Mr Eric Robinson) to the form of the statements was received on 10 August 1978. The report of the Auditor-General on the financial statements is dated 30 October 1978.

For the information of honourable senators I present the interim report of the Defence Service Homes Corporation for the year ended 30 June 1978.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the three reports just presented by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle).

Leave granted.

Senator RAE:

– In August of this year the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations presented to the Senate a report on the Australian Housing Corporation annual report 1974-75. The Committee stated in its report:

The Committee considers that this situation -

Of years of delayis unacceptable. The activities of the Defence Services Homes scheme, since the end ofthe 1974-75 financial year, have not yet been reported to the Parliament. For three years, the Parliament has been kept in ignorance of the operations of this important statutory corporation.

The report went on to state:

  1. . the Committee considers that the spirit of the law has been breached. It is surely the intention of the reporting requirements of the legislation that the Parliament be informed, on an annual basis, of the activities ofthe scheme.

The Committee considers that where a dispute arises as to the form in which an Authority’s accounts should be presented, then, pending the resolution of the dispute, an interim report should be made to the Parliament, together with informal financial statements. In this way, the Parliament can be kept informed of the activities of the authority on an up-to-date basis. This procedure was, in fact, adopted by the Minister in October 1975, when an interim Report . . was presented . . .

The Committee therefore considers that the reporting requirements ofthe current legislation are inadequate and that a new section should be added to the Act. This section should provide that if a Report, with accounts in a form approved by the Department of Finance, and/or the AuditorGeneral ‘s Report, is not ready for presentation to the Parliament within 9 months of the end of the previous financial year, then the Minister should, within fifteen sitting days, present an interim report to the Parliament on the Corporation’s activities, together with informal financial statements, and an explanation for the unavailability of the audited accounts . . .

Parliamentary democracy requires that Ministers, as the representatives of the Executive branch of Government, keep both the Parliament and the people informed of the activities of Departments and Statutory Authorities, rather than permit bureaucratic differences to provide an excuse for keeping those activities hidden from scrutiny.

I move:

I further move:

That the Senate adopt the recommendation ofthe Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations that a new section be added to the Defence Service Homes Corporation Act 1 976 to provide that if a report, with accounts in a form approved by the Department of Finance, and/or the Auditor-General’s report, is not ready for presentation to the Parliament within 9 months of the end of the previous financial year, then the Minister should, within 1 5 sitting days, present an interim report to the Parliament on the Corporation’s activities, together with informal financial statements, and an explanation for the unavailability of the unaudited accounts.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2262

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES STUDY

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

– I present for the information of honourable senators a report on the Australian Biological Resources Study, covering the operation of the program since its establishment in 1973.I seek leave to have a short statement on the report incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The statement read as follows-

The scientific description of Australia’s flora and fauna is undertaken by workers at a variety of State and Commonwealth Government institutions and tertiary institutions. Whilst these institutions have contributed greatly to the knowledge of the nature and distribution of our biological resources, the Australian Biological Resources Study (ABRS) was established specifically to promote and co-ordinate the systematic collection and study of these resources.

The Interim Council of the ABRS was asked to examine and report on the state of knowledge of our biological resources and to recommend longterm priorities and arrangements for the conduct of the Study. Briefly, the Interim Council found that taxonomic and ecological knowledge of Australia’s plants and animals was unbalanced, often superficial, and very incomplete. It recommended that the Government establish a body with responsibility for stimulating and maintaining balanced development of knowledge of the flora and fauna and for implementing programs designed to encourage and integrate taxonomic and ecological research. Part 2 of the report presents the conclusions and recommendations of the Interim Council.

Because many agencies were already involved in floral and faunal studies, the Government asked the Interim Australian Science and Technology Council (ASTEC) to examine the question of the extent to which the Commonwealth through the ABRS should be involved in studies on Australia’s unique flora and fauna. ASTEC confirmed the positive role to be performed by the ABRS in this area. As a result, I had pleasure in announcing this year that the Government had approved long term arrangements to proceed with the study of the Australian flora and fauna commenced under the Interim Council of the ABRS.

I draw the attention of honourable senators to Part 1 of the report, which describes the steps by which the ABRS has become an established program within the Department of Science.

Before the establishment of the study, information on the resources devoted to floral and faunal studies by the various agencies throughout Australia was not readily available. As a result of the investigations undertaken by the Interim Council of the ABRS and the Department of Science, we now have this information, which is contained in Parts 2 and 3 respectively of the report. The information now available on Commonwealth and State resources will greatly assist in planning the future operation of the Study. By effectively utilising these resources, a coordinated program for systematic study of Australia’s flora and fauna can be developed. In the future work of the Study, close consultation with State and Commonwealth Government organisations and other research institutions will be maintained so as to encourage collaboration and avoid duplication of effort in the conduct of surveys in this field.

Whilst looking ahead hopefully to the important contribution to be made by the ABRS to biological survey in Australia, under the guidance of the ABRS Advisory Committee whose membership I hope to announce soon, I am gratified that the Study will be based on the sound foundation laid during the last five years as outlined in this report.

Mr President, I commend the 1973 to 78 report of the Australian Biological Resources Study to the Parliament.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2262

AUSTRALIAN TOURIST COMMISSION

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– Pursuant to section 29 of the Australian Tourist Commission Act 1967 I present the report of the Australian Tourist Commission for the year ended 30 June 1978.

page 2262

OVERSEAS TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (AUSTRALIA)

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– Pursuant to section 53 of the Overseas Telecommunications Act 1946 I present the report and financial statements of the Overseas Telecommunications Commission (Australia) for the year ended 31 March 1978.

page 2263

POSTAL AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the report of the Postal and Telecommunications Department for the year ended 30 June 1978.

page 2263

AUSTRALIAN HERITAGE COMMISSION

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– Pursuant to section 43 of the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975 I present the report of the Australian Heritage Commission for the year ended 30 June 1978.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

-by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2263

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Woodchip Industry

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

-I present a supplementary report from the Standing Committee on Science and the Environment arising from follow-up action on the report of May 1977 relating to the inquiry into the impact on the Australian environment of the woodchip industry program.

Ordered that the supplementary report be printed.

Senator JESSOP:

-by leave-I move:

On 28 November 1974 the Senate resolved that the matter of the impact on the Australian environment of the current woodchip program be referred to the then Standing Committee on Social Environment.

The Social Environment Committee embarked upon an investigation of this reference during the autumn session of Parliament in 1 975. On 1 1 November 1975 the inquiry was halted by the dissolution of Parliament and subsequent federal election, but was resumed in March 1976 by the newly formed Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment. The inquiry continued through 1976, culminating in the tabling of the Committee’s report entitled Woodchips and the Environment’ on 24 May 1977. That report set out the Committee’s recommendations and proposals. Recommendations were addressed to Federal Ministers. The proposals, on the other hand, concern matters falling outside the federal sphere and were put forward by the Committee in a spirit of constructive co-operation for consideration by State government and the timber industry.

At the beginning of the autumn session of the 1978 Parliament the Committee felt that it should review the situation with respect to the matters discussed in its woodchip report. It accordingly resolved to contact all those to whom recommendations and proposals had been addressed, requesting comment on any action taken having a bearing on the findings of the report. In this connection the Committee recognises that the development and implementation of techniques for the protection of the environment is a continuing process on which many influences are brought to bear. The Committee accordingly acknowledges that its report, whilst summarising and crystallising much of this process, is itself one ofthe influences and not necessarily the mainspring for all subsequent action.

An excellent response was received to the Committee’s request for comment, replies being received from all but one of those contacted. In addition, unsolicited comments were received from two contributors. The Committee is very pleased with this high level of interest and acknowledges with gratitude the courteous cooperation of all respondents. The action of the Committee in seeking comment on its recommendations from Federal Ministers was taken within the framework of the resolution agreed to by the Senate without division in March 1973 by which the Senate declared its opinion that the Government, within three months of a committee report being tabled, should itself table a paper informing the Senate of its observations and intentions with respect to recommendations in the report. It is of interest that the Senate Standing Orders Committee, in its report tabled 3 May 1978, commented on this 1973 resolution pointing out that little direct action had resulted from that resolution and that there had been only one Government response in the way suggested. It went on to recommend that the Senate adopt a resolution to the effect that the President should forward to the Leader of the Government in the Senate a copy of tabled reports requesting that the Government, within the ensuing three months and not later than the first sitting day after three months, table a paper informing the Senate of its observations and intentions with respect to the recommendations made in the report. It proposed that the President should report to the Senate any cases in which there has been no response from the Government pursuant to the resolution.

Subsequently, on 25 May 1978, the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon. J. M. Fraser, made a statement in the House of Representatives relating to Federal Government consideration of committee reports in which he said that henceforth, within six months of the tabling of a committee report, the responsible Minister will make a statement in the Parliament outlining the action the Government proposes to take in relation to the report. The Committee’s decision to follow up the woodchip report of May 1978 predates the report of the Standing Orders Committee as well as the Prime Minister’s statement. However, the supplementary report being tabled today falls within the scope of both. The Committee accordingly looks forward to a statement within six months, from the Ministers responsible, relating to the recommendations made in the supplementary report.

In general the Committee has been impressed by the careful consideration which evidently has been given to the findings of the inquiry. This is particularly true of the responses from State governments and their associated forestry authorities, which, from the depth of their replies, obviously have heeded the Committee’s advice that recommendations and proposals be studied in the light of the main text of the sections of the report dealing with the topic under discussion. Unfortunately, in a few cases, this does not appear to have been done. This lack gives rise to some of the recommendations in the present supplementary report. In particular, it is the Committee’s view that responses to the extremely important recommendations relating to wildlife preservation, conservation of genetic characteristics and possible depletion of forest soil nutrients, cannot have sprung from a considered study of the detailed matter supporting them. These recommendations accordingly are referred back to the Minister responsible for further, deeper consideration.

Chapter 1 1 of the report entitled ‘Woodchips and the Environment’, tabled in May 1977, deals with the topic of land use planning. Several recommendations and proposals in that report relate to land use policy. In particular, proposal 1 advocated agreement being sought between Federal and State governments on a national land use policy. Responses from State authorities to this proposal indicate recognition of the need for land use policies. This need also was recognised in 1974 by the Forestry and Wood-based Industries Development Conference of that year. Recommendation 1 of that Conference was ‘that the governments of Australia should foster a national policy for land use ‘.

The Committee is disappointed at the apparent lack of progress either from the FORWOOD conference or its own proposals, the more so since much work has been done in Australia on the methodology of land use planning. Various tools have also been developed to facilitate the task.

The Committee believes that the time is now ripe to carry this whole topic forward into practical effect. It is accordingly recommending that the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development (Mr Groom) submit proposals to Cabinet for a mechanism to allow integrated consideration of national land use issues, and that the Prime Minister set up a framework for the establishment of a national land use policy.

One aspect of land use planning involves consideration of the conservation of fauna and flora in parks and reserves. Chapter 10 of the report of May 1977 deals with this subject, including the theory of parks and reserves, their adequacy, and government activity directed towards expanding their area. The Committee reported there that much remains to be done, and it expressed the need for prompt, positive action. It is essential that governments recognise this urgency and give priority to the provision of a system of reserves based on the full range of ecological factors needed for adequate conservation.

The Committee is disquitened that none of the responses to proposals on this topic reflect in any way the thrust and urgency of the findings of the Committee’s inquiry. The Committee accordingly is now further recommending that the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development draw up and promulgate, in collaboration with the States, a national policy for the development of an adequate system of national parks and conservation reserves. Such national policy should take account of their definition and status; biological and social importance; adequacy and selection, design and management.

It would be remiss of me if I did not acknowledge the invaluable support given to the Committee by the secretariat under the guidance of our secretary, Mr Peter Dawe. It is very easy for honourable senators to take for granted this assistance, which I believe stems from dedication of all the staff members and without which it would be impossible to present constructive reports of this nature to the Senate. I commend the report to honourable senators.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

-First of all, on behalf of the other members of the Committee, I endorse the tribute to the extremely efficient secretariat of the Senate Standing Committee on Science and the Environment led by Peter Dawe. I also want to make three comments. Page 5 of the Committee’s report indicated that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) had some reservations about our tight rein on new woodchip projects. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard pages 1 to 4 of the answer to question No. 607 that I received from Senator Chaney as Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community, Development (Mr Groom). It tabulates on a State by State basis the overall average and location of all national parks.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Senator Chaney:

– The Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) Each State and Territory classifies parks and reserves according to their own requirements.

The terms ‘National Park’ and ‘Wildlife Refuge’ do not have precisely the same meaning throughout Australia and consequently accurate comparisons of the areas set aside for these purposes cannot be made.

The following material includes the various categories of reserves administered by fauna and national park authorities and has been compiled from information provided by the responsible State and Territory authorities.

Unless otherwise stated the information provided represents the situation as at 30 June 1978.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– This Committeeand I know this view is shared by the Chairman and by the other Committee members- has been extremely mobile in its investigations. It has gone into areas where there has been some doubt whether there had been adherence to testimony given over the last two to three years. In particular, we satisfied ourselves that the policy in relation to the habitat of the Leadbeater’s possum in the Gippsland Forest had been adhered to in full by the Victorian Forestry Commission.

With all deference to the Minister for Primary Industry, I think there are two areas that we will have to keep in mind. I think it may be a good idea if the State Ministers responsible for wildlife conservation permitted us to attend their quarterly conferences as observers. I believe that if the real spirit of federalism is to prevail, there has to be an integration of ideas. If we do not have that integration of ideas and if the minutes of the conferences are very slow in surfacing, a controversy could develop in the Press. The subsequent Press account could tell only half the truth, thereby reducing this form of trust. I know that the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, Mr Groom, is looking at this matter at the moment. I hope he will be able to prevail upon the State Ministers to realise that we would attend these conferences in a helping role and not as disruptors.

Notwithstanding the Committee’s other assignments, it will be at the ready, as it were, to look into other areas where there could be problems. For example, since we last went to Western Australia, there have been problems there in relation to the protection of its jarrah forests from bauxite mining. I know that Senator Coleman would have more than a keen interest in that matter. So, in essence, I think it could be said that we have been going back, retracing our steps. The majority of the pledges have been honoured. There is a certain grey area as to just what will happen in the future. But, as has been explained in the charter expounded by the Chairman, on occasions we may have to drop a reference before us and go back to another area, in which event I think our watchdog role will prove successful. I leave the matter on that note.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 2266

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND COMMERCE

Trade Commissioner Service

Senator SHEIL:
Queensland

- Mr President, I present the report and transcript of evidence of the Senate Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce of its inquiry into the Australian Trade Commissioner Service.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator SHEIL:

– by leave- I move:

Mr President, I have much pleasure in presenting the Committee’s report on the Trade Commissioner Service. In doing so, I should like to thank the members of the Committee for their interest and co-operation throughout the inquiry.

In the course of the inquiry the Committee was sorry to lose the services of Senator Don Cameron, who resigned from the Senate at the end of his term in June of this year. From his appointment in March 1976, Senator Cameron gave freely of his time and, in his quiet, congenial and yet determined way, contributed a great deal to the work of the Committee. His place on the Committee has now been taken by Senator Gietzelt, whose wealth of experience will be a welcome asset to the Committee in the future.

This report is one of a number the Committee has presented under a general reference dealing with the promotion of Australia’s trade and commerce with other countries. As part of this continuing reference, the Committee resolved on 8 September 1977 to examine the Trade Commissioner Service.

The Committee received more than 70 submissions on the subject and heard supporting evidence from 37 witnesses over 16 days of public hearings. On the Committee’s behalf, I should like to thank all those who made submissions to the inquiry or who appeared as witnesses at the hearings.

In conducting our investigations, we would have liked to visit the 50-odd Trade Commissioner posts around the world. As that was plainly not possible, we had to rely heavily on representatives of export companies for their views on the effectiveness of the Trade Commissioner Service. From these comments, together with descriptions of their role by the Trade Commissioners themselves, we were able to draw conclusions about the operations of the Service.

From the outset, it was obvious that the Trade Commissioner Service is highly regarded by the international business community. It is interesting to note that the structure of the Service has been used as a blueprint by other countries in establishing their own trade missions overseas.

The vast majority of witnesses were quick to praise the efforts of the Trade Commissioners in developing and servicing our overseas markets. At the same time, most were able to point to aspects of the Service’s operations in which improvements could be made.

In its report, the Committee has made a number of recommendations and it is my earnest hope that the Government will heed its advice in the interests of our export community and Australia’s trade representation abroad.

On behalf of the Committee, I pay a tribute to our own secretariat headed by Robert Alison. These people bring a wealth of expertise to our committees. Our Standing Committee has had three secretaries so far and each one has brought to bear his own particular expertise, and we are grateful for that. I commend the report to the Senate.

Senator COLEMAN:
Western Australia

– I want to speak very briefly about the report by the Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce and to raise a number of issues which were brought out in the Committee’s inquiry and which caused me some concern. In the first place, it is the habit, one understands, of the Department of Trade and Resources to issue a publication which is called the Australian Trading News. It is, perhaps, one of the most uninteresting publications I have ever had the misfortune to come across. There is nothing in it which would inspire me to give consideration to any of the products that are being advertised. It is not presented in a manner that would create any interest in not only the products but also the country in which those products are produced or from which they are exported. The Committee’s recommendation that the Australian Trading News be updated, upgraded and perhaps published more frequently in full colour with improved content and format is one of the things that should be looked at in the first place.

A second consideration that came out in the report is that personnel for the Australian overseas trading posts were not always gathered from the areas that had more expertise. We were presented with the information, which certainly to my mind was of great importance, that we should be looking more to industry to provide trade commissioners in posts in a heavy export area or where there is a potential for an export area. Someone who has had some experience in industry would be much better able to promote Australian products, to publicise what is available from Australian industries and would perhaps have a greater interest in the promotion of Australia than a person who has come up through the Public Service and who is basically there more to present and administer policies rather than to promote individual products.

A third consideration was the trade fairs and displays which we have also mentioned in the report. This matter is of great concern to me. Honourable senators will be aware that the week before last I raised in the Senate the question of a trade commissioner in Singapore who is reported to be working against a promotion of Australian wines to be held in May 1979. 1 have not as yet had a reply from the responsible Minister as to whether the statements which are attributed to that trade commissioner are a fact, a deliberate attempt on someone’s part to denigrate the Trade Commissioner Service in that country or a deliberate attempt by the trade commissioner concerned to denigrate an exposition which could provide tremendous export potential for what could be a vital Australian export product. So a number of areas were taken into consideration. I suggest not only that the report should be read with great interest by all members of this chamber but also that the Government should take seriously the efforts that were put into producing it and take action on the same in the near future.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 2268

QUESTION

JOINT COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Senator LAJOVIC:
New South Wales

-As a member of the Committee, I present the 170th, 171st, 172nd and 173rd reports from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts.

Ordered that the reports be printed.

Senator LAJOVIC:

-by leave-The 170th report comprises Department of Finance minutes relating to three Committee reports tabled in 1975 and 1977. The practice of presenting Finance minutes was introduced as the result of an administrative arrangement made in 1953 by the then Chairman, Professor F. A. Bland, and the Treasurer, Sir Arthur Fadden. The Finance minute procedure ensures that action on the Committee’s recommendations and conclusions are followed up by relevant departments and reported on to Parliament. These minutes refer to the Committee’s earlier reports about delays in occupancy of leased premises- the Committee’s 153rd report- expenditure from the Advance to the Treasurer for the financial year 1975-76- our 163rd report- and the Committee’s report on the Auditor-General’s report for 1974-75- the Committee’s 165th report.

The Committee has been concerned for some time over the delays in finalising Department of Finance minutes. We are pleased to note that the response to its reports has, in most cases, been reduced to about 12 months, which is a considerable improvement. The Committee expects to be informed of completed action taken on its recommendations. We would hope, following the recent statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) on the handling of parliamentary committee reports, that the period can be reduced further.

The 1 7 1 st report relates to the Committee ‘s inquiry into matters raised by the Auditor-General in his report for the financial year 1976-77. We were disturbed at the number of statutory authorities, government-owned companies and other bodies which had not submitted financial statements to the Auditor-General for examination and the tendency for many not even to report annually to this Parliament. As a consequence, Parliament has been denied details about their operations, despite the fact that there is a statutory requirement for audited financial statements to be included with annual reports. For example, the Darwin Community College had not formally submitted financial statements to the Auditor-General since the creation of the College in July 1973.

The Committee also heard evidence relating to a claim by the Department of Construction that the Department ‘had been criticised by the Auditor-General in a public document based on conclusions and assumptions made without the benefit of professional technical advice’. The Department had sought the Attorney-General’s advice on ‘the extent to which the Audit Act authorises the Auditor-General to report on matters which are not related to financial procedures or the actual expenditure of funds ‘. From the evidence presented to the Committee it was clear the Auditor-General was not exceeding his authority in reporting as he did. A legal opinion obtained from the Attorney-General’s Department affirmed the Auditor-General’s right to report as he did. His conclusions were reasonable in view of the delays he experienced in obtaining relevant information from the Department of Construction.

In Darwin, the Committee heard evidence from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the Department of Education on their failure to carry out a Cabinet decision relating to the rental of Commonwealth-owned houses in the Territory. The Committee is concerned about the inadequacy of processes by which departments are consulted in the preparation of Cabinet submissions and the manner in which Cabinet decisions are later notified, if at all, to departments. The Committee doubts the adequacy of current procedures for ensuring the implementation of Cabinet decisions. The Committee believes that a simple central system to monitor progress in the implementation of decisions should be established. We do not question the arrangement whereby each Minister is responsible for implementing Cabinet decisions which have an impact in the area of his portfolio. However, there do not appear to be any administrative procedures controlled by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet ensuring that all departments are informed of relevant decisions and giving them an opportunity to comment on relevant Cabinet submissions in advance. As part of its inquiry into the Auditor-General’s reports, the

Committee also heard evidence from officers of the Department of Defence, the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development, the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, the Australian wheat Board and the Superannuation Board.

The 173rd report relates specifically to evidence taken in connection with items of expenditure from the Advance to the Minister for Finance in 1 977-78. As honourable senators are aware, after the close of each financial year the Minister for Finance submits to Parliament a statement of expenditure from the Advance to the Minister for Finance showing allocations to heads of expenditure made by him under section 36a of the Audit Act. The Committee received explanations from departments on each item shown in the Minister’s statement. In all, we examined 98 departmental explanations and sought additional information by public examination on four of them. We found that, generally, expenditure from the Advance was confined to urgent and unforeseeable requirements for which provision could not have been made in the Appropriation Acts. I wish to draw the attention of honourable senators to the introductory chapter of this report which, for the first time and with the help of one of our ‘observer’ organisations, gives a more detailed explanation of the history and operation ofthe Advance to the Minister for Finance.

On behalf of the Committee I am pleased to present the Committee’s 172nd report entitled Financing and Administration of Property Owned or Leased Overseas by the Commonwealth Government’. We began this investigation a little over two years ago confident that we would be able to finish it in a short time. However, due to many circumstances, not the least of which was a fundamental change in administative arrangements in the midst of our inquiry made without our knowledge, the inquiry had to be extended. Since 1971 the administrative control over overseas property has been in no less than 5 departments. This further change transferred and emasculated the former Overseas Property Bureau into a branch of yet another co-ordinating body- the Department of Administrative Services. These obliged the Committee to delay the completion of the taking of evidence so that we might assess the adequacy of the new arrangements.

In retrospect, we have serious doubts about the justification for the change and the effectiveness of the administration of overseas property since the Bureau was abolished. The evidence before us, despite assurances given by the permanent head of the Department of Administrative Services, has led the Committee to conclude that the new arrangements have not improved the efficiency of overseas property management. We were informed of serious delays, caused by the need to refer minor matters to numerous co-ordinating bodies in Canberra, including the Public Service Board, the Department of Finance, the Department of Administrative Services and on occasions various interdepartmental committees, as well as major parent departments- the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of Trade and Resources and the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs.

The Committee has made recommendations to reduce excessive administrative control and unnecessary expense. We believe that the Overseas Property Branch, as it is now called, within the Department of Administrative Services should be re-constituted as an independent bureau reporting to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Furthermore, we recommend that authority of heads of mission in property matters be increased. The Committee does not accept the situation where the Government gives heads of mission responsibility to negotiate matters of state on behalf of the Australian Government and yet does not authorise them to make relatively minor administrative decisions with judgment, honesty and integrity. The Committee also recommends that the Public Service Board should delegate matters relating to standards and rent ceilings to the authority responsible for overseas property.

We have made 26 recommendations and numerous other observations and comments throughout the report. One of the most significant is the provision of funds adequate to carry out necessary maintenance. The Committee also received evidence concerning extremely high rents paid for property in certain countries which enabled landlords to amortise capital over periods as short as five years. The Committee believes that the Commonwealth should aim to own at least 75 percent of its property requirements overseas to avoid paying these high rents and that adequate funds should be made available on a three or five year program for this purpose.

The present system of providing staff with accommodation in North America and Britain concerned the Committee. In these areas staff are provided with allowances and are expected to arrange private leased accommodation, as well as leased furniture. The Committee believes that it is neither cost effective nor efficient when an officer posted from Australia has to spend weeks, and sometimes months, seeking suitable accommodation. We have recommended that the system in North America and Britain should be replaced by leased residential accommodation taken in the Government’s name so that the Government may benefit from long term leasing as well as enabling posted officers to become productive in as short a time as possible.

I would like to comment briefly upon the use of Australian made products at Australian overseas posts. In general, the Committee supports the principle that Australian furniture and fabrics should be preferred where they are cost competitive. A strong case can be made for use of Australian furniture, fabrics and other products in reception and entertaining areas in chanceries and heads of mission residences. To demonstrate the variety and quality of Australian manufactured products we have recommended that tendering specifications should be designed to give reasonable access to Australian manufacturers. We have noted a recent report concerning the furnishing of the new chancery and ambassador’s residence in Bangkok. The Committee has been pleased to hear that our recommendation has been anticipated and that nearly all of the furniture will be supplied by Australian manufacturers.

Another very topical question is the use of vehicles manufactured in Australia. The Committee received evidence that at times motor vehicles, including Australian built cars, were purchased which were unsuitable to the conditions prevailing at the post. The Committee favours the use of Australian designed and manufactured vehicles, but clearly these must be cost competitive and must be backed up by suitable spares and maintenance arrangements. I commend the reports to honourable senators.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave- I move:

What an extraordinary series of reports this is from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and what extraordinary revelations they contain. We have received similar reports from the Public Accounts Committee previously and it is to be commended for its investigations. I trust that the Government will look at the Committee’s recommendations and make them effective. I also suggest to the Minister for Science (Senator Webster), who is in charge of Government business this afternoon, and to the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Chaney), whose responsibility has been brought so closely under scrutiny, that they should make the debate on the papers a matter of priority when the Parliament reassembles. I think it is necessary for us to examine closely the points that have been outlined in this further report from the Public Accounts Committee. We should take its reports as seriously or even more seriously than we take many other reports that come before the Parliament. There seems to be evidence here of a gross misuse of funds and, from its past record, the Senate does not take the misuse of funds lightly. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2270

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Senator KNIGHT:
Australian Capital Territory

– by leave- I wish to inform the Senate that, whilst the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, had hoped to present its report on planning procedures and processes before the end of this year, it will not now be able to do so. The Committee believes it should await the outcome of the referendum on 25 November which will determine the future governmental arrangements for the Australian Capital Territory. To have reported at this stage on the basis of the present situation might have been seen as acceptance of the status quo and thus as, in some way, prejudicing the outcome. To report in a way that took into account all three referendum options would have been far too complex a task- with much of the effort irrelevant after 25 November. The Committee simply has not had time even to attempt such an effort. As the Parliament will rise before the referendum results can be assessed and before the precise form of future government for the Australian Capital Territory is known, the Committee has decided not to table the report until after the Parliament resumes in February 1979.

Whilst these considerations have caused the Committee to delay presentation of the report, the opportunity will be taken further to examine issues such as the means of public participation and procedures for appeals against planning decisions. These and other fundamental issues involved in the inquiry will then be related specifically to the outcome of the referendum and to the consequent decisions announced by the Government. The Committee will thus be making recommendations directly relevant to the future constitutional status of the Capital Territory.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave- I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2271

LIFE INSURANCE AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Life Insurance Act 1945 to bring the provisions applying to the Life Insurance Commissioner into line with more recent legislation relating to similar statutory offices. More specifically, the Bill will enable the terms and conditions of appointment and service of the Commissioner to be determined under the Life Insurance Act. The existing legislation does not contain adequate provisions to allow for determinations to be made of the remuneration and other conditions applicable to the appointment of a commissioner. This deficiency has not presented any problems in the past as occupants of the office of commissioner have until recently also occupied the position of Australian Government Actuary created under the Public Service Act and have been entitled to the salary and conditions applicable to that position. In view of the increased workloads of the positions of Life Insurance Commissioner and Australian Government Actuary, it is no longer appropriate for these two positions to be filled by the one person and when the positions became vacant last year upon the retirement of Mr S. W. Caffin it was concluded that the position should be ‘split’ and filled by separate persons.

Earlier this year the Treasurer (Mr Howard) announced the appointment of Mr G. L. Melville as Life Insurance Commissioner and Mr J. R. Ford as Australian Government Actuary. Pending amendment of the Life Insurance Act, the present Commissioner’s salary and other conditions of appointment are subject to temporary arrangements agreed to by the Public Service Board and the Remuneration Tribunal. The Bill will enable the arrangements applying to the Commissioner to be placed on a permanent basis. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 2271

WHEAT INDUSTRY STABILIZATION AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

The purpose of this Bill is twofold. First, the Bill includes provisions to establish a varietal control scheme for wheat by providing for the imposition of dockages on varieties of wheat processing undesirable characteristics delivered to the Australian Wheat Board. Second, the Bill provides for a change in the legal basis on which the Board makes payments to State bulk handling authorities and for a change in the basis of remuneration of those authorities. I should point out that these amendments are being made to provisions of the current wheat industry stabilisation plan. The 1978-79 season which we are now entering is the final year of the plan. There will, of course, be new legislation introduced next year to cover the arrangements to apply beyond the 1978-79 season.

In respect of this Bill the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation requested that the Commonwealth and States introduce a scheme to discourage the growing of unacceptable varieties of wheat in Australia. The Australian Agricultural Council agreed in principle to introduce such a scheme with the objective of ensuring that the marketability of the Australian wheat crop is not prejudiced. The Council accepted that the homogeniety of the crop is an important characteristic in the Australian Wheat Board ‘s ability to sell the grain competitively on the international market. Unacceptable varieties would have a deleterious effect on the homogeniety of the crop and so affect its marketability.

The scheme is based on the Australian Wheat Board making dockages on unacceptable varieties delivered to it. The guidelines for the operation of the scheme were drawn up by the Australian Wheat Board in close collaboration with both the Commonwealth and the States. As this matter is one where the Australian Wheat Board will be exercising powers that it derives from Commonwealth-State legislation it is necessary for complementary Commonwealth-State legislation to be enacted. As mentioned previously, all States have agreed in principle to the varietal control scheme. AH States, with the exception of Victoria and Western Australia, are proceeding with the introduction of this amendment without delay. Victoria and Western Australia propose making the necessary amendment to their legislation next year.

Until the legislation of the two States mentioned has been amended it is necessary to make provision for this in the complementary Commonwealth-State legislation because of the nature of the pooling arrangements provided therein. Thus the amendment provides for the exclusion of wheat from the two States from the scheme for the time being. When the legislation for the arrangements to apply beyond the 1978-79 season is introduced next year this section of the Act will be adjusted to delete the exclusion because the varietal control amendment will be in place in all States.

This Bill authorises the Board to make dockages in respect of wheat of a Commonwealth Territory. Equivalent provisions in the legislation of the various States will give the Board similar powers in respect of wheat delivered in each State. The scheme will rely on provisions being included in the enabling legislation of the Commonwealth and each State for the prescribing of classes of wheat fixed by reference to the variety or varieties of the wheat and provides for dockages to be made by the Wheat Board for classes which do not fit the prescription. It is not intended that dockages for varietal control purposes will be actually imposed in respect of wheat of the 1978-79 season. However, the opportunity will be taken by the Wheat Board to advise growers delivering unacceptable varieties this season that such varieties could be subject to dockages in future seasons.

The change in the arrangements for the remuneration of State bulk handling authorities by the Wheat Board is also supported by the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation. This matter was examined by the Australian Agricultural Council and all States and the Commonwealth agreed to proceed with amendments to the complementary Commonwealth-State legislation to enable the revised arrangements to operate for the coming harvest. Hitherto the costs of wheat handling and storage have been pooled on an Australia-wide basis. Under the revised arrangements this Australia-wide pooling will no longer apply. Growers delivering wheat to the central receival system of each State will be charged a rate for storage and handling that is appropriate to the costs of the bulk handling authority in the State. The new arrangement will identify for growers the charges incurred by the authority that stores and handles their wheat and so enable there to be greater accountability to wheat growers for these charges that have been increasing. To effect this change it has been necessary to make amendments of a machinery nature to define the existing six State bulk handling authorities as State corporations for the purpose of being licensed to receive wheat on behalf of the Australian Wheat Board. The bulk handling authorities will also be empowered to appoint agents on the approval of the Board. This will formalise already existing arrangements in some States.

As earlier indicated, the Bill also provides for a change in the legal authority on which payments are made by the Wheat Board to the State bulk handling authorities. Presently this authority is provided by agreements between the Commonwealth Minister for Primary Industry and each of the State Ministers responsible for Agriculture. This requirement was incorporated in the legislation to protect the Commonwealth’s contingent liability under guaranteed price arrangements which took into account changes in bulk handling costs.

The character of the industry ‘s stabilisation arrangements is now different and the need for formal agreements between the Commonwealth Minister and appropriate State Ministers to protect Commonwealth revenue no longer exists. Accordingly, the proposed amendment provides for the Australian Wheat Board and the bulk handling authorities to enter into agreements in respect of payments for remuneration for handling and storage of wheat. The revised arrangements will overcome deficiencies in the authority for payments by the Australian Wheat Board to bulk handling authorities which were identified by the Auditor-General. These revised arrangements have been agreed to by the Australian Agricultural Council at its meeting in August 1978.

Under the existing arrangements the Wheat Board payment arrangements provide for a freight advantage allowance of up to 92c per tonne to be applied in respect of wheat shipped from Western Australia reflecting the advantage accruing to that State from its relative proximity to some overseas markets. There has been agreement to the removal of the 92c ceiling in keeping with the principle that has been adopted in moving to State accountability for bulk handling and storage costs. The Bill provides for the removal of the ceiling from the Commonwealth Act The Act is to come into operation on the day it receives royal assent. However, amendments set out in Clause 5 will have effect from 1 October 1978 which was the commencement of the 1978-79 wheat season. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned.

page 2273

POULTRY INDUSTRY ASSISTANCE AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Poultry Industry Assistance Act 1965 so as to increase the level of funds available for poultry research. In addition to the principal amending clause of this Bill, the Parliamentary Counsel has also incorporated a number of formal drafting amendments in the interests of clarity and standardisation of expressions. The Poultry Industry Assistance Act and related legislation were introduced in 1965, for the purpose of imposing a levy on hens over six months of age in commercial flocks exceeding 20. The levy money paid into the Poultry Industry Trust Fund is disbursed as grants to the States for the stabilisation of the poultry industry. No Commonwealth subvention is involved in such payments. The Poultry Industry Assistance Act was amended in 1 966 to provide, among other matters, that in addition to the disbursement to the States, the money in the Trust Fund could be allocated for research purposes. The amending legislation laid down that the Commonwealth Government would meet one half of the expenditure on research, up to a maximum of $200,000 in a financial year. The present Bill seeks to raise that limit by 50 per cent.

In 1968 the Council of Egg Marketing Authorities of Australia- CEMAA- established a poultry research advisory committee, to propose each year a suitable research program. The total allocation for research to date, that is industry plus Commonwealth funds, amounts to $2,171,053, including $260,649 for the 1978-79 program. The funds have been and are being used for research into the control of diseases, for work on nutritional studies, for investigation of egg quality aspects, together with some research dealing with genetic improvement for hens. Over the years, research projects have produced some notable benefits and others show promising results. Summaries of the work are to be found in the several reports of the committee. These reports, although not statutory documents, have been tabled for the information of the Parliament from time to time. In addition to its reports, the committee arranges for a continuing flow of articles on current research topics for publication in industry journals directed to poultry farmers.

Rising costs through the nine years since the poultry research arrangements began have had the effect of eroding the volume of research effort that can be supported by the unchanged and limited research funds. The industry considers that insufficient resources are being devoted to research generally but more especially in the marketing and economic research field. A detailed market research survey was recently commissioned using existing poultry research funds. This survey developed from the earlier quantitative studies funded by the State egg marketing boards. The current survey is examining consumer attitudes to eggs, egg products and egg marketing systems. It is designed to give a better understanding of the factors that influence buying patterns and to provide a sounder basis for future marketing techniques.

The poultry industry does not consider it practicable to reduce the already low level of funding for technical and biological research to the extent necessary to accommodate a continuing research program into marketing. Accordingly, the industry offered to increase its annual contribution by $50,000 so that an effective marketing and economic research program can be maintained. The Government has agreed to match that offer. With passage of this Bill, the total amount available for poultry research in any one financial year, commencing with the current 1978-79 financial year, will become, instead of the present $200,000, a maximum of $300,000 with the Government’s share being up to $150,000. It is estimated that in the current financial year the increase will involve additional Government expenditure of about $23,000. The industry is to be congratulated for its initiative in offering to increase its expenditure on research. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned.

page 2274

STATES GRANTS (ROADS) AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 17 November, on motion by Senator Chaney:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator HAMER:
Victoria

– When I first became a member of this chamber I told honourable senators that my concept of one role of this Senate was that it should be the watchdog on decentralisation to ensure that the executive power of the government was appropriately decentralised. I also expressed the view that the Senate had not adequately performed in this role in the past. The States Grants (Roads) Amendment Bill, which is now before the Senate, is a perfect example of what I was talking about and it is one on which I must take a stand.

Commonwealth funding for roads has a long history. In the 1 920s this funding provided one of the early test cases on the use of section 96 of the Constitution. By the 1950s the Commonwealth was involved in some detailed aspects of expenditures on roads, but this was limited to setting minimum allocations for expenditure on rural roads and imposing a requirement that Commonwealth grants be matched in some degree by allocations from State revenues. I do not think that many people found this objectionable. We are all familiar with the way in which Commonwealth expenditure which is intended to increase the amount available in a particular area is sometimes frustrated by the States reducing their expenditure by a corresponding amount.

There was, however, a dramatic change in 1969-70. Instead of merely specifying minimum expenditures on rural roads, a table of road classifications was drawn up and Commonwealth expenditures were divided between these categories. In 1974 the Whitlam Labor Government made further serious encroachments on State responsibilities for roads. State Governments were forced to submit their road construction programs to the Federal Minister for Transport for approval- an extraordinarily centralised and, in my view, grossly improper move. I am not alone in my view. I should like to quote from a statement made in this chamber at the time. It reads:

I repeat that State governments and local governments, as elected representatives, should take the responsibilities for decisions relating to State government and local government road programs. These decisions should not be made by politicians in Canberra.

Who made that statement? It was no less an authority than the Leader of the Liberal and Country parties in this place. Some amendments were indeed forced by the Senate at that time but they did not go nearly far enough, the then Opposition perhaps being inhibited by what it had done in 1 969. 1 regret to say that the 1 977 Act did not change the situation much, although it did remove some of the detailed special requirements for the State governments to submit their proposed programs for urban arterial roads for approval by the Federal Minister for Transport. Otherwise the 1977 Act is as objectionable as the 1974 Act was, and I think that the Labor shadow Minister for Transport was quite justified in saying in the debate on the 1974 Bill that it ‘is, in the main, a development and a refinement of the progressive roads legislation enacted by the Labor Government ‘.

For those who have not studied the principal Act of 1977 it may be worth pointing out that road expenditure is divided into eight different categories. They are: The construction of national highways; the maintenance of national highways; the construction of national commerce roads; the construction of rural arterial roads; the construction and maintenance of rural local roads; minor traffic and engineering road safety improvements; the construction of urban arterial roads; and the construction of urban local roads. For each of these eight categories the amount to be allocated by the Federal Government is laid down in detail, and overall matching grants are demanded of the States.

What has all this detail to do with the Federal Government? Why should we- to coin a phrase- stick our nose into it? It is, in my view, a gross and totally unwarranted intrusion into the proper responsibilities of State governments. There is no political mileage in it for us, anyway. It allows the States to shift the responsibility.

When there are local complaints about road funding the States can say: ‘The Federal Government is to blame. We would love to make the money available, but Canberra will not let us’. The Federal Government and Federal members are in a ‘no win’ situation. Despite this, the Act is littered with unnecessary controls by Canberra such as: ‘The State may propose to the Minister (that is, the Federal Minister for Transport) . . .’; ‘the Minister may exclude the program of projects . . .’; ‘the Minister may require . . .’; and ‘the Minister may direct . . .’.All those provisions are concerned with urban and rural local and arterial roads, which on any sensible definition of cooperative federalism should be an exclusive State responsibility.

I am not suggesting that the Federal Government has no responsibility for roads. I think it should be responsible- fully responsible- for a first class network of national roads connecting the capital cities. I think there is a sound economic argument that the Federal Government should control the minimum national expenditure on roads, using a combination of section 96 grants and matching State expenditures for this purpose. But that is all. The details ofthe expenditure on roads other than national roads should be left to the States. That is the essence of cooperative federalism. Incidentally, the matching grants demanded at the moment range from the highest in Victoria at $1.25 from the State for each Commonwealth dollar to the lowest in Tasmania at 56c from the State for each Commonwealth dollar.

What are the objections to the present arrangements, apart from the blatant breach of every principle of co-operative federalism? From the point of view of my own State, Victoria- I am confident that the other States have similar problems- the first criticism is of the arbitrary Commonwealth regulation of the State’s road programs by the allocation of Federal funds to a number of specific categories of roads, without reference to Victoria’s real road needs or priorities. The distribution of the allocation is neither that desired by the State nor that recommended by the Commonwealth Bureau of Roads. The second is of the Federal Government’s policy of providing Commonwealth funds for roads on a triennium basis. This inhibits the continuity of road planning. The funding should preferably be on a five-year program. At the very least it should be a rolling three-year program. The third is of the effect of the massive and unheralded changes in the direction of Commonwealth funding.

The fourth criticism is of the Federal Government’s disregard of the recommendations ofthe Commonwealth Bureau of Roads in relation to Victoria’s needs. I think I should elaborate a little on this. The Commonwealth Bureau of Roads recommended a total allocation to Victoria of $ 138.7m a year for the current three-year program, but the actual allocation was only $101m. This is, perhaps, fair enough, in view of the general expenditure restraint. Yet, in the allocation to categories, the Commonwealth allocated $1 1.1m to rural arterial roads against the Bureau’s recommended $5. 7m- an increase of 95 per cent. The Bureau’s recommended figure for rural local roads was $ 14.6 m; yet the Commonwealth allocated $19m to this category- a 30 per cent lift. However, at the same time, whereas the Bureau recommended that $57.8m was required for urban arterial road construction, the Commonwealth allocated only $22.2m. What happened overall was that the Commonwealth allocated only 38 per cent of the funds recommended for urban arterial roads, while in the same Act it granted funds vastly in excess of the recommendations made by the Bureau for rural arterial and rural local roads. It is this massive imbalance that the State has been called on to correct by allocations from its own funds.

The fifth criticism by the State of Victoria is of the unnecessary administrative costs and the duplication of administrative effort involved in preparing State-wide road programs for approval by the Federal Government, regardless of the magnitude or cost of the works.

The final criticism is of the delays in receiving Federal ministerial approval of programs, especially during the last two years. In my view this is a damning list. I repeat that I am not suggesting that the Federal Government has no responsibility for roads. I know that some have argued that this is so, and that the Commonwealth should merely grant the States the amounts now spent by the Commonwealth on roads as increases in the States’ general revenue grants, leaving the State governments to decide what they wish to spend on roads, on hospitals, on schools, on houses, or whatever. I think that this goes too far. I think that a national government does have certain responsibilities for roads.

I suggest these principles: Firstly, the Commonwealth should determine the requirements of national roads and should, through the States, fully fund their construction and maintenance. Secondly, the Commonwealth should determine the minimum acceptable national expenditure on roads other than national roads, and should control such minimum expenditure by making grants under section 96 of the Constitution to the States for such purpose, and by requiring appropriate matching expenditures from the State governments; there being no objection to the State governments, from their own resources, spending amounts on roads in excess of their matching requirements. Thirdly, the Commonwealth should make no attempt to control, supervise or direct the way in which the State governments or local governments spend available funds on roads other than national roads, other than to be satisfied by State Auditors-General that the necessary funds have been properly expended so as to qualify for the appropriate road grants under section 96 of the Constitution.

The problem is: What do we do about this? The Bill before us covers only the Schedules to the Act, increasing the amounts allocated to the various road categories in order to maintain their real value. The defects are in the parts of the principal Act which are not before us and to which amendments therefore cannot be moved in the present debate. I feel very strongly that the principal Act should be amended before the next routine Bill on this subject comes before this chamber next year. The amendments would be simple: Simply cut out the various Schedules where they lay down the details of expenditure on roads other than national roads, and cut out all references to the Federal Minister inspecting or approving programs for such roads. I give notice now that if these amendments are not made by the time the next annual Bill on the present lines appears before this chamber I shall move a private member’s Bill to amend the principal Act to put it into better shape, in accordance with the principles of co-operative federalism. I hope that the Government will take the hint.

Senator Georges:

– What about the Opposition?

Senator HAMER:

– I do not know.

Senator LEWIS:
Victoria

-The Senate is debating the States Grants (Roads) Amendment Bill 1978, which amends the 1977 Act by providing an additional $33m to the States for road works in 1978-79. This brings the Federal allocation to States for roads to $508m, which complies with the Government’s undertaking to maintain road grants to the States at a level equivalent in real terms to the amount granted last year. Last Friday, when we were debating this Bill in the Senate, we heard Senator Gietzelt on behalf of the Opposition criticise the

Government for its failure to spend more money out of its annual revenue on Australian roads.

With the current heavy legislative program, I believe this may be my only chance to speak on a Budget Bill such as this. I want to refer to the Opposition’s continued attacks on the Government for failing to increase its expenditure on so many items. This has applied to every Bill relating to expenditure, except Bills for expenditure on defence, which has been before the Senate. In my view the Australian Labor Party is continuing to show a total lack of financial restraint. For example, last week Labor’s spokesman on the Australian Capital Territory announced that self-government in the Capital Territory would cost ‘no more ‘ if Labor were elected. Iri other words, he was committing the Opposition to an open-ended contract that the people of the Territory, if they voted for self-government, would be funded by the Australian taxpayers apparently forever. There was certainly no limitation in his Press release on either time or money. The Opposition in both this chamber and the other place, has shown the same lack of restraint towards all Budget Bills. It seems that it has learnt nothing from the follies of 1972 to 1975 -

Senator Georges:

- Mr Acting Deputy President, I attract your attention to the state of the House. If the honourable senator is to be irrelevant he ought to have an audience from his own side of the House to listen to him. (Quorum formed).

Senator LEWIS:

– What fascinates me with the Opposition’s criticism of the Government for failing to increase its expenditure on these various items is that the Government has admitted that it wanted to spend $ 1,500m more than it had budgeted to spend. Right from the word go the Treasurer (Mr Howard) admitted that by the time all the programs which the Government wanted to introduce had been placed before the Government, the budgeted deficit was $6,000m. The Government cut the expenditure that it proposed on as many items as it possibly could and reduced that figure to an estimated deficit of $4,500m. In other words, it is saying that the Government admitted quite frankly that it wanted to spend an additional $ 1 ,500m. It seems to me to be an incredible waste of the time of both this chamber and the other place for the Opposition to continue to criticise the Government for failing to spend money when allegedly the Government has quite openly admitted that it wanted to spend more that it had budgeted for. The reason that the Government is not spending this money is that it has adopted a policy of financial restraint, drawing much praise from the Australian taxpayers.

Let us turn to the Bill and acknowledge that the Government has honoured its promise to maintain the real value of the roads grants at last year’s figure. It has honoured this promise in a very difficult year. In other words, the Government has in fact taken the hard option. It could have taken easier options. It could have argued that the funds were needed for some other purpose or not at all and cut them. This Government has maintained its promise in the face of these difficulties.

Let us look at Australian roads. The Federal Government has now granted to the States many thousands of millions of dollars for road purposes. What is the current condition of roads in Australia? I quote from an editorial in the Australian on 1 3 September this year which states:

Australian roads are generally appalling. What we call highways would be classified as second-class side roads in many countries- except for the stretches of a few kilometres here and there which have been transformed at great cost and over much time into freeways or expressways. We have accepted the situation philosophically, pointing to our great distances and small resources of finance.

I agree with that editorial. In particular, the national highways in New South Wales and Queensland are a disgrace. They are narrow, winding, dangerous and poorly surfaced; clearly not enough money has been spent on them. In Victoria, the national highways for example, the Hume Highway- are comparatively so much better as to warrant praise. However, the Hume Highway is still not good enough. Under the current national road program Victoria will spend an estimated $ 19m on the Hume Highway and $7.5m on the Western Highway. They are the declared national highways in Victoria. Whilst I acknowledge that such sums are not small, I point out that, on the cost of construction of the last open stage of the Hume Highway, it is estimate that 26 Vi miles of national highways will be constructed in Victoria for 1977-78. This is not what could be called a major construction of new highways in that State. Recently a shire engineer in a large shire in Victoria pointed out to me that with the funds available to him he was able to build roads estimated to last about 15 years, but that the road funds that were coming to him would require the roads to last 80 years. In other words, the replacement finance was based on an 80-year term but the roads would not last more than 1 5 years. Clearly the conclusion is that more funds must be found.

I personally was disappointed that in the recent infrastructure arrangements the States of

Australia did not take up with the Commonwealth the opportunity of borrowing overseas funds for road purposes. Apparently the Federal Government would have approved such borrowings as being made within the current budgetary restraints. I believe that if the Government were to set up an authority to borrow the funds within Australia, as opposed to borrowing them outside Australia, at a fair rate of interest it might very well be overwhelmed by the funds which the car travelling public of Australia would lend it for this purpose. In a report just to hand the President of the Australian Automobile Association states:

  1. . there is one car for almost every two people in Australia and with persons of driving age the ratio is one to 1.5. Expressed in terms of passenger-kilometres, over 92 per cent of the ground traffic is conveyed by motor cars and station wagons as against six per cent for rail transport and two per cent for public road transport, such as buses.

Clearly many people in Australia are vitally concerned about the conditions of our roads. No doubt they are complaining daily about those conditions. I recognise that the introduction of a borrowing authority within Australia may have some unwanted budgetary consequences. I appreciate that it would, or might, affect the money flow or that there may be some other difficulty. So, personally, I would prefer to see the moneys borrowed overseas. But from wherever the moneys come, something must be done.

It seems to me we should recognise that there could be a great future for Australian industry in the road construction field. We desperately need roads in Australia and Asia needs them as much or more. Australia has the expertise in road construction, both in private enterprise and in the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation. Currently the Corporation is engaged in road construction projects in eight Asian and Pacific countries, namely, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma, Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and Western Samoa. I am not suggesting that the roadworks be undertaken by government authorities, State or federal. I adopt the argument of Mr Gordon Mathams, the Executive Director of the Australian Federation of Constructional Contractors, published in the Australian of 12 September 1978, that construction should be carried out by contractors. He said:

  1. . design and the supervision of construction contracts should be carried out by consultant engineers.

He also said:

The solution lies in the consistent use of large-scale contracts.

He said that at present much of the money which is committed to road construction is ‘spent on employing day labour gangs ‘. He went on to say:

The contracting industry has plant and experience and we know of no better way to get full value for every construction dollar than to call competitive tenders for all work.

If we could encourage the road construction industry in Australia I see a great future for it and what will flow from it. For example, I see a great future in the production of heavy road making equipment. It may be that new methods could be devised and a whole new equipment manufacturing industry developed. Such industries need encouragement. I challenge the Departments of Productivity and Transport to take this up with the States, to provide the finance to see whether this industry could be encouraged so that Australia becomes known as the expert road construction centre of the Pacific.

Clearly, what is needed to develop such an industry is a commitment to a massive injection of funds over a period of years so that road construction companies are able to win long term contracts which will give them security to purchase new equipment and to develop their expertise. Clearly, within the current financial difficulties a program such as I suggest could be developed only outside the annual Budget. I am suggesting capital works of a massive nature and I cannot see how funds of the nature I envisage could be found out of our annual revenue. Some different scheme must be devised.

The States failed to pick up the opportunity to borrow overseas the amounts of capital necessary to implement such a program during the recent infrastructure arrangements and it may be that in due course they will regret missing that opportunity. A scheme such as the infrastructure scheme should now be devised. It may be that finance could be provided by a system of tollways. Certainly that system could be developed in the more populous States but I recognise the difficulties in other States. I am not suggesting any one solution but a system of tollways is one that could be considered. I urge that, as a matter of the utmost importance, the Government take up with the States the possibilities of this program and devise with them a scheme to obtain the funds necessary to build the roads. Certainly there should be a commitment by the time of the next infrastructure arrangements. Clearly, what is needed is a national road building program, and now is the time for such a program.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– in reply- I thank the three honourable senators who have spoken for their contribution to the debate. Today Senator Hamer raised a matter which has been debated on a number of occasions, namely the extent to which the Commonwealth should be involved in the precise allocation of funds which are made available to the States for road purposes. In that debate to date the Government has maintained a position that, to the extent that it is involved in the provision of section 96 road grants, it should have some say in expenditure priorities for those funds. The Government takes the view that this Parliament, which raises the funds and then makes them available for that purpose, has some duty to ensure that its priorities are observed. Senator Hamer gave a very clear message to the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) and I will certainly ensure that what he raised will be drawn to the Minister’s attention for future consideration.

The contribution by Senator Lewis was pitched more at the practical problem of meeting Australia’s roads needs. The honourable senator raised a number of interesting propositions, at least one of which I had not heard before and which, once again, I think should be referred to the Minister for examination. I note that he also asked that a suggestion be referred to the Minister for Productivity (Mr Macphee). I will see that that also is done. I acknowledge and adopt the honourable senator’s opening statements that dealt with the general financial position of the Government and the way in which roads grants fitted into the general budgetary strategy that the Government has adopted.

Senator Gietzelt raised a number of queries when the Senate was debating the Bill last week. In particular he was concerned about the adjustment figure. Bearing in mind the Commonwealth’s undertaking to maintain the value of the grants in real terms, he felt that the figure of 7 per cent was inadequate. That is a matter which is open to endless argument. We could all be very satisfied, perhaps in retrospect in a year’s time, as to what the position was. In any event the commitment to maintain grants in real terms is a substantial commitment. The figure of 7 per cent exceeds the Treasury Budget forecast of a 6 per cent increase in the consumer price index. This, of course, allows for the fact that price movements differ in different sectors. I do not believe there is anything I can usefully add to that comment.

Senator Gietzelt was also concerned about the declining share of total Budget outlays going to roads and this, of course, is true. The fact of the matter is that certain items of Commonwealth expenditure have been taking a larger proportion- areas such as health, education and welfare in particular have had an increasing share of Commonwealth expenditure. It necessarily follows that other areas have been getting a declining share. In general it might be said that capital works have suffered. It may be of some consolation to Senator Gietzelt to know that the government which he supported in fact really commenced this trend. An increasing share of total budget expenditure went to roads up until 1972-73 when it reached a figure of 2.74 per cent. In 1973-74 the share declined to 2.5 per cent; in 1974-75 to 2.03 percent; and in 1975-76 to 1.99 per cent. It has not been possible, given the Government’s general economic policy, to reverse that trend. But the roads’ share of the Budget has stabilised at around about 1.8 per cent in each of the last three years. I think the Government and most honourable senators would agree that it would be desirable for more money to be provided for roads, and hence the interest which I have expressed in the suggestion put forward by Senator Lewis.

Senator Gietzelt also made reference to the fact that the States are placing increasing burdens on their citizens. I think Senator Gietzelt said that this is being forced on them by the Commonwealth. The honourable senator said that the States were being forced to increase their motor vehicle registration charges in order to meet their road commitments. There has been continuous debate in the Senate about the obligations of the States as against those of the Commonwealth. In fact ever since this Government came into office there has been a substantial and continuous increase in general purpose assistance to the States which gives the States greater flexibility in determining their own priorities. It is a matter for the States whether they allocate those funds to roads, to the health, education and welfare fields. Therefore, if one looks for example, at the education budgets of the States one would conclude that the States have chosen to give a massive priority, say, to that area. Again there seems to be a great priority in the health area. It is not for the Commonwealth to interfere with that priority, or to carry the whole of the blame for the declining proportion of national expenditure on roads. It is a matter concerning which I think there is an increasing public consciousness and, therefore, perhaps the politics of the situation will change and roads will enjoy a higher priority. I do not wish to delay the Senate by referring o the other small matters that were raised. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2279

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL (No. 3) 1978

Bills received from the House of Representatives.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Senator Chaney) agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1978, the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1978, the Income Tax (Non-Resident Companies) Bill 1978, the Income Tax (Companies and Superannuation Funds) Amendment Bill 1978 and the Income Tax (Rates) Amendment Bill 1978 being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole.

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

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

Second Readings

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– I move:

I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speeches in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows-

Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1978

In a detailed statement made by the Treasurer (Mr Howard) on 27 September 1978, it was indicated that the Government has decided to put beyond doubt that employers are entitled to deductions for the cost of their employees’ long service and other leave only at the time when payment for the leave is made. This Bill will give effect to that decision.

The need for the amendment arises from a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria in the case of Nilsen Development Laboratories Pty

Ltd v. The Federal Commissioner of Taxation. In its decision, the court held that an employer is entitled to a deduction for the cost of an employee’s leave in the year in which the employee becomes entitled to the leave or in any year in which there is an accretion to a previouslyaccrued leave liability, notwithstanding that no payment is made to the employee. Appeals against the Supreme Court decision have been lodged by the taxpayer concerned and the Commissioner of Taxation and, in the normal course of events, the Government would prefer to await the decision of an appellate court on such an important matter before considering an amendment of the law. However, there are several important reasons why the Government has decided that on this occasion it should not wait for the appeal processes to be concluded.

Firstly, the decision has significant revenue implications for the Government. If deductions for leave were to be allowed against 1977-78 income on the basis ofthe Supreme Court decision, the cost to revenue in the current year would be of the order of $600m. A revenue loss of such proportions in 1978-79 could not be contemplated. Secondly, the decision creates considerable uncertainty among taxpayers because of the disturbance of a practice that has long been regarded as settled and has been accepted by the very great majority of taxpayers over past years. This uncertainty would continue until the appeals have been finally decided. Taxpayers would be aware that there must be a possibility that if one part of the original decision were upset on appeal-the part which indicates that deductions may be taken when payment is made for previously-accrued leave- they could lose very substantial deductions in future years.

The Bill specifies that the amendment allowing deductions for leave liabilities when payment is made is to apply in respect of assessments for the 1977-78 income year and subsequent years, other than assessments made before 28 September 1978. This will protect the revenue from the loss of up to $600m in 1978-79, but it will also ensure that employers do not lose deductions when employees arc paid for leave which had previously accrued and for which deductions had not been allowed.

The amendment will not apply in respect of assessments yet to be raised in respect of earlier years and it will not apply to assessments already raised in respect ofthe 1977-78 and prior years where the taxpayer’s rights are protected by way of objection or appeal to a court. The finalisation of these latter cases will have to await the decision of an appellate court, and it could well be that further amendments will be required when that decision is given. Although the nature of these further amendments will depend on the final decision of the court, it is envisaged that amendments may be necessary either to ensure that employers do not suffer any loss of deductions or to ensure that employers do not gain any double benefit, for example, by having had a deduction when payment is made and by also being found entitled to deductions at the time of accrual.

The Government realises that by providing for the amendment to apply to the 1977-78 income year, it will be seen as having retrospective effect. For this reason, the Government was very reluctant to take this course. At the same time, it must be stressed that the amendment will not result in the loss of any deductions for taxpayers. It is a question only of the timing of deductions.

There are also the other aspects that I have mentioned- the fact that the amendment will do no more than restore previously long-accepted practice, the fact that it will guard against the possible loss of deductions and will resolve the uncertainty arising from the decision and, finally, the significant revenue implications for 1978-79. Moreover, the Bill does not foreclose on the options available to the Government in the future as to adoption of the accruals basis of deductions. Details of the amendment are contained in the explanatory memorandum that is being circulated.

Finally, I draw to the attention of honourable senators that this Bill was amended in the House of Representatives to provide that income tax deductions are to be available in respect of gifts made to the Sir Robert Menzies Memorial Trust. That amendment is reflected in the Bill now before the Senate. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1978

The Bill that I now bring before the Senate contains further measures to counter tax avoidance and to improve the equity and balance of the income system. It also contains legislation designed to encourage investors to put capital into the production of Australian films. Honourable senators will recall that earlier this year the Government introduced a number of major amendments directed against prevailing tax avoidance practices. I spoke then in a general way about the problems that are posed by tax avoidance arrangements, and the Government has subsequently further demonstrated, by the steps it has taken, the seriousness of its intent to strike down these arrangements. I shall, however, speak first about the policy initiative concerning capital investment in Australian films.

page 2281

CAPITAL INVESTMENT IN AUSTRALIAN FILM RIGHTS

The proposal to change the income tax law in this respect was foreshadowed in the policy speech for the last elections delivered on 21 November 1977, and the key points of the changes were outlined in a statement that the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Ellicott) and the Treasurer (Mr Howard) released on 27 April last underlying the proposed changes in a belief that if investors could deduct their capital investment in Australian film rights over 2 years instead of, as at present, over a much longer period of up to 25 years, there would be greater investment by Australians in the production of Australian films. There are obvious tax benefits in a quick write-off of capital costs and, when this new concession is taken together with other assistance such as that provided through the Australian Film Commission, the Government can justly claim to be lending significant support to the Australian film industry and all engaged it it.

The concession for capital investment in Australian film rights will be implemented by amendments to the provisions of the income tax law that have, since 1956, allowed otherwise non-deductible capital costs of acquiring industrial property rights used in the production of assessable income to be written off over specified periods. For copyrights, which are the relevant property in this context, the costs have been subject to a tax write-off over 25 years, or any lesser period for which the rights subsist or are held. The amendments now proposed will- in relation to rights in Australian films first used for income producing purposes after 21 November 1977 - substitute two years for 25 years as the basic write-off period. The longer period will, however, remain for those who wish to use it.

The Minister for Home Affairs will have the responsibility of determining which films are to be classed as ‘Australian films’. The Bill proposes that an Australian film will be one that the Minister certifies has been, or is to be, made wholly or substantially in Australia, and is a film with a significant Australian content. It will also include a film that the Minister certifies has been, or is to be, made under an agreement between Government authorities of Australia and another country. The Bill contains extensive guidelines for the determination of when a film has a significant Australian content. In amending the relevant provisions, it is necessary also to guard against their misuse for tax avoidance purposes, and the Bill contains measures to that end, effective after 27 April 1978, the date on which the amendments were foreshadowed. The antiavoidance measures are directed against arrangements to secure excessive deductions by inflating the cost of rights or by deflating their sale price when they are disposed of.

page 2281

CURRENT YEAR LOSSES

In terms of space- 47 of its 72 pages- the present Bill is mainly devoted to amendments dealing with current year losses that were announced by the Treasurer on 7 April when introducing the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 1978, and that are now expressed to be effective as from that date. Honourable Senators will know from that earlier speech that these amendments are to employ and adapt the wellsettled principles governing the deductibility by companies of losses sustained in prior years. In the relatively uncomplicated case, the adaptation will mean that, where there is a point within a year of income at which there has been a more than 50 per cent change in beneficial ownership of the company as at the beginning of the year, the net losses sustained by the company in the period before the change will not be available to be offset against the net income of the period after the disqualifying change, unless the company has carried on throughout that income period the same business as it carried on immediately before the change. Similar principles are to apply where an income period of a year precedes a loss period of the same year.

The point of these amendments, as of the provisions governing deductibility of prior year losses, is to prevent income earned by a company under the proprietorship of one set of shareholders being diminished for tax purposes by losses sustained under the proprietorship of a different group of people. The proposed amendments are undoubtedly complex. This is due to the effort that has been made to spell out, in the great variety of factual situations that can exist in practice, how the current year losses provisions are to operate, and to guard against the new provisions being themselves made the subject of tax avoidance arrangements.

Much of what is in the measures stems from the necessity to modify provisions of the Assessment Act that are constructed for application to a year of income as a whole so that they can be applied to separate periods that make up a year. Moreover, the measures must be capable of effecting this modification where a company that has suffered a disqualifying change in shareholdings gets its income or deductions via a partnership or its income through a trust. And, of course, the legislation has to comprehend situations where there is more than one disqualifying change in shareholdings in the course of a year, and a mixture of loss and income periods.

page 2282

DIVIDEND STRIPPING

Here too, I refer honourable senators to what has been said on earlier occasions- in this instance in my second reading speech on 1 1 May last and in a statement that the Treasurer released on 7 May. The proposed amendment under this head is yet another legislative attempt to prevent companies that engage in dividend stripping from achieving double benefits. The double benefit, where it arises, is represented by the freedom from tax of the stripping dividend conferred by the rebate on inter-corporate dividends plus a deduction for the loss on the sale of the stripped shares after their value has been reduced by payment of the dividend.

A provision was enacted in 1972 with the purpose of eliminating this double benefit. It specifies that only so much of a dividend received in a straight-forward dividend stripping operation as exceeds the cost to the stripping company of the shares to be stripped may qualify for rebate. That provision is now being amended, effective from 7 May 1978, to make it applicable where a third company, or a trust, is interposed between the company to be stripped and the stripper. The cost of the shares or interests in the interposed company or trust will be offset against the amount of stripping dividend otherwise eligible for rebate. Also effective from 7 May 1978 will be an amendment to the new anti-stripping provisions being introduced by the Bill brought down in April. These new provisions strike at practices whereby a company receives the stripping dividend but an associated entity suffers the paper ‘ loss ‘ on the purchase and sale of the shares to be stripped. While they guard against a company being interposed between the company to be stripped and the stripper, they do not cater for similar interposition of trusts. That gap is now being closed.

page 2282

BRANCH PROFITS TAX

The Government also proposes by this Bill to give form to the proposed branch profits tax on the taxable income of non-resident companies that was foreshadowed in a ministerial statement on 4 November 1977. As indicated then, there is a lack of balance in our tax system as between foreign companies that carry on business in

Australia through a subsidiary company incorporated or otherwise resident here, and those that conduct their business through a branch of a company resident, for tax purposes, in another country. In each case, taxable income is computed in the same way and bears the same rate of company tax- now 46 per cent- but while the profit remittances of the subsidiary bear dividend withholding tax, there is no further tax in respect of ‘remittances’ of branch profits to head office or of dividends paid to foreign shareholders out of those remittances. The additional tax proposed to be levied on taxable income of non-resident companies is being introduced to redress this lack of balance. It will be at the rate of 5 per cent of the taxable income of such a company. I mention that the tax is being levied in this form because it is impracticable to impose a tax on ‘remittances’ of branch profits. I also observe that while the term ‘branch profits tax’ is used as a matter of convenience, the tax is to apply whether or not there is a branch in Australia, but subject to the exclusions that I will mention in a moment. In striking a branch profits tax rate of 5 per cent of taxable income, the Government has aimed to achieve, as closely as is practicable, a reasonable balance in the Australian tax liabilities attaching to profits of foreign-owned subsidiaries and branches, bearing in mind that, in both cases, the companies are likely to plough back some of their profits into further developments in Australia. In last year’s announcement of the branch profits tax, it was indicated that the tax would not fall on dividend income of non-resident companies, nor would it apply to film royalties, shipping profits or insurance premiums taxed under special provisions. These exclusions are made by the Bill. Representations made to the Government since the time of that announcement have led to one additional exclusion. This concerns the profits of non-resident life assurance companies that are allocated towards bonuses and other payments due to Australian policy holders. The Government has accepted the point that, if the tax were placed on these profits, it would effectively be borne by Australian policy holders and not, as intended, by the company or its overseas shareholders, if any. The Government has decided that the tax will apply to that part of the 1977-78 tax year falling after 4 November 1977, and to subsequent years. Although the branch profits tax takes the form of a rate increase, it is in essence a new tax. Hence it would be inappropriate to make it retrospective in effect by applying it to the full 1977-78 tax year. Before concluding my remarks on this subject, I mention that while the basic application ofthe branch profits tax is provided for in the Bill, the Income Tax (NonResident Companies) Bill 1978 that I shall shortly introduce will formally declare the rate of the tax.

page 2283

PRIVATE COMPANIES IN LIQUIDATION

I come now to measures designed to meet representations from the liquidators of private companies that the undistributed profits tax provisions of the income tax law are so structured as to cause unreasonable delay in the final winding up of private companies in liquidation. An example may be the best way of illustrating the point. Let us say that a private company has earned a taxable income in the first four months of an income year and its liquidator wishes to make an immediate distribution of the income to shareholders, and to wind the company up. The problem is that he must wait six months until May ofthe income year to effect the distribution because only the dividends paid in the prescribed period of 12 months commencing two months before the end of the income year can be taken into account for undistributed profits tax purposes in relation to the year. To overcome the difficulty, liquidators in this situation will be enabled by the Bill to make a qualifying distribution to shareholders before the commencement of the prescribed period.

Mr President, that completes my remarks at this stage on the main features of the present Bill. All of its provisions are explained in a comprehensive explanatory memorandum and in a supplementary memorandum that has been prepared to explain a number of technical amendments proposed by the Government in the House of Representatives, and which were adopted by it. The original memorandum, when read with the supplementary document, explains the Bill in the form now before the Senate. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Income Tax (Non-Resident Companies) Bill 1978

This Bill formally imposes, at a rate of 5 per cent, the branch profits tax which I referred to earlier in some detail in introducing the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1978, which creates the liability to the tax. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Income Tax (Companies and Superannuation Funds) Amendment Bill 1978

This Bill is related, but only in a formal way, to the proposed branch profits tax. Its sole purpose is to make it clear that the Income Tax (Companies and Superannuation Funds) Act 1978, which was enacted recently, is not the Act imposing the branch profits tax. The branch profits tax is proposed to be imposed by the Income Tax (Non-Resident Companies) Bill 1978 which has just been introduced. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Income Tax (Rates) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1978

This also is a formal measure related to the proposed branch profits tax mentioned earlier. Its sole purpose is to make it clear that the Income Tax (Rates) Act 1976 is not the Act imposing the branch profits tax, and I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 2283

QUARANTINE AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– I move:

I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

The main purpose of the Bill is to increase the penalties that may be imposed upon persons convicted of offences against the quarantine laws of Australia. The existing penalties have remained unchanged for almost a decade and are not now commensurate with the gravity of quarantine offences, nor do they provide an adequate deterrent to persons contemplating a deliberate breach of quarantine. Quarantine breaches should be regarded as particularly serious in view of their possible outcome. Notwithstanding the remarkable success achieved in the world fight against smallpox, many other human diseases continue to pose serious problems overseas. These, and the newly emergent and dangerous viral haemorrhagic fevers, such as lassa fever and marburg virus disease, emphasise the need for continuing vigilance and an effective and responsive quarantine service.

Honourable senators will no doubt know that despite the best efforts of health authorities in the countries concerned, rabies continues its steady spread across western Europe. We have succeeded in keeping this dreaded disease out of Australia for a century and continue to apply the most rigorous controls on the importation of animals which could be a source of infection. The establishment of this disease in Australia, which could follow an illegal importation of a cat or dog, would have profound effects on all Australians, requiring them to adopt a whole new lifestyle and a change in their attitudes to domestic pets and indigenous animals.

In the animal and plant health fields, I am sure all honourable senators appreciate that Australia’s rural production and the advantages we enjoy on overseas markets for our livestock and agricultural products depend critically on our comparative freedom from serious pests and diseases. It has been estimated, for example, that an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Australia could cost this country up to $600 m per annum. Such a disaster would have grave economic and social consequences for all Australians. It has been shown that illegal importation is a most important factor in the world spread of animal and plant diseases. In this regard I refer honourable senators to a recent incident in Australia where Newcastle disease was diagnosed in a consignment of illegally imported Indonesian birds. If this disease spread amongst our bird population there would be an immediate and substantial drop in our export earnings and complete disruption of our poultry industry. Prompt action by quarantine authorities in this case averted any spread of the disease from the smuggled birds nevertheless, the importance of this incident is well illustrated by overseas experience. A Newcastle disease outbreak in California in 1971-72 involved the destruction of some 12 million birds and cost the American people well over $56m.

It is only in comparatively recent decades that the natural quarantine protection afforded by Australia’s geographic location has been eroded. The comforting isolation of our island position and the natural barriers of time and distance have become less relevant as transport has become speedier and more flexible, and trade and travel has increased, particularly from areas where many exotic diseases are well established. In the face of these developments, honourable senators will know that conventional entry of persons, animals and goods into Australia is rigorously controlled. No country can guarantee continuing exclusion of all exotic diseases. However, the Government is firmly committed to continue all practical measures necessary to minimise the possibility of such diseases being introduced and to maintain the quarantine record which continues to be the envy of other countries.

Honourable senators will be aware from the announcement by my colleague, the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon), on 9 July, that the Government has become increasingly concerned at the activities of foreign fishing vessels and others off our northern shores. Any unauthorised landing on the Australian coast constitutes a risk of disease introduction. This factor, coupled with the special problems of distance and remoteness across our northern shores, and our relative proximity to countries where major exotic diseases exist, was a major consideration in the decision announced by my colleague to upgrade Australia’s northern surveillance. The new arrangements, which will be implemented as soon as appropriate arrangements can be made, will include a daily aerial search by charter aircraft of the northern coastline between Geraldton in Western Australia, and Cairns in Queensland. The purpose of this program, from a quarantine viewpoint, will be to alert quarantine authorities to any matters of quarantine significance and provide a basis for immediate quarantine follow-up where necessary.

The Government is acutely aware that there is a greater need than ever before to maintain an effective quarantine system and the legislation which provides the framework for that system must be adequate for the task. The Government, however, accepts that a sound quarantine system requires not only tough penalties for quarantine breaches but must also provide a framework which will encourage public co-operation. In this respect, honourable senators will know that we have embarked on a comprehensive program of quarantine station development intitiated amongst other things, to facilitate importation of small animals into this country. Extended waiting periods for quarantine station accommodation increase the incentive for illegal importation.

As an example of the seriousness with which the Government views breaches of quarantine, I draw the attention of honourable senators to the proposed maximum penalty in respect of offences against section 50 of the Act. This section prohibits the landing of any imported plants or animals in a place other than a proclaimed port. The Bill proposes to increase the maximum penalty for a breach of that provision from $500 or 6 months imprisonment to $5,000 or 2 years imprisonment. As another example, I would draw the attention of honourable senators to the proposed maximum penalty provided under sub-section (1) of section 67 of the Act, which prohibits a person from knowingly bringing into Australia any goods, animals, plants, disease agents, et cetera, in contravention of the Act. Offences of this sort strike at the very foundation of our quarantine barrier and call for an extremely severe penalty. It is therefore proposed that the maximum monetary penalty be increased from $2,000 to $10,000. The Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) has directed his department to maintain a rigorous approach to quarantine enforcement backed by firm prosecution action where appropriate. All quarantine personnel have been assured that they have the strong support of the Government in carrying out their quarantine duties and responsibilities.

I now turn to the manner of dealing with offences, at present offences against section 79, forging documents, and section 83, misleading a quarantine officer, are expressed as indictable offences and cannot be dealt with in a court of summary jurisdiction. In line with provisions in other Acts, the Bill proposes that these offences may be prosecuted in courts of summary jurisdiction and that these courts, when disposing of a matter, be empowered to impose a maximum fine of $2,000 or 1 year imprisonment. However the Bill also provides that where an offence may be prosecuted summarily or upon indictment and that prosecution is brought in a court of summary jurisdiction, that court may commit the defendant for trial or, if it is satisfied that it is proper to do so may, with the consent of the prosecutor, as well as the defendant, determine the proceedings summarily. At present the consent of the defendant only is required. This amendment would protect the right of the prosecution in appropriate cases to require proceedings to be determined in a jurisdiction where higher penalties are available.

The Bill further provides that the maximum penalty which may be imposed by regulation under the Act be increased from $1,000 to $2,000. Amendments to the penalties applicable for specific offences against the regulations are being prepared. Finally, the Bill provides that the value of goods which cannot be effectively treated and which may be destroyed without prior ministerial approval be increased from $20 to $200. The present $20 limit is administratively inefficient and out of line with present-day values. Mr President, the Bill before the Senate reflects the Government’s firm commitment to an effective quarantine system for Australia. A realistic set of penalties for quarantine breaches is a most important component of this system. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 2285

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (NATIONAL STANDARDS) AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment.

page 2285

PRIMARY INDUSTRY BANK AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1978

Debate resumed from 15 November 1978, on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– Just a year ago the Bill to establish what was then the Rural Bank, and what ultimately became the Primary Industry Bank, was passed by this Parliament. Now, for the second time, legislation is before the Parliament to amend the original Act. The purpose of the amendment is to make available to the Bank for on-lending $30m from the Income Equalisation Deposit Account at an interest rate of 5 per cent. Towards the end of my speech I shall be moving an amendment to the motion for the second reading. That amendment refers to the failure of the Government to fulfil the pre- 1977 election promise ofthe Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to provide funds at concessional rates of interest. The amendment is in the process of being printed and will be circulated before I conclude my remarks.

About three weeks ago when this matter was last discussed in the Senate- just in case somebody is interested in it- I was castigated by Senator Thomas for raising a matter of public importance and then having nothing to say on it because I had spoken for only 20 minutes. To set the record straight, the reason that I spoke for only 20 minutes was that there had been an agreement between the Government Whip and the Acting Opposition Whip to reduce the time available to all speakers on that matter of public importance. Apparently the other speakers were not aware of that agreement and I was the only one who voluntarily reduced the time which had been allocated to each speaker.

The promise that the Prime Minister made, and to which my amendment refers, was that the Primary Industry Bank would provide credit to viable borrowers for up to 30 years at concessional rates of interest. Despite all the contortions of the apologists for this Bank, as it finally materialised, no Government spokesman has established that that promise has not been broken.

Quite clearly, it has been broken but the people who speak for the Government will not admit that. The first point I want to make is that the Prime Minister promised both concessional interest rates and long term loans of up to 30 years at concessional rates of interest to viable borrowers. He promised both. Apologists for the Government have endeavoured to get themselves off the hook on this issue by emphasising that, of course, by making available to the Bank funds for on-lending to farmers on long term and at rates identical to those charged by the Commonwealth Development Bank and by trading banks on overdraft, is in fact a concession. This, of course, ignores the fact that the Prime Minister promised both 30-year terms and concessional rates of interest. The Government certainly has not fulfilled that promise, and hence the amendment I will move at the end of my speech. The second significant point to note is that, with the high interest rates now prevailing, extension of the term of a loan beyond 20 years, which is currently available from the Commonwealth Development Bank, and even more so beyond 25 years, which is available from the term loan fund, has a negligible impact upon the annual loan servicing costs. I will say more about that later.

Although the Government has persuaded a couple of people in the Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers Council to support it in regard to this Bank, the fact quite clearly is that the great majority of farmers have not been fooled by the Government’s attempts to get itself off the hook for failing to fulfil the Prime Minister’s election promise. I notice that even within the Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers Council there is not unanimous support for this Bank. Mr Michael Davidson, the President of the Graziers Association of New South Wales, a significant figure in the Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers Council, and one of the two farmer directors of the Primary Industry Bank of Australia, said on 11 August:

The policies that we wanted adopted were not adopted by the Government. The Government chose to institute a bank that had largely been prepared by the Australian Bankers Association. I still say that we would prefer to see a bank with a different structure, a different broad structure to more of a prime lending role.

Notwithstanding the fact that the Government has persuaded a couple of people in the Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers Council to go in to bat for it on this issue, other significant people in that organisation are opposed to the Primary Industry Bank as it ultimately emerged. When we look at the other larger farmer organisations we find that Mr Cassell of the Cattlemen’s

Union of Australia succinctly described the bank as a sellout. In August, at the meeting of the Australian Farmers Federation, the executive of the Federation described the new Primary Industry Bank as being completely unacceptable to rural industry in its present form. Its present form has not changed since that statement was made. As recently as yesterday Mr O’Brien, the President of the Australian Wool and Meat Producers Federation, the farmer organisation with the greatest number of affiliated members, said:

Upon direction from the AWMPF Annual Conference in May, and I should say with continual support and encouragement from your Executive, the AWMPF has pursued a very strong line against the Charter of PIBA.

Those comments are taken from Mr O’Brien’s address to the AWMPF conference in Canberra yesterday. Mr O’Brien continued:

The Federal . . . Organisations, except for one organisation, were united in supporting the AWMPF against PIBA.

I hope but I am not confident that we will hear no more of the nonsense that we heard from Government spokesmen a few weeks ago about this institution being accepted by farmers as the sort of institution they want or the sort of institution they were promised by the Prime Minister. Finally, of course, Mr Sinclair admitted in a Press statement issued on 7 August of this year that the Prime Industry Bank was not an institution to provide cheap money for farmers. If Government spokesmen want to try to get the Prime Minister off the hook for the Government’s failure to honour his election promise, or if they want to assert that the Government has in fact kept its promise, they should also explain why Mr Sinclair made that admission on 7 August. The essential point to remember about the promise is, of course, that Mr Fraser promised both concessional interest rates and 30-year terms. The Bank is empowered to lend for up to 30 years- whether it actually does is another matter- but the interest rates which will apply are identical to those for the Commonwealth Development Bank and trading bank overdrafts. Extending the term of a loan beyond 20 years at prevailing interest rates has a negligible impact on annual repayments.

Of course, the question of whether there is justification for making finance available to agriculture as a continuing policy is a matter of opinion. Indeed, there is a number of sound arguments against an ongoing policy of making funds available to agriculture at concessional rates of interest. Firstly- many farmers are coming to be aware of this- it was set out clearly in an article by B. J. Standen in the Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics in April of this year that making funds available to agriculture at concessional rates of interest causes a shortage of finance in agriculture. This is only to be expected. If interest rates are arbitrarily set at low levels, it is quite predictable that less money will be made available for lending in the agricultural sector than if interest rates are not arbitrarily set at low levels. Standen also made the point that increasing the availability of finance to agriculture from government or semi-government sources has the effect of crowding out private finance. To use a term favoured by the Government in a different context, finance from private trading banks previously made available as overdrafts has been crowded out by funds made available by government or semi-government bodies such as the Primary Industry Bank, the Commonwealth Development Bank and the rural reconstruction authorities.

The second point that should be noted is that if funds are made available at concessional rates of interest for the purchase of land it is almost inevitable that that concession will be capitalised in the price of land, that the equity requirement of people who want to buy land will go up- it will make it more and not less difficult for people to buy agricultural land- and the amount paid in interest will finish up being about the same except that the rate of interest will be lower and the principal will be greater. Concessional rates of interest have a regressive effect on the distribution of income in the farming community. This was studied by C. B. Baker and in an article published in the Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics in 1974 he established that in fact the smaller farmers are less likely to owe money than the larger farmers and, as the smaller farmers have lower incomes than the larger farmers, the effect within the farming community of making funds available at concessional rates of interest is to give proportionately greater benefits to the larger, high income farmers than to the smaller, low income farmers. There is a widespread but fallacious belief that it is the smaller farmers who owe a good deal of money. The fact is the reverse. The larger farmers are more likely to owe money than the smaller fanners. That is not surprising because the major reason they owe money is that to become larger farmers they purchase land and other equipment. Of course, if the margin of return to investment in agriculture is low it is a market signal against investing further funds in agriculture. It certainly does not justify a policy aimed at resisting that market signal by encouraging further investment in agriculture. Likewise, if agriculture is losing its comparative advantage, that is a signal to restrict or to reduce the amount of investment in agriculture, not a signal to increase it.

The arguments I have outlined against providing finance at concessional interest rates to agriculture as an on-going policy are sound. They are accepted by many people associated with the provision of finance to agriculture. They seem to be accepted by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics and are accepted, indeed, by a significant number of farmers. But whatever the merits or demerits of providing funds at concessional interest rates, there is no excuse for making extravagant promises, as the Prime Minister did just a year ago, which become inoperative as soon as the votes are safely in the ballot box. That is precisely what happened in this instance.

On the broader question of interest rates, in the last fortnight we have seen some financial institutions, under a great deal of political pressure, reduce their nominal interest rates. But one little trick with respect to overdraft rates pointed out in the Australian Financial Review a couple of weeks ago is worth repeating. The banks of course are only acting under pressure. Interest rates have been forced down by political fiat and not by market forces and the trading banks have resisted this.

Senator Peter Baume:

– But you are glad to see them come down, aren’t you?

Senator WALSH:

– Just hear me out. I have said that nominal interest rates have come down. Whether real interest rates come down is another matter, because this little trick operates in this way: Somebody is granted an overdraft of $100,000 at 10 per cent interest. The bank then insists that $25,000 of that $100,000 be deposited with the bank on fixed deposit at seven per cent interest. That is part of the deal. The outcome of course is that the real rate of interest being charged is 1 1 per cent and not 10 per cent.

The other point about interest rates in general is that the Prime Minister appears to be unaware of the mutual exclusiveness of his policy of attempting to maintain the international value of the Australian dollar and his populist policy of forcing down interest rates in Australia by fiat. The only reason that as much private capital has been persuaded either to come to Australia or to remain in Australia over the last couple of years, knowing, as everybody does, that the Australian dollar is weak and is likely to be devalued is that there has been a significant interest differential between Australia and the countries from which that capital usually comes. Generally the interest rates in Australia have been higher than the interest rates overseas by a margin of three per cent or four per cent. That gap has now closed. If political fiat, disguised as something else, forces interest rates in Australia down, one of the consequences will be a worsening of our balance of payments position and a strengthening of pressure for devaluation of the dollar. The simple fact is that, given our continuing adverse balance on current account, a policy of forcing interest rates in Australia down is not viable unless the dollar is devalued. Mr Fraser appears to believe that he can do both- maintain the exchange rate and force interest rates down. The two policies are mutually exclusive, and they will not last.

The confusion within the Government ranks over this legislation was brought out in the debate in the House of Representatives. I was sur.pised, to say the least, that the leading speaker for the Government after the Treasurer (Mr Howard) was Sir William McMahon, whose activities these days seem mainly to be directed toward preserving the rorts cf tax dodgers.

Senator Mulvihill:

- Sir William McMahon has grave reservations about the present financial policies of Mr Howard.

Senator WALSH:

-Oh, yes, I know that. But the passage I am about to quote says something about the confused state of Sir William McMahon ‘s thinking on the matter. The passage I will quote afterwards from Mr Short establishes the confusion between different members of the Government on this matter. Sir William, in referring to his term of office as Minister for Primary Industry, which I think was in the late 1950s, said that -

Senator Archer:

– What has this to do with the PIBA?

Senator WALSH:

– That is a good question, but Senator Archer should direct it to McMahon because he raised the matter in the House of Representatives. That is a fair question, but the honourable senator should not direct it to me. He should direct it to the person who put these remarks into the Hansard record. Sir William McMahon said:

It was my intention that it -

That is, the Commonwealth Development Bank- should relate only to primary industry. I ask our mate from Parramatta: Can you get that? Need there be any further justification for one ‘s belief in the primary industries, their basic role in this country and the wish to protect them? I remember these words, and they will be written on my heart when I die:

The function was to provide finance for persons for the purpose of primary industry, and for no other purpose. That is why the Development Bank was created. The man who gave me the inspiration was Dr Strong of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics.

I must admit that by the time the law came in- I was then Minister for Primary Industry- someone had added ‘also for the establishment and development of industrial undertakings’. That hurt my feelings because I did not want anyone else to get any of this money that was to be provided by the Development Bank. So to suit me ‘particularly small business undertakings’ was added. That was something that I had to accept because we wanted a primary industry bank. That was the origin of a primary industry bank in this country of ours.

Ignoring all the gibberish that preceded the last sentence, that was the origin, said Sir William McMahon, of a primary industry bank in Australia- that was the Commonwealth Development Bank- in 1959. The next Government speaker was the honourable member for Ballarat, Mr Short, who said:

I emphasise that this is the first time in the history of this nation that the rural sector has had its own specialist nationwide bank.

The first quote says something about Sir William’s confused thinking on the whole matter and the two quotes together show us something about the confused thinking of the whole Government on this matter when it cannot decide whether this is or is not the first time that agriculture has had a primary industry bank.

There is one other comment I must make on Sir William’s address, since he was the leading speaker for the Government on this subject. He disputed whether the Australian Labor Party was in fact responsible for the introduction of a reserve floor price for wool.

Senator Archer:

– Wool?

Senator WALSH:

- Senator Archer may well ask: What has this got to do with the Primary Industry Bank? But again that question should not be directed to me; it should be directed to Sir William McMahon.

Senator Archer:

– I could well ask.

Senator WALSH:

-Well, Senator Archer should ask Sir William McMahon the next time he gets the opportunity. I cannot speak on Sir William ‘s behalf. Sir William said:

He- that is, Mr John Brown, who preceded him in the debate- said that the Australian Labor Party introduced the policy with regard to a reserve price for wool. I hope that none of my senior colleagues are here, but I happened to be the Prime Minister at the time. We had two difficulties. I was Prime Minister when the price of wool dropped to below 40c per lb and without any legislative authority- I say it in this

House- I approved of$250m being applied, as honourable members will know . . .

Given the sorts of things that were being said about three years ago, that is a very interesting assertion from a former Liberal Prime Minister that $250m of taxpayers’ funds were committed without any legislative authority.

To correct Sir William on a point of history, I point out that the Australian Wool Corporation is under no such delusions about who introduced the reserve price for wool. In its updated marketing report which came out at the end of last month, the Corporation identified three periods with respect to wool marketing. The first was the decade that ended in 1970 prior to the reserve price scheme. The second was a reserve price scheme without a guaranteed minimum. The third was a reserve price scheme with a guaranteed minimum. A footnote relating to the second period, that is, the period to which Sir William McMahon referred, said:

During 1971 the Australian Wool Commission declared that it would not allow reserves to fall further, but the declaration was without legislative backing or formal guarantee.

In the Government’s attempt to escape from the embarassment of its failure to honour the Prime Minister’s 1977 election promise, under this legislation it concentrates on the extension of the term of loan to a maximum of 30 years. Previous comparable maximum terms were 20 years from the Commonwealth Development Bank and 25 years from the Farm Development Loan Fund. Government spokesmen have asserted frequently that this extension up to 30 years, or beyond 20 years, is quite crucial. In fact, at prevailing interest rates, extending it beyond 20 years has a negligible impact on the loan’s annual servicing costs, a fact which the Bureau of Agricultural Economics noted in its 1977 study on rural credit when it said:

There is little reduction in annual repayments through extending the term of loan repayment beyond 20 years on current commercial interest rates. The major factor influencing annual repayment of long term loans is the rate of interest.

I have here a table which I invite the Minister for Science (Senator Webster) to look at because shortly I will seek leave to incorporate it in Hansard. It brings out this arithmetic fact. The point to which I want to draw attention particularly is that at an interest rate of 6 per cent on a 1 5-year term loan the annual servicing charge is lower than it is for a 30-year term at a 10 per cent rate of interest. So even beyond 15 years at a 10 per cent rate of interest, extension of the term has little impact. In fact a doubling of the period of repayment from 15 years to 30 years does not offset the difference between 6 per cent and 10 per cent rates of interest. That is an arithmetic fact. Now that the Minister has had a chance to look at the table, I seek leave to incorporate it in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

Senator WALSH:

– I thank the Senate.

Senator Webster:

- Senator Walsh might identify the authenticity of the paper. He probably would gain from it because it bears no notation as to whether it is a library document or his own.

Senator WALSH:

– It has been extracted from credit foncier tables, but one does not have to prove a multiplication table to work it out for one’s self. Provided one has the necessary arithmetic skill one can prove the figures for one ‘s self if one doubts their authenticity. If one seeks leave to incorporate the multiplication table I do not think one is obliged to give its cited source.

Senator Webster:

– It is only that the comment that you made earlier is disproved by that. I was only trying to help you.

Senator WALSH:

– Which comment?

Senator Webster:

– You read Hansard when you have finished and you will find whether it is sensible or not.

Senator WALSH:

– The Minister is making an assertion. I am just asking him to clarify it. The important thing this table shows is that doubling the term of repayment from 15 years to 30 years is less important, in terms of the annual servicing charge, than reducing the interest rate from 10 per cent to 6 per cent. Those arithmetic facts are not as yet widely known and, if I may say so, the agricultural Press has been more than a little remiss in not making them more widely known than it has. The facts have been drawn often enough to the attention of the agricultural Press.

I want to take up two other matters. If the Minister likes to deal with these questions during the Committee stage I am quite happy to ask them then. I would like to know the anticipated volume of lending by the Bank in its first year. The Bank has funds totalling about $86m, being $6m equity share capital, $50m that it plans to raise from the commercial loan market and $30m from the income equalisation deposits that are to be made available under this amending Bill. I would like to know whether it is envisaged that most or nearly all of that $86m will be loaned by the Bank in the first year. If not, I visualise that the Bank will have a negligible impact on total rural credit which stands now at about $3.1 billion. On the other hand, if it is planned to loan most or nearly all of the $86m this year, what sources of funds will be available to the Bank next year? In particular, will another $30m from income equalisation deposits be made available to the Bank next year to enable it to keep its interest charge to the customer down to 10 per cent or 12 per cent? Unless further funds are made available from income equalisation deposits it will not be possible to maintain those interest rates at rates identical to overdraft rates without some overt subsidy. This is an important question which again has received no attention. Further, what plans exist to cope with a rundown in the income equalisation deposits?

After a couple of months I finally got an answer last week to my question on notice on this subject. Whilst the current balance of the IEDs is at a higher level that it was 12 months ago, it is significantly lower than it was in the NovemberDecember January period. I know that there is probably a seasonal factor at work here and that we will not be able to identify it accurately until the deposits have been running for some time, but in looking at this table one can see that there is absolutely no justification for concluding that the amount of money in the IEDs is likely to go up and there is some suspicion that it is likely to drop. The balance at the end of September was just over $60m. There is at least a possibility that the balance will get below $60m at some time in the not-too-distant future, which obviously would make it impossible for a further $30m to be advanced from this income equalisation account to the Primary Industry Bank. If the Bank does not get funds from this source it will not be able to maintain its existing interest rates, which in any case are only identical to overdraft rates and not concessional. My foreshadowed amendment has now been circulated. To the motion ‘that the Bill be now read a second time ‘ I move:

The PRESIDENT:

-Is the amendment seconded?

Senator Georges:

– I take great pleasure in seconding that amendment and reserve my right to speak to it, if I so desire.

Senator ARCHER:
Tasmania

– I will speak briefly in the debate and will try to keep my remarks relevant to the Bill under discussion, the Primary Industry Bank Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1978, which I support. I find it impossible to speak to the Bill without commenting on some of the ridiculous remarks to which we have been listening. Amongst all that complicated and devious economic garbage to which we have been subjected and which perhaps Senator Walsh alone may understand, I am absolutely staggered to find just how little the honourable senator knows about banking in any way, shape or form. I am even more surprised that Senator Walsh stated that he does not believe in any form of concessional support for farmers or the provision of finance to farmers and does not support the Primary Industry Bank of Australia. It is worth noting exactly where honourable senators on both sides of the chamber stand in respect of the Primary Industry Bank.

It also surprised me to find that, in spite of all the figures that Senator Walsh cited in support of the Bank and what the Government has done, he still is trying to claim, for reasons that nobody could ever understand, that the facts prove something other that what they do. The Bank does exactly what it was promised it would do. It provides concessional finance in a whole range of fringe areas, and this is a point which Senator Walsh will never understand. I challenge him to go out into the banking field and secure a loan from any other financial institution in Australia on the terms and conditions that are available from the Primary Industry Bank. I venture to suggest that that is totally impossible.

Senator Georges:

– What would be the difference- about a quarter of one per cent?

Senator ARCHER:

-The difference would be substantially more than that and such interest rates are not available from any other source. Taking into account the terms of the loans and the interest rates offered on the types of securities accepted, there is no way that Senator Walsh, Senator Georges or anybody else could go out into the market place and secure such finance. In any terms, it is obviously concessional finance.

Senator Georges:

– Concessional against a hire purchase firm, I suppose.

Senator ARCHER:

– It is concessional on the things that will be financed by the Primary Industry Bank. We have to look at the reasons that many people are now becoming eligible for finance from the Primary Industry Bank. Many of them have had to finance in any way possible their extensions and their livelihood. During the years of unbridled inflation, they had to resort to hire purchase and leasing arrangements; they had to take short term overdrafts at times when their incomes were falling and their costs were rising; they had to resort to finance from the great pastoral firms and pay interest accordingly; and they had to repay the loans in due course. The biggest killer in farming finance is repayments and the longer the term of the loan, the better the chance of farm survival becomes. It is deadly to take out a five or six year loan or a hire purchase commitment over two or three years. The Primary Industry Bank has now taken over these loans over a far longer period and at a far lower interest rate than offered by any other comparable form of finance in Australia. Senator Walsh can go out and look for it -

Senator Walsh:

-What is the CDB rate? Twenty years at the same interest rate.

Senator ARCHER:

-That is not what the Government is offering in this Bill, and we are not offering loans on the same security or on the same type of risk. The day that the honourable senator comes into the Senate and tells me that he can obtain a loan over 30 years at a 10 per cent interest rate with the sort of security accepted by the Primary Industry Bank, I will eat my hat. The provision of an additional $30m, at an interest rate of five per cent, from the Income Equalisation Deposits Trust Account will be a big help to the system.

I read through the debate on a so-called matter of public importance which took place in the Senate recently. I did not understand how such a debate took place in the first place but I was grateful for the fact that it gave Government senators the chance to demolish totally the weak arguments that were thrown up by the Opposition. The Government has done what it said it would do and what was necessary for it to do because it had so much support to win back. The Bank will be of big assistance in the financing of farms, and for evidence of this we have only to look at the difference it will make in conjunction with the improvements that are now occurring in, say, the dairying and beef industries in my area. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics has stated that a 40 per cent increase in farm incomes is likely and that, too, will be a big help because the increase in farm incomes will increase the level of income equalisation deposits which in turn will increase the ability of this Bank to use those funds.

The extra revenue will facilitate development and it will increase productivity and profitability. The Bank is now in operation. The only comment that I offer to Senator Walsh is that if he wants to make any complaint, he had better make it now because in 12 months time he will not be able to do so. I support the use of income equalisation deposits by the Bank and the amendments to the Act that will make this possible. I totally reject the notions put forward by Senator Walsh who obviously looks at the achievements of this Government with envy and wishes that his Government had been able to achieve them when it was in power.

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

– The debate has been enhanced by the very sensible contribution made by Senator Archer from Tasmania. He described quite clearly the benefit that accrues to borrowers from the Primary Industry Bank of Australia. I am unable to say the same about the contribution made by Senator Walsh. I do not know what his political colleagues think of it. Certainly it will be worth while reading his speech in Hansard in an attempt to understand what he has said. I suppose that the basis of Senator Walsh’s negative comments and criticism of the Bank is the necessity for him, as the Opposition’s shadow Minister for Primary Industry, to criticise. Yet one would think that there would be coming from the Australian Labor Party, through its leading man in this field, some idea of what a Labor Government would have in store for primary industry if it were returned to office.

I suppose that Senator Walsh is fairly well aware of what took place when Labor was in office. Mr President, you may recall the great contribution that Labor made to primary industry. In its first year of office it removed the one per cent disparity in interest rates that was available and had been available to the farming community through a requirement on banking institutions operating in primary producing areas. Senator Walsh did not refer to that benefit which the Labor Government took away. Let me deal with one point which Senator Walsh raised. He criticised the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) -

Senator Walsh:

– You have not restored it; so you must agree with it. Obviously, you agree with it.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I think I can say that the main point made by Senator Walsh was that the Government has not kept its promise.

Senator Walsh:
Senator WEBSTER:

-Senator Walsh says right’. I think that Senator Archer demolished the point made by the honourable senator in that respect. Senator Walsh advanced a proposition that was absolutely incorrect. He tried to mislead the Senate. The honourable senator knows that the statement he made, that the same interest rates and the same terms were available elsewhere is totally false. The fact is that in short term lending such an interest rate might be available but what Senator Archer said is correct and I, too, challenge Senator Walsh to tell the Senate that interest rates like those available from the Primary Industry Bank are available from any other sector of banking. Senator Walsh has the challenge in front of him and I hope that he will be able to put his money where his mouth is. I believe that is an expression sometimes used in banking circles. The 1977 election policy commitment of the Government stated:

The Bank - that is the Primary Industry Bankwill provide in conjunction with the banks and other lenders long term credit to viable borrowers for up to 30 years at concessional rates of interest.

There is very little to be said other than that this Government has adhered totally to that promise.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I ask the Minister for Science the two questions to which I invited him to respond in the second reading debate. I did say that if he preferred me to take up the matter in the Committee stage I would do so. The questions are: What is the anticipated volume of lending this financial year by the Primary Industry Bank of Australia? If most or nearly all of the $80m-odd is lent, is it expected that another $30m will be made available from income equalisation deposits next year and the year after?

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

– At this stage the volume of lending by the Primary Industry Bank of Australia can only be speculated upon. The amount of money lent by the Bank will depend upon the demand upon the facilities of the Bank. Senator

Walsh will be aware that the Bank commenced lending only within the last week or so. I am advised that some loans have already been made. Senator Walsh also asked about further government assistance to the Bank in the future. As Senator Walsh would know, insofar as there is control of government funds, further government assistance will be a matter for decision by the Government at the appropriate time. The Bank is in a position to borrow and the amount of money that it will need to meet the demands that are made on it will depend entirely on its borrowing program within Australia and probably overseas if it has such an ability. At the appropriate time the Government will make a decision as to what other funds will be made available to the Bank and at what rates.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I wish to ask two other questions. Firstly, is it correct to assume that the Government has not got the faintest idea how much money will be lent or what the future source of funds will be? Secondly, is it intended to use the expertise of the existing assessors of the Commonwealth Development Bank in assessing the viability of propositions put to the Primary Industry Bank of Australia?

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

– It is wrong of Senator Walsh to make the statement that he has made. I imagine that the Government could not accurately estimate at the present time what the demand will be. By using his experience, a reasonable businessman would estimate the figures involved. As to whether the Primary Industry Bank of Australia will take notice of the Commonwealth Development Bank -

Senator Walsh:

– Will it use the experienced assessors of the Commonwealth Development Bank?

Senator WEBSTER:

– I imagine that the people who are associated with the Primary Industry Bank, being reasonable individuals, will use the whole of the commercial intelligence that is available to them. I am informed that the Commonwealth Development Bank will use the facilities of the Primary Industry Bank.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

Sitting suspended from 6.4 to 8 p.m.

page 2293

LOANS (TAXATION EXEMPTION) BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 16 November, on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The purpose of this Bill is relatively simple in that it provides for the exclusion of interest and loan repayments on overseas borrowings by Australia from Australian taxation. An overseas borrowing which takes the form of an issue of stock or securities is already exempted from Australian taxation. However, overseas borrowings in the form of bank loans or arrangements which are made in other ways but which do not involve the issue of stock or securities are not covered by the existing provisions of the Loans Securities Act. Therefore this Bill, which is a technical amendment, really, covering the second class of loans to which I have referred, is necessary because they are becoming more and more a part of this country’s overseas borrowing program. The Opposition sees that the technical amendment is necessary and therefore we will not be opposing the Bill.

However, there is concern at the Government’s current overseas borrowing program. The Bill, of course, is closely linked with that program and I intend to address my remarks to the position in which the Australian Government currently finds itself in. There has been a rapid and unparalleled increase in the amount of overseas borrowing undertaken since the Fraser Government came to power. Prior to that, borrowings were running at a relatively low annual level of between $200m and $400m. But now they are running at a annual level of about $ 1,700m. Since honourable senators on the Government side seem either unable or unwilling to understand the rate of borrowing of this Government, as compared to that ofthe previous Government, the Labor Government, it is pertinent to look at Table 6 of Paper No. 1 on page 215 of this year’s Budget Papers. That table shows clearly that the previous Government borrowed $2 13m and $22 lm overseas in the years 1973-74 and 1974-75 respectively, and that in the last year of its office, 1975-76, it borrowed $457m.

In spite of all the criticism levelled at the previous Government about its attempts to raise loans overseas for development purposes, it never at any stage actually put the country into hock to the level to which the Fraser Government has put this country into hock. Table 6 shows that in the first year after the present Government came to power- the financial year 1976-77- overseas borrowings rose by what could be described only as a staggering 385 per cent, to $ 1 ,760m. That trend has continued. With the parlous state of international affairs, it is likely to continue further- at least, anyway, for the next two years.

I can understand some of the grounds on which the present Government bases its loan program. There is a belief within the Treasury and elsewhere in this country that the value of the Australian dollar must be maintained and that the only method of doing it which is readily available at the moment is to undertake substantial overseas loans to add to what otherwise would be rapidly dwindling reserves. Only time will tell; but there are other grounds for arguing that, in the face of continuing trade deficits, absence of adequate private capital inflow and increasing interest rates overseas, the present program may well prove abortive and very expensive for this country. The success of it rests on the very important assumption that imports will not increase at a greater rate than exports and that the value of invisible payments, which constitute a drain on our resources, will not increase substantially.

After the first three months of this financial year, we chalked up a record current account deficit in October. That deficit was $368m. If the trend continues it will mean that the Government’s forecast of a $3,000m current deficit for 1978-79 will be more likely to be in the order of $4,000m. It is in these circumstances that any government must look very carefully at the assumptions underlying the program. During the speech I made here last week on the Appropriation Bill I made reference to a resolution passed by what I described then as the conservativeoriented Livestock and Grain Producers Association which publicly expressed reservations about the Government’s ability to achieve a 5 per cent inflation rate and also called for a 10 per cent devaluation. I am not supporting that particular position; but there is increasing evidence that, in spite of the Prime Minister (Mr Fraser) trying to ‘talk up’ the economy, other influential sections of the economy are privately expressing the same reservations as the association to which I have just referred expressed in its annual report.

The loans which the current Government has undertaken have already created substantial commitments for this country. The interest bill alone is running at a rate in excess of $300m annually and, if we add to that the capital repayments, there is a total commitment in the five years from 1981 to 1986 of $2,100m for interest and capital repayments- and that, of course, is on the level of loans negotiated so far. If the Government is forced by international circumstances to increase the borrowings to $5,000m, which is not beyond the realm of possibility, the interest and capital repayments for the same period could be in the area of over $3,000m in the years to which I have just referred. Of course, that would depend on the terms and conditions applying to the new loans. We know already that a bill of in excess of $2 ,000m will need to be paid on the amount that has already been borrowed. It could well be in excess of $3,000m between the years 198 1 and 1986. Never in the history of this country have we seen such a commitment entered into by an Australian government. Not only is this commitment there, but it locks any future government into finding a substantial amount, in terms of export earnings, merely to fund borrowings to prop up the dollar.

The Opposition would not be so critical of Mr Fraser ‘s actions if the now deposed Treasurer, Mr Lynch, currently the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and his colleagues had not spent such a considerable amount of time in 1975 berating the previous Government for what they called ‘putting the country into hoek’. They failed to see that at least the borrowings which were being negotiated then- which of course were never entered into- would have been supported by assets and income. Again I emphasise that the loans were to be used for developmental purposes, which would have filled a void that private capital funds from within Australia were not able to fill. The intentions behind those borrowings were based on the best principles applied by traditional bankers to any borrowings. There was to be an asset which would be the security, and that asset, in conjunction with the services and technical expertise, would have provided a cash flow for funding the loans. In the end Australia would have been a substantial owner of money and its important natural resources. In spite of the nonsense which is talked by the present Government, it would have been in conjunction with the private sector.

We see even today that this Government has entered into an agreement with the State governments to do exactly the same thing as we were talking about in 1974. This Government realises that the capital is not available in this country to develop our enormous natural resources. However, contrary to the principles of sensible banking the borrowings undertaken by the present Government are represented by neither assets nor cash flows. To use the analogy of the Prime Minister, we are in fact putting the country in over its head.

The other point which has been missed or studiously avoided by the Government is that interest rates overseas are continuing to rise substantially. This should sound a salutary warning to us. Some overseas financial journals such as the London Times, the Economist or the Wall Street Journal, have recently stated that interest rates in the countries which are the main providers of capital to this country have moved up from 8-8V4 per cent to 1 1 - 1 1 Vi per cent. With the announcement this week in the United Kingdom that the building societies are increasing their charges to 13 per cent on first mortgage security, these rates are all likely to get higher. This means that the Australian Government is faced with the prospect over the next 12 months at least that it will be borrowing at rates considerably higher than the rates applicable to the loans undertaken so far. That means that we will be enjoying higher rates of interest repayments than the figures I quoted earlier. Those rates will apply irrespective of our rating on the overseas market. Whether or not we have a triple A rating will not affect those rates.

There is also the prospect that the market may become slightly more selective in view of the fact that the States have been given permission to enter the overseas market, as I mentioned earlier, but, without Commonwealth guarantees. The States, I understand, have to apply for a double A rating on the overseas money markets. We do not know whether every State will receive that double A rating. It is also possible that the use of the proportion of gross national product as a comparison is invalid in the present circumstances. The real criterion in fact might be that which the trading banks normally apply to any lending application- the ability of cash flow to fund the loans without placing undue stress on the overall position.

I return to the point I made earlier that the outlook for the balance of payments over the next two or three years is not favourable and therefore we may have to look very carefully at what commitments are made. These are the sorts of reservations which the Opposition has about the Government’s program. It believes that a point may well be reached when it is confronted with some extremely difficult policy decisions. It is disappointing to us that the Government has not adopted the approach which has been taken both in the United States and in Europe to canvass openly the options that are available to us. There has not been what may fairly be described as a sensible bipartisan debate on a matter which is of great national concern. Only recently in the Senate the Leader of the Government (Senator Carrick) again criticised the Opposition’s attempts to establish the longer term policy implications of this current program. Regrettably, the Minister’s approach is unfortunate. I hoped that with such difficult economic conditions the Government may have been prepared to bring this matter on for debate in an open way in the Parliament before commiting this country as it has done.

I indicated earlier that the Opposition will not oppose the legislation because of its very nature. However, I believe it pertinent, particularly in view of my remarks concerning the Government’s overseas borrowing program, that a suitable amendment be moved. On behalf of the Opposition, I move:

At end of motion, add- “, but the Senate is of the opinion that the foreign loan program which will be facilitated by this Bill is seriously extending Australia’s foreign debt burden and should only be continued if the Government can assure the Senate that the program will be of limited duration”.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– The Government thanks the Opposition for dealing with this Bill in a speedy manner. The amendment would not be acceptable to the Government The purpose of the Bill is to enable the Commonwealth to give undertakings to foreign lenders that in the case of borrowings which do not involve the issue of stock or securities within the meaning of the Loans Securities Act 1919, the documents will be exempt from all Australian taxes and duties and all payments to be made by the Commonwealth will be free from all Australian taxes except in the case of payments to Australian residents.

This Bill does not involve a departure from policy; it merely corrects a technical deficiency in the present legislation. It will simply supplement the provisions of the Loans Securities Act 1919. The Loans Securities Act will still be used to give the necessary tax undertakings where stocks or securities are issued. The new Act will only enable the same undertaking to be given to foreign lenders in the case of borrowings which do not involve the issue of stocks or securities. I think it is clear to the Senate that this Bill is required to correct a technical deficiency; it is nor one that changes policy.

I have noted what Senator Wriedt has said on behalf of the Opposition about the extent of borrowings and his hopes for a bipartisan discussion on this matter. However, this Bill will not change the size of the borrowing program. The size of the borrowing program is a direct reflection of the economic policies being pursued by the Government. The Bill does not involve policy issues of that type; it simply provides a means to correct a technical deficiency in the old 1919 legislation. With those short comments, I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Question put:-

That the amendment (Senator Wriedt’s) be agreed to.

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

AYES: 21

NOES: 30

Majority……. 9

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2295

AIRLINE EQUIPMENT (LOAN GUARANTEE) BILL (No. 2) 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 16 November, on motion by Senator Chaney:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– I think it is singularly appropriate that the Senate should debate the Airline Equipment (Loan Guarantee) Bill (No. 2) 1978 immediately following a debate in which my leader Senator Wriedt drew the Senate’s attention to the growing overseas indebtedness of Australia. This Bill seeks to authorise the Treasurer, on behalf of the Commonwealth, to guarantee loans raised by Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd to finance the purchase of a Boeing 727-200 series aircraft, the tenth of its fleet. I think it is worthwhile drawing attention to the fact that Trans-Australia Airlines, the other major domestic airline in Australia, has been able to finance the purchase of its additional aircraft from its own resources. It has not had to resort to overseas borrowings, which is becoming an annual event as far as Ansett is concerned. In that sense, as Senator Wriedt so ably explained to the Senate, Ansett is contributing to our international indebtedness. The proposed Government guarantee will be limited to $US 1 1 . 1 2m, or its equivalent, which represents some 80 per cent of the estimated total cost of the aircraft and all of the associated parts and equipment together with the interest payments on the amount borrowed.

The Bill could hardly be regarded as contentious as it is in accord with government practice over a considerable number of years. For that reason the Opposition will not oppose it. The proposal will not involve the Commonwealth in any expenditure. It is probably worth commenting that that is just as well. If it did, the Government might not have been willing to bring it forward, having regard to its paranoia about financial matters in recent times.

The second reading speech of the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Chaney) mentioned the international aviation policy and the domestic air transport policy followed in this country. The Opposition believes that it should take this opportunity to look at the Government’s aviation record and policies. The Opposition agrees with the comment in the second reading speech that Australian airlines are making a significant contribution to the development and welfare of this country. The Opposition pays tribute to the fact that Australia has a very fine air safety record, one which is equal to the world’s best. The Opposition, however, is concerned to see that the activities of the Government, and of the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) in particular, do not hamstring the airlines in maintaining that contribution and that proud record. As we well know, there have been occasions on which those involved in the airline industry have seen fit to draw the Government’s attention to some deterioration in this respect. Insofar as that is our concern, we on this side of the chamber can only agree with the comments that were made by my colleague the honourable member for Shortland, Mr Morris, the shadow Minister for Transport in the other place, who stated quite succinctly that aviation policy in Australia is in a shambles. It is in a shambles because of the bungling and the incompetence of the Minister for Transport.

In the matter of international aviation policy and domestic air transport policy the record of the Government is indeed sorry. Let us look at the position of the domestic airline industry. I wish to raise very briefly a number of matters on this aspect. It was not until 2 1 August 1 978 that the Minister for Transport released the first part of a major report which had been gathering dust for some 15 or 16 months, on Australia’s domestic air transport policy. It was made public only after there had been a lot of pressure on the Minister to order its release. The general thrust of the recommendations of that report was to retain the principle of the two major airlines operating over the trunk network in Australia but to make a number of significant changes with the object of fostering increased competition. It is to this aspect that I wish to make reference.

Specifically, the report expressed concern at the narrow range of fare type available in Australia and the extent of parallel scheduling of air services. It is true to say that there is a measure of discontent and concern in Australia about those matters. The Bureau of Transport Economics told the review committee that it found the two-line airline system not administratively efficient by world standards and as a reason it pointed to the uncompetitive environment of the two-airline style of operation. That view has been supported by a comment that was made by economics lecturer, Dr Robert Hocking, as reported in the Melbourne Herald in July of this year. Dr Hocking said that under the twoairline system there is no incentive to innovate or, possibly, to cut costs. That has to be accepted as a valid criticism.

One would hope that the recommendations of the review committee, insofar as they would assist the objective of making air travel as accessible as possible to the Australian community, would be implemented expeditiously. One would hope also that the Minister would urge the airlines to agree as quickly as possible upon any changes in the Airlines Agreement Act. That has just not taken place. Given the Minister’s record in other fields- let us face it, he has been under a fair amount of criticism in recent times about both domestic airlines and international problems specifically relating to cheaper international air fares- one can say only that this is a forlorn hope.

According to a very interesting article in the Australian Financial Review of 25 October, only a few weeks ago, the recommendations of the report were scheduled to be incorporated, in the current session of Parliament, in an updated Act covering the two-airlines agreement. It certainly is not shown in the list of Bills that are to be considered this year. Department of Transport officials have admitted that neither Trans Australia-Airlines nor Ansett has yet agreed on how the changes in the Act should be made, so obviously the matter will be held over until some time next year. Under a government that is committed to a two-airline policy that was designed to meet the needs and aspirations of Australia many years ago- in an earlier generation- are we to see interminable dithering and stalling, the inability on the part of the Minister to bring to fruition the recommendations of that report? In just over two years- the period to which I want to make some reference- as a result of this Government’s administration and policies, domestic air fares have increased in cumulative terms by 27 per cent. The Government has sought to off-load onto the airlines responsibility for this increase although the legislative responsibility for examination, and approval of increased fares rests specifically with the Minister for Transport.

There has been a dramatic change in the Minister’s handling of applications for domestic airfare increases. For example, on 13 July Mr Nixon said that the six per cent fare increase then granted would not cover all of the increased costs being met by the airlines but forecast that traffic growth would absorb a significant part of the costs. On the most recent occasion, in September last, the airlines sought a further 7.5 per cent increase. That figure was reduced by one-third to 5 per cent. This was sharply inconsistent with the Minister’s actions in regard to the previous five applications for increases, which were rubberstamped by him. He said at the time that the increases were thoroughly justified. We do not know how the decision has been made. In his speeches and Press statements on the latest application no indication has been given of the methods he used to reach that conclusion; but the decision cast doubt on the previous approvals for fare increases which, as I have said, were merely a rubber-stamping of what the airlines had sought.

The Opposition wants to see public examination and justification of air fare increases. It has been said without repudiation that domestic air fares will be increased still further. In fact, we will reach a position in which domestic fares will be higher than those for international air travel. The Opposition wants to see consumer participation in aviation, especially in the setting of fares. The Opposition would like to see public discussion and alleviation of the problems presented by parallel flight times. I am sure that every member of the Parliament, as indeed are many members of the travelling public, is fed to the teeth about the scheduling of parallel flight times under which the two major airlines operate. We would like to see some competition. After all, having a free, competitive system is one of the lynch pins of this Government’s whole economic philosophy. Yet there is no competition; what one company wants to do the other company invariably follows blindly, with the approval of the Minister.

Certainly, we would like to see a great variation in flight departure times so that, on the basis of a direction from the Government, a better system would operate, and we may have a choice not only of fares but also of departure times. The travelling public could then make a choice. There is no choice when one pays the same fare on both airlines and the flights leave at the same time. That happens throughout Australia. There is a need to satisfy the public that domestic air fare increases are warranted, especially when one considers that the domestic airline industry now has an annual turnover of over one billion dollars. We are not talking about some small-time, billy cart operation, but about one of the major industries of this country, one upon which in a sense the whole of our economy is now based.

One of the startling anomalies of the policy that is being followed is that while profits are rising air fares are also rising. The Melbourne Age of 28 September reported that Ansett Transport Industries Ltd had made a record profit of $ 18.35m- it appears that in the last financial year, TAA also had a better result than it had in the previous year- yet on that very day the Sydney Morning Herald carried a front page story saying, ‘Ansett says fare rise is inevitable’. Thus, while the airlines report record profits the newspapers report that fare increases are inevitable. That seems to me to be a contradiction.

We could say a lot more about the problems facing the airline industry but all that we want to do is to take advantage of these few moments to say that we are concerned, as we believe is the travelling public, about what is happening on our domestic front. We are concerned also about the shilly-shallying that has been going on in regard to cheaper flights overseas. We cannot understand why the Laker application was rejected out of hand, why Mr Brown came from the United States of America, made a number of inflammatory statements, withdrew them the next day, and a few days later we had the announcement by the Minister that there would be a reduction in overseas travelling costs. All of this should give us a chance to debate more adequately these sorts of issues because they are exciting a lot of comment in the Press and the tourist industry, and interest in the Australian community. Be that as it may, the purpose of this Bill, which we support, is to ratify a government decision which follows an old practice. We believe that it is time that we suggested to Ansett that it ought to finance its purchases out of its own resources in the same way as TAA has been successfully able to do.

Senator COLLARD:
Queensland

-As Senator Gietzelt has indicated, the Senate is debating the Airline Equipment (Loan Guarantee) Bill (No. 2) 1978. This is normal procedural legislation by which the Government contributes nothing but guarantees a loan when one of the two major domestic airlines wishes to purchase a new aircraft. The aviation industry in Australia has grown up with government assistance in the form of loans and protection. Per head of population, Australia is more aviation minded than any other country in the world. My home State of Queensland is very aviation minded. I think that it would be as well to remind the Senate that in Queensland there are eight jet airports in operation every day of the week. At the last count I did there were at least 31 airports of Fokker Friendship standard and undoubtedly many more of a lesser standard. So Queensland is extremely aviation minded. As a matter of fact, without getting too parochial, it beats me why the airlines have established their headquarters in Melbourne which, basically, has only one jet airport and a few cricket fields scattered around the place to take light commuter aircraft. The decisions that affect the areas that need aviation most are taken in Melbourne but, as I am sure the Western Australians will agree, the people there are out of touch with the realities of aviation.

Senator Gietzelt rightly mentioned that the two.airline policy has been a bone of contention in Australia for many years. At present there are people who want to disband the two.airline policy. They want to deregulate the industry and start up a third airline. I think that it should be said at the outset, as the report of the Domestic Air Transport Policy Review has indicated, that the two-airline policy has served Australia very well. One thing that many people do not realise is that it has provided regular scheduled services throughout Australia.

Senator Georges:

– At a high standard.

Senator COLLARD:

– This is one of the few occasions when I agree with Senator Georges. It is provided at a pretty high standard. If the safe arrival of passengers is any criterion we are without peer in world aviation. If we completely disbanded the two-airline system, if we opened up the system to include a third airline or if we deregulated it we would have a wonderful and cheap service between Brisbane, Coolongatta, Sydney and Melbourne, but that is not the point. We would find that the less populous areas were being badly treated. That is not to say that we cannot improve the two-airline system. I agree with Senator Gietzelt and the report in this respect. The report states that the two-airline policy should allow for far more competition than currently exists. Of course, this calls into question the problem of rationalisation. This problem must be looked at seriously. It must be considered that where we have rationalisation we get a better utilisation of aircraft. One of the things that the report shows up is that Australian aircraft utilisation is above world standard. That means a lot, especially when we are attempting to conserve the scarce fossil fuels on which these aircraft rely. With rationalisation there is one full aircraft where once there would have been two half-filled aircraft.

There is a lot to be said for that. But I think that we should get away from the situation in which the General Manager of one airline rings his counterpart in the other airline and they decide whether we are to have ham or red salmon on our sandwiches. Frankly, neither of them turns me on. I am sick of the standard of airline sandwiches. I would like to think that as a result of a bit of needling from me the sorts of savouries and pastries which are served on some of the flights are an improvement on the soggy sandwiches of which a lot of us are heartily sick. It must be said that rationalisation has played a part. If we disbanded it completely and were running two half-filled aircraft instead of one full aircraft obviously it would mean an increase in the cost to the public and that would be related right through to the air fare structure.

Parallel scheduling is another bone of contention and it has been so from time immemorial. I suppose that we all would wish to see otherwise. In this regard two things must be said in defence ofthe airlines. The first is that they schedule their aircraft to depart at the times when most people want to travel. I suppose that is good commercial sense. Just because I am the only one in Queensland who wants to travel from Brisbane to Rockhampton at 3 o’clock in the afternoon does not mean that the airlines should be obliged to put on an aircraft for my sake. Sometimes I wish they would. Secondly, it must be said- I relate this back to aircraft utilisation- that most people wish to commence their travel at 7 a.m. Unfortunately, while the rest of Australia operates on a silly time and Queensland operates under God’s own time, it means a 6 a.m. departure in Queensland. Be that as it may, 7 o’clock in the morning is the time when most people wish to commence their journeys. An aircraft which starts operating at that time of the morning is effectively locked into a schedule right throughout the day. The airlines do not wish to have an aircraft sitting on the ground for any length of time and obviously not earning money. So they lock their aircraft into a schedule for the whole of a day. In addition, it must be remembered that an 1 1 p.m. curfew operates at a lot of the major airports in Australia. So when we are looking at parallel scheduling we must remember that the flights are scheduled when most people want to travel and that once the aircraft have started their day’s work they are literally locked in and we must obtain maximum aircraft utilisation to keep our fare structure down.

One of the things that concerns me as a Queenslander is the brush fire that has blown up in western Queensland about Trans-Australia Airlines withdrawing some of its services. I draw to the attention of honourable senators the fact that one of the precepts of the two-airlines agreement is that the airlines must maintain currently operated rural air services as long as revenue exceeds direct operating costs. If either of the airlines wishes to withdraw from a service I think that it should have to prove to the Government, which has played a major part in its operation and which has protected it in the past, that its revenue does not exceed its direct running costs. I understand that the direct running costs represent about half of the total running costs of an aircraft. In respect of a Fokker Friendship operating in western Queensland we are probably looking at a figure of about $380 to $400 per hour as the direct running cost. I think that TAA should have to prove to the Government that it is not receiving that amount of revenue.

Against that- this ties in with one of the recommendations of the report to which I have referred- is the adjunct of regional airlines. The report says that the major carriers should withdraw to the stage of servicing only the major trunk routes, leaving the newer regional services to look after the rest and even to compete on some of the trunk routes during those off-periods of the day when fewer passengers are wanting to travel and they could be transported in a smaller type of aircraft. I am referring to the services from Brisbane to Roma, Charleville, Blackall, Longreach and Winton and servicing such pons as Isisford, Muttaburra and Aramac as well as the Townsville to Mount Isa route and what is affectionately known in Queensland as the milk run, although I can assure those honourable senators who have not travelled on the milk run in a Fokker Friendship in the middle of the day at the height of summer that if there were any milk on it the milk would become decidedly curdled. It is a very rough and a very hot trip. They are the runs with which we are concerned at this point. I have been in contact with TransAustralia Airlines. The local member, Mr Bill Glasson, is quite concerned. Mr Bob Katter also has raised the matter. Mr McKenzie has assured me, and I hope that the people of western Queensland will accept this assurance, that TAA will not walk away from those services. But I must also explain that in western Queensland that assurance probably has a bit of a hollow ring when one considers what happened to the Channel and the Gulf runs that operated out of Cloncurry for many years in the early days of aviation in Australia.

As I said, this is a chance for a regional airline to step into the breach. I believe that negotiations are currently going on. While these negotiations are going on, I must say that the people of western Queensland could conceivably end up with a better service. Whereas it is not now feasible to operate F27-type aircraft because of lower passenger loadings, an aircraft with a lower seat mile cost might be able to do the job, and might be able to do it more frequently. So it is quite conceivable that, if TAA does walk out of some of its services or maintains some of them and cooperates with a regional operator, the people of western Queensland could be better off.

It is obvious that one of the problems facing regional operators is the fact that most of the aircraft available for this particular job are not made for the longer regional routes. They are made for the commuter runs. One of these aircraft is the Spanish C212 Aviocar, which has a maximum load of 19 passengers with baggage and a range of only 258 nautical miles or 474 kilometres, that is, with a 45-minute statutory fuel reserve but with no additional fuel for an alternative destination in the event of bad weather. However, to reach a range of 949 nautical miles or 1,760 kilometres, eight passengers have to be taken off the plane, thereby reducing the maximum passenger load to eleven. The Swearingen Metro liner, which our Bush Pilots Airline is now operating on the route from Emerald to Brisbane, has a 19-passenger load with baggage, with a range of 187 nautical miles or 346 kilometres. The load has to be reduced to 1 1 with baggage, to get a range of 595 nautical miles or 1,102 kilometres. So even though these aircraft are pressurised and are good aircraft, they are not altogether made for the regional runs. The Israeli Aircraft Industries have built the 101 Arara, which has a maximum load of 20 passengers with baggage. It has a range of 1 5 1 nautical miles or 280 kilometres. The number of passengers has to be reduced to six and there must be optional long range fuselage tanks to get 705 nautical miles or 1,306 kilometres.

Then there is the Twin Otter, about which we in Australia know so much. It is operated by many of our services. It is a good commuter aircraft and a good aircraft on short airstrips. With accommodation for 20 passengers with baggage and 200 kilograms of freight, giving it a maximum cruise speed of 182 knots, it has a 100 nautical mile or 180 kilometre range. If the load is reduced to 14 passengers plus baggage, the range is 520 nautical miles or 956 kilometres. If the load is further reduced to 12 passengers plus baggage the range is still 520 nautical miles and have an allowance for a 100-nautical miles diversion which might have to be used. So it can be seen that with all these aircraft we have this problem. With the Shorts SD330 which was demonstrated here in Canberra the company has at least tried to be a bit more innovative. It has room for 30 passengers. I can walk the full length of the cabin without having to duck my head. This is quite a pleasant surprise in that sort of aircraft. The cabin is not pressurised, but it has good air conditioning, which is a good idea on a short run, because the aircraft would not be able to get high enough to require use of the pressurisation anyhow. But unfortunately the aircraft also has a short range. However, I must say that the company has been most innovative with the engine. The PT6A-45 engine has been used. A similar engine is also available in the Twin Otter but for this aircraft the company has a different specified gearbox. This utilises a 5-bladed propeller spinning at only 1,200 revs per minute, giving a lot quieter operation both inside the cabin and outside the cabin. The propeller tips do not go anywhere near sonic even at maximum revolutions. So I think the company is to be congratulated for having been so innovative.

I come to my final point. My one criticismand in effect it includes all those aircraft- is why the Government Aircraft Factories built the Nomad in that particular category, when we have so many other types of aircraft available for commuter running and none really available for commuter regional running over longer distances. The Nomad aircraft with a load of 16 passengers plus baggage and operating at 168 knots has a range of 110 nautical miles or 200 kilometres. If the load is reduced to 1 1 passengers plus baggage, the range is 700 nautical miles or 1,288 kilometres at maximum cruise speed. So, to have our own Australian built aircraft of effective use to us in Australia, there has to be quite a trade off in the number of passengers that can be carried.

Honourable senators should remember that we are looking at an aircraft to take the place of the F27 on many of our western runs. Ordinary TAA seating configuration is about 36 seats. East- West Airlines, running a commuter service, has a seating capacity up to 52 seats. Yet the Government Aircraft Factories built an aircraft in the same category as that built by manufacturers all round the world. I would have liked the Government Aircraft Factories to have taken into consideration a bit more what we really need. We need to accommodate these passengers in comfort; in cabins which, if not pressurised, are air-conditioned. We need aircraft which can take a full load over a far longer range. At present there is not that type of aircraft in Australia. I hope that in future our Government Aircraft Factories will be a bit more innovative.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– in reply- This Bill is a fairly common piece of legislation to pass through this Senate. I think most honourable senators would have seen similar Bills passed through this chamber, guaranteeing part of the loans for the purchase of new aircraft. On this occasion the guarantee is for Ansett Airlines of Australia only, Trans-Australia Airlines having decided to finance its purchases internally. Both Senator Gietzelt, who spoke for the Opposition on this Bill, and Senator Collard, who has just resumed his seat, used the Bill to make some general comments on aviation policy. I mean no disrespect to either honourable senator, but I do not intend to respond to the particular matters they raised. I think they are matters which are properly brought before the Parliament, but which do not call for answers in this debate.

I must say that the comment about soggy sandwiches from Senator Collard reminded me of some of my own complaints some years ago in that direction. Like the honourable senator, I sense a small but discernible improvement in that direction on the part of the airlines. I have no doubt that if the improvement could be increased we would get Bills like this through the Parliament even more quickly. I thank the Senate for its speedy consideration of this Bill and I commend it to the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2301

LIVE-STOCK SLAUGHTER LEVY AMENDMENT BILL 1978

First Readings

Debate resumed from 16 November, on motion by Senator Webster:

That the Bills be now read a first time.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I take the opportunity of the first readings of the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill and associated Bills to raise two matters which, had the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon) been more methodical in giving me replies to questions, I probably would not have needed to raise in this debate. I could have raised one of them in particular last Thursday when we were debating the Estimates in the Committee of the Whole and considering the Department of Transport. The first matter to which I want to refer is the letter dated 16 November I got from the Minister for Transport in answer to a query that I put in the Senate when we were debating a States grants Bill on 7 June 1978.I had to wait for a long period to get an answer from the Minister. Although he apologised for the delay, I think that a delay of that nature is far too long. I will quote the letter which is dated 16 November and which is addressed to me. It says:

You will recall that in the Committee stages of the Senate debate on the States Grants ( Urban Public Transport) Act 1978 you raised an issue concerning the possibility of a failure on my part to approve a transfer under Section 7 of the Act resulting in underspending by a State and subsequent transfer of those unspent funds to another State. I apologise for the delay in responding to your query.

As you will be aware it is only those Commonwealth funds provided under Section 8 of the Act that can be transferred between States. In order for me to give consideration to such a course of action it will be necessary for a State to fail to adequately implement an approved project(s) without reasonable justification resulting in the availability of surplus Commonwealth funds. I would expect this to be an exception rather than the rule.

Normally, when a State becomes aware that a short-fall in expenditure is likely as a result of circumstances beyond its control, I would expect that State to seek a variation under Section 5 or a transfer under Section 7 of the Act. I envisage no difficulty in approving such a request and I expect such requests to be dealt with as quickly as possible.

You may be assured that under no circumstances would I consider penalising a State because of any delay on the Commonwealth ‘s part.

Yours sincerely. (P.J.Nixon)

I seek to have incorporated in Hansard page 2507 of the Hansard record of the Senate debate on the States Grants (Urban Public Transport) Bill which will put the answer I got from Mr Nixon into its proper perspective. I must apologise that I have not shown it to you, Mr President, but it is only one page of Hansard and it deals with the queries that both Senator Wriedt and I put to the Minister in charge of the Bill who, I think, was Senator Webster.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Clause 7, which relates to the transfer of parts of the proposed expenditure provides in sub-clause ( 1 ):

Where the amount expended by a State, an authority of a State or local governing body of a State, in connection with approved projects, during a year to which this Act applies is such that the amount payable to the State under this Act in respect of that expenditure is less than the maximum grant for the State in respect of that year, the Minister may, after consultation with the appropriate Minister of the State, direct-

That is, direct that certain things be done. Essentially, what he may direct is that certain sums of money which the State has not used from that appropriation can be transferred for use in another State. As I understand it, that is the intent of the legislation. I ask the Minister: Is that a new provision? I am not sufficiently conversant with the Act to know whether it is or not. If it is, I take it that where there may be disagreement with a State, the Federal Minister may direct that certain moneys be appropriated to another State; that that is a decision that the Federal Minister would make. Also, must the initiative come from the State or does it come from the Federal Minister?

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

– It is a new provision. It does not affect in any way the original allocation of the $200m, but part of the $ 1 00m over and above that amount, but which is also to be allocated to the States, can be directed to expenditure in another State.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leaderof the Opposition · Tasmania

– I take it that, as to one third of the proposed $300m grant, it is entirely at the discretion of the Federal Minister as to whether any surplus or unexpended moneys in a State can be transferred to another State for expenditure there. Presumably, that is the position?

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

– I think the honourable senator will appreciate that a Bill such as this is one to which each State must agree; also, that funds are attracted to the program from the States. The second reading speech indicates that although under the Bill an allocation of $300m is involved, with the contribution of the States the total sum involved is $450m. I think we may assume that the States will be alert concerning their requirements. They will each have an allocation and will, I believe, ensure that they gain the maximum amount of the money that is available.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I understand the Minister’s reference to the sum of $450m that is involved but would ask: Does authority rest with the Federal Minister for Transport to decide whether moneys unexpended within a particular State may be transferred to another State? I would simply ask for a yes or no answer.

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

– The answer is yes.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I seek further clarification of clause 7, to which Senator Wriedt has addressed himself, but would also go back to the earlier clause concerning which he asks a question, that is, subclause ( 8 ) of clause5, which provides:

A variation referred to in sub-section (7) does not take effect for the purposes of this Act unless it is approved by the Minister.

If the Federal Minister decides not to approve a variation and, as a result, the State underspends the appropriation, what is to be the situation? Will that produce a situation in which money is transferred from one State to another.

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

– I am advised that if the Federal Minister does not approve the variation, the original approval would stand and the funds would be available to the State. I take it that is the proposition the honourable senator has in mind: Where the State does not spend the money?

Senator McLaren:

– Yes, because of the Federal Minister’s intervention under clause S.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I think we are dealing with a situation where the State would have decided that it had underspent.

Senator Wriedt:

– It does not say that. That is the point.

Senator WEBSTER:

– That is the only way in which it could come about. If the State has underspent there will be surplus moneys to be utilised. It is at the discretion of the Federal Minister that the redirection occurs. I think the point raised by Senator McLaren is answered by that observation: If there is no redirection of funds, the money would be available to the State. If there is underspending- and that was the point made by the honourable senator- the Federal Minister would have the opportunity to redirect the unspent allocation.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

-That is the very point I want clarified. I asked earlier what would be the situation if, after the intervention of the Federal Minister under sub-clauses (7) and (8) of clause5, he does not give approval for the expenditure of money thus bringing about the position where a State has underspent. Will that State then find that the unspent money can be redirected to another State?

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

– I do not think that the situation which the honourable senator indicates is spelt out in the Bill. The position is that if there is unspent money the Federal Minister can redirect it. Both Senator Wriedt and Senator McLaren have raised this point and I think it appropriate that I should give them an assurance that I will refer it to the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon), whom I represent in this chamber, and get a written response from him which may clear up the matter for the honourable senators.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Senator McLAREN:

– The other matter which I wish to raise, as I said when I opened my remarks, I could have raised last Thursday, no doubt, had I had in my possession the letter that I now have. It is under today’s date and refers to the Stuart Highway. It will be recalled that on Thursday of last week, 16 November, quite a lengthy debate on transport took place in the Committee of the Whole. I and Senator Bishop, particularly, and Senator Cavanagh raised the matter of the statements and undertakings made in Alice Springs by Mr Sinclair during the last election campaign. I want to quote from an advertisement which appeared in the Press during the election campaign. I am going to quote only part of it because it is already in Hansard of 16 November. I want to refer to the statement made by Mr Sinclair. When talking about the sealing and upgrading of the Stuart Highway he said:

After discussing the issue with Mr Sam Calder, M.P., and Senator Bernie Kilgariff, I believe it necessary to identify a special fund allocation specifically for the reconstruction of the Stuart Highway.

This would mean, in addition to funds provided to the South Australian Government as pan of the National program and for allocation at their direction, there would be a specific sum provided to up-grade the Stuart Highway over a period of years.

It is clearly spelt out in that statement by Mr Sinclair that there would be a special fund. It should be borne in mind that he said that a special fund would be created for the upgrading and reconstruction of the Stuart Highway. That was a election promise made by Mr Nixon. In the Senate on 19 October I asked a question of Senator Chaney, who represents the Minister for Transport in this chamber. I will restate my question. I said:

I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport whether he will review his answer given earlier today in respect of funding for the Stuart Highway in view of the fact that a deputation comprising Government and Opposition members, supported by the Mayor of Alice Springs, made a representation to the Minister for Transport, Mr Nixon, to provide a continuing fund to upgrade that Highway. Will the Minister also take into consideration the fact that Mr Sinclair made an election promise at Alice Springs that if the Federal Government were returned to office last December special funds would be made available by the Federal Government for this purpose? Finally, if this promise is not to be honoured and the South Australian Government has to find funds for the work out of its ordinary allocation, will the Minister designate which current South Australian road works will have to be curtailed or shelved to allow work to be carried out on the Stuart Highway?

In reply Senator Chaney said:

I have no knowledge of the statement by Mr Sinclair which is referred to by the honourable senator who might direct my attention more specifically to it after Question Time.

I interpose here to say that I gave Senator Chaney copies of the advertisement which appeared in the newspaper so that he would know what I was referring to. Senator Chaney went on to say:

Can I just say that I suspect that the delegations might have waited on the wrong government because it is, after all, the role of State governments to control most of these programs. The endless buck-passing which goes on with State governments complaining bitterly that the Federal Government ought to assume their responsibilities whenever it is convenient to do so is one of the most unfortunate aspects of the Australian Federation. I suggest that the very poor record of the State government in making any allocation for the Stuart Highway is something of which the honourable senator ought to be well aware and, indeed, ought to be ashamed. I suggest that he make urgent representations to his State Labor colleagues in South Australia and suggest that they get on with the job.

I was not very happy with that answer given by Senator Chaney, particularly his view that I ought to be ashamed of what had been done by Mr Virgo, the Minister for Transport in South Australia. I believe that Mr Virgo has allocated the funds that have been available to him in a proper and rightful manner. To prove that we have only to look at the roads we have in South Australia. As I said in my speech last Thursday, when I went as part of a deputation with other members from South Australia to see Mr Nixon I asked him whether he would designate the areas of highway which ought to be put under construction by allocating moneys from other areas then under construction. Of course, he would not do so. I also raised that matter in this question and again there is no answer as to where the Minister would designate that the funds ought to be spent. Senator Chaney referred to the endless buck-passing which goes on, with State governments complaining bitterly, but Mr Nixon’s answer to me in a letter under today’s date clearly states where the buck-passing begins and ends. I want to read out Mr Nixon’s letter. He wrote to me as follows:

Dear Senator McLaren, 1 refer to your recent request to Senator Chaney for information regarding a statement made by the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Sinclair, regarding funding arrangements for the Stuart Highway in South Australia.

In the statement which was made in Alice Springs in November 1977, Mr Sinclair referred to the need for a special fund allocation for reconstruction of the Stuart Highway.

In an expansion on this statement Mr Sinclair of course referred to the need for this allocation to come from funds provided by the States Grants (Roads) Act 1977.

Mr Sinclair said no such thing in Alice Springs when he was campaigning for the Liberal and National Country parties in the Northern Territory. That is borne out in this advertisement which appears in the newspaper. It is an exact copy of a telex that he sent to the Mayor of Alice Springs in which he said there ought to be a special fund established. I will quote the advertisement again:

After discussing the issue with Mr Sam Calder, M.P., and Senator Bernie Kilgariff, I believe it necessary to identify a special fund allocation specifically for the reconstruction of the Stuart Highway.

This would mean, in addition to funds provided to the South Australian Government as part of the National program and for allocation at their direction, there would be a specific sum provided to up-grade the Stuart Highway over a period of years.

I will read again what Mr Nixon has written to me in a letter of today’s date:

In the statement which was made in Alice Springs in November 1977, Mr Sinclair referred to the need for a special fund allocation for reconstruction ofthe Stuart Highway. In an expansion on this statement Mr Sinclair of course referred to the need for this allocation to come from funds provided by the States Grants ( Roads) Act 1 977.

The Minister said no such thing. The people in the Northern Territory and the people in the northern South Australian electorate of Grey, which is so ably represented by Mr Wallis in another place, were not of the opinion that the money was to come from the States Grants (Roads) Act 1977. Mr Sinclair is clearly on record as promising a special fund. Now we find that Mr Nixon is trying to get Mr Sinclair off the hook by saying that Mr Sinclair expanded on the promise, but if he expanded on the promise he did not do so until after the Federal election last year. That is another broken promise which has caught up with this Government. Of course, the electors of the division of Grey and, I hope, the electors in the Northern Territory, will not forget those broken promises the next time they vote in a Federal election, and they will not forget the episode which occurred in this Parliament last week when a motion was moved by Senator Bishop to get the weight of the Senate behind applications and representations that had been made to the Minister for Transport by all South Austraiian senators to have this special fund established and to get on with the work of reconstructing the Stuart Highway. What did we find? When the vote was taken two of the most vocal members in this Senate- Senator Jessop, who has put out an endless number of Press releases telling the people in the electorate of Grey what he was doing to persuade this Government and the Minister to make funds available, and Senator Kilgariff- walked out of this chamber and refused to vote. I am certain, in view of the feedback received by Mr Wallis in Port Augusta over the weekend and when he visited Coober Pedy, that the people in those areas of the electorate of Grey will not forget the statements made by Senator Jessop over the years about what he would do to convince this Government that it ought to get on with the job. Of course, when he had the opportunity to get the Senate behind him, what did he do? He walked out of this chamber and refused to vote. Mr Nixon went on to say in his letter.

You will of course recall that in May this year I advised a deputation seeking special additional funds for the Stuart Highway that it was not Government policy to provide funds for road projects outside of normal funding arrangements. However, in approving South Australia’s National Roads program, I asked Mr Virgo to ensure that $1.0 million is spent on construction works on the Stuart Highway this financial year. Mr Virgo has assured me that at least $900,000 will be spent on the Stuart Highway in 1978-79.I am pleased to be able to state that work has now started on the unsealed section of the Stuart Highway between Bookaloo and Mount Gunson.

Now that the route for the new highway has been settled, the level of expenditure proposed for this year will also enable the State to speed up the preconstruction tasks along the new route between Pimba and the Northern Territory border, with a view to an increasing commitment in the next and succeeding years on the National Highway.

I repeat the last two lines of that letter which I received today from Mr Nixon.

  1. . with a view to an increasing commitment in the next and succeeding years on the National Highway.

I hope that Mr Nixon will honour that promise which is contained in the letter I received today and that next year he will not endeavour to back away from the promise made by his colleague, Mr Sinclair, when that Minister was seeking votes in Alice Springs. I am sure that Mr Wallis will haunt Mr Nixon with the promise which is contained in the letter and which I will quote again. He stated:

Now that the route for the new highway has been settled, the level of expenditure proposed for this year will also enable the State to speed up the preconstruction tasks along the new route between Pimba and the Northern Territory border, with a view to an increasing commitment in the next and succeeding years on the National Highway.

So Mr Nixon is on record as saying:

  1. . with a view to an increasing commitment in the next and succeeding years on the National Highway.

Of course, he is not referring to the national highway right around Australia. In this instance, Mr Nixon is referring to the Stuart Highway. I repeat that the Minister is now on record as saying that the way has been paved for an extra commitment. We do not want Mr Nixon in the House of Representatives or the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) who represents him in this chamber to state that the funds must come out of the States’ ordinary allocation. Government members are already on record as saying, when buying votes in the Northern Territory- that is the best way one can put it- that there would be a special allocation. Despite what Mr Nixon has said to me in the second paragraph of his letter, he cannot back away from the fact that Mr Sinclair made a solemn promise to the people of Alice Springs and to the Mayor of Alice Springs that a special fund would be set up this year to reconstruct the Stuart Highway. Now Mr Nixon tries to back away from that promise by saying that Mr Sinclair has expanded on his statement and that the money has to come out of the funds provided under the States Grants (Roads) Act 1977. I have had the facts put on the record. I hope that when the Budget is brought down next year we will see a special fund allocation for the Stuart Highway. I will be the first to congratulate both Mr Nixon and Mr Sinclair if they are prepared to honour the promise that they made, firstly, in Alice Springs on 25 November last year and, secondly, in a letter written to me today by Mr Nixon.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– I also would like to take the opportunity on the first reading of the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill to make a comment about the subject to which Senator McLaren has just referred. I must say that I become a little tired of the way Senator McLaren raves and rants about my attitude to this subject. For a long time my attitude has been unaltered. Long before Senator McLaren became a member of this Parliament I was actively engaged in promoting the interests of national highways in South Australia. I continue to do so and give the Stuart Highway my top priority among national highways. Mr President, as you know I, along with other colleagues from South Australia, have made the point time and time again about providing a special fund to ensure that the Stuart Highway is completed. That proposal has been rejected. My suggestion the other night which was ignored, unfortunately, by the Australian Labor Party senators from South Australia -

Senator McLaren:

– Do not try to back out of it.

Senator JESSOP:

– I am not backing out of it. I must say that I get very tired of the cackle that comes from the back bench on the opposite side of the chamber. I can hold my head high in

South Australia and I will continue to do so, but it is of regret to me that Senator Bishop did not recognise the wisdom of my suggestion. I asked him to expand the terms of the motion which he moved the other day to include all national highways and to give the Stuart Highway priority. Had he accepted that suggestion, I feel quite sure that the motion would have received the total support of the Senate. I regret that he did not do so. I will continue my efforts to persuade the Government to provide additional funds for national highways. I will continue to lend my advocacy to the point that I have made repeatedly, that is, that the Stuart Highway should have priority. As I understand it, it is the only national highway yet to link two major centres of Australia. I will continue to lend my support to that end.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I do not think this session ofthe Parliament should be allowed to close without some comments being made on a book which is soon to be released and from which extracts are currently being serialised in two or three newspapers. I refer, of course, to Sir John Kerr’s book Matters for Judgment: an autobiography which purports to reveal the facts pertaining to the events of 1 1 November 1975 and the events leading up to that date. I forecast that one very important fact which will not be revealed in this book is that there were two telephone calls between Sir John and Mr Fraser on the morning of 11 November 1975, of which Senator Withers informed a number of journalists at a party in his office on the night of 8 August. In the publicity for the extracts which are being published in its newspaper the Melbourne Age of last Wednesday quoted Sir John as saying ‘I have always been a person vigorously interested in currency’. Ironically, in the memoirs published so far Sir John strongly objects to being thought of as venal. He may object but he should not be surprised. After all, the way in which his book was prepared provides us with some insight into just how currency conscious he is. The book was prepared substantially at the taxpayers expense, as was revealed in an issue of the Laurie Oakes Report of 1 November. Under the heading ‘Transactions on the taxpayer’, Oakes wrote:

Sir John will make a great deal of money from the book, which purports to “tell all” about his controversial dismissal of the Whitlam Government. Ironically, he was able to get much of the work involved in assembling his recollections done at the taxpayers expense. He did this by dictating his recollections into a tape recorder and giving the tapes to the Oral History section of the National Library. The Library transcribed the tapes and gave Sir John copies. They amounted to a first draft of the memoirs, and cost the author nothing.

In other words, the National Library of Australia has provided a free typing service. The instalment of the memoirs published in the Mebourne Age and the Sydney Morning Herald on Monday gave yet another indication of Sir John’s currency consciousness. He went to a good deal of trouble to try to convince us that he was in no way responsible for the lavish terms and salary offered to him before he agreed to become Governor-General. He would have us believe that he had them thrust upon him by Mr Whitlam. He neglected to mention that the salary was almost doubled at the time he took the job and the pension, which made future employment possible but unnecessary, was lifted to about three times the level of the average weekly wage and is linked to the salary of the Chief Justice so that it increases substantially year by year. If we accept Sir John’s account we are left with the impression that Mr Whitlam had to twist his arm to get him to accept the lavish offer. We are also told by Sir John that the offer was first made by Mr Whitlam at dinner. If that is so, and if normal conditions applied, it is probable that Sir John would have had a very cloudy recollection of what happened at dinner. I might mention that the only time on which I spoke to Sir John Kerr was at a function at Government House in September 1974. It was 7.30 p.m. He was drunk. At the time I was surprised. Later I learned that normally he was drunk at that time of the day. Still later I learned that he was frequently drunk any time after lunch, and he demonstrated that very convincingly to the whole of the nation at the Melbourne Cup last year. He has, of course, degraded the office of Governor-General to the considerable embarrassment of the incumbent.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Walsh, just watch that references to a holder of an office when holding office do not offend against the Standing Orders in that respect.

Senator WALSH:

- Mr President, I am not in any way reflecting upon the incumbent, Sir Zelman Cowen, who is indeed considerably embarrassed by the way in which his predecessor degraded the office that Sir Zelman now holds. The Governor-General is embarassed to the point where he has his staff ring Labor members of parliament and ask them whether they will accept invitations to go to Government House because he does not want to be faced with the embarrassment of a refusal.

Senator McLaren:

– Quite right.

Senator WALSH:

– This happens and I think it is most unfair that Sir Zelman Cowen should have been placed in this position by the infamy of his predecessor. So far as I am concerned- I know that many of my colleagues feel the same- I will not accept any social invitations to go to Government House until Sir Zelman has publicly repudiated the Kerr-Barwick doctrine.

Returning to Sir John Kerr, not satisfied with his $35,890 a year pension as a former Governor-General, when he finally left the office he still wanted more by way of the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation appointment and he was very annoyed by the spontaneous and hostile reaction in Australia to that appointment, for which he blames Mr Hayden. In the extract from his book published in the Melbourne Age and the Sydney Morning Herald, Sir John Kerr wrote:

It is a truly disgraceful thing that the former GovernorGeneral of Australia, a member of Her Majesty’s Privy Council formerly Chief Justice of his State, for years a Federal Judge should be accused of having venally bargained with a political leader to dismiss a government, place him in power, later resign from the Governorgeneralship- and before actually leaving- presumably as some sort of final encore- grant him improperly a dissolution of the House of Representatives.

I think that is a succinct assessment of four years in Sir John Kerr’s life, but it is not entirely accurate because it implies that the granting of a premature dissolution of the House of Representatives was some part of an original deal. It is more likely, of course, that the premature dissolution was granted on an understanding that some ambassadorial appointment would be offered to Sir John at some later date.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! You are reflecting directly on a holder of the highest office in Australia, and you must refrain from doing that.

Senator WALSH:

– As I understand the Standing Orders, one is not permitted to reflect upon the holder of the office of Governor-General, and I have not reflected and I have no intention of reflecting upon Sir Zelman Cowen. But after last year’s Melbourne Cup, being so publicly known and so well advertised, even a Prime Minister as insensitive as Mr Fraser would have been reluctant to appoint Sir John to a serious ambassadorial post. So Mr Fraser resurrected the UNESCO post, which Mr Fraser himself had described some two years earlier as a sinecure and had abolished. It was appropriate that Mr Fraser should eat his own words in making that appointment because in granting the double dissolution Sir John Kerr also ate his words from New Delhi in February 1975 when he said that a Governor-General should not grant a dissolution of the Parliament simply because it suited the Prime Minister of the day.

I make an appeal to the reading public of Australia not to enrich further this man by buying his book, which I understand costs about $ 1 5. But I appeal to the reading public to take the opportunity of reading, without further enriching the author of the book, the extracts which are now being published in two or three metropolitan dailies and when reading those extracts to reflect upon the reliability of the author’s testimony, to reflect upon the telephone calls between the present Prime Minister and Sir John on the morning of 1 1 November 1975, to reflect upon the granting of a premature dissolution of the House of Representatives in complete contradiction of his own publicly-stated view of the responsibilities and duties of a GovernorGeneral and to reflect also upon the events at the Melbourne Cup of 1 977.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– I wish to reply to something that I heard Senator Jessop say. I will not be too long. It concerns the argument about the Stuart Highway, which was debated in the Senate on 16 November. I want to make three points. The first is in regard to the motion I moved, which read:

That the Committee is of the opinion that the Australian Government should provide special funding to enable a continuing program of construction of the Stuart Highway to be undertaken, as unanimously requested by the recent representative deputation to the Minister for Transport from South Australia and the Northern Territory.

When I moved that motion, it was moved in the spirit of the deputation that met the Minister for Transport, Mr Nixon. The Minister reluctantly agreed to take before Cabinet a request from the deputation for an extra $2.3m for road works. That proves, of course, that the Minister in fact accepted the principle. Whilst that matter was hotly debated, he finally agreed to ask Cabinet to provide an extra $2. 3m. After that was done, of course, he wrote to say that the Cabinet had not agreed with the proposition. In a letter to which my attention has been drawn, the Minister suggests that the statement by the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Sinclair, in the Primary Industry Media Release of 25 November 1977 does not mean what we read into it. The concluding paragraph of that statement, issued in Alice Springs by Mr Sinclair, the Deputy Leader of the National Country Party, states:

This would mean, in addition to funds provided to the South Australian Government as part of the national program and for allocation at their direction, there would be a specific sum provided to upgrade the Stuart Highway over a period of years.

I suggest that nobody can distort the meaning of that. It is clear that the Minister for Transport took it from the members of the deputation that what was intended was a request for special funds. In fact, that is reinforced by the Press statement made by Senator Jessop himself following the deputation. In fact, he received a very prominent place in the Adelaide Advertiser. We signed a common letter. A report in the Advertiser of 26 May this year reads:

In a letter to Mr Nixon last night, Senator Jessop urged the Cabinet to reimburse the South Australian Government $ 1 8.79m, which had been spent above the Commonwealth ‘s national highway allocation over the past four years.

It was reasonable to expect this amount to be reimbursed provided it was spent on the Stuart Highway.

It is felt that an urgent capital works program should be approved in order that this road, the only national highway remaining unsealed in the State, can be completed within eight years ‘, Senator Jessop said.

That statement appeared in a number of newspapers.

Senator McLaren:

– On the 19th in the Adelaide Advertiser.

Senator BISHOP:

– Yes. I think it is clear to everybody that, when we National Country Party, Labor Party and Liberal Party members and the other parties- the Mayor of Alice Springs, the Australian Road Transport Federation and some other interests- went to Mr Nixon, we put the proposition that was indicated in my motion. You, Mr President, and other honourable senators may remember that it was my intention to get as far as possible a united approach on that. I regret that that did not happen. Unfortunately it is clear that any other suggestion along the lines that Senator Jessop put forward that night was only a diversion away from the original representations.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-I rise very briefly, on the motion for the first reading of this money Bill, to speak about two matters which concern me and which I wish to raise before this Parliament rises. The first matter relates to the situation of Timorese refugees in Australia and particularly the fact that today the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr MacKellar) saw representatives of Timorese refugees in this country and gave them a number of undertakings which must be regarded as of extremely doubtful validity. It is now some three years since there was a large influx of Timorese refugees to Australia. In my capacity as a senator with constituents, I have had a great deal to do with the Timorese community in Melbourne. I can only say to other senators in this chamber that if they regard this issue as being a very peripheral one they should take a little time out, meet these people and see the circumstances in which some Timorese families are living in Melbourne, and then come back to this place. Perhaps then they will have a slightly different perspective on this whole question.

The fact of the matter is that it is now some 1 8 months since the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs said that a team from the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in Australia would be sent to East Timor. He said that negotiations were under way for a team to be sent to East Timor in relation to family reunion. An undertaking was given that it would all take place within six months. Late last year women of the Timorese community in Melbourne, which is the only one with which I personally am familiar, were beginning to ask what was happening about that undertaking. In Melbourne there are women with a number of children and no father, the father being in East Timor; and there are brothers and sisters under 12 years of age, with no parents here at all. They are in a somewhat hostile environment- a different culture and language- attending schools in the Melbourne suburb of Richmond, living in high rise flats in a totally strange world. These circumstances are indeed very tragic. Now the Government is saying that perhaps this matter can be fixed up before Christmas this year.

I do not know what validity there is in threats and so on; but a number of Timorese women in Melbourne have said that if they are not reunited with their families by Christmas this year they will go on a hunger strike until they are. This Parliament, of course, cannot yield to blackmail from any outside body in Australian society; but I think we have to face up to the consequences of that threat as being an indication of the degree of desperation which these people have. What seems to be happening, frankly, is that the Government is engaging in bilateral negotiations with the Indonesian Government on this question and is constantly being obstructed by the Indonesian Government. Our position as a country in this region, in terms of real-politik, clearly is that we do not want to offend the Indonesian Government. Accordingly, if the Indonesian Government says ‘No, we cannot accommodate you’ - the Australian Government- in terms of some humanitarian exercise in relation to these people and the reunification of families, the Australian Government says ‘Manana’- or whatever- ‘we have tried and there is nothing more that can be done about it’.

There are, of course, other things that the Australian Government could do about it. The Australian Government has not discussed this issue, as I understand it, with the Dutch Government, with the United States Government, with the Japanese Government or with any other government which has substantial economic interests in Indonesia. The Dutch Government has not only economic interests but also a very substantial degree of sentimental association, if one can call it that in the case of an ex-colonial power. It certainly has a degree of influence and persuasiveness over the Indonesian Government, that is, probably much greater than that of the Australian Government, which is seen to be in a subservient role in a bilaterial negotiation situation.

I raise this matter because this is one of the few remaining opportunities I will have to do so. I regard it as one of tragic sadness and of utmost importance. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs seems to be adopting a most supine role on this whole question. It has been raised again and again by Senator Missen from the other side; it has been raised by me and others on this side. Senator Missen and I raise it because we have been together and seen the situation about which we are talking. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs seems to treat this tragic and important situation as just another file. It is not just another file; it is a matter about which we as senators and legislators ought to be vitally concerned. That is the first matter I raise.

The second matter I raise briefly is the current problem of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. I think for the first time in its history the Australian Broadcasting Commission- the national broadcasting system of this countryhas been off the air for a number of days. There is no doubt that it has been off the air, whether we like it or not, because of the perception of Government policy in relation to the Commission.

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– What has that to do with the principle of the right to strike?

Senator BUTTON:

-I am not giving the honourable senator a lecture on the principle of the right to strike. I am happy to have that debate with her at another time if she wishes. I am talking about the ABC. Let me deal with the matter in another way. Let me refer to the basis of the statements of the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. He said in a letter to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley) almost exactly the same sort of thing as his predecessor, Sir Henry Bland- not one who endeared himself to the staff of the Australian Broadcasting Commission -

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– Or to you.

Senator BUTTON:

-He did in a quaint sort of way. I had a lot of affection for him. In my few private moments I have sometimes been regarded by some people as a collector of antiquities. I had an affection for Sir Henry Bland in that sense. The important point is that in 1976 Sir Henry Bland used the expression: ‘The ABC has been cut to the bone’. The Government did not seem to heed that advice from the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. Now, in November 1978, the current Chairman of the ABC, who in the past has adopted something of a mouselike role has now begun to roar. He said in a letter to the Minister just the other day that not only is the programming policy of the ABC being affected by government financial strictures and staff cuts but also the morale of the ABC is being affected. More importantly he says that the Government keeps interfering in the ABC. I do not know what he means by the words: ‘The Government keeps interfering in the ABC. But one way in which the Government is not interfering in the affairs of the ABC quite clearly is a constructive way. In my lifetime the ABC’s program content and the program standard have never been so bad as they have been in the last 12 months. This relates very much to Government policy.

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– We had this debate three weeks ago.

Senator BUTTON:

-Yes, I know, and the honourable senator sits there complacently saying that it is passe now; that we had it three weeks ago. That is very interesting. I am not concerned about what happened three weeks ago; I am concerned about what is happening now and what has been happening for the last two years. If this Government is not malevolent in its intent towards the ABC, if its policies are not being dictated by the ‘get politics off the front page’ syndrome which we heard about a couple of years ago we ought to hear about it.

It is most important and most unusual when the Chairman of a statutory corporation in this country stands up and says that this Government is interfering with the ABC, that the ABC is not getting enough money or staff and that it cannot do the sort of work which it believes it ought to do. I mention this because the Australian broadcasting service has been the source of great pride to this country in the past, and it is important in 1978 that we have a few things in this country that we can be proud about.

I understand that there has been a bit of chitchat in the Government party rooms about who should be on the ABC. I understand the suggestion has been put that perhaps members of Parliament should serve on the ABC. That may be a good suggestion. I note that Senator Knight acknowledges that. I invite him at the Government parties’ next meeting to raise this matter in a different context. The Government should look at the question of behaving towards the ABC with the degree of maturity which the British Government has towards the British Broadcasting Corporation, which British political parties have towards the BBC. I refer to the fact that the members of the board of governors of the BBC are appointed after consultation between the two major parties. The Prime Minister of Britain always consults with the Leader of the Opposition about who will be appointed to those positions. I think it is a very important principle which could be followed in a number of statutory corporations in Australia if all this waffle which is talked about taking the ABC out of politics and taking everything out of politics is to have any meaningful ring about it at all.

Senator Knight:

– Did you consider that when you were in government?

Senator BUTTON:

– It is part of our platform. We did not consider that aspect then because I had not contributed to the platform at that time. The honourable senator should read the platform as it has been since 1976. It is most important. I will send the honourable senator a copy in the morning’s post. He ought to read it, marie it, inwardly digest it and think about it insofar as he is capable of doing so.

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– It requires thinking about, does it?

Senator BUTTON:

-Of course it does. The honourable senator’s interjections have a certain allegro quality tonight which seems to suggest that her presence in the Senate is a post-prandial one. I welcome her intense concentration on the subject of this debate. I wish she was as diligent about trying to see that something is done about the sorts of problems which I have raised instead of making those cliche-laden, bland speeches which she makes on every issue which arises in relation to the ABC in this Parliament. The ABC is a creative organisation. It is an organisation which bears thinking about constructively and in a creative way. I invite Government senators to try to do that in the future even if that capacity has eluded them in the past.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills read a first time.

Second Readings

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

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows-

Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill 1978

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Livestock Slaughter Levy Act 1964 to increase the maximum rates leviable on cattle, buffaloes, sheep, lambs and goats slaughtered for human consumption. Concurrently, I will be introducing a Bill for parallel amendments to the Live-stock Export Charge Act 1977. The Government has agreed to amend these two Acts at the request of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation (AMLC). The maximum rates leviable per head under the Slaughter Levy Act will be doubled in the case of the meat research component, quadrupled in the case of the meat processing research component, and doubled in the case of the total levy possible for the above components plus the component for the administration of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation. The Bill provides for the following increases in maximum amounts leviable for the different species:

Meat Research Component- from 25 cents to 50 cents in respect of cattle and buffaloes; from 3.1/3 cents to 6.2/3 cents in respect of sheep, lambs and goats.

Meat Processing Research- from 1 cent to 4 cents in respect of cattle and buffaloes; from 0. 1 cents to 0.4 cents in respect of sheep, lambs and goats.

Total of Meat Research, Meat Processing Research and Administration of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation Components- from 75 cents to $1.50 in respect of cattle and buffaloes; from 7.5 cents to 1 5 cents in respect of sheep, lambs and goats.

The maxima are being raised at this time, primarily to enable doubling of the operative rates for the meat processing research components, which are currently set at the maximum permissible under the Act. These increases in the operative meat processing rates have been recommended to the Government by the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation after consultation with, and with the support of, the Producer Consultative Group, the Exporter and Abattoir Consultative Group and the Australian

Meat Research Committee. These industry groups are unanimous in wishing to increase the funds available to support meat processing research at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Meat Research Laboratory at Cannon Hill, Queensland. The increases in the other maxima will enable future increases in the operative rates to be undertaken by changes to the regulations.

The need for an increase in the meat research component of sheep and lamb slaughter levies has already been foreshadowed by the AMLC and industry groups. Increased levies to finance AMLC operations may also be needed shortly. The AMLC is presently discussing with industry its forward expenditure budgets and income requirements. A significant amount of the funds provided to the Austraiian Meat and Livestock Corporation from the slaughter levies and export charges are spent on promoting increased demand for Austraiian meat and livestock. In this respect, the Government believes it is most desirable that Australia’s exports to the Middle East be expanded and is hopeful of increasing expenditure on promotion of exports to these markets. I will shortly be meeting with leaders of industry organisations to determine the best way of achieving this objective.

The Bill, in common with the Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill, does not make provision for increasing the cattle disease eradication components of the levy. Honourable Senators will be aware that in his Budget Speech the Treasurer announced that the Government would review these components later in the year. At present the operative rates for the levy components referred to in this Bill are:

There is no operative rate at present for buffaloes and the Government does not propose to set a rate at this stage. This has been done for several reasons including the marginal economic viability of the buffalo meat industry and the Government’s desire not to hinder efforts to reduce the buffalo population of the Northern Territory for disease control reasons. Monies raised through the two research components ofthe levy are used to finance a continuing high level of scientific and economic research in the livestock industries. This research ensures that there is a steady stream of information available to both producers and processors to enable them to improve their management and marketing practices. The Government matches research funds expended from monies raised from producers through the two research components on a $ for $ basis. Monies raised through the components designated for administration of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation are used to finance all aspects of the operations of the Corporation. The Corporation is essentially responsible for the control and regulation of external marketing of Australian meat, meat products, edible offal and livestock. The Corporation also encourages and provides assistance for promotion of meat and meat products both in Australia and overseas. The Government does not supplement funds raised from producers for these purposes.

As honourable senators will appreciate the Livestock Slaughter Levy Act provides for proposed changes to operative rates of levy to be implemented by regulation. Before making regulations prescribing operative rates of levy the Governor-General is required to take into account any recommendations with respect to the amount submitted to the Minister by the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation. Recommendations for amendments to the operative levy rates are made to the Minister by the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation after consultation with the Producer Consultative Group, the Exporter and Abattoir Consultative Group and, where appropriate, the Australian Meat Research Committee. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill 1978

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Livestock Export Charge Act 1977 to increase the maximum rates which may be charged on live exports of cattle, buffaloes, sheep, lambs and goats. Livestock export charges comprise components for meat research, for financing the Australian Meat and Livestock CorporationAMLC and, in respect of cattle and buffaloes, for financing the national cattle disease eradication scheme. These components are identical to components of the livestock slaughter levies, as to both purpose and maximum rates of charge. There is, however, no component of the export charge equivalent to the meat processing research component of the slaughter levy. Such a charge would be inappropriate for live animal exports. The increases in the maximum rates of charge provided for in the Bill parallel those in the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill 1978. Maximum rates of charge for research and AMLC administration are to be doubled. The disease eradication component of the charge is not altered.

As with the livestock slaughter levies, the operative rates of export charge are set by regulation. Before making regulations prescribing operative rates of charge the Governor-General is required to take into account any recommendations with respect to the amount submitted to the Minister by the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation. Recommendations for amendments to the operative rates of charge are made to the Minister by the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation after consultation with the Producer Consultative Group, the Exporter and Abattoir Consultative Group and, where appropriate, the Australian Meat Research Committee. The current operative rates of charge are the same as for the similar components of the livestock slaughter levy. Subject to industry recommendations, the Government expects that livestock export charges and livestock slaughter levies will continue to move in parallel. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Livestock Diseases Bill 1978

The purpose of this Bill is to give effect in the Australian Territory to amendments to long standing arrangements between the Commonwealth and the States concerning the eradication of exotic animal diseases. These arrangements are designed to enhance Australia’s ability to deal with outbreaks of serious exotic animal diseases. This is a real risk because of the increased speed of transport and volume of movements of animals and animal products throughout the world and also the increased associated risk of the introduction of insects which are vectors of disease.

In the agricultural field there has been for many years a well co-ordinated system of committees under the Australian Agricultural Council and the Standing Committee on Agriculture and through these forums full consideration is continually given to ways and means of eradicating serious exotic diseases, should they ever gain entry to Australia. As a result, detailed plans have been formulated for the eradication of these serious exotic diseases, agreement having been reached between the Prime Minister and the Premiers of all States for joint action. The principle is that no matter where in Australia a disease may occur, the Commonwealth and each of the States- including the Northern Territory as ‘State’ for this purpose- will contribute finance in agreed proportions to enable measures to be taken for speedy eradication. The States will together contribute 50 per cent of the money required and the Commonwealth the balance. The Australian Capital Territory share is borne by the Commonwealth so that in effect the Commonwealth contribution becomes approximately 50.5 per cent of the total cost. The relative State contributions are on an agreed basis related to livestock populations at risk and each State has enacted legislation as necessary to cover their responsibilities. It should be noted that it has been agreed that the arrangements will apply only in cases where programs are carried out with the full support of the Australian Agricultural Council’s Consultative Committee on animal health matters.

I turn now to consider the Bill in detail. The Bill supersedes, and in clause 2 provides for the repeal of, the Foot and Mouth Disease Act 196 1 under which a trust account was established for purposes connected with the eradication of foot and mouth disease in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. In 1965 that Act was amended to include two diseases which are clinically indistinguishable from foot and mouth disease, namely, vesicular stomatitis and vesicular exanthema. To provide flexibility and to limit the need for future amendments the Bill does not specify the diseases to which it applies. Rather, clause 4 provides a mechanism whereby the Minister may specify the diseases which for the time being are to be covered. The diseases which will be specified are those which, by agreement between the Prime Minister and State Premiers, are included in the arrangements. Apart from foot and mouth disease, vesicular stomatitis and vesicular exanthema the following diseases will be covered:

  1. rinderpest, which is a contagious virus disease affecting cattle, buffaloes, sheep, goats and pigs. Rinderpest is a serious plague in many parts of Asia and Africa;
  2. swine fever, which is widespread throughout the greater part of the world although Australia has been free of it for many years;
  3. African swine fever, a fatal disease of domestic pigs endemic in Africa, which has spread to areas of southern Europe and Latin America;
  4. rabies, which is one of the most serious diseases affecting all mammals, including man, in whom it is almost invariably fatal. Rabies occurs all over the world, but has been excluded from Australia by quarantine;
  5. Newcastle disease, which in its classical virulent form has been the cause of very great loss to poultry industries worldwide. It is because of the risk of Newcastle disease that Australia has prohibited imports of poultry and poultry meat;
  6. fowl plague, which is a virus disease affecting poultry, ducks and turkeys;
  7. bluetongue, which is an insect borne virus disease affecting sheep in particular, tongue will remain a specified exotic disease until such time as the Australian situation is clarified. The strains occurring in Australia at the present rime lack the virulence of bluetongue strains in Africa, the United States and the Middle East;
  8. swine vesicular disease, which is clinically indistinguishable from the other vesicular diseases. If it were to occur, the continuing presence of this disease could mask a serious foot and mouth disease outbreak.

The Bill reflects the recent decision ofthe Australian Agricultural Council to extend the existing arrangements to apply not only to eradication campaigns, but also to control campaigns. Such campaigns would be used when a national eradication campaign is impractical but it is nevertheless desirable, in the national interest, to implement measures aimed at confining a disease (or disease agent) to localised areas, containing it in those areas and eradicating it from all others. Such measures would be taken in accordance with control programs instituted and carried out with the full support of the Consultative Committee of the Australian Agricultural Council. Sub-clause 5(1) empowers the Minister, on behalf of the Commonwealth, to enter into arrangements with the States for the purposes of controlling and eradicating exotic animal diseases. Sub-clause 5 (2) deems any existing arrangement to be an arrangement made under sub-clause ( 1 ). The clause is designed to give a clear legal basis to the current arrangements existing between the Commonwealth and the States.

Clause 6 provides the mechanism whereby the Minister may specify the locality in which a campaign is to operate, the disease to which the campaign is to be directed and the period during which the financial provisions of the Bill are to apply. I will refer to this clause again shortly. Clauses 7 to 10 of the Bill provide for a trust account into which contributions by the Commonwealth and the States can be paid and from which the expenses of eradication and compensation to stockowners in the Australian Capital Territory may be paid. The Foot and Mouth Disease Act 1961 provided also for payment of compensation to stockowners in the Northern Territory, but the present Bill reflects the recent constitutional developments in the Northern Territory and thus relates only to the Australian Capital Territory.

Under clause 1 1 compensation may be claimed where livestock die or livestock or property is destroyed during an eradication or control program and there is in force a declaration by the Minister under clause 6 in respect of that disease for the particular area. By virtue of clause 6 such compensation may be paid in respect of loss arising from action taken from the time an outbreak of a disease is first suspected to exist, by providing that the Minister may make a declaration of an area, in respect of a disease, retrospective. This is an important component in control programs as it is essential to guard against delay in taking appropriate action immediately an outbreak of a disease is suspected. This may involve the slaughter of stock which would impose considerable hardship on the owner concerned unless he is compensated for the loss involved. This is a small price to pay to safeguard the national interest. Conversely, clause 6 also enables the Minister to cut off, from a specified date, the period during which the financial provisions apply. This recognises that there may be occasions when it becomes obvious that a disease has become so well established that control or eradication measures are no longer worthwhile. This will minimise unnecessary expenditure, while providing some flexibility so that stockowners are not unfairly deprived of compensation.

Clauses 12 to 17 also deal with compensation and cover such details as: The persons who are eligible for compensation; the rime within which claims for compensation must be lodged; the non-payment of compensation to persons who have been convicted of an offence against the law of the Austraiian Capital Territory relating to diseases of livestock; the non-payment of compensation under the law of the Australian Capital Territory relating to diseases of livestock where compensation has been paid under clause 1 1 of the Bill; the amount of compensation, this being an amount equal to the market value of the livestock or property before its destruction or death; the legal right to recover compensation which is payable under clause 1 1. Clause 18 provides a $200 penalty for making false or misleading statements or doing fraudulent acts for the purpose of obtaining pecuniary benefit while clause 19 preserves the laws of the Australian Capital Territory relating to diseases of livestock except insofar as their application would result in double compensation. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– The Opposition is not opposing any of the three Bills which are currently before the Senate. I think one can fairly say that the major Bill is the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill, the purpose of which is to increase the levy struck on sheep, goats and cattle which are slaughtered for the purposes of meat and meat processing research. The Live-stock Export Charge Amendment Bill provides for a comparable levy on animals which are exported live. These Bills do not increase the livestock levy struck to fund the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation per se to cover its administrative expenses, although the Government has forecast an intention to introduce legislation in the near future to increase the levy for the administration of the AMLC. Given the fact that the Government has forecast its intention to introduce further amending legislation, I am somewhat puzzled by the decision to double the levy applicable for sheep slaughter when only half the existing maximum levy is being applied. Perhaps that is something the Minister might take up when he is replying to the second reading stage of the debate. One would assume, since only half the existing maximum levy is applied, that there is no need at this time to provide for a further increase in the levy. Anyway, the Government has forecast its intention to amend this legislation further in the not too distant future. I wonder, therefore, why the decision has been taken to increase the levy on sheep slaughter at this stage. The maximum levies under the Act as it stands have been generally doubled. It should be noted, of course, that the fact that the maximum has been doubled does not necessarily mean that the actual levy applied will be doubled, at least not immediately, except in the case of research for meat processing where the levy has been increased- in fact it has been quadrupled.

Although these Bills will not directly provide the funds for the administration of Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation they are, of course, related to the operations of the Corporation and the levies are being increased at its request. I will take this opportunity to make a couple of brief comments on the AMLC’s annual conference held in Sydney last Thursday. I attended the conference and, in particular, I was most disturbed by a comment made not by a member of the Corporation but by a member of one of the informal producer consultative groups. I refer to a comment made by Mr Bargwanna, the chairman of what I think is the meat exporters and abattoir proprietors consultative group. He expressed the view that competition was the lifeblood of our economic system and spoke at some length about what he say as the danger of statutory regulation. That sort of belief is common enough and it is expressed commonly enough. But what disturbed me in this context was that if Mr Bargwanna ‘s statements are to be taken seriously, of if he means them to be taken seriously, it is quite clear that he is advocating the removal of the regulation of beef exports.

Beef exports to the higher priced markets in North America and Japan have been regulated for many years and for very good reason by the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation, a statutory body, and its predecessor, the Australian Meat Board, which also was a statutory body. Therefore in warning about the dangers, as he saw them, of statutory regulation, it appears quite clear that Mr Bargwanna is arguing that the AMLC should cease regulating beef exports to those high price markets. The effect of such a withdrawal by the AMLC or a reversion to the free market so far as we, the sellers, are concerned, would, of course, be to transfer enormous profits to those who manage to import the meat into the United States. It would transfer the benefit of the high price market from the Australian exporter, and hopefully the Australian cattle producer, to the person who held the import quota at the other end, in a similar way to the distribution of the benefits of import quotas into Australia in respect of textiles.

I find it most disturbing that such a view should be put forward by a man who, although not a member of the Corporation, is closely associated with the Corporation. I trust I am wrong in my interpretation. If I am wrong in interpreting Mr Bargwanna ‘s remarks as being critical of the principle of regulating exports to those high price markets, I trust he will qualify them. If he does so I hope he will make it quite clear that in criticising statutory regulation he was doing so in a selective way and that in fact he approves of statutory regulation of beef exporters by the AMLC. I hope he will take the opportunity to clear up this matter.

The third Bill which I want to mention is the Livestock Diseases Bill, the purpose of which is to provide the same disease controls in the Territories- the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory- as presently apply in the States. The Opposition sees no reason to oppose that Bill either. I want to make a couple of brief comments about livestock disease control in Australia. In particular I want to refer to an incident- I know there is less than total agreement about the facts on this issue- that occurred on Sunday, 19 January 1976 when fowl plague was diagnosed in Victoria as a result of which some 60,000 birds ultimately were slaughtered. I am informed that the State Department of Agriculture officer had the legal power to order the slaughter of the birds but was reluctant to do so until he received an assurance from the Australian Agricultural Council, or the federal authority, that compensation would be paid in respect of the birds slaughtered. Consequently the slaughterings were not undertaken until the morning of Wednesday, 22 January. They were completed some five weeks later. As I said, I understand that there has been less than total agreement about the facts of this matter. However, if the fact as given to me are substantially correct it would appear that there is a case for examining or re-examining the procedures which operate between State departmental veterinary officers, who have the legal power to order slaughtering, and the co-ordinator or the centralised authority, which handles compensation funds, to ensure that unwarranted or avoidable delays in diagnosis and compensation arrangements are avoided. In this instance no great harm was done but I undrstand that if the problem had been Newcastle disease or some other serious poultry disease a delay of 48 hours could have been critical and disastrous.

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

-I take the opportunity of this debate on the livestock levy Bills to make a few comments on the beef industry. It is unfortunate that we are given little opportunity to debate this important industry in the Senate. It is particularly unfortunate that this debate has come on in the Senate in what, hopefully, is the last week that we will be sitting, when the legislation has been on the Notice Paper of the other place for some time. As a result both the number of speakers and the agreed length of time for speaking have been reduced. Therefore one does not have much opportunity tonight to comment on this very important legislation which concerns this very important industry.

Nevertheless, I would like to take a few minutes to say a few words about some aspects of the industry that are affected by this legislation. I would like to note particularly the first two paragraphs of the second reading speech made in the House of Representatives by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) on the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill 1978. We all assume that that is exactly the same second reading speech that has been incorporated in the Senate Hansard. The first two paragraphs read as follows:

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Act 1 964 to increase the maximum rates leviable on cattle, buffaloes, sheep, lambs and goats slaughtered for human consumption. Concurrently, I will be introducing a Bill for parallel amendments to the Live-stock Export Charge Act 1977. The Government has agreed to amend these two Acts at the request of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation- AMLC. The maximum rates leviable per head under the Slaughter Levy Act will be doubled in the case of the meat research component, quadrupled in the case of the meat processing research component, and doubled in the case of the total levy possible for the above components plus the component for the administration of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation.

There was a substantial debate on this legislation in the House of Representatives and apparently it will not be recanvassed in the Senate. I certainly do not intend to do so. However, I would like to raise a few matters in relation to what is happening with this component which we are approving for the administration of the Austraiian Meat and Livestock Corporation.

We in this place pass legislation which gives that statutory Corporation authority, subject to ministerial consent, to levy beef producers so that it can carry out certain functions. Once we have passed this legislation and agreed to a maximum levy, effectively involvement in this area passes out of our hands. We delegate to the AMLC, a statutory corporation, the right to raise certain levies subject, of course, to the proviso that the Minister has some rights in that area, too. However, when the levy is raised and the AMLC sets about gathering large sums of money from beef producers to carry out its functions, we are not involved. This is the only point at which we can become involved and can comment on those levies and what the AMLC does with them. That is the aspect that I want to concentrate on tonight.

I remind the Senate, if it needs to be reminded, that last week when debating the Estimates the Minister for Science (Senator Webster) and I had an interchange of views in relation to a report from the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation. I remind the Senate that I had some complaint about the fact that this statutory corporation has not yet presented a report to the Parliament and that I had information that a copy of the preliminary report was made available to someone at the Sydney office of the AMLC. I complained on the ground that there was under law an obligation for this Corporation to report to Parliament via the Minister but that the Parliament had not received the report, although other people had access to it. I do not want to prolong that debate at tedious length, but I must make a statement in relation to the answer that was given by the Minister. I in any event have a general reason for raising it in this debate.

If I may first comment on the statement by the Minister, he indicated that he would check whether my allegation was true. After checking during the suspension of the sitting, the Minister is reported at page 2 1 1 3 of Senate Hansard of 1 6 November 1978 as having said: 1 am advised that the interim annual report of the AMLC is not available for public scrutiny. Ten copies were produced in the Sydney office of the corporation. One has been given to the General Manager of the Corporation and the other nine to members of the Corporation. That has been verified by a telephone call today to the General Manager.

The Minister went on to indicate that an interim report from the Corporation would be tabled this week in the Parliament I want to put on record, and further information is available if it reaches that stage, that a copy of the preliminary report was made available to a stranger who was allowed to sit in the office of the AMLC and copy certain information from this report which we have still not seen in this Parliament. The information that was copied from the preliminary report appears in a public document, a submission to the Prices Justification Tribunal in relation to the beef industry. It appears even with page references, so it is quite a specific reference to a very specific document which was made available to someone who simply went into the AMLC office in Sydney, asked for certain information and was handed the report. I do not want again to canvass the rights and wrongs of that because we did that at some length last week. I just place that on record in reply to the information that was given by the Minister last week. At that time, as I indicated, it was not possible for me to contact the person concerned because he was in an aircraft; I could not get it on the record at that time.

My purpose in raising the whole issue of the report in an Estimates committee and becoming interested in it in the first place was that these Bills were then on the Notice Paper in the House of Representatives, where they had been for some time. It seemed to me that when levies exist and we are being asked to take action to double and quadruple certain of them, and some of the money is going to the administration of a statutory corporation, we really ought to have much more information than we had been given. We have been told that certain increases in relation to the Corporation has not been outlined to us. I know that the AMLC has its own internal budget and that it has made its case to the Minister and to the Government for the increase. I know that on the basis of that budget it has presented information to the Government that over the next three years it will need a substantial increase in income via its component of various levies to carry out its functions under the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation Act.

However, that information, which relates to the future, has never been presented to this Parliament and we have not been given information regarding money that has been spent from levies that we in this Parliament have authorised in the past. I just do not think that is good enough. The AMLC is a new statutory corporation but it has a very significant responsibility in relation to a major Australian industry, which is certainly one of the most important in my State of Queensland. We should be given more information. We certainly should have been given more information in relation to the case that was made by the AMLC and referred to by Senator Webster, the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, in his second reading speech, in which he said that the Government has agreed to amend these two Acts at the request of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation.

The Minister does indicate later in his speech that the AMLC is presently discussing with industry its forward expenditure budgets and income requirements. That should now be in the past tense because the Bills came in some time ago and those discussions have taken place. They were not public discussions. Although maybe we should not have access to them, I believe that we in this Parliament should have access to the case that was made for the increases. Later in his speech the Minister said:

Monies raised through the components designated for administration of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation are used to finance all aspects of the operations of the Corporation. The Corporation is essentially responsible for the control and regulation of external marketing of Australian meat, meat products, edible offal and livestock. The Corporation also encourages and provides assistance for promotion of meat and meat products both in Australia and overseas.

The subject of the marketing of meat, and specifically beef, has of course been in the newspapers in recent days. Various comments have been made about the need to promote vigorously our beef both overseas and in Australia- which is, of course, the beef industry’s major market. There has been some criticism of what is known of the promotion that might be undertaken I do not intend to repeat here all that criticism but it is a pity that we cannot have available to us more information about just what these promotion programs are to be.

I welcome the very positive comments of Mr Jones about the determination of the AMLC to embark on a vigorous marketing program but I would like to know more about its actual plans. In that context I certainly would like to know more about the AMLC’s forecast budget, which has led to the increases in levies to which we are being asked to give approval. I would like to know, for example, whether it is true that the budget that was presented to the Government actually showed an intention to reduce the funds for promotion within Australia over the next 12 months, and a very small increase in overall costs of promotion, as compared with large increases in the overall costs of administration of the AMLC, both in its Australian offices and in the overseas offices that we fund from this country via beef producers’ money. I would like to know whether that is true, and I think that there is a reasonable ground for believing that it is. There may be a good reason for it, but no explanation is given to us, either by the AMLC or the Minister.

It is worth placing on record that a large number of producer organisations are concerned to ensure that in future beef is marketed better than it has been in the past. I am aware that over the last three years, when the beef industry has been in extremely difficult circumstances, members of Parliament have taken some note of this and that even members who do not have beef electorates have been aware that a dire position obtained, even if they did not know the details of the causes. I am aware that in recent times, since the upturn in the beef market caused mainly by domestic action in America- no thanks to anything that has happened in

Australia- many members of Parliament, unfortunately, have thought that that was an end to the problem. My main reason for rising to speak tonight is to implore members not to think that the subject of beef marketing has been satisfactorily resolved. Although beef producers have received a reprieve as a result of domestic action taken by the United States President in the last few months, this does not mean that the problems of the beef industry in Australia have been overcome- not by any means. Structural problems are still there. Certainly it does not mean that the beef producer has lost interest in structural problems which have been shown up so sharply in Australia in the last few years mainly because of the downturn in the export situation.

Strong statements on approaches to marketing have been made by a number of producer organisations. I refer to one article appearing in the Farmers Weekly of 5 October 1978. The article quotes the comments of the meat section president of the Farmers Union on the subject of levies and the marketing of beef and is typical of the attitude of many beef producers towards beef marketing. Under the heading ‘Growers want more for money than 30-second commercials’ Mr John Newman is quoted as saying:

If livestock producers are to be asked for more than double their existing contribution to the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation they want to see more for their money than thirty-second commercials telling the world’s greatest meat eaters to eat more beef.

To say that the present marketing system is the most commercially viable is to in fact say that producers who have not and cannot prosper under the present system should get out of it.

That the system currently operating is acceptable to traders in meat may well be true, that fatteners and livestock traders may be able to get by may also be a fact, but for the breeder, the beginner of the production line, it is -

Expletive deleted-

  1. . disaster!

With rising inescapable fixed overheads and widely fluctuating returns, the men who make the industry possible, unless blessed with alternative sources of income, are doomed to a sub-standard existence or a bankrupt business.

That is simply stating the way many producers feel about the beef industry now. The problem has not gone away and beef producers and their organisations have shown a willingness to face this fact. They want support from the Government and they want action from the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation which will show that that Corporation is acting according to the charter that we gave it in the Act we passed last year. In regard to the matter of overseas trade Mr Newman said:

Single desk buyers must be faced with a single desk seller and politically influenced buying arrrangements should be met with politically backed selling.

I suggest that both the Government and the AMLC have adopted a slightly ostrich-like attitude in relation to the single buyer single seller situation. I am not an expert on marketing but it seems to me as a keen observer of the beef industry in recent years that the single seller single buyer situation in the beef industry cannot be avoided. The Government and the AMLC are going to have to face up to this and give rather better reasons for not acting along those lines than they have given so far. It may be that their option is right but I do not believe that they have explained it satisfactorily. It is clear from comments by producer organisations that producers are not persuaded by the negative attitude that has been taken. Mr Newman said further

Mr Jones of the Corporation must recognise that the $S,000m processing and marketing body is not worth a cracker if the breeding and production of base material is uneconomical.

It is also a fact that insisting that solving the problem is too hard, or too painful for some vested interests, is not the response expected from people selected as the most experienced and pre-eminent in their fields working together in the body of the AMLC.

With the ability to license, regulate and promote as well as trade, it is not sufficient to abdicate responsibility commercially and claim only an advisory role.

That criticism of the present system has been made on a number of occasions, and it sums up well many of the persistent, basic criticisms that have been made of our approach, as a nation, to beef marketing.

As I said, I raise this matter in the Senate to indicate to honourable senators and others that the problem of marketing has not been overcome just because there has been an increase in beef prices. It is quite possible that it is a temporary increase. I point out to the Senate that there were many indications in the newspapers just two or three months before the increase in the rate of exports to the United States resulting in a lifting in beef prices, which showed a different and extremely pessimistic attitude. I could refer to many articles but I will give just one example. It is an article from the Australian of 8 April 1978, only some seven months ago, headed: ‘Beef Exports Crisis. Huge surplus threatens abattoir jobs’. The article states:

The beef export market has taken a shock downturn, leaving Australia stuck with a mountain of surplus beef and a million cattle too many.

Meatworks will lay off more employees soon because they cannot get beef past quota barriers in the United States, Japan and Canada or find payable markets elsewhere.

The situation is so critical that meat exporters took the rare step on Friday of publicly explaining why they are cutting down on cattle purchases.

There is available a mountain of Press clippings which show that just a few short months ago headlines such as ‘Beef exports crisis’ were the norm. That would seem to indicate that the recent- and possibly temporary- change in the United States market does not so quickly eliminate the problems of the beef industry. As long as producers are still facing those problems I think that we ought to recognise the significance of their willingness to continue to face them. Too often primary producers are accused of being interested in their problems only when there is a crisis and of sweeping them aside with the comment that they do not want to do anything about it when things are good. Things are better at the moment and producers are still showing that they want more action on this because they do not want to face the same sort of problem again.

I turn now for a couple of minutes to the subject of classification which is a major responsibility of the AMLC at the moment. Again at the hearing of Estimates Committee D on 20 October 1978 a number of questions were asked in relation to classification. They appear at pages 850 and 853 of the Hansard report of the proceedings of that committee. I have not any intention of going through them tonight. I just want to make the comment that, having sat through all that evidence and asked a number of questions, I am dismayed at the sort of doubts that are being cast on classification. Beef producers see the introduction of a reliable classification scheme as basic to any orderly marketing scheme. They want an orderly marketing schemein order to obviate the fluctuations they have experienced in the last few years in order to get their industry on to a sound and planned basis and to operate in a reasonable way. As I have said, I find dismaying the doubts that have been expressed.

Many wild stories are floating around at the moment about the costs involved and the time it will take to introduce. I found it a little distressing at that Estimates Committee hearing that more direct answers could not be given on the subject of classification. I accept fully the technical problems that have arisen in relation to a classification system, but trying to look past that difficulty and to get some idea of the notional timetable that the AMLC and the Government have in mind for classification proved to be virtually impossible. With the sort of money that is involved both in direct appropriations and in the levies I think we need better information than that provided so far. The Estimates Committee hearings are one of the few opportunities we have to get this information. With that sort of doubt cast on the whole subject of classification and therefore the possibility of a reasonable and orderly marketing system, I think we should face the fact that we are placing the producer in a difficult position in the matter of commenting on his own industry.

I conclude on the subject of marketing. An orderly marketing system for beef is essential both for the producer and for the consumer. A number of producer groups are on record in relation to this matter. A front page article in the Canberra Times of Friday, 16 June 1978, quotes Mr Baden Cameron, the executive officer of the Australian National Cattlemen’s Council, as expounding the need for marketing developments and reforms. The article states:

Mr Cameron said that because the industry would have to continue to rely on the vagaries of overseas markets, particularly the US market, it needed to obtain more reliable access to these markets. It had to increase the calibre of its markets- intelligence services and its market forecasting.

He called for reforms in the marketing chain saying that carcass-classification facilities in all abattoirs would allow producers to sell on the farm. This would allow the farmer to set his own reserve price and the sale price could be determined either by auction or schedule.

There are many documents from the AMLC on the subject of meat classification indicating the support of this major organisation for it.

The Australian Wool and Meat Producers Federation has also recently indicated its concern on the subject of marketing and costs of marketing. I conclude on some matters raised recently by the AWMPF ofl this subject. According to the Press, in a report to the Prices Justification Tribunal, the AWMPF:

  1. . points out that in the six years between 1972 and 1 978, the cost of cattle production in Australia rose from $ 1 ,02 1 m to $ 1 ,205 m-or 1 8 per cent.

During the same time span marketing and processing costs escalated from $7 1 2m to $ 1 ,864m- or 1 62 per cent.

In other words they rose from 4 1 per cent to 6 1 per cent of total industry costs, far swamping cattle production costs.

It also pointed out that retail prices of beef had risen from 1 62 per cent of saleyard values in 1 97 1 -72 to 4 1 3 per cent in 1975-76.

The AWMPF is quoted as making an attack on the existing open-cry saleyard auction system for cattle, claiming:

Producers were forced to sell, once they had taken their cattle to market because of high transport costs incurred.

Assessment of value was on a purely subjective basis.

There was potential and implicit collusions between stock buyers.

Stock were damaged in the process.

The report goes on:

The Federation laid stress on the value of objective assessment of carcases characteristics as an aim to price determination, but warned that carcase classification by itself was not the cureall for the industry’s ills.

I do not think that anyone would claim that. The report continues:

The real economies of carcase classification will not occur until greater order is achieved in the marketing system.

It is not open to me tonight and I do not wish to canvass all the issues of the beef industry. A number of additional issues are raised in that document from the AWMPF. However, honourable senators ought to note that the producer organisations are being responsible and consistent in their call for moves towards an orderly beef marketing situation. Despite the beef producers’ position and exports to the United States having improved, producers have decided not to ignore the basic problems of their industry. They want to press ahead with reform, even though the income of producers has risen. We should note that. Therefore I hope the interim report which will come into the Parliament this week from the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation will give us some information which is worth while, about what it has done with the producer levy since it has been in existence, and perhaps give us some indication of what it intends to do for the benefit of the beef industry with its component of future increases in levies that we may be asked for on this occasion and on future occasions.

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

– in reply- Honourable senators who have spoken have made a contribution which will be read with interest by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) and by the officers associated with the Bills before us. I note that the Senate does not oppose the Bills.

Senator Walsh, in speaking to the Livestock Diseases Bill, suggested that there was a threeday delay in slaughtering affected birds until the Victorian State veterinary authorities were assured that compensation would be available. I inform the honourable senator that the Commonwealth-State agreement on sharing the eradication costs of an exotic animal disease states specifically and precisely that the agreement applies from the time the disease is suspected until the time when a definite diagnosis is made, whether or not the original suspicion is confirmed. The State veterinary authorities commence slaughtering operations to remove affected livestock as soon as a tentative diagnosis is made. One can be assured of receiving assistance for eradication and compensation costs from the Commonwealth and the States. The Commonwealth-State agreement on sharing eradication costs is formalised by the Prime Minister and the Premiers in correspondence.

The other remarks made by the Opposition have been noted. I think they were all general comments on the three Bills. Senator Martin made a number of comments in pursuance of her interest in these measures. I note with interest her comments relating to the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation report. She may be interested to know that this report has been cleared by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) for tabling and we can expect it to be tabled within the next day or so. We hope that it will be tabled before the House rises for the Christmas recess. I noted her comments about the preliminary report being viewed. This is of concern to the honourable senator, as it is to me. My recollection of a piece of paper on my table in my office seeking information for Senator Martin on this matter is that the AMLC was certainly very concerned that any leakage of documents had occurred. I was reassured that the documents that I had indicated had been printed were held fairly securely. However, I note Senator Martin’s comment that apparently a document is referred to- indeed some parts of it are quoted chapter and verse- in the Prices Justification Tribunal papers. I am sure that will lead the AMLC to put its finger on the source of any leak, thereby eliminating that problem. I am quite sure that it will not occur again.

Senator Martin questioned the reason for the increases in the maximum levy on the slaughter of beef cattle. They are being made primarily to enable a doubling of the money needed to meet the operating costs of meat processing research. I know that the Senate is well aware from Senator Martin ‘s interest in this matter of the work that is being done at Cannon Hill. The Minister for Primary Industry has also agreed to an increase in the sheep, lamb and goat slaughtering levies for purposes of funding the Australian Meat Research Committee. The Minister received from the AMLC a recommendation for a significant rise in the component of all levies applied to AMLC operation and administration. The Minister is currently considering these recommendations. Unless there are other matters that I have missed, and noting the lateness of the hour, I conclude my remarks.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

In Committee

The Bills.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I wish to ask a few questions with respect to the Live-stock Slaughter Levy Amendment Bill. First of all, I make the remark that it is a great pity that the Senate does not have before it the annual report of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation. It would have assisted us greatly in debating these Bills. The Minister for Science (Senator Webster), in his second reading speech, said:

The Government has agreed to amend these two Acts at the request of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation- AMLC.

He also made reference to the fact that:

Increased levies to finance AMLC operations may also be needed shortly.

The Minister also said:

Money raised through the components designated for administration of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation are used to finance all aspects of the operations of the Corporation.

I take it that this means remuneration payments to Corporation members and their expenses. I ask the Minister for Science: Who are the present members of the Corporation? What is the remuneration of each member? What is the daily expense allowance? What is the attendance record of each member? Do any members receive a full day’s remuneration and expenses if they attend for only part of a day of an AMLC meeting?

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

– I thank Senator McLaren for his comments. I doubt whether I could provide that information at present. Certainly information on the last two parts of the question Senator McLaren asks would not be available to me. I presume that he would recognise that fact. I think that the question he raised about members getting a part time fee for only part time attendance would probably apply to public servants, as it applies to members of Parliament when they attend committees. But I will attempt to obtain that information for the honourable senator. I think I had best provide it basically in letter form.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I am not interested in public servants; I am interested in people who are not public servants and who are nominated members of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation. I am particularly interested in one Harry M. Miller who has been appointed to the Corporation. When I have asked questions about Mr Miller’s remuneration for serving on other government bodies I have been told on every occasion that he serves in a voluntary capacity. I am trying to ascertain whether he is serving in a voluntary capacity on the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation. Could the Minister provide that information for me?

Senator Archer:

– Why would he?

Senator McLAREN:

– I do not know why he would. Why does he serve in a voluntary capacity on these other organisations?

Senator Archer:

– Heavens, you are dull.

Senator McLAREN:

– I am not dull. I want to know why. That is why I am seeking this answer from the Minister

Consideration interrupted.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Scott:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question:

That the Chairman do now leave the Chair and report to the Senate.

Question resolved in the negative.

Consideration resumed.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I want to make one or two points with regard to the Livestock Diseases Bill. The definition of prescribed disease states: prescribed disease’ means any disease affecting livestock which the Minister is satisfied is an exotic disease and is for the time being declared by the Minister, by notice published in the Gazette, to be a prescribed disease for the purposes of this Act;

On every occasion I have opposed provisions giving discretion to a Minister. Under this legislation if someone wants to object to the Minister’s declaration he has to show that the Minister was not satisfied; and no-one can show that the Minister is not satisfied that a disease is not an exotic disease. I take the matter no futher at this point other than to say that again I raise my voice in protest at the Minister being given this power which takes a right away from someone who possibly has been done an injustice. As I have often repeated, if this provision where contained in a regulation, about which we would have obtained legal advice, there would be a motion for disallowance, but we allow to go through in legislation things which we will not allow through in regulations and ordinances. That suggests that Parliament is not competent to make a decision unless it has before it a legal opinion to advise it accordingly. The fact that we reject such provisions in one situation and accept them in another makes a farce of the Parliament and means it is an incompetent body. That cannot be said for a sub-committee of the Parliament.

I want to query why we restrict the power to give compensation for the destruction of animals that are diseased only if they have an exotic disease. One would have thought, in the case of a disease which cannot be classified as an exotic disease and which has a possibility of spreading, that the destruction of animals justified some compensation. But apparently this matter concerns an agreement with the States and, therefore, I take it no further than that.

I am concerned with clause 6 which deals with Declared areas’ and states in part:

  1. 1 ) Where the Minister is satisfied that a prescribed disease is, or is reasonably suspected to be, present in an area, being the whole or part of the Australian Capital Territory, the Minister may, by notice published in the Gazette, declare that area to be, for the purposes of this Act, a declared area in respect of that disease.
  2. A notice under sub-section ( 1 ) may be expressed to be deemed to have had effect from a specified date, being a date earlier than the date on which it is published in the Gazette, and a notice so expressed shall be deemed, for the purposes of this Act, to have had effect on and from the date so specified.

There is no restriction on the Minister as to when he may specify a date for a declaration of an area of exotic disease. He can backdate it six months if he so desires. Of course, before the Minister makes the declaration and before it is gazetted, a primary producer could slaughter 100 of his cattle knowing that they were affected by an exotic disease and that it would spread but he could claim no compensation because his area was not in the declared area under this proposed Act. Later it would become a declared area but, in accordance with clause 13, the owner would not be entitled to compensation under this legislation in respect to livestock or other property unless a claim for compensation in respect of the livestock or other property is made by or on behalf of the owner within two months after the date of the destruction or death of the livestock or other property. Of course, if three months previously a farmer killed a number of his cattle to stop the spread of the disease he would not be eligible for compensation. The declaration could be delayed for three months so that no claim could be made for compensation for the destruction of those cattle. This could act to the detriment of an individual. I think that if there is to be a limit on when a claim can be made, there should be a limit on the Minister’s power of declaration. Alternatively, although I do not favour a limit on the time ofthe Minister’s declaration, I think that a farmer who has destroyed cattle for the purpose of stopping the spread of an exotic disease should be able to claim as from the date of the Minister’s declaration that it was an exotic disease and declared the area where it existed. I ask the Minister What is the justification for the restriction of the period within which a claim can be made under sub-clause ( 1 ) to a period which is shorter than the period in which the Minister has power to declare an area?

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

– I note Senator Cavanagh ‘s comment. I did not follow particularly well his comments about the Minister and his right to make a declaration. I think that generally the arrangements probably would be agreed to, so far as the Australian Agricultural Council is concerned, for the killing of any stock. As I noted earlier when replying to Sentor Walsh, the arrangements between the State Premiers and the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) were made and concluded by correspondence. I think that Senator Cavanagh brought forward a matter which may require some legal comment by the Department. If the officers present are able to advicse me of anything that may help answer Senator Cavangh’s question, I will give it to him in a minute. Other than that I will certainly see that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) attends to it.

Senator McLaren raised a question about the members of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation. I read into the record that they are Mr R. G. Jones, Chairman; MrT. H. Bryant, producer representative and Deputy Chairman; Mr N. Secombe, producer representative; Mr Harpham; Mr J. Kerin; Mr McFarlane, a meat exporter’s representative; Harry M. Miller, a specially qualified member; and Mr D. Fisher. Senator McLaren questioned the remuneration and allowances of members. They are determined annually by the Remuneration Tribunal. That determination is available to Senator McLaren if he wishes to look at it. The allowances are paid in accordance with the Tribunal’s guidelines. The attendance records of members could be provided to Senator McLaren. If he wishes me to do that I will get them and send them to him in writing, if that is acceptable.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I will not take long to make my remarks. Apparently, I did not make myself understood to the Minister for Science (Senator Webster) on the first attempt. If we remain here long enough, perhaps I might make my remarks clear; the Minister might understand what I am trying to say. I can see no reason why the term prescribed disease’ should not mean an exotic disease affecting livestock in an area declared by the Minister. It means any disease affecting livestock which the Minister is satisfied is an exotic disease. This stipulation is placed on the Minister all the time. I am told that the advisers may or may not supply the answers to the other questions I have raised, and that if they do not, the Minister will. But it is a little late to supply an answer after the legislation has been passed.

I asked whether the position I raised was correct and, if it was not correct, whether an alteration should be made to the clause. It is a little late in the day, after the Bill has been passed, to tell me that I was correct and perhaps it would have been better to change the clause. It is not a legal question. It involves no law. It is only a question of whether it is fair and reasonable to restrict an owner’s right to claim compensation for slaughtered animals two months after the slaughter when the slaughter was for the purpose of stopping the spread of an exotic disease in a declared area. The area has been made a declared area by the Minister and the declaration has been backdated to a time before the slaughter took place. So we have all the requirements for claiming compensation. The only thing that stops a farmer from claiming compensation is that the Minister has not made a declaration within two months of the killing. While the Minister can go back an unlimited time in dating the declaration, I think that the farmer should have a right to compensation for any cattle he has slaughtered in a declared area if the slaughtering was for the purpose of preventing the spread of an exotic disease. He has not that right today if he slaughtered the cattle more than two months prior to the declaration of the area.

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

– I note the comments that Senator Cavanagh has made. I am advised that the term ‘prescribed disease’ means any disease affecting livestock which the Minister for Primary Industry is satisfied is an exotic disease. It is considered by those people from State and Federal authorities who have studied the matter that in all probability this is the best method to ensure that procedures against any new disease may be instituted quickly. Previously, the Act itself would have had to be amended.

Senator Cavanagh:

– But if the Minister is not satisfied you do not do anything about it.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I really do not understand the point the honourable senator is getting at. The point I make is that the Federal Minister is acting on behalf of the Australian Agricultural Council in accordance with the guidelines that are laid down. There must be some authority in the matter. The Minister assumes that position of authority to make the declaration on behalf of the bodies that he represents and in the interests of the various States. Perhaps Senator Cavanagh could send me an outline of the matter that has been raised with him. I do not know whether a particular activity has taken place and some producer has been denied the right to compensation if he has killed cattle prior to an area being declared. I fully understand -

Senator Cavanagh:

– There is no Act covering him now. This is the Act that covers him.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I do not know whether Senator Cavanagh finds anything inconsistent with the position as it is laid down at the moment. I certainly do not follow the point he is making. I have been advised that I omitted to give the name of the Government representative on the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation. The Government representative is Mr G. Mackey.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– In providing me with the names of the members of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation, the Minister for Science (Senator Webster) affirmed that Mr Harry M. Miller is a member of the Corporation. The Minister went on to say that he was a member with special qualifications. He did not answer my other question when he referred me to the fees and daily expenses that are set by the Remuneration Tribunal and paid to members of the Corporation. That information is available to me. I also asked whether Mr Harry M. Miller was serving in a voluntary capacity on the AMLC. I have been told repeatedly that this is the case when I have asked questions about his salary on other Government instrumentalities. I want to ascertain whether he is, in fact, receiving a fee. I also want to know what are his special qualifications which enabled him to be appointed to the AMLC.

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

– I will certainly gather any information that is available and supply it to the honourable senator. I know nothing to suggest that Harry M. Miller is serving in a voluntary capacity. I have not heard that comment made. I do not know whether the honourable senator can provide any information to show that this has been stated. Certainly I could be reminded of it. My understanding is that Harry M. Miller is a beef producer and has a reputation in New South Wales for being a quite outstanding cattle breeder. I was not associated with the appointment of that gentleman; nor do I know fully his entitlement to be a member of the Corporation. But I think it is reasonable that I should provide information on those matters to the honourable senator in writing.

Bills agreed to.

Bills reported without amendment or requests; report adopted.

Third Readings

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

page 2322

EXPORT EXPANSION GRANTS BILL 1978

Second Readings

Debate resumed from 14 November, on motion by Senator Durack:

That the Bills be now read a second time.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– This is a general debate dealing with two cognate pieces of legislation relating to attempts by the Australian Government to enhance the prospects for Australia’s export industries. I want to deal firstly with the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment Bill because, in spite of the technicalities, the amendment proposed to the Act is a most significant one. In brief, it means that EFIC, that is the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation, will now be able to support commercial guarantees to Australian exporters required to lodge performance guarantees or bonds with overseas purchasers.

I hesitate to say this, but on a couple of previous occasions I have raised this matter in this chamber. The first occasion was when former Senator Sir Robert Cotton introduced amendments to the scope of EFIC ‘s activities. I said at that stage that the amendments were not wide enough and many Australian exporters of goods and services to the Middle East were facing difficulties because they were unable to lodge either performance bonds or commercial guarantees. I raised the matter again last year during a discussion on certain aspects of Australian exports. This move is an important one and the Australian Government’s decision to enter this field is belatedly welcomed. As the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) noted in his second reading speech, the governments of Europe, North America and Japan in particular have recognised the importance of performance guarantees and supported their exporters either directly or through commercial institutions.

There are several aspects of the Government’s proposals with which I wish to deal. The major one is that EFIC will not provide guarantees directly but will do so through commercial institutions and principally the Australian trading banks. On the face of it, this seems to be a reasonable arrangement, However, the Aus.tralian trading banks have shown themselves to be particularly conservative and, unlike their American or European counterparts, have discouraged Australian exporters from lodging performance bonds or guarantees.

In addition, until recently the cost imposed by some of the trading banks for the bond has been particularly high. Instances are known of the trading banks having actually asked for a fee of about 2 Vi per cent to 4 per cent on the total value of the contract for providing the guarantee or bond. In most cases this has meant that the Aus.tralian firm has been unable to meet the contract because the costs are too high. It would have been preferable if the Government had decided to allow for a mixture in this proposal. I cannot see any reason why, in the initial stages, the EFIC should not have been permitted to provide bonds or guarantees in its own right, and if it felt that the risk of guaranteeing a bond was too great it could have sought to parcel it out to other financial institutions. The bonds or guarantees provided under this arrangement would have been in addition to those provided under normal commercial terms by the banks at present.

I also note that the Government has imposed an upper limit of $30m on the amount which EFIC will be permitted to guarantee. This is also a matter of concern because a number of projects are up for tender in the Middle East and Asia and the lodgment of a performance bond or guarantee is a common practice and these projects involve amounts considerably in excess of $30m. There would be a number of them in the processing area especially and in agricultural products in some of the Middle East countries, such as Iraq and Saudi Arabia, where the total project value sometimes would be in excess of $200m for each project. There is a series of office building and hotel construction projects in the Arab emirates for which the total project value exceeds $100m in each case. There is also a number of semi-industrial and service industry projects in Saudi Arabia which involve in excess of $70m for each project. Individual Australian manufacturers or groups of manufacturers under one main contractor would be capable of tendering and possibly receiving one or more of these contracts. However, because of the $30m limit which is imposed, there is an immediate disincentive to become involved.

The Australian Government also has failed to grapple with the other proposal I put forward and that is for an organisation to be in the position of a head contractor. The opposition to this proposal seems poorly based. When the Government introduced the Overseas Projects Corporation Bill last year it had been hoped that sufficient power would be given to the Overseas Projects Corporation to fulfil its role. However, ideological rather than pragmatic commonsense seemed to overtake the Government and the Overseas Projects Corporation was not given that power. In contrast, I note that the New Zealand, French, Japanese and United States governments all have organisations capable of fulfilling the role of head contractor, and in no case could any of those countries be regarded as being centrally planned by its ideological bent. As it seems to take this Government two or three years to respond to any positive proposal to help Australian exports and exporters, I am hoping that my reminder tonight will spur the Department of Trade and Resources and Cabinet to put some positive proposals to the Parliament before the next election.

I want now to make a few comments on the Export Expansion Grants Bill. The Opposition will not oppose this Bill because it falls very much in line with the ideas which were contained in Labor Party legislation, that is, the Export Market Development Grants Act of 1974. Because of the time factor I do not want to go into detail but I do want to express some concern about clause 4 of the present Bill, which deals with the payment of grants to eligible goods under contracts for sale. It may not be sufficiently broad to cover a very specialised trade which occurs between Australia and the Pacific Islands. The island trade is held by a number of traditional trading companies, the principal ones being Burns Philp and Co. Ltd, W. R. Carpenter, the Australian-New Caledonian Exports Pty Ltd. There are about a dozen all told.

Because the trade is largely a parallel trade and the market is relatively small, these companies tend to buy in their own right in Australia and sell through their own or associated outlets in the various Pacific islands. As I understand the proposals under the Export Expansion Grants Bill, they in themselves would not be entitled to receive the grants even if it increased the exports of a particular manufacturer. It seems desirable that the scope of this clause should be expanded to allow for an island trading company which increases exports to receive the grant and to pass it back to the manufacturer whose products are affected. This would act as an encouragement to the manufacturer. If this sort of consideration is ignored, the situation that may arise in the short run is that the manufacturers may attempt to enter the market but find that it is too small and subsequently pull out with the Japanese or some other country’s manufacturers stepping in. I am aware that discussions have been taking place with the AttorneyGeneral, who is primarily responsible for this Bill in this place, and I am hopeful of some adequate compromise being reached.

The Opposition also is concerned about the complexity of some of the arrangements relating to the actual calculation of the export earnings increment. As there is no easy solution to this matter, the most satisfactory way for it to be solved is by administrative arrangements. We are also concerned on a very general basis that the efforts to encourage Australian exports have become a conglomerate of complex and apparently unco-ordinated efforts. Whilst it is not easy in a continually changing world trade situation to devise a neat, tidy system for encouraging exports without running foul of the regulations of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, it would appear desirable that the Australian Government should give consideration to bringing all these operations under the umbrella of one authority with overriding direction and control. This would minimise the costs involved and remove the possibility of duplication. There is some urgency in this proposal because I observe that New Zealand’s co-ordinated efforts, particularly in the Middle East, are producing substantial benefits. Again I cite the Bahrain meat export facility which the New Zealand ExportImport Corporation financed in conjunction with New Zealand meat industries. The northern hemisphere countries have shown that, in areas of international trade, ideological views have to be compromised and a pragmatic approach adopted. Unless this view is taken Australia will find itself increasingly outmanoeuvred by some of its major competitors. We of the Opposition do not oppose this legislation because we realise that benefits will flow from it but we point out that we have made suggestions over the past couple of years which in some cases have been belatedly accepted by the Government and we trust that the Government will give serious consideration to any further suggestions made by the Opposition on matters concerning the development of our export trade.

Senator ARCHER:
Tasmania

– Whilst I have some fairly severe reservations about a couple of aspects of this legislation, I believe that its passage and implementation is so important that it should not now be withheld. As part of our overall export package it would surely have the support of every Australian businessman. Emphasis has to be placed upon export if Australia is to get on top of the balance of payments deficit, the unemployment problem and all of the other day-to-day problems. Over the six months that this legislation has been in existence many submissions have been made and received. They cover many aspects of the legislation. I have to say that almost all these aspects have been taken care of and almost everybody is happy, but there are a few who still are not happy.

Since Friday of last week- I very sincerely regret that it has been only since Friday of last week- I have been again getting submissions on this subject. I thank all the people from the four States who have contacted me. They represent a variety of businesses, companies and organisations. They have all put their case. Regrettably, I was unaware of the problems until last Friday. I believed that the items I had previously heard of and looked into had been satisfactorily discharged. Since Friday I have spent considerable time on the telephone talking to many people, including officers of the Department of Trade and Resources, the Attorney-General (Senator Durack), who is in charge of the legislation, my colleague Senator Messner and members of the Opposition, trying to solve the very real areas of concern. In almost every case, I have to say, those with whom I have spoken see it slightly differently from one another. Getting a form or forms of words to cover the position has been extremely difficult indeed. Of all the people to whom I have spoken, only two have put words on paper. Regrettably, neither seems to cover the position that we are trying to look into at the moment. Recourse to the debate in the House of Representatives, for instance, did not help us at all.

So, here we are now without a solution that I see as acceptable. Considerable effort and great good will have gone into this. I have to say that the departmental officers have provided every possible assistance; but the Bill, I believe, has to go forward as presented. I say that with regret, because it not fulfilling the entire wishes of the Government. It will tend to cause problems to recipients and would-be recipients under the scheme. The two particular interests with which I have been dealing are the group of merchants known as the Island Traders Association, which was referred to by Senator Wriedt, and a group of merchants and brokers predominantly associated with the meat industry. The passing of this legislation could create changes to the pattern of trade which I do not agree would be for the good of those industries, or likely to improve Australia’s overall export trade. In fact, the opposite may occur.

Over the last three or four years- they were very difficult years in the meat trade- very largely it has been the brokers who have produced the expertise to find a home for a very difficult product, as it has been all over the world. They worked very hard and did a pretty good job in most cases. I think it would be very foolish if meat processors tried to eliminate the brokers and all of their expertise for the ability to pick up the expansion grant themselves for a short term. I hope that existing marketing patterns will be followed. I regret that some reasonable form of words could not be or has not been found to enable this fairly simple and very extensive situation which exists throughout Australia to be regularised through the Act. At a time when every possible export effort is being mounted, I believe that it would be most unfortunate if, in an effort to expand, we eliminated even one proven, existing and operative body from the market place of the world. The legislation provides that the grant shall go to the person who makes the sale and is legally and enforceably responsible for seeing that it is carried out. That part is 100 per cent, and that is the Government’s intention. It is unfortunate however, that the pattern of trade is not quite that simple and that the practice and the legislation do not quite fit. I have to apologise to all those people for whom I have tried to find a solution that would serve the purpose, but I believe from discussions with the Minister that the matter is not closed. I believe that it will be in order for all those who are interested to make submissions to either the Minister or the Department on any suggestions that they feel may assist in resolving the matter. The thrust of the legislation I applaud, and I encourage producers of all goods, primary and secondary to endeavour to take advantage of what the Bills provide.

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · Western Australia · LP

– in reply- I thank the Senate for the support of these measures. They represent, of course, a most important initiative by the Government in encouraging exports. I believe, despite some criticism that has been made of them, that they will be overwhelmingly beneficial and will achieve the purpose which the Government has in mind. Senator Wriedt criticised the $30m limit on the contingent liability for the new Export Finance and Insurance Corporation facility provided in the legislation. The honourable senator in support of his contention referred to very large contracts which may be available to Australian entrepreneurs in the Middle East. He suggested that performance guarantees may be such that this provision would not be adequate. The bond that would be required through the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation in these cases perhaps would be only a small percentage of the actual contract. Banks and other institutions still would be encouraged to participate. It is the Government’s intention that this matter should be kept under close observation. Certainly it will be reviewed in the light of experience but at this stage it is thought that for the next couple of years the $30m limit will be adequate. I am also informed that the limit is specified in regulations so it will not be difficult to make any changes if necessary.

The matter raised by both Senator Wriedt and Senator Archer in regard to the export expansion grants scheme has been given a great deal of attention by the Government. It is aware of the problems raised by the honourable senators in their comments on this aspect of the scheme. I assure the Senate that these matters have not engaged the Government’s attention only during the passage of this legislation in the Senate. In fact they had been considered in regard to this provision of the Bill, namely the person who is to receive the payment under the scheme. It is accepted by the Government as an important aspect of the scheme that the payment should be made to the person who has arranged the sale and carries responsibility and risk in relation to the export transactions.

Admittedly there are some special problems in this area, particularly with the island traders and those in the meat trade mentioned by Senator Archer. There may be others who have problems in this area as well although they have not been brought to the attention of the Government at this stage. However, it is true as Senator Archer has said, that it is enormously difficult to draft any amendment to the legislation which will cover this situation adequately and tightly and not be subject to a great deal of vagueness, the possibility of abuse and also increased administrative problems for the Corporation. In all these circumstances therefore I think that the wise course for the Senate- which obviously it has decided to take- is to enable this legislation to go through so that the benefits flowing from it may be received by people who have been expecting them for some time and who are expecting to have this legislation in place as soon as possible. The Government certainly will be watching the application of these provisions very closely. It is implementing a new policy and therefore it can be expected that there will be new problems. I think it is best that the legislation should be allowed to proceed and for the problems, as and if they emerge, to be considered at that stage to see whether anything can be done about them.

I emphasise that under this legislation there is nothing to stop the parties, the merchant and the manufacturer, from making private commercial arrangements in relation to the destination or division of the payments which may be received. It may be that these people will be able to enter into adequate commercial arrangements which will meet the needs that arise in certain aspects of overseas trade. The Government is hopeful that that will be the best solution to the problem. However, I assure the Senate that the Government is aware of the problems that may arise and will keep them under review. It will certainly keep an open mind on any positive suggestions which may come forward in the future and to which we may be able to give practical effect but so far we have not succeeded in finding a solution.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills read a second time.

In Committee

The Bills.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

– I am unhappy with clause 17 (6) of the Export Expansion Grants Bill 1978 as it presently stands. I suggest that the Senate and the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Durack) ought to be unhappy with it. It is the procedural provision relating to rights of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. As this clause was originally introduced into the House of Representatives it was in the commendably brief form as follows:

Applications may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of decisions of the Board that have been confirmed or varied under sub-section (4).

What happened, however, at the Committee stage of this Bill in the other place is that an amendment was moved at the instance of the Government, which inserted in the clause the following additional words: on or after a date to be fixed by proclamation.

The only explanation that was offered in support of that amendment by the Minister for Special Trade Representations (Mr Garland), who was in charge of the Bill, appears in the legislation committee Hansard of 25 October. The Minister said:

The purpose of allowing this Part to be brought into effect by proclamation is that it is intended that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal shall be the body of appeal. However the Government has been advised by the AAT that it is not yet ready to handle such appeals and so that at this stage it is proposed to put this flexibility into the Bill.

This question was not further debated either in the legislation committee or in the House of Representatives. Nor has it not been further adverted to in this chamber, except by the AttorneyGeneral in his second reading speech, when it was said, rather misleadingly, that there would be additional provisions to permit appeals against the Export Development Grants Board’s decisions to be heard by an independent body, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I suggest to the Minister that that statement is true only in the most formal sense and that the right of appeal granted by the Bill as it now stands is quite empty and illusory and will remain so until it is proclaimed and put into effect. We have been given no indication, and I would seek such indication from the Minister, as to when this proclamation is likely to be made. It will be noted that there is no provision for such a proclamation, when made, to be retrospective in its effect, so the reality is that adverse decisions received by claimants under this Bill by the Board will go on being completely unappealable until such time as the proclamation is made, and even then it will not be possible for appeals relating to the earlier period to be taken to the Tribunal. I would contend that that situation is consonant with quite a degree of injustice to individual claimants in what is obviously a very sensitive area.

Might I just say generally on this subject that the pace of the extension of the jurisdiction of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal has been disappointingly slow in the period since the establishment of that body. We do have at the moment what can be described only as a rag-tag and bob-tail collection of matters presently vested within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Certainly, the present list is not as extensive as was recommended back in 1973 by the Bland Committee. I suggest to the Attorney-General that before asking this chamber to accept a clause in these terms he might well tell us- he should feel under an obligation to tell us- just what it is that justifies this action being taken and this provision in fact being inserted. Perhaps he might tell us just what is the anticipated rate of appeals under this legislation which will produce, apparently, a very substantial workload for the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Perhaps he might also be kind enough to tell us just what it is that is so unduly occupying and busying the

Administrative Appeals Tribunal as presently constituted, given its present somewhat limited jurisdiction, as would make it impossible, or difficult at least, to take on this additional load.

I for one would need to be persuaded by the Attorney-General- I would need to be persuaded very convincingly- that the Tribunal as presently constituted is unable to cope effectively with its present body of work. I would want to be persuaded that it will be in a position to cope very shortly indeed with such additional body of work as is contemplated by these appeals. I would wish to be further persuaded that, when the Tribunal is ready to assume this jurisdiction, the proclamation will be made very quickly. I would wish to be persuaded of all these aspects before accepting the clause in its present very unsatisfactory form. I seek a fairly extensive answer from the Attorney-General on this question. I would hope that the Senate as a whole thinks likewise that such an answer is required.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– Dealing firstly with the expected volume of appeals, I point out that the Government did make some calculations and feels that there could be over 100 appeals a year in relation to these matters although this, of course, is tremendously uncertain. I think the only point I can really make firmly is that the Government has formed the judgment that there could be a substantial number of appeals. That being the case, we are faced with the problem that has been experienced by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal- namely, that acts of Parliament have included this right of appeal. In quite a number of cases over the last couple of years, since the Tribunal was established, it has been found that its jurisdiction is by no means limited only to those areas set out in the Schedule to the Act itself. There has been a very great and rapid increase in the work of the Tribunal. I instance one area which is causing quite a deal of concern at the moment. I refer to the number of deportation appeals that are occurring. I have been having discussions with the President of the Tribunal how to cope adequately with those appeals. That is only just one example.

The position is that as a result of our experience where jurisdiction is given to the Tribunal but no properly adequate planning has been done how the Tribunal should operate and what resources are required by the Tribunal to meet that jurisdiction, we felt that in this case and in other cases where there could be substantial areas of work we ought to take a cautious approach and provide for the right to depend upon proclamation at such time as we have been able to make proper arrangements with the Tribunal and give the Tribunal adequate resources to cope with the possible increase in jurisdiction. In fact the Government has increased considerably the resources of the Tribunal. Since I have been Attorney-General, for just over 12 months, the Government has appointed a full time presidential member to the Tribunal. It also has appointed an additional senior non-presidential member. So the resources of the Tribunal at that level have been more than doubled in the last 12 months. As I said, I am having discussions with the President of the Tribunal as to what should be done, or has to be done, to enable him to meet the still growing jurisdiction. So, considering all these matters, it seemed to be wise to err on the side of caution and not to impose upon the Tribunal what could be additional substantial new areas of jurisdiction.

Incidentally, I think I misled the Senate earlier when I referred to there being possibly 100 or so appeals. That is assumed to be the number of appeals that may go to the Board. I am sorry about that. Obviously fewer appeals than that would go to the Tribunal. Nevertheless, in view of that volume of litigation, so to speak, arising under this legislation it is clear that there would be a substantial number of appeals likely to be taken to the Tribunal.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

– I am indebted to the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) for giving me at least that much of an answer. But I would seek from him, even at this late hour, an assurance that, given the present staff ceilings situation which we have been told about so often, the additional resources to man the Administrative Appeals Tribunal at a satisfactory level for this and other areas will be found within the lifetime of this Government. I seek a more specific indication from him as to when, on present indications, he anticipates that the Government will be in a position to make this proclamation?

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I simply am not in a position to give any guarantees to the Senate about when these resources can be made available to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. At the present moment I think a priority would have to be given to providing resources for the Tribunal to deal with appeals in the social service area. These are planned to take effect next year. The whole question of the Tribunal’s resources will come up for consideration in regard to the ceilings for the following year. This will be a matter which will be taken into account at that stage. As I have emphasised already, in the last 12 months since I have been Attorney-General there has been quite considerable expansion in the resources of the Tribunal. Just how further expansion is possible is, of course, something which will have to be considered by the Government in the light of the financial restraints that are being imposed in pursuance of our economic strategy as a whole.

Bills agreed to.

Bills reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Readings

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

page 2328

ASIAN DEVELOPMENT FUND BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 17 November, on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– Because of the lateness of the hour, I will confine my remarks specifically to the Bill. Of course such legislation comes on regularly and normally affords us an opportunity to consider in greater depth the question of Australia’s position in the development area generally. I feel that tonight it will be necessary to be reasonably brief. I will speak specifically to the Bill, the purpose of which is to ratify a contribution by Australia of an amount of $96. 82m for the second replenishment of resources to the Asian Development Fund. The initial contribution was ratified by the Asian Development Fund Bill 1974 during the period of the Labor Government. At that stage Australia contributed $ 18.51m for the initial establishment of the Fund. The Fund became an integral part of the Asian Development Bank and some of the purposes for which the Fund is used include development projects within the Asian region. The principal aim of the Fund is to serve as the primary source of finance for concessional lending operations by the Bank.

Prior to the establishment ofthe Fund, concessional loans were financed almost entirely from a so-called multi-purpose fund and the funds for these loans were made available from the paid-in capital of the Asian Development Bank. This was not a satisfactory arrangement because the Asian Development Bank was not able to plan its scale of operations with any certainty. It became necessary to provide finance for a number of projects over a longer period. It is to be noted that the second replenishment, involving a total of $US2,251m, is for a four-year period from 1979 to 1982. This means that the Bank will be able to commit minimum amounts of funds for a series of projects. This is particularly important as many of the projects that are now being financed by the Bank have considerable lead times and returns for repayment of the loans are often not available for three to four years. This new arrangement will assist considerably the Bank’s general cash flow position.

It is interesting to observe that Australia ‘s contribution to the Bank is still at a relatively low level and comprises less than half of one per cent of our total aid commitment. In terms of total contributions to the Asian Development Bank, Australia has a percentage share of 5. 14 per cent, compared with European contributors, France and Germany, with contributive shares of 5.24 per cent and 6.56 per cent respectively, and Japan and the United States of America with 33.69 per cent and 22.25 per cent respectively. It would appear that with the increasing importance of the Asian region generally for Australian foreign relations, consideration should be given to an increasing commitment in this area. I should add that the actual monetary contribution in itself is not the essential element of the success of any aid schemes.

There has been increasing criticism from some of the South-East Asian countries about the operations of the Bank. These criticisms are similar to those criticisms which have been made about a number of United Nations aid programs. There has been a feeling that a proportion of the aid contributions from donor countries is becoming submerged in administrative overhead expenses and a number of projects are not aimed at working in with particular local conditions. There have been claims that some of the projects are taken on because they are grandiose in nature, and that they may not be effective in spreading the aid contributions as widely as possible and with the maximum effect on the population of the recipient country at large. It is important that Australia should continually review the quality as well as the quantity of its aid commitments and it may be necessary to act on the example of Papua New Guinea in encouraging smaller local industries which do not stretch the overall resources of the recipient country.

It is also important to note that Australia’s contribution in terms of the percentage of our gross domestic product, which is the normal yardstick by which developed countries’ assistance programs are measured, has in the last few years been falling quite dramatically from a peak in 1974 of 0.56 per cent to 0.47 per cent in this financial year. Under United Nations resolution we are committed to increasing our support to 0.7 per cent of our GDP. We are not approaching this percentage commitment; in fact, we are moving further away from it. It should be noted that other countries, particularly the Middle East Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, are making a massive contribution in this area. For example, Saudi Arabia is contributing more than 5 per cent of its GDP to a series of aid and development programs for countries not only of the Arab world but also outside of it. It is to be hoped that Australia and other developed countries, which are able to devote more of their resources to the developing world, will do so in the future. By way of comparison, this year the OPEC countries are appropriating $9 billion in aid programs, while the total amount being provided by developed countries is $ 1 3 billion. That provides some comparison of the relative efforts of these two groups of countries. The Opposition supports the Bill but, as I have indicated, restates its great concern that the aid program, built up as it was during the years of the previous Government, is obviously being allowed now, under the present Government, to recede.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– in reply- I thank Senator Wriedt and, through him, the Opposition for assisting the speedy passage of this measure, the details of which, and the background to which, as part of Australia’s contribution to the developing world, are well known. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 2329

ADJOURNMENT

Installation of Senators

Motion (by Senator Carrick) proposed:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator TATE:
Tasmania

-On 15 August I assumed my place in the Senate and when I did so made the affirmation rather than take the oath. I did so for my own reasons, based on injunctions in the fifth chapters of both St Matthew and St James to say yes or no rather than use oaths at all. No doubt each senator comes to a decision whether to take the oath or make the affirmation for reasons that he or she finds compelling or, at least, attractive. It is an option which is permitted under the Constitution but I would say that it is permitted as a matter of law rather than, in a sense, as a matter of practice I felt that the making of an affirmation was somehow regarded as culturally deficient. It did not have the majesty and tradition of taking the oath; it was rather regarded as a concession. As I have said, it did not have the cultural backing that is associated with the taking of the oath.

At the reception after the installation of new senators I had the temerity to bring the matter to the attention of His Excellency the GovernorGeneral. I made the point that whereas those who took the oath had the privilege of receiving from His Excellency a Bible signed by the Governor-General, those who made the affirmation had no such memento of the occasion provided. I felt that perhaps something could be done in this regard. So I made a request that the Governor-General perhaps consider the matter and I also brought it to the attention of officers of the Senate for their consideration and action. I was delighted to find today that my request apparently fell on fertile ground. Today I was informed that a document has been prepared on behalf of those senators who made the affirmation. I understand that it is to be signed by His Excellency tomorrow.

This particular document I think has been sighted by most honourable senators during the day. This is a cause of great satisfaction. It will be satisfying to have such a memento. It is a matter of pride to have a record signed by the Governor-General of that particular event which is auspicious in the life of any senator. It also in my view brings the practical cultural status of the affirmation to the proper level. It brings it into line with the constitutional legal status that it has of being on a par with the taking of an oath. I rise tonight very briefly to thank all the officers of the Senate who have prepared the documentation in such a short time and have supervised its production in conjunction with the Government Printer who is also to be commended on the job he has done. I thank you, Mr President, for your role in encouraging this particular project and of course, if it is proper to do so, I thank the Governor-General for so promptly acceding to this request. I am sure that all honourable senators would join with me in welcoming this particular innovation in our proceedings.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.38 p.m.

page 2330

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

National Parks and Wildlife Refuges (Question No. 607)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 16 August 1978:

  1. 1 ) What is the total acreage of land in all States, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory designated as National Parks and Wildlife Refuges.
  2. What are the locations of the various land categories mentioned in ( 1 ).
Senator Chaney:
LP

– The Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) Each State and Territory classifies parks and reserves according to their own requirements.

The terms ‘National Park’ and ‘Wildlife Refuge’ do not have precisely the same meaning throughout Australia and consequently accurate comparisons of the areas set aside for these purposes cannot be made.

The following material includes the various categories of reserves administered by fauna and national park authorities and has been compiled from information provided by the responsible State and Territory authorities.

Unless otherwise stated the information provided represents the situation as at 30 June 1978.

Crescent Nail-tailed Wallaby (Question No. 680)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 24 August 1978:

What progress has been made concerning joint Federal and West Australian action to acquire a suitable habitat for preservation ofthe crescent nail-tailed wallaby.

Senator Chaney:
LP

– The Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

A series of biological surveys of selected areas ofthe Great Victoria, Gibson and Little Sandy Desert have been undertaken by the Western Australia Department of Fisheries and Wildlife since 1975 and further survey work in the Great Sandy Desert will be undertaken during 1979.

Work has also been carried out to establish whether the species occurs in the Warburton area.

Home Affairs: Statutory Authorities (Question No. 745)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 13 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) What statutory corporations have a responsibility to report through the Minister to Parliament.
  2. What are the statutory requirements for those corporations to present annual audited accounts and reports to the Parliament.
  3. When were the audited accounts of the annual report presented to the Minister for tabling.
  4. When were the audited accounts and annual report tabled in the Parliament.
  5. What are the names of the corporations the reports of which were not tabled within four months of the closing of accounts for the 1976-77 financial year or within four months of the date at which the annual accounts were finalised.
  6. What reasons were given by each corporation which did not present an annual report and audited accounts within four months of 1976-77.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for Home Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question as follows:

  1. 1 ) to (6) I am informed by my Department as follows:

East Timorese Migration (Question No. 751)

Senator Missen:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 13 September 1978:

  1. How many East Timorese currently residing in Australia have applied to return to East Timor under the family reunion agreement made by the Australian and Indonesian Governments.
  2. How many East Timorese currently residing in Portugal have: (a) applied to come to Australia; (b) been refused entry into Australia in the last five years and for what reasons; (c) applied to enter Australia and are awaiting processing.
  3. How many persons evacuated from East Timor to Portugal since November 1975 have subsequently been admitted to Australia.
  4. Have any East Timorese currently residing in Australia nominated relatives in Hong Kong, Macau and/or Taiwan to be admitted into Australia. If so, (a) how many have applied; and (b) how many have been admitted to Australia.
  5. Has the Australian Embassy in Hong Kong been directed not to grant visitors’ visas to East Timorese wishing to visit Australia.
  6. Were East Timorese residing in Australia provided with authority forms by the Commonwealth Government early in 1976 to enable their relatives in Timor to enter Australia. If so: (a) for what length of time were these forms valid; (b) did any Timorese come to Australia on the basis of the forms; and (c) what consideration has been given to extending the time limit of the forms.

  7. Has the Commonwealth Government made a decision on how many of 2,668 persons, nominated in April 1977 by East Timorese residing in Australia to come from East Timor to Australia, meet the criteria for entry into Australia. If so,

    1. what are the specific criteria that the Government has employed; (b) how many persons have met the criteria.
  8. What is the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs ‘ assessment of the number of East Timorese likely to come to Australia in 1978, 1979 and 1980 respectively.
  9. How many of the East Timorese currently residing in Portugal who have applied for permanent residence in Australia have no relatives in Australia.
  10. How many of these have been granted entry permits.
  11. Has the Commonwealth Government, at any stage, relaxed the health criteria for East Timorese, currently residing in Portugal who have applied to enter Australia. If so, what has been the nature of that relaxation.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) There is no requirement for East Timorese in Australia who wish to return to East Timor to approach my Department. They need only to apply to the Indonesian Embassy.
  2. and (3) In the period to 30 September 1978 a total of 1 , 100 East Timorese evacuees in Portugal had applied to migrate to Australia. Of these 342 had been approved for entry and applications from another 1 79 were in process. Of the remaining 579, a high proportion have had applications deferred pending sponsorships from Australia. Others have been deferred or rejected on medical or selection grounds. A more detailed breakdown is not available. Arrival statistics do not allow the East Timorese formerly resident in Portugal to be identified separately from other former residents of Portugal. It is, therefore, not known how many of the 342 persons approved for entry, have actually arrived in Australia.
  3. A small number of East Timorese have applied to migrate to Australia from various overseas countries including Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan. Those able to meet the relaxed criteria have been approved. The numbers are too small to warrant the maintenance of separate statistics.
  4. No. In accordance with normal visitor policy applications are examined to ensure that bona fide visits are intended but no specific instructions govern visit approval for East Timorese.
  5. Letters of Authority were issued. They were valid for one month and renewable for further periods of one month. They were issued only as an interim measure in November 1975 and superseded by formal nomination procedures in April 1976. Only 19 Letters of Authority were presented in Darwin and even smaller numbers in the States.
  6. The persons in the agreed categories are, in general, the immediate relatives of East Timorese in Australia. A list of 600 was handed to the Indonesian Government following the completion of talks in Jakarta in July 1978.

  7. No accurate assessment of movement to Australia in 1978, 1979 and 1980 is possible at this stage. It will depend on the number of applicants able to meet Australia’s migration criteria at the time.

    1. and (10) These figures are not available. An estimated 300 seeking to come to Australia have been unable to obtain sponsorship on family reunion criteria.
    2. Some East Timorese with medical conditions which do not constitute a health risk to the Australian community have been granted entry. Others with conditions expected to respond to treated are receiving medical assistance by arrangement with the Portuguese Government. This is expected to enable them to travel to Australia on successful completion of the treatment.

Petrol Prices (Question No. 795)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 1 5 September 1 978:

  1. 1 ) Have petrol prices in North Queensland increased in excess of the additional Government tax per litre.
  2. Have profit margins been added to the new tax margin by many petrol retailers, thus increasing the margin per gallon from the 10 cents suggested by the Government to margins of 20 cents per gallon in many cases.
  3. What action does the Government propose to ensure that such profiteering does not continue.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) The Budget increase in the crude oil levy was applied to production of indigenous crude oil and not as a tax per litre of petrol or other products refined from crude oil. The increase in the levy has resulted in higher prices for petrol at both wholesale and retail levels.
  2. The Treasurer in his Budget speech said that the levy decision would add about 3V4 cents per litre to the price of petrol (roughly 16 cents per gallon).
  3. I am advised that, in the experience of the Prices Justification Tribunal, a reseller margin of 22.5 per cent is common for petrol. Where a margin of this order is applied to the wholesale price increase found justified by the PJT, retail prices would have increased by 3.7 cents per litre (16.6 cents per gallon). However, it is a matter for individual resellers to decide what margin they will apply.

The PJT will be holding a public inquiry, commencing on 20 November 1978, into petroleum product prices. It is open to any person to bring to the notice ofthe PJT at this inquiry or, indeed, at any time, evidence they may have as to overcharging by companies for petrol.

Supervising Scientist: Ranger Uranium Mine (Question No. 835)

Senator Chipp:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 26 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) Does the Supervising Scientist in control of environmental monitoring at the Ranger Uranium Mine live in Canberra. If so, will he move his permanent residence to the mining site.
  2. Was the Supervising Scientist trained in nuclear physics, rather than in biology.
  3. What special qualifications and experience does the Supervising Scientist possess to enable him to monitor adequately possible uranium waste, pollution and environmental damage at the site.
Senator Chaney:
LP

– The Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) An Acting Supervising Scientist was appointed on 29 June 1978, under the provisions of Section 1 4 of the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act 1978. The permanent residence of the Acting Supervising Scientist is in Sydney; he does not propose to permanently reside in Jabiru in the Northern Territory. Plans are in hand to extend his existing laboratory at Jabiru, and to locate a significant field force there.
  2. The basic training of the Acting Supervising Scientist was in physics. His early research experience was in the field of meteorological physics. The Report of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry recommended that the Supervising Scientist have ‘both administrative skills and scientific expertise in a range of fields relevant to the task ‘. These fields include water and soil chemistry, ground and surface water hydrology, geology, freshwater, estuarine and terrestrial biology, studies on the effects of heavy metal pollutants on animal and plant species, ecology, mathematical modelling of environmental systems, meteorology, radiological protection and mining, milling and dam engineering.
  3. The Acting Supervising Scientist is one of Australia’s most experienced health physicists. He has worked as a hospital physicist and for many years directed research in the multidisciplinary field of radiological protection which included studies in environmental radioactivity. He has had considerable administrative experience within the Government bureaucracy, was Atomic Energy Adviser to the High Commissioner in London for three years and has served on a number of international panels and committees concerned with the environmental and public health aspects of nuclear energy. He is a member of Committee 4 ofthe International Commission on Radiological Protection, Chairman of the Committee on Radiological Protection and Public Health of the Nuclear Energy Agency of the OECD and Chairman of an ad hoc committee of this Committee concerned with the environmental and public health implications of uranium mining and milling. For a number of years he has chaired an Advisory Group to the International Atomic Energy Agency which has formulated limits and controls on the dumping of radioactive wastes in the ocean as required by the international ‘Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter’ and was associated with the development of the Agency’s regulations relating to the safe transport of radioactive materials. He was also a member of the working panel set up by the Australian Department of Health that drew up the ‘Code of Practice on Radiation Protection in the Mining and Milling of Radioactive Ores 1975’.

Renovations to Prime Minister’s Lodge (Question No. 878)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 10 October 1978:

Was the residence of the Prime Minister (The Lodge) recently renovated. If so: (a) what was the nature of the renovations, and (b) what was the cost.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

I take it that the honourable senator’s question relates to the renovations carried out late last year and early this year.

The work covered the staff quarters, the kitchen and the associated service areas of The Lodge. The renovations were long overdue and were supported by the Federated Liquor and Allied Industries Employees Union as improving working conditions for staff. The changed layout of the service areas also enabled the dining room to be enlarged.

The Committee on Official Establishments had recommended that the renovations be carried out as a matter of urgency.

The cost of this work was met from funds appropriated by the Parliament in 1977-78 under the ‘Official Establishments. Repairs and maintenance’ and the ‘Capital Works. Buildings, Works, Plant and Equipment. Official establishments’ votes of my Department.

New Residence for Prime Minister (Question No. 880)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 10 October 1978:

  1. 1 ) Have plans been drawn up for the construction of a new residence for the Prime Minister at Attunga Point on Lake Burley Griffin.
  2. How much did the preparation of the plans cost; was the project recommended by the Official Establishments Committee; what is the likely cost of the new residence of the Prime Minister; and when is construction likely to take place.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. and (2) No plans have been drawn up for the construction of a new residence for the Prime Minister. There has been no change since I answered a similar question on 1 December 1 976 (Hansard, page 3089).

In July last, press reports referred to the preparation of plans by the Department of Construction. At that time I indicated that I had not seen, and had not initiated, any such plans. That continues to be the case and I definitely have no intention of making any moves towards the construction of a new Prime Ministerial residence.

I am informed that both the National Capital Development Commission and the Department of Construction, in the course of normal overall forward planning have given general consideration to the provision of a new building at a new site. Such consideration has not been initiated by me. In no case has a proposal for a new residence reached a stage of development which could be described as a ‘project’ and for which planning and design costs would be separately identified.

The Committee on Official Establishments in its Interim Report tabled in Parliament on 24 May 1977 listed, amongst matters it was investigating, a new residence for the Prime Minister sited at Attunga Point. To date the Committee has made no recommendation on this matter.

Sugar Industry Inquiry (Question No. 963)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 26 October 1978:

  1. 1 ) When did the Industries Assistance Commission commence its inquiry into the sugar industry.
  2. When is it expected that the Commission will present its report.
  3. Does the Commission intend to publish a progress report.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) The Sugar Industry reference was sent to the Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) on 14 June 1978 and the Commission began its public hearings on the reference on 14 August 1978.
  2. The terms of reference for the inquiry require the IAC to report as soon as possible and in ample time for consideration and, if accepted, implementation of recommendations by 1 July 1979.
  3. No.

Gimbat and Goodparla Leases (Question No. 966)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice, on 25 October 1978:

  1. What are the present arrangements for the Gimbat and Goodparla leases.
  2. Is there any possibility that the lease arrangements may be changed before the Government’s consideration is finalised.
  3. In particular, could the lease term be lengthened.
  4. Where does the responsibility rest for authorising transfer of the leases.
  5. Will the Government give an undertaking that the lease arrangements will not be adjusted in any way, other than to facilitate incorporation of these properties into the Kakadu National Park.
Senator Chaney:
LP

– The Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) The Government, by notice in Commonwealth Gazette S 1 16 of 29 June 1978, acquired the fee simple interest in land comprising the Gimbat and Goodparla pastoral leases. No change in the ownership of the existing pastoral leases has been made.
  2. No changes in the lease arrangements are forseen.
  3. See (2) above.
  4. Northern Territory legislation requires the consent of the Administrator to the transfer of leases.
  5. The Government has not yet completed its consideration of the resumption of the Gimbat and Goodparla pastoral leases in line with the recommendation of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry that consideration be given to the resumption of Goodparla and part or all of Gimbat, with a view to their incorporation in the park.

Ombudsman’s Jurisdiction

Senator Carrick:
LP

-On 28 September 1978 (Hansard, page 1043) Senator Mcintosh asked the Attorney-General a question without notice concerning a report that the Ombudsman, Professor Richardson, is seeking new powers to represent citizens in Social Security appeals. The Prime Minister has supplied the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Any proposal to confer a representative function upon the Ombudsman would need to be examined most carefully because ofthe potential conflict between the roles of advocate and impartial investigator.

The Government has requested the Administrative Review Council to undertake a review of the entire scope of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. In addition the Council is currently undertaking a project on social security appeals and as part of that project is seeking information and comment on the most appropriate form of appeals in this area.

The Government will consider any changes to the Ombudsman’s role in the light ofthe reports ofthe Administrative Review Council.

Minister for Primary Industry

Senator Carrick:
LP

– On 15 November 1978 (Hansard, page 2015) Senator Walsh asked me, as Minister representing the Prime Minister, a question, without notice, concerning the Minister for Primary Industry. The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

I have nothing to add to my answer to Question 956 (Hansard, 1 4 November 1978, page 200 1 ).

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 21 November 1978, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1978/19781121_senate_31_s79/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant