Senate
7 March 1979

31st Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 31st Parliament
  3. 1979

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator D. B. Scott) took the chair at 2.15 p.m.. and read prayers.

page 545

PETITIONS

Indexation of Pensions

Senator MASON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 135 citizens of Australia:

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

That restoration of provisions of the Social Security Act that applied prior to the 1978-79 Budget is of vital concern to offset the rising cost of goods and services.

The reason advanced by the Government for yearly payments ‘that the lower level of inflation made twice-yearly payments inappropriate ‘ is not valid.

Great injury will be caused to 920,000 aged, invalid, widows and supporting parents, who rely solely on the pension or whose income, other than the pension, is $6 or less per week. Once-a-year payments strike a cruel blow to their expectation and make a mockery of a solemn election pledge.

Accordingly, your petitioners call upon their legislators to:

Restore twice-yearly pension adjustments in the Autumn session.

Raise pensions and unemployed benefits above the poverty level to 30 per cent of average weekly earnings.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Democratic and Parliamentary Processes

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– 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 Australia respectfully showeth:

That the credibility of the Westminster Parliamentary system is weakened by the resignation in protest of Ministers of the Crown without adequate explanation of the reason or reasons for the resignation being given to the electorate and that the situation is further exacerbated by the reappointment of the recently resigned Minister within a very brief period, again without any meaningful explanation to the people of Australia.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, take note of the need for the electorate at large to be fully informed so that the confidence of the people is not diminished in the democratic process in general and the Parliamentary process in particular.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Indexation of Pensions

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I present the following petition from 80 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 restoration of provisions of the Social Security Act that applied prior to the 1978-79 Budget is of vital concern to offset the rising cost of goods and services.

The reason advanced by the Government for yearly payment ‘that the lower level of inflation made twice-yearly payments inappropriate ‘ is not valid.

Great injury will be caused to 920,000 aged, invalid, widows and supporting parents, who rely solely on the pension or whose income, other than the pension, is $6 or less per week. Once-a-year payments strike a cruel blow to their expectation and make a mockery of a solemn election pledge.

Accordingly, your petitioners call upon their legislators to:

Restore twice-yearly pension adjustments in the Autumn session.

Raise pensions and unemployed benefits above the poverty level to 30 per cent of average weekly earnings.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Metric System

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

-On behalf of Senator Lewis, I present the following petition from 23 citizens of Australia:

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

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the Metric system and request the Government to restore the Imperial system.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Indexation of Pensions

Senator COLSTON:
QUEENSLAND

-I present the following petition from 73 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia by this our humble Petition respectfully showeth:

That the decision of the Australian Government to depart from its 1975 election promise, a promise re-affirmed during the 1977 election campaign, that pensions would be increased twice-yearly in line with increases in the C.P.I., will seriously add to the economic burdens now borne by those citizens who are wholly or mainly dependent on their pensions.

Your petitioners are impelled by this fact to call upon the

Australian Government as a matter of urgency to review the abovementioned decision, and to determineThat pensions will be increased twice yearly in line with rises in the C.P.I, as promised by the Prime Minister in his 1975 policy speech.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Compensation: Commonwealth Employees

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 1,530 citizens of Australia:

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

That Compensation benefits payable to injured Australian Government employees and Defence Forces personnel under the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 should be increased as a matter of urgency in view of the financial plight of recipients, particularly those suffering long term incapacity and because of the significant increase in the cost of living which has occurred since compensation payments were last adjusted; and

That statutory provision should be made for the automatic adjustment of compensation benefits

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Indexation of Pensions

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 90 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 restoration of provisions of the Social Security Act that applied prior to the 1978-79 Budget is of vital concern to offset the rising cost of goods and services.

The reason advanced by the Government for yearly payments ‘that the lower level of inflation made twice-yearly payments inappropriate ‘ is not valid.

Great injury will be caused to 920,000 aged, invalid, widows and supporting parents, who rely solely on the pension or whose income, other than the pension, is $6 or less per week. Once-a-year payments strike a cruel blow to their expectation and make a mockery of a solemn election pledge.

Accordingly, your petitioners call upon their legislators to:

Restore twice-yearly pension adjustments in the Autumn session.

Raise pensions and unemployed benefits above the poverty level to 30 per cent of average weekly earnings.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Indexation of Pensions

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 60 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 restoration of provisions of the Social Security Act that applied prior to the 1 978-79 Budget is of vital concern to offset the rising cost of goods and services.

The reason advanced by the Government for yearly payments ‘that the lower level of inflation made twice-yearly payments inappropriate ‘ is not valid.

Great injury will be caused to 920,000 aged, invalid, widows and supporting parents, who rely solely on the pension or whose income, other than the pension, is $6 or less per week. Once-a-year payments strike a cruel blow to their expectation and make a mockery of a solemn election pledge.

Accordingly, your petitioners call upon their legislators to:

Restore twice-yearly pension adjustments in the Autumn session.

Raise pensions and unemployed benefits above the poverty level to 30 per cent of average weekly earnings.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

The Acting Clerk- Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

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 Chipp.

Petition received.

Indexation of Pensions

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

That restoration of provisions of the Social Security Act that applied prior to the 1 978-79 Budget is of vital concern to offset the rising cost of goods and services.

The reason advanced by the Government for yearly payments ‘that the lower level of inflation made twice-yearly payments inappropriate ‘ is not valid.

Great injury will be caused by 920,000 aged, invalid, widows and supporting parents, who rely solely on the pension or whose income, other than the pension, is $6 or less per week. Once-a-year payments strike a cruel blow to their expectation and make a mockery of a solemn election pledge.

Accordingly, your petitioners call upon their legislators to:

  1. Restore twice-yearly pension adjustments in the Autumn session.
  2. Raise pensions and unemployed benefits above the poverty level to 30 per cent of average weekly earnings.

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

Petition received.

page 546

AUSTRALIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE ORGANISATION BILL 1979

Notice of Motion

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act relating to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation.

page 547

TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INTERCEPTION) BILL 1979

Notice of Motion

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to prohibit the interception of telecommunications except where specially authorised in the interests of security or in connection with inquiries related to narcotics offences, and for related purposes.

page 547

TELECOMMUNCATIONS AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Notice of Motion

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Telecommunications Act 1975.

page 547

CUSTOMS AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1979

Notice of Motion

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Customs Act 1901.

page 547

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 547

QUESTION

TERTIARY EDUCATION: PARTICIPATION RATES

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Education. I refer him to a statement reported to have been made late last year by the Queensland Minister for Education in which he said that static Commonwealth funding for the triennum 1979-81 will cause a halt in progress towards bringing the State’s participation rates in tertiary education up to the national average. Is it correct that widely differing participation rates in tertiary education exist between the various States of Australia? If so, does the nogrowth decision with respect to universities and colleges of advanced education made in 1976 and 1977 mean that differing participation rates between States will be perpetuated and that the inequality of access of Australians to tertiary education will remain? Has the Government received any advice from the Tertiary Education Commission on this matter? If so, what is the effect of that advice?

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

-I direct Senator Button’s attention to a considerable amount of information contained in the various reports of the Tertiary Education Commission which is relevant to the question he has asked. If necessary, I will obtain specific information. There are widely differing participation rates in tertiary education between the States. That is historical. It is not due necessarily to applications of funds by the Commonwealth or the States. The decisions of the Commonwealth Government on its financing of education in the years ahead take into account an almost static rate of population growth on the one hand and a changing rate of free demand by students as to the forms of tertiary education they seek on the other hand. There is a wide movement of students away from universities. Some go to colleges of advanced education but many attend colleges of technical and further education. That is a free choice of the students.

From memory, the Tertiary Education Commission has looked at the comments of the Queensland Minister on this matter. I will obtain from the Tertiary Education Commission its response to the assertion of the Queensland Government that it may have had an unfair deal. My instincts, which I think will be borne out by the various reports, are that there is nothing to halt the continuing process within the tertiary education system.

page 547

QUESTION

CHILD PORNOGRAPHY

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

-Has the attention of the Attorney-General been drawn to the report that the Tasmanian President of the Printing and Kindred Industries Union has claimed that child pornography is being printed in Australia using imported printing plates and that the Union has placed bans on all agencies connected with printing and publishing child pornography? Can the Minister verify the accuracy of this claim? If it is correct, can he not only take appropriate action to have the practice stopped but also commend the Union for bringing this illegal importation to the notice of the public?

Senator Button:

– Come on! Commend the unions.

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– Just wait. My attention has only just been drawn to this report by Senator Walters who gave me some notice that she intended to ask the question today. I have not actually seen the report but certainly I do commend the president of the Printing and Kindred Industries Union for pointing out this fact. Lamentably, it is a matter about which the customs authorities are concerned and which we believe has been occurring. It seems that these plates are imported and printing is done in Australia from these imported plates. Of course, if any plates or publications featuring child pornography are intercepted at the point of importation, they are seized because they are clearly prohibited under the customs regulations dealing with prohibited imports. The task of policing imports of this character or of any character is a fomidible one and it is a fact that some material of this kind does escape detection at the point of importation. However, I want to emphasise that these plates or any similar publications are prohibited and would be seized and confiscated.

It is unfortunate that publications can be produced locally from these plates and they are not then subject to Commonwealth customs regulations but are covered by State legislation governing the possession, display, sale and so on of literature. I am pleased to say that all State laws ban any publications relating to child pornography. That was negotiated some time ago by my predecessor and the State Ministers responsible for censorship. They met on this matter and agreement was reached unanimously that child pronography would be banned uniformly throughout Australia. So the laws are adequate. I believe that every effort is made to police them, certainly at the Federal end. I think it is important that publications featuring child pornography are brought to the attention of the authorities and, as these plates are illegal, I would hope that anybody who has information about the existence of illegal material of this kind would notify the appropriate authorities.

page 548

QUESTION

DEFENCE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL IN WASHINGTON

Senator SIBRAA:

– My question is directed to Senator Carrick in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Defence. I refer to the Minister’s answer to a question in the Senate last year in which the Minster told the Senate that there were 75 Australian Defence Department officers in Washington and to the fact that the estimates of the Department of Foreign Affairs refer to 93 Defence officers stationed in Washington. Can the Minister explain the discrepency between his answer to the question and the estimates of the Department of Foreign Affairs? Further, will he undertake to inform the Senate of the actual number of Defence Department officials stationed in Washington and provide a summary of the duties of the military personnel stationed there?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The Senate will appreciate that I would not have the specific material handy to enable me to answer the question. I will seek that material and make it available to the Senate.

page 548

QUESTION

CHILD MINDING SERVICE

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– My question, which is directed to the Attorney-General, relates to the closing in October last year of the child minding service associated with the Family Court in Brisbane. As I understand it the service has been closed until further notice. Would the AttorneyGeneral agree that when family law legislation was debated in this chamber, heavy stress was laid on the need to remove the strains which had been associated with divorce jurisdiction in the past, with particular reference to the rights of children? Would the Attorney-General agree that this child minding service is a very valuable one, particularly when custody and access matters are being heard in view of the desirability of avoiding conflict between parents in the presence of children when custody of children is in dispute? Has he had reports of unfortunate incidents in the precincts of the Family Court in Brisbane since this child minding service has been closed down, particularly when children have come into contact with parents from whom they have been separated for some time? Is it true that staff are using the former child minding centre for recreation purposes? Was the closing of the child minding service approved by the AttorneyGeneral, or was it approved by an officer of the Department, and if so, on what grounds? Will the Attorney-General give an assurance that this child minding centre will be opened in the near future and will not be closed again under the same sort of circumstances?

Senator DURACK:
LP

- Senator Martin has asked me for a good deal of detail about matters with which I am not familiar. I will make immediate inquiries into the matters, which are certainly ones of concern, and I will endeavour to obtain an early response for the Senate.

page 548

QUESTION

PENSIONER TELEPHONE CONCESSIONS

Senator GRIMES:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. Have all pensioners entitled to fringe benefits been asked by the Department of Social Security to justify their need for a telephone? If so, how will this need be assessed? Is the purpose of this action, if it has been taken, to cut down the number of pensioners receiving the one-third telephone rental concession which is worth about $29.33 a year? Does the Minister agree that this will severely affect the aged, the invalid, widows and supporting mothers, who are already subject to a strict means test and who are the ones most likely to need emergency services?

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

– I will check to see what requirements have been made of pensioners who have been able to get a telephone rental concession. I am unaware of any particular requirement other than the requirement for information on which to determine whether pensioners are still eligible for the telephone concession. I will have the matter checked and I will see that whatever information is available is given to Senator Grimes immediately.

Senator GRIMES:

– I have a supplementary question, Mr Deputy President. If the Minister for Social Security finds that in fact a letter has gone out requiring pensioners for the first time to justify their need for a telephone, will she tell the Senate who authorised this letter obviously without first asking her?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I shall check to see what has been required of pensioners who have had this concession, and I shall make whatever information is available to Senator Grimes and the Senate. I do want to say that it is necessary to check circumstances of people who have enjoyed any pension, benefit or concession. Many are subject to an income test or a requirement that they be living alone. I think that sort of information does need to be assessed from time to time. However, I will check on the circumstances of any letter which is in the mind of Senator Grimes at the moment.

page 549

QUESTION

SQUID FISHING IN TASMANIAN WATERS

Senator ARCHER:

– I should like to ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Comments made by Mr Fred Connell, Chairman of the Australian Fishing Industry Council, at a meeting held in Hobart recently were very critical of the Federal Government for having granted joint venture licences for squid fishing within the Tasmanian 12-mile limit. May I ask the Minister whether such approvals, if granted, are the responsibility of the Federal Minister, or whether this licence was issued at the request, recommendation or approval of the State Minister for Fisheries in Tasmania? Does the approval comply in every way with the guidelines as prepared and issued last year?

Senator WEBSTER:
Minister for Science and the Environment · VICTORIA · NCP/NP

-I am advised that on 19 January 1978 the Minister for Primary Industry announced that the Australian Fisheries Council, which, as the honourable senator will know, is a council of Commonwealth and State Ministers with fisheries responsibilities, had unanimously adopted the guidelines for feasibility fishing recommended by the working group set up to advise on management, strategies and policies in relation to the 200-mile Australian fishing zone. The guidelines provide for consideration of feasibility fishing proposals jointly by the Commonwealth and State Ministers responsible for fisheries. Industry views are also sought in this matter and to date all feasibility fishing proposals have been jointly approved by the Minister for Primary Industry and the relevant State Ministers responsible for fisheries. All approved projects have been assessed in accordance with the agreed guidelines. The Minister for Primary Industry has stated on a number of occasions that only fisheries or areas currently unexploited or under exploited by Australians will be considered for feasibility studies. For close inshore fisheries with no or minimal participation, feasibility fishing activities may be permitted within the three-mile or 12-mile limits. Approved feasibility projects operate in designated areas and are subject to strict controls as well as restrictions on the use of particular fishing gear.

Taking of particular species offish is also considered and the payment of licence fees is required; conditions relate also to the eventual marketing of the fish and the access to ports. I think that basically covers the question that the honourable senator asked.

page 549

QUESTION

WITTENOOM AIRSTRIP

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. I refer to the paving of the Wittenoom airstrip in Western Australia with asbestos tailings by the then Commonwealth Department of Civil Aviation in the early 1970s. As the Minister knows, this material was carted through the town to build the airstrip which is located near the town. In view of the Western Australia’s Government’s attempts to force people to leave the town because the asbestos tailings are said to be a health hazard, will the Commonwealth government either compensate the people or remedy the damage that it has done?

Senator CHANEY:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

-Before the honourable senator’s question, I had not heard the suggestion that in some way the Commonwealth was implicated in the difficulties of the Wittenoom township. I will refer the facts and information as outlined by the honourable senator to the Minister responsible.

page 550

QUESTION

PORT MELBOURNE ENGINE WORKS

Senator LEWIS:
VICTORIA

– My question, directed to the Leader of the Government in his own capacity and in his capacity as representing the Minister for Defence is about the storage and preservation of machine tools and jigs at the Australian Government’s engine works at Port Melbourne. I appreciate that it is sometimes more economic to purchase equipment overseas to the detriment of some Australian industries thought to be of value for defence purposes, for example, diesel engines. Does the Minister recall that in answer to a question about the sale of the Australian Government engine works at Port Melbourne the Minister representing the Minister for Productivity explained that the Government’s preferred objective is to dispose of the works as a going concern? Has the Defence Industry Committee identified the tools and jigs at this works that may have defence significance? Will the Government ensure that any such tools and jigs not required by the purchasing enterprise are retained for possible future use? As a means of improving the defence production capability, will the Minister give consideration to the establishment of a reserve storage of machine tools and jigs which could be used in time of crises to convert Australian industry rapidly to war production?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

- Senator Lewis has raised some significant matters. It is my recollection that the Minister for Productivity or his Department made a statement some time ago that it was preferred that the enterprise should be sold as a going concern. I am unable to say whether the Defence Industry Committee has made a study of the matter. I will certainly ascertain that. I will certainly refer the question of retaining the signficant tools and machinery which may have defence importance to the Minister responsible. I think the whole of the latter part of the question deserves a further study and I will bring it to the attention of the Minister concerned.

page 550

QUESTION

COMPUTICKET AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Has the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs seen a report that the Australian Opera Co. is owed more than $250,000 by the collapsed Computicket Australia Pty Ltd, of which company Mr Harry M. Miller, who has been appointed to a number of boards and other positions by this Government, is a major shareholder? Is the Minister aware that in the last Budget Papers the Australian Government, through the offices of the Australia Council, provided for $2,520,000 to be made available by the

Australian taxpayers to the Australian Opera Co? In view of the fact that it is now reported that Mr Miller’s company owes $250,000 to the Opera Co. and in view of the fact that he holds a number of government appointments, will the Minister ascertain from the Australia Council whether the Opera Co. is in fact owed this money and, if so, what action is being taken to effect recovery?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I think the answer to the first part of the honourable senator’s question is yes. I have noted a news report, as the honourable senator indicated. Secondly, my mind is not clear as to the Budget allocation for the Australia Council, but I accept the honourable senator’s comment that it was $2,520,000. In relation to the last part of the honourable senator’s question, I will certainly carry out that action. I will attempt to ascertain the information for him.

page 550

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL LAND CLAIMS IN THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

-Has the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs seen an article appearing in today’s Canberra Times headlined: ‘Aboriginal land claims “thwarted” by NT move’? The article states:

The Northern Territory Government has thwarted any Aboriginal land claims to areas around Darwin, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs by gazetting large tracts of’ land around the urban centres for future expansion.

Another part of the article states:

The Government gazetted 4,350 square kilometres of land around Darwin whose city limits now extend 1 15 kilometres south to the Adelaide River.

Is the Minister taking any steps in relation to this matter to protect the rights of the Aboriginal people who have made a number of claims and are still to make a number of claims? What steps is the Government taking to ratify this action by the Northern Territory Government?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I think honourable senators would be aware that under the Aborigi-nal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act Aboriginals claiming traditional ownership of land may lodge claims over vacant Crown land. That situation has applied since 1976. Honourable senators would probably also be aware that since 1974 there has been a freeze on the alienation of Crown land because of the potential for Aboriginal land claims. That freeze was continued by the newly-elected Northern Territory Government last year. It advised the Commonwealth Government in August that it proposed to hold the freeze for a further two years to permit the lodging of Aboriginal claims.

The Northern Territory Government has some problems with respect to Aboriginal land in that it does not have the normal right of resumption. With respect to other private land, of course, the Northern Territory Government can, as can any State government, resume for public purposes. With respect to Aboriginal land that is not a power that we have given it in this legislation. It is probably because of that that the Northern Territory Government has taken some action, with respect both to present towns and to potential towns, to set aside land for development purposes.

In December action was taken with respect to Darwin, Alice Springs, Katherine and Tennant Creek. Yesterday the Northern Territory Government advised a meeting at Borroloola that it proposed taking action with respect to islands of the Sir Edward Pellew group. This is a matter of considerable significance to any potential Aboriginal claimants because the land can be removed from the operation of the land rights Act by this action.

When I heard about it I contacted the Northern Territory Government. I have been in touch with it again this morning and I am seeking to have some discussions with it on the subject. As I said, the Northern Territory Government has a genuine problem in the sense of having to provide for future development. The Aboriginal people who believe that they have a traditional claim to that land also have a serious problem. Quite clearly, those two matters have to be dealt with together.

page 551

QUESTION

APPRENTICESHIPS

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs and refers to apprenticeships. The Minister will recall my previous questions directing his attention to the fact that a number of government departments and statutory authorities, in particular Telecom Australia and Australia Post, have staff ceilings which have inhibited the intake of apprentices. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the fact that recently the Metal Trades Industry Association of Australia has said that there will be a shortage of about 2,000 skilled tradesmen in the foreseeable future? Knowing that the National Training Council is seeking information from overseas, I ask the Minister Will he direct the attention of the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs to the need to lift those staff ceilings to ensure that where there is a staff requirement for extra apprentices they will be taken on by those authorities which I have mentioned as well as by the Royal Australian Air Force and the civilian area of the Department of Defence?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-I will refer Senator Bishop’s question to the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs whom I represent. Since Mr Viner became the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, there has been a review of the Government’s apprentice intake and, as a result, there has been an increase in the apprentice intake of about 200 apprentices. I do not have the exact figure in my mind at the moment. I know that the Minister is concerned about these matters. I will ask him to provide an early answer to the Senate.

page 551

QUESTION

HERITAGE COMMISSION ACT

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. My attention has been drawn to recent criticism by the Mining Industry Council and the Queensland Government of the Heritage Commission Act and the subsequent review, ordered by the Prime Minister, of this vitally important Act. Will the Minister explain the nature of the inquiry? Will he assure the Senate that the principles enshrined in the Act and the powers of the Heritage Commission will be fully maintained by this Government? Since the Heritage Commission Act was adopted by Parliament in 1975 with the support of all parties, will the Minister also explain why the inquiry is being conducted by a departmental commitee and not by a committee of the Parliament itself?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I understand that the Prime Minister in another place gave an assurance that the principles behind the Heritage Commission Act, which are designed to ensure proper consideration of our national heritage, would be maintained. The Prime Minister has asked the Minister for Home Affairs as a matter of urgency to undertake a wide ranging review of the Act and this is now in progress. The review will look at whether the Act in its working has any unintended and undesirable implications for other Government policies, including resource development, Aboriginal advancement and federalism. The Australian Heritage Commission Act comes under the portfolio responsibilities of the Minister for Home Affairs. It is therefore entirely appropriate that any review of that legislation be conducted by that Minister.

page 551

QUESTION

PUBLIC TELEPHONE FACILITIES

Senator GIETZELT:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. Is the Minister aware that a large number of public telephones are constantly out of order? I specifically advise him that many public telephones in the Sydney area have been vandalised and made inoperative and have not been repaired for a considerable period. Can the Minister indicate what priority Telecom Australia gives to the repair of public telephone facilities in view of the announced increase in profitability of that statutory authority? Will the Minister establish whether Telecom has given consideration to installing vandal-proof telephones of the sort widely used in the United States of America?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-I must say that it has come to my personal attention, as a sometime user of public telephones, that they seem very often to be out of order. I am not familiar, however, with the massive vandalisation of them which is apparently a feature of Sydney and which was referred to by the honourable senator. I will ask the Minister for Post and Telecommunications whether any study has been made of using a stronger telephone along the lines mentioned by the honourable senator and I will let the honourable senator have a further reply.

page 552

QUESTION

ROLE OF CUSTOMS OFFICERS

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. In answer to a question relating to the transfer of a Customs boat from Darwin to a Western Australian base, the Attorney-General indicated that the Navy would be available for civil surveillance and enforcement tasks in the area. In view of this answer, are there any restrictions on the legal ability of the Navy to take on a Customs role? Bearing in mind the varying role of a Customs officer, has a member of the Defence Forces the required background to carry out the role of such a Customs official?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-My advice is that the Customs Act 1901 in its definition of the powers of officers provides in Clause 184 that ‘the commander or officer in charge of any ship, boat or aircraft in Her Majesty’s Service or in the service of the Commonwealth or Customs’ may chase and compel a ship or aircraft to come to port or land. However, in practice, for Customs tasks defence force vehicles and personnel are used principally in a surveillance role. Defence force patrols engaged on surveillance activities are provided with guidance by the civil authorities in dealing with situations which may arise. These patrols, through appropriate channels, can also be in contact with the relevant civil authorities. When enforcement action is necessary and a defence vehicle is being used, Customs officers are put on board and they exercise their powers under the Act directly. For this reason, special training has not been considered necessary by the civil authorities for defence force personnel. I would stress that defence force patrol boats and their crews are not required to carry out Customs duties in port. With regard to Darwin, these activities are carried out by Customs officers using a harbour launch.

page 552

QUESTION

SANKEY CASE

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

-I ask the AttorneyGeneral: Has he received a request from the Prime Minister to report to the Prime Minister on the implications of the Sankey case?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– Certainly I have been giving very considerable consideration to the implications of the Sankey case for the Government generally and for the future. I have prepared material on the matter and the Government will be giving the matter further consideration in due course.

Senator WRIEDT:

– I ask a supplementary question. The question to the Minister was: Has he received a request from the Prime Minister?

Senator DURACK:

– I have said over and over again in this chamber that I do not propose to discuss matters which take place between the Prime Minister and Ministers in relation to the business of government.

page 552

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH POST-GRADUATE AWARDS

Senator TEAGUE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Education, concerns Commonwealth post-graduate awards. The first Fraser Budget in 1976 vastly increased the postgraduate award allowances and the second Fraser Budget again increased them. However, last year there was no increase in the Budget and the allowance was made taxable. I ask: Is the Government aware of the sound arguments that urge an increase in the post-graduate award allowances to take account of inflation and the diminished value of the allowances, arising from their now being taxable? Will the Government give consideration to making an increase payable from 1 July 1979, the beginning of the next tax year, whether the increase is achieved in this session of Parliament or whether it is back dated from the August Budget?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-It is true that, when the Fraser Government came to office, it found that the post-graduate awards were lagging behind the cost of living and an immediate adjustment was made. In 1976, the Fraser Government was able to increase the post-graduate allowance from $3,250 to $4,000 and the dependent spouse allowance from $780 to $1,508. That went a great way towards overcoming the defects of past governments. In the following year, the post-graduate allowance was increased from $4,000 to $4,200 and the dependent spouse allowance was increased from $1,508 to $1,633. So, a very considerable increase was made in both the post-graduate allowance and the dependent spouse allowance.

Opposition senators interjecting-

Senator CARRICK:

– The interjections claim that we are taking away from these people. The Whitlam Government, from whose party those voices derive, took away greedily and hungrily by inflation. We are in business to overcome the difficulties caused by that. The further matters raised by Senator Teague are matters for the Budget and for government decision. I will certainly see that the suggestion is brought to the attention of the Government.

page 553

QUESTION

SANKEY CASE

Senator WRIEDT:

-I ask the AttorneyGeneral: Is he aware that, on 20 February, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives, Mr Lionel Bowen, received an undertaking from the Prime Minister that he, the Prime Minister, would refer the implications of the Sankey case to the Attorney-General? Are we to understand from the Attorney-General’s last answer that the Prime Minister has not made that reference to him?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– A question was asked in the House of Representatives about, I think, the reasons for the Government not taking over the Sankey case. Is that the matter to which the honourable senator refers?

Senator Wriedt:

– No.

Senator Grimes:

– You know what it is.

Senator DURACK:

-When Senator Wriedt talks about ‘implications’ he uses a very broad term indeed. In fact, I have been giving consideration to the implications of the Sankey case since the decision of the High Court of Australia was given. There have been Cabinet discussions in relation to various matters concerning it. If Senator Wriedt was referring to a question addressed to the Prime Minister- I do not know on which day it was asked- in relation to the reasons for which the Government did not take over the case, in response to which the Prime Minister stated that it was not a matter for the Government to determine but for the AttorneyGeneral, I say yes, that matter has been referred to me and I have supplied an answer in relation to it.

page 553

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS IN THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– I address a question to the Minister for Education and refer to a question I asked on 2 1 February concerning the staffing of schools in the Australian Capital Territory. At that time the Minister indicated that returns of enrolments from schools were due to be received by the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority on that day. Can the Minister now say whether, in view of this information, the staffing provision of 2,772 will be sufficient for Australian Capital Territory government schools in 1979?

Senator Ryan:

– It is all they are getting, isn’t it? Whether it is sufficient or not, they will not be getting any more.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Senator Ryan will be delighted to know that the figure of 2,772 has proved more than adequate. I am sure that she will find that very satisfactory. The Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority has now obtained statistical returns for all government schools in the Australian Capital Territory and I am able to provide more precise information for the staffing situation in 1979. Indications at the beginning of March were that 2,750 teachers would be required for 1979. I repeat that figure-2,750. That is 22 below the ceiling that was set last year. The figure of 2,750 allows primary schools and pre-schools to be staffed on exactly the same basis as in previous years. High schools can also be staffed as previously except that the automatic allowance for beginning teachers in each school has been eliminated, as we said it would be. The staffing of secondary colleges has been reduced by approximately two per institution. Staffing levels in the Authority’s office and for school counsellors will be maintained at 1979 standards. In addition, the Authority will be able to make provision for planning staff for new institutions opening in 1980 and to provide for an expected increase in enrolments in special education institutions and classes.

The staff ceiling of 2,772 has also allowed the office of the Authority to seek my approval for special additional staffing in a number of institutions, and I am currently considering this request. This confirms that, as I said last year, there was no need for the unhappy incidents and industrial problems of last year.

Senator KNIGHT:

– I ask a supplementary question in relation to the answer the Minister has just given. Can the Minister say whether there is any provision to audit the return of enrolments from schools in the Australian Capital Territory and to examine on a continuing basis in particular the distribution of staff between preschools, primary schools, high schools and secondary colleges?

Senator CARRICK:

– My understanding is that from the beginning of 1978 new procedures were introduced by the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority to verify statistical information provided by government schools. This involves a detailed check of returns against school rolls. The Authority is satisfied that its new procedures provide a reliable means of ensuring the accuracy of its enrolment information.

page 554

QUESTION

SANKEY CASE

Senator WRIEDT:

-I ask the AttorneyGeneral, further to my previous questions, whether he is aware that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives on 20 February specifically asked the Prime Minister why the prosecution in the Sankey case was not taken over by the Government and terminated. What inquiries has the Government made to rebut the very serious inference that Mr Sankey ‘s costs were financed either directly or indirectly by persons closely associated with the Government? Has the Prime Minister, in accordance with his answer, sought full and complete answers to those questions from the Attorney-General?

Senator Jessop:

- Mr Deputy President, I draw your attention to Standing Order 421. 1 suggest that the Leader of the Opposition is in breach of that Standing Order by tediously repeating a question. I submit that the Attorney-General has answered the question quite satisfactorily. I repeat that in my view the Leader of the Opposition is in breach of that Standing Order.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I believe that the Leader of the Opposition is following his line of questioning within reason. I believe it is within the capacity of the Minister to reply.

Senator DURACK:
LP

-Mr Deputy President, we now have clarified the particular matter about which the Leader of the Opposition is concerned. I believe I provided the answer to him in the previous answer I gave. I was confused by his reference in his first question to implications in the Sankey decision. Now it is clear that he is refering to a question asked of the Prime Minister in answer to which the Prime Minister made it clear that the question of taking over the Sankey prosecution was one not for the Government but for the Attorney-General. The Prime Minister also indicated that he had no knowledge in any way as to how Mr Sankey may have been financing his prosecution.

The answer that was given by the Prime Minister has certainly been referred to me. As I have said, I have already provided an answer for the Prime Minister as far as the matter concerns me. I am surprised that in fact no one has actually asked me, the person concerned, about this matter. I would like to go on and say, in relation to the other part of the question as to what knowledge the Prime Minister had or I might have about Mr Sankey meeting the costs, that I have no knowledge in relation to how Mr Sankey may have financed his proceedings. I do not quite know the best way in which to handle this matter. As the question was asked in the House of Representatives I think it would be preferable now that my answer be made available in the House of Representatives. I will endeavour to expedite the provision of that answer to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

page 554

QUESTION

SALARIED DOCTORS

Senator JESSOP:

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Is it a fact that salaried doctors working in hospitals have a right to private practice up to 25 per cent of their salary and that any fees collected in excess of that amount are to be paid into the hospital revenue for replacement and upgrading of equipment, instruments and so on? Is the Minister aware of allegations arising from a public accounts report in South Australia that some salaried doctors are exceeding this limit and are billing their private patients direct, which prevents the hospital authorities from checking this excess? Will the Government investigate this matter with the object of requiring doctors in this category to render accounts for private patients through the hospital offices? I believe this would not only provide a very close check on this excess but also would prevent undue exploitation of taxpayers’ funds.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– With regard to the first part of the question as to the right related to 25 per cent of the doctors’ earnings, I am not able to advise specifically on that matter on behalf of the Minister for Health. However, as to the more general part of the question related to the Auditor-General’s report, I understand that the Minister for Health has not yet had an opportunity to study the report. With regard to the matter which Senator Jessop raises, I am not quite clear as to whether he refers to the common practice of private doctors providing their services at public hospitals on a fee for service basis to private patients or whether he refers to some other special charge being raised by them for the use of equipment. If it is in the former case, this is a widespread practice in most States and has operated in this way for many years, and for diagnostic services to which I assume the question referred. The usual arrangement is for fee revenue from charges to be shared between the doctor and the hospital to compensate the hospital for the use of its equipment and any other resources provided by the hospital.

However, if the honourable senator is referring to some other extra charges for use of equipment, this is a practice that is unknown to the Minister for Health. As the question also asked whether the Minister for Health would investigate the matter, I will see that the whole of the question is referred to him to see what information can be provided.

page 555

QUESTION

AGE PENSIONS

Senator CHIPP:
VICTORIA

-I ask the Minister for Social Security a question concerning the age pension. It is in the context of the significant structural unemployment that is now in our society, particularly that which was referred to by the Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Street, in a speech in the House of Representatives some weeks ago where he gave a rather gloomy forecast of the employment situation, particularly in relation to automation and computerisation, with a suggestion that even if Australia did reach a situation of economic buoyancy there would still be a group of people in the community who would be unemployed. In the light of this, will the Government consider lowering by one year the age at which aged persons are eligible for the pension? If done voluntarily, would this not create immediate employment opportunities for the young unemployed and cost the Government very little as the cost of the age pension is much the same as the cost of unemployment relief payments?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I take the point of Senator Chipp ‘s question. However, I think any employment surveys we have had would show that it is not always that the young person and the experienced person are competing for the same employment. A person with many years of experience is often able to offer very different employment prospects from a young, untrained, inexperienced person. These things are not always able to be related to one another. Another factor with regard to the question raised by Senator Chipp would be the desirability of an earlier retirement age. I think that is a very big question that ought to be considered, bearing in mind that 60 years is the age at which the pension is payable to women and that 65 years is the age at which the age pension is payable to men.

I refer honourable senators to the national inquiry of the Hancock committee on the possibility of introducing a national superannuation scheme. The committee stated in its report that it would not be easy to lower the age at which an age pension could be paid to people in Australia. In fact, it dealt with the disparity between the ages of men and women at which the age pension is paid. It is a complex matter and I can understand the feeling behind the suggestion that is implied in the question, namely, that if there are to be unemployed people in this country it is wholly undesirable that they should be the young people. Senator Chipp has raised a complex question. It is one on which I could have some figures prepared that may show the number of people who, at the age of 64, would be eligible for a pension in comparison with, say, those young people who are unemployed. It is a matter of establishing facts.

page 555

QUESTION

RANGER URANIUM SITE: ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister for Science and the Environment aware that no environmental controls are being enforced at the Ranger uranium site in the Northern Territory and that both pollution and erosion are virtually uncontrolled? Is he also aware of allegations that the supervising scientist has spent most of his time in Canberra instead of on site? Can the Minister inform the Parliament who, in fact, will be responsible for environmental protection during the development of mining sites and the exploitation of uranium deposits in the Northern Territory?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I am not aware of the matters alluded to by the honourable senator in the first part of his question and I am not aware of the allegations in relation to the supervising scientist. So far as I and the community were aware, the activity that that gentleman had carried out was of positive benefit. Indeed, I thought that he had spent a great deal of time in the Northern Territory making the arrangements which his position required.

The honourable senator asks who will be responsible for environmental protection. I think the honourable senator will know that generally when an environmental impact statement is prepared under the environment protection legislation, certain provisions indicate whether there are faults or flaws in the environmental impact statement which has been produced and whether further work will be necessary. My understanding is that such information is being made public in relation to any of the matters for which my department, at least, is responsible now and for which it has been responsible in past years. The environmental matters will be supervised. Indeed, the supervising scientist has the first responsibility to see that those matters of a scientific and, as I understand it, a biological nature that may be affected by mining in any area are examined.

The enforcement of environment protection can take several forms which, I think, as yet have not been decided upon. It may be undertaken by attachment to a lease which is given on the area concerned or it may be on the advice of the supervising scientist who has that responsibility. The honourable senator has mentioned the Ranger site. I expect that the study will be carried out at the direction of the Northern Territory Minister for Mines or the appropriate Minister in the Northern Territory. I will look at the honourable senator’s question again. If I can provide further information to him I will do so.

page 556

QUESTION

DOMESTIC SUGAR PRICE

Senator MacGIBBON:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. In view of the many representations made by organisations on behalf of the sugar industry requesting as a matter of urgency an increase in the domestic price of sugar to cover the greatly increased costs of production arising from the increased cost of fuels and nitrogenous fertilizers, to name but two, can the Minister advise the Senate when a decision is likely to be handed down on a rise in the domestic sugar price?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-The latest information is that a report on this matter could be presented to the Minister for Primary Industry later this month. As the honourable senator will know, there has been a comprehensive inquiry into this matter, which has taken approximately nine months. The current sugar agreement expires at the end of June 1979. The Federal Government will be consulting the Queensland Government so that a new sugar agreement will be forthcoming for operation from 1 July 1979.

page 556

QUESTION

EXPOSURE TO CHEMICALS

Senator ELSTOB:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. In September 1978, the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare published a report which stated that 40 per cent of all cancer deaths in the United States were due to exposure to occupational carcinogens such as asbestos, uranium, benzine, nickel oxide, chromium and petroleum factions, to mention just a few. I ask the Minister: What check is being made in Australia on workers exposed to these and other chemicals?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– This is a matter on which I have no information at present from the Minister for Health. I will refer the question to him and see what information is available.

page 556

QUESTION

FAMILY LAW ACT

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Has the AttorneyGeneral noted a recent United States Supreme Court decision which waived alimony awarded in a divorce case on the ground that the male appellant would be suffering sex discrimination if his wealthy wife were to receive maintenance from him? Is he aware of the great concern of many women in the community about this particular matter? Is he considering the need for any action to amend the Family Law Act to take account of such a situation which could detrimentally affect the position of many women in the Australian community?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I really do not have any information except that I have heard some vague rumour about the decision of the United States Supreme Court to which Senator Messner refers. However, the law applicable to a situation of this kind in Australia is, of course, not determined by the United States Supreme Court but by the Family Law Act passed by this Parliament and interpreted by the Family Court of Australia or ultimately the High Court of Australia. As the Senate would be aware, that Act is now being reviewed by a joint select committee of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Questions of this kind are within the terms of reference of that committee. I do not propose to consider amendments of any major character to the Bill until the Government has received the report of that committee.

page 556

QUESTION

TELECOM: POSSIBLE MISHAP

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications how long the populations of the big cities of Australia will be endangered by the possibility of a mishap due to the apparent failure of Telecom to co-ordinate its excavations? I refer to a situation which could possibly develop if Telecom intruded on a high pressure gas main, a problem that has already manifested itself in overseas cities. I ask the Minister. What efforts are being taken to ensure that such a mishap does not occur in any of our big capital cities? I refer particularly to the lack of co-ordination with the Australian Gas Light Co. concerning its high pressure gas mains.

Senator CHANEY:
LP

- Senator Mulvihill raises a subject which would no doubt be of great concern to all the residents of our cities and to all those who have to dig holes in the pavements of those cities. I am advised by the Minister for Post and Telecommunications that measures are taken to avoid the sort of risk which Senator Mulvihill has raised. The difficulty that he has raised has long been recognised within Telecom Australia and there are well established practices, including local emergency procedures, to advise other authorities of Telecom’s intentions. Assistance is sought when necessary from these authorities to ensure the safety of the general public and Telecom staff and plant.

Telecom has indicated that in each State liaison occurs at high level regarding the alignment of the plant of various authorities in the road reserve. In Sydney the Street Openings Conference has as some of its members the Water and Sewerage Board, the Australian Gas Light Co., councils, the power authorities, Telecom Australia and the Institution of Engineers. At a local level, close liaison exists between Telecom and the councils and other authorities. When Telecom plans new construction work, preliminary details of the project are sent to all authorities and councils with plant or responsibilities in the area. Comments are sought on the impact of the proposal on their plant. When a detailed design and financial estimate is prepared, the location of all other plant in the vicinity is ascertained and is shown on the project drawings. When approved, these drawings are sent to each authority and council.

In addition, Telecom field supervisors have the responsibility of accurately locating the plant in the ground prior to any excavation work beginning. Where difficulties are encountered in locating this plant, assistance is sought from the appropriate authority. Specific instructions are laid down regarding the action to be taken if gas is detected during any of the Telecom’s operations or if plant belonging to another authority is damaged during construction work. The danger of damaging high pressure gas pipelines is stressed to staff working in their vicinity. I trust that Senator Mulvihill will therefore be able to reassure his constituents that they are not in imminent danger.

page 557

RURAL INDUSTRY FINANCE

Matter of Urgency

Mr DEPUTY PRESIDENT:

– I inform the

Senate that I have received the following letter dated 7 March 1979 from Senator Walsh: Dear Mr Deputy-President,

In accordance with Standing Order 64,I give notice that today, I shall move-

That in the opinion of the Senate the following is a matter of urgency:

The failure of the Government to adequately supervise and ensure the proper administration and distribution of finance to rural industry’.

Yours faithfully,

  1. A. WALSH

Senator for Western Australia

Is the motion supported?

More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their placesSenator WALSH (Western Australia) (3.30)-I move:

I note that the speakers listed for the Government on this matter comprise one Victorian and two members of the National Country Party, which, given the fact that the Country Party is outnumbered by the Liberal Party by more than four to one, seems to be peculiar to say the least. Perhaps the subject of the discussion may account for the Liberal Party’s reluctance to become involved in this debate.

Last year I asked of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) a question pertaining to varying the conditions and repayment and interest rates of loans granted through State authorities pursuant to the States Grants (Rural Adjustment) Act 1976. The Minister replied on 7 June. His answer to the question as to whether the terms and conditions had been varied subsequent to the loans being granted was:

Yes. State Administering Authorities have varied the interest and repayment conditions on some loans made under the Rural Adjustment scheme. The States are, of course, empowered to do this within the terms of the Commonwealth/State agreements without reference to or consultation with the Commonwealth.

The information supplied by the State Administering Authorities to the Commonwealth is quite comprehensive but does not extend to repayment details of individual clients and, accordingly, I am unable to indicate how many loans in each State have been subject to variation.

That completed the Minister’s answer. The answer was not entirely satisfactory, firstly, because of the Minister’s reference to the State authorities being empowered to vary the terms within the Act, whereas a reading of Part 1, paragraph (h) of the Schedule on page 8 of the Act suggests that the authorities are required to vary the conditions of loans granted under those Acts as soon as the people who receive the loans reach a condition of viability or are no longer dependent on concession interest finance. The answer was less than satisfactory because full power is set out in the Schedule to the Act for the Commonwealth to acquire all details pertaining to the administration of this Act. It is in paragraph 26 on page 7 of the Schedule. The Commonwealth clearly has the power to obtain from the State authorities any information it chooses.

However, although the answer was less than entirely satisfactory, I let the matter rest at that time. Since then more specific and relevant evidence has come to light. It is apparent that the Commonwealth agent in Victoria, the Rural Finance and Settlement Commission of Victoria, has made a $ 100,000 loan which appears to be at variance with at least three of the conditions laid down in the Schedule to the States Grants (Rural Adjustment) Act 1976. It has been said, and I think it may well be true, that this is a matter that could be and should be pursued in the Parliament of Victoria, particularly as to whether or not the actions of the authority have complied with the spirit as well as the letter of the relevant Victorian Act.

Indeed, I note in today’s Age that the Victorian Country Party Leader Mr Ross Edwards, appears to agree with that view. The article states:

Mr Ross Edwards said he regretted that Mr Hamer had not recalled Parliament before the election.

There are many questions we would have liked to have asked as it is very hard to ascertain the facts on a number of controversial issues that are presently being discussed in the media.

I think his comment is pertinent. Of course, for reasons best known to the Victorian premier, the Victorian Parliament does not sit. It is also a matter which is clearly relevant to the National Parliament.

Last Thursday the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair), who administers this Act, was asked a question on the types of assistance which are available to farmers in Australia. He answered that there were three types of assistance provided under the States Grants (Rural Adjustment) Act. The general tone of his answer was that assistance was provided under concessional conditions for financially disabled farmers. He said: ‘Pockets of disability still exist’.

The Prime Minister was asked a question relating to a loan believed to have been made by the Rural Finance and Settlement Commission of Victoria, a six-figure loan made to the Beggs family and believed to have been $250,000. The Prime Minister’s answer was typically arrogant. He stated that any loans made by the Victorian authority would have been made in accordance with the conditions laid down, under which it operates. He then immediately telephoned his office and, presumably unbeknown to him, broadcast to everybody in Australia who was tuned in to the Australian Broadcasting Commission these words: ‘Get Ian Morton of Rural Finance. I want him to make a statement on the Beggs loans’. It may be significant that when this matter was raised in the Parliament the Prime Minister knew precisely whom to contact. It may also be significant that he appears to be on a first name basis with the Chairman of the Victorian Rural Finance and Settlement Commission.

The statement ordered duly came back. In substance it was that the Commission makes its own judgment on the persons to whom it allocates loans, according to its own guidelines. The latter part of that statement can be questionable when it is administering Federal funds. Natural disasters were also mentioned, in which case the Commonwealth and State governments publicly agreed on the policy guidelines that were to be followed in administering loans. The Prime Minister in the House of Representatives last Thursday read a message that was said to have come from Mr Morton. Part of it stated:

The Commission has not done anything for the Beggs family that it would not do for others similarly placed.

We may speculate on the significance of the final two words. That night an ABC radio program reported that Mr Sandford Beggs said that the loan had been applied for after two thirds of the property Nareeb Nareeb had been burnt by bushfires in 1977 and that the loan was not in the six-figure bracket. He was promptly contradicted on the latter point by the Premier of Victoria who agreed that loans totalling $ 100,000, which is six figures, had been made. The Premier, however, then went on to deny that he had any financial links with the Beggs or Fraser families and, in his own words, ‘links of any kind with the Beggs family’, with whom he claimed not to be even acquainted. We all know that he has subsequently been forced to modify and retract that statement to a considerable extent. But the immediate reaction, of course, as I assume the Premier intended, was a wave of sympathy for the Beggs family: How could anyone be so cruel, it was implicitly argued, as to criticise the providing of a bit of financial assistance by way of cheap money to a poor Western District family that had been burnt out of house and home by a natural disaster? The Prime Minister’s wife expressed the opinion that anyone who would so criticise a loan to a retired person was lower than a snake ‘s duodenum.

Senator Missen:

– I see what you mean.

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Just wait a moment, Senator Missen. That was a point of view which the Prime Minister himself supported in the House of Representatives yesterday. If the Prime Minister and his wife are going to use the line of argument that it is morally reprehensible to criticise the granting of a loan to a retired personthe Prime Minister’s wife’s words- they should be notified that retired persons, by definition, are ineligible to receive loans under these provisions.

However, the whole story of the poor disadvantaged Beggs family who had been burnt out of house and home and had been given some compensation was blown apart by the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s Nationwide program on Thursday night. We were informed that the fire had gone through in February 1977. We were told that 75 per cent of the 7,000 acre Beggs property near Hamilton had been burnt out, although there had been some other reports which suggested that the property was in fact 4,000 acres; but that is not a crucial fact. We were told that 40 miles or 64 kilometres of fencing had been destroyed and that 2,500 stud sheep had perished in the blaze. Incidentally, if they were all stud sheep that is an extremely large sheep stud. It was also revealed by the Prime Minister’s brother-in-law, Mr Hugh Beggs, that the family had applied to the Victorian Rural Finance Commission for a loan about mid- June, some four months after the devastating fire swept through the property. That was indirectly revealed because of another statement that Mr Beggs made.

We were also told, though not by Mr Hugh Beggs, that all the landholders who had been affected by the fire collectively sued the State Electricity Commission which acknowledged responsibility for setting off the blaze. We were also told that all the landholders contacted by the ABC, other than the Beggs family, were satisfied with the settlement. We subsequently learnt that the Beggs family had in fact received $180,000 from the SEC. There was one report which said that it was $ 1 85,000, but again that is not critical. We are not sure of the exact time that the SEC commenced to make these payments in about August of 1977. Mr Hugh Beggs informed us via Nationwide that the loan obtained from the Rural Finance Commission had been used for what he termed as ‘restructuring the family’s substantial debts’. He also informed us that the property was now substantially back on its feet. Both those pieces of information are important.

Earlier that day his father, Mr Sandford Beggs, was reported by Australian Associated Press to have said:

We naturally shopped around and took the lowest rate of interest available to us.

But the crucial fact which emerged from the Nationwide program was that the Beggs family had been compensated by the SEC for its losses in the fire. I note in passing that that crucial fact was not published in either of the Melbourne morning newspapers on the Friday, notwithstanding the fact that the transcript of the Nationwide program was in the hands of the Canberra bureau of the Age by 11 p.m. that night- in plenty of time for the late edition. The Age article Insight’ published on Friday, 2 March, referred to what purported to be an in depth examination of this question. In the article we were told that these investigative journalists had ferreted around State Government departments in Victoria and discovered from somewhere or other that the Beggs family had suffered losses amounting to $300,000 in the fire. That was a questionable figure but the important thing is that the ‘Insight’ team’s in depth investigation and its ferreting around in Victorian State Government departments failed to turn up the fact that the Beggs family had received compensation of $185,000. This was followed by the prolonged game of yes no, yes no, daisy petal plucking, from the Victorian Premier over his business links with the Fraser and Beggs families.

The issue arose in Parliament again yesterday. A question was directed to the Minister for Primary Industry who administers the States Grants (Rural Adjustment) Act asking whether he was satisfied that all loans granted in all States by the State authorities who act as agents of the Commonwealth had complied with the conditions laid down in the Schedule to the State Grants (Rural Adjustment) Act. He replied that they had and invited the questioner and the Australian Labor Party, in effect, to put up or shut up if they had any information. This we will now do. There is clearly a prima facie case that the Begg ‘s loans do not comply with three of the conditions laid down in the Schedule to the States Grants (Rural Adjustment) Act. Two of those conditions were not met when the loan was originally granted and one of those conditions has subsequently, because of changed circumstances, moved into the category where it no longer applies to the loan. Ironically, the evidence for all this has come mostly from the Beggs family itself. The first condition which was not met is in Part 1 on page 7 of the Schedule to the Act. It was quoted by Senator Wriedt yesterday. Part I sub-clause (d) states:

Companies will not be eligible for assistance unless the Authority -

That is, the State authorities- having considered the shareholdings and being satisfied that the shareholders are bona fide primary producers relying primarily on the income of the company for their livelihood . . .

Of course, it is well known that one of the shareholders in the company that received this loan was the Prime Minister’s wife. If one were to argue that the loan to Nareeb Nareeb, which is a company, complied with the conditions laid down in the Schedule to the Act, it would also be necessary to accept that the Prime Minister’s wife is a primary producer and primarily dependent on the income from Nareeb Nareeb for her livelihood- that is, that she is a bona fide primary producer. The second condition which was not met is in Part 1 sub-clause (h) on page 8 of the Schedule. It states that the arrangementsthat is, the conditions of the loan to farmers who are assisted- may be reviewed from time to time and may be cancelled if the person who receives the loan ceases farming. The Schedule goes on to state:

Otherwise the arrangements shall be terminable -

Not ‘may be terminable’, but ‘shall be terminable ‘- when the Authority decides that his prospects of successful economic operation are no longer dependent on the extension of concessional finance. Upon termination of the arrangements, all debts will then become due and payable.

We have it on the authority of Mr Hugh Beggs, who appeared on the program Nationwide last Thursday night, that the farm at Nareeb is substantially back on its feet. That can only be interpreted to mean that its survival is no longer dependent on concessional finance. Nevertheless the loan stands. Finally, under Part 2, Debt Reconstruction, on -page 8 of the Schedule, subclause (2) (a) states that a person is entitled to receive a loan only if he ‘is unable to obtain finance on reasonable terms to carry on, from any other normal source and is thus in danger of losing property or other assets if not assisted under the Scheme’. That is commonly known as the ‘lender of last resort’ provision. We have it again on the authority of Hugh Beggs on Nationwide last Thursday night that the money received from the Rural Finance Commission was used to restructure the substantial debts of the family farm. We have it on the authority of Mr Sandford Beggs as reported by the Australian Associated Press of the same day:

We naturally shopped around and took the lowest rate of interest available to us.

Clearly, this loan does not comply with the lender of last resort provisions stipulated in the States Grants (Rural Adjustment) Act. Mr Sandford Beggs was also reported to have said that the examination of this matter in Parliament was:

  1. . an unbelievable intrusion of our privacy.

Mr Beggs obviously wants to shop around, as he put it, for the lowest interest rates, in his case 4 per cent, and to maintain a fiscal pipeline into the bank, but expects immunity from public scrutiny of the loans which may be granted to him. How do all the other farmers feel about this grant, this loan at 4 per cent to the Prime Minister’s in-laws, from the Victorian Rural Finance Commission? How do all the farmers who have been knocked back by this and similar authorities in all States feel about a sum of $100,000 being given to the Prime Minister’s family at concessional rates, apparently in breach of at least three provisions of the Schedule to the States Grants (Rural Adjustment) Act? What are the feelings of the farmers who received trivial amounts? The Western District farmer who received $2,000 was the only farmer in the Western District affected by that bushfire other than the Beggs family who Nationwide could find who had received anything from the Commission. How does that farmer, who received $2,000, feel about the Prime Minister’s relatives receiving $ 100,000?

Senator Missen:

– It depends on what his losses were, I suppose.

Senator WALSH:

– How do all the farmers who were also affected in the fire and who received nothing feel about that? Senator Missen raises a question of losses. This family received $ 1 80,000 from the State Electricity Commission in Victoria in full compensation for the losses sustained in that fire. The fact that that loss was met by that Commission surely removes any just claim which the family could otherwise have had for financial assistance from the public. The Prime Minister is a man who is very concerned about costs for the taxpayers. How do the taxpayers who ultimately foot the bill for this massive interest subsidy feel about the Prime Minister’s relatives getting $50,000 at 4 per cent, especially when most of the taxpayers are paying 1 1 per cent or 12 per cent on their own housing loan mortgages? How do they feel about it?

Senator McLaren:

– If they can get them.

Senator WALSH:

– If they can get them. Senator McLaren raises the issue of those who cannot get housing loans. The people whose incomes do not permit them to get housing loans buy household equipment on hire purchase. They pay 18 per cent or 20 per cent interest and the Prime Minister’s family gets public money at 4 per cent and has the audacity to complain that it is ‘an unbelievable intrusion’ on their privacy when these facts are brought to light in the national Parliament.

The Prime Minister thinks that all this is in order. He does not just think it; he arrogantly asserts it. I suppose, given the well-known subjectivity of the Prime Minister, it is no wonder that he breaks his election promise to provide concessional funds to farmers through the Primary Industry Bank. Apparently all his relatives can get public money at 4 per cent; they certainly do not need the Primary Industry Bank concessional rates of interest. Let us consider the whole question in the context of the Prime Minister’s philosophical beliefs. I state immediately that I absolutely repudiate the view. But the view of such a disaster, if relevant- and it ceased to be relevant in this instance as soon as the SEC paid the compensation- would be that it would be wrong to compensate people who lost property in natural disasters if they could insure themselves against such loss. The Randian view is that such action only encourages improvidence. The Randian view is normally supported by the Prime Minister. It is not supported by me; it is not supported by my party; but it is supported by the Prime Minister.

I return to the question whether the compensation was adequate. In the Age the Insight article failed to turn up the crucial fact that the family had been compensated. All the other landholders in the Western District whom the ABC could contact last Thursday night agreed that the compensation had been fair and from the ABC’s researches only the Beggs family claimed to have been dissatisfied. That claim was wittingly or otherwise supported by the Age Insight article of 2 March in which it was stated that the losses were $300,000. There were 2,500 sheep. At that time they would have been worth about $10 a head. It was claimed that they were stud sheep although, as I noted earlier, it would be an extremely large stud if there were 2,500 stud sheep. Let us say that they were worth $20 a head. That gives us a figure of $50,000.

Allegedly 64 kilometres of fencing was destroyed. I have obtained quotations from contractors in the Australian Capital Territory on the erection complete with materials supplied of such a task. The whole finished job- six-line hinge joint with two barbs, sheep and cattle proof fencing- would cost between $1,500 and $ 1 ,800 a kilometre. That amounts to something between $96,000 and $1 15,000. The pasture, of course, was burnt out. That represented 75 per cent of an area between 4,000 and 7,000 acres. It would be difficult to put a value on that in normal circumstances but given that the fire took place in mid-February and that the growing season in that area normally commences in March or early April, no great value can be placed upon the pasture. So without the pasture, at most, the losses sustained by the family in the fire were of the order of $165,000. That makes the SEC’s compensation look quite satisfactory and quite reasonable, as apparently all the other landholders affected by the fire found it to be.

On the question of natural disasters- since some people have related this whole question to natural disasters- it should also be put on the record that on 9 June last year, Mr Anthony, presumably in the capacity of Acting Prime Minister, sent a telex to the South Australian Minister of Agriculture regarding payments of Commonwealth funds for disaster relief because of the drought that State was suffering last year. He objected to loans above $15,000 having been paid to individual farmers in South Australia, claiming that that was in breach of pre-existing agreements between the State and the Commonwealth. He did, however, agree that the average loan could be raised to $20,000 and that there should be an upper limit, an overall limit, of $40,000 per farmer. If it is to be claimed- I do not know whether it is- that this was disaster relief compensation, the Beggs family in Victoria can get $100,000 apparently without any objections from the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Anthony, the Prime Minister or anyone else in the Liberal and National Country parties in this Parliament. In South Australia an overall limit of $40,000 is set.

I can understand the anger of Mr Digby Crozier who has reported in today’s Age as saying that he wants to gag the ABC. He wants to impose political censorship on it. Given the tame cat coverage of this issue over the last few days by the Melbourne Press, the tame Melbourne Press, I am not surprised at his extreme anger at the fact that the ABC has effectively blown the story. Were it not for the ABC, it probably would not have been blown. Nevertheless, there are a couple of fascinating and perhaps unintentional items raised in the Age Insight in-depth investigation of 2 March. The article on that investigation stated:

The Labor Parly’s attack came as no surprise to the Prime Minister. It is believed Mr Fraser got wind of the planned attack late last year and has held talks with the commission’s chairman, Mr Ian Morton, to keep abreast of Labor’s investigations.

Is that not an extraordinary revelation? The Chairman of the Rural Finance and Settlement Commission held private tete-a-tetes with the Prime Minister about a political matter which the Prime Minister feared would be raised in this Parliament. I am not sure how significant that fact is, or even whether it is true, but I note that neither Mr Fraser nor Mr Morton has disputed the claim, and that article was published five days ago. Perhaps it helps to explain- I suggest that it does explain- why last Thursday the Prime Minister knew precisely whom to ring when this matter was raised and why the Prime Minister was on a first name basis with the Chairman of the Commission. ‘Get Ian Morton of Rural Finance. I want him to make a statement on the Beggs loans’, he said. Mr Morton complied.

This Beggs affair has dramatised the issue of administration of concessional interest Federal funds made available to farmers. The people who will be most annoyed by this matter are the farmers who did not get the money, whether it was because they and the Beggs family were not similarly placed I do not know, but they did not get the money and they will be annoyed about it. They are entitled to be annoyed about it. On the broader question the Minister for Primary Industry, who during Question Time in the Parliament on two days has accepted responsibility for this matter, clearly has not secured from the States the information which the appropriate Act clearly entitles him to secure and he has failed to exercise proper control over taxpayers’ funds to ensure that the always limited concession funds are directed where Parliament intended them to be directed.

Senator WEBSTER:
Minister for Science and the Environment · Victoria · NCP/NP

– The Opposition shadow Minister for Primary Industry brought to the Senate a motion of urgency. I think he did the Senate a service in bringing that motion forward in the way that he did. It does several things. Firstly, it alerts the Senate to what is the foremost matter of national importance before the Australian Labor Party at the present time. One might have thought that, when the proceedings of the Senate are being broadcast and there is a possibility that a wide variety of people are listening, Labor would have attempted to accept some national responsibility by having its shadow Minister for Primary Industry, or perhaps the Leader of the Opposition in this chamber, draw the attention of the community to those issues which are of the utmost importance in world circles. Apparently the matter raised by Senator Walsh is Labor’s greatest problem today.

I think it is a service to the Senate to have this indication of the total paucity, regrettably, of the thinking of the Opposition, from one of the Opposition’s most prominent people, namely, Senator Walsh who now finds himself the shadow Minister for Primary Industry. I think also that the way in which this matter of urgency has been brought forward demonstrates to a large extent the way in which the Labor Party performs. We certainly know the way that it performs in the Senate. The wording of the motion moved by Senator Walsh is as follows:

That in the opinion of the Senate the following is a matter of urgency:

The failure of the Government to adequately supervise and ensure the proper administration and distribution of finance to rural industry.

It is regrettable that so few members of the Opposition are here to listen to this debate. I hope that they have not become disturbed by the way in which this debate has been handled by Labor’s side of the chamber. The point is that when Senator Walsh spoke to his motion I do not think that he once addressed himself to the issue outlined in the motion. What he did was typical of Labor’s tactics during the past two or three years, that is, he made an assault on private people in the community. (Quorum formed)

I thank Senator Georges for drawing attention to the state of the House. He has emphasised the point that the matter of greatest importance that Labor can find to debate while proceedings are broadcast today is a matter on which not only the man who moved the motion, Senator Walsh, is not present to hear the Governments response but also the Opposition can muster only five members to put in an appearance during their issue of national importance. Perhaps Senator Georges as the Opposition Whip showed some responsibility by attempting to get some of his people in here to listen to this debate. Regrettably, although he used the same old tactic, I do not think that any of his people have come into the chamber. It is regrettable that Senator Georges drew attention to the state of the House, but it certainly emphasised the fact that his Party has no interest whatsoever in this subject. Before he drew attention to the state of the House I was attempting to put in a quite reasonable manner the way in which Labor introduced this debate. I mentioned the fact that Senator Walsh hardly referred to the subject matter of his motion.

Senator Archer:

– Another one out; Opposition members are all going.

Senator WEBSTER:

– Yes, the Labor senators are just leaving the chamber. I suppose that that will prompt the Opposition Whip to draw attention to the state of the House again. I see very few members of the Labor Party in the chamber at present.

Senator Georges:

– On a point of order, Mr Deputy President, I wonder whether you can bring the Minister back to the subject before the Chair. If he keeps this up we will remind him that it is his performance that is driving people out of this place, including his own members.

Senator WEBSTER:

-Senator Georges’ comments are quite correct, Mr Deputy President. I must get down to the matter of this debate. If we look at the words contained in the motion before us, the motion is not a thrust at the Government or at the policies of the Government; or at the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair), whom I represent in this chamber, or at the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). It is a thrust at the public servants of the Commonwealth and of Victoria. We heard the words used by Senator Walsh. I repeat some of the words of the motion:

The failure of the Government to adequately supervise and ensure the proper administration and distribution . . .

We all know that any government leaves that matter to public servants. I think there might be something further behind this action by the Opposition which we do not recognise, but over the next few days I will be watching very closely. I remember that last week Senator Justin O ‘Byrne brought up an identical theme. He alleged the loss of funds, the non-payment of funds, or irregularity in the payment of funds, in his Laborgoverned State of Tasmania. In actual fact he denigrated not only public servants in Tasmania but also and more importantly- this is something which we on this side of the chamber particularly abhor- the Commonwealth Auditor-General and the Auditor-General of Tasmania. I think this is a very serious matter. If we look at the wording of the motion we can see that there is total criticism of the public service. I am sure that that serious allegation will not be missed by those who have the responsibilities referred to by Senator Walsh.

The general proposition put forward in the motion concerns the way in which funds are allocated for the support of rural industry. I hold the view that this Government has a very proud record in respect of the way in which funds are made available through State authorities to assist rural industries.

Senator Rae:

– It is a wonder they did not just say to all the farmers ‘You have never had it so good’, as they did in 1974 when the farming industry was getting into trouble.

Senator WEBSTER:

– Yes, Senator Rae. I would like to note the areas to which funds flow and I take it that these areas are the subject of the total criticism made by Senator Walsh. Of course, funds flow through rural adjustment schemes- this is actually a Treasury matterunder the States Grants (Rural Adjustment) Act 1976 to which Senator Walsh referred. Funds flow also to people in rural areas through the natural disaster relief arrangements which also were the subject of criticism by Senator Walsh. They flow through the Primary Industry Bank of Australia and the beef incentive payments scheme. We know funds are made available through blue-tongue relief measures, Brigalow lands loan moratorium schemes, the brucellosis and tuberculosis slaughter compensation and household support. These areas were not mentioned by the honourable senator, but they have been criticised in the motion that stands in the name of Senator Walsh.

Finance is provided through dairy cany on finance. Money is available for wine grape growers in carry on circumstances. Provision is also made for farm improvement loans and farm build up loans, debt reconstruction, drought relief and bush fire relief measures. One might say that all these schemes have been designed purely at the instigation of a non-socialist government. It must be said that the Labor Government continued some of this aid when it was in office a few years ago. although it is well known that the Whitlam Government cut back aid in the rural adjustment field by some $20m immediately it came into office. This action was of great concern to rural people.

Perhaps Labor’s new found interest in this matter can best be assessed by looking at the debate on the States Grants (Rural Adjustment) Bill when it was before this place. Mr Deputy

President, you would be very surprised to know that there was not one word of criticism of this legislation at that time. In particular there was no criticism from Senator Walsh who now purports to put forward the charge of some inadequate supervision or lack of proper administration. He did not make this criticism in 1976 when this Bill was before the Senate. One can see the total falsity of the wording of Senator Walsh’s motion.

Of course, that was not the thrust of what Senator Walsh was about today. His purpose, which perhaps has been the highlight of his political career so far, was the denigration of individual citizens of Australia. If awards were given for this sort of behaviour I am sure that Senator Walsh would receive one. The honourable senator today attempted to denigrate one of the fine families of Victoria. I do not think he has been successful in this respect. The honourable senator has again stamped himself as the type of individual who is always prepared to score a political point, no matter whose name is likely to be discredited.

Reference has been made in this debate to the finance that flows to various individuals in Victoria. I think some of the allegations made by Senator Walsh are worthy of reply. The honourable senator questioned whether there was some impropriety- I think the alleged impropriety- in the fact that the Prime Minister knows Mr Ian Morton who is the Chairman of the Rural Finance Commission of Victoria which is responsible for rural reconstruction schemes in that State. Senator Walsh is in a sorry state. I suppose that the honourable senator as a Western Australian does not know that there would be no public servant in Victoria of higher standing than Ian Morton. I have taken representations on behalf of farmers to the Rural Finance Commission on a number of occasions and I have had the benefit of talking with Ian Morton. I know the purity with which this man administers his responsibilities. Of course, this attack is on Ian Morton and on the administration of the Rural Finance Commission of Victoria. So be it. I think this attack will do the Labor Party and, indeed, Senator Walsh a great disservice because the Rural Finance Commission of Victoria is a body of high standing. I know of no-one who would question the administration that the Commission has carried out for several years. I do not know the way in which rural finance is directed in other States, but I know my own State very well and I have great confidence in the man Senator Walsh denigrates. Ian Morton made a statement in which he clearly set out the position. He said: 1 have been informed of a question asked in the Parliament today about a loan made to relations of the Prime Minister by the Rural Finance Commission of Victoria.

The Rural Finance Commission makes loans solely in accordance with its own judgments and in accordance with guidelines determined by the Commission itself and in the case of natural disasters on guidelines determined by public agreement between governments.

The Commission has not done anything for the Beggs family that it would not do for others similarly placed.

I have received no representations from anybody in relation to these loans, and the Beggs family’s presentation of its affairs has been exemplary.

Of course, we know that the Labor Party does not accept that. I think perhaps there should be some sympathy for the Labor Party. After all, it is a party which has absolutely no connection with rural industry. I imagine there would not be one member of the Labor Party who sits in the Senate today who has ever taken a farmer and that man’s problems to the Rural Finance Commission to see whether that man could be helped.

Senator Button:

– You had better stop imagining and make some sense.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I note that Senator Button is attempting to enter the debate. As a lawyer he may have some knowledge of what Senator Walsh has done and he will know that Senator Walsh has adopted a course of action that will be devastating to Labor’s interests in rural areas. The interjection by Senator Button prompts me to observe that over the years Opposition senators have brought forward matters which I believe have not been worthy of them. I believe that, if Labor senators continue with their condemnation of Victorian citizens, whom I represent, their actions may have at some stage to be disclosed here. I doubt very much whether that would be encouraged. That would probably give heart attacks to some of those who sit in Opposition -

Senator Button:

– I am quite prepared to run the risk. Go ahead and say what you have in your nasty little mind.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I have some consideration for your heart Senator -

Senator Button:

– Go ahead. Come on. Get it off your chest.

Senator WEBSTER:

-Today we have this discussion proposed. It is one of Labor’s most scurrilous attacks. I doubt very much whether Senator Walsh would know the particular family, farm or area. I heard him say that it must be a very big stud farm if in actual fact the losses were as printed. If one remembers the statement of Senator Walsh, 40 kilometres offences were lost.

In Victoria, that is a pretty big property. I do not know that there are very many much bigger properties. If one takes the cost of the loss of fencing, very little funds would be left to the family once the fences were replaced.

Senator Walsh suggested that the Rural Finance Commission may have acted improperly on three particular counts. Those comments need study. None of those matters appeals to me as having any bearing on this matter. The Government knows- perhaps Labor does notthat over the years some of the best family farming concerns have had a very hard time. In the time available to me, I wish to demonstrate what Labor did, when it came into office, to set the grounds for the ruination of rural industry. One recalls the way Labor abolished the assistance for superphosphate; abolished the fuel equalisation scheme, raised millions of dollars by changing the personal income tax scales for primary producers and imposed somewhere about $700m costs in indirect levies.

Senator Button:

– Ha, ha.

Senator WEBSTER:

- Senator, your party has a lot to answer for in the actions that it took when in office. These actions brought many rural producers to their knees, and you know it. That was the situation when funds were made available, with the approval of Labor when we came into office. Labor did not argue very much against our remedial action because it finally realised much of the situation. Those funds were made available for a variety of purposes. The States Grants (Rural Adjustment) Act 1976 embodied an Agreement between the Commonwealth and the States- as was demonstrated- to bring together all the schemes available for farmers so that they could be administered under the one scheme. The schedule of the Act indicates the way in which: Debt reconstruction may take place; farm build-up may take place; the provision of funds for farm improvement may take place; the provision of funds for carry-on finance; and the provision of funds for household support. These were brought in to serve a particular purpose for those who were in specific need. I do not believe that Labor would argue that these funds should not be made available if they are judged as being correctly applied by officials who are independent of any party associations. Those officials do their work in the proper manner. Yet, today, we hear criticism by Labor of their activities. I think the words that have been used about the lowness of Labor’s activities are perfectly correct.

This matter has been looked at by the media. Such activity by the media is not unusual these days. Let us hope that, within reason, the media will report on some of the problems that arise from time to time. Mike Willesee took some interest last night:

We in investigating the story did a telephone survey of neighbours of the Beggs in Victoria . . . When we surveyed these people by telephone we found nobody in the district, and most had been through the bushfires themselves, were affected by the bushfires, none of them thought the Beggs had been given special treatment.

I wonder whether that statement means anything to the Labor Party? Or do its members still wish to come into the Senate and to attempt to denigrate one of the most respected families in Victoria? That is what they are attempting to do. The Age Insight team of 2 March concluded:

Two Government loans to relatives of the Prime Minister, Mr Fraser . . . complied with normal procedures, an investigation by the Age has revealed.

Senator Walsh attempted to suggest that was untrue and that the Age has not carried that investigation out. It would surprise me if the Age investigation was not particularly thorough. However, I regret that Labor presents such a weak opposition in this matter. There are four members of the Labor Party at their desks listening to this debate which was initiated by Labor and which is being broadcast. I believe this debate has shown that the denigration of reputable people is part of the handbook followed by Labor spokesmen. This has been demonstrated over past years and, regrettably, that form of attack is with us today. Respectable people within the Labor movement will abhor their political party’s action. Labor offers nothing to this nation. It certainly offers less to those people who live on the land and are connected with rural industries. The Government and I condemn Senator Walsh and his Party for their shoddy debate in this instance. It will be particularly condemned by the public because of Senator Walsh’s remarks in this instance.

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

-Despite the temptation which always comes upon me when I hear the Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster) make a speech such as that, let me ignore all the predictable, gratuitous and, as usual, quite ineffectual jibes, insults and heavy handed ironies of which his speech was so full. None of them remotely came to grips with the issues presently in dispute. Let me concentrate rather on analysing as coolly and rationally as I can just why the Opposition believes that there has been a failure by this Government to supervise and administer rural finance properly and why it is that that failure is properly regarded as a matter of urgent public importance.

The particular aspects of Commonwealth rural finance with which we are concerned are Commonwealth moneys made available to the States for national disaster relief; Commonwealth moneys made available to the States for rural adjustment purposes; and probably alsothis is not altogether clear, for reasons I will explain- Commonwealth loan moneys made available to the States for general rural loan purposes through the respective State rural finance funds.

The particular transactions which give rise to the Opposition’s concern and this debate today are two loans of $50,000 each, one at 4 per cent and the other at 10½ per cent made on the same day in 1977 by the Victorian Rural Finance Commission to the Beggs family in the Western District. Of course, a part owner of the property concerned is none other than the wife of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). The Opposition is seriously and genuinely concerned about the circumstances under which these loans were made. I shall explain again why, taking each of the two loans in turn. The first loan of $50,000 apparently is being justified as having been given for disaster relief purposes. Regrettably, this information did not come from the Minister today; it has had to come to us indirectly, from a statement apparently initiated by Mr Morton of the Rural Finance Commission.

The loan was given by the Commission, acting as a general agent for the distribution of Commonwealth moneys in this respect, under section 35 of the Victorian Rural Finance Act. That provision, on its face, does not set any ceiling above which moneys cannot be given without the approval of the Victorian State Treasurer. It is an open-ended provision. The interest rate which was apparently set in respect of this loan was the concessional rate of 4 per cent, making it a very attractive little package for its recipients. The guidelines which govern the allocation of loan moneys for disaster relief purposes are set out in the 1977-78 Budget Papers. The criterion applicable is set out at page 88 of Budget Paper No. 7 in the following terms:

  1. . loan assistance on concessional terms to primary producers to enable them to get back into operation where finance is not available from other sources -

That is the criterion which governs the administration of disaster relief through this mechanism. I shall summarise the questions which arise in respect of that matter: Firstly, conceding that there was substantial fire damage to the Beggs’ property in question in early 1977, was the Beggs family not sufficiently compensated for that damage by the $180,000 compensation moneys which it received in the first instance from the insurance company, which moneys have been subsequently reimbursed to that insurance company by the State Electricity Commission of Victoria which has admitted liability? We have not been told of the extent to which that $180,000 represented the totality or otherwise of the damage to the Beggs’ property. It has been left up in the air for that assumption to be made by a gullible community. It has not been something to which the Government, in its replies to any of the Opposition approaches on this matter, has specifically expressed itself.

Secondly, how does the $50,000 which has been made available to the Beggs family for disaster relief, on top of that $180,000 compensation which it has already received, compare with the sums that have been made available to other farmers in the area as a result of damage to a similar extent caused by the same fire? We have not been told. There has been no hard data put on the record. Honourable senators and the people of Victoria and Australia are entitled to their suspicions as to how this money was administered in the absence of such hard information. Perhaps more importantly, how does the payment compare with the amounts of money that have been made available for disaster relief purposes to the farmers of Gippsland arising out of the floods in that area, in particular during early 1978? Dozens of farmers have been struggling to obtain no more than a lousy $3,000 or $4,000 each- if that- from the Victorian Rural Finance Commission to cope with their severe and substantial property damage, in many cases running into tens of thousands of dollars. When they compare the $50,000 handout that has been made to the Beggs-Fraser family in the Western District with the money the family has been able to obtain from the same agency, how can they be blamed if they suspect that something has gone haywire in the administration and supervision of this aspect of Commonwealth rural funds?

I now wish to turn to the second loan of $50,000. Apparently this is being justified as a loan made under the general loan provisions in Part III of the Victorian Rural Finance Act. Again, Senator Webster has not put this on the record, so honourable senators are left to speculate through indirect information. Of course, the moneys in question were derived largely from Commonwealth loan moneys and, as such, are a proper matter for Commonwealth responsibility and concern. The Senate has been informed that this loan was made at an interest rate of 10½ per cent. This provision in the Victorian Act- if, indeed, this loan was made under the Part III provisions of the Act- is subject to a statutory ceiling of $50,000 beyond which the approval of the State Treasurer is necessary. Loans below the $50,000 mark can be made under Part III of that Act without the formal approval of the Treasurer. Of course, the Victorian State Treasurer is Mr Hamer, whose financial connections with the Fraser-Beggs family are by now a matter of public record.

What are the questions that arise in respect of this particular loan about which the Australian community and this Parliament are entitled to be very concerned? I suggest that there are some very serious questions. In the first place, let me put to the Parliament the following question: Was this second loan of $50,000 really made under this head of the Victorian Rural Finance Act, as is apparently being claimed by Mr Morton in justification of that loan? If it was, I suggest that the loan was made quite illegally. I say that carefully and thoughtfully on the basis of a reading of section 38 ( 1 ) (a) of the Victorian Rural Finance Act, which states:

Any loan made under this Part-(a) shall . . . (together with the amount of any other loan made by the Commission to the same borrower and not repaid) shall unless the Treasurer approves not be greater than $50,000;

I suggest that the Act states clearly and unequivocally that if a loan made under this section, together with any other loan currently made and outstanding by the Commission to the same borrower, totals more than $50,000, the approval of the Treasurer- in this case the approval of the State Premier, Mr Hamer- is required. We know that such an approval was not obtained. I suggest it follows as clearly as night follows day that either the loan was made under this section and is illegal or that it was not made under this section but was made under some other section. If it was not made under this part of the Rural Finance Act, under what part could it have been made if it was a legally authorised loan?

The only possible alternative is that, once again, it was made under section 35 of the general agency provisions of the Victorian Act. There are two possible purposes for which it could have been made under those provisions. One such purpose is our old friend, the natural disaster purpose. As honourable senators have heard, that was used to justify the first $50,000 loan. If this was the purpose for which the second $50,000 loan was being made- making a grand total of $100,000 being given to the Beggs family for disaster relief- how much stronger does that make the criticisms that I have already advanced about the doubts which surround the justice of and the justification for a loan being made at all to the Beggs family, given the $180,000 it received from the State Electricity Commission? If a total amount of $ 100,000 was received for disaster relief at a combined interest rate of 7V6 per cent, which is calculated on the basis of the 4 per cent and 10& per cent interest rates, it is a very attractive package indeed. If the money was being paid out for disaster relief how much more entitled to be upset are those Gippsland dairy farmers who have been struggling to get their measly $3,000 or $4,000 out of this same fund? How much more demanding of justification and explanation is this particular loan?

If it was not for disaster relief purposes the only other realistic alternative is that it must have been for debt reconstruction purposes. Perhaps this second $50,000 loan was made for debt reconstruction purposes. As Senator Walsh said, this was the kind of language employed by the Beggs family spokesman in explaining to the world at large how it was the family came to receive its loan. It is also suggested as the explanation by the fact that, as I will mention again in a moment, a mortgage in respect of another loan was simultaneously discharged at the time this particular loan was granted by the Rural Finance Commission, which does suggest that there was some debt reconstruction operation going on.

If it were a debt reconstruction exercise, what are the criteria on which loan moneys should have been made available out of the public purse, basically out of the Commonwealth purse, for this purpose? Once again let us turn to the criteria that are set out in the Act and the agreements that govern these things. The relevant criteria are set out in the schedule to the States Grants (Rural Adjustment) Act with which Senator Webster is no doubt familiar. Part 2 of the Schedule states that if loans are to be granted for debt reconstruction purposes then they are to be made to assist a farmer who, although having sound prospects of long term commerical viability, has used all his cash and credit resources and cannot meet his financial commitments. Are we seriously to believe that this criterion was applicable to the Beggs-Fraser family in the Western District, one of the biggest and best known land owners and graziers in that area? Had they used all their cash and credit resources?

A further question arises and adds a greater poignancy to that question which I have just asked when one appreciates, as I foreshadowed a moment ago, that at the same time as that loan was granted a mortgage was discharged in relation to a previously existing loan. The discharged mortgage was to an outfit called Ambulando Nominees. This was a financing concern carried on by a firm of solicitors, Aitken, Strachan and Walker, one of the partners of which firm was none other than James Ford Strachan who himself is one of the joint owners, along with Tamie Fraser, of the very Nareeb property that is now at issue. Maybe there is an explanation for all of this. Maybe Mr Strachan had no money in Ambulando Nominees that was the lender to the property of which he was part owner. Maybe the mortgage loan in question was for. some small sum which was insufficient to meet the current financial needs of the Nareeb property. Maybe some larger lo.an was justified. But the unsavoury impression lingers that the loan from the Rural Finance Commission from public moneys, essentially from Commonwealth moneys, was used to pay out a loan from a firm involving one of the property owners and to shift the burden of financing the. Fraser-Beggs property away from this owner and away from available private sources of funds on to the State, on to the taxpayer.

As Senator Walsh has said, Mr Hugh Beggs has been reported on Nationwide as saying that the repayments on the Victorian Government loan were easier to manage than the interest on the original debts. The other Mr Beggs of course said that he shopped around for the lower rate. No doubt these payments were easier to manage but is this what Commonwealth rural finance is for? Is it to make life just a little easier for those who are already sitting on top of the economic peak and who are perfectly capable of coping with their own financial problems without resorting to the Australian taxpayer and to Commonwealth funds which have been so conspicuously mismanaged in this area by the Government of which Senator Webster purports to be a member?

Senator THOMAS:
Western Australia

- Senator Walsh has today moved that the following is a matter of urgency:

The failure of the Government to adequately supervise and ensure the proper administration and distribution of finance to rural industry.

Those who were unfortunate enough to listen to the mover of the motion and to Senator Evans, who has just resumed his seat, heard very little in their speeches relating to the subject of the motion. In questioning why this motion was moved today, I guess it is a coincidence that the Victorian State election will be held fairly soon. Senator Walsh was great at pretending concern for farmers, but Senator Maunsell, who will be the next speaker from this side, will demonstrate in no uncertain manner just how much Senator Walsh and his party really concerned themselves with farmers in the period from 1972 to 1975. Senator Webster, in his opening remarks, adequately covered the points that were made by Senator Walsh. Senator Webster demonstrated that the matter we are discussing really is not a Commonwealth matter, that the Victorian Rural Finance and Settlement Commission is administered by the Victorian Government and that the Commonwealth has very little reason to be concerned with that Government’s administration of the Commission. As Senator Webster ably pointed out, the Opposition’s remarks can be directed only at those public servants who are charged with the administration of this Commission.

I question also the role of the Opposition. I have questioned that role in this place before. I should have thought that a decent Opposition would try to be constructive, but Senator Walsh must be the leader of a team which is entirely destructive in its comments. They make no suggestions for improvement. They just try to tear things down all the time. As I said before, Senator Maunsell will discuss the performance of the Labor Party when it was in government. It is my intention to discuss some of the things this Government is doing for rural people and the administration of those funds. Senator Evans, in his typically legalistic manner, must have added up a few more points towards his aspirations to be the next Attorney-General, but he did not contribute very much other than that. It is surprising to me that a person who really understands the experiences of rural people, such as Senator Primmer, was not invited to contribute to this debate. Senator Primmer, probably alone in the Opposition, would understand what rural disaster really means.

The motion gives me an opportunity to discuss some of the things this Government has done for rural people and rural industries and to discuss the handling of those things. May I talk first of all about tax reform, with particular reference to the investment allowance. This was an initiative which the Government introduced two years ago and which is proving to be of tremendous benefit to rural producers. In addition, tax averaging is of direct benefit to rural producers. We have lifted the limit on tax averaging from $16,000 to no limit at all and have given the producers an opportunity to move into or out of tax averaging at will. In respect of income equalisation deposits, an amount of $66. 7m was invested to

June 1978. This Government has completely abolished estate and gift duty from the Federal point of view.

I mention also tax scales which are of direct importance to primary producers. If we take Mr Hayden ‘s 1975 Budget as a measure, the present tax scales will reduce the tax commitment of Australians by $3,000m. Another direct concern to rural producers must be the sales tax on motor vehicles. This Government has reduced sales tax from 27.5 per cent to 15 per cent. I mention also the isolated parents travel and accommodation assistance scheme which is of direct benefit to people living more than 200 kilometres away from a major city. This is of tremendous assistance to them and will be taken advantage of by many people.

I remind the Opposition that this Government is providing $6m for trials into carcass classification. It has given very strong financial support to the wool reserve price which has increased by 5 per cent in the current year. I draw the attention of the Senate to the price support for apples and pears, the modified stabilisation plan for sultanas and to a matter of particular importance to isolated people, the fuel freight subsidy scheme, which was removed by the Labor Government and reintroduced by this Government. I remind the Senate that the Government is committed to the building of an animal health laboratory at Geelong and to the establishment of a high security animal quarantine station on Cocos (Keeling) Islands. I remind the Senate of the $225,000 that has been granted to widen the scope of rural research and to establish a rural research advisory council and of the $100,000 matching grant to the Australian Wine Research Institute for this current year.

I remind the Senate also of the increase in funds for rural reconstruction, wool research and promotion, control and eradication of cattle diseases and the underwriting of dairy products. There are many more schemes. The first advance price for wheat was lifted this year from $66 a tonne to $75 a tonne. Probably for the first time in the history of this federation there has been quite a substantial reduction in the annual costs to telephone users. There has been a 20 per cent reduction in charges for subscriber trunk dialled calls and trunk calls booked through an operator at particular times on Sunday and a 60 per cent reduction in the charge for STD and other trunk calls between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. The Government has also widened the area of influence of the free line plant entitlement scheme for people who have been connected to automatic telephone exchanges. It was a dismal failure of the previous

Labor Government that it reduced this entitlement. This Government has introduced more than pertained before.

I remind the Opposition in particular that the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley) recently made a commitment to do all he possibly could to ensure that there was at least a twice-weekly mail delivery for isolated people. I am certain that nobody on the Opposition side has really experienced what it is like to live in isolated areas and be without any communications whatever. I also remind the Opposition that this Government is committed to provide television reception for a very wide section of isolated Australia. We are committed to spending $200m on a national water resources program, and in the current year $20m will be spent in that area. We have lifted the funding for local government from $80m in 1975-76 to $140m in 1976-77, $165m in 1977-78 and $179m in 1978-79.

Senator Button:

- Mr Acting Deputy President, I take a point of order. My point of order is simply that if Senator Thomas were addressing a Country Party rally in Western Australia, much of what he is saying would be relevant. But it is not relevant to the matter which is before the Senate, that is, ‘the failure of the Government to adequately supervise and ensure the proper administration and distribution of finance to rural industry’. Senator Thomas has accused other speakers in this debate of introducing irrelevancies. Nothing that he has said so far has been related to the topic under discussion, and I suggest that he should be brought back to it.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Robertson)- The point of order is not upheld.

Senator THOMAS:

– If I might just address myself to the remarks made by Senator Button, I draw the Senate’s attention to the wording of the motion. It talks about adequately supervising and ensuring the proper administration and distribution of finance to rural industry. I have been addressing my remarks to distribution and administration. To take a narrow interpretation of the motion, as Senator Button and Senator Evans before him have done, is completely erroneous.

Before I was interrupted I was talking about the funds that had been allocated to local government. In the current financial year there is a $170m commitment by this Government to local government. The rural roads commitment by this Government was $109m in 1976-77, and it has been estimated that in the current financial year $ 172m will be spent in this area. There are many other matters I could draw to the attention of the Senate, but should Senator Button’s narrow interpretation of the motion be accepted I would remind honourable senators that in not one of the cases that I mentioned has there ever been any question about the administration of funds.

The Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme, which will cost the Commonwealth a great deal of money this year, has allowed Tasmanian farmers to compete equally on mainland markets with farmers from other parts of Australia. I have some reservations about that scheme, partly because I do not happen to live in Tasmania and partly because in a huge State such as my State of Western Australia the costs of transporting goods from remote areas to main markets are certainly far greater than the costs of transporting goods across Bass Strait.

This Government allocated $58m to the States for drought, flood and fire relief in 1977-78. It made $132m available in 1977 and $159m the previous year for farm development loans. It has provided about $40m for the phosphate fertiliser bounty and an estimated $ 10m for the nitrogenous fertiliser subsidy. The estimate for expenditure on the agriculture tractor bounty this financial year is $5. 5m.

In 1977-78 $28m was provided to the beef industry for carry-on finance, which was urgently needed to overcome a situation which has only just been resolved by the current relatively high price for cattle. Beef producers benefited to the extent of another $28m because of the suspension of the export inspection charge which had been reintroduced by the Labor Government. I would point out also that the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication program will cost Commonwealth taxpayers $2 5. 5m in the current financial year.

There are many other matters I could mention if I wished to extend my time. I point out that in the fishing industry, another primary industry, the Government is moving ahead with a great expectation that when Australia’s fishing rights are extended to the 200-mile limit the fishermen of Australia will be ready to take advantage of that extension. There are many other areas where the Government has demonstrated that it has the interests of the farmer and the rural community at heart.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-As I understand it, the Senate is debating a motion moved by Senator Walsh which relates to ‘the failure of the Government to adequately supervise and ensure the proper administration and distribution of finance to rural industry’. Senator Walsh made it quite clear that he was talking about money which is available to rural finance bodies in the States under the States Grants (Rural Adjustment) Act.

Senator Peter Baume:

– The motion does not say that.

Senator BUTTON:

-I understand the technical point that Senator Baume is taking. The point I am seeking to make is that Senator Walsh made it quite clear that that was what he was talking about. One way of avoiding the substance of somebody’s argument is to ignore it altogether. Senator Webster did an exemplary job of that, which is not surprising. In the whole time I have been here I have never heard him deal with an argument which has been put to him. But Senator Thomas surprised me because I have at times seen him courageously trying to grapple with arguments which have been put to him. If we were having a debate about who in this Parliament was best for rural communities, then some of the things which Senator Thomas went on about would have to be qualified to some degree.

I might just alert Senator Thomas to some facts to which he did not advert. For instance, he did not advert to the fact that since last July the petrol bill of rural communities in this country has risen by $170m. I remind him that the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty, which the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) promised to maintain, has been halved under this Government. I also remind him that the net Federal Government payments to agriculture in 1973, 1974, 1975 and 1976 totalled $405m. From 1976-77 to the present payments to agriculture have totalled $167m. Those figures are to be found in the 1978-79 Budget papers. I remind Senator Thomas that the average income per farm in Australia in 1973 to 1976 was $18,1 18, and in 1976-77 and 1977-78 it was $15,143. The situation in the rural communities has changed quite drastically this year for a variety of reasons, particularly because of the good seasons. I am happy to see that Senator Thomas does not attribute the good seasons to the present Government. If the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) were the Ayatollah Khomeini he might be able to do that, but not even Senator Thomas when speaking of the Prime Minister has suggested that he has that capability. The fact of the matter is that those considerations have not been taken into account at all by Setator Thomas.

This issue was first raised in the House of Representatives when questions were asked first of ali of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair). On 1 March 1979 he was asked about moneys made available for rural adjustment. In response to that question he outlined a scheme of rural adjustment which he said was one of the finest in the world- a matter of great pride, one would assume, for the Minister for Primary Industry- and outlined what particular schemes did for farmers in this country. He made the point that there was a debt adjustment component, a component for those who were financially disadvantaged either by markets or by seasons. He stated that there was a farm build-up component in respect of farmers who were seeking to increase the size of their holding. The third component was to help disadvantaged farmers out of the industry altogether. They were the three things that the Minister for Primary Industry boasted about as being the successes of the scheme of Commonwealth finance for rural adjustment.

When the Prime Minister was asked subsequently whether a loan had been made available to the Beggs family in Victoria under the flow through provisions of the scheme, he said that the matter had been determined by the Rural Finance Commission of Victoria according to its own judgment and in accordance with its own circumstances. The questions asked by members of this Parliament are legitimate because members have to be concerned- and are properly concerned- about where the taxpayers’ money goes. Members of this Parliament are entitled to ensure that moneys are not wasted in a scheme which in the words of the Minister for Primary Industry, purports to be designed primarily to help those farmers who are disadvantaged. Members of Parliament are entitled to ask whether the taxpayers’ money allotted for that purpose is disposed of with equity in the rural community. Of the $20 m expended by the Victorian Rural Finance Commission last year, in respect of which its report is available, $ 10.1m came from Commonwealth funds. That is the important point about the role of this Parliament, in the absence of the Victorian Parliament sitting in trying to find out about these matters.

The other relevant matter is the persistent evasion by Government Ministers of questions which were raised in 1975 by the joint party committee report on the pecuniary interests of members of Parliament. There have been quite consistent evasions about that issue and the matter has been referred to yet another committee. It has been only in the last week, when Government Ministers have begun to realise the implications of their own policy on death duties and probate duties and they have begun to realise the implications of their own rhetoric about tax avoidance, that we have begun to get a situation where the Prime Minister, for example, has said to the people of this country that schemes such as family trusts are not appropriate for a person in the position of Prime Minister, or appropriate for a person in the Ministry of the present Government who is responsible for spending and directing the means of expenditure of Commonwealth money which is collected in the form of tax.

The Opposition is not alleging any illegality at all in relation to this matter in the strict sense of the word illegality, but it is concerned about a number of things which clearly emerge from the situation that has now become known as the Beggs loan affair’. The Opposition is not concerned about the Beggs family. I have seen in the newspapers that members of the Beggs family have described themselves as plain country folk. I am sure that they are. No charge can be levelled against persons who are recipients of loans. They are to be congratulated on getting them. The real point is not the Beggs family itself but the circumstances in which Commonwealth money has been administered. There seems to us to have been a misapplication of policy.

Perhaps there should be a tighter means test. Commissions like the Victorian Rural Finance Commission should satisfy themselves about the needs of applicants for loans having in mind the prime purposes of the legislation which have been stated by the Minister for Primary Industry and others. As an example, a question was asked of the Minister for Primary Industry yesterday in the House of Representatives about this matter. Now alert to the situation, he said: ‘Well, look, if you have any complaints about this, you go the Auditor-General’. Of course, that is not the complaint. The Minister is responsible for the administration of this Act. He is responsible for policy on these matters and it is not a question of suggesting that someone was guilty of some financially improper course in this particular matter.

I think it is true to say that the Opposition is concerned about a number of artifices that seemed to be resorted to in this matter about which there has been no satisfactory explanation. The first matter of concern is the giving of two very large loans, $50,000 each, on the one day in a way which appears to be a method of getting around the requirement that the Treasurer of the particular State approve any loan in excess of $50,000. Two loans of $50,000 were secured on the one day at an interest rate which, as other honourable senators have pointed out, is lower than any other person is likely to be able to obtain. Of course, the important point about that is that in a sense it is related to the question of the credibility of the Premier of Victoria, a Premier who in a radio program only four days ago had no recollection of signing a document a week before that.

That does raise the question of the application of Commonwealth funds in the State of Victoria. What is happening to Commonwealth funds if the Treasurer of a State does not remember signing a document and categorically denies any association with people with whom he is clearly associated? What is happening with Commonwealth funds in Victoria, whether they be rural finance funds or other funds where the Treasurer is in that state of mind? When one looks at the situation as has been reported in a variety of radio and television programs, it can be seen quite clearly that the family in question was an exception in that district which had suffered from bushfires. MosT of the other land owners in the district were adequately compensated by the State Electricity Commission of Victoria and no additional loans were required. Of course, compensation means compensation for loss. The compensation arose from legal action against the State Electricity Commission of Victoria. One can only presume that the compensation provided was adequate for the purposes of that loss. We suggest, quite frankly, that some of the money which was paid to this family was used to pay out a mortgage to a company called Ambulando Nominees, which is apparently a finance company carried on by a firm of solicitors in Melbourne in which Mr Strachan, one of the joint owners or tenants in common of the land in question, was in fact a partner. So, Mr Strachan is not only one of the recipients of the loan but it seems that he also was paid out by government money that was made available at a lower interest rate than that payable under the previous mortgage to Ambulando Nominees. So, there was a strange circumstance which we felt a responsible Minister in his place might have dealt with instead of rambling on about other matters which he seemed to think were relevant to the subject of this debate.

It is thought by the Opposition- and I think correctly- that the money was in fact for debt reconstruction and to pay out that previous mortgage. One of the purposes of the States Grants (Rural Adjustment) Act 1976 is debt reconstruction. As that is so, it seems that the people who received this loan, the Beggs family, were clearly ineligible under the Rural Adjustment Scheme on at least two grounds, and perhaps three grounds if they received compensation from the State Electricity Commission. Those two or three grounds are set out in the schedule to the States Grants (Rural Adjustment) Act. As I have little time available, I invite honourable senators on the Government side to have a look at that Act when they are concerned about the particular questions which I have raised.

Finally, I must say on behalf of the Opposition that we strongly endorse fire relief and other relief for farmers who are in need of special financial assistance but particularly for poorer farmers in this community who are most in need of it. We are not concerned to attack people who are victims of bushfires, floods or anything else. We are concerned to see that relief is applied with equity and fairness.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Robertson)- Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Senator MAUNSELL:
Queensland

– We have had quite an interesting debate so far. When I was handed the Order of Business sheet which stated that there was to be an urgency motion on the failure of the Government adequately to ensure and supervise the proper administration and distribution of finance to rural industry I thought that I would have a very big area in which to work. But, having listened to the three speakers in this debate from the Opposition side I realise that it is quite obvious that this is purely a vehicle, by bringing the matter into the Federal ambit, for muck-raking for political purposes as far as a particular family in Victoria is concerned.

I would like to reply to a few of the matters raised by the three Opposition speakers. For instance, Senator Walsh made great play of the fact that one of the Mr Beggs had stated that the property is almost back on its feet. He then assumed that the family did not need the loan and could pay it back. The purposes for which this loan was received were to repair 40 miles of fencing and to replace 2,500 head of stud stock. Obviously, the money was spent for those purposes and to get the property back into going order. How can the loan be repayed until such time as there is income from those sheep? As far as I am concerned, this demonstrates the attitude and the thinking of the Australian Labor Party towards the primary industries. Senator Evans carried on with inferences and innuendoes about what the Act says but did not give one instance of a breach of the Federal Act. When replying to Senator Thomas, Sentor Button’s only mention of matters which really come into rural financing was his reference to the fact that farmers are paying more for petrol now than they were some years ago. He did not state that everyone in Australia and in the world is paying more for petrol now than was paid two years ago. But we should remember that, before the Labor Government came to office in 1972, farmers and the ordinary people of the outback did not have to pay much more for petrol than people in the city paid for it. That is the most important aspect. When we get down to tin tacks, we know that we have reinstated the petrol price equalisation scheme so that the people in the outback, as you, Mr Acting Deputy President, would be well aware, can have their petrol at something like the price at which it is provided to people in the more fortunate city areas.

Senator Chipp:

– Why should they be equal to city prices?

Senator MAUNSELL:

– I will tell the honourable senator why rural petrol prices should be equal to city prices. Most of the outback of Australia includes primary industries and mining industries which have to sell their products on the world market. They have to produce in an Australian cost structure which is a darn sight higher than the cost structure of any other markets of the world. Such schemes provided as compensation for the high protection afforded to manufacturing and other secondary industries in this country. They are not just handouts, as Senator Chipp might think.

Senator Chipp:

– Why should people in the country pay the same as those in the city?

Senator MAUNSELL:

– Because if we hunt everybody out of the outback, we will have no-one producing the export income of this country. Let us face it: A nation is like a family. The breadwinner of a family determines the standard of living of the family and the breadwinner of this nation determines the standard of living of this nation. Whether the honourable senator believes it or not, the breadwinner of this nation is the export industries.

When we start to deal with the management of finance for rural industry, I think it is pertinent to look at some of the things that were done during the period of the Labor Government. If honourable senators opposite want to attack our management of finance for rural industry, I think it is important that their performance between 1972 and 1975 be put on the record. Let us face it: If rural industry is prosperous there is no great need for finance other than that available in the market place. But when rural industries, and particularly export industries, are in difficulties, massive forms of assistance are required. Governments have very little control over the price received by primary industries for export goods. Practically the only influence they can have on the price received for export goods is through the value of the Australian dollar compared with the value of the currency of other countries. During the period of which I have spoken, Labor had a very shameful record because we saw one revaluation after another and the Australian currency had a higher value than it should have had. This had a tremendous effect on the income of primary industry.

The important factor on which governments have not had a lot of influence is farm costs. It is in this area that the performance of the Labor Government was so shameful. First of all, during that three year period inflation increased by 50 per cent and, in some cases, by up to 100 per cent. As a result of inflation during that period, farm costs increased by $ 1,400m. There is no doubt that, if farm costs increase by 50 per cent, 80 per cent or even up to 100 per cent, profitability will be reduced tremendously. The raging inflation that the Labor Government allowed to continue in this country was a major cause of bringing the rural industries to their knees. I commented earlier that rural industries are given assistance as compensation for the high protection afforded to many manufacturing industries. The rural industries have to live with the fact that, because all the machinery that is required to run a property is bought on the local market and cannot be bought overseas as a result of tariff barriers, and so on, their products are less competitive overseas.

The Labor Government abolished the superphosphate fertiliser bounty. It also abolished the fuel equalisation scheme which I mentioned earlier. All these things added to the costs of primary producers. Millions of dollars were added to farmers’ tax payments because income tax scales were changed. This particularly affected those farmers who were concerned with averaging provisions and the very necessary depreciation allowances for such things as water conservation. That is why by the end of 1975 we were in this mess and primary industry had to be assisted. Of course, this Government came to the rescue and has been able to assist primary industry to such an extent that nearly every primary industry in this country today is reaching a state of viability.

Senator Walsh:

– What about the sugar growers in your State?

Senator MAUNSELL:

– The sugar industry is one which is going through difficult times because of overseas prices which are out of the control of this Government and the honourable senator knows it as well as I do. The International Sugar Agreement is out of the control of this Government which has done its best to ensure that the Agreement is brought to fruition. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics had to update its recent forecast that primary industry incomes would go up by about 50 or 60 per cent. The other day it was forecast that they would go up by 80 per cent in the next year. All the problems that beset rural industries between 1972 and 1975 are now starting to diminish. I am quite certain that despite the grandstanding by the Opposition today in order to bring attention to one family in Victoria, the primary producers of this country will never forget what the Australian Labor Party did to them between 1972 and 1975. I think that the Senate and the people of Australia have heard enough of this debate, so I move:

That the question be now put.

Question put.

The Senate divided. (The Deputy President-Senator D. B. Scott)

AYES: 35

NOES: 24

Majority…… 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Original question put-

That the motion (Senator Walsh’s) be agreed to.

The Senate divided. (The Deputy President-Senator D. B. Scott)

AYES: 24

NOES: 35

Majority…… 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 574

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDER

Motion (by Senator Webster) agreed to:

That Standing Order 127 be suspended for this day.

page 574

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) For the information of honourable senators I present a report by the Industries Assistance Commission on work trucks, certain mobile machines, et cetera.

page 575

JOUST COMMITTEE ON SECOND HOBART BRIDGE

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present a report on investigation and design prepared by the Joint Committee on Second Hobart Bridge.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– by leave- I move:

That the Senate take note of the paper.

The report just put down by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) on behalf of the Minister for Transport ( Mr Nixon) is a report of the Joint Committee on Second Hobart Bridge in regard to an investigation into and design of the second crossing of the Derwent River in Hobart. This is a matter in which the Commonwealth has been involved since early 1975. As the Senate will recall, in January 1975 the main span crossing the Derwent River in Hobart was brought down after it was hit by a ship. The Government of the day acted very quickly, in conjunction with the Tasmanian Government, and immediately undertook auxiliary services to enable proper transport across the Derwent River. I am sure everyone would appreciate the magnitude of the problem that hit Hobart at that time. I come specifically to the question of this report. At the same time the Government of the day- that is, the Labor Government- gave an undertaking that it would fund the construction of a second crossing of the Derwent River. The report points out at page 5:

In June 197S the Prime Minister of Australia and the Premier of Tasmania announced in a joint press statement their general agreement with the recommendation of the Joint Expert Advisory Committee that a second bridge across the Derwent River at Hoban should be constructed at Dowsings Point. The bridge would carry four lanes of traffic and, with road approaches, was estimated to cost $21 million.

The report went on to say:

The statement indicated that a joint Committee was to be constituted by the two Governments. This Committee would be responsible for the carrying out of detailed investigations and design and preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement.

It was stated also -

This is the important section- . . that the bridge and associated roadworks would be financed by the Australian Government up to the cost applicable to a bridge of IS metres vertical clearance.

There has never been any misunderstanding on the part of any person living in Tasmania that the commitment was given quite clearly by the previous Government that it would fully fund the cost of this second bridge across the Derwent River up to the specified height to which I have just referred. When the change of government came about statements were made by members of the present Government, including the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and various spokesmen, particularly during the 1977 election campaign, which I am sure led every Tasmanian to believe that this Government was maintaining the commitment made by the previous Government. That undertaking was given time and again during that campaign. Several statements were made by various spokesmen on behalf of the Government. For example, on 29 June 1976 the Minister for Repatriation (Mr Newman), said that the Government was proceeding with preparations for a second Derwent bridge in Hobart. He said that the Government had already allocated $650,000 in the new financial year for investigations and designs for the bridge. He said further:

That’s a firm commitment from the Government.

On 28 November 1977 at a Hobart evening rally during the election campaign the Prime Minister made this remark:

The Hoban area -

I am quoting from his Press statement-

  1. . has benefited from Commonwealth funding of the first Hoban bridge- I say ‘first’ because this government is committed to the construction of a second bridge for Hobart. I was surprised to see that Mr Neilsen -

He, of course, was then the Premier of Tasmania- . . had momentarily forgotten this the other day, surprised because last year, he and I issued a joint press release confirming the decisions that a second bridge be built.

It went on to state that preliminary studies were already under way. I do not wish to cite many other instances of similar statements having been made. The important point is that the quote I just read was from a statement made by the Prime Minister. He again gave an undertaking committing the Government to the construction of a second permanent bridge for Hobart, and this is reported in the Hobart Mercury of 29 November 1977. The significant point that I want to raise is that, towards the end of last year, I asked some questions in the Senate which followed from a letter I had written to the Minister for Transport (Mr Nixon), in which 1 was not inquiring about whether this Government would fully fund the construction of a second bridge but rather I was interested in the economic factors concerning the Hobart transport system. It was only when I received a reply from Mr Nixon on 7 November last year that my doubts were raised about the sincerity of this Government’s commitment to funding the construction of the bridge.

As a result of that, as Senator Chaney will well remember, I then sought from him, as the Minister representing the Minister for Transport in this chamber, and also I think from the Minister for Education, Senator Carrick, as the Minister representing the Treasurer in this place, an unqualified commitment that this Government in fact would fully finance the cost of the bridge. As Senator Chaney will well remember, he was unable to get that commitment from his colleague the Minister for Transport, and Senator Carrick was unable to get that commitment from his colleague the Treasurer (Mr Howard). In the second last paragraph of the letter which Mr Nixon wrote to me, he stated:

An Economic Evaluation Study has also been initiated and is now being finalised by the Committee.

The report resulting from that study is in front of us today. Mr Nixon went on to state:

I understand that when this study is complete the Committee will refer the findings to the Bureau of Transport Economics for comment.

All of the Committee’s design and investigation work is now nearing finality and I understand the Committee expects to report to the Prime Minister and Premier of Tasmania in late 1 978. After the Committee has presented its report the Government will carefully consider the findings, upon which the results of the Economic Evaluation Study and the Bureau of Transport Economics’ comments will have a bearing.

It is quite apparent from that letter, coupled with the fact that I was unable to get the commitment which I sought, that the Government, at least at that stage, was hedging. I say to the Government that it is the clear understanding, not only of the people of my home State but also of the Tasmanian Government, that the Prime Minister gave a clear undertaking that he would maintain the commitment that was entered into by the previous Federal Government. I notice that the report states:

The principal purpose of the study was to determine when construction of the permanent bridge should be commenced. This was done by examining first whether the project was economically justified -

That is an interesting observation- and then by assessing the relation of benefits and costs to determine the optimum dme of construction.

That observation in the report which is in front of us suggests to me that at the time that I received that letter from the Minister for Transport there was no commitment in the mind of this Government to finance fully the construction of the bridge. When I took this matter up with the Government last year and after the Prime Minister received a telegram from the Tasmanian Premier, Mr Lowe, expressing his concern about the fact that I was unable to get a commitment from the Government, Mr Fraser issued a Press statement on 29 November 1978 stating:

I cannot see any foundation whatever for either Mr Lowe’s or Senator Wriedt ‘s suggestion. Twice in the past year or so I have made unequivocal public statements reaffirming the commitment of the Commonwealth Government to the construction of the proposed Second Hobart Bridge. If it is necessary, let me say again that the Commonwealth Government will provide funds for the construction of the bridge.

No one has ever argued that the Government is not committed to the construction of the bridge. What we have had doubts about is whether the Government will fully finance the construction of the bridge, as the previous Government indicated that it would. It is interesting that the Prime Minister was simply saying in his statement: ‘We will provide funds’. The question that should be asked, especially now in the light of this report being presented is: What does he mean by that? Will he provide loan funds? Will he provide a grant plus some loan funds? Will he in fact say to the Tasmanian Government ‘You can borrow your money overseas’, as this Government has told the States over the past 12 months? Will he say: ‘If you want developmental programs undertaken you can borrow your money on the overseas market and underwrite the risk yourself under the new federalism policies’? I suspect that this is what is in the Prime Minister’s mind.

The need for the second Hobart bridge is not just a matter of economics. There is an economic need but, as the report has pointed out, it would provide insurance against a recurrence of what happened in 1975. If that were to happen again- the committee’s findings show that once in every 30 years that bridge could come down again- we would then have a second bridge which would enable us to avoid all the traumatic disruption that took place during the three years that Hobart was without a bridge. I stress to the Minister that, as far as all Tasmanians are concerned, the commitment is clear and beyond doubt. If this Government tries to retract that commitment and if it in any way goes back on its commitment to fund fully the construction of that bridge in exactly the same terms as provided by the previous Government, I say to the Government that its credibility in Tasmania will be gone and it will be gone for a generation or more.

I trust that the Prime Minister and this Government will have sufficient common sense to put beyond any doubt their intention to provide the $28.5m which at this stage is the amount involved. It is quite obvious that by the time the bridge is finished we will probably be looking at a figure of $40m. But that commitment was given by the previous Government. The impression created during the 1977 general election campaign was that this Government would do exactly the same as the previous Government undertook to do. I want to make it quite clear to the Minister that we will be watching very carefully the eventual decision of the Government as a result of this report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 577

NABARLEK URANIUM PROJECT

Ministerial Statement

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP

– by leave- I wish to advise the Senate that the Commonwealth Government has approved the development of the Nabarlek uranium deposit by Queensland Mines Limited. I understand that the Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony) is making a similar statement in the House. In making this decision, the Government has taken full account of the recommendations made by the Minister for Science and the Environment (Senator Webster) in relation to the final environmental impact statement submitted by Queensland Mines on 19 January 1979.

I remind the Senate that the Government, when announcing on 25 August 1977 its decision to proceed with uranium mining at Ranger, indicated that further uranium mining projects in the Alligator Rivers region would only proceed when the Government was fully satisfied as to the acceptability of the impact of the development on the environment and the Aboriginal people, having regard for the region as a whole. There are still some legal and administrative requirements with which Queensland Mines will have to comply before actual work can proceed. The authority to develop the Nabarlek project will be granted under the Northern Territory Mining Act as a special mineral lease.

The Government is satisfied that the legislative controls which we introduced in April 1978 regulating uranium mining in the Alligator Rivers Region, in conjunction with the environmental requirements which will be imposed on the company, together with the controls negotiated and agreed between the Northern Land Council and Queensland Mines Limited, will ensure that any adverse impact on the local Aboriginal population will be minimised. The Government is also satisfied that opportunities exist to allow the Aboriginal people to benefit from and participate in the proposed development.

The legislative controls to which I have referred provide for the establishment of the Office of the Supervising Scientist, a co-ordinating committee for the Alligator Rivers Region and a research institute to maintain a close watch over the environment within the region. The Aboriginal people, through the Northern Land Council, are represented on the co-ordinating committee. In addition the Northern Land Council has been given standing in the Northern Territory Supreme Court to suit in relation to the enforcement of the environmental requirements controlling mining at Ranger. Similar provisions will apply to Nabarlek.

The Northern Land Council on behalf of the traditional owners have negotiated arrangements with Queensland Mines Limited which in part provided for the control of movement of non-Aboriginal people to and within the project area, control of alcohol, the housing of nonAboriginal workers in Darwin when off-duty, the protection of sacred sites, instruction of nonAboriginal employees on aspects of Aboriginal culture, the formation of a liaison committee, training and employment of Aboriginal people and the establishment and promotion of local business enterprises by Aboriginals. The Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies was commissioned last year by my predecessor to establish an on-going program to monitor the social impact of mining developments on the Aboriginal population within the Alligator Rivers Region. The Institute is in the process of establishing this program.

The Nabarlek deposit contains some 9,000 tonnes of uranium oxide. Production of concentrates will be at a rate of about 1 ,080 tonnes a year over an 8 to 10 year period. Development of the mine, mill and treatment facilities is expected to take approximately 18 months. Work on the construction of the plant and development of the mine is expected to commence within the next two months.

I take this opportunity to inform honourable senators of the position relating to the development of” some of the other uranium projects in Australia. Production of uranium oxide recommenced at Mary Kathleen in Queensland in 1976. Agreement has been reached with Peko and EZ for the development of the Ranger deposits. Production at Ranger is expected to begin in 1981-82.

In relation to the Yeelirrie deposit in Western Australia, the Minister for Science and the

Environment advised the Minister for Trade and Resources recently that there are no objections on environmental grounds to that project subject to satisfactory arrangements being made with the Western Australian Government. The announcement last week by the Premier of Western Australia on the Yeelirrie project is therefore welcome news that the Western Australian Government is satisfied with the arrangements. In his statement to parliament on 25 August 1977 the Minister for Trade and Resources said that the Commonwealth Government would take decisions on the development of projects such as Yeelirrie subject to satisfactory completion of the necessary environmental requirements. The Commonwealth Government is obviously now in a position to take such a decision. The Yeelirrie project would of course have to comply with other requirements laid down by the Government. These include foreign investment approval of the proposed equity arrangements and compliance with uranium marketing policies.

As to the Jabiluka and Koonigarra deposits in the Alligator Rivers Region, the companies involved, Pancontinental Mining Limited and Noranda Australia Limited, have submitted draft environmental impact statements. Pancontinental and Noranda will also have to reach satisfactory arrangements with the Aboriginal people.

The Government’s decision on Nabarlek is a further step forward in our policy for the development of Australia’s uranium resources. Honourable senators will have seen from the arrangements made in respect of Ranger and which are being made in respect of Nabarlek, that the Government is taking great care to strike a responsible balance. We want to see a balance between the economic development of our uranium resources and the effective protection of the environment. We also want to ensure that proper provision is made for the welfare and interests of Aboriginal people in the Alligator Rivers region and of all other people living in the region and working on the development projects. I present the following paper:

Nabarlek Uranium Project- Ministerial Statement, 7 March 1979. and move:

That the Senate take note of the statement.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– Having regard to the conflict of opinion that has existed in Australia over the last few years about the development of uranium mining, particularly as it relates to Aboriginal affairs and

Aboriginal land in the Northern Territory and other parts of our Commonwealth, I think it is a matter of regret and rather ironical that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney) should present this ministerial statement in the Senate. I think it is typical of this Government that it should choose the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to make a major energy and uranium statement in this place when in fact the statement should have been presented by Senator Durack who represents the Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony) in this place. I think this just highlights the fact that the Government has consistently placed the mining interests and profits from uranium, and all that that means, before the interests of Aboriginal people. I think it is a matter of concern that the Government should have chosen that course. Of course, the Government has consistently placed mining interests and profits before the interests of the environment and, as we see it, before the interests of the Aboriginal people. As the Aboriginal people themselves have pointed out on many occasions, the Government also places these interests before Australia’s heritage in that particular region.

The statement is a typical example of the way in which the Government handles its responsibilities as they apply even to legislation which this Parliament has passed. The Minister in his statement said: . . the Government was fully satisfied as to the acceptability of the impact of the development on the environment and the Aboriginal people, having regard for the region as a whole.

So in one sentence the Government dismisses all of the concern which has been expressed on what I though was a non-partisan basis about development in that region.

I think it has to be accepted that the environment is rather a passive aspect and therefore it cannot in its own right articulate its views. It does not have an opinion but I think the Aboriginal people do. It is not sufficient that the Government should say just in one brief sentence that it is satisfied about the impact on the Aboriginal people. No evidence has been produced either in this statement or elsewhere that the Aboriginal people themselves are satisfied. In fact, the evidence, if it is carefully analysed, shows the opposite result.

We should look at the Government’s record especially its record under the previous Minister for Aboriginal Affairs who is now the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (Mr Viner). This Minister of course, has gone back to bashing the unemployed. He intends to put extra tests upon the unemployed and to make life even more difficult for those unfortunate people. The Government’s record has been one of bullying and bashing agreements from the Aboriginal people on behalf of the mining companies. I do not think that that can be denied. In fact, the Ministers’ record in this area of negotiation with Aboriginal people leaves so much to be desired. The Minister has collaborated with people like Mr Bjelke-Petersen rather than backing and supporting the Aboriginal people in respect of the concern they have expressed from time to time. It must be acknowledged, surely, that Aboriginal people have been placed in a very unequal position. They have been unable to comprehend properly what the Government has put to them. One does not need to do other than recall the difficulties that they have had in comprehending government legislation and government negotiations. History shows the way in which their views were not, as we see it, taken properly into account. The selfish mining companies, particularly the foreign owned mining companies, won out in that unequal struggle. There is nothing in the statement that expresses any other point of view. Some voice must be raised in this place on behalf of the Aboriginal people to question the Government’s ready acceptance of its own views and policies. A judgment must be made whether those views are logical, feasible and acceptable. The Government’s track record in this field must be examined time and time again.

Today’s Melbourne Age shows the area of conflict that still exists in that region in the Northern Territory, and I read from that newspaper:

The Northern Territory Government yesterday reaffirmed its intention not to register title deeds to land handed to Aborigines under the Federal Government’s Land Rights Act.

The deeds, which cover almost 20 per cent of the Territory, have been withheld because the NT Government believes it should have control of roads within the land.

The NT Chief Minister, Mr Everingham, yesterday claimed the Federal Government had given to private ownership hundreds of kilometres of territory roads.

Mr Everingham said it followed that the roads formed pan of privately owned land, and could be closed ‘at any time at the whim and fancy of the private owners ‘.

Such a situation is impossible for this Government to accept’, he told the NT Legislative Assembly.

The Northern Land Council fears that while the deeds are not registered, the future of the proposed Kakadu National Park- guaranteed to Aborigines in the Ranger uranium agreement- is threatened.

Have we not had that promise? Have we not had that matter constantly raised and assurances given to us here about that very important national park? I continue reading from the newspaper:

The agreement to establish the park expires if the area is not proclaimed a national park by April 30.

The council’s chairman, Mr Galarrwuy Yunupingu, will press Mr Everingham and other NT Ministers to drop their objections to registering the deeds next week.

The council’s manager, Mr Alex Bishaw, said yesterday the Aborigines believed they still owned the land, but the NT Government could deny funds for road maintenance and prevent any of the land being leased.

Mr Bishaw said the council had at no stage threatened to close major communication links to traffic.

The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Senator Chaney, said last night -

I am only quoting from the newspaper, I hope I am not misquoting what he said- he believed negotiations with the NT over the roads would take ‘weeks rather than days ‘.

Mr Everingham said it was not his Government’s intention to frustrate or impede the operation of the Land Rights Act.

He said if the differences with the Federal Government could be resolved the NT Government would legislate to introduce a restricted permit system to use of the roads by outsiders.

With the promises that the Federal Government made or is in the process of making in the mining agreement with Ranger being jeopardised, and before it has been properly understood and accepted, the Government is rushing into another agreement. The Aboriginal people stand to lose the Kakadu National Park if it is not proclaimed before 30 April. That is not so very far away. On the one hand, the Government is procrastinating, negotiating with the NT Government which, in the words of the Minister, ‘looks like being weeks rather than days’. On the other hand it is rushing ahead with Nabarlek, with a statement put down in both Houses today. Is it small wonder that we on this side of the House are somewhat sceptical? Is it small wonder that the Aboriginal people are sceptical? I am sure that large sections of the Australian public will be sceptical. This is before we look at some of the other more dubious aspects of uranium mining.

Here I raise questions of safety and appropriateness as well as the question of land rights and the environment. Therefore, it is not just a question of making a decision on this matter and accepting the Government’s assurances because the Government is not able to carry into effect the assurances it has given on the other agreement. We submit this Government’s uranium policy is wrong and that the Government is chasing a radioactive red herring which is endangering the future of all Australians. The Government bases this policy on some degree of an economic factor, despite our evidence which shows that the evidence used by the Government to justify the hurried way in which this project is to be approved is certainly not borne out by the facts. I believe that the United States Congress report of 26 April 1978- hardly a year old- deals with three particular aspects, namely, safety, costs and jobs. These factors are ones which are not covered in this report. In this debate we wish to raise some of the deficiencies in the report. Dealing with the question of safety, the United States Congress says that there is still no demonstrated technology for permanently and safely disposing of this waste.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Senator GIETZELT:

-Before the suspension of the sitting I was referring to chapter XII of the findings and conclusions contained in the report of the United States Congressional Committee on Government Operations which was presented in April of 1978. 1 was drawing attention to three factors. The first dealt with safety, the second with costs and the third with jobs. Another of the findings of that Committee relates to the safety of the nuclear industry and uranium. It states:

After 30 years of nuclear power development, technology to dismantle a large commercial reactor has not yet been demonstrated, and the costs of dismantling such a reactor are still unknown.

The report also deals with costs. It is very important to provide energy at a cost which is capable of being absorbed in a modern economy. The report makes an interesting observation which refers to the American Government. It states:

If the Federal Government spent only a small portion of what it has already spent on nuclear power development for the commercialisation of solar power, solar generated electricity would be economically competitive within five years, in the view of many experts.

The Government and the mining industry have made a great deal of comment about the fact that the mining industry will provide jobs. The report of this same American Congressional Committee stated:

Nuclear plants are capital-intensive and thus produce few jobs. Renewable energy sources such as solar and conservation are not capital-intensive, and are expected to produce many jobs- 500,000 construction jobs for solar hot water installation alone- or three dmes as many jobs as produced by the nuclear industry.

The Government has presented a statement about the opening of a new uranium mine. Whilst the Opposition concedes that a certain amount of agreement has been given by the Aboriginal communities to the opening of the mine at Nabarlek, the Government nevertheless uses as a justification for that decision the opportunities that the mine will provide for the Australian economy and in the creation of jobs and income.

It ignores the basic data that is available. I wish to make further reference to this Government’s approach to the creation of jobs and economic benefit. This Government’s dream of vast profits from uranium is insubstantial and unsubstantiated. This report does not contain anything that would disagree with that conclusion. The Government has a fool’s dream of fool’s gold. It has been clear for years that there is a downturn in the nuclear industry. In fact, it is not the Mecca of success that has been previously suggested. As an endorsement of that conclusion, I wish to quote from an article headed ‘US Reactor Makers on the Brink’ which appeared in the Sydney Sun of 1 8 October 1 977. It states:

American manufacturers of nuclear reactors are in deep trouble.

Business is terrible. In the early 1970s, atomic power seemed the logical energy source for the last quarter of the century and utility companies ordered an average of 30 reactors a year to run their electricity generating plants.

But after this bright period of expansion, domestic orders have fallen to almost nothing.

In 1976, there were three orders for new plants. This year, there have been four, and two are tentative preliminary contracts.

Mr Howard M. Winterson, a vicepresident at Combustion Engineering, one of the main American manufacturers in the nuclear industry, is quoted as saying some 15 months ago in 1977:

In about two years you are going to see this business disintegrate.

The Senate and the Australian people are being conned into believing that this development will have a marked impact upon the Australian economy. The Government is assuring us that there will be a flood of uranium into what is already a buyers’ market. It now has approved three uranium projects- Ranger, Yeelirrie and Nabarlek- with a total annual production capacity of about 8,000 tonnes of uranium oxide which could be on stream in the mid-1980s. Last year’s annual report of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission stated that Australia could sell 10,000 tonnes of uranium in 1985. But now those same experts are privately admitting that Australia will be lucky to sell 2,000 tonnes of uranium. The Commission’s estimates of world demand for 1985 have halved in the last four years. This indicates the uncertainty that exists in this industry and confirms the view of those people involved in the industry in the United States of America.

In such a strong buyers’ market Australia will be forced to weaken even further its inadequate safeguards policy. Euratom- a European organisation- and particularly the French have indicated that an Australian veto over reprocessing is not acceptable. It is likely that Australia will have to accede to this position. Furthermore, the safeguards policy is already largely inoperative because companies are now permitted to negotiate interim sales agreements before a safeguards agreement has been finalised with the relevant country. Although the interim sales agreements will specify that no uranium can be delivered until safeguards are guaranteed and finalised, Australia will be in no position to enforce this requirement in such a strong buyers’ market. The pressure on Australia to take back nuclear waste as a condition of sales will be much stronger in this new market situation. Representatives of the Japanese, United States and Philippines nuclear industries have already suggested in public comments that Australia is a good site to dump nuclear waste. In a tight financial position the companies will be able to force this Government, which is a willing and able Government, to accede to the demands of the nuclear industry, to accept weaker environmental and social controls.

The Government has already watered down the Fox recommendations regarding pollution control technology for Ranger to include considerations of expense. The Government’s total insensitivity to human welfare is demonstrated by successive decisions to flood the world market with uranium at a time of international tension. This uranium could be used in nuclear weapons. This factor ignores the third recommendation contained in the first Fox report which states:

The nuclear power industry is unintentionally contributing to an increased risk of nuclear war.

The hollowness of this Government’s safeguards policy is demonstrated by the Iranian situation. In statements published only three months ago the Government said that a safeguards agreement with Iran was imminent and that that country would buy from Australia 1,000 tonnes of uranium oxide a year. We all know what has happened and how unstable that region and that country are. One would surely flinch from negotiating today the agreement that this Government was prepared to negotiate in November and December of last year. The two major devices recommended by Mr Justice Fox to protect the environment and the Aborigines in the Alligator Rivers region have been disregarded. Sequential development has been abandoned. The region will be flooded with white miners in the coming months. Mr Justice Fox stated in his report that he clearly believed this would place too much stress on Aboriginal communities.

The second major device, the setting up of Kakadu National Park, still has not occurred. I referred to that before the suspension of the sitting. Fox recommended and the Government accepted that Kakadu should be declared before rnining activity began and whites moved in. We have seen how that promise, another of this Government’s broken promises, has not been put into effect. What is happening already at Ranger? All those high and mighty words about carefully planned development, about looking after the interests of the Aboriginal communities, about being concerned about the environment are being shown for what they are- a front for an open slather by the mining companies. It is ludicrous to suggest that a management plan can be in operation and environment controls established before full scale development begins at Ranger and Nabarlek.

Already we have seen the result of the Government’s lack of control and, of course, the independent action that was taken by people such as the Premier of Western Australia. Despite the Government’s public relations exercise to the contrary, Coonjimba Billabong has been badly polluted already by red mud from works at Ranger. The Government’s own officials, if they were called before the Bar of the Senate or any committee of the Senate, would admit privately that pollution in that region is now a serious problem. The Government’s undertakings to Northern Territory Aborigines have been put aside. In true Bjelke-Petersen style the Northern Territory Government has virtually declared war on the Aborigines. That was expressed in the editorial that I read to the Senate before the suspension of the sitting. They are frustrating the declaration of Kakadu, refusing to register Aboriginal titles to land and declaring towns all over the Northern Territory to prevent land claims being made. Where is the Government’s policy of concern for the implementation of legislation to defend the rights of Aborigines to their land which has been so much debated in Parliament in recent years.

The statement says that production at Ranger will begin in 1981-82. By that time a Labor government will be installed in Canberra and, as already indicated through my Party’s federal conference, that government will repudiate any new uranium sales contracts in the light of the lack of safeguards, in the light of inadequate consultations with the affected communities and in the light of the failure to implement promises to protect the environment and to establish national parks, matters which were expressed clearly in policy considerations for the 1975 and 1977 election campaigns. Labor will not permit mining while the problems to which I have referred remain unresolved. Labor’s policy shows that we are a concerned party, that we are concerned about the ramifications of the Government’s policy, that we are concerned about the effects it will have on Aboriginal communities and that we are concerned about this Government’s acceptance of statements made years ago concerning the future of the uranium industry which has not been shown in practice to be no longer a feasible or economic possibility in the sense of this Government’s commitment to uranium mining as an integral part of the economic development of this country.

This statement, like so many of the Government’s statements which are placed before the Senate, ignores the basic problems that beset the uranium industry, ignores the basic problems that face Aborigines in the area, ignores the commitments that we have made to protect that environment and ignores the commitments that we have made to establish the essential national parks in that region. In those circumstances the Opposition can only reiterate its condemnation of the Government’s approach to the establishment of the uranium mining project at Nabarlek.

Senator MASON:
New South Wales

– I wish to speak briefly to this motion to deplore, on behalf of the Australian Democrats, a further step along a path the consequences of which we believe the Government has failed to consider in accordance with the facts. We believe that the truth about the uranium industry on a world wide basis is available to the Government. We are astounded that apparently it is not aware of the facts and we believe that it can be demonstrated that there is no good sense in persisting with the exploitation of Australia’s uranium at this time and that probably a great deal of harm ultimately will come from it. I feel that I certainly would not like to be associated with a Government which will be looked back on in future as having released into the world quantities of a substance which it should now be able to anticipate will do infinite harm, indeed as having released that substance into the world to no really good effect. I believe that we should look at the world into which we are releasing this substance because this is a highly relevant point. It is a world which is becoming much more fragmented, in which we have seen the rise recently of more and more authoritative, irresponsible governments of the worst type, often installed by military force and equally often maintained by military force. It is a world in which the rights of citizens, the rights of minority groups, the rights of any organisation and any element in society are subdued by military force and, most importantly, a world in which there is no question of dissent, no check, as occurs in our society, on what might be going on so that once those countries have a nuclear power industry it will be impossible for the outside world, much less their own people, to know or influence just what is going on in those places.

Many such governments, as in Libya and Uganda, have access to huge quantities of money. That money comes from oil exports. Many of these nations also have taken already or are returning to a position of adherence to the strict provisions of the Islamic religion, indeed a type of Islam on which there rests a religious obligation for a holy war, the Jehad in order to further the aims of the Islamic faith and, in terms of the Koran, to compel conversion to that faith. Because Australia is still a moderate, reasonable country these phrases must ring strangely in our ears as something from another world that does not exist but I assure honourable senators that that world does exist. It is certainly taken seriously enough by the Islamic nations and I should have thought that recent statements in Iran would have made that quite plain.

Senator Gietzelt has mentioned the tremendous fluidity of that Middle Eastern region. The fact is that countries which were believed to be stable anchors, forces to whom it was said we could safely sell uranium, have been demonstrated no longer to be so. The fact is that there are nations which have been shown to be lacking in responsibility as far as world peace is concerned and who have the money and the determination to obtain the plutonium which is the inevitable product of the nuclear power industry and which is also the major ingredient of dirty forms of atomic bombs in terms of fallout. It is not possible to guarantee the security of plutonium. It is a substance of great value in small volume and anything in this world, I believe, can be seen as being available at a price. It is also not possible to guarantee the use for peaceful purposes only of the uranium oxide which we now propose to export from Nabarlek. I predict with confidence that a proportion of the 9,000 tonnes we propose to export will find their final use in nuclear weapons.

The Government still seems to believe that there will be some vast benefit to Australia from exporting our uranium although every authority, from the first Ranger report onwards, has said that this is clearly not the case. As the first Ranger report stated clearly- that report is accessible to any member of the Government and to all honourable senators- there is no significant bonus in terms of employment and national income. The mining industry, especially the uranium mining industry, is very capital intensive. It is not labour intensive in the sense that there can be a significant flow through of money to the Australian people. I believe that the Government is playing a cruel joke on the Australian people when it pretends in the face of all this evidence that we will have a uranium bonanza. I pity that Government when it becomes apparent to the Australian people that that is not the truth and, of course, time will make that abundantly clear. Most of the major Western powers are ending or severely restricting their commitment to nuclear power because of the virtual impossibility of long term storage of nuclear waste at acceptable cost, the basic expense of nuclear power, which makes it no longer economic in comparison with other sources, the shorter life of nuclear power houses than was once supposed, and the great cost of actually disposing of plants that have passed their useful life. The problems of the world will not be solved by electric power. What the nuclear reactor does is produce electric power, but what will we use the electric power for? There are other substances in the world which cannot be replaced. Metals such as nickel, lead and silver are rapidly running out. It is the desire of the Government that we should have a great boom economy based on nuclear power, even if it were possible, at the expense of running out of these resources so that our great great grandchildren will have nothing left and will look back on our generation with contempt as the looters, the people who did not think for the future, the Huns of the 20th century in terms of exploitation, deprivation and the destruction of our resources. I would suggest that the situation is no less than that, I would hope that the Australian people would see it in those terms, because that is the truth. It is their children’s children who will suffer from this kind of policy which is being entered into by the Government with no regard whatsoever to the truth,

This move against nuclear power by responsible nations is absolutely beyond doubt. The customers now are the less responsible nations, those who are not prepared to give the guarantees, those who are not prepared to have safe and reliable engineering, and I would concede that safe and reliable engineering has kept nuclear power free from a major accident for nearly three decades. But can we believe that the nations that are ordering reactors now will have the same scruples? I would suggest not. Even if they had those scruples, they have a far less developed technology. They are not in a position to guarantee to the world that they can use these highly dangerous materials safely. Let us be honest. They are in many cases not so much interested in nuclear power for the benefit of their people as they are in the accumulation of plutonium to make dirty nuclear weapons with which to attack or terrorise their neighbours or perhaps even their own people. As in the case of the Philippines, there is small evidence indeed of any concern to protect their own nationals from the evil consequences of a nuclear accident.

It has frequently been put to me and to the Australian Democrats that we might as well sell our uranium because if we do not other people will sell their uranium. I see this as a wholly irresponsible argument. It amazes me that people responsible enough to form a government in this country would have the temerity to put such a view. Yet they do, and strangely enough they expect it to be accepted. To draw a valid analogy, young people all over the world, including too many of our own young people, are suffering and dying now because certain nations believe they might as well go on permitting the uncontrolled growth of the opium poppy in their territory. They might well say. ‘If we do not sell narcotics, other people will’. I suggest that the analogy between that opium and our uranium is a precise and exact one. Both commodities are the raw materials of great and powerful evils. I believe it is wrong of the Government to permit this immoral traffic without at least consulting the Australian people about it. Numerous polls in every State have shown a steady and increasing concern by the Australian people about this subject. If the Government has no morality, at least the Australian people have morality. In spite of the fact that every one of those polls has shown that more and more people do not want uranium exported, the Government will not face up to it. It will not agree to consult the Australian people. We in the Australian Democrats say that this is a proper and responsible subject upon which the Government should consult the Australian people. When the Government was elected by the Australian people, it was elected to carry out its vows during its term of office in a responsible way, and I would suggest that does not give it an unfettered right to carry on actions when there is clear evidence of a large degree of dissent from those actions among the Australian people. The Australian Democrats say: ‘Let the Australian people decide whether we export our uranium, and let them decide it soon’.

Senator KILGARIFF:
Northern Territory

– Tonight I have listened to two of the most pessimistic speeches I have heard in this Senate for a long time. It appeared to me that the two speeches preceding me were read. Of course, under Standing Orders speeches may not be read in the Senate, but tonight no point of order was taken on the matter. If honourable senators wish to read their speeches I do not worry about it. Over the last year or two when I have occasionally referred to notes honourable senators opposite have objected. But as honourable senators can see, I do not need notes for the debate tonight.

The pessimism I have heard tonight reminds me of my history book and the time when steam power was first introduced into the world. Because the people did not understand it, and because there were many pessimists around, a steam engine was not allowed to move along a track or a road unless a man with a red flag walked ahead of it. I suggest that we are in exactly that sort of situation today. The Senate is filled with its full share of pessimists. The use of uranium in power generation is with us now and this usage will grow. People have asked what Australian uranium will be used for. The pessimists say that it will be used for the bomb. I suggest that it will be used as it is being used by some countries now to provide up to 25 per cent of their power. In Switzerland uranium is used to generate power for heating and for the general well-being of the citizens. In the future nuclear power will be directed towards the development of other nations and the well-being of their people. There is too much pessimism and too much talk about turning uranium into the bomb. After listening to the speeches in the Senate tonight, one would feel that Australia owned every bit of uranium that is being developed in the world today. People know that in fact the uranium deposits in Australia represent only 22 to 25 per cent of world reserves.

I welcome the Government’s statement tonight announcing that it has approved the development of the Nabarlek uranium deposit. This announcement has not come as a surprise to me, nor would it come as a surprise to anybody else who has taken the time to see what happens in Arnhem Land in the Northern Territory, which I represent. Senators have been invited to visit Arnhem Land and other places in the Territory to see physically what is happening. Some have gone to the Territory and some have not. Some have preferred to stay in the shelter of the Senate and make proclamations which are completely wrong. As I have said, the Nabarlek development has not come as a surprise. It has been in the pipeline for quite a long time.

Some honourable senators have said in this place tonight that there has been no Aboriginal participation in the decision to go ahead with Nabarlek. I tell them that this is not so. If they disbelieve me, I suggest that they go north. There they would learn that the Aboriginals who own the land have participated in negotiations about the mining and milling of uranium. They would find that it would not have been possible for the Government to make a declaration tonight that mining at Nabarlek will go ahead had Queensland Mines Ltd not been able to come to an agreement in the last few months with the Northern Land Council and the traditional owners of land in the Nabarlek area.

I have said before that there are too many people in this world and in this Senate today who chose to speak on behalf of the Aboriginal people. I do not dare to do that because I know that the Aboriginal people have the capability to speak up and look after themselves. It has been well illustrated by the way they have conducted themselves in the negotiations which led up to the eventual signing of the Ranger or Jabiru agreement. If honourable senators care to think back they will remember that it was the Aboriginal people, because of various points that they wondered about and that they were possibly perturbed about, who held up the signing of the Jabiru-Ranger agreement. Eventually the Aboriginal people decided that they had what they wanted, the agreement was in line with their wishes, and then the agreement was signed. I suggest that the same situation is occurring today. I refer to the signing of the Jabiru agreement which was between Peko- Wallsend Ltd, the Aboriginal people and the Government and to the development of the Ranger project which is beginning to take place now. Honourable senators will, of course, recall that it was quite a while before the Jabiru agreement was signed. Honourable senators will recall also that, in the early days of the negotiations, it was not the Aboriginal voice coming through to speak on their behalf; the voice of people who were in their employ was heard. These people came from various places and endeavoured to influence the Aboriginal people. So, the negotiations were held up because of these people. But the Aboriginal people saw through those who were supposedly assisting them, gave them the sack and, led by such people as Galarrwuy Yunupingu, the young chairman of the Northern Land Council, signed the agreement. Galarrwuy Yunupingu showed that he had the ability of a statesman and of a leader. Eventually, after receiving what he wanted, he signed the agreement on Ranger for the Aboriginal people in their own right, not with any other person speaking on their behalf.

As I have said before, the development of Nabarlek is in line with the general development that has taken place in the Northern Territory. Regardless of what people may say or think, the development of uranium in the North is going to be tremendous for the development of the North. Not only is it going to be tremendous for the people who live in the North, but also it will provide many jobs. The Aboriginal people will derive considerable finance. People who live in other parts of Australia can be well pleased that the development of uranium will bring about the development of the North. This has been needed for very many decades. The empty North has been defenceless. Uranium is a means of developing the North. Thank goodness it is taking place now.

The Ranger agreement has been signed. Nabarlek is on the way. There is general movement in the Northern Territory. Industry is coming to life again. Supplies are coming forth. Work is beginning on the Ranger project. As I have said before, all this is bringing about considerable employment, not only for Europeans but also for the Aboriginal people.

It is of interest to see what mining is doing for the Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. I refer to the development of manganese. What has happened with manganese will happen with uranium. The income derived from manganese has gone into trust accounts for the Groote Eylandt people. They would have well over $2m invested in their trust accounts by now. Last year, they gathered together and asked: ‘Shall we spend this money on all sorts of things or shall we just spend the interest?’ I think that statement is indicative of the thinking of the Aboriginal people. They decided to look after their capital and that the income of approximately $200,000 a year would be used for the benefit of Aboriginal people in the area. I suggest that the same will happen with the development of uranium. The money that the Aboriginal people are entitled to will go into trust accounts controlled by them. They will receive much benefit from this.

I would say that quite a lot of what has been said in the Senate tonight is misleading. Taking just one or two points that have been brought up tonight -

Senator Evans:

– Just one.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– Senators opposite are obviously worried that there is somebody here from the Northern Territory who can answer them. I suggest that we look at one pointenvironment. Honourable senators opposite say that there is no environmental control. I wonder whether the people making these statements to the people of Australia in the Senate tonight have been there. Have they seen the environmental impact studies that have taken place? Have they seen the physical studies that have been carried out in laboratories already in existence in the North? Have they seen the tremendous work that has taken place before agreements have been completed. There is every indication that nothing more can be done to ensure a complete environmental control? Of course, we again come to the matter of land rights. It is an argument that has been concluded. The Aboriginal people have their land. The Kakadu area may not have been proclaimed, but by agreement the Kakadu National Park is Aboriginal land which the Aboriginal people have leased back to the National Parks and Wildlife Commission.

Referring to safety, I remind the Senate of the time when there was mining at Rum Jungle. I suppose that it commenced 25 years ago. It was in the rough and ready days of mining when the techniques such as were used at Rum Jungle were not good techniques. Interestingly, there was not one casualty in the 25 years that uranium was mined at Rum Jungle. Yet today we hear the knockers who say that we should be careful of mining uranium, even though the most modern methods will be used. That view is far from the truth. I was in Hungary last July. I found that the Hungarians are keen on developing uranium but their uranium is very deeply located.

Senator Walsh:

– All the corns are.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– I do not understand what the honourable senator is saying, but I do understand that the Hungarians are digging at a depth of 5,000 to 6,000 feet. With the safeguards that they have taken, not one casualty has been suffered in the mining and development of uranium at that tremendous depth. In Australia we are talking about open cut mining. The safeguards that have been adopted in deep mining in Hungary have brought about a situation where no casualties have occurred. But it is interesting to note that in that same region in the development of coal there is a large number of casualties from tuberculosis, dust on the lungs, et cetera, resulting from damp air.

This is a good statement and I hope the people of Australia read it. It gives an indication that the mining of uranium is on the move, that the Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory are participating by agreement, that much good will come to them and that, eventually, the project will bring a tremendous return to Australia. It will not only bring a tremendous return to Australia, but also for those nations that are going to buy our uranium it will mean a considerable relief of their energy problems, because many of these nations are starved of energy now. Of course, the day must come when the reserves of uranium are eventually expended, although goodness knows when that day will be because I think the mining of uranium will continue for many decades. But when that day comes fusion will carry on the creation of energy. The work that is taking place now will mean that fusion will ensure a continuous supply of energy to meet the world ‘s requirements.

Senator Georges:

– The arrangement was that the statement would be put down by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Chaney), that the shadow Minister would respond and that a courtesy would be given to an Australian Democrats senator also to make some comments on the statement. Senator Kilgariff took it upon himself to extend the debate and we are tempted to follow his lead. Nevertheless, the Senate has a program which it must maintain. We suspended a Standing Order to facilitate some progress, but it was not intended that we should engage in a lengthy debate, which we would like to have on this statement tonight. So I will move that the debate be now adjourned.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 586

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL AFFAIRS

Motion (by Senator Evans) agreed to:

That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs:

the desirability of amending s. 44 (iv) of the Constitution in the terms proposed by the Constitution Alteration (Holders of Offices of Profit) Bill 1978 or otherwise; and

the desirability of changes to other provisions of the Constitution relating to the qualification and disqualification of Members of Parliament.

page 586

SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE ARTS

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Jessop)- I inform the Senate that I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Wriedt) requesting that Senator Button be discharged from further attendance on the Standing Committee on Education and the Arts, and nominating Senator Robertson to be a member of the Committee.

Motion (by Senator Georges)- by leaveagreed to:

That Senator Button be discharged from further attendance on the Standing Committee on Education and the Ans, and that Senator Robertson, having been duly nominated in accordance with Standing Order 36AA, be appointed a member of the Committee.

page 586

NATIONAL FITNESS AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I move:

I seek leave to incorporate the text in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

The purpose of this Bill is to enable the proceeds from commercialisation of activities conducted under the National Fitness Act to be paid into the National Fitness Trust Fund. In particular the Bill will enable proceeds from the commercialisation of the national ‘Life. Be in it’ program to be paid into that Fund. The opportunity has also been taken to revise sections 4 and 5 of the principle Act to bring them into line with current drafting practice for trust accounts, and also to make some formal drafting amendments.

Honourable senators will recall that on 9 September 1977 Commonwealth, State and Territory Ministers responsible for recreation agreed to co-operate in an Australia-wide active recreation program based on the successful ‘Life. Be in it’ program which had been launched in Victoria with Commonwealth assistance in 1975. As part of this agreement, the Commercial Government undertook to allocate $600,000 a year during the three-year period ending 30 June 1980. The Commonwealth agreed to be responsible for funding the national aspects of the program.

These included general co-ordination of the publicity campaign, the negotiation of media coverage, the monitoring and evaluation of the effect of the program and the overall development of the program on a national basis. The States and Territories were to be responsible for coordinating local programs and resources, arranging public relations activities, conducting local Life. Be in it’ events and liaising with State and local recreation and sporting bodies.

The ‘Life. Be in it’ philosophy is to encourage Australia to become more active. The campaign stresses the enjoyment and benefit to be gained from recreation. The long term objectives of the campaign are to change Australia’s attitudes and behaviour towards sport, fitness and recreation. The difference between ‘Life. Be in it’ and previous campaigns aimed at improving community fitness levels is that ‘Life. Be in it’ replaces the direct ‘fitness’ approach with an indirect ‘activity’ approach. The message of ‘Life. Be in it’ is that recreation activity can be shared by all age groups and that recreation is fun. The ‘Life. Be in it’ message is being carried in television advertisements, on calendars and T-shirts, and through a wide range of other promotional material. Public demand for such items as posters, stickers, calendars, badges, balloons, leaflets and other promotional material is exceptionally high.

The launching of the ‘Life. Be in it’ program has provided the opportunity for the Government to co-operate closely with commercial organisations which produce ‘Life. Be in it’ products under licence. Assistance from the private sector has taken three forms: A high level of support from the mass media, particularly the television industry; sponsorship of promotional Life. Be in it’ items; and product licensing arrangements under which manufacturers produced approved material and paid a royalty for the privilege.

It is the extent and success of the operations in the licensing field which have led to a need to introduce this Bill amending the National Fitness Act 1941. Although the income received from royalties is a welcome boost for the ‘Life. Be in it’ program, it is recognised that commercialisation in any form is subservient to the aims and objectives of the campaign. A series of guidelines for sponsorship and product licensing have been developed to ensure that this attitude is retained.

This Bill enables proceeds from the commercial opportunities offered by the ‘Life. Be in it’ program to be returned to the Commonwealth through the National Fitness Trust Fund and I commend the Bill for the consideration of honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 587

DEFENCE FORCE (RETIREMENT AND DEATH BENEFITS AMENDMENTS) BILL 1979

Bill received from the House of Representatives. (Quorum formed).

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

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

Second Reading

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I move:

I seek leave to incorporate the text in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-^

This Bill has its origin in some difficulties associated with the statutory interpretation of the statute to which the Bill refers, namely, the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act. It has no relationship whatsoever to the substantive provisions of the Act. It seeks to settle some difficulties that have flowed from statutory consideration by both the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Federal Court. The provisions of the two Acts- the Defence Forces Retirement Benefits Act and the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act- deal with the classification and reclassification of former members of the Defence Force who have retired on the ground of invalidity or of physical or mental incapacity to perform their duties. As part of its classification and reclassification responsibilities, the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Authority determines in respect of each invalidity retiree a percentage of incapacity in relation to civil employment.

To determine the percentage of incapacity, the Authority, and the DFRB Board that preceded it, have developed over more that thirty years a set of principles under the discretionary powers provided by the respective Acts. In short, there are three classifications and the classification into which a person retiring will move will depend on the judgment made in the past by the Authority. These principles have attracted widespread understanding and acceptance. Indeed, they had the general support of the 1972 Joint Select Committee on Defence Forces Retirement

Benefits Legislation which I am sure is known to most honourable senators as the Jess Committee. In essence, the principles are directed to the extent to which an invalidity retiree’s capacity to gain civilian employment commensurate with his skills and employment background, is affected by the disabilities that caused his retirement or by any subsequent causally connected disability.

A judgment handed down in August of last year by the Federal Court of Australia has disclosed an anomaly in the legislation which prevents these principles from being given proper effect. In short, the judgment showed that the legislation as it now stands can be interpreted to recognise for benefit purposes disabilities arising after separation from the Services that are in no way connected with Service membership and which therefore had nothing to do with a member’s retirement. Clearly, the assumption of an obligation to provide benefits from the DFRB and DFRDB schemes in these circumstances is well beyond the conceptual scope of the schemes and would, I suggest, be an untenable burden on public resources.

This Bill is designed to correct what the Government considers to be an anomaly. At the same time, the Government has decided that, given the significant part the whole body of principles plays in determining an invalidity retiree’s entitlements, it should be embodied in the law. The Bill has this additional purpose. I emphasise that the amendments do not change the long established principles followed by the Authority; rather, they are intended to confirm and ratify them in the law- I suppose I should emphasise the words ‘ratify them in statute form’- and not leave them to interpretation by any tribunal.

It should go without saying that there is no diminution in the right of persons affected by decisions of the Authority to seek review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. If a person feels aggrieved by a decision made by the Authority, he has a clear right of appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Bill in no way interferes with the substantive rights of those who have access to the provisions of the two Acts. The questions of commutation and taxation do not arise. I only hope that the Senate accepts the Bill and provides it with a speedy passage.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 588

PAY-ROLL TAX (TERRITORIES) ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 6 March, on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– The Opposition welcomes this amendment to the Pay-roll Tax (Territories) Assessment Act, which raises the payroll tax exemption from $60,000 to $66,000 annually, as a long overdue relief for small employers in the Australian Capital Territory. Effectively it will mean that employers with a weekly wages bill of less than $1,250 will no longer have to register for payroll tax purposes. Welcome though this relief may be for employers, it is wholly inadequate if it is to help overcome the severe economic recession which the Australian Capital Territory is now experiencing. The problems experienced by the business community in Canberra and by the community generally have been generated by the Fraser Government. The Government’s payroll tax concessions cannot repair the damage which its policies have done to the economic and social fabric of the Australian Capital Territory. Those policies, but mainly the Government’s massive reductions in public spending, have fallen disproportionately on the Australian Capital Territory which now suffers the highest level of unemployment in Australia. The Australian Capital Territory is in a grave economic recession and we have not yet experienced the trough to that recession. This year can only see continued contraction in employment and in the general level of economic activity in the Australian Capital Territory. Without a large injection of public money the building industry and the Public Service will not be able to absorb the rapidly growing number of unemployed. Unemployment in the Australian Capital Territory now stands at nearly 10 per cent compared with the national average of 6.8 per cent.

At this point, I wish to place on record some of the facts about the employment situation in the Australian Capital Territory. At the end of January the unemployment rate was 9.6 per cent and there were 8,615 people seeking employment. That number is 400 per cent greater than it was in 1975. With the national average unemployment rate at 6.8 per cent, the rate of unemployment in the national capital is the highest and the fastest growing in the country. There were 978 more people unemployed in the Australian Capital Territory at the end of January that there were at the end of December last year and 37.5 per cent of the 15-19 year old age group were unemployed compared with the national average of 23 per cent. The situation is equally grim in respect of training opportunities for the unemployed. There were only 391 Australian Capital Territory participants in the National Employment and Training scheme and the special assistance program last year. The annual apprentice intake in the Australian Capital Territory has declined from 728 in 1974-75 to 468 in 1977-78. The number of retrenched apprentices rose from four in 1974-75 to 52 in 1977-78. The Chairman of the Australian Capital Territory Apprenticeship Board was quoted in the Canberra Times on 25 February this year as saying that there are now four times as many inquiries from young people wanting to take up apprenticeships as there are apprenticeships likely to be available. He said that some trades would not be taking any apprentices this year.

This is the situation that has come about after three years of Fraser administration of the national capital. Of course, the effects of unemployment are felt much wider than just by those people who are out of work. Unemployment has a multiplier effect which is felt throughout the economy as retailers and small businesses are denied the disposable income upon which they had confidently built their businesses. Amongst the 15-19 year old age group in the Australian Capital Territory 37.5 per cent are unemployed. This is a group which traditionally has a large disposable income but of course, it is now being kept below the poverty line. The loss of effective demand from such groups has brought small businesses and retailing in Canberra to crisis point. In the absence of heavy industry in the Australian Capital Territory, small business is the central element in the private sector. The alarm of businessmen has been echoed by the member for Canberra, Mr Haslem, who I see is attending on our debate this evening, and most appropriately too. Mr Haslem has been reported as saying publicly that Fraser Government policy was having such a disastrous effect on Canberra that he was in danger of losing his seat. I agree with his judgment. As Mr Haslem is a businessman of some note, one must accept the authority with which he speaks.

In the retail area Canberra is faced with a drastic oversupply of retail space. This again is the result of Fraser Government policy. Planning for retail space which took place a few years ago was made on the understanding that Canberra would continue to be Australia’s leading growth centre. Instead, growth has practically stopped and we are faced with a drastic and very uneconomic oversupply of retail space which threatens the viability of small shopkeepers and traders. The supply of retail trading space not only exceeds demand now but also will continue to exceed demand. Figures published in the Canberra Times on 26 February this year show that in 1985 there will be an oversupply of retail space of up to 15 per cent. Therefore, in the retail sector we can expect continued recession with, as always happens in these circumstances, the larger enterprises undercutting the small businessman as they take advantage of their economies of scale. This is happening in the major shopping centres all over the Australian Capital Territory. I doubt very much whether the small relief afforded by these payroll tax concessions can restore the competitive position of small business in the face of fierce competition and the oversupply of retail space.

The President of the Canberra Chamber of Commerce, Mr Warren Porter, admitted on the Australian Broadcasting Commission program Nationwide last Monday night that there was not much that small businessmen could do to help themselves in these circumstances. Small businessmen recognise, and have done so publicly, that this is a Government-created problem and that only the Government can solve it. However, the Government is totally unwilling to take the necessary steps to solve the problem. The oversupply of retail space also bears upon the construction industry which, without the injection of public funds, can only contract further. There is and will be no demand for retail space construction within the next five years; nor is there any continued demand for one of the central strengths of the Canberra construction industry, or what used to be the central strength of the construction industry- the house building sector. Figures for homes under construction are at an all time low. To give honourable senators some idea of how the situation has deteriorated in the last three years, I will quote home completion figures for the last three financial years. In 1975- 76, 5,068 homes were completed; in 1976- 77 only 3,486 homes were completed; and in 1977-78 the number decreased to 3,253 homes. For the full 1978 calendar year only 2,553 houses were completed.

The home building sector has traditionally employed small firms and skilled tradesmen but the industry has been squeezed so hard that it is now only a skeleton of what it was during the Labor Government’s administration. In 1976, 38 per cent of Canberra people bought established dwellings, 44 per cent bought newly erected dwellings, and 18 per cent bought contract-built homes. In 1978 established houses represented 55 per cent of total sales and newly erected dwellings only 34 per cent. Eleven per cent of buildings were built under contract. In an interview with the Canberra Times on 26 February, Mr Barry Barnett of the Construction Suppliers Association stated:

Canberra stands to lose its construction expertise- the whole lot is at risk. All the little places are closing down- the building suppliers, the window companies, the machine shops, the little joineries.

As an elected representative of this Territory, I affirm and reinforce what Mr Barnett said. The long term effects must also be considered as skilled tradesmen and workers leave the Canberra area. Where is the Government’s answer to this disastrous situation in the construction industry? Instead of doing something positive about it, the Government has responded to this crisis situation with a continued reduction in the budget available to the National Capital Development Commission for capital works. In 1967-68, over 10 years ago, $1 19.5 m was expended on capital works; in this financial year we are spending even less than was spent over 10 years agomerely $106,973,000. We must now wait five years before a start can be made on that $ 150m project for the new Parliament House. I doubt whether the Australian Capital Territory will still have the construction infrastructure to carry through that major project. It is quite clear that small firms engaged in the construction industry in the Australian Capital Territory cannot weather Fraser ‘s recession. They are either pulling out or going under.

Of course, following upon this total disruption of the local economy we have numerous social problems in the Territory. Any statistics one cares to look at which measure the extent of social problems in the community show an increase. I refer to statistics such as those measuring juvenile crime, family break-up, drug addiction and drug related offences. All of them have soared since the Fraser Administration commenced its anti-Canberra policies in 1976. Voluntary organisations in the Territory- for example the Women’s Refuge, the Smith Family and the St Vincent de Paul Society- are strained well beyond their resources in trying to cope and give some assistance with the social problems which have followed upon the Fraser Government’s economic strategy for the national capital. On the other hand, Government agencies which ought to be offering support in these circumstances, such as the Health Commission or the welfare branch of the Department of the Capital Territory, are unable to give adequate service to the public because of the Fraser Government’s policies of staff ceilings. For example there is still no proper provision for corrective services in the Australian Capital Territory. Where we have the unfortunate anti-social occurrences of juvenile crime or crime of any other kind, young persons committed for such offences are still sent to New South Wales institutions to serve their sentences thus adding to the strain and social disruption consequent upon the Fraser Government’s economic policies.

I do not want to delay the Senate on what is a minor Bill- the Pay-roll Tax (Territories) Assessment Amendment Bill. As I have said, the Opposition does not oppose the amendment. In fact, we welcome it because it will give some tiny measure of relief to small business operating in this Territory. However, the measure provides for too little, too late. I take the opportunity this evening to place on record the result of three years of Fraser administration in the national capital. Three years of Fraser administration have seen the destruction of Canberra as Australia’s leading growth centre. Three years have seen the total disruption of Canberra as a harmonious and productive community. Three years have seen Canberra change from a place where there were job and training opportunities for all school leavers and for all other people who were willing and able to join the labour force to the city with the highest unemployment rate in the whole of Australia. The building industry has been almost destroyed. Retailing business has been almost destroyed. Private enterprise of all kinds has suffered disastrously under what is supposed to be a government committed to private enterprise. Of course, all these things have happened directly as a result of Fraser policies.

If one wants to measure the success or failure of the Fraser Government’s economic strategy one needs to look no further than the Austraiian Capital Territory where there is no state government and no municipal councils to blame. There is only one decision-making body in the Territory and that is the Fraser Government. We can look around and see very directly and very clearly what an abject failure the Fraser Government’s economic strategy has been. We can see here without any confusion, interruption or obstruction that the Fraser Government’s economic strategy of reducing public expenditure has meant not only disaster for the public sector, not only chaos in the Public Service, not only a rundown of services to the community for which the community pays, but also, ironically enough, as I have documented tonight, a total disruption in the private sector. Never has business had it so bad as in the three years of the Fraser regime. I urge honourable senators on both sides of this House, but more particularly the Government senators- I see my colleague Senator Knight is here tonight- to put to the decision-makers in the Fraser Government the real state of affairs in the Australian Capital Teritory, to reverse the scandal which is the result of three years of Fraser adminstration and to point out to Fraser and to the Treasurer (Mr Howard) that the economic strategy of this Government has failed nowhere more lamentably than in the nation ‘s capital.

Senator WATSON:
Tasmania

-In speaking in this debate on the Pay-roll Tax (Territories) Assessment Amendment Bill tonight I feel that I must correct a number of interpretations placed by my colleague, Senator Ryan. Undoubtedly, as a responsible senator for the Australian Capital Territory, Senator Ryan wishes to see a continuation of the rapid expansion which has occurred in Canberra in recent years. I submit that Canberra is now experiencing a period of consolidation which is not uncommon to other areas in Australia which, having experienced very rapid expansion, inevitably must face a period of consolidation. One only has to look at the miles of bitumen suburban roads in the new suburbs without houses. These would surely be the envy of many other cities around Australia. (Quorum formed)

Although I support this pay-roll tax Bill I wish to use this opportunity to draw attention to a number of disquieting features of our payroll tax laws. As a measure to assist small business in the Australian Capital Territory, the raising of the general exemption from $60,000 to $66,000, a level commensurate with that which is now existing in New South Wales, is to be commended, although I believe the Bill could have been introduced at a very much earlier stage. However, I think it is appropriate that we should examine some of the historical developments of payroll tax. In the 1941 debates when this legislation was first introduced into the Parliament we find that the purpose of introducing this revenue raising legislation was to finance child endowment. The revenue was expected to raise something like £8m to service the financing of child endowment which was estimated to cost f 13m in the first year. The scheme was modelled largely on a plan which was then operating in France. The Bill provided for a 2!£ per cent tax on wages which were paid by employers, with a few exceptions which included charities, religious organisations and hospitals. In addition there was a general exemption of £1,040 per annum that applied for each financial year.

The arrangement was for the Commonwealth to collect this tax, to pool it and to distribute the funds to the needy- the families. At the time there were some reservations about this tax becoming permanent. Nevertheless, the Bill was introduced with some lofty ideas. The then honourable member for Richmond, Mr Anthony, stated that few of the taxation measures ever introduced into the House had had a worthier object, that is, the provision of funds to supplement the income of the family man. Further, Mr Anthony prophesied that in a few years there would be few young men and women to carry on the work of this nation and to develop Australia. In one generation- in 28 years- how things have changed. How wrong was the prophesy because, instead of having few young people to develop Australia, we now have a situation in which, in effect, we have a redundancy of young people who are seeking work opportunities that are no longer available.

At this time of very high unemployment, I feel that it is rather intolerable that we should be legislating for a continuation of payroll tax, albeit the raising of an exemption level for the small business, commendable though that may be. I understand that 80 per cent of commerical operations in Canberra are regarded as small business. What this Parliament should be doing is to abolish payroll tax because, not only is it an inflationary tax, but it is also more importantly a tax on employment at a time when governments and oppositions in this Parliament and in the various other State spheres are seeking measures to improve employment opportunities. In fact, employers should be provided with some incentive to create employment rather than employers being penalised.

In 1977, one Western Australian company chairman stated that payroll tax accounted for more than double the dividend paid to the shareholders. This emphasises the fact that payroll tax is discriminatory against labour intensive industries and bears no relationship to profitability. Therefore, it is contrary to at least two of the four major canons relating to taxation which were enunciated by Adam Smith as long ago as the eighteenth century. Those canons should be as true today as they were then. We now find that the labour intensive- what I term medium sizebusinesses are the principal targets of this iniquitous tax. These are the entities that are frustrated by difficulty of access to finance because of their private company status or because of their very highly specialised nature. These medium sized industries, particularly the manufacturing ones, are under threat and are receiving very little government attention.

Is there any wonder, therefore, that the medium sized businesses are disappearing from the trading scene, again especially the manufacturing industries? The more prosperous of them find themselves being swallowed up by the large multinational conglomerates which, on acquiring a company, set about displacing labour by introducing sophisticated machinery. The medium sized company is faced with an array of impositions, charges, inquiries and demands that require highly paid and sophisticated middle management which the medium sized companies nowadays can ill afford because of the generally low rate of profitability. Therefore, a continuation of these medium sized businesses is becoming an increasingly difficult exercise. Further, payroll tax is paid not only on direct effort but also on indirect effort. It is a tax on total payroll, which includes holiday pay and sick pay and therefore is not altogether related to productive work which, to some extent, could offset this iniquitous expense. Therefore, is there any surprise when one reads in the Press almost daily of companies being forced to lay off people and to move increasingly to automation?

In November 1977, Mr Spicer, Secretary of the Victorian Employers Federation, was quoted as saying that payroll tax was the most inequitable tax operating in Australia, acting as a disincentive to employment. In May 1977 the same body, the Victorian Employers Federation stated that 153,000 people could be employed if the money levied in payroll tax were used as wages. Many employers state that payroll tax can be regarded as the twenty-first employee on the payroll because that is its effect. Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to table a statement of payroll tax collections for the 1967-68 financial year which was prepared by the Parliamentary Library. The table shows that payroll tax collections amounted to $ 184.4m in 1967-68 but rose to $ 1,442m in 1977-78.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Jessop)- Is leave granted?

Senator Cavanagh:

– I rise on a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. Does the honourable senator require leave to table a document? He must seek leave to incorporate a document in Hansard, but I thought it was the prerogative of any honourable senator to table a document.

Senator McAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– He wants leave to incorporate it in Hansard.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I do not know what he wants, but he sought leave to table the document. Is it necessary for him to seek leave to table it?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- It is necessary to seek leave. I ask Senator Watson whether he seeks leave to table the document or to incorporate it in Hansard.

Senator WATSON:

-I seek leave to have the document incorporated in Hansard.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT-Is leave granted?

Senator Durack:

– The normal procedure is to make the document available to the Minister in charge of the legislation before the chamber.

Senator Georges:

– I wonder whether we could short cut that process, Mr Minister. It is a reasonable document. The other night you allowed me to incorporate a document without giving it close scrutiny, so I wonder whether we might grant leave on this occasion.

Senator Cavanagh:

– On a further point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President, I have no opposition to leave being granted, but if the Minister is suspicious of the actions of one of his members, he is justified in wishing first to see the document.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT-

Senator Watson, I suggest that at the end of your speech you seek leave to incorporate the document in Hansard. That will give the Minister time to examine the document.

Senator Durack:

– Leave is granted.

The document read as follows-

Payroll Tax Collections collected by Commonwealth and State Authorities.

Senator WATSON:

-The table of payroll tax collections appearing in the document shows that payroll tax provides the States and the Territories with not only a growth tax but also a substantial source of income. In fact, for most States it is second only to revenue provided by the Commonwealth. State Premiers are reluctant to give up this inequitable tax. Unfortunately, it has been used for propaganda and economic purposes by some States. Queensland boasts that its payroll tax rate is the lowest in Australia. In my State of Tasmania we found that part of the large Universal Textiles Australia Ltd company in Hobart was lured to Victoria on the basis of generous decentralisation payroll tax rebates. Such incentives cost the Victorian Government approximately $1 1.3m in 1976-77, but in the following year cost the Tasmanian economy a far greater social amount. It took only four years for the percentage rate of payroll tax to rise from 2 te per cent to 5 per cent. In addition, there have been large increases in wage levels which have resulted in higher payrolls on which this inequitable tax is based, inequitable especially from the point of view of labour-intensive, medium-sized industries because it is these rather than the capital-intensive industries that are severely penalised.

In conclusion, I repeat my earlier request that parliamentarians should be seeking a complete elimination of payroll tax, especially in these times of high unemployment. I believe that such a step would assist to improve the job prospects for Australian workers. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I thank Senator Watson for his speech. It is one that would have been well in line with Australian Labor Party policy at the last election. We made an error, however, in endeavouring to trade off this tax instead of some other tax allowance. Nevertheless, I think many people have begun to realise the inequity of payroll tax which is a tax upon the wages of employees. It is a tax upon business irrespective of profitability and it weighs very heavily in these days of economic recession on all businesses. Of course, the effect of the tax is more apparent on smaller businesses.

Senator Watson put forward a well presented and well documented case. I do not need to repeat his comments. I merely support them. This legislation is concerned, of course, with the Australian Capital Territory. The remarks made by Senator Watson are pertinent to the position in the Australian Capital Territory because a sort of double recession is taking effect in the Territory. The Australian Capital Territory is not only feeling the impact of the general recession that is being experienced throughout the country but also it is suffering from the impact of the federalism policy of the present Government. I am astonished that more protests have not come from residents of Canberra.

Senator Ryan documented a case tonight which I heard for the first time. Maybe I am not here often enough. Maybe I do not read the newspapers. Maybe Senator Knight has not said sufficient about this matter. All I can say is that the situation in Canberra must be desperate. One of the risks that one runs by destroying a growth factor in any area is that one may put that area beyond the point of recovery. I hope that that has not happened to the Australian Capital Territory.

The legislation which seeks to increase the exemption from payroll tax will help in a small way: But surely it does not go far enough in terms of assisting businesses in the Australian Capital Territory. This legislation perhaps gives us the opportunity to put the case against payroll tax. I think Senator Watson mentioned that Queensland had the lowest, or maybe the lowest, payroll tax rate in Australia. That was not the position so very long ago when payroll tax in Queensland was levied at 5 percent. The amount had to be found. Businesses which paid this tax were put under the closest of scrutiny. Associated companies which had a separate identity were grouped together. As a result these companies had to pay considerably increased rates of payroll tax and this placed a very excessive burden upon their ability to operate.

Let me put it to the Senate that the removal of this tax would benefit not only the employer but also the wage earner. The ability of the employer to provide his employees with better conditions is inhibited by this tax of 5 per cent. The tax also inhibits an employer’s ability to provide in some cases over award payments. It also inhibits an employer’s ability to provide extra overtime or perhaps to provide special leave conditions. An employer’s ability to provide these benefits is limited by the 5 per cent tax he has to pay on wages. I think Senator Watson mentioned that the tax was the equivalent of the wages of the twenty-first employee of a company. Such a person could not be employed because the company had to pay this tax. As a result there is an increased resistance on the part of employers to put on extra staff if their employing of extra staff puts them above the exemption level.

Senator Watson pointed out that the tax was imposed for a worthwhile purpose. But certainly that purpose has now been forgotten. Whichever way one looks at it, this tax is a means by which

State governments accumulate revenue. It is an iniquitous tax. It is a regressive tax. It is, I believe- again I quote the previous speaker- an inflationary tax. I would have thought that by now it would have been accepted as such and removed. The Government could have taken the lead and removed the tax altogether in the Australian Capital Territory especially in view of the depressed conditions in the Territory. Although I commend the legislation which seeks to increase the exemption from payroll tax, I go as far as Senator Watson has gone tonight and press for its complete removal.

Senator KNIGHT:
Austraiian Capital Territory

– A number of issues relating to payroll tax and this legislation have been canvassed this evening. Senator Ryan covered a number of other issues relating to the Australian Capital Territory and I would also like to make mention of those issues. I note that Senator Ryan indicated that she and the Opposition- this has also been indicated by Senator Georges- do not oppose this legislation. Senator Ryan made the comment that the provisions in the legislation to increase the exemption from payroll tax were in fact too little, too late. I would note in relation to that statement only that what we are doing in fact is to ensure that payroll tax exemptions in the Capital Territory are in line with those in New South Wales. As has been the case in the past, the payroll tax provisions in the Australian Capital Territory are to be brought into line with the payroll tax provisions contained in the last Budget of the New South Wales Labor Government.

Senator Ryan discussed this legislation in the context of its relevance to business in the Capital Territory and to the Capital Territory generally. She referred to many issues relevant to Canberra and the Australian Capital Territory. She talked, for example, about the policies of the current Government and suggested that those policies have led to the total disruption of Canberra. I think I reflect her words accurately in saying that. I suggest that one has only to look around Canberra to see that such a statement is incorrect. Canberra is not facing any such thing as total disruption. No one would deny that Canberra and the Capital Territory, in common with many other areas in our nation, are facing particular problems because of the nature of the Territory.

Senator Cavanagh:

– It is just an impoverished district.

Senator KNIGHT:

- Senator Cavanagh says it is an impoverished area. I simply cannot agree with the honourable senator. I think that sort of comment is demonstrably nonsense. On the latest figures which became available a week or two ago, Canberra is far ahead of any other Australian city on average weekly earnings-

Senator Cavanagh:

– And price increases.

Senator KNIGHT:

– If you insist, Senator Cavanagh, I must point out that in the last two years the consumer price index in Canberra has increased at a lesser rate than the average of the six other capitals in Australia. In fact Canberra is not an impoverished area.

Senator Cavanagh:

– It is.

Senator KNIGHT:

– It is not an area that has suffered from severe price rises. In some areas there have been substantial rises but, judging from the statistics available- I suggest you might at least do that- Canberra has not been severely treated. It is utter nonsense to suggest that Canberra is facing total disruption. A walk out of the front of this building and a drive into the city or the suburbs shows that it is demonstrably untrue to suggest that. Senator Ryan suggested that the national policies of the current Government have had a devastating effect on the Australian Capital Territory. I would remind her and others who may make such statements that Canberra, like all other parts of Australia, has benefited very substantially from the reduction in inflation from 18 per cent to about 8 per cent. Every person in Canberra has benefited from that. In the years 1976-77 and 1977-78, if I recall the years correctly, Canberra had a lower increase in its consumer price index, as recorded by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, than the average of the six other capitals. It does not help for people to talk Canberra down. I would be the last to deny that there are problems here with respect to retail trade, the construction industry and unemployment, but these are shared in common with many other areas.

Canberra has some unique problems because the Australian Capital Territory is a unique place. Canberra is a city based on the Public Service. For that reason and because of the policies the Government is compelled to pursue we have our own special problems. Senator Ryan referred to staff ceilings and the impact of the Government’s policies with respect to the Public Service. I was a member of a Senate committee which examined the Department of Foreign Affairs and problems which had arisen as a result of staff ceilings, but there is another side of the matter which Senator Ryan prefered to dismiss. I quote from the most recent report of the National Capital Development Commission where the

Commission refers to the impact of staff restrictions on the work of the Commission. The report at page 6 states:

Given the likelihood of continuing restraints on levels of Public Service employment, without any corresponding reduction in the overall amount of work to be done, the Commission feels that it has no option but to find ways of improving its overall efficiency and productivity while at the same rime maintaining desirable scope for job satisfaction on the part of its staff. Through the progressive introduction of corporate planning techniques there have been noticeable gains in efficiency and productivity, and it is anticipated that there is further scope in this regard.

I mention that because it is a statutory authority based in Canberra and is in many ways responsible for the planning and development of this city. As that report makes quite clear, staff restraints have led the Commission to re-examine its approach and consequently has led, as they say, to gains in efficiency and productivity, and it is anticipated that there is further scope in this regard. I emphasise that whilst there are problems it is wrong to talk Canberra down and to suggest it is all bad. It is far from that. On the contrary, I think there is a lot of good to be said for what is happening in the Australian Capital Territory.

Senator Watson made the point that Canberra is going through a period of consolidation. As recorded in the NCDC’s latest report and reflected in the latest figures available, Canberra has a population growth rate of about 3 per cent, still one of the highest urban growth rates in Australia. From a very rapid growth rate in the vicinity of 9 per cent or 10 per cent, we have reduced to 3 per cent. That is reflected in reductions in NCDC spending because one does not have to spend as much when the rate of growth is not so great. Senator Watson referred to a period of consolidation. In that regard I refer to a statement made by the Commissioner of the NCDC, Mr Powell, in his latest report to the Minister where he made the following comment about the situation in the ACT:

The year under review has been marked by a continuation of lower levels of population growth compared with the mid-1970s. The growth rate is tending to stabilise at about 3 per cent per annum. The local economy is still in the process of adjusting to this change and it has been characterised by relatively high levels of unemployment and a general slowing down in business activity, particularly in the construction industry.

I think that is an accurate and fair statement, far more reasonable than the statements Senator Ryan was making. It certainly is not a statement which is talking Canberra down, as was the case with Senator Ryan’s remarks. I believe that the ACT is one of the finest urban environments and one of the finest cities in the world in which to live and I do not think remarks of the kind made by Senator Ryan are of any help.

Senator Ryan referred to the oversupply of retail space in the ACT. As I said earlier, this is not a problem that I or anybody else would deny. There is a serious oversupply in some areas. But Senator Ryan then suggested that this was a direct result of- as I think she put it- ‘Fraser ‘s policies’. She said that this excess of retail space was based on assumptions of the continuing rapid rate of growth. I point out that the first substantial efforts to curtail the growth of Canberra were taken in the 1975 Budget when it became clear to everybody who cared to look- including the Labor Government at that time- that the very high rate of growth and very rapidly expanding expenditure in the ACT simply could not be sustained. As I recall it, in 197.5, the Labor Government cut back the rate of work on the National Gallery and the High Court. Those issues were matters of some controversy at the time. It was only when the present Government was elected that those projects were put back to the full rate of construction. Things of that kind are worth remembering.

I believe it is a far more reasonable approach to suggest that those rates of growth simply could not be sustained and the Labor Government in 1975 recognised that as it has been recognised since. I mention these points simply to emphasise that if, as Senator Ryan claims, there is an ‘antiCanberra bias’ in the present Government’s policies that bias began in the 1975 August Budget, not in 1976. Frankly, I do not believe they were anti-Government policies then and certainly they are not now. They are policies which make good economic sense and maintain a high rate of growth in the Capital Territory. There are problems, and I refer to the statement of the Commissioner of the NCDC where he refers to problems with respect to unemployment in the construction industry and with business activity. This is true. But it was because the very high rates of growth expectations were to a degree unrealistic and simply could not be sustained. No responsible government could continue to sustain the sort of growth that was occurring in Canberra in the context of national needs with respect to economic policy. (Quorum formed). I feel compelled to express my heartfelt gratitude to Senator Georges for calling a quorum. In doing so, I must express my equally deep regret that there are only three Labor senators in the chamber. I had hoped that there would have been more. At least the chamber is crowded with Government senators and that is very pleasing. I was examining the relative policies with respect to Canberra. Senator Ryan in her speech made reference to charges imposed upon the people of

Canberra and the effect that these have had. It is instructive to look at the increases in rates imposed in the three Budgets introduced during the period of the Labor Government and the increases in the first three Budgets of the LiberalNational Country Party Government. Those increases illustrate that the present Government has not set out to impose excessive charges, particularly when compared to the previous Labor Government, on the people of Canberra. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table which sets out the comparative increase in rates.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

LABOR GOVERNMENT BUDGETS

General Rate Increases: 1973-74-15.92 per cent; i974.75_9.47 percent; 1975-76-34.70 percent.

Water Rate Increses: 1973-74-20.00 per cent; 1 974-75-12.96 per cent; 1 975-76-59.60 per cent.

Sewerage Rates Increases: 1973-74-66.66 per cent; i974.75_6.OO percent; 1975-76-38.50 percent.

LIBERAL GOVERNMENT BUDGETS

General Rate Increases: 1976-77-3.12 per cent; 1977-78-17.91 percent; 1978-79-3.20 percent.

Water Rate Increases: 1976-77-21.97 per cent; 1977-78- nil; 1978-79-2.70 percent.

Sewerage Rate Increases: 1976-77-11.11 per cent; 1977-78-41.40 percent; 1978-79-23.00 percent.

Senator KNIGHT:

– As I have mentioned, Senator Ryan talked about the ‘total disruption’ of Canberra and the fact that the present Government has allegedly done terrible damage to the city and to the Territory. She did not mention some of the major projects that this Government has initiated and undertaken.

Senator Georges:

– Like the viewing tower on Capital Hill?

Senator KNIGHT:

– I do not want to bore Senator Georges with a list of the projects but I will mention a few. Senator Ryan referred to the fact that the Government is committed to a new parliament house to cost $ 1 50m. There are also many other projects. A national archives building is to be constructed as a result of the initiatives that this Government has taken in the Australian Capital Territory. At the initiative of this Government the Public Service Board is to have a new headquarters in Canberra costing, I think, $8m. I know that many public servants in the Territory who have been working in inadequate conditions will be pleased about that sort of decision.

Senator Walsh:

-What about the High Court? Tell us about the $ 1 5m Barwick added to that.

Senator KNIGHT:

-Senator Walsh asks about the High Court of Australia building. The honourable senator was not present in the chamber when I referred to the fact that in 1975 the Labor Government reduced the rate of construction on the High Court building. It was not until the present Government came to power that work on the High Court building returned to normal. I was listing some of the things that the present Government has done in the Territory, as well as some of the initiatives that are proposed. A city bus interchange will be built. An interchange has been constructed at Belconnen already. There is to be a new Civic post office and a major tourist development built at a cost of up to $20m- perhaps more- on the Jolimont site in Civic. That will be an important element in consolidating the growth of Civic Centre. In various areas- particularly in Belconnen, for example- there have been major infrastructural works. I refer to the duplication of Ginninderra Drive, the duplication of the Barton Highway, and the building of Kuringa Drive. Now, in contrast with 1975, people in these newer suburbs generally get their drivestrips, footpaths and street lighting when they move into their houses, not many months later.

The Government has provided improved facilities such as the heating of Macquarie swimming pool for the people of Belconnen. A significant problem existed in that area where adequate facilities of this kind were not available. It has initiated the redevelopment of the Causeway in Narrabundah, where a large group of people, often on low incomes or otherwise disadvantaged, are now living in new houses. A complete redevelopment is being undertaken. The Government has constructed the Deakin telephone exchange, which I think is valued at $15m. It has completed construction of Calvary Hospital, which was begun in the 1960s by a Liberal-Country Party Government. As I have already mentioned, the Government has speeded up construction of the National Gallery and the High Court buildings. This Government provided $ lm to extend the Koomarri school f&r handicapped children. That money was not available previously. The Government has ended the transfer of public servants to places such as the Bathurst-Orange growth centre. That was a matter of great concern to public servants in Canberra in 1975. That practice was not proceeded with by the present Government. I have already referred to the question of staff ceilings and the impact that they have had on, for example, on the National Capital Development

Commission. I think that it is an instructive exercise.

I make these comments simply because those issues were raised by Senator Ryan, I think not in direct relation to this legislation but in relation to it in some respects. I felt it necessary to answer her attempts to talk down the Territory and Canberra. I believe that that is damaging behaviour not becoming a senator representing the Australian Capital Territory. I can only say that I think the increased exemption in the payroll tax provisions is overdue. I hope that the Treasurer (Mr Howard) will give some consideration to making these increases automatic in the future. I realise there are problems with that but it should be possible to ensure that businesses in Canberra, particularly in respect to payroll tax, are not disadvantaged in any way compared to businesses in neighbouring towns, especially Queanbeyan but also, for example, Goulburn, Yass and Cooma. It would seem to me that in future businesses in Canberra ought to receive automatically the same payroll tax exemption levels as businesses in New South Wales. This measure will be welcomed by the small businesses in the Territory. It is well known that small businesses in many parts of the Territory are faced with a number of problems.

As Senator Watson has mentioned, payroll tax was introduced in April 1941 along with child endowment legislation. The two were part of a policy relating to the wage system. In the 1950s that link was lost. As Senator Watson suggests, there are many questions in regard to the value and virtue of payroll tax. I find that there are strong arguments for and against it. I am certainly undecided on Senator Watson’s argument for its abolition. However, it seems to me that we ought to be looking at payroll tax as more of an incentive to small business. But even if the exemption is set at a level of $66,000, this does not provide a significant incentive to businesses that employ more people than the exemption and the sliding scale will cover. It seems to me that in the future we ought to be giving some consideration to measures that might provide for exemptions not relating simply to an amount but to a number of employees engaged by an employer and to a substantially larger number than would be covered, for example, by current exemption levels which apply now in New South Wales, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory, the basic exemption being $66,000. I conclude by saying only that I think that this legislation will be welcomed in the Territory. I certainly welcome it but I hope that the Government might be able to consider the possibility in future, when New South Wales Budgets are introduced, of having some mechanism whereby legislation is introduced to ensure that the Capital Territory is brought into line with businesses in neighbouring towns automatically or rather more promptly than has been the case with this legislation.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– in reply- I thank the Senate for supporting this measure. In line with the tenor of this debate, I trust that it will have a speedy passage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 597

REPATRIATION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · 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 give effect to the Government’s proposals for the reform of the Repatriation appeal system. Honourable senators will remember that, early in 1977, the then Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Senator the Honourable Peter Durack, announced that the Government had decided to transfer the functions of the existing Repatriation Appeal Tribunals to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Subsequent detailed examination revealed substantial practical problems in giving effect to this decision. The Government has therefore decided to establish, with effect from 1 July 1 979, a separate and independent Repatriation Review Tribunal which will combine the functions of the present war pensions entitlement appeal tribunals and the assessment appeal tribunals. The concept of an independent tribunal, combining the functions of both of the current Repatriation tribunals was proposed by Mr Justice Toose in his Independent Inquiry into the Repatriation System.

The present repatriation appeals system has now been in operation for just under 50 years. It was established by the Australian Soldiers’ Repatriation Act 1929, which came into operation on 1 June 1929. The first sitting of an appeal tribunal under that Act was held on 5 June 1929. It is interesting to note that the basic provisions inserted into the Repatriation Act by this 1929 amendment remain intact today, subject only to a few amendments. For example, the rights of unsuccessful appellants to seek reopening of their cases by presentation of further evidence, and the right of appellants to have access to information in the records relating to their case were inserted in the 1929 Act. Like other basic provisions in the legislation, these remain in force today. I am sure, that the clause dealing with the applicant’s right to have access to information from his records must have seemed revolutionary in 1929.

The last decade has seen major developments in the field of administrative law, leading to the passage through this Parliament of significant legislative enactments such as the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act. The purpose of the Bill now before the Senate is to reform the Repatriation Appeal Tribunal system so that it accords with modern principles of administrative law.

The proposed Repatriation Review Tribunal, is modelled in many respects on the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and will function in a somewhat similar manner. Its role will be to review decisions which are the subject of applications before it, rather than to rehear claims or applications as is done in the existing Repatriation appeal system.

Under the existing Repatriation appeal system there are four Entitlement Appeal Tribunals and four Assessment Appeal Tribunals. Each of these Tribunals is a separate, independent, final authority, with nothing to ensure consistency as between Tribunals in their decisions or in their interpretations of the law. The establishment of the proposed single Repatriation Review Tribunal will strengthen the administration of the appeal system and facilitate the development of just and consistent decision-making.

One of the deficiencies of the present system is the absence of a specific right for parties to obtain access to a court of law to seek clarification of issues of law. The Bill provides for a right of access to the Federal Court of Australia on questions of law. The Tribunal may, of its own motion, or at the request of an applicant or the Repatriation Commission, refer a question of law arising in proceedings before it to the Federal Court. Additionally, there will be a right of appeal to the Federal Court of Australia on a question of law after a case has been decided by the Tribunal. This right may be exercised by either the applicant or the Repatriation Commission.

Provision is also made to assist financially applicants who may be involved in a proceeding before the Federal Court. Where the President of the Tribunal, of his own volition or on the application of one of the parties, refers a question of law to the Federal Court of Australia, the costs of the applicant will be met by the Commonwealth. If the Repatriation Commission appeals to the Federal Court on a question of law, the applicant’s costs will also be met by the Commonwealth. While the Bill provides a discretion in the Federal Court of Australia as to costs where an unsuccessful applicant before the Tribunal pursues an appeal to the Federal Court on a question of law, provision is made for an applicant to apply to the Attorney-General for assistance.

In addition to providing a right of access to the Federal Court of” Australia on questions of law, the Bill also contains a special provision which will enable certain matters before the Repatriation Review Tribunal involving issues of important principle of general application under the Repatriation Act to be referred to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. This recognises the central nature of that Tribunal within the Commonwealth’s sphere of administrative law.

While incorporating these present-day principles for the review of administrative decisions, the Bill seeks to retain the best elements of the existing system- in particular those elements which confer upon applicants special rights and privileges. For example, the Bill retains the concept embodied in the existing appeal system that an unsuccessful applicant who subsequently collects further evidence which was not placed before the Tribunal at its earlier hearing may have his case re-opened by submitting such further evidence. Similarly, the right of the Repatriation Commission to re-open a case decided unfavourably to an applicant is retained.

On the other hand, the Bill limits the powers of the Repatriation Commission in reviewing cases under section 3 1 of the principal Act. It spells out legislatively the limitations on the Commission’s powers which have developed as a result of interpretations given, over the years, on the existing provisions of the Act. For example, as a result of these amendments, the Commission will be unable to review under section 3 1 an entitlement which has arisen as a result of a successful application by a person to the Tribunal. The fact that these limitations will now be spelled out in the legislation rather than depend upon interpretation is a major improvement in the legislation.

For the benefit of honourable senators, I have distributed an explanatory memorandum on the provisions of the Bill. Honourable senators will note in the schedule to that memorandum a comparative list of the existing provisions and the equivalent provisions which are incorporated in the Bill.

I turn now, Mr President, to the more important provisions of this Bill. The Bill provides for the repeal, with effect from 1 July 1979, of Divisions 2 to 4 inclusive of Part III of the principal Act which make provision for the present Tribunals and deal with appeals to those Tribunals. Clause 26 inserts in the Act a new Part IIIA dealing with the Repatriation Review Tribunal and proceedings before it, a new Part IIIB dealing with references to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and a new Part IIIC dealing with references and appeals to the Federal Court of Australia.

The right to apply to the new Tribunal for review of a decision is set out in the proposed section 107VC in respect of entitlement matters, the proposed section 107VD in respect of assessment matters and the proposed section 107VE in respect of a refusal to grant a Service Pension on the grounds of permanent unemployability. These provisions mirror the present sub-sections 64 ( 1), 67 ( 1) and 70 ( 1) ofthe Act

There will be no formalities in the method of applying for a review. The proposed section 107VF simply requires that an application shall be in writing; set out a statement of the reasons for the application; and be lodged with the Secretary, Department of Veterans’ Affairs. The procedure will be the same as has been successfully operated for the last 50 years, in that the applicant will forward his application for review to the Department in the same way as he has lodged his original claim and his appeal to the Commission. He does not have to search out the Tribunal or a proper authority, such as a registrar, to lodge his application. The Secretary will be required, under the proposed section 107VF, to notify the President of the Tribunal of the lodgment of the application, and subsequently forward to the President all the appropriate documents and records. The provisions in the Bill relating to applications for review on entitlement matters are identical, in effect, to those contained in the present Act.

Under the Bill, the procedure in an assessment hearing will now be the same as that which has been successful in the entitlement area. In the past, the appellant would appear before an Assessment Appeal Tribunal where his case would be reheard both in terms of evidence produced supplemented usually with an ‘onthespot’ medical examination by the medical members of the Tribunal. Under the legislation proposed in this Bill, the Repatriation Review Tribunal will be required to review the decision of the Board and either affirm that decision or set it aside. If it sets the decision aside, the Tribunal will substitute a decision it considers to be in accordance with the Act.

The Bill provides for the Tribunal to consist of a President, a number of deputy presidents and a number of members. The President will be responsible for the efficient operation of the Tribunal. He will be empowered to give directions for the purpose of increasing the efficiency of the operations of the Tribunal and as to the arrangement of its business. He will be required to give directions from time to time as to the persons who are to constitute the Tribunal for the purpose of conducting reviews in pursuance of applications for reviews. In hearing an application for review of a decision, the Tribunal shall consist of the President or a deputy president, a Services member and one other member. When a matter before the Tribunal relates to an application for review of an assessment decision the third member will be a medical practitioner. Services members will be members who are appointed by the Governor-General from lists of names submitted by organisations representing returned soldiers.

The procedures of the Tribunal will be informal, as they now are, and the President will be empowered to give directions as to procedures. In the absence of a particular direction, the presiding member in a particular proceeding may give direction as to the procedures to be followed. I draw the attention of honourable senators, however, to the provisions of the proposed sub-section 107w(3) which requires the President or the presiding member in a particular case, when giving direction as to procedures, to have regard to the need for the proceedings before the Tribunal to be conducted with as little formality and technicality and with as much expedition as the requirements of the Repatriation Act and a proper consideration of the matters before the Tribunal permit. This is an important principle, as it spells out in the legislation the requirement that formal proceedings and technical concepts are to be avoided.

The hearing of a proceeding will be in private, as are the hearings of the present Repatriation Appeal Tribunals. However, the Bill provides that a presiding member at a hearing may permit the hearing or a part of the hearing to take place in public if so requested by the applicant. This is an important departure from the current tribunal arrangements.

The amendment of the principal Act to insert these new provisions in respect of the new Tribunal has necessitated a number of consequential amendments of the Repatriation Act and associated Acts. I have already referred to the amendment of section 3 1 of the Principal Act to specify legislatively the limitations on the Repatriation Commission’s power to review decisions. There are some other consequential amendments including amendments to section 47 of the Principal Act which is, of course, an important provision specifying the principles upon which determining authorities under the Repatriation Act are to reach their decisions. The amendments which have been made to this section are only necessary in order to encompass the new Tribunal within their framework and require the new Tribunal to apply the same principles as are applied by the other determining authorities under the Act. The amendments do not in any way change the original concepts underlying section 47.

Similarly, section 47a of the principal Act has been amended. This section has provided authority for the making of regulations requiring prescribed determining authorities to give reasons for their decisions. With the enactment of this legislation, all determining authorities under the Repatriation Act, Repatriation Boards, the Repatriation Commission and the Repatriation Review Tribunal, will, from 1 July 1979, be required to give reasons for their decisions in all entitlement and assessment cases.

The Act provides for the proposed new Part IIIA constituting the Tribunal to come into operation on the date of Assent, while other amendments contained in this Bill will come into operation on 1 July 1979. This will enable appointments to be made to the new Tribunal and members to take up duty so that the Tribunal will be ready to commence operation on 1 July 1979. This will be the date from which applications for review of decisions by the Tribunal may be made. In the meantime, the present provisions in the principal Act relating to

Entitlement Appeal Tribunals and Assessment Appeal Tribunals remain in operation. The existing Tribunals will continue hearing and disposing of appeals under the Act until 30 June 1 979.

The transitional provisions of the Bill provide that any appeal to the existing Tribunals lodged before 1 July 1979 which has not been disposed of by that date shall be treated as an application to the new Repatriation Review Tribunal for a review of a decision. The Tribunal will be empowered to hear and dispose of those applications without the need for the applicant himself to take any action to preserve his rights.

The provisions of this Bill contain major reforms within an area of Commonwealth responsibility which directly affects many thousands of Australians. In the year 1977-78, 9,772 appeals were lodged with the present Repatriation Appeal Tribunals. I emphasise once again- the system is being reformed to take account of current-day practices and principles in the field of administrative law. But I also emphasise that the essential principles of the Repatriation Appeals System- those that have protected appellants and conferred upon them rights to ensure that every opportunity is given to them to achieve justice- are being retained. As I mentioned earlier, most of these were contained in the original Act of 1929 which introduced the present Tribunal system, over four decades before those same principles became accepted generally by this Parliament. I pay tribute, Mr President, to the far-sighted men of 1929 who developed such an appellate scheme. I wish also to pay tribute, Mr President, to the many men of calibre who over the years have held appointments to the existing Tribunals. Their contribution over 50 years speaks for itself. I am sure that those who are appointed to the new Repatriation Review Tribunal will similarly fill their roles with distinction and honour. Mr President I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Georges) adjourned.

page 600

EXCISE AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 6 March, on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I shall not speak at any length on this Bill. The Opposition is not opposing the measure.

It is a measure which removes the former liability on exporters of excisable goods to submit returns on a consignment basis and instead requires the exporters of excisable goods to submit returns on a time unit basis. It is, I think, selfevident that a change of this nature simplifies the clerical work, both from the point of view of the exporter and from the point of view of the administering authority, and for that reason the Opposition does not oppose the Bill.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– in reply- I thank the Opposition for its support of this Bill. I hope that it will have a speedy passage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 601

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 6 March, on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bill be now read a second lime.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– This is another Bill in a series which has been introduced by the Treasurer (Mr Howard) into the Parliament over the last six months in an attempt to prevent further income tax avoidance. The Bill attempts to deal with three schemes and in each case the Treasurer announced last year that he proposed to act to clamp down on these schemes. Basically the three schemes are the pre-payment of interest and rent, trust stripping and trust income derived from overseas sources. These are measures which apparently have come to the Treasurer’s notice in more recent times and which he believes are either draining off or have the capacity to drain off considerable sums of tax revenue. We in the Opposition will support the legislation and the measures which are aimed at restoring a greater equity amongst Australian taxpayers. I want to look first at some of the general principles before turning to the details that are contained in the legislation.

As I have indicated before, we support the general proposals for clamping down on tax avoidance but as the shadow Treasurer, Mr Willis, has said on a number of occasions in the House of Representatives and as I have indicated on past occasions in this chamber when discussing the earlier tax avoidance proposals, the amendments which are being put forward by the Government are making the Australian tax legislation more and more difficult to comprehend, to the consequent delight of the accounting and legal practitioners who are involved with tax avoidance. It is pertinent that at a recent seminar arranged in Sydney by The Sydney Stock Exchange Ltd, a seminar entitled ‘Share Investment- A Case for Australians’, a member of the board of CSR Ltd and a well known merchant banker in Sydney, David Block, had this to say:

A fully considered and integrated tax system has not been a high priority in Australia. It is fair to say that the law of taxation generally is largely a patchwork of ad hoc political decisions, and even to professionals it is almost entirely unintelligible in its present form.

That was Mr Block’s comment. It is not as if the Government is without advice. The Asprey Committee, which was appointed by the Honourable Billy Snedden, and which took a considerable amount of evidence, published its findings in January 1975. This was followed in May of the same year by the Mathews Committee recommendations on inflation and taxation. These two reports, if they are taken together, provide an excellent means of the Government’s undertaking a sensible and logical rebuilding of the system of personal and corporate taxation which now exists in Australia.

If we examine the Australian system and compare it to the systems existing in North America and some European countries, we find it is unnecessarily complex. The complexity of the legislation is in itself a godsend to tax avoiders, if for no other reason than the fact that the more attempts that are made to cut down on tax avoidance, the greater the opportunity for the development of new tax avoidance schemes. For people who enjoy very high levels of personal income such as sections of the medical and legal professions, it means that a period of two to three years delay and the operation, no matter how limited, of a tax avoidance scheme enable them to reduce their income tax in the short run. It has proved particularly difficult to catch up with many of these tax avoiders and, with the open flaunting of tax avoidance scheme, it is not surprising that the Taxation Office is faced with an unenviable task. The Taxation Office has put its views on this subject and, as Mr Willis said in the House of Representatives during the course of the debate on this Bill, a memorandum which was prepared in November 1977 dealing with tax avoidance by the use of inter vivos trusts, made it abundantly clear that the Commissioner of Taxation was aware of a major area of tax avoidance created by the use of trading and discretionary trusts. The figures prepared from the taxation statistics show that there has been a substantial increase in the number of trusts in operation and that the net income of trusts rose by 83 per cent in the period from 1973-74 to 1975-76.

No doubt the Government is trying to work out how to deal with the question of trusts being used as major tax avoidance devices. There are two approaches which the Government can adopt. Once it has realised this and is prepared to attack trusts, one course of action would be to introduce another complex series of amendments to try to reduce this system of abuse. On past performance, there is little doubt that the tax accountants and lawyers would immediately set to work and find yet another series of loopholes in our taxation system. The second possible course, and one which we have suggested in the past, is for an amendment to be made to section 260 of the Income Tax Assessment Act so that the Taxation Commissioner has adequate scope to drag in any schemes which he believes to be mainly oriented towards tax avoidance.

The course we have adopted has a number of advantages. The Opposition is prepared to concede that in the area of private companies there is a bona fide reason for the existence of a very limited number of trusts. For companies, they are often essential for trading within and outside Australia and in the provision of specialist requirements such as performance bonds. In some cases, trusts are required to hold assets in perpetuity where a family has failed to organise its affairs many years ago and the trust is a vehicle for reorganisation and eventual dissolution of an estate. However, as the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has amply illustrated by his recent decision to dissolve his own family trusts, to retain his land holdings and to invest his funds in government securities, trusts are clearly not essential for the maintenance of the family farm or other family businesses. It would be interesting to know whether all Ministers have in fact adopted the same principle. I will not dwell on that particular aspect of the matter.

The Government so far has shown an unwillingness to tackle the overall design of the tax system in the fashion indicated by the Asprey and Mathews committees, as well as looking sensibly at the various remaining measures of tax avoidance which are well known. It is our view that a more determined effort to have implemented the Mathews and Asprey committee reports would result in the spreading of the burden and the restoration of equity to the Australian system of taxation.

I now turn to the measures which are contained in this Bill. I do not propose to debate them at length because the Treasurer (Mr Howard) in his second reading speech has described the three schemes which this legislation is designed to cut out. Pre-paid interest, pre-paid rent and similar schemes have been widely used in professional areas. For example, in the case of a loan, the scheme involves the taxpayer obtaining a loan, repaying part of it as a pre-payment of interest and then buying back or having a nominee buy back the rights to the loan for the residue together with a small amount of effective interest, or, as some might call it, the lender’s reward for participating in the scheme. Under the previous legislation, the result is that the taxpayer would obtain the pre-payment as a tax deduction. There are no situations in which any bona fide business or professional person could justify the pre-payment of a loan for any other reason than to minimise tax. When the sums become particularly large, the reduction in the amount of tax payable increases correspondingly, particularly when it is taken into account that the present tax rates are progressive and the higher the sums involved the higher the marginal rate would be. But again my concern is that the Taxation Commissioner be able to obtain the information to attack these schemes quickly and consequently be able effectively to enforce the legislation. I suspect that in many cases taxpayers anticipating a further clamp down on tax avoidance schemes have already benefited from these arrangements.

The second scheme which this legislation is designed to attack involves foreign source income of trusts and partnerships. The legislation is mainly aimed at dealing with the decision of the High Court of Australia in the Union Fidelity case of 1969, in which the High Court yet again frustrated the Parliament’s intentions in attempting to spread the burden of income tax raising equitably throughout the community. This legislation now defines a ‘resident trust’ so that a trust can be treated in the same way as a ‘resident taxpayer’. The effect is to ensure that the ultimate beneficiaries of the income received by the trust are taxed on overseas and local income and that non-residents are taxed only on Australian income, thereby avoiding double taxation. However, the Opposition has strong reservations about the effectiveness of this measure because the Government succumbed to limited but powerful pressure not to introduce a proposed foreign tax credit scheme for the taxing of foreign source income. This means that all a trustee with foreign income now has to do is to find some suitable corporate structure to allow him to bring in the funds and thereby reduce the marginal rate of tax.

The third group which the Treasurer is attempting to obliterate comprises the trust stripping schemes. There are several variants of the trust stripping schemes but most of them, as the Treasurer pointed out in his second reading speech, rely upon a nominal beneficiary being introduced into a trust and being made entitled to current income. This in turn relieves the trustee of any tax liability in respect of that income. However, it has been established that the nominal beneficiary may be a charitable institution. The Opposition regards rather seriously the willingness of charitable institutions to allow themselves to be used as vehicles for tax avoidance schemes.

In addition to the measures which have been introduced to deal with the beneficiaries of the trustee arrangements and the trust stripping schemes, an effective deterrent would be to make charitable institutions which engage in these schemes no longer entitled to tax deductibility for donations made to their funds. I suggest this would quickly bring to a halt any willingness on the part of a charitable institution to be used for tax avoidance lurks.

I now wish to raise a number of specific matters dealing with individual clauses of the Bill and their possible consequences. Whilst I do not expect the Government to give me an answer forthwith, I would appreciate an assurance that the Opposition can be provided with some specific answers, perhaps not tonight during this debate, but later on some written answers to the queries I wish to raise. The Bill proposes, among other things, to extend the scope of the trust provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act to foreign source income. Is it intended that foreign source income, to which no beneficiary was entided in the year in which the income was derived, should be taxed if it transpires that the beneficiary to whom it is ultimately distributed in a subsequent year was not a resident of Australia at the time the income was derived, regardless of his residence during the year of distribution? Do the provisions of the amending Bill give effect to a coherent scheme in this regard? In particular, does proposed section 99D effectively free from tax, by means of a refund of tax, accumulated foreign source income distributed to a beneficiary by a resident trust if the beneficiary were not a resident at the time the income was derived by the trust, irrespective of his residence during the year of distribution?

I would again ask: Does proposed section 99B effectively subject to tax accumulated foreign source income distributed by a non-resident trust if the recipient beneficiary is a resident at some time during the year of distribution even if he or she were not in residence at the time the income was derived by the trust? Do these provisions give rise to variable and possibly inequitable results? Could the apparent inconsistency between the sections be exploited for tax avoidance purposes?

Under proposed section 99D of the legislation, the beneficiary who receives a distribution of foreign source income from a resident trust, which has been taxed in the hands of the trustee under section 99 or section 99A, may be entitled to a refund of the tax paid if he were not a resident at the time the income was derived by the trustee. However, the Commissioner is given a wide discretionary power to refuse the refund. I also ask: Is it true that the beneficiary has available no remedy under the Income Tax Assessment Act from such a refusal?

Clause 18 of the Bill is enacting section 100 A to put a stop to trust stripping. I ask again: Is it true that by reason of sub-section 3 the section will not apply to a case where the trustee is a beneficiary? Does this not defeat the intention outlined by the Treasurer on page 31 of his explanatory memorandum to stop the use of loss trust schemes by the tax avoidance industry? Does the Treasurer not realise- I presume he would- that the tax avoidance industry is aware of this loophole? I have no doubt the Treasurer has available to him officers from the Taxation Office who I presume will be well equipped to look into that matter.

The Opposition is also concerned that the Government delayed having these measures introduced. It would have been preferable if they had been passed through the Parliament in last year’s sittings. The delay has provided an opportunity for the tax avoidance industry to read the proposed amendments and to rearrange their schemes accordingly. The system which the Treasurer has used on this occasion to introduce these amendments makes the whole business a cat and mouse game. I suspect that within another two or three months the Treasurer will be telling Parliament once again that the tax avoidance industry has found new loopholes and further legislation will be required.

The legislation is complex. We believe that the intentions of the Government are intentions which we can support. It is evident that the whole of the Parliament, irrespective of which side people are on, will need to be continually alert to new measures and proposals, which will be introduced by persons qualified to do so to get around the taxation system in this country. We will need to be continually alert to ensure that those loopholes are closed. Despite some marginal reservations on matters of detail, we support the Government in this legislation.

Senator MESSNER:
South Australia

– The Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill 1979 which the Senate is debating relates to specific matters which have been raised through investigations by the Taxation Office. It relates to various schemes which I would describe as being nothing more than tax avoidance schemes in the very real sense of the word. Such schemes pervade throughout the financial community. They are schemes thought out by what I would call ‘tax scheme wholesalers’. Their job is to make the maximum amount of money in the shortest possible time. They do not relate at all to the more legitimate systems of the tax planning part of the professional, accounting and legal fraternities. In fact, in recent months these people have created a great deal of difficulty for not only the Government but also practitioners in the legitimate tax planning areas.

Referring to some of the more general principles that have been outlined in the debate in this chamber and also in the House of Representatives, I would like to make specific reference to the comments of Mr Willis in the House of Representatives debate on this Bill. In particular, he went to great pains to quote from a document which somehow fell off the back of a truck in his vicinity. The document was dated 3 November 1977. It apparently is a minute or a document of information passed between two officers in the Taxation Office.

I understand by the statement of the Treasurer (Mr Howard) that such a document did not in fact reach the hands of the Government as such. The point of the memo was to bring to the recipient’s attention the impact of income tax as it affects inter vivos trusts. Mr Willis quoted at great length parts of the document which clearly attacked the then current activity in the development of inter vivos trusts as a legitimate part of the ordinary business planning operation. The first point I would make in regard to this matter is that although the document was dated 3 November 1977, it relied very substantially for the basis of its conclusions on statements made by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation in Adelaide on 3 August 1977 and the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation in Melbourne on 14

July 1977. The dates of those statements are significant insofar as the statements were made before the Budget was brought down on 20 August 1977. In that Budget, as honourable senators would recall, a very substantial change was made to the personal income tax system. The new system of standard rates of tax of 32 per cent for 90 per cent of taxpayers was introduced in legislation that followed the Budget. At the same time the income earned from trusts by beneficiaries of those trusts was treated differently from the income of taxpayers in the normal sense.

Honourable senators will recall that the Budget also mentioned that ordinary taxpayers would have zero rated tax applicable to incomes of $3,750 maximum so that there was no tax applicable in those cases. Yet with that same Budget legislation was introduced which provided that taxpayers receiving income from trusts would have only zero rated incomes starting at $418 in respect of taxpayers who were not presently entitled to income, up to $1,040 per annum in respect of those who were presently entitled to income. In that Budget substantial measures were taken by the Government to restrict the activities of trusts and their proliferation in the community. It is also highly significant that the statement which was incorporated in Hansard by Mr Willis was made up only to 30 June 1976; in other words, to more than a year prior to the date of the Budget in 1977 which so significantly changed the situation as regards the use of inter vivos trusts in tax planning.

Senator Tate:

– Have you more recent statistics?

Senator MESSNER:

– I have not seen them.

Senator Tate:

– How do you know that the situation has significantly changed?

Senator MESSNER:

– I was referring to the fact that the situation has significantly changed insofar as there has been a very severe restriction on the incentive to use trusts in this way by the amendments in that legislation in 1977. As for the use of particular statistics, I do not believe that Mr Willis has made his point by virtue of the issues which I have just raised.

I will now discuss some of the reasons that inter vivos trusts have become such a significant tax avoidance device in the last few years. I think most of the growth in this area probably goes back to the 1972-73 period when, because of the rapid inflation that we all experienced, it was noted that the incomes of ordinary salary earners and businesses expanded so rapidly that without income tax indexation there was the application in a geometric way of rates of tax that would not have applied had they been adjusted by tax indexation. Of course, the Fraser Government introduced income tax indexation in 1976 after it had come to power to stop the rip-off of taxpayers of all descriptions that occurred during that period of rapid inflation. The point I make is that the rapid growth in tax being charged on taxpayers during that period was in fact taking far more tax from all classes of taxpayers than would have been tolerated prior to that period. As there had been very little change in the rate of income tax applicable to companies, people of all descriptions logically planned their affairs at that time in such a way as to take advantage of companies, but because of the rapidly rising incomes caused through inflation there was an obvious incentive to enter into income splitting devices. Consequently, trusts proliferated at that time and their number grew faster as the rate of inflation grew faster.

The most significant period of growth in the development of the use of these trusts occurred following the 1975 Hayden Budget which introduced into the taxation system the concept of concessional rebates. This opened up opportunities to expand the number of beneficiaries who could earn zero rated or very low rated incomes and consequently gave a great incentive to taxpayers to split their incomes further than they might otherwise have done. I mention these things not in an attempt to embarrass the Labor Party over the effects of decisions taken in 1973-75 period but to show that the tax avoidance industry is not something that has suddenly grown under the feet of the Fraser Government, that it was very significantly due, as I have demonstrated, to rapid inflation in the period from 1972 to 1975 and that it was encouraged and not diminished by any actions of the Whitlam Government during its period of office. That is not to say that action should not have been taken earlier in respect of particular matters, but I support thoroughly the principles of this Bill and of others that have set out a means by which there is to be curtailment of the various tax avoidance schemes of an insidious nature thathavegrownupinthecommunity.

As we have often done previously in debates on Bills of this kind, I draw again a distinction between non-commercial activity in tax avoidance, such as the sorts of schemes which are countered by this Bill, and the legitimate tax planning area where people are entitled, as I believe all honourable senators agree, to plan within the law as it is at the moment to arrange their affairs in such a way that they minimise the effect of taxation. Those two vital areas, I think, need to be identified and made distinct.

As for the use of trusts per se, I think we have to accept that trusts have been in existence for probably the best part of 500 or 600 years and that they serve legitimate purposes in many cases. We have heard a great deal of political discussion about them in recent times until they have received a dirty name. In fact anybody who has a trust is often looking over his shoulder these days for various attacks that might come from any quarter. But the point about trusts is that there is a legitimate operation for them insofar as, as is well known, people under the age of majority, 18 years, are not able to sign contracts which bind them to various agreements and are not allowed to own shares in companies. Consequently, the use of a trust in these circumstances is a legitimate commercial activity. In trying to catch the fly we must not use the baseball bat to flatten it entirely. The fact is that trusts are a part of commercial law and have been a part of our community for many years. We have only to consider the situation as regards deceased estates to realise the very important part that they play in the affairs of our community.

As regards the so-called legislation by Press release which has been decried in some sections of the Press, I have only this to say: I believe it is of the utmost importance that if a tax avoidance scheme is identified by the Australian Taxation Office, it ought to make its position clear to the public as soon as possible, through the Treasurer by a statement in Parliament or outside Parliament, so that action will be taken and so that the tax planners and others who are engaged in this industry know that after that time they are entering into arrangements at their own risk. Those issues would have been identified. If when the Bill passed they found that it did more than it had been expected to do, as identified in the Press release, it seems to me that this could not be the ground for a legitimate complaint. They were on notice from the time of receiving the Press statement or from the time the statement was made in Parliament.

Senator Wriedt:

– You are giving an air of legitimacy to these schemes. You are virtually inviting people to them and giving them protection.

Senator MESSNER:

-By making a Press statement?

Senator Wriedt:

– Yes.

Senator MESSNER:

– I fail to see your point. Surely what we are doing in encouraging people to ensure that they take note of these schemes when they are announced. The general matters that are before us are of deep concern in the community and I believe that the Government should be commended for the attempts that it has made to close the various loopholes which have appeared in the law, although no doubt from time to time new loopholes will be exploited by people. Nevertheless, this Bill is a step in the right direction and continues the determined attack on this problem that the Government now has in train. It will lead to success in the long run. I support the Bill.

Senator TATE:
Tasmania

-As the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt) has indicated, the Opposition certainly does not oppose this legislation. The Bill is designed to block off tax avoidance schemes involving the prepayment of interest and rent, trust stripping and trust income derived overseas. The thrust of this legislation- its purpose- is entirely in harmony with the policy of the Australian Labor Party, that is, that a tax system should be constructed, or at least operated, in a way which distributes the tax burden equitably amongst the community. Quite to the contrary, the present income tax legislation has created a very baffling and unjust situation which is merely tinkered with by this Bill. I do not say that the Bill is mere tokenism. It is effective in respect of the matter with which it deals and the Opposition should commend the Treasurer (Mr Howard) for galvanising the community, in a way which hitherto Treasurers have not done, into some sort of assault on the privileged tax avoiders in our community. I call them tax avoiders and not tax evaders.

Some members of the community and even some members of Parliament, such as the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), take the view that there is a distinction between tax evasion and tax avoidance. They suppose that tax evasion is illegal, a sort of nasty and dirty activity such as not letting the Commissioner of Taxation know that one is earning money from a second job. On the other hand, tax avoidance is pictured as something which it is everybody’s right to engage in to find a way around the present tax laws. It is said that tax evasion ought to be dealt with severely by the community whereas tax avoidance perhaps ought to be regarded as a legitimate activity of those who are facing what appears to them to be an overpayment into the country’s Treasury. This Parliament has never taken that view. In fact, in the well known section 260 of the Income Tax Assessment Act the point is made very clearly that tax avoidance in Australia is illegal. That section was designed to give to the Taxation Commissioner a catch-all provision enabling him to tax these tax avoiding schemes. Any arrangement made to avoid the liabilities of taxation can be ignored by the Commissioner for the purposes of assessing tax. There was a time when, in fact, the Commissioner could very safely invoke the power given to him.

This situation has changed drastically in recent years because of the activity of the High Court of Australia. The High Court is a non-elected bench of justices who are politically irresponsible in a strict sense in that they do not have to answer to anyone for their activity no matter how devastating that activity may be within the community. There is no doubt that that Court, particularly under Chief Justice Barwick -

Senator Harradine:

– Judge MurphySenator TATE- To the contrary, as I will point out in a moment. I was attempting to point out to honourable senators who might care to be informed that the High Court under Chief Justice Barwick has taken aparticularly legalistic approach to section 260 which has enabled tax avoidance schemes to prosper. In fact, since sitting on that bench Mr Justice Murphy, who was once in this chamber, has taken the view that tax avoidance provisions such as section 260 of the Income Tax Assessment Act ought to be interpreted and applied according to their intent and not according to the strict legalism which commends itself at present to a bare majority of the High Court. In doing this, he is in line with the tradition of legal interpretation of over 400 years. In 1560 the court of common law- the English Court of Exchequer- pronounced the view that courts ought to be ‘guided by the intent of the legislature, which they have always taken according to the necessity of the matter and according to that which is consonant to reason and good discretion’.

Unfortunately, the lessons which that court put forward in 1560 have been forgotten in the 1970s by the Australian High Court which, instead of trying to interpret the tax avoidance provisions in taxation legislation in accordance with their reason and intention, has adopted a very legalistic approach which has allowed these avoidance schemes to proliferate. Therefore, in the case of the Federal Commissioner of Taxation v. South Australian Battery Makers Pty Ltd, Mr Justice Murphy demonstrated some of the skills which have commended him to so many Australian people. He had a good common sense approach. The High Court itself must take a large share of the responsibility for creating a situation in which there is a general threat to the equity of our entire taxation system and a real threat to Government revenue. Let there be no mistake about it. I believe that there is a real threat to the cohesion of our society posed by the proliferation of the tax avoidance schemes that we have seen in recent years.

The fact is that the tax burden in our community has been shifting inexorably away from the professional classes towards the payasyouearn taxpayer, the ordinary wage or salary earner who does not have access to the type of advice which enables him to take advantage of the schemes which are attacked in the Bill before us tonight. That creates a situation within the community where many persons feel that they are paying tax unnecessarily while others avoid paying tax by taking the advice of brains which have been perverted to serve the selfish interests of those who do not want to contribute to the national coffers. This creates a feeling of unfairness. There can be no doubt that because of such schemes the revenue has suffered to the tune of several hundreds of millions of dollars.

What this means is that some people who take advantage of our democratic and parliamentary system and who live in a representative democracy with all the advantages which it confers on them, are not prepared to pay for the services which they expect this Parliament to provide in the community. I believe that in both those ways the High Court has attacked the necessary cohesion which is required in the tax paying community for a sense of fairness to pervade and, therefore, for the money to flow freely as it ought in a situation where fairness is thought to prevail in the Treasury. A major factor in the inequity of which I speak has been the proliferation of quite artificial trading trusts which were condemned in the Treasury on 3 November 1977 to which attention has already been drawn. I am not going to elaborate on that. I believe it must still be the case that such trusts are still attractive as a means of income splitting. The Opposition is sorry to see that in this legislation there is no indication of a fully fledged attack being mounted on this device and its use in an artificial way.

On the whole, the Opposition does not wish to appear inactive, nor is it inactive with regard to this Bill. We think it contains some very good proposals but we have some general constructive views which we wish to put to the Government and to the community in relation to tax avoidance schemes. Firstly, we say that there ought to be a very fundamental restructuring of section 260 of the Act which attempts to outlaw tax avoidance schemes.

Senator Watson:

– That section is being examined at the moment.

Senator TATE:

– We may hear of that from the Minister. We need to have a provision which effectively gives the commissioner a catch-all reply to the tax avoidance profession. Ad hoc dealings with abuses, as I brought to the attention of the Government, await analysis over a period of time and just lead to a cat and mouse game between the tax avoidance and revenue. A sort of sporting contest develops between the two. The only people who can take advantage of the situation are those privileged taxpayers who can afford to pervert some of the best brains of our country in the accountancy and legal profession into serving thier selfish interests against the community’s general interest in having a fair taxation system with a reasonable flow of money to revenue. What we need- and I am pleased if it is the case, as Senator Watson has indicated- is a new type of section 260, not only in order to bring clarity into the situation where the High Court has sowed anarchy and confusion but also to enable this Parliament once again to state quite clearly and firmly that in its view tax avoidance schemes ought to be outlawed. We ought to be able to say quite simply that, when a transaction is entered into with the dominant intention objectively viewed of avoiding, evading or defeating the provisions of taxation legislation or altering the incidence of taxation, such a transaction should be ineffective as a way of avoiding taxation. If we could say that once again as a Parliament it would be, I believe, a very foolhardy High Court which would then attempt to water down by legalistic interpretation this new statement of the firm view of the elected representatives of the ordinary taxpayers in this country. To that end, the Opposition presents two suggested drafts of a new section 260. 1 seek leave to have those suggested redrafts of section 260 incorporated in Hansard.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Davidson)- Have the appropriate arrangements been made?

Senator TATE:

– I showed the drafts to the Attorney-General (Senator Durack). He agreed to their incorporation.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows-

page 608

SUGGESTED REDRAFT OF SECTION 260 OF THE INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT

Section 260

  1. In this section ‘transaction’ includes any contract, agreement or arrangement, whether in writing or otherwise which is entered into at any time.
  2. The Commissioner may disregard any transaction where he is of the opinion that the transaction was entered into with the dominant intention, objectively viewed, of avoiding, evading or defeating the provisions of this Act or of altering the incidence of taxation.
  3. In determining whether the requisite intention was present the Commissioner shall have regard to whether the trasaction was explicable by reference to ordinary business or family dealings.
  4. Where the Commissioner has disregarded a transaction under sub-section 2 he may assess the parties to the transaction in such a manner as reflects the real economic effects of the transaction.

page 608

SUGGESTED REDRAFT OF SECTION 260 OF THE INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT

Section 260

This redraft should be enacted in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1 936-75, the Estate Duty Assessment Act 1 94 1 -67, and the Gift Duty Assessment Act 1941-72.

  1. 1 ) Taxation avoidance transactions shall be illegal.

  2. A ‘taxation avoidance transaction’ shall be any transaction:

    1. a ) which has the effect of diminishing or postponing any liability imposed by this Act or any possibility of future liability which may be imposed by this Act, and
    2. the particular steps by which that transaction was carried into effect reasonably raise the inference that the transaction was artificial when compared with the steps normally used to achieve substantially the same non-taxation effects, and
    3. one reasonable hypothesis explaining the artificiality of the particular steps by which the transaction was carried into effect was that a reasonable man in the position of the taxpayer would use the particular steps in the transaction in order to bring about the effects described in section 260 (2) (a), and
    4. which is not excluded from the operation of section 260 by section 260(4).
  3. This section shall override all other provisions in this Act.

  4. (a) In interpreting the provisions of this Act proper weight shall be given to the objective of preventing taxation avoidance transactions.

    1. Where there is a conflict between the objective of preventing a taxation avoidance transaction and the economic, social or administrative objectives of other provisions of this Act the Commissioner shall in resolving such a conflict give proper weight to the objectives of this section.
    2. Notwithstanding section 260 (1) to (3) but subject to section 260 (4) (a) and (b), where the consequences of applying section 260 conflict with the consequences of applying any other provisions in this Act and the inference can reasonably be drawn from that other provision that the carrying out of the transaction in that particular way was necessary to satisfy the economic, social or administrative objectives of that provision the taxation avoidance transaction shall not be illegal.

  5. In drawing the inference that there was a taxation avoidance transaction the Commissioner shall have regard to the following matters:

    1. whether the transaction might reasonably be expected to have been carried into effect or carried into effect using those particular steps if it had not had a tax diminution effect;
    2. whether a transaction having its non-taxation effects or substantially the same non-taxation effects might reasonably be expected to have been carried into effect in that way by persons dealing at arms length or bona fide fulfilling the normal family obligations of the taxpayer having regard to the options open to the taxpayer when he carried out the transaction and all the circumstances;
    3. the tax diminution resulting from the particular steps used in the taxation avoidance transaction when compared with a hypothetical transaction having the effects described in section 260 (5) (b);
    4. the income, profit or other gain which might reasonably be expected from the taxation avoidance transaction and the difference between such income, profit or other gain and a hypothetical transaction having the effects described in section 260 (5) (b);
    5. how unusual the steps in the taxation avoidance transaction are when compared with those in section 260 (5)(a) and having regard to all the circumstances; and
    6. the extent of control the taxpayer enjoyed before and after the transaction over the subject matter of the transaction.

  6. (a) Where there is a taxation avoidance transaction the Commissioner may but shall not be bound to treat all or any part of the taxation avoidance transaction as void for the purposes of this Act.

    1. Where there is a taxation avoidance transaction the Commissioner may for purposes of this Act treat all or any part of the taxation avoidance transaction as effective or he may notionally construct any new steps in the taxation avoidance transaction for the purposes of this section.
    2. Notwithstanding anything in section 260 ( 1 ) to section 260 (6)(b) the Commissioner shall as a result of his annihilation and reconstruction of the taxation avoidance transaction or any part thereof produce a taxable income which having regard to the matters in section 260 (5) and having regard to the non-taxation effects of the transaction and all the circumstances is not unreasonable and counteracts the taxation advantages of the taxation avoidance transaction.
    3. Notwithstanding anything in section 260 (6)(a), (b) or (c), the Commissioner shall not treat any part of the transaction as void if the amount of tax diminished or postponed is not a material amount.

  7. In any proceedings in which a taxpayer is appealing from a determination of the Commissioner under section 1 87 of this Act:

    1. the onus of establishing that there was a taxation avoidance transaction shall lie on the Commissioner; and
    2. the onus of establishing that the taxable income resulting from the operation of section 260 (6) is unreasonable shall lie on the taxpayer.

  8. (a) The Commissioner shall supply to the taxpayer the basis on which he arrives at a new taxable income including the steps of the reconstructed transaction and the calculation of any approximations made in achieving the new taxable income.

    1. In supplying the basis on which he arrives at a new taxable income under section 260 (8)(a), the Commissioner shall not be required to use technical or legal language.
    2. It shall not be a ground for reversing the basis on which the Commission arrives at a new taxable income under section 260 (8)(a) that the grounds he states are inaccurate or do not justify his decision so long as all the grounds read together justify a taxable income which is not substantially different from the taxable income assessed.
  9. In this section: diminishing’ includes lowering, avoiding, defeating or relieving, whether directly or indirectly, and whether wholly or in part; non-taxation effects’ means the effects of the transaction other than the effects defined in section 260 (2)(a); and transaction’ means anything or things done or omitted to be done whether involving conscious action or not and whether enforceable or not by any person or persons whether together or separately and whether in concert or not. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing it shall include any understanding, arrangement, agreement, plan, contract, conveyance, transfer, assignment, grant, creation, settlement, delivery, allotment of shares or debentures or convertible notes, variation of share or debenture rights, release, surrender or failure, renunciation, nonenforcement of any right for a period exceeding that which would normally be expected for the non-taxation effects of such non-enforcement, abandonment, effluxion of limitation period, exercise of any power, option or other right, or the failure to use a power, right or vote which would prevent such effects as aforesaid.
Senator TATE:

– Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. That is an instance of the Opposition trying to take a constructive attitude to this topic and putting on the public record its views as to how section 260 might be redrafted to state this Parliament’s view which is indicated in a piecemeal way in the Bill before us.

The second point that the Opposition has been making over the last six to eight months is that the Treasurer should be stronger in his adoption of retrospective effect in laws catching up with these attempts to avoid proper payments to revenue. The parasites in our community need to be made to understand that legislation such as we are passing tonight will be backdated to the first day on which the Treasurer announces his decision to deal with a particular scheme. In this case, the Bill tonight is dealing with matters which the Treasurer said he would deal with on 19 April, some 10 months ago.

The Opposition thinks that we can be more robust than that and that such legislation ought to be backdated to the beginning of the financial year in which the income concerned was being earned, in this case for example to 1 July last year. Even more, it may be that in certain instances the legislation ought to be backdated to the date of the creation of a scheme. There have been suggestions that this is incompatible with the ordinary liberties of citizens- taxpayers- but this is clearly compatible with the practice in a country which has given us our normal sense of abhorrence for retrospective legislation. I refer to the United Kingdom.

In relation to these matters in England both the judiciary and the Parliament have recognised that the whole of society- its vitality, its provisioning with funds, its sense of fairnessand this whole bundle of matters concerned with taxation are at stake and of far greater moment than the usual stricture against retrospectivity. It is well known that the Master of the Rolls, Mr Justice Green in 1942 indicated the judiciary’s view that retrospective legislation in regard to tax matters was compatible with the normal protection by common law judges of citizens against legislation of a penal character. Of course, United Kingdom budgets very commonly contain the sorts of provisions with which we are dealing tonight. What the Opposition says is that the Treasurer ought not be afraid to be more robust in his approach and to backdate this legislation at least to the beginning of the financial year in which the income concerned was being earned. We need to face this concerted attack on our revenue with every weapon at our disposal and we should not be afraid to use retrospectivity in this narrow but vital area.

Thirdly, I come to the question of the advertising of these schemes. I must admit that my comments reflect a rather more personal obsession. I am filled with disgust every time I see an advertisement promoting these tax avoidance schemes. I remember that last year, on the very day when a prominent national newspaper contained an article about further measures to block tax avoidance schemes, it also contained an advertisement which promoted such schemes. The main headline in the newspaper- I think it was the Australian- read: ‘Howard’s assault on tax avoidance game’. However, on page three of that newspaper one found an advertisement with the heading: ‘Total Tax Wipe-Out’. The advertisement went on to state that a particular publication:

  1. . has first details of a new tax plan which can totally wipe out income tax.

It can be used by salaried executives, professionals, companies and almost any income situation.

It is one of the neatest and safest tax plans we have seen. It is so good it may possibly outstrip the legendary Curran scheme.

And so it went on. The promoters had the gall to put that advertisement in the national Press. But in my view it is more than gall or daring. It is totally immoral. It is against public morality. It is subversive of good government in that it is a direct attack on revenue and on the sense of fairness within the community. We should drive the promoters of these schemes- the advertiserswell underground. I believe that there is power within the Commonwealth to ensure that between the tax power, the broadcasting power and the interstate trade and commerce power we could prohibit this sort of anti-social advertising.

Those are three ways in which the Opposition believes that in general the approach of the Government could be strengthened. But on the whole we regard this Bill, whilst it is piecemeal, as being a measure which we endorse and support. That being the case, I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I thank the Opposition for its support of the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill and I thank the speakers for the comments they have made on it. The Bill relates to tax avoidance and provides an amendment to the Income Tax Assessment Act. Many matters were referred to by honourable senators. I think each honourable senator who spoke made comments with regard to section 260 of the Act. Senator Wriedt spoke of this section, as did Senator Tate. I think in general we accept that the Opposition has raised the question of whether an effective section 260 could be written. I note that Senator Tate incorporated two suggested amendments which he believes would cover this matter. It is the expressed intention of the Government, as the Treasurer (Mr Howard) has indicated on numerous occasions, that if possible this section should be rewritten. It is well known that we are not able to rewrite it quickly or perhaps as rapidly as we may wish. I am sure that the Treasurer will be interested to see the proposal that Senator Tate has incorporated in Hansard.

For some time the Government has been engaged internally in examining the possibility of effectively rewriting this section. I advise the Senate that that work is proceeding and, if a satisfactory result can be produced, a proposal for action will come before the Government and will be considered. The Treasurer has made it clear, and I repeat it on his behalf, that there is no back-tracking on the part of the Government in looking at the possibility of rewriting section 260. I think it is known from the studies that have been made by the High Court of Australia in the interpretations of the existing section 260 that this is not an easy task. I make no comment on the matters that were raised by Senator Tate with regard to the legalistic approach which has been taken by the High Court as distinct from what he would consider preferable in that intent and reason should have had a greater emphasis in the judgments that have come from the High Court. However, I think it would be accepted by all honourable senators that section 260 is complex. I simply reiterate that the Government is having work done on that. We thank the Opposition for the proposed amendments which were incorporated in Hansard by Senator Tate.

Senator Wreidt made comments with regard to proposed section 100A(3) which relates to trust stripping and which excludes from the operation of the section trust income to which a beneficiary is presently entitled in the capacity of a trustee of another trust. It is said that this will leave a loophole in the amending legislation that can be exploited by introducing as a beneficiary a sub-trust that has accumulated losses. I respond to Senator Wriedt ‘s comments about that proposed section by saying that the question of whether legislation should be introduced to prevent trafficking in trust losses for tax avoidance purposes needs to be examined carefully, but it is not within the intended scope of the amendments contained in this Bill to deal with that wide subject. Complex and comprehensive antiavoidance legislation has been passed in recent months to deal with trafficking in past and current tax losses of companies. If on examination there is found to be a need to introduce similar legislation in relation to trusts that will be done.

Senator Wriedt said also that the delay in introducing this legislation had given the tax avoidance industry the time and opportunity to change its arrangements to seek new tax avoidance measures. I point out that the amendments contained in this legislation apply from the date of the Treasurer’s announcement on 11 June 1978. Senator Wriedt made comments also with regard to union fidelity provisions. I believe that he asked the specific question of whether a beneficiary has any remedy under the Income Tax Assessment Act if the Commissioner of Taxation refuses to refund an amount to which a beneficiary believes he is entitled under proposed section 99D. I am advised that no specific remedy is provided in the Income Tax Assessment Act in these cases. The taxpayer would have civil remedies lying outside that Act to press for such a claim, as he would in other disputes about refunds.

The question of whether any anomoly arises out of what has been put as apparently different approaches in proposed new sections 99B and 99d was also raised. I am advised that there is no anomoly. However, the provisions are quite complex and in order to do justice to the question I will act, as Senator Wriedt suggested, and see that he is provided with a written answer which will fully cover the points raised by him in the query he raised on those proposed sections.

The matter of charitable institutions and the fact that they have lent themselves to a tax avoidance scheme were raised also. It will be recalled that on 1 1 June the Treasurer spoke on this matter and in his statement he said that in the course of dealing with prepaid interest, prepaid rent and similar schemes he had registered serious concern that tax exempt institutions should allow themselves to be used as vehicles for tax avoidance schemes. In case that warning has not been heard, the Treasurer wanted to place on record that the Government will not be able to stand by if exempt bodies continue to allow their privileged status to be abused. In other words, the Treasurer has given a clear indication that the Governmentwill act if there is a continuation of these practices by charitable bodies enjoying tax freedom. As I understand it, no new schemes have been detected since the date of the Treasurer’s statement along those lines.

Senator Messner referred to an article in the Australian Financial Review of 5 March. I respond to his remarks and, I think, the remarks of other speakers by saying that this document was an Australian Taxation Office internal paper addressed by an officer to his supervisor. It had not been directed to the Government, and I have been informed that of the eight recommendations in the paper some were alternatives. The subject matters of some of the recommendations have been attended to in one way or another. Others were not seen to be entirely practical solutions, having regard to the complexity of the subjects to which they related. Not all trusts are set up for tax avoidance purposes, but those that are have ordinarily been set up in much the same way as those devoid of that purpose. It cannot justifiably be claimed that there has been a lack of activity by the Government in the curtailment of tax avoidance through trust arrangements.

Senator Tate made comments with respect to retrospectivity. I think he, in line with some of his colleagues, said that there should be a greater use of retrospective legislation. I will draw his comments to the attention of the Treasurer and the Government. But I do want to say that in general termsthe Government has a different view from that of the Opposition. The Government generally supports the view that retrospective legislation should not be used. There are exceptions, and they have been alluded to in previous debates in Parliament. I will not weary the Senate by speaking about them again. I simply say that the remarks of the Opposition on this matter have been noted. I thank the Senate for its support of this legislation, and 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 611

FOREIGN ANTITRUST JUDGMENTS (RESTRICTION OF ENFORCEMENT) BILL 1979

Bill returned from the House of Representatives without amendment.

page 611

ADJOURNMENT

Civil Liberties in Queensland- Answers to Questions Without Notice

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! It being 1 1 p.m., in conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate I formally put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

– Over recent years there has been much debate on the erosion of civil liberties in Queensland. Tonight I intend to outline to the Senate a personal incident which adds something to that debate. Even though the incident involved a member of this chamber, namely me, it had not originally been my intention to bring it to the notice of the Senate. However, as the Queensland Police Department took 2½ months to show me the courtesy of informing me what had occurred following a complaint I made I decided to outline some of the details to the Senate.

Last year on Thursday 7 December a protest rally was held in Brisbane. It was a protest against the current Queensland street march legislation. The protest took the form of a rally in King George Square followed by a march through city streets. Although I had, and still have, sympathy with the motives of those who participated, I did not join in the actual street march. This was a conscious decision on my part- a decision which I am ready to debate if necessary at an appropriate time. Nevertheless I did stay while the march proceeded so that I could observe what occurred. There were two principal reasons for this. First, when recent marches had been held in Brisbane I was cut of the city and thus unable to observe what had occurred. I subsequently viewed violence on television but I had not been on the scene to observe what actually did occur. Secondly, I can recall demonstrations in Brisbane some time ago when I observed illegal actions by police officers. On these occasions I was a public servant attached to the Queensland Police Department and thus I was not able to make any public statement about my observations. I wanted to see for myself whether similar police behaviour still existed and, if it did, make some record of it. For this purpose I carried writing material and a camera.

At one stage I was standing on the footpath in Albert Street between Queen and Adelaide Streets. On the road itself both police officers and demonstrators were pushing and shoving. Most of the 346 people taken into custody on that day were arrested at this stage. At one stage I noted a young police officer using what I considered to be undue force against someone whom he had no intention of arresting. Because of my lack of photographic skill I was not able to take a photograph of his action. The melee made it impossible to do so. I did, however, record the police officer’s number. Another police officer saw me record the number and called it out. From the way the officer whose number I recorded then moved it appeared obvious that he realised that I had information which would record his identity. He moved towards me.

I was still on the footpath. He commenced to push me vigorously and ordered me to move on. It was almost impossible to obey his order because of the pressure of the crowd. I told him he had no right to push me around. He countered by asking why. I checked a natural impulse to inform him that I was a member of the Federal Parliament- I thought there would be no easier way of ending up in the watch house. I simply told him I was not a participant in the demonstration. His vigorous pushing continued. At one stage he actually held on to me and ordered me in no uncertain terms to move on. I did so. I had an important family engagement that evening and I had no intention of spoiling my plans because of a belligerent police officer. I do point out however that technically I was assaulted. In case I have not made myself clear, I state clearly that the assault was not feather duster treatment. I have a witness who can confirm that parts of my body were still marked from the assault the next day. If I had done to that police officer what he did to me, the full weight of the law would have been brought down upon me. From his actions, however, it appears that he believes he is above the law.

I reported the incident and made a formal complaint about three minutes later to a senior member of the Force, a person whom I had known personally while working in the Queensland Police Department. His initial response was that I must be joking. When he was assured that I was not joking, he took details, including the police officer’s number and said that my complaint would be passed on. I think, but I am not certain, that he suggested that someone would call on me to obtain further details. Perhaps naively, I expected a call the following day, Friday. This, however, did not occur. I did not expect to be approached on Saturday or Sunday but by Monday afternoon when no approach had been made I rang the office of the Commissioner of Police. I was connected to the office of the Deputy Commissioner who, in no uncertain terms, told me that my complaint was due to political bias and unless I had supporting evidence nothing would be done.

It was obvious to me that if I had not telephoned no action would have been taken on my complaint. The clear message which came from the Deputy Commissioner was that his police officers could do no wrong. Finally, at my insistence- reluctantly on his part- the Deputy Commissioner agreed to send an inspector to see me. The inspector duly arrived. I outlined what had occurred and said that I did not want trouble for the police officer concerned. However, I did want an assurance that this young police officer would be counselled and would be told clearly that the behaviour that he had exhibited was not acceptable. One of the reasons I have not mentioned the young police officer’s name or number is that I do not want his identity revealed unless that is the wish of his superiors.

It would have been an easy matter for me to obtain the officer’s name but I did not consider that necessary. I simply wanted him to be informed that Queensland citizens do have rights and that a police officer has no right to enter into unlawful physical contact. I was assured that this would occur, that the police officer would be counselled and that I would be advised accordingly. It was only last week that I was advised that the police officer had been spoken to. If I had been waiting for an apology I would have been disappointed. No apology has yet been forthcoming.

When I was speaking to the inspector who came to see me I thought that there may be some photographic evidence of the incident. I was not able to offer it to him because at that time I had not had the opportunity to seek it out. However, I was later able to obtain a photograph which was taken by a photographer from the Australian. Thanks to his quick reflexes I now have a photographic record of the particular police officer holding me. I do not think that the police officer can be readily identified by this photograph. Thus, I intend to seek leave to table it. In that way, it will become part of the record of this chamber. Incidentally, I did send a photocopy of the photograph to the Commissioner of Police, the Deputy Commissioner and the police inspector who came to see me. The photograph shows quite clearly that I was held and it also illustrates the crowd to which I referred earlier. I seek leave to table this photograph.

Leave granted.

Senator COLSTON:

-As I mentioned when I commenced speaking this evening, I have outlined this incident to the Senate to illustrate what can and what does occur in Queensland. Not only was the young police officer at fault, so too were those people who were prepared to cover up the incident because of my supposed lack of evidence. If by revealing the circumstances of the incident I happen to curb some of the illegal tendencies which are exhibited by some members of the Queensland Police Force, my report to the Senate this, evening will have been worth while.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I rise tonight for the same two reasons as I rose last night. I rose to speak on the adjournment last night because I failed to get the call for a question yesterday. I have to do the same tonight because I failed again today to be called at Question Time -

Senator Cavanagh:

– Is this prejudice?

Senator McLAREN:

– I am not going to say it is prejudice. I may have been unlucky or the Deputy President may not have seen me. However, today I expected to get an answer to the question of which I gave Senator Carrick notice last night. I expected an answer because at page 488 of yesterday’s Hansard Senator Carrick, in answering Senator Mason, is reported as saying:

May I extend now to Senator Mason the invitation which is readily availed of by Australian Labor Party senators -

Of course I disputed that. Not all Australian Labor Party senators are in the habit of giving Senator Carrick notice of our questions. Senator Carrick went on:

If he or Senator Chipp requests detailed information which may not be available to me and if he lets me know before Question Time I will get the information and give it to him at Question Time, at the risk of being accused of answering Dorothy Dixers. I make that offer to him quite clearly.

I took Senator Carrick at his word. During the adjournment debate last night I raised a question in relation to a statement that Senator Carrick made to the Parliament on Thursday of last week. I quote again words which I used last night. As reported on page 396 of Hansard he said:

A public inquiry was held into the allegations against Mr Lynch and Mr Lynch was exonerated

Senator Carrick is clearly recorded in Hansard as saying that a public inquiry was held. I asked him a series of questions last night. I do not need to repeat them but I will refer to them briefly as I do not wish to delay the Senate. Perhaps Senator Carrick may have the answers for me tonight because I noticed that he came into the Chamber with a sheaf of papers. I want to know the following: What were the terms of reference of the public inquiry? On what date was that inquiry advertised in the daily newspapers, as is the usual practice when a public inquiry is conducted by this Parliament? Who was the judge or other person appointed to conduct the public inquiry? Is there a transcript of the evidence, and will it be made available to the Parliament? It is just over 24 hours since I gave notice to Senator Carrick of those questions. To my knowledge he has not given the answers in the Senate today. The reason I rise tonight is to ask Senator Carrick again whether he will verify the statement he made in the Senate last Thursday that in fact a public inquiry was conducted into the affairs of Mr Lynch and that Mr Lynch was exonerated. I ask Senator Carrick again whether he can give conclusive proof to the Senate that a public inquiry was conducted. If not, will he tell the Senate that he misled the Senate last Thursday when he told us a public inquiry was conducted into the affairs of Mr Lynch and that Mr Lynch was exonerated by that public inquiry?

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– Two matters have been raised tonight. I am not able to comment on the matter raised by Senator Colston because it concerns another jurisdiction, that of the Queensland Police Force and the Queensland Government. I take it that quite appropriately and quite properly Senator Colston has used the forms of the House to place on record an incident about which he feels aggrieved. My understanding last night was that Senator McLaren would ask me some questions today.

Senator McLaren:

– No, I put them on record last night.

Senator CARRICK:

-Put on record last night was the fact that he intended to ask me questions today.

Senator Cavanagh:

– He could not get the call.

Senator CARRICK:

-Members of the Opposition had better make up their minds. Whether or not Senator McLaren could get the call is another matter. Had he asked me a question today I would have responded. Senator McLaren challenges the fact that Labor Party members give me prior indication of questions. Yesterday I answered a question from a Labor Party senator who had given me, quite appropriately, prior indication that he would ask the question. I gave him information. I think that ought to be adequate response. From time to time individual senators, including senators from independent parties, give me and other Ministers indications of questions they intend asking. We regard it as a service. We take it that individual senators want authentic information. We will continue to do so. Incidentally, whilst I am on my feet, I want to correct an answer I gave to Senator Cavanagh. I want to correct it in a particular. He is entitled to that correction.

Senator Cavanagh:

– You have been giving me wrong information.

Senator CARRICK:

– No, not in that sense. I said a statement had been made and had been incorporated in Hansard. Indeed it was made but it was not incorporated in Hansard. I will have it recorded in Hansard. This morning Senator Cavanagh, quite rightly, by interjection corrected me. I went away and checked the matter.

Senator Cavanagh:

– That is only another one of your mistaken answers.

Senator CARRICK:

-If I find that I am mistaken I will quite cheerfully acknowledge it. The fact is that Senator Cavanagh asked me about Senator Sheil; about the circumstances of that matter. I said that a statement had been made and that it was my recollection that the statement was incorporated in Hansard. In fact the incident occurred when the Parliament was not sitting. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) made a statement. He made it in the public arena and it was not recorded in Hansard. So that I mayapart from apologising for that- correct the matter I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard the statement by the Prime Minister concerning the incident regarding Senator Sheil.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

PRIME MINISTER

21 December 1977

For Press

The Prime Minister today announced that he had notified the Governor-General that he did not intend to proceed with the appointment of Senator Glenister Sheil to the Ministry.

He had taken this action after consultation with the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Anthony.

It had been intended that, upon passage of necessary legislation allowing an increase in the size of the Ministry from twenty-seven to twenty-eight, Senator Sheil would be appointed the Minister for Veterans ‘ Affairs.

The Prime Minister said he had informed Senator Sheil that it would be inappropriate for him to be a member of the Ministry.

The Prime Minister re-affirmed the Government’s complete opposition to apartheid.

The Prime Minister recalled his statements earlier this year when he had described apartheid as a pernicious and evil doctrine which had long been condemned from Australia. Sir Robert Menzies had condemned apartheid as early as 1961 indicating that in his view it was a policy that would end in the most frightful disaster.

The Prime Minister indicated his Government’s policy in relation to apartheid would not change. Any policy based on the belief that one race is superior to another is an affront to human dignity and to the well-being of mankind, and must be condemned.

Mr Fraser said that he regretted these developments and he hoped that nobody would for one moment doubt Australia’s unequivocal opposition to apartheid.

The Prime Minister indicated, as he had affirmed to the Ministry yesterday, that once a person was a member of the Ministry team, whatever his personal or private views might be, he must at all times support the Ministry view and that there is no room within his Ministry for a person who is not prepared to accept that and abide by it.

Senator CARRICK:

- Senator McLaren asked a number of questions regarding an inquiry into the circumstances of Mr Lynch. I pointed out that an inquiry was held by an eminent Queen’s Counsel, Mr Stephen Charles. I was challenged whether it was a public inquiry. I said that it was public to the extent that it was independent. Let me make it perfectly clear that it was not my intention to indicate that it was a royal commission or an inquiry of such a nature. There was no such thing as a royal commission; there was an inquiry by an independent person, Mr Stephen Charles, Q.C.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Would you regard it as a public inquiry?

Senator CARRICK:

– It was a public inquiry to the extent that it was conducted by an independent public figure and was reported. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a Press statement by the Prime Minister of 16 December setting out the circumstances.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

PRIME MINISTER

16 December 1977

For Press

I have considered the position of the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, the Right Honourable Phillip Lynch, M.P., in the light of his disclosure to me of his family’s financial interests and in particular, their interests in commercial arrangements entered into in September 1973 whilst he was in Opposition, and concluded in 1976 after he became Treasurer, concerning land at Balnarring in Victoria.

I have also taken independent advice from Mr Stephen Charles, Q.C. of the Melbourne Bar, who advised me that on the facts available to him from documents supplied and from information made available from Irish, Young and Outhwaite, and Mallesons, that nothing has been done by Mr Lynch or his family which was illegal, commercially improper or represented a conflict between his or their private interests and Mr Lynch ‘s public duties as a Minister of the Crown, and that the arrangements were normal commercial arrangements.

Mr Charles has advised me that in his opinion Mr Lynch did comply with the directive in my letter to all Ministers of 1 3 January, 1976, requiring disclosure of private interests.

I am delighted that Mr Charles has advised as he has. I happily accepted that advice. I now regard the matter as closed, and I see no reason why Mr Lynch should not be reelected as Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party.

I very greatly regret the difficulty and anguish that Phillip Lynch and his family have experienced over recent weeks. I look forward to working with him in the coming period.

These events have shown that a Prime Minister is placed in a most difficult position when he is called upon to pass judgment on colleagues with whom he has worked closely, particularly as the Prime Minister must act as judge and jury when allegations of impropriety are raised.

A far more satisfactory procedure must be found to resolve these situations which can have such an impact on an individual’s career and on the life of his family.

A whole new approach is required. I do not regard the Report of the Parliamentary Committee on Pecuniary Interests as putting forward adequate solutions. In my view, a statement of pecuniary interests to the Parliament does not provide an adequate procedure.

Because of that view, I intend to appoint a judge or Queen’s Counsel, to be assisted by a businessman and an accountant, who will need to be familiar with modern commercial practice and procedures, to make recommendations to the Government on what interests should be disclosed.

They will also be asked to recommend what procedures should be followed to determine whether there has been any breach of the high standards which are properly required of those in public office. The Committee will also be asked to recommend the method which should be used to determine whether there has been a breach.

They will be asked to examine whether or not a register under judicial supervision should be instituted and maintained in such a way, which, in the event of allegations of impropriety or on the judge’s own initiative, will allow for expeditious and proper judicial examination of such allegations.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I asked one of a series of, I think, four questions yesterday to challenge the validity of a statement the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) made on the previous Thursday. He said that any alterations in Cabinet, Cabinet dismissals et cetera, were made after full investigation and public inquiry. Among oilier tilings, I asked about the public inquiry in the case of Senator Sheil. He said that it had been referred to in Hansard and that I should read Hansard. I then asked him in a supplementary question to refer me to the pages of Hansard where I could read about the matter. The Minister has stated in the Senate chamber tonight that he now finds the information is not in Hansard. Therefore, the statement that was released provided the only basis for the Minister saying that there had been a public inquiry. The results of the public inquiry were not in Hansard. In fact, there was no public inquiry into the reason for Senator Sheil ‘s resignation.

Senator Sheil was victimised after his appointment as a Minister for his personal beliefs while the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) glorified Mr Ellicott for his personal beliefs. He admired the man who stood up for his personal beliefs and resigned, but Senator Sheil never had that opportunity. It shows that the answer given by the Minister on the previous Thursday was entirely false. I do not know what statements the Minister has incorporated in Hansard tonight. But obviously there was no public inquiry into Senator Sheil ‘s position. He did not have the same privileges extended to him as were extended to Mr Ellicott. He had to be sacrificed for the same reason that Mr Ellicott had to be praised. The whole purpose of the series of questions is to illustrate the double standards of this Government. That must be deplored and I do not accept the Minister’s statement tonight as any exoneration from the mess that he got himself into on Thursday of last week.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I rise to express my concern at the statements that have been presented by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) tonight in response to the accusations, allegations and statements made by my colleague from Queensland, Senator Colston, and by my colleague from South Australia, Senator McLaren. Without knowing any of the circumstances or the details of the matters that have been raised by Senator Colston, who has been elected by the Queensland people to represent them in the Australian Parliament, it appears to me that, prima facie, on the statements that have been made by him in the adjournment debate tonight and the photographic evidence that he has tendered to the Senate, very serious accusations have been made against members of the Queensland Police Force.

It concerns me that the Leader of the Government in the Senate, a man who is appointed by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) as the representative of the Government in this place, can merely rise in this chamber and say that Senator Colston, as is his right as a member of the Senate, can put his case on the record in this Parliament and, so far as he and the Parliament are concerned, that will be the end of the matter. It is a travesty of justice against Parliament and against the individual member of the Parliament that the Government is prepared to treat a matter in such a cavalier fashion. I am a little sick and tired of the way in which this Government is treating the rights of members of the Parliament. A fortnight ago I asked Senator Chaney who represents the Minister for Administrative Services in this place whether Australian citizens of Greek descent had been photographed with the words Greek’ or ‘Greece’ appended to them, whether certain information had been withheld from the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) and whether, because that information had been withheld, she was not able to report those facts to the Australian Parliament. The Minister for Administrative Services told me that he would have inquiries made and that he would see that the answer was reported and the facts given to the Australian Parliament. That was a fortnight ago The rights of Australian citizens were involved. I would have thought that if this Government were sincere it would have responded to that inquiry.

Tonight one of my colleagues on this side of the chamber rose in the Parliament and said that he was accosted and assaulted by a member of the Queensland Police Force and that he was prepared to produce photographic evidence. In a half-hearted, cavalier manner the Leader of the Government in the Senate said: ‘Senator Colston is quite at liberty and is entitled to put those facts on the record of the Parliament’. If that is the attitude of this Government, then I fear for the future of this Parliament as I do for the future of the Australian people while this Government is in office.

During the adjournment debate last night my colleague Senator McLaren spoke about matters that had been raised with the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Mr Lynch. Senator McLaren was querying an answer that the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Carrick, had given in response to a question asked by my colleague Senator Wriedt, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. Senator Carrick said that a public inquiry had been held into the affairs of the former Treasurer, the present Minister for Industry and Commerce. This evening, after Senator McLaren had raised this matter in this chamber for a second time, the Leader of the Government said: ‘What I mean by saying that a public inquiry was held, was that a royal commission was not appointed ‘. That in fact is what the Minister said this evening. I challenge the Minister to come forward tonight and to say whether a transcript of the proceedings of any inquiry into the affairs of Mr Lynch, which was conducted by the learned Queen’s Counsel, was made and if so to table the record of proceedings in the Parliament. Frankly, we on this side of the chamber are getting a bit sick and tired of the way in which this Government is treating the rights and entitlements of members of Parliament.

Senator Cavanagh:

– And won’t give you honest answers.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-As my colleague Senator Cavanagh says, the Government will not give honest answers. It will not give answers at all. When my colleague Senator Wriedt asked a question this afternoon of the Attorney-General (Senator Durack), the Attorney-General at first said that it was not his intention to give any reply about any correspondence that had passed or any discussions that had taken place between him and the Prime Minister ( Mr Malcolm Fraser).

Senator Cavanagh:

– They always give me answers but they are not truthful. That is all I am complaining about.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The honourable senator is lucky to get answers even though they are not truthful. Many of us do not get answers. It took my colleague Senator Wriedt three or four questions before the AttorneyGeneral responded to the question.

Senator Durack:

– It was three or four questions before he made himself clear.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am glad that the Attorney-General is here. He says that it took three or four questions before Senator Wriedt made himself clear. I want to raise something while the Attorney-General is here. Let him answer this question. There was supposed to be before the Cabinet a Bill relating to judges’ pensions. It was supposed to have been approved by the Cabinet. It was supposed to have gone to the Liberal Party, to the members of the Government. The back bench members were supposed to have decided to have a look at it. When the Labor Party was in office we used to hear about the Labor Caucus controlling the Cabinet, but we have not heard much about that since this Government has been in office. What I have heard- I ask the AttorneyGeneral whether I am correct- is that apart from a family law judge in Sydney, the beneficiary of the judges’ pension Bill would have been the royal commissioner who presided over the royal commission into the McPherson electoral fiasco. I am told, rightly or wrongly, that last night there was a meeting of Liberal back benchers and that they decided to throw out the Bill completely.

We are members of this Parliament. The Executive might control the Executive and it might have the numbers in this Parliament, but it does not have all the voices in this Parliament. If Government members are prepared to treat members of the Opposition and other members of this Parliament in such a cavalier, arrogant and ostentatious manner then we on this side of the Parliament will protest and raise our voices to query the Government in every way imaginable. Until the Leader of the Government replies satisfactorily to my colleague Senator Colston, until he replies satisfactorily to my colleague Senator McLaren and until the AttorneyGeneral replies to the assertions that I have made this evening, I certainly will not be satisfied and I intend to raise these matters again at the first reading stage of any money Bill that comes before the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.32 p.m.

page 618

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Double Dissolution in 1975 (Question No. 1035)

Senator Evans:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 14 November 1978:

  1. Was Mr Malcolm Fraser’s advice to Sir John Kerr in support of his request for a double dissolution on 1 1 November 1975 made in oral or written form.
  2. If written, when will that advice be tabled in the Parliament, as was done with respect to the Prime Minister’s advice and the Governor-General’s decision after each of the 1914, 1951 and 1974 double dissolutions.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2 ) Documents relevant to the 1 975 double dissolution were presented to the Parliament on 20 February 1979.

Airport Car Rental Franchises (Question No. 1048)

Senator Chipp:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 16 November 1978:

  1. 1 ) Will the forthcoming airport car rental franchise provide for more than two operators; if not, what effect will an extension of the two-airline policy to car rentals have on the services provided to the travelling public.
  2. Will the Government ensure that the interests of the public are safeguarded by adequate competition.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. The Government has recently decided that a maximum of three car rental operators will be authorised at Commonwealth airports. Two of these will be required to service all such airports while the third operator will be selected on an airport by airport basis.
  2. The Government is restricted in its ability to enforce any given level of competition but it is believed that the decision to authorise a third operator will lead to an increase in competition between operators and will be generally acceptable to both the travelling public and the car rental industry.

Domestic Airlines: Unserviceable Aircraft (Question No. 1056)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 21 November 1978:

  1. How many: (a) Trans Australia Airlines; and (b) Ansett Airlines of Australia, scheduled aircraft were ruled unserviceable in each month since January 1978.
  2. What is the breakdown, by type of aircraft, of the aircraft ruled unserviceable.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

The Department of Transport has not ruled unserviceable any aircraft of either Trans Australia Airlines or Ansett Airlines of Australia since January 1978.

Crash of Royal Australian Air Force Plane (Question No. 1129)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 2 1 February 1979:

  1. 1 ) What was the result of the inquiry into the crash of an RAAF plane carrying Santa Claus, as reported in the Courier-Mail, 14 December 1978.
  2. Did Santa Claus sustain any injury; if so, has he been paid any form of compensation.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) A Court of Inquiry convened to investigate the crash of a RAAF Airtrainer carrying Santa Claus at East Sale on 13 December 1978 found the primary cause to be an error of judgment on the part of the pilot. Appropriate disciplinary action has been taken.
  2. Warrant Officer Tom Baker, a member of the RAAF, sustained a compound fracture of the right leg. He has not submitted a claim for compensation at this stage nor has any compensation been paid to him. Warrant Officer Baker has six months from the date of the accident in which to make a claim.

Minister for Trade and Resources: China Visit (Question No. 1176)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 20 February 1979:

  1. 1 ) Did any photographers accompany the Minister on his trip to China between 27 October and 4 November 1978; if so: (a) what are their names; (b)what organisations did they represent; (c) who paid their travel and accommodation expenses; and (d) what were the expenses in each case.
  2. 2 ) Were any organisations invited to send representatives other than those who actually did.
  3. Did any organisations seek to send representatives but were not permitted to.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes- one:

    1. Mr Robert Anthony.
    2. Visnews Limited, the Telegraph (Brisbane), the Daily News (Perth).
    3. Either Mr Robert Anthony or the organisations he represented.
    4. I do not know.
  2. It was open to any news organisation to send representatives- four Australia-based journalists and two China-based Australian journalists accompanied me.
  3. No.

Minister for Trade and Resources: China Visit (Question No. 1177)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 20 February 1979:

  1. 1 ) What is the name of the photographer who took the photographs of the Peking Foreign Agricultural Machinery

Exhibition published for the Minister’s Department in the magazine Overseas Trading, Vol. 30, No. 24, 8 December 1978, pages 794-5.

  1. Is the photographer an employee of the Commonwealth; if not, how much was he paid for taking these photographs.
  2. ) Was the photographer paid for any other assignments undertaken during the Minister’s trip to China between 27 October and 4 November 1978; if so, what are the details of any such assignments.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) I do not know. The photographs were supplied by a Chinese agency, Peking Exhibition Services.
  2. No. Peking Exhibition Services was paid $182 for the photographs, including $126.65 for the services of the photographer.
  3. Not as far as I am aware.

Minister for Trade and Resources: China Visit (Question No. 1179)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 20 February 1 979:

Did a Mr Robert Anthony accompany the Minister on his trip to China between 27 October and 4 November 1978; if so:

why was Mr Anthony’s name not included in the list of members of the party released in the Minister’s Press Statement of 12 October 1978;

b ) why was Mr Anthony included in the party;

who paid the cost of his travel and accommodation expenses; and

is Mr Anthony the Minister’s brother.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

Yes.

For the same reason that the names of the other media representatives and several other members of my mission were not included- it is neither customary nor relevant to do so,

and (c) See answer to question No. 1 1 76.

Yes.

Aviation: ‘Near Misses’ (Question No. 1247)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 20 February 1979:

Is the number of ‘near collisions’ or ‘near misses’ involving civil aircraft over Australia recorded; if so, what are the figures for each year from 1974 to 1978.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

The terms ‘near collision’ and ‘near miss’ are not precisely defined internationally. Reports of such occurrences, however, would be embraced in the air safety incident reporting system conducted by my Department. An air safety incident may simply be defined as an occurrence in which the safety of an aircraft has been or could have been compromised. It is the practice to interpret this definition fairly broadly and, apart from the legal requirement to report incidents, pilots and other operational personnel are encouraged by my Department to submit air safety incident reports concerning any circumstances affecting the operation of aircraft which the originator believes to be undesirable or hazardous. Judgment of what is undesirable or hazardous is, of course, subjective in many cases. Accordingly, records are maintained of air safety incident reports in which an infringement of prescribed separation standards has been reported to have occurred without differentiation between those occurrences in which aircraft were in close proximity and those in which the separation reduction was relatively minor. The following figures have been extracted from those records and refer to all incidents in respect of which it was reported that there was an infringement of separation standards:

1974-100; 1975-75; 1976-84; 1977-65; 1978-136

(Provisional).

Hospital Development Programs (Question No. 1270)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 20 February 1979:

How much money was made available to each of the States for hospital development programs in each financial year from 1972-73 to 1978-79.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

During 1972-73, the Commonwealth funds were provided to the States for capital works under the States Grants (Mental Health Institutions) Act as follows:

During 1973-74, Commonwealth funds were provided to the States for capital works under the Capital Cities Hospitals Development Program as follows:

The Hospitals Development Program commenced in 1974-75 and funds were provided to the States for capital works as follows:

The Hospitals Development Program was terminated on 30 June 1978.

Under a special arrangement entered into with Tasmania, the Commonwealth Government is financing the Stage I Redevelopment of the Launceston General Hospital on a S for $ basis. An allocation of $5.9m has been made available for the project in 1978-79. In previous years, Commonwealth grants for this project were provided to Tasmania under the Hospitals Development Program.

Secretary, Department of Defence

Senator Carrick:
LP

-On 20 February 1979 (Hansard, page 14) Senator Lewis asked me a question, without notice, about a report that the term of office of the Secretary of the Department of Defence, Sir Arthur Tange, has been extended under section 86 of the Public Service Act for a further 12 months after he reaches the mandatory retiring age of 65 years.

I have made inquiries and no action has been taken under section 86 of the Public Service Act to extend the term of office of the Secretary of the Department of Defence beyond the mandatory retiring age.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 7 March 1979, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1979/19790307_SENATE_31_S80/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant