Senate
10 September 1980

31st Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 31st Parliament
  3. 1980

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

page 673

PETITIONS

Television Translator for Central Queensland

Senator COLSTON:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 1 ,256 citizens of Australia:

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

1 ) Television reception is poor in the area around the communities of Cannonvale, Airlie Beach and Shute Harbour;

Most residents in this area can view only one television channel and reception on that channel is often poor;

Residents in the area around Cannonvale, Airlie Beach and Shute Harbour should be able to enjoy similar television reception to that enjoyed in the nearby town of Proserpine and the nearby island resorts;

The poor television reception is hindering the full development of the tourist industry in this area;

The site for a television translator to service the area was chosen some years ago.

Your Petitioners request that the Senate ensure that a television translator is erected without delay to service this fast growing tourist area of Central Queensland.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Citizens Band Radio

Senator ELSTOB:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 91 2 citizens of Australia:

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

Whereas the Australian Government has announced plans to terminate the availability of the 27 Megahertz - 1 1 Metre Band Citizens Radio Service for use by operators within Australia.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That the 27 Megahertz- 11 Metre Band Citizens Radio Service be retained after June 1 982.

That a dual service remain as ‘I.E.’ 27 Megahertz High Frequency Band, and 476 to 477 Megahertz of the Ultra High Frequency Band, and this also be retained after June 1982.

That the current RB 1 4 and RB 1 4A be made a workable and understandable document, to both Citizens Band Radio Operators and also Postal Telecommunications Officials.

And that the following be implemented:

A legal Calling Channel.

An emergency Calling Channel be retained.

A recognised Trucker’s Channel.

H.F. Band (27 MHz.) widened to 40 Channel Spectrum.

for approval of a H.F. Band (27 MHz) Directive Antenna (Horizontally Polarised Parasitic Array).

Pensioner Licence concessions.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Metric System

Senator CHIPP:
VICTORIA

– 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.

Donations to Amnesty International: Tax Deductibility

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 9 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:

We, the undersigned, being concerned citizens of Australia and of the world, noting widespread violations of fundamental Human Rights around the world, observing that Australia has taken a leading role in the United Nations Commission for Human Rights, being aware that less than 40 per cent of money raised by Amnesty International is remitted outside Australia, urge the Government to support Amnesty International in a practical way by permitting donations to it to be deductible from income for taxation purposes

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Road Funding

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

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

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

That local authorities throughout Australia are appalled at the recently announced Commonwealth Government allocation of a mere $628m for roads in 1 980-8 1 . There is extreme disappointment at both’ the level of total Commonwealth funding for all road categories and at the specific allocation for the local roads category.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That road funding arrangements for 1980-81 to 1982-83 reach at least a total of $2,200m over the triennium.

that the Commonwealth maintain an active financial interest in the funding of all categories of roads.

That the Commonwealth ensure that a proportion of the funds flows through the States earmarked for Local Government purposes.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Anti-discrimination Legislation

Senator RYAN:
ACT

– I present the following petition from 35 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate of the Australian Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth:

That currently discrimination in provision of work, in appointment to jobs and in promotion exists in Australia on particular grounds including, inter alia, grounds of race, ethnic origin, marital status, pregnancy, sex and/or sexual preference; and

That currently discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits is exercised against particular groups of individuals - in particular, against married women.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in Commonwealth employment, in employment of individuals under federal awards, in employment of persons by statutory bodies and quasi-governmental organisations, and in employment of all persons in areas over which Commonwealth and Australian Capital Territory equal opportunity legislation should have jurisdiction, and

That appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits to all persons without regard to sex and/or marital status.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Family Allowance

Senator HARRADINE:
TASMANIA

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

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

Family Allowances have not been increased over the last 4 years when food prices have risen by 60 per cent in Tasmania and consumer prices generally by over 50 per cent throughout Australia.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should ensure that the Government takes immediate action to restore the lost value of Family Allowances, to index them to cover future price rises and to provide additional support for homemakers and one income families.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Social Security Benefits

Senator MASON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 9 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, as it is clear that unemployment is a long term problem in Australia, the Government should extend to the unemployed the same assistance as is given to any other disadvantaged member of the community. There is an urgent need to alleviate the financial hardship and emotional stress that the unemployed are suffering.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

That the Government adopt positive policies to reduce unemployment,

That the basic Unemployment Benefit be raised to at least the level of the poverty line as calculated by Professor Henderson,

In line with other Social Service additional income awards, and in order to encourage work creation schemes and the fostering of initiative and self respect, that the $6 per week additional income limit be raised to at least $20 per week,

That the financial penalties above the earning of $20 per week, assessed on a monthly basis, be calculated at the same rate as other Social Security benefits,

That the Commonwealth grant subsidies to State governments so that the unemployed can be granted transport concessions in order that they are not penalised in job seeking,

That pharmaceutical and medical concessions be granted to the unemployed equivalent to those received by other Social Service beneficiaries.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Plant Breeders’ Rights

Senator SIBRAA:

– I present the following petition from 69 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government:

1 ) Note that legislation establishing plant breeders’ rights in other countries has had serious adverse effects, namely:

Virtual monopoly control of seed production has passed into the hands of a few large international corporations seeking to profit from the exclusive rights over plant genetic materials created by such legislation.

The varieties of seeds available have been restricted mainly to hybrids which will not reproduce truly and will not grow without the aid of artificial fertilizers and pesticides, thus maximising c .potato profits without regard for the interests of growers and consumers.

The genetic diversity of crops has been eroded, rendering them vulnerable to disease and other environmental threats.

Recognise that maintenance of the genetic diversity of plant varieties is crucial to the continued well-being of the Australian Nation, and take all necessary steps to preserve and promote such genetic diversity as a public resource and to prevent exclusive control over plant genetic materials from falling into private hands.

Defend the vital interests of Australian farmers and gardeners, independent Australian seed companies and their employees, and consumers of Australian farm and garden produce, by rejecting any proposal to legislate for the establishment of plant breeders’ rights in Australia.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Education Funding

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 28 citizens of Australia:

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

That the Federal Government did not make increased funding available for government school programs such as:

1 ) General recurrent.

Migrant education.

Disadvantaged schools.

Special education.

Capital grants.

Multicultural education.

7 ) Disadvantaged country areas.

Children in institutions.

Services and development.

Education Centres.

Special projects.

But increased the money available to the non-government school sector by5.9 per cent.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should restore and increase substantially, in real terms, the allocation of funds for government school programs.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Lead Concentrates in Motor Spirit

Senator MASON:

– I present the following pet ition from 26 citizens of Australia:

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

That the lead content levels in Australian motor spirit have been proven to have detrimental health effects on our child population.

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

Take legislative action to reduce and ultimately remove lead concentrates from motor spirit in Australia.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Education Funding

Senator MASON:

– I present the following petition from 51 citizens of Australia:

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

That the Federal Government did not make increased funding available for government school programs such as:

1 ) General recurrent.

Migrant education.

Disadvantaged schools.

Special education.

Capital grants.

Multicultural education.

Disadvantage country areas.

Children in institutions.

Services and Development.

Education Centres.

Special projects.

But increased the money available to the non-government school sector by 5.9 per cent.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should restore and increase substantially, in real terms, the allocation of funds for government school programs.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Anti-discrimination Legislation

Senator GIETZELT:

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

To the Honourable President and Members of the Senate of the Australian Parliament in Canberra assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth:

That the right to work without discrimination on any ground including, inter alia, discrimination on grounds of race, ethnic origin, pregnancy, marital status, sex and/or sexual preference is a fundamental human right; and

That it is both the duty and responsibility of society to fully support those denied work and therefore those who are unemployed as a result of society’s inability to provide full paid employment should be guaranteed an adequate income without discrimination on any ground, including inter alia discrimination on grounds of race, ethnic origin, marital status, sex and /or sexual preference, or pregnancy.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That appropriate and adequate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in Commonwealth employment, in employment of persons by statutory bodies and quasi-governmental organisations, in employment of individuals and federal awards, and in employment of all persons in areas over which Commonwealth and Australian Capital Territory equal opportunity legislation should have jurisdiction; and

That appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits to all persons without regard to race, ethnic origin, marital status and /or sex.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

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

Metric System

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. by Senator Withers.

Petition received.

Human Rights Commission Bill 1979

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 because we already inherit constitutional safeguards and many free institutions which assure to us as an unconditional right, the enjoyment of all basic human rights.

And because the exercise of our true common law rights is the proper means of dealing with attempted infringements of abuses of our human rights or personal freedoms within the Commonwealth of Australia and its territories.

And because the Human Rights Commission Bill 1979 would virtually eliminate our common law rights and heritage by substituting so-called rights and freedoms as defined under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of December 1966, and as defined under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

We have the conviction that the above-mentioned Bill would in due time destroy much of our traditional liberties and rights and established system of law, remembering that it calls for all ‘the laws of the Commonwealth’ to conform to it, that we would be liable to the definitions, whims and decrees coming from a foreign source instead of our own Sovereign, elected, constitutional Parliamentary democracy, that the United Nations today is composed of a large majority of totalitarian-type States, and that the Bill must certainly result in a quickly expending costly bureaucracy with wide and alarming powers of investigation and opinion-making.

Your peititioners therefore humbly pray that the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia will withdraw, or repeal as the case may be, the Human Rights Commission Bill 1979 to protect the rightful interests of Australia and all Australians.

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

Petition received.

Anti-discrimination Legislation

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate of the Australian Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth:

That currently discrimination in provision of work, in appointment to jobs and in promotion exists in Australia on particular grounds including, inter alia, grounds of race, ethnic origin, marital status, pregnancy, sex and/or sexual preference, and

That currently discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits is exercised against particular groups of individuals - in particular, against married women.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in Commonwealth employment, in employment of individuals under federal awards, in employment of persons by statutory bodies and quasigovernmental organisations, and in employment of all persons in areas over which Commonwealth and Australian Capital Territory equal opportunity legislation should have jurisdiction: and

That appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits to all persons without regard to sex and /or marital status.

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

Petition received.

Plant Breeders’ Rights

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of the

Commonwealth, do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government:

  1. 1 ) Note that legislation establishing plant breeders’ rights in other countries has had serious adverse effects, namely:

    1. Virtual monopoly control of seed production has passed into the hands of a few large international corporations seeking to profit from the exclusive rights over plant genetic materials created by such legislation.
    2. The varieties of seeds available have been restricted mainly to hybrids which will not reproduce truly and will not grow without the aid of artificial fertilizers and pesticides, thus maximising corporate profits without regard for the interests of growers and consumers.
    3. The genetic diversity of crops has been eroded, rendering them vulnerable to disease and other environmental threats.
  2. Recognize that maintenance of the genetic diversity of plant varieties is crucial to the continued well-being of the Australian Nation, and take all necessary steps to preserve and promote such genetic diversity as a public resource and to prevent exclusive control over plant genetic materials from falling into private hands.
  3. Defend the vital interests of Australian farmers and gardeners, independent Australian seed companies and their employees, and consumers of Australian farm and garden produce, by rejecting any proposal to legislate for the establishment of plant breeders’ rights in Australia.

And your petitioners as in duty boundwill ever pray. by Senator Neal.

Petition received.

page 676

DISTINGUISHED VISITOR

The PRESIDENT:

– I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence in the gallery on my left of a former highly respected member of this place, Mr Jack Kane, to whom we tender a warm welcome back to the precincts of the Senate.

Honourable senators - Hear, hear!

page 676

PRECEDENCE OF GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Notice of Motion

Senator CARRICK:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South Wales · LP

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

That, unless otherwise ordered, Government Business take precedence of General Business after 8 p.m. on Thursdays for the remainder of the present period of sittings.

page 676

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL 1980

Notice of Motion

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · Western Australia · LP

– 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 certain Acts in consequence of the enactment of the High Court of Australia Act 1979.

page 677

PRIME MINISTER

Notice of Motion

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– (Tasmania- Leader of the Opposition) - I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:

That the Senate expresses its grave concern that the Australian Prime Minister should, on his recent visit to the United States, make a partisan political speech criticising the policies and views of governments of the Western alliance causing embarrassment, particularly to President Carter, and making unwarranted judgments against other nations which are important security and economic partners of Australia.

page 677

FEDERALISM

Notice of Motion

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

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

That the Senate notes with concern the breakdown in cooperative federalism displayed by the refusal of the States to participate further in the Government’s much vaunted school to work transition program and in particular notes the inadequacies of the Government’s policies to deal with youth unemployment and the failure of the Government to make any decision on allowances to be paid to students undertaking courses under the school to work transition program.

page 677

COMMONWEALTH DEBT

Notice of Motion

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

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

That the Senate notes the massive increase in the Commonwealth debt under the Fraser Government from $6 billion in 1975 to $18.4 billion in 1980.

page 677

KAMPUCHEA: POL POT REGIME

Notice of Motion

Senator SIBRAA:
New South Wales

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

That the Senate expresses its grave concern at the continued attitude of the Prime Minister of refusing to accept the advice of his Foreign Minister, the Department of Foreign Affairs, and the great majority of the Australian people in continuing to recognise the most monstrous regime of modern times, namely Pol Pot, and calls on the Prime Minister to reconsider his attitude in the interests of Australia.

page 677

COMMITTEES OF INQUIRY

Notice of Motion

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

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

That the Senate^

condemns the Fraser Government’s refusal to implement the Sax Committee’s recommendations that nurse education should be upgraded and transferred to Colleges of Advanced Education, and

deplores the Fraser Government’s continued practice of establishing numerous committees of inquiry at great cost to the taxpayer, and then showing a complete disregard for the recommendations of those committees.

page 677

ECONOMIC POLICY

Notice of Motion

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

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

That the Senate views with grave concern the action taken by the Prime Minister in deliberately attempting to mislead the Australian people by stating that his Government had paid off the Labor Government’s debts when, in fact, with a rise of the national debt from $441 per person in 1975 to $1,265 per person in 1980, the incoming Labor Government will have to pay off the Fraser Government ‘s debts.

page 677

AUSTRALIAN MILITARY ACADEMY

Notice of Motion

Senator ROBERTSON:
Northern Territory

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

That the Senate condemns the appalling irresponsibility of the Fraser Government in allocating up to $100m to build a military academy in Canberra to train cadets who could be trained in existing universities, at a time when our schools are starved for funds, when youth unemployment is reaching crisis proportions, when businesses are going bankrupt at a rate of 5,000 per annum, when old age pensioners are having to wait for over two years to get into a public hospital for treatment, and when, as estimated by the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace, two million people in Australia are living below the poverty line.

page 677

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Notice of Motion

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

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

That the Senate -

expresses its dissatisfaction at the failure of the Minister for Primary Industry to answer questions placed on notice on 6 March pertaining to possible payments to the following Ministers, Messrs Fraser, Street, Anthony, Adermann, Hunt and Nixon under the Beef Incentives Payments Scheme;

believes that, in view of the facts that an identical question pertaining to the former Minister for Primary Industry, placed on notice on 4 March, was answered on 19 March - three sitting days later - and that the scheme has been finalised, the Minister is deliberately withholding the answers;

is of the opinion that these answers are being withheld because some or all of the Ministers concerned were direct beneficiaries of a decision made by them.

page 677

SOIL CONSERVATION

Notice of Motion

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

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

That the Senate -

notes the urgent need for Government incentives for soil conservation measures for the preservation and restoration of valuable and productive Australian farming land, as recommended by the Joint Commonwealth-State Soil Conservation Study;

urges the Government to introduce an immediate tax rebate for expenditure by farmers on soil conservation projects.

page 678

AUSTRALIAN WHEAT BOARD

Notice of Motion

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

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

That the Senate -

notes the widespread concern throughout the Australian farming community that the constitutional basis for the establishment of the Australian Wheat Board may soon be declared invalid by the High Court;

directs the Minister for Primary Industry and the Attorney-General to draw up and announce contingency measures for immediate implementation in the event that such a judgment is made by the High Court;

calls upon the Government to declare an intention to underpin the Wheat Board’s traditional market powers.

page 678

OIL PRICING POLICY

Notice of Motion

Senator COLEMAN:
Western Australia

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

That the Senate views with concern the Fraser Government’s continued commitment to its policy of import parity pricing of oil which has provided the Government with an indirect tax receipt of $4,08 lm at the expense of Australian motorists who are now paying 36c per litre for their petrol and in some country areas 46c per litre, as opposed to 15ic per litre in 1975.

page 678

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Notice of Motion

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

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

That the Senate deplores the wasteful and extravagant increase in advertising expenditure by this Government of 42 per cent to a total of $45.6m in the financial year 1 980-8 1 and views with concern the Government’s growing practice of using taxpayers’ money in this way to finance the promulgation of Liberal Party political propaganda.

page 678

SPORTS FUNDING

Notice of Motion

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

That the Senate, whilst recognising and applauding the tremendous achievement of our Australian athletes who competed in the 1980 Olympic Games, and especially those athletes who won gold medals in the Games, deplores the discriminatory and divisive action of the Prime Minister in announcing a gratuity of $500,000 to go solely to athletes who did not participate in those Games.

page 678

ECONOMIC POLICY

Notice of Motion

Senator TATE:
Tasmania

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

That the Senate -

views with the utmost concern the accelerating rate of inflation in Australia, the increasing rate of unemployment and particularly youth unemployment, and declining business confidence; and

condemns the Fraser Government for its obdurate blindness in continuing with an economic policy which is now clearly recognised by all sections of the community to have failed.

page 678

BANKRUPTCIES

Notice of Motion

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

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

That the Senate views with grave concern the enormous increase in the number of bankruptcies that have occurred during the life of the Fraser Government- an increase of 1 62 per cent in five years - and particularly the 29 per cent increase which has occurred during the financial year just completed.

page 678

NATIONAL HEALTH SCHEME

Notice of Motion

Senator PRIMMER:
Victoria

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

That the Senate deplores the Government’s inaction in face of the continuing disintegration of the national health scheme.

page 678

STUDENT ALLOWANCES

Notice of Motion

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

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

That the Senate-

condemns the Fraser Government for the niggardly and insufficient increase announced in the last Budget for student allowances, including the tertiary education allowance, the isolated children’s allowance, and post-graduate awards;

considers it inequitable that students and others dependent upon government assistance, such as pensioners, should be made to bear the brunt of an economic policy which is failing to control inflation, reduce unemployment, contain interest rates, or restore the economy.

page 678

TRANS-AUSTRALIA AIRLINES

Notice of Motion

Senator SIBRAA:
New South Wales

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

That the Senate, recognising the successful and important role played by Trans-Australia Airlines and reaffirming its support for a two-airline policy in Australia, deplores the decision of the 1980 Federal Liberal Party Conference to urge the sale of TAA.

page 679

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 679

QUESTION

DEFENCE: USE OF AUSTRALIAN BASES

Senator WRIEDT:

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Defence assure the Senate that in any agreement with the United States about the use by B52 aircraft of Australian bases Australia will have full rights to the sovereignty of the bases and consultation and the right to be informed of the missions and armaments of such aircraft? Considering that these aircraft are strategic weapons, capable of carrying nuclear bombs and nuclear armed cruise missiles, will the Government restate its policy on the presence on Australian soil of nuclear weapons?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– In a very important statement yesterday the Minister for Defence confirmed that the United States Government had sought the agreement of the Australian Government for B52 aircraft on extended flights to use Australian bases as staging points. The Minister said that discussions and negotiations will take place between Australia and the United States defence authorities in relation to this request. Senator Wriedt has asked that certain specific matters be taken into account and assurances given. I will refer the question to the Minister for Defence and ask him to provide an early answer for Senator Wriedt.

Senator WRIEDT:

– I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. I suppose that is the best answer we are likely to get to the first part of my question, but I would have thought that, in view of the importance of the statement - the Minister has just conceded that fact - the Government already would have a very firm view of the conditions under which such permission would be given to any other power. But obviously the Government has not thought about that yet and we will have to await an answer. I remind the Minister that I asked him: Will he restate the Government’s policy on the presence on Australian soil of nuclear weapons? Obviously this is an implication of the intention to allow these aircraft to land on Australian soil.

Senator DURACK:

- Senator Wriedt asked the question of me as the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. As I said, I will refer the details of the question to the Minister for Defence.

page 679

QUESTION

FEDERAL COURTS IN BRISBANE

Senator BONNER:

– Is the Attorney-General aware of criticism expressed in some legal circles about the location and accommodation of Federal courts in Brisbane? Also, has the Government any long-range plans to improve the situation? Are any steps being taken to improve the existing facilities to prevent overcrowding in the Family Law courts, especially in the busy period?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I am aware of criticism by the legal fraternity in Brisbane about facilities at Federal courts in Brisbane. The main criticism is that they are located in a building which is distant from the legal community in Brisbane. The position is that the Commonwealth Government owns a block of land in Herschell Street in Brisbane which was acquired with a view to building a Federal court complex there. Herschell Street is in the legal area of Brisbane near the State Supreme Court. It is the long-term plan of the Government to establish there a separate Federal court building. That court building would house the Federal Court, the Family Law Court, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and other Commonwealth tribunals.

My Department, with my encouragement, has given high priority to the planning of that new court complex and that is proceeding. At this stage the Government has not made a final decision to proceed with the complex because the plans are not yet at a stage at which they can be presented to the Government in any detail, but it certainly is my intention to proceed with the matter as quickly as possible. I hope that we will be able to have such a facility in Brisbane within four or five years. In the meantime, we are taking steps to upgrade and expand the accommodation in the leased premises which I have mentioned and which are located in Adelaide Street, Brisbane. Another Family Law court room will be provided in that area and other upgrading will be undertaken which ought to alleviate the crowding that sometimes occurs there.

page 679

QUESTION

SCHOOL TO WORK TRANSITION PROGRAM

Senator BUTTON:

– My question which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Education follows on from a question asked yesterday by Senator Davidson relating to the breakdown of the school to work .transition program of the Government. I ask the Minister, first of all: Was there in fact any real understanding with the State governments in relation to that program, as claimed by the Minister on 22 November last year? Secondly, is the breakdown not due to the fact that the whole scheme was a unilateral attempt by the Fraser Government to make it appear that it was doing something about youth unemployment when in fact it was not? Are not the particulars of the disagreements of the States directed especially towards the fact that, even though the Minister, as Minister for Education in November last year, was told by a Liberal Minister in Victoria that allowances would have to be provided for people taking part in the scheme, no allowances have been specified by the Federal Government 1 1 months later?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– As to the last part of the question, I have no recollection of any such suggestion from any Minister.

Senator Button:

– Mr Dixon.

Senator CARRICK:

– I have no recollection of that. Indeed, had such a suggestion been made, it would not have come from Mr Dixon; it would have come from Mr Hunt. But, as I said, I have no recollection of such a suggestion. The transition scheme is a scheme born out of a series of observations, first of all by the Williams Committee, as to the significant lack of basic skills in a significant number of school students, lt is born out of the findings of a House of Representatives special committee of inquiry. It is born out of the Education Program for Unemployed Youth and a variety of other schemes which have shown that significant numbers of unemployed youth are unemployed because their skills are not sufficient to get jobs.

It is also borne out of the many discussions which I had with the High School Principals Association of Australia, which identified the fact that there lie in the high schools and, indeed, the primary schools, students who, whatever reason, believe that school is not for them. Those students lack motivation and tend to leave unduly early and therefore to lack skills. The high school principals requested that a scheme be evolved to identify these young people and to train them so that they would leave school with skills which were in parallel with the skills of others. I would have thought, therefore, that the transition scheme would have had the bipartisan support of the whole of the Australian community. It is eminently fair and expresses the practical concern for people who need lifting up, who need helping.

The scheme was essentially an offer in the first place by the Commonwealth Government. A unilateral statement of first-year intentions was given and an offer made to have further discussions over subsequent years to get ultimately dollar for dollar associations. The scheme, therefore, was put forward unilaterally in its first part and for evolution in its journeying. I do not believe that the scheme should attract criticism. I believe that it should attract the practical support of all Australians. It is absolutely essential to help young people to get jobs.

Senator BUTTON:

– I ask a supplementary question. In view of the Minister’s statement that the scheme should not attract criticism, I ask him whether he agrees now that it has attracted criticism on a party basis from Liberal Premiers in Western Australia and Victoria. I refer particularly to criticisms which are directed towards that part of the question which the Minister did not answer, namely, that the Commonwealth has not, after nine months, reached a decision on the payment of allowances to children participating in this scheme. One would have thought that that would be a most crucial matter if Senator Carrick were as concerned about these children as he says he is.

Senator CARRICK:

– My understanding of what is called criticism - I have not seen the transcript of the recent Advanced Education Council meeting - is that it is really a discussion on payments of money. I am not aware that any State government disagrees with the principles of the training under the transition scheme. It would be important for Senator Button to differentiate between the funding principle and the merits of the principle of training the young people. I am not aware of any criticism of the principle of the situation. There is, as is always the case in a federation, discussion on who shall pay. I have no doubt that that matter will be satisfactorily resolved.

page 680

QUESTION

PETROL PRICES

Senator LEWIS:
VICTORIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for National Development and Energy, is about current petrol prices. No doubt the Minister has noted the contradictory statements by Opposition senators and members about the costs to the average family each year in so-called petrol taxes. I refer to contradictory statements by Mr Keating, the Australian Labor Party spokesman on energy on the one hand, and his colleague, Senator Walsh, on the other hand. In view of the publicity given to these contradictory statements and their widespread use as fact, will the Minister, using the latest publicly available figures, tell the Senate precisely what is the true position?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have seen the quite different and divergent statements by a number of Labor Party spokesmen, including Mr Keating and Senator Walsh. I must say that both statements are totally inaccurate. I have sought for the year ended 30 September 1 979 the Australian Bureau of Statistics estimates of the average distance travelled, the average fuel consumption and the average use of petrol per car or station wagon. The ABS says that the average petrol consumption per car is 1 ,925 litres. The crude oil levy component in the price of motor spirit is currently between 10c and 13c a litre, depending on how the levy is allocated to refined products. Therefore the cost of the crude oil levy to the average car user in terms of 1979 fuel usage patterns is between $192.50 and $250.25 a year, depending on how the levy is allocated.

There are an estimated 4.6 million households in Australia and current registrations of cars and station wagons, including business cars and taxis, stand at 5.65 million. Therefore these statistics show an average ownership of 1.23 cars per household. However, if business cars and taxis were excluded the average number of cars per household would probably be nearer one than 1.23. This analysis indicates that, on average, a household would currently pay between $192 and $250 a year in crude oil levy, or between approximately $3.70 and $4.80 a week. Of course these figures would have been far less in previous years before the recent rapid rises in prices by the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries. Clearly these average figures are many times below the exaggerated estimates provided by Mr Keating and Senator Walsh. The figures provided by Mr Keating and Senator Walsh are themselves contradictory as, indeed, is statement after statement by Labor spokesmen. For example, Mr Hurford said that the Government will subsidise downwards by hundreds of millions of dollars the price of imported petrol. There have been ambiguous statements about equalising the price of petrol, country and city, at a cost running up to perhaps $475m, all of which will come out of the taxpayer’s pocket and will mean that, in the end, fuel will be dearer to the average taxpayer under Labor.

Senator McLaren:

– I ask that the document quoted from by the Minister be tabled.

Senator CARRICK:

– I am perfectly happy to do so.

page 681

ALLOCATION OF AUSTRALIAN CRUDE OIL

Senator GEORGES:

– The Minister for National Development and Energy has admitted that the Australian motorist will pay at least $250 more for his petrol this year than in other years.

Senator Lewis:

– That is not true.

Senator GEORGES:

– He has just said so.

Senator Carrick:

– I didn’t; I said $ 1 92.

Senator GEORGES:

– Shall I project the figures from 1979 right through to 1980? Is that what honourable senators want? Let us get to the point of the question I want to ask: When is the next allocation of Australian crude oil to Australian companies to take place? What formula will the Government use? Will the formula still be based on the level of retail sales by oil companies, which is leading to the massive distortions which appear in the market-place at the present time?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The present allocation scheme was devised in, I think, 1 970. It is due to be reviewed in September of this year, that is, this month. The companies have agreed that pending the decision of the Government they will continue the present allocation scheme. The Government is currently reviewing the scheme. When the decision is made the details that Senator Georges is seeking will be made known.

page 681

QUESTION

APPROVAL FOR TAA AND ANSETT FLIGHTS

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. Is it a fact that the Department of Transport has not yet given official approval for the Trans-Australia Airlines or Ansett Airlines of Australia flights between Hobart and New Zealand which are scheduled to begin in November? Is the Minister aware that, until official approval is received, the airlines cannot do any definite marketing in other areas of the world? As we all, no doubt, would like to see these flights become very successful and as marketing is important to that end, will the Minister check the situation and ask the Minister for Transport to rectify the matter as soon as possible?

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

– I am not aware whether the Minister has approved the flights which were referred to by the honourable senator. The honourable senator has expressed a great interest in this matter over a lengthy period. It is true that the flights do require such approval. 1 would agree with him that it would be difficult for the companies to indulge in the necessary marketing program until they are certain that the approval will be forthcoming. On the assumption that the facts which were implicit in the question are correct, I will pass the matter on to the Minister and ask him to give an early reply and, if required, an early approval.

page 681

QUESTION

NUCLEAR WASTE

Senator MASON:

– Late last night in the Senate the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs,

Senator Chaney, made some surprising disclosures in answer to questions from Senator Chipp about what Senator Chaney called ‘trial dumping’ of Japanese nuclear waste into the Pacific Ocean. I believe it would be helpful if the Minister for National Development and Energy could make some comments on this matter. I ask the Minister: Is it a fact that a Japanese delegation discussed this matter with the Australian Government on 19 August? Was agreement reached at that meeting that the Japanese purchase of Australian uranium from the Ranger mine would be facilitated if Australia withdrew any objections to socalled trial dumping of nuclear waste in the Pacific? What is trial dumping? Does it mean that accurate monitoring can be carried out of the seabed around the containers over a lengthy period and that those containers, if necessary, can be retrieved from the great depths in which they are to be sunk? Would it not take many years for the possible serious effects of trial dumping to become evident? What is the Government’s view on whether further dumping should be agreed to during those years of trial?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– In responding to Senator Mason, I will take the opportunity while I am on my feet to respond to a similar series of questions asked yesterday by Senator Melzer. Last night, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs outlined the background to the visit to Australia of the Japanese technical mission. I make it clear that the Government was not asked in any way to approve or to reject what the Japanese are doing. The Australian Government has no rights at all to approve or to reject. In fact, what the Australian Government can do is to act internationally and to express independently in its own way its views on the matter. The substance of the questions asked by Senator Mason has no basis in fact. There was a visit to Australia by a technical mission. The Australian Government made it very clear that it would not countenance any thought that there should be any techniques used at all that could result in any harm, wherever that might occur, to the environment. The Australian Government has been very active in ensuring that what the Nuclear Energy Agency mechanism of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development is trying to seek should be brought about. 1 make it clear, firstly, that Australia has not been asked by Japan to give its approval for or to acquiesce in its proposed dumping operation. Japan has simply provided detailed information on the operation and given certain assurances that it will be carried out under the most stringent safety and environmental controls as laid down by international regulation. The same explanation is being provided to other South Pacific countries. Secondly, Australia has made it clear that it is opposed to the Pacific region becoming a dumping ground for the indiscriminate and uncontrolled disposal of nuclear waste. We have taken a position to this effect at meetings of the South Pacific Forum. Thirdly, whilst we appreciate that Japan does have particular problems with nuclear waste disposal, we have also made it clear that we fully understand the strong feelings that Japan’s plans have engendered among the small South Pacific countries. This must be a factor in our reaction.

Finally, we have urged Japan to provide the most detailed information to regional countries and to maintain close consultation so that these states will be in the best position to judge any implications which the operation could have for that region. Japan has agreed to do this. We are closely in touch with the international discussions regarding control over dumping. We are hoping, and I understand that Japan also is hoping, to join in the NEA mechanism of the OECD. The whole aim of our situation is to ensure that nothing is done in the dumping of nuclear waste that could harm the environment or any person anywhere in the world.

Senator MASON:

– I ask a supplementary question. I understood Senator Carrick to say in the early part of his reply that other means were available for Australia to express its views on trial dumping. I now ask: When those other means become available, what view will the Australian Government express - approval, disapproval, or no view at all?

Senator CARRICK:

– I have made it perfectly clear, as Senator Mason would see if he were to look at my responses to questions in the Senate in the past, that Australia has said emphatically that it will do everything within its powers to ensure that dumping, if it is done at all, shall be done under the strictest safeguards that can be provided. That has been said. Our view is that the disposal of nuclear waste in any environment, and in particular in the Pacific Ocean, should be undertaken only in compliance with the strictest safety measures and with the relevant international agreements. I refer to the London Dumping Convention and the guidelines laid down by the OECD. Australia intends to participate in the multinational consultation and surveillance mechanism of the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency, which will oversee the operation. In other words, we intend to take the stand that there should be compliance with the strictest surveillance that the countries of the world have laid down to date.

page 683

QUESTION

WAGES AGREEMENT

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations noted a report in today’s Australian attributed to a representative of the Victorian Chamber of Manufactures, Mr Brian Powell, to the effect that the so-called wages agreement between the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Council of Trade Unions is little more than an electioneering device? Has the view that such an agreement could not be implemented - in fact, that the agreement does not exist - been expressed by the ACTU President, Cliff Dolan? Is an arrangement to control wages, the linchpin of the ALP’s socalled economic policy, freely acknowledged–

Senator Evans:

– I raise a point of order, Mr President. What on earth has this to do with the Minister’s responsibility and the conduct of his portfolio?

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Messner, be quite certain that you couch your question in terms which seek information within the area of responsibility of the Minister to whom you are addressing it.

Senator MESSNER:

– I think it clearly is. This economic policy has been freely acknowledged by an ALP spokesman, Ralph Willis. In the likely event of such an arrangement failing, does the ALP’s commitment to price and wage control -

Senator Evans:

– Mr President, I repeat my point of order.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! ALP policy does not come within the ambit of the responsibilities of the Minister. Put your question forthrightly and within the parameters of the Minister’s responsibility.

Senator MESSNER:

– In the likely event of such an arrangement failing, would any policy of price and wage control indicate that any party implementing such a policy would be prepared to enforce compulsory wage freezes on the ACTU and the Australian wage earner?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I am unaware of the report in the Australian to which Senator Messner has referred. I will refer the question to the Minister for Industrial Relations and seek an early answer from him.

page 683

QUESTION

NUCLEAR WASTE

Senator WRIEDT:

– My question is directed to the Minister for National Development and Energy and follows the question asked earlier by Senator Mason. The Minister, in the course of his reply to Senator Mason, said that Government policy is opposed to any action which would cause pollution of the oceans and that the Government is opposed to uncontrolled dumping of nuclear waste, presumably anywhere. Did the Australian Government ascertain whether Japan in fact is observing the London Dumping Convention? That is my first question. I think the Senate is entitled to a specific answer. I believe the Senate is entitled to an equally specific answer to the second question. Irrespective of what might be determined or believed to be uncontrolled dumping, did the Australian Government say specifically to the Japanese that we are opposed to this particular Japanese proposal to dump nuclear waste in the Pacific?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I will answer the second question first. I have said quite clearly what the Australian Government said. I will repeat it. The disposal of nuclear waste in any environment, particularly in the Pacific Ocean, should be undertaken only in compliance with the strictest safety measures and with the relevant international agreements, namely, the London Dumping Convention and the guidelines laid down by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. I have indicated that Australia intends to participate in the multilateral consultation and surveillance mechanism of the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency which will oversee the operation. My understanding is that Japan intends to do the same. It is my understanding that Japan intends to observe those rules.

Senator WRIEDT:

- Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I do not think we are actually concerned about the intentions of the Japanese Government. We are concerned about what the Australian Government has done in the discussions which have just taken place. Again I ask the Minister: Did the Australian Government ascertain from the Japanese whether they are observing and intend to observe the London Dumping Convention?

Senator CARRICK:

– I cannot say more clearly than that the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development and the London Dumping Convention regulations are first of all ones that the Australian Government sets its standard by. Our understanding from Japan is that Japan intends to join that organisation and to subscribe to it.

page 683

QUESTION

CIGARETTE SMOKING

Senator PETER BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Is the Minister aware that the Sydney Sunday Telegraph conducted a reader’s poll in which 93 per cent of respondents gave as their opinion that public eating places should not allow cigarette smoking? Is the Minister aware that 6,934 of the 7,470 calls to that telepoll took this view with only 546 respondents favouring cigarette smoking in public restaurants during meals? Without advocating any policy of compulsion at this stage, is the Minister able to advise what policy operates in areas under Commonwealth control, such as government cafeterias and Defence Force mess halls, to determine the views of Commonwealth employees on this matter and perhaps then to act in accordance with those views?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:

–

I understand that the Minister for Health is aware of the matter raised by Senator Baume. Perhaps it could be said that the Minister for Health was not surprised at the results of the survey which was undertaken by that newspaper. The Government has responded to the Senate Committee report. For example, the Department of Health, by consensus, has made some non-smoking zones in the Department’s own buildings.

Senator Wriedt:

– Any non-drinking zones?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLEI am not aware of any action taken along those lines. Implementation of any action in respect of smoking in buildings under Commonwealth control is a matter which the Government has referred to the Standing Consultative Committee on Occupational Health Services to monitor. This Committee is an advisory board. It is chaired by the Public Service Board and has representatives of relevant Commonwealth departments, statutory authorities and the peak union councils. Perhaps I could mention that, in recognition of the rights of both smokers and non-smokers, Telecom Australia has adopted a policy regarding canteens. It requires that each canteen operated by Telecom will have a smokers’ zone defined and the remainder will be a non-smoking area. Whilst there is no specific policy regarding determination of employees’ views on the creation of nonsmoking zones, in a number of other Commonwealth cafeterias non-smoking zones have been introduced with the approval of sponsoring departments or the statutory authorities. Further action will be considered by the Public Service Board and other relevant bodies to determine the most appropriate means of implementing the Government’s decision. As part of these considerations, consultation with staff associations will be necessary. I think we will see continued public interest in this matter and that it be referred to in the Senate again from time to time.

page 684

QUESTION

BUILDING AND CONSTUCTION INDUSTRY

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction. Did the Minister for Housing and Construction issue in the various States Press releases dated Monday 25 August headed ‘Budget boost for the construction industry’? Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to a statement issued by the Master Builders Federation of Australia dated 20 August which states that the overall impact of the 1980 Budget on the building and construction industry will be slight, that in real terms there is a decline both in capital works expenditure by the Commonwealth and in general purpose capital funds allocated to the States and that investment in building and construction is unlikely to improve dramatically as a direct result of the Budget? Does the Minister accept the detailed statement of the Master Builders Federation as correct? If not, will the Minister ask the Minister she represents to set out in detail the areas in which the Government says the Budget will in fact boost the construction industry in each of the States?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:

I am not aware of the statement of the Master Builders Federation, nor am I aware of some of the other specific matters raised by Senator McClelland. I will respond to that part of his question which asked me to refer the matter to the Minister for Housing and Construction and to obtain from him details of the effect the Budget proposals will have on building activity throughout Australia. I will see whether that information can be provided promptly.

page 684

QUESTION

PARA BROADCASTING ASSOCIATION

Senator TEAGUE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications and concerns the Para Broadcasting Association based in Salisbury, South Australia, which has for more than two years now been seeking a C class broadcasting licence. Is it true that the Para Broadcasting Association long ago completed the required draft planning proposal and fully answered all questions put to it by the Postal and Telecommunications Department? Is it true that the Para Broadcasting Association has a large membership, wide community support in the whole northern region of Adelaide, a fully equipped studio and approved transmitter facilities all ready to go? What is the reason for the Minister’s delay to invite applications for a C class licence in the northern suburbs of Adelaide? When will the Minister be in a position to invite such applications?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I have some information on the matter raised by the honourable senator. The answer to the first two parts of the question might be summarised as not quite. The facts of the matter are that the Association referred to by the honourable senator in his question lodged with the Department in J July 1 979 a draft planning proposal for a category C FM public broadcasting station to serve the northern suburbs of Adelaide. That proposal was examined by departmental engineers. The examination indicated that the estimated coverage by the proposed low power station was not in complete agreement with the intended service area stated by Para Broadcasting. Subsequent negotiations with the Association revealed that it was not, as previously indicated, interested in serving the town of Gawler.

There were then further discussions between the Association and the Department in May of this year on the technical operating conditions. The technical parameters were considered suitable for the type of operation proposed, but it was considered that good stereo reception in the town of Elizabeth may not have been possible. The Association indicated that it would be prepared to accept a lower grade of service to Elizabeth in the short term so as to commence operations as soon as possible. According to the draft planning proposal submitted by the Association, the group has a large membership and wide community support. The proposal also indicated that a fully equipped studio had been obtained. But those facilities have not yet been approved by the Department. That approval will not be given until the new service is established.

The reason for the delay in inviting applications for a low power FM public broadcasting station to service the area is related to the technical difficulties previously referred to and which have been the subject of discussions with the Association. The Department is not satisfied at this stage that the technical equipment of Para Broadcasting would provide adequate coverage to the intended service area. There are now arrangements for a further meeting between the Association and the Department to resolve these difficulties. That meeting is set for 23 September. Following those discussions, it is likely that the draft proposal may have to be rewritten before being submitted to the Minister for his approval to circulate the document to industry bodies for comment. That process of consultation is required by the Act. It is likely that invitations for applications may not be able to be invited until late this year.

Senator McLaren:

– 1 ask that the document quoted from by the Minister be tabled.

Senator CHANEY:

– I will think about it.

page 685

QUESTION

RAPE AND OTHER SEXUAL OFFENCES IN THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Senator RYAN:

– My question, which is directed to the Attorney-General, refers to the matter of reform of laws relating to rape and other sexual offences in the Australian Capital Territory. It is a matter about which 1 have been pursuing successive attorneys-general for the last five years. Media releases in the last couple of weeks have referred to a draft ordinance which would amend the Crimes Act of New South Wales as it applies in the Australian Capital Territory in respect of rape and other sexual offences. I ask the Attorney-General: At what stage is his consideration of this draft ordinance? When will the ordinance be presented to the public for consideration?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I must confess to feeling in a certain amount of danger when Senator Ryan says she has been pursuing successive attorneysgeneral for the last five years on this subject. An article which appeared in the Canberra Times recently, by some means or other, managed to give a fairly accurate account of the situation relating to this ordinance. There is a draft which I have under consideration at the moment. It is the most recent of several drafts. In accordance with a great deal of advice we have received from many people, including Senator Ryan, we are endeavouring to draft an ordinance in relation to rape which will eliminate the traditional definition of it based on consent. That is no easy task. 1 am particularly concerned that the drafting of it should be in such terms as to avoid what could be very serious effects when one approaches the matter in this new way. Actually, I am about to submit the draft, which I think is now in a form suitable for further discussion, to my colleague, the Minister for the Capital Territory. If he is happy with it we will be in a position to refer it to the House of Assembly for its comment.

page 685

QUESTION

ANIMAL HEALTH: QUARANTINE ARRANGEMENTS

Senator NEAL:
VICTORIA

– I direct this question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Bearing in mind the constant threat posed to Australia’s valuable livestock industries, is the Minister satisfied with the present standards of quarantine offering at all Australian points of entry? Has the Minister noted whether the problems of disposal of seaport refuse are being satisfactorily solved at the moment? Has the matter of spillage from foreign ships’ water ballast in Australian harbours been resolved?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLEOn matters of quarantine the Minister for Health advises that he does not think there is any danger or risk to Australia’s livestock from ballast from foreign ships. From a statement made by the Minister for Health on 20 August it can be seen that new Commonwealth-State arrangements were concluded with the Northern Territory and all States except New South Wales for the provision and financing of quarantine waste disposal facilities and services at Australian ports. I understand that the New South Wales Government has this matter under consideration at present. Funds were provided for this matter in the Budget. I think an amount of $200,000 was provided for the installation of new waste disposal facilities at the various ports in Australia. I think it could be said that Australian quarantine standards are amongst the most stringent in the world. That does not mean to say that Australia could regard the enviable quarantine record that it has as something that we could take for granted and relax in any way the quarantine security that we have.

The Minister for Health announced in June that the Government would implement this year a national quarantine publicity campaign designed to make Australians aware of the social and economic consequences of exotic disease. This campaign will cover television, radio and the print media and will make people more aware of their responsibilities to protect Australia’s quarantine standards. I will see whether there is any further information with regard to the specific questions raised and see that the Minister advises Senator Neal on those matters.

page 686

QUESTION

TAXATION POLICY

Senator PRIMMER:

– How does the Leader of the Government in the Senate reconcile the Prime Minister’s statement of September 1978 that ‘the Government is not in the business of hitting the pockets of the working men and women of Australia’ with the report of the interdepartmental committee on economic strategy which, in reference to taxation, claimed that ‘the burden has fallen increasingly on PA YE taxpayers’?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– In considering the total concept of how the wealth of this country is shared by Government policies, one has to look not only at the taxation system but also at the social welfare system and other systems and take them together. For example, the record in social welfare, particularly family allowances and the extension of various schemes, is unprecedented in the history of Australia. We should consider these schemes together and bear in mind that the one way to help the Australian family and the Australian taxpayer is to so bear down on the inflation rate that it will be less than that of our trading partners. The real way to help the Australian family is to remind the Senate - the community does not need to be reminded - that five years ago the Australian inflation rate was at a height which was costing the people of Australia out of world markets. It was therefore robbing their pockets. By altering the differential so that our inflation rate is three to four percentage points lower than the average of our trading partners we have done what the Prime Minister indicated.

page 686

QUESTION

BUSHFIRES

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– The Leader of the Government in the Senate may be aware that during July I and a group of parliamentarians visited Montreal in Canada with a view to evaluating recent trends in combating bushfires by aerial water bombing techniques using specially designed aircraft. The Minister will have noted reports in Tuesday’s and today’s morning Press that thousands of hectares of forests outside Sydney have been destroyed by bushfires and one disturbing report that bushfires are raging out of control in the Gibralter Range in northern New South Wales because volunteer fire brigades are unable to get to the seat of the fire in the rugged terrain. As reports from many sources indicate that this looks like being a bad summer for bushfires, will the Government undertake as a matter of urgency a trial of aerial fire fighting techniques so as to determine whether water bombing is an effective means of combating bushfires in Australia? Is it not a fact that the Government is currently considering an offer to conduct such trials in the forthcoming summer? When is the Government likely to take a decision on the matter?

Honourable senators:

Honourable senators interjecting -

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– All honourable senators except those trying to interject are aware that the hardening drought conditions throughout Australia at present provide an increasing menace of bushfires and a threat to the livelihood and standards–

Senator Grimes:

– Don’t be such a ratbag.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! That is most unparliamentary language.

Senator Grimes:

– I said: ‘Don’t be such a ratbag’.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Grimes, you used the word ‘ratbag’. You will withdraw that unparliamentary language.

Senator Grimes:

– I withdraw.

Senator CARRICK:

– The Opposition may not want to hear about the combating of bushfires but I am sure that the people of Australia do, so I will continue the answer. The Government is aware of the technique of water bombing forest fires from aircraft as practised in Canada and the United States of America. In those countries the ready availability of water in placid areas such as lakes and inlets sheltered from strong winds makes the use of such a means of fire fighting attractive and effective, both in controlling a large part of those fires and on a cost benefit basis.

Limited trials conducted in Australia so far have suggested that is not to be the case here because of the different nature of our forests - they are drier and more inflammable - our more extreme weather conditions, our greater heat and winds and the lack of suitably protected areas for the pick-up of water by such aircraft. In the light of the very dry conditions prevailing this year, the Commonwealth is looking at the practicability of conducting, in co-operation with the States - it must be remembered that, fundamentally, fire fighting is the responsibility of State governments - extensive trials of such aircraft to see whether they are of practical value in the Australian situation, given their very high cost and the effectiveness at much lower cost of other methods of bushfire fighting currently in use and highly valued by State bushfire fighting authorities. I can promise Senator Archer that his question will be examined very closely.

page 687

QUESTION

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE: WIGS

Senator COLSTON:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. Has the Government given consideration to providing financial assistance for those people, especially children, whose medical condition leads to a permanent need to wear a wig? If this matter has not yet been considered by the Government, will the Minister have it investigated to determine whether it is possible to alleviate the severe financial burden placed on families in which that need exists.

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:

– 1 am not aware of whether the provision of a wig for people, including children, who suffer from such illnesses is covered under any of the arrangements. I will need to refer the matter to the Minister for Health. I have noted the matter, raised in the way it was by Senator Colston. I will see that the Minister for Health responds to the question.

page 687

QUESTION

WORK EXPERIENCE PROGRAMS

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs. I refer to the statement by the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs that Commonwealth departments and authorities will participate in work experience programs for secondary school students. Can the Minister give details of what is proposed for the Australian Capital Territory, where the Commonwealth is the major employer? Will an extensive range of work experience programs be provided in Canberra? What stage has been reached in making the necessary arrangements for the programs?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– Before an opportunity can be afforded to students to gain experience in Commonwealth establishments there will be a need for discussions to be held with staff associations and for the legal position to be established regarding compensation payments if students are injured. Discussions with the Public Service Board and the Department of Education have been initiated with a view to ensuring that those matters are resolved in time to enable places for secondary school students to be available in the 1981 school year. It is expected that Commonwealth departments, as a major employer in the Australian Capital Territory, will provide an opportunity for experience to be gained in as broad a range of jobs as possible. The Minister has said that his Department will approach permanent heads and heads of statutory authorities, in particular the Department of the Capital Territory, to ensure that as many students as possible can be placed. At this stage it is impossible to assess the number of students who will take the opportunity of gaining work experience in Commonwealth establishments. The number will depend upon the aspirations of students and the extent to which schools wish to participate.

page 687

QUESTION

KAMPUCHEA

Senator SIBRAA:

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs seen Press reports which have quoted Singapore’s Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew, as saying that nobody was fussed or excited about diplomatic recognition of the ousted Khmer Rouge regime of democratic Kampuchea supported by China? Does the Minister not agree that that is a clear signal to the Australian Government that the governments of member countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations would understand an Australian policy of derecognising Pol Pot in the manner advocated by the Australian

Foreign Minister, Mr Peacock, and by the Australian Labor Party.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have noted Press reports of Mr Lee’s comments. Senator Sibraa has been very selective in his quotation. He failed to note that Mr Lee said that his, Mr Lee’s, views would not be popular with his ASEAN colleagues. That is a slight modification of the whole intention. Mr Lee was speaking in the context of a debate on trade liberalisation in the region. Singapore continues to support the ASEAN position calling for the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Kampuchea and an act of selfdetermination by the Khmer people free from outside coercion. Singapore continues to support the seating of a democratic Kampuchea at the forthcoming meeting of the United Nations General Assembly. In view of that, I do not think there is a need for a further response.

page 688

QUESTION

TRANS-AUSTRALIA AIRLINES: SUPERANNUATION

Senator ROCHER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. Is the Government likely to take up a proposal that Trans-Australia Airlines absorb accrued superannuation liabilities at a commercial rate and that taxpayers’ funds be employed to meet the balance? If so, what will be the taxpayers’ contribution? Is TAA’s-total indebtedness to its potential superannuitants of the order of $140m, none of which is reflected in its published financial statements?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I am unlikely to give the honourable senator an answer about what the Government is likely to do, but some information is available on the TAA superannuation scheme. I refer the honourable senator to the last tabled report of Trans-Australia Airlines, the thirty-fourth annual report for 1 978-79, which contains a reference to an evaluation of the fund by the Australian Government Actuary. That evaluation relates to the position of the fund as at 30 June 1 976. It was stated by the Actuary, according to this report, that as at 30 June 1976 actuarial liability was uncovered to the extent of $96. 228m. I do not have a precise up-to-date figure to give to the honourable senator, but I will refer his question to the Minister for Transport and seek a reply for him.

page 688

QUESTION

SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS

Senator ELSTOB:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. Is it true that women who are receiving special benefits and who in the past were in receipt of sole parent allowances are now finding that their benefits are subject to a different means test? Does this means test involve the reduction of benefits by $1 for each $2 over the first $1 which such women’s husbands may be paying towards the mortgage repayments on their former matrimonial homes? Are such women now being penalised in this way as well as having to pay for alternative accommodation? Will the Minister urgently revise departmental decisions on this matter to rectify this blatant inequity?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:

– I will need to have investigated the matter that has been raised by Senator Elstob. It will be understood that this year’s Budget introduced a supporting parent’s pension which will have the effect, when the legislation is passed, of repealing the States Grants (Deserted Wives) Act. I am not able to comment on all of the matters that were mentioned by Senator Elstob, but if partiuclar problems need to be referred to the Department I would be pleased to have information about them. Also, I will seek from the Department a comment on what has been raised in this question.

page 688

QUESTION

EXPORTS

Senator WATSON:
TASMANIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources aware that Australian exports for the three months ended 31 August 1980 were to the value of $4,993m, $789m higher than for the corresponding three months last year? Is he also aware that the figures for 19 out of the last 20 months show exports exceeding imports? Do these figures not reflect the basic strength of the Australian economy and the soundness of the Fraser Government’s management of it?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– If further confirmation were wanted of the figures that Senator Watson has quoted, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development reports on Australia and its economy, by contrast with the years of the previous Government, would emphasise it. The fact is that the OECD and other observers have indicated the continuing strengthening of the Australian economy. It is true that Australia has had a steady and substantial increase in exports in excess of imports. Our balance of payments position is much more comfortable now and we are regarded by overseas countries as having a sound economic base and to be a good country for investment.

page 688

QUESTION

PROSECUTION OF NEWS LTD

Senator EVANS:

– I ask the Attorney-General: Where does the buck currently rest in relation to the prosecution of News Ltd for its apparent breaches of the Broadcasting and Television Act in the ATV10 takeover? If the matter is one for the Minister for Post and Telecommunications in the first instance, as the Minister claimed in May in this place in answers to questions, how much dithering inaction in that quarter is the Attorney prepared to tolerate before exercising his own responsibility in this matter? Further, does the Attorney accept that the mere fact that the licence renewal issue is still before the Tribunal is not, in itself, as a matter of either law or practice, a ground or a good reason for a prosecution not proceeding? Finally, will the Attorney acknowledge unequivocally, which so far he has refused to do, that the ultimate responsibility in these matters rests with himself and that in the case of the Murdoch ATV 10 matter the time for the exercise of that responsibility has now arrived?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I thought I had acknowledged recently in answer to a question from Senator Ryan that I agreed with the Minister for. Post and Telecommunications, Mr Staley, when he said recently in another place that he thought there was an ultimate responsibility on the part of the Attorney-General in relation to the prosecution policy of the Commonwealth. I adhere to the answers that I have given over and over again to questions that I have received in relation to this matter, largely from Senator Evans, Senator Ryan and other members of the Opposition, that I regard that issue as hypothetical in relation to the facts of this case. I have said that I do not propose to take any action in relation to this matter or to give it any further consideration than I have already done until the report is made by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. Although there is no legal direction in this matter one way or the other, I regard the Tribunal as a body which has been set up by this Parliament to investigate these matters and consider that that body’s views and findings are absolutely central to the issue before this question can be addressed by me. As I have said, 1 regard the questions that I have been asked and this question also as raising a matter which is entirely hypothetical.

Senator EVANS:

– I ask a supplementary question: In the light of the Minister’s response, has he noted the decision of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal in the CTC7 case in Canberra last week in which the Tribunal said that it was not necessary for it to decide whether any breach of the Act had occurred? May not the Tribunal make a similar finding in the ATV10 case, in which case will the Attorney not look and feel rather foolish for persisting with his attitude in refusing to accept responsibility, contingent upon the outcome of the Tribunal’s decision?

Senator DURACK:

– I am indebted to Senator Evans for drawing my attention to another matter. I have not seen that report. 1 will allow events to develop. Questions of judgment about how I look will be ones which I think people other than Senator Evans will resolve.

Senator Carrick:

– I ask that further questions be placed on notice.

Senator McLaren:

– I raise a point of order under Standing Order 363. Honourable senators will recall that during Question Time when the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs gave an answer I asked that the document from which he quoted be tabled. The Minister said that he would think about it. Unless the Minister claims that it is a confidential document, I would ask him now to table that document.

Senator Chaney:

– I will table it if Senator McLaren will give me a minute.

Senator Mulvihill:

– I raise a further point of order on different grounds entirely. I would like the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) to consider excluding the time that is taken for the presentation of notices of motion from the period allowed for Question Time. Today, a number of notices of motion were presented. That is a legitimate exercise. A shorter time was allowed today for Question time than was the case yesterday because of the presentation of those notices.

The PRESIDENT:

– No, the full hour has been taken.

Senator Carrick:

– When I rose to ask that further questions be placed on notice, the full hour which is allowed for Question Time had been taken.

Senator Mulvihill:

– You did not make the number.

Senator Carrick:

– The question of the number of questions is largely a matter of how many supplementary questions are asked by the Opposition.

page 689

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN MEAT AND LIVESTOCK CORPORATION

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Yesterday, Senator Gietzelt asked me a question, the basis of which was: Was I aware that on 20 August the New South Wales branch of the Liberal Party held a $100-a-plate fund raising dinner and that the chairman and a senior executive officer of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation attended. I said that I would seek information on the matter. I have discovered that, since 1976, it has been traditional for the Treasurer to attend a luncheon in Sydney to explain details of the Budget. That luncheon is arranged by a member of the Liberal Party and not officially by the New South Wales Division of the Liberal Party. Traditionally the luncheon is one in which the Treasurer gives a factual explanation of the Budget and its details. The luncheon attracts a very considerable number of people from a variety of organisations.

I am advised that this year was no different from any other. I understand that about 500 people were in attendance, representing a wide cross-section of business and community interests in Sydney. I am advised that the chairman of the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation, together with the Corporation’s director of economics and finance, was present. They, together with everyone else present at the luncheon, were there to hear an analysis of the Commonwealth Budget at first hand from the Treasurer. The cost of the luncheon was $25 a person and not $100 a person. This was paid by the Corporation. I have spoken with the Minister for Primary Industry on this matter. It is very proper for members of a corporation to be briefed on the Budget. Nevertheless, the Minister feels - I share that feeling - that, because it was a Liberal Party function, it is inappropriate that Corporation money should be used for that purpose.

Senator Grimes:

– You were caught doing what you have been doing for years.

Senator CARRICK:

– The chairman has been asked to ensure that it be not–

Senator Grimes:

– You were caught with your finger in the till again.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator Grimes:

– You were caught doing what you have been doing for years, and you know it.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Grimes, you are making a very serious imputation of character.

Senator Grimes:

– It is not a–

The PRESIDENT:

– You know that as well as I do. I do not want any further innuendos such as this addressed from one side of the House to the other. The fact is that people are called liars in this place and unparliamentary language is continuously used. This must stop. The only way I will be able to deal with the matter is to implement the provisions of Standing Order 438. I rely on honourable senators to take heed of what is required in parliamentary debate in this place. If honourable senators observe those decencies, we will get on very well.

Senator Grimes:

– May I deny that I have contravened any such public or senatorial propriety.

The Minister for National Development and Energy, in giving an answer, stated that for the last five years two people from the Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation have attended a Liberal Party function which has been paid for by that Corporation. Again this year they attended the luncheon and again it was paid for by the Corporation. Only when Senator Gietzelt raised this matter in the Senate has it been decided that that is wrong and the function should be paid for by those individuals. I made the remark that the reason for the change was ‘you have been caught’, you’ being the Government, the Liberal Party. I was not referring to Senator Carrick - only in that he is an agent of the Liberal Party in this matter.

Senator CARRICK:

– I must respond to the Senate that Standing Order 438 (d) is important in this situation. Time after time beyond number in recent months, Senator Grimes has used the same series of phrases, meaning to imply that I, Senator Carrick, had been caught with my fingers in the till. He has backed down now because he realises the enormity of his remarks. Let me say emphatically that I reject totally the scurrilous preelection kinds of innuendoes that are constantly being said by him. I rose earlier to say that this is the only occasion I know of when members of the Corporation have attended the luncheon - they may have attended in the past - and, upon it being made known to us, we have acted to make sure that the Corporation’s funds were not used. The cost of the lunch was not $100-a-plate. It was $25- a-plate. Therefore, I suggest that propriety has been observed. I totally reject this intention of trying by continuous innuendo to destroy the individual reputations of Ministers and members of the Senate. It is a trick because the Opposition is devoid of other argument. I hope that the Senate will take notice of that.

page 690

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

– by leave - Mr President, I make a personal explanation. I defy the Minister for National Development and Energy, Senator Carrick, to find anywhere in Hansard where I have accused him of having his fingers in the till. I have never accused him of doing anything other than any other branch secretary of the Liberal Party in New South Wales would have done. I find his last remarks extraordinary and offensive when I remember the times when he and his colleagues condemned people such as Rex Connor, Lionel Murphy and other Ministers of the Government at the time.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Grimes, I wish to clarify a matter. Earlier you said that you did not make any reference in a personal way to the Minister for National Development and Energy. If the remark was taken as a personal attack you withdrew it?

Senator Grimes:

– Yes.

The PRESIDENT:

– It was not intended as a personal attack on the Leader of the Government in the Senate? That was your statement?

Senator Grimes:

– Yes.

page 691

QUESTION

NUCLEAR WASTE

Senator CARRICK:
LP

- Senator Wriedt asked me whether there were assurances from the Japanese Government that it would observe the London Dumping Convention. I indicated to him that Japan had indicated that it proposes to join the Nuclear Energy Agency surveillance mechanism of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the basis of which is that the participants are required to abide by the London Dumping Convention. The answer to his question is yes.

Secondly, the OECD NEA mechanism will oversee the Japanese operation, as it will any operation. International regulations require packaging to retain its integrity during descent to the sea bed and for a period thereafter, during which time the radioactivity decays to background levels or is released at a rate which will not adversely affect man or the marine environment. By international agreement, high level wastes are not disposed of at sea. The Japanese plan to meet international requirements and have pointed out that their low level waste will be solidified in cement prior to dumping and that the drums have not broken under the most rigorous of tests. The answer is that the Japanese will observe the London Dumping Convention.

page 691

QUESTION

SHINGLEY HILL: TELEVISION TRANSLATOR

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– Earlier, at Question Time, I was asked to table a paper. I asked for time to consider the matter. I inform honourable senators that a question and answer were incorporated in Hansard on 23 May 1980 at pages 2774 and 2775. Honourable senators will find there a document recorded in the same form as the document which I am tabling now. It deals with a question asked by Senator Colston.

page 691

QUESTION

RADIO RECEPTION IN TASMANIA

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I have a prepared document relating to a question which was asked by Senator Tate on 27 August 1980 about the status of plans to improve radio reception on the west coast of Tasmania. The Minister for Post and

Telecommunications has provided a response. It is of some length. Unless Senator Tate wants me to read it into the record, I will seek leave to incorporate it in Hansard. I seek leave so to do.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is leave granted?

Senator Georges:

– I make the point that if we were to follow the practice of the Government we would ask for that answer to be read. Leave is granted, but the Minister is asking for trouble.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows -

Earlier this year the Minister for Post and Telecommunications asked this Department to conduct a thorough review of West Coast radio services as a matter of priority.

The Minister has since then advised that the Department’s field investigations in the area have been completed and that a draft planning proposal incorporating recommendations for the establishment of commercial broadcasting translator stations at a number of locations in the area is currently being prepared. These locations are Rosebery - Renison Bell, Savage River- Luina, Waratah, Strahan and Zeehan.

Following the established procedure of consultation with industry bodies and other interested parties it is expected that the proposal will be submitted to the Minister for consideration within three months.

In regard to the establishment of national broadcasting services, I am advised that a submission to the National Broadcasting Service Planning Committee is currently being prepared by the Minister’s Department. This submission will assess the possibility of shared national-commercial translator facilities at the above localities.

Because of the timing of the completion of the necessary studies it is not possible to include the national segment of the proposal in the 1980-81 Capital Works Program. Expenditure of approximately $100,000 for the project however, is planned for 1981-82.

The Minister for Post and Telecommunications has indicated that he is conscious of the real need for this project and has the matter under constant review.

page 691

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– by leave - I wish to make a personal explanation. At Question Time today a question was asked by, I think, Senator Lewis of Senator Carrick; in which reference was made to statements made by me and by Mr Keating regarding the increased tax imposed on families by the Government’s crude oil levy. I did not hear the question entirely, but the statement I have made on this matter is that, as a result of the Government’s crude oil levy, each Australian family is paying an extra $13 in tax. I stand by that statement. I can uphold it from figures in Senator Carrick’s statement. The crude oil levy increased taxation by $3 billion between 1975-76 and 1980-81. There are 4.6 million households in Australia. That equals $13 per household.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Do not debate the matter.

Senator WALSH:

– That is the increase in tax that is being -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Walsh, when I say ‘order’ you shall cease speaking. I point Out to you that you should not debate the matter about which you are making a personal explanation.

Senator WALSH:

– I will not debate the matter any further. I just state that the increased tax imposed by the Fraser Government in the crude Oil levy is equal to $1 3 a household, which is what I have always stated.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! You will not debate the matter. You will make the personal explanation that you have been given permission to make, and do no more than that.

Senator Georges:

– If I may -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I have ruled in that regard, Senator Georges, and that is final.

Senator Georges:

– If you make a ruling, is there no way that an honourable senator can question it by seeking leave to do so?

The PRESIDENT:

– If I rule that an honourable senator is trespassing on that which is not allowed to be given in explanation - in other words, if an honourable senator is beginning to debate the matter - it is final. Senator Walsh has said that he has completed his explanation; he is not continuing with the matter.

Senator Georges:

– 1 thought Senator Walsh was cut short. I am not in a position to understand the explanation that Senator Walsh was about to make. 1 cannot see how he could have made his explanation without going into some of the details.

The PRESIDENT:

– You cannot speak on the matter any further, Senator Georges. You know that from the Standing Orders.

page 692

FRASER GOVERNMENT

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received a letter from Senator Douglas McClelland proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely:

The lowering of standards of Australians by the Fraser Government.

I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of senators required by

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– On behalf of the Australian Labor Party, I propose the following matter of public importance to the Senate for discussion:

The lowering of standards of Australians by the Fraser Government.

On 30 April last, about four months ago, the Labor Party initiated a debate in the Senate on the failure of the Fraser Government to improve the real living standards of the average Australian worker. The Fraser Government is not only failing to improve the real living standards of the average Australian family; it is also lowering wage standards, health standards, welfare standards, educational standards, and national development standards. All of these matters have suffered at the hands of the Fraser Government. Indeed, if I might say so, the political standards of Australia and this Parliament have felt the arrogant and abrasive attitudes of the members of the Fraser Ministry, the Executive of Australia. In short,’ during this debate we will show that Australia has gone backwards in the five years of Fraserism. We will show by the debate which takes place on this subject that, despite the assertion by the Treasurer (Mr Howard) only this week that there has been an increase in real disposable income of a niggardly $3.27 a week, the living standards of all Australians have been lowered by this Government. The ordinary Australian would pay $3.27 a day at the petrol pump because of the Government’s petrol pricing policies.

Sadly for Australia and Australian political life, this Government has deceived the Australian people for five long years. Despite the multiplicity of its undertakings to the people, its performances have not matched its promises across the board. Indeed, had the Government honoured its undertakings, had it lived up to its own expectations, the Australian people would have been better off today by about another $30 per week, not the niggardly $3.27 per week after five years of Fraserism, as wrongly asserted and as wrongly claimed by the Federal Treasurer. In case the members of the Government fall victim to their own propaganda, I tell them that I have never seen so much dissatisfaction with a government as I am seeing today from such a large community cross-section. White collar workers, blue collar workers, farmers, builders, small businessmen, age and invalid pensioners, sportsmen and sportswomen and, sadly, the youth of Australia will all tell us how they have been misled, how they have been let down and how their standards have suffered and been lowered.

They remember the undertaking of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in 1975 that there would be jobs for all Australians who wanted to work. Mr Fraser said that the Liberal Party would support full wage indexation, that it would fully index personal income tax for inflation over three years, that it would reduce the tax burden, that it would maintain Medibank, that it would reduce interest rates, and that it would stand by its commitment to abolish the means test on pensions. They were all specific undertakings given to the Australian people as long as five years ago. Under Mr Fraser’s proposals of 1 975, this country was to be the great Utopia.

Two years later he said he needed another three years to fulfil his promises, and away he went on his electoral roundabout with a great heap of additional promises. He said that inflation was falling, that inflation at an annual rate of 5 per cent was within our reach by mid- 1979, and that inflation would go on falling under the policies of the Liberal-Country Party Government. He said that interest rates had begun to fall and would keep falling. As for our youth, he said that unemployment would fall from February 1978 and keep falling. The Government has had five years to do what it should have done in three years, and today the people are asking many questions?

The people are asking, firstly, where are the jobs for all the Australians who want to work. According to the Government, plenty of work is available for skilled workers. I live in the great metropolitan city of Sydney, as do a number of others in this chamber. This morning’s Sydney Morning Herald carried on its front page an article relating to an advertisement by a construction company for eight bricklayers. By lunchtime yesterday the company had received replies from 200 bricklayers, and there were no signs of the number of applicants slowing down. Mr Eric Mills, the Ashbury building contractor said that never in his 35 years in the building industry had he had such a response. So much for the skilled worker! Bricklaying is one of the most highly skilled occupations in Australia. Where eight positions were advertised, by lunchtime 200 responses had been received.

What is the situation in regard to a reduction in interest rates? Where is Medibank? What are the costs of health insurance today compared with five years ago? What has been done by the Government to abolish the means test on pensions, as was undertaken by the Prime Minister in 1975? Where is the single digit inflation of 5 per cent? Where is inflation continuing to fall? Where is the reduction in taxation? All Australians regard taxation as nothing but a complete rip-off by the Government, particularly when they remember, as they do, the advertisement in the 1977 election campaign showing great fistfulls of dollar notes being returned by the Government to the Australian taxpayer. The Queensland miners are doing a great production job for Australia but they had to strike for 1 1 weeks in order to get some justice from this Government so far as taxation was concerned. They lost millions of dollars in production and the nation lost millions of dollars in wealth because this Government and particularly the Treasurer blindly listened to the bureaucrats who were advising them.

The Government will not answer the questions that the Australian people have been posing: Why has not this Government undertaken the policies that in 1975 and 1977 it undertook to implement? If the Government will not answer the questions that I have posed, then let me match its performance against its promise. Unemployment has reached its highest peak in Australia since the Great Depression of 50 years ago. How are those who cannot get jobs and those who have lost their jobs better off under five years of Fraserism? How can a young person on a dole of $36 a week, which was set by the Labor Government in 1 975, be better off in 1980 when the rate struck in 1975 has not been changed in any one year by the Fraser Government?

Interest rates are at a record level and are more likely to go up than to fall down. Indeed, the Managing Director of the Commercial Banking Co. of Sydney Ltd was quoted in the Sydney Sun recently as saying that with an early election likely there was little chance of any immediate increase in officially controlled interest rates. He said that it would be realistic to have a two per cent rise in small overdraft rates and a one per cent increase in the present maximum 10.5 per cent charged on home loans. I suggest that the proposition put by the Managing Director of the Commercial Banking Co. will be carried out by this Government, if by some mischance it is returned after the next Federal election.

Let us take direct and indirect taxation as an example, including the iniquitous petrol tax which is really hitting country people in particular to leg. It has made this Government the highest tax government in the history of Federation. If v/e look at pages 226 to 229 of Budget Paper No. 1 attached to the Budget Speech of the Treasurer, we will get some idea of the substantial increases that are taking place in taxation revenue by this Government as a result of inflation going up and workers and taxpayers going into higher tax brackets. According to Budget Paper No. 1, this year taxation receipts will rise by 16.4 per cent.

Income tax revenue will rise by 13.5 per cent by the pay-at-the-bowser tax, the revenue from the petrol tax and liquefied petroleum gas tax, will rise, according to Budget Paper No. 1, by an estimated 39 per cent.

Senator Teague:

– The standard is going up, too.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Sales tax revenue will rise by 10.5 per cent. I suggest to the honourable senator, if he is interested because time is not available for me to be diverted from the subject, to have a look at his Government’s Budget Paper No. 1, at pages 226 to 229. The Confederation of Australian Industry in February this year, some six or seven months ago, published a brochure headed: ‘The 2 per cent Revenue Customs Duty. A major new cost burden on Australian Industry’. It is a small pamphlet of some six pages. The Confederation of Australian Industry, which I do not think could be regarded as a Labor Party organisation or an affiliated body of the Australian Labor Party had this to say:

The 2 per cent Revenue Duty has now been in operation for seven months, and the experience of Australian companies shows that the Duty and the on-costs directly attributable to the Duty are becoming a major new cost impost on the private sector generally, and on the operations of individual companies.

The pamphlet went on to state:

Against the background of the massive increases in Government revenue recently derived from the crude oil levy, it is clear that the Government should dispense with the 2 per cent Revenue Duty, to the benefit of business and consumers alike.

Despite all the pleas from the friends of the Government about that 2 per cent revenue customs duty the tax still remains to the disadvantage of business and consumers adding to the costs of business, reducing the opportunities of employment, adding to the near insurmountable costs that consumers have to pay. What is the situation regarding pensioners? I have told the Senate already about Mr Fraser’s 1975 undertaking to continue towards the abolition of the means test for all pensioners. In August 1976, in the first Budget after this Government came into office, exemption from tax on certain pensions was withdrawn as from 1 July of that year. Previously, pensions paid to persons below pensionable age were exempt from tax. Under this Government these pensions became taxable. The estimated gain to revenue in 1 976 values alone was $430m in one year. By one stroke of the pen $430m in one year was grabbed by this Government from the Australian pensioners. I suggest that it is easier to win Lotto than to get an invalid pension under the new standards that have been imposed by this Government.

Let us look at the health charges. This was a government which was going to maintain Medibank. In October 1 976 a Medibank levy of 2.5 per cent of taxable income was introduced up to a maximum of $300 a family. That levy yielded the Fraser Government $250m in that one year alone. In September 1 979 the patient contribution for medical services was lifted from $5 to $20 per service. This was a 400 per cent increase. Between 1976 and 1979 the Government’s contribution was lowered from 85 per cent of scheduled fees to a mere 40 per cent. Chemists prescriptions which cost $1.75 under the Labor Government were $2.75 in 1979. That is nearly twice as much. Vaccination fees that were abolished by the Labor Government were reintroduced by this Government. Pathology fees were imposed by the Fraser Government. So much for those who were not going to meddle with Medibank. I have merely cited a few instances. I have not mentioned the increase in postal charges from 1 8 cents to 22 cents on ordinary letters which occurred at a time when Australia Post had an operating surplus of about $20m. I have not mentioned the primary production imposts. When one adds the crude oil levy and the income tax surcharges, one starts to get a clearer picture of how our wage earners, our farmers, our small businessmen, our builders and our pensioners have been slugged by this Government.

Let me deal with the problem of small business. On 2 September an article appeared in the financial section of the Australian newspaper containing a statement attributed to Mr Phil Perman the executive secretary of the Australian Association of Independent Business. The article stated:

  1. . bankruptcies in the small business sector were at their highest level since the Great Depression and signs were that the trend would get worse.

Mr Perman stated:

I don’t think the Government generally realises the importance the small business community plays in the economy.

It employs 42 per cent of the workforce, which is more than that employed by big business.

The article further stated:

Mr Perman said the Government has neglected small business in last month’s Budget and small business were now disillusioned with the Liberal Party.

Mr Perman said:

Small businessmen may be tempted to vote for somebody else unless people promise some sort of action to help small business.

We have to add to that what the Master Builders Federation of Australia had to say about the Budget. Despite the assertion of the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Groom) that the Budget was a boost for the construction industry in the Territories and in the various States, on 20 August, the day after the Budget, the Master Builders Association said:

Investment in building and construction is unlikely to improve dramatically as a direct result of the 1980 Budget. The estimated capital works expenditure by the Commonwealth . . . represents an 8 per cent increase, but given an expected 10 per cent inflation rate in fact means a decline in real terms. General purpose capital funds allocated to the States . . . and specific purpose capital funds . . . in real terms . . . will decline.

This Government has failed all sections of Australia. It has lowered Australian standards. It has no credibility. It has no respect left in the eyes of the Australian people. It will not be allowed by the Australian people to hoodwink them a third time. I suggest that the proposition that I have put on behalf of the Labor Opposition today should be supported in toto by the Senate.

Senator PUPLICK:
New South Wales

– As the Australian Labor Party shambles and shuffles its way towards the 1980 Federal election, desperately band-aiding its Queensland branch and worrying that its Victorian branch has now become a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Ayatollah Khomeini, it has decided that its hopes should be pinned on two public relations exercises. The first of these is a tired old slogan of Raise the standard’ and the second is a new parlour game called ‘Hunt the Hayden’. So ashamed is the Labor Party of its leader that it is not prepared to let him out of its sight without Bob Hawke on one wing and Neville Wran on the other. This troika- the failed leader, the heir apparent and the heir presumptive - has now become the greatest travelling three-ring circus in Australian history. It is designed to deflect public attention and analysis from Mr Hayden’s past record as one of the many failed Labor Treasurers and his worthless promises of future big spending eventually to be financed out of the pockets of the taxpayer. In his Chamberlain Lecture in 1979, Mr Hayden said:

The challenge to traditional democratic socialism . . is a rapid spread of philosophies based on lower taxes and smaller government.

He is absolutely right. They are the challenges which he will face and which will ensure that what he calls traditional democratic socialism does not take hold in Australia. It may well be that the Labor Party is proud of its triumvirate running around the place at the moment, so perhaps we ought to pause to have a look at what the members of the triumvirate think of each other.

We know, for instance, that Mr Hawke has described Mr Hayden’s performance at the last Adelaide conference as a ‘gutless sell-out to the Left’. We know that Mr Hawke privately told

ALP National Conference delegates that he now could not trust Mr Hayden, that at the Adelaide Conference he had been guilty of a ‘dereliction of leadership’ and had ‘gone to water’. He went on to describe Mr Hayden as a ‘temporary leader’. We know that in the United States he has been telling everybody how, when Mr Hayden fouls up this election, he, Mr Hawke, will become the leader of the Australian Labor Party. As reported in the Press on 28 July 1979, we know that he told a number of people: ‘As far as I’m concerned, Hayden is dead’. As far as most of the Australian electorate is concerned, Mr Hayden, for the impact that he is making on them, might as well be dead.

But it is not only Mr Hawke who thinks that Mr Hayden takes this profile. Mr Wran, also in the United States where Labor Party heirs presumptive and heirs apparent go to get their grounding before they come back here to make their speeches to the domestic electorate, in 1978 said:

I think we can forget the prospect of a national Labor Government for these two elections say six or seven years.

Talking specifically about Mr Hayden, Mr Wran said:

I think Hayden’s real problem, if I can be very frank, is his lack of projection . . . He’s just not getting his thoughts, his ideas, his concepts through to the public. Maybe what he needs is someone there to help him project more deeply, more forcibly to the public . . .

Mr Hayden needs someone there to help him, someone there to hold his hand, someone there to write his speeches and someone to feed him his ideas. The image that comes to mind most clearly of the ‘Raise the standard’ slogan, I suppose, is of members of the Labor Party as a bunch of pirates running up the jolly roger before they set off to plunder Australia once again if given the opportunity in government. It is a good slogan for the Australian Labor Party to use, because if any party in Australia needs to have its standards raised it is the Australian Labor Party.

The fallacious sort of allegations that have been made about living standards and how they have fallen in Australia are exposed by the Labor Party’s own comments on this matter. In March and April of this year Mr Bowen and Mr Willis both claimed that the living standards of the bulk of the Australian people had been reduced by $22 a week. By June Mr Hayden had worked the figure down to $18 a week. The figure that the Australian Labor Party is now using is $16 a week. So, in fact, members of the Labor Party, in terms of their own accusations in this matter, cannot make up their minds. They have failed to realise or to acknowledge that in the period from 1 975-76 to 1 979-80 there was in fact a 1 .9 per cent increase in real disposable household income, which is equivalent to about $7 a week at 1 979 prices for a family of four. By the end of 1980-81 the increase will be about $10.

Members of the Opposition have failed to look at certain aspects of the taxation system that do not suit them. The maximum marginal rate of 60 per cent is the lowest since 1942, but only 3 per cent of people pay that amount. Some 80 per cent of people pay tax at standard marginal rates up to an income of $17,239. The Government, in its periods cif office, has lifted the threshold at which taxation is payable from $2,519 to $4,041. It has freed more than half a million people of the burden of paying any taxation at all. Is that supposed to be somehow lowering the standard? The taxation threshold which affects the most needy was never of interest to the Labor Party when it had control of the treasury bench. Dependants rebates have been increased by about 34 per cent. The spouse rebate has been increased to $800. The sole parent rebate has been increased to $559. Is that lowering the standard? This Budget allows superannuation payments of up to $1,200 by selfemployed persons to be tax deductible, ls that supposed to be lowering the standard in the terms that the Labor Party presents to us today? Average farm income has been estimated in 1979-80 at $29,500 compared with $12,500 in the period 1972-75. The value of rural exports has been estimated in 1980-81 to be $9, 100m compared with an annual average of $3,563m in the period 1972-75. Is that supposed to be lowering the standard? In the Budget the home savings grant has been increased so that a full grant of $2,000 is payable on homes costing up to $45,000. The grant does not cut out until $55,000, raising that limit from the previous $35,000 and $40,000 limits respectively. In 1980-81, we will be providing in the order of 40,000 grants under the program. Is that supposed to be lowering the standard? I come now to the welfare field. Talking about broken promises, I remind the Senate that the 1972 Australian Labor Party election policy speech stated:

We intend to raise the basic pension rate to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings.

That was not achieved. Nothing like it was achieved. The 1 972 policy speech stated:

The means test will be abolished in the life of the next Parliament.

The Labor Party had two parliaments and still failed to achieve that. Let us talk about the promises that the Labor Party now puts foward. Senator Grimes has put forward a package based upon a sort of shaky principle so that a rise of $1 in the income level of families at a certain level can deprive them of fully $208 per annum in terms of their annual income from welfare payments. Labor’s scheme could lead to a situation in which, under the guise assisting families, a family with five children could easily be in a. position in which it in fact is paid less than a family with four children. The Labor Party would add another harsh income test nullifying extra earnings over several ranges of incomes and creating another poverty trap.

In the five years in which the Fraser Administration has been in control of expenditure on social welfare, it has, in fact increased - almost doubled - social welfare payments to a figure of some $10 billion. In the welfare field, the payments of most pensions and benefits are at a record level in relation to average weekly earnings. There have been family allowance reforms, increased support and rationalisation of payments to sole parents, increased funding of welfare services for the handicapped, the creation of the Office of Child Care, the development of new programs to assist children and families, the development of decentralised administration in the Department, and new systems of appeal within the Department. In this latest Budget, there is rationalisation and increased Commonwealth assistance for sole parents, higher meal subsidies for meals on wheels services, higher food and accommodation subsidies for welfare services assisting the homeless, increased allowances paid for children of pensioners, increases in the rate of handicapped childrens’ allowances and double orphans’ pensions, relaxation of the income test for unemployment and sickness benefit, indexation increases in rates of pensions, increases in rates for most recipients of unemployed and sickness benefit where the benefit is not subject to indexation, extension of eligibility for Commonwealth fringe benefits to sickness beneficiaries in appropriate cases, and payment of pensions and benefits to patients in mental hospitals. Is all of that supposed to be lowering the standard?

If we want to talk about standards and the way in which members of the public are affected by standards, let us give them a practical example of what a Labor administration in office would do to their standard of living, to the quality of their environment and, indeed, to the issue of their parliamentary representation. We can look at the record of the New South Wales Labor Government which last year passed its legislation by guillotining through the New South Wales Parliament a quarter of all legislation that came into that Parliament. When it was dealing with substantial matters such as the Crimes Amendment Bill it allowed three hours for debate. When it was dealing with substantial matters such as the Public Service Bill, putting the New South Wales Public Service under the command of a Minister and not the Public Service Board, the New South Wales Government allowed three hours and 14 minutes for debate. But when it came to the Evidence Amendment Bill overturning a decision of the High Court of Australia which protected the rights of individual citizens - and every state in Australia has accepted the judgment of the High Court saying that the courts and not Ministers should decide in cases before a court whether documents should be produced - the New South Wales Government alone legislated to prevent the courts of New South Wales having access to those documents. In order to get the legislation through without public notice, that Government allowed the Opposition in both chambers of the Parliament 14 minutes to consider that legislation. I call that lowering the standard.

This week, that Government is engaging in an exercise of forced council amalgamations. The Sydney Morning Herald the other day ran the following half page advertisement:

You are breaking your word, Mr Wran!

The advertisement indicated that Mr Wran, when he was seeking office, when he was still Leader of the Opposition, said:

There must be sensible amalgamations to reduce the number of municipal and shire councils after adequate consultation with local residents.

There has been no adequate consultation - none at all - with the 40-odd shires and councils being forcibly amalgamated at the moment. Mr Wran now says:

Groundswell or not - the Government has made its decision. The legislation will stand.

The legislation is being rammed through the New South Wales Parliament at the moment so that the quality of representation that the people of New South Wales have is being entirely destroyed. That lowers the standard.

We can see the sort of fiddling that goes on with environmental matters. The New South Wales Government is anxious to have aluminium smelters in the Hunter Valley despite the feelings of the local people, lt has passed what it says are strong environmental protection laws, lt introduced them but it delayed their proclamation. It agreed that they shoud be proclaimed on I September, lt arranged with the aluminium companies that they should lodge their development applications on 26 August so that they could be determined under section 12 of the Local Government Act without any environmental protection legislation coming into operation and without any third party appeals coming into operation. That is the way Labor in office treats people. I am glad to say that that scheme will not work for the New South Wales State Government. As both of those projects require a foreign investment clearance by the Treasury, the Treasurer (Mr Howard) and the Minister for Science and the Environment (Mr Thomson) were approached by me and the Minister for Science and the Environment has since written to me. He said:

Following consultations with the Treasurer, I have directed the preparation and submission of environmental impact statements (EIS) on each of the two smelter proposals in accordance with the Administrative procedures of the Impact of Proposals Act. The assessment of these EIS’s will be undertaken in conjunction with the New South Wales environmental authorities so that a single EIS in each case will be prepared to satisfy the requirements of the Commonwealth and State Governments.

The State Government’s attempt to fiddle through without adequate environmental protection has been thwarted by the fact that that protection of the environment in the Hunter Valley will be given by Federal legislation and will be given by Ministers in the Fraser Administration. The views of the people in the Hunter Valley will be properly protected by the Federal Government and not set at nought by the continuing demands of the Wran Government that it has no interest in what the views of people are to such projects. That’s lowering the standard.

The development of stage 2 of the Port Kembla coal loader is to go ahead, again without environmental impact statements being properly done and without consultation. Even the Australian Labor Party Federal representative in the area is making statements saying that he has to disagree with the way in which the New South Wales State Government is bullying and cajoling the people of New South Wales into accepting environmentally unsafe projects which they clearly do not want. We know the way in which the Labor Party operates and the plans it has in mind for the people of Australia, should it be elected. We know whom it regards as important.

One of the prominent members of the Australian Labor Party, a Mr Hartley, dealing with Mr Hayden and his industrial relations policy, said:

Bill Hayden accepted the advice of Jim Roulston that conflict … is endemic to industrial situations. He (Hayden) thus backed off a hard-line incomes policy which would have offended the union movement.

Mr Willis has indicated:

If Labor does not gain office at the next election, then by 1983 … we would face a mammoth task in rebuilding the public sector - and maybe an equally mammoth task in convincing the electorate that it should pay a higher level of tax to enable us to do so.

I shall repeat what Mr Hayden thinks are the greatest dangers to what he sees as traditional democratic socialism. In the Chamberlain lecture he said:

The challenge to traditional democratic socialism . . is a rapid spread of philosophies based on lower taxes and smaller government.

Everybody knows that bigger government, financed by higher taxes, is the plan that the Australian Labor Party is putting before the electorate, whether it admits it or not, for the forthcoming election. The Labor Party, with its public relations gimmickry, has a desire to hide its parliamentary leader by ensuring that he is not let loose on the electorate without Neville Wran and Bob Hawke being there to prop him up. The opinion of him of those gentlemen range from ‘gutless’, which is one of Mr Hawke’s phrases, to ‘temporary leader’, which is another one of his phrases, and include ‘goes to water’, which is another of Mr Hawke ‘s phrases. Neville Wran has said that Mr Hayden ‘needs somebody there to help him’, that ‘he does not project himself and that ‘he needs assistance as far as the electorate is concerned’.

Senator Button:

– Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. On three occasions Senator Puplick has purported to quote people. He has given no indication of the sources of the quotations. I think that in fairness those sources should be given to the Senate.

Senator PUPLICK:

– I am quite prepared to provide the sources of all the quotes. Those of Mr Wran were reported in the Age of 6 May 1978 and in the Australian of 7 February 1980. Those of Mr Hawke were contained in an Australian Associated Press report of 19 July 1979 and in the Age of that date. The remark about the temporary leader was reported on 18 July 1979. The things said in Washington came from a Brian Toohey interview on 3 July 1980 and the Sydney Morning Herald of 27 June 1980. I am quite prepared to provide all the evidence. I understand Senator Button’s enormous sensitivity to this matter. As he sits in the chamber contemplating his move from what is almost a back bench position to the chair at the centre of the table and works out the numbers he will have to confront after Senator Wriedt has passed into political oblivion, having failed in his campaign for Denison, I can understand his sensitivity about his putative leaders.

Senator Button:

– Mr Deputy President, I rise on a further point of order. I would like the source of the quote of Mr Hartley.

Senator PUPLICK:

– It is the Labor Star of August 1979. The proposal which Senator Douglas McClelland has put forward has been shown to be spurious on all counts. The slogan Raise the Standard’ is the sort of slogan that should be applied only to the quality of Senator Douglas McClelland’s presentation and to the quality of Senator Button’s interjections, which are usually more difficult to deal with but which, on this occasion, have proved to be about as useless as the rest of the Labor Party’s pol icies.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Senator ROBERTSON:
Northern Territory

– I rise to support my colleague Senator Douglas McClelland in this matter of public importance. Whilst I do not want to waste time rebutting the extraordinary outburst from Senator Puplick, I will make one comment. If all the things he said about Mr Hayden were true - of course, they are not - what a sorry picture it would be for Mr Fraser. Mr Fraser has consistently been headed by Mr Hayden in the opinion polls for the past two years. Mr Peacock, Senator Withers, Mr Eric Robinson and a string of Ministers might explain to Senator Puplick why this was so. I give Senator Puplick one piece of free advice in his last days in this place. I suggest that he does not get pushed into carrying the Liberal can as some of the contents may splash and stain.

Although one would not have realised it from the last contribution to the debate, we are talking about the lowering of standards. I shall look at what we mean by the lowering of standards and which ones can be affected by government action. Obviously, we can see some straight away. Everybody understands them. They are the levels of goods and services that one can buy with the weekly pay packet, and the health services, the education services and social services available - in other words, the standard of living in the material sense. Some standards are less obvious. These are in what I call the attitudinal area. They include the attitude to work of young people, the societal standards of behaviour, the level of expectation, the attitude to government and politicians, our level in the world community and what others think of us. I will bring evidence, as Senator Douglas McClelland has done, to show that there are lower standards in almost all these sections after five years of Fraser. I will draw my material from the Northern Territory, not only because that is my area but also because it is in a unique situation in that it has had two and a half years of full Federal responsibility and two and a half years of partial Federal responsibility.

Let us look at the two and a half years of full Federal responsibility leading to self-government. In general terms, what happened in those first two and a half years under Fraser? We had the same across-the-board policies as were applied everywhere else. There was no recognition at all of the fact that the Territory is unique and has special problems. We had the same cutbacks in public sector spending. The Northern Territory, like the Australian Capital Territory, is dependent upon public sector spending but the Northern Territory, unlike the Australian Capital Territory, received no special treatment. I refer to a comment made by Mr Barry Wyatt, the President of the Country Liberal Party in the Northern Territory. He was one of that party’s Senate candidates in 1 977. In relation to the Budget, he said:

The economy of the Northern Territory as a whole depends on the viability of the building and construction industries as the largest employer of labour and the biggest consumer of a wide range of raw materials and manufactured goods. It is not a matter of a couple of builders going broke - it will affect many people in allied industries.

We know from the information put forward at that time that there was work in Alice Springs for only four of the 18 builders there. It is interesting that his comments were reinforced by former Senator Wright at a meeting of the Estimates committees. To the Minister at the table, Senator Webster, he said:

As the capital works part of your program is financed out of revenue, it appals me to think that in a state of exigency arising out of inflation the program for capital construction should be reduced. They are productive works and I think that they should be increased rather than reduced, building assets at a time when you have employment resources and money instead of reducing them in competition for other wasteful expenditure.

It is strange that the Government should adopt for the Northern Territory a policy of deescalation, of winding down and of no balanced development when we remember what Mr Sinclair said:

Australia cannot afford not to develop the potential of the northern areas . . . Australian government would encourage the use of the potential of Northern Australia in the interests of balanced development.

Of course, this is the same Sinclair who promised us the southern road, so probably we should not take much notice of him. Through the multiplier effect on the community of wages, the small shops, garages and suppliers of materials provide opportunities for people to work. The policies that the Fraser Government has forced on the Northern Territory, including taxation policies which put the burden on the poorer people, those less able to pay, have lowered the standard of living.

Let us look at events in another area of the Northern Territory in the first two and a half years of this Government’s term of office. I refer to the Public Service. At the beginning of that time 34 per cent of the population of the Northern Territory was in the Public Service. What did we see there? We saw a policy of staff ceilings attained by the so-called non-replacement of people and the lack of recruits. That was all right in Canberra because it has so many public servants, but it hit the Northern Territory hard because it lacked flexibility in its small Public Service. There was no appreciation by the Government of the effect of its across-the-board decisions. The situation developed in which there were no support staff. People at higher levels were doing lower level jobs. I am sure that the Public Service needs to be appraised and evaluated constantly to counteract some of the empire building and to abolish positions which are no longer required. But it should not be done in this way. This way leads, as it did in the Northern Territory, to lower standards of service being offered and a lowering of morale. I have raised in this place on previous occasions the problems of the Commonwealth Employment Service and the Department of Social Security.

I refer briefly to education. It was Senator Carrick’s boast that he would hand over a system to the Northern Territory Government that would set the standard for the rest of Australia. What actually happened? There were cutbacks in staff and finance. Specialists were sitting around not able to work because there was no money to travel. Senior officers were doing the work of clerical assistants because of the Government’s stupid staff ceiling policy. Of course, the people who were hit were the handicapped, the Aborigines and the migrant groups. Quite clearly, there was a lowering of standards in the services offered and, perhaps more importantly, a lowering of morale, which in itself leads to a lowering of standards.

Let us bring the debate a little more up to date and look at Federal responsibilities in the two and a half years after self-government in the Northern Territory - that is, from mid- 1978 to the present. I refer to the Australian Broadcasting Commission. A delightful article in the Northern Territory News under the heading ‘Furious Frasers’ stated:

Evonne Cawley’s Wimbledon win may help improve country television and radio services.

The Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, is writing to the ABC chairman, Mr John Norgard, about poor television and radio programming in outback areas.

And his complaint comes because Mr and Mrs Fraser were unable to watch or listen to Mrs Cawley’s Wimbledon triumph last Friday night.

Of course, it is a great pity for them, but that sort of thing is standard in the Northern Territory. In June this year the following statement appeared in the local newspaper:

Television coverage of local sporting events by the Australian Broadcasting Commission has been cut to zero.

Severe limitations have also been placed on production of current affairs and rural programs.

The outbacks are blamed on a shortage of engineering and program staff in Darwin.

But regional manager, Mr Don Sanders, believes the situation is ‘consistent with restraints on staff and finance’.

It is quite clear that if one person is away we do not get any Northern Territory news. There are not adequate funds for outside broadcasts. The rural officer who is supposed to service the rural area is tied to Darwin; he cannot get out because of a shortage of funds. Evidence given before the Dix Committee this year made it quite clear that 20,000 Territorians cannot benefit from Australian Broadcasting Commission radio and television services and 85 per cent of those are Aboriginal people. I suggest they are the ones who profitably could listen to and watch ABC programs. We all know that Radio Australia has lost its audience because for five years there have been no facilities on the Cox Peninsula - no programs have been going out from there. In this year’s Budget - the 1 980-8 1 Budget - provision is made for inadequate transmission facilities.

Let us consider air travel. The rapidly rising air fares are having an adverse effect on the tourist industry of the Northern Territory. Each increase is a body blow to that industry. In addition, each increase adds to the cost of living in the Northern Territory. It adds to the cost of travel by individuals and the cost of freight. In the same way as my colleague, Senator Douglas McClelland, referred to increased costs because of the petrol tax, we could look at the increase in charges in the Northern Territory. Onions can be bought in Adelaide for 39c a kilo; they cost $1.19 a kilo in Darwin. Cabbages cost 22c a kilo in Adelaide and 79c a kilo in Darwin. Apples cost 69c a kilo in Adelaide and $1.99 a kilo in Darwin. Each of those costs 1 70 per cent more in Darwin than they cost in Adelaide because of the effects of the Fraser petrol tax. Associated with air fares is the downgrading of the Darwin Airport, which I have mentioned here before. We have a lowering of safety standards. If Darwin Airport has to be used by overseas planes in an emergency the facilities available cannot meet the needs of that emergency. That has been made quite clear. The navigation equipment at Darwin and Alice Springs is described in a report as ‘having deteriorated’.

I move quickly to consider veterans’ affairs. Despite many requests which have been made by me and others, there is no officer of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs in Darwin. Every so often a junior officer visits Darwin and carries messages back to his superiors in Adelaide. He has no power to make decisions and he, because he is a junior officer, has little ability to give advice. A great number of agent orange victims from Vietnam are in Darwin. They were denied the opportunity to make a claim because of the time limit and of the fact that no one was there to help them. That is another example of a downgrading of a needed service.

Let us consider the development of Darwin as a port. No action has been taken on that despite many reports which have been presented over the last few years. Facilities are not keeping up with the needs of the Northern Territory or the markets to the north. The Northern Territory is poised for resource-based economic growth and we are concerned that the supporting infrastructure, including the port facilities, is not being developed. The Chairman of West Germany’s Commerzbank, Herr Wienskowski, when speaking on the development of port facilities, said:

I can see the time when importers in Europe will seriously consider railing mineral and raw material requirements to Darwin for onward sea shipment to Europe.

As well as highlighting a need for port facilities, he highlighted the need for a railway system. I am gratified that now both major political parties, instead of just the Australian Labor Party, support the extension of the railway from Alice Springs to Darwin. It is clear that the east coast shipping service is not as reliable as it used to be. There has been a lowering of standards in that. At the Asian Trade Conference held in Darwin in July the Trade Development Council Chairman, Kelman Bryan, said that development of a sea link should be given top priority.

I come now to the last topic to which I want to refer, that is, unemployment. I have left it to last because I think it is one of the most important topics and one of the areas in which we see the lowering of standards in Australia as a direct result of the action and inaction of the Fraser Government. I had hoped not to use figures in this short address but I must give these couple of statistics because they highlight the problems in the Northern Territory. In June 1980 the percentage of the labour force unemployed was 10.26 per cent. The percentage of those receiving the unemployment benefit was 6.06 per cent. I have raised this matter before and wondered what is happening to those people who are unemployed but not receiving the unemployment benefit. I do not want to canvass that at the moment because of the shortage of time. For the 5,221 unemployed people in the Northern Territory there were 356 unfilled vacancies. Of course, this is not the complete picture, because we have no idea of the hidden number of unemployed people - the Aboriginal people, the married women and some of the migrants who will not register as unemployed.

The key factor in the unemployment situation in Darwin is that the incidence of unemployment is greatest in the 1 8 to 24-year age group and, because we have a skewed population in the Northern Territory where the majority of our people are younger than those in the rest of Australia, the problem is greater. Studies by the Australian Council of Social Service, the Young Men’s Christian Association, the Brotherhood of St Laurence and many others all point to the effect of unemployment on the young- to the depression which they suffer and the low esteem in which they hold themselves, the lack of developing an attitude to work and so on. I have mentioned previously how on occasions this depression has led to suicide amongst the young. In this area perhaps more than any other the Fraser Government has drastically lowered standards. Sociologists rightly fear for the long term effect on youth of their being unemployed for long periods. The Fraser Government has consistently, and unfortunately consciously, destroyed many of our youth. It has left on those young people scars which will affect their future attitude towards work, towards themselves and, in the long run, towards the credibility of politicians.

As we have a listening audience I have avoided using statistics, but let me make it quite clear that I have supporting evidence for all the statements that I have made and, obviously, this can be made available. As Senator Douglas McClelland said in his introductory remarks, of which there was no rebuttal from the only speaker we have heard so far from the other side of the chamber, there has been a lowering of standards during the five years that the Fraser Government has been in office. That is disturbing. What will be of more concern to the Australian people, the ones who will be voting in a few months, a few weeks or a few days whichever it may be, is that the lowering of standards in many areas has been a conscious and deliberate action on the part of the Government.

This will be deplored by all thinking people. I support the proposition raised by my colleague, Senator Douglas McClelland.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– Today we are debating a matter of alleged public importance submitted to the Senate by the Opposition in this chamber under the title:

The lowering of standards of Australians by the Fraser Government.

It is curiously vague as to what standards are being referred to, but one imagines that in some way the Opposition–

Senator Robertson:

– You should have been here when I started.

Senator RAE:

– I was listening to the honourable senator when he started. He was still curiously vague. If he will listen to me I will point out the way in which he and Senator Douglas McClelland were curiously vague. Before I do so I draw attention to a letter which appeared in today’s Melbourne Age newspaper written by Professor West, in which he asked what raising the standard referred to. He asked whether it meant raising the scarlet banner, or raising some of the other banners which in previous periods of history have formed the bases of revolutions which have taken place and which have been bloody in their impact on the population. His letter concludes by saying that he wonders who will go first in the tumbrils in the shade of this standard which the Opposition wishes to raise. I answer that question by saying that, as far as this matter of public importance is concerned, the lowering of standards under the Fraser Government is something which perhaps we can accept provided we know what it means. Certainly, there has been a lowering of the standard rate of growth in inflation, unemployment, job losses, taxation, government spending and loss of investment.

Let us look at each of those situations individually. Senator Robertson chose not to use any figures. I believe that sometimes people can be satisfied a little more readily if they hear the actual figures. Let us look at inflation. In March 1975 the rate of inflation was 1 7.6 per cent. To the year ended June 1980 it was 10.7 per cent. This can be compared with Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average of 13.8 per cent. In other words, Australia has moved from an outstanding position with one of the highest rates of inflation among comparable countries to having a rate of inflation which is now well below the average of the comparable countries.

I turn now to employment. In the year to June 1 980, 1 75,000 new jobs were created. Let us compare that with the standard under the preceding

Government about which we have heard some reference from the Opposition speakers. Under Mr Whitlam’s Government, 124,000 jobs were lost in manufacturing alone. There was a rise of 1 14 per cent in unemployment in one year alone. Certainly, there was a standard rate of growth of unemployment, of job losses, under that Government.

Let us look at taxation. The rate of taxation rose by 125 per cent in the three years of the Labor Government. This Government has been able to curtail rises in taxation rates. As Senator Puplick said, it has been able to provide many tax benefits to reduce the impost on many individual former taxpayers who are no longer subject to taxation and to make more equitable the position of many others. I turn to government spending. Again, under the previous Government there was a very rapid growth in government spending and in the Public Service which was part of the cause of the very high rate of taxation which was introduced by that Government. At the same time, let us remember the loss of investment that occurred. Do honourable senators remember that slogan which appeared in 1975: ‘Would the last businessman leaving Australia please turn out the lights’? I think that will remind some people of what many Australians felt was taking place at that time. As opposed to that, some $29 billion is committed or in a final study stage for national development projects of various sorts.

I think we could agree with the proposition if the meaning were taken in the way I have suggested. The present Government has lowered the standard rate of growth in inflation, in unemployment, in job losses, in taxation, in government spending, in loss of investment and in many other areas. The previous Government, all by itself, managed to create records in those areas. I imagine that many Australians will remember fairly well some of the other standards. Reference has been made to political standards. I do not wish to become engaged in a detailed reference, but let me very quickly trip down memory lane. Do honourable senators remember the Cameron fiasco with Mr Clyde Cameron’s refusal to resign; the Connor fiasco, which led to Mr Connor’s dismissal; the Cairns fiasco, which led to Dr Cairns’ dismissal; the name of Khemlani and the loans affair; the Iraqi breakfasts and the alleged loans of $500,000 to the Australian Labor Party; and all the rest of those sorts of things? I do not think I need, nor do I wish, to go into those matters in detail. I imagine that whenever the next election is held, one thing will be for sure: The average Australian citizen, the voter of Australia, will remember only too well what life was like in 1975.

What took place in 1975 was a revolt against a mismanagement which could be described as economic vandalism. Now the Labor Party is again starting to play the game of endeavouring to engage in an auction with itself, an auction in which it proposes to use the taxpayers’ money. Promises of various sorts, which amount to approximately $2,000m, have already been made. As outlined, approximately $ 1,000m will be spent on the Opposition’s manpower proposals; $380m will be spent on health; $276m will be spent on welfare; $264m will be spent on education; and $175m will be spent on housing. All of that may sound very fine until we come to the question of where the money - an extra $2 billion of expenditure - will come from. The answer is fairly clear. Reference has already been made to it by my colleague Senator Puplick. The money will come from bigger taxation. The promises which have been made so far are so reminiscent of what happened between 1972 and 1975. There are promises of bigger government and bigger spending and promises, therefore, of bigger taxation.

All these promises are coming from the man who I simply remind the Senate, introduced what must be regarded as one of the most vicious tax rip-off systems which has ever been introduced. He was the Treasurer in 1975 and presided over the economic decline of Australia to the stage where the people of Australia so decisively revolted when they had the chance to vote in 1975. That disastrous taxation system which the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) introduced in 1975 was in fact a form of sleight of hand. The same man, when Minister for Social Security, presided over the Medibank disaster. He hopelessly underestimated the cost; I think that is now admitted by everyone. He was the Treasurer during some of the worst economic mismanagement in this country’s history.

Senator Puplick has outlined many of the very valuable steps that have been taken by this Government in relation to social welfare and improving the standards of living. In other areas such as education positive steps have been taken by the Government to lift the living standards of Australians. At the same time we have also been able to provide, a home for a very considerable number of refugees from other parts of the world and to improve vastly their opportunities in life and their living standards. We have, I believe, a record of lifting the standards of social security in relation to such things as were mentioned by Senator Puplick - in particular the family allowance- and the standard of living generally, as has been outlined in a recent statement by the

Treasurer (Mr Howard). He identified the comparative position of a taxpayer on average weekly earnings with a dependent spouse and two children in December 1975 and June 1980. That statement showed quite clearly that such a person, after adjustment for the effect of any inflation, is now receiving more than he was receiving in December 1975 and that, as well, other benefits introduced by this Government are available to all taxpayers.

We have seen a dramatic lifting of the standard of economic activity, political behaviour, and national development. When Opposition senators say that it is a matter of public importance that there has been a lowering of standards under the Fraser Government, I can only take it that what they really mean is that there has been a lowering of the standards which they would prefer to see, which they themselves have a track record of creating. I refer to the standards of growing unemployment, job losses, increased taxation, bigger government spending, loss of investment and the other record of their term in government. Those are the standards which have been lowered by the present Liberal Country Party coalition Government. I am proud to have the opportunity to identify the ways in which, by good economic management, those disastrous standards created by the previous government have been lowered.

Senator MELZER:
Victoria

– I join this debate on the lowering of standards of Australians by the Fraser Government, noting with some sadness that both Government senators who have spoken in the debate, senators for whom I have some regard, have been loath to talk about standards as they exist in Australia. In fact, it seems that they will do anything but talk about things as they really exist in Australia. They might have to agree, I suppose, that real living standards have fallen. This Government, as we all know now, set out to reduce the wages and conditions of the masses of the people and so, indeed, reduce the standards of Australians who had always been proud of their standard of living.

This Government tells us over and over that with development and by exporting our resources we will increase the number of jobs in Australia by thousands and will maintain or improve our standard of living. Of course, we find that with the enormous increase in unemployment and the tremendous increase in taxation, Australians are, in fact, having their standards forcibly lowered. This Government preaches about caring about the family and tells us that we must have concern for family life. Members of this Government berate mothers who go out to work - suggesting that their children are neglected- and say that they are taking jobs that should go to young people. What do they do for those women who do choose to stay at home and look after their kids? They reduce them to the level of poverty stricken peasants. The women who stay at home find that their husbands, the fathers of their children, are being paid wages that do not cover their costs of living, and this Government takes away their choice as to whether they should stay at home or go out to work. We find that these women have no choice but to go out to work to make ends meet.

Recently I had a meeting with about 250 wives of servicemen, women who were concerned because they could not manage on their husbands’ wages. At least 75 per cent of those women had jobs, or their husbands had second jobs, to make ends meet and the other 25 per cent said that they would go out to work, or their husbands would find second jobs if they could, because their standard of living was being eroded day by day. This Government pays lip-service only to this question of family life. It pressures mothers to stay at home with their kids, but it does not do anything real about their plight. The income tax that people are now paying bites more and more into their weekly income. Petrol taxes have sky-rocketed, medical insurance costs more, and the money left over when one has paid those things buys less. In two years, on the Budget projections, taxes on wage and salary earners will go up by 33 per cent. On the same Budget assumptions, the weekly earnings will rise by 23 per cent. The burden of tax on people who earn below $16,000 a year has increased, and the lower down the scale one goes the greater the burden of tax people carry. People find that in order to live they have to lower their standards and their expectations. Families find that the breadwinner is unemployed or is on reduced wages. They have to depend on what they can get, and one finds families turning to extraordinary measures.

I recently talked to a girl who works as a checkout girl in a supermarket. She said that she would like a part time job to help eke out her pay. She said that a sister of a friend of hers had found a part time job working in a corner shop. She works in the corner shop from 4 p.m. to 9 p.m. to earn money for the family. But the sister is only 1 1 years old. That is what some families are being forced to, to try to keep the family together. Where is the standard that kept our children as children, instead of turning them into adults before they had even become teenagers? We are placing terrible pressures on people with unemployment or the fear of unemployment. Families are breaking up and people are resorting to drink and to other drugs. Teenagers are being forced out of their homes because of problems that have arisen in the homes because they cannot get jobs. Their parents cannot understand why they cannot find jobs. In very affluent suburbs in Melbourne people are finding that there is a very real problem coping with youngsters who have left home and have nowhere to live. There is nowhere to live. How could one find anywhere to live when one receives as unemployment benefit $36 a week? What will that buy? Even the Young Liberals in Victoria have asked the Government at least to index the unemployment benefit to enable recipients to cope with the cost of inflation so that at least they can try to maintain some sort of standard.

In Australia we were proud of the education we were able to give to our kids and the capabilities of our kids. On the front page of the Melbourne Age today is a portrait of a young man. The heading over the picture says: ‘Reward for excellence is society’s scrapheap at 21’. The article mentions that the young man will receive an award. It states:

  1. . an award for Apprentice of the Year. Earlier in the day he will have made his usual trip to the employment office to look fora job. . . finished his apprenticeship … on 4 June. Since then, he has had only two weeks’ work, despite many interviews, job applications and hours of poring through situations vacant columns.

That is what we are doing to the young people of this country. Government members are concerned about crime. Senator Puplick stands up day after day and talks about crime and law and order. Can one really wonder about people’s standards slipping and kids being forced to use dubious practices to live? How would Senator Puplick live on $36 a week and keep himself honest? This Government expects the children’s parents to keep them, but their parents have had their incomes reduced by taxes such as the petrol tax, which reduces people’s incomes to well below the poverty level. While we have young people who are well educated, who have tried very hard and got themselves qualifications but cannot get jobs, we have the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Macphee) telling employers that Government assistance is available to bring workers from overseas. An article in the Confederation of Australian Industry News, in referring to Mr Macphee ‘s comments, states:

Don’t Forget the Employment Nomination Scheme.

Mr Macphee urged employers to take advantage of the scheme.

Over the years many thousands of migrants have been brought to Australia under this scheme.

We all know that we have a shortage of skilled tradesmen, but why are the unemployed people of Australia not trained to fill those vacancies for skilled tradesmen? Why does Mr Macphee insist that employers try overseas for the skilled workmen that we know we will need. Why should our kids sit with no jobs, having got their qualifications, while we have Ministers of this Government telling employers not to forget the Employment Nomination Scheme and bring people from overseas? We know very well why the Government will not even try to train or re-train the people who are unemployed. It is because it wants to maintain a large pool of unemployment in this country. The Government said when it came to office that it would find a way to control the trade unions and the work force, but it thinks the way to do that is to keep a large number of them unemployed.

This Government has no plans for expansion. People are being forced to move all over the country to find jobs, but there is no planning as to how they or their children will live when they get to new towns. People are being forced to areas where there is no proper housing and no schooling for them. People are being forced into substandard housing that is being rented out at exorbitant rents. The Government provides no funds for people to build homes at interest rates they can afford. The Government provides no funds for welfare housing in many areas of Australia. At the moment no housing is available to people at the bottom of the heap because the people who have some money are using the sub-standard housing into which the people who needed welfare housing used to be put.

Recently I found a woman in a country town with four children. She and the children were all seriously ill and one child had serious disabilities. All the children had been born prematurely and three other children had died after they had been born. Her husband was a war veteran, but that was not going to help them. There has been serious disagreement between husband and wife because of the tension that exists in so many families these days. The woman had been turned out with her four sick children and there was nowhere for her to go, except into a house that was to be wrecked as a slum. The house has live wires hanging from the ceiling, a broken stove and an inoperative hot water system. It was a house with an inoperative hot water system. That was all that could be offered to her. Nobody would find anything else. Nobody appeared to care. In some ways nobody cared because they no longer knew what to do. Everywhere one turns in the welfare area, people will say that they can multiply that story 500 times, that they get those sorts of requests five times a day.

Of the money which is available for social welfare, this Government has made $276m available in the Budget for welfare housing. Some $200m of that will be paid back to the Government by way of interest. Ordinary people have been taxed to the point where 40 per cent of their wages is paid in Federal, State or local taxes. Income tax has increased by nearly 17 per cent. What has the Government given back to the people for that? lt has given them cuts in education, social welfare, medical care and public transport. The Government spent $21,000 in country newspapers selling its freight subsidy scheme. It has not worked. At the same time the Government has taken $4,000m out of the pockets of the taxpayers in petrol tax.

In relation to leisure and education, in the Latrobe Valley and Gippsland areas of Victoria, people were forced to accept a new television channel designation to allow Channel O in Melbourne to operate as Channel 10. The Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley) assured the people that they would have their television sets adjusted at the expense of the Government or Channel 10. Now we find 75 per cent of the people in those areas can only get Channel 10. They cannot even get their local television station. This week the Minister told the technicians to leave the area, whether or not the television sets have been adjusted and whether or not people can receive transmissions from the stations that they want to watch. In conclusion, I quote a person with whom most of us in this House have some acquaintance. That person stated:

We now have the highest unemployment since the Great Depression of the nineteen thirties and the worst prolonged inflation in our history.

School leavers will not be able to get jobs. Young people can no longer afford to buy a home. The savings of the retired are being destroyed. Small businessmen are seeing their life’s work wiped out. This cannot be allowed to continue.

This sounds very familiar. The statement continues:

On top of all this the Government has shown itself to be incapable of behaving with propriety.

I will not go into the area that Senator Rae skated around, but we could talk about the propriety of some of the Ministers who have been part of this Government. The quote continues:

The Prime Minister has shown himself to be incapable of setting and enforcing decent standards of behaviour for this Government.

That sounds familiar as we remember the Ministers who have retired from this Government one after another. Those statements were made in November 1975 by the present Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, who added:

The Government must face the people.

This Government has had five years, since then, to put right those matters. What has it done about the school leavers who are unable to get jobs? What has the Government done about young people who can no longer afford to buy a home, the savings of the retired which are being destroyed, and the small businessmen who have seen their life’s work wiped out? Mr Fraser said that the situation cannot be allowed to continue. May I say that the Opposition agrees entirely with him. It cannot be allowed to continue. The Opposition invites the Government to stop the sham that is going on at the moment. We invite it to announce the date of the Federal election so that we may get out there and let the people of Australia have their say as to what they feel about raising the standard of living in Australia today.

Senator KNIGHT:
Australian Capital Territory

– I think we are all indebted to the Australian Labor Party this afternoon for raising this matter of public importance because it demonstrates once again to the Senate and more importantly to the people of Australia listening to this debate the abject poverty of the Labor Party when it comes to suggesting anything constructive. Members of the Opposition remained silent about some of the more important aspects of their approach. For example, they did not mention what their policies would cost the Australian people. They did not mention the $2 billion that some of their grander programs would cost. They did not refer to what that might cost the taxpayers of Australia or what impact it might have on inflation which, given their approach, would run away again. The level of inflation has been reduced very substantially by the Liberal Government.

Members of the Opposition did not refer to the impact that those policies and their outcome would have on unemployment, which would again run away under a Labor government. Unemployment is being controlled and contained in difficult circumstances by a Liberal Government. They did not talk about the effect of inflation and these circumstances on people on fixed or lower incomes. They talked a lot about preventing tax evasion but they did not mention the fact that a Labor government in three years of office did nothing, while this Liberal Government has done more than any other government since Federation. They talked about the oil levy and the impact of that on the people of Australia, but did not refer to their resource tax and the impact that that might have on Australia. They did not refer to the fact that that would put an end to measures for the conservation of our scarce energy resources. They did not mention that Labor’s resource tax would put an end to much of the work being done on the development of alternative energy sources. They did not mention the fact that the resource tax which the Labor Party proposes to impose would be a gross disincentive to exploration in this country at a time when more than ever we need to stimulate local exploration. They did not mention where the cost will end. It will end with the people of Australia. They will be paying for it.

As I mentioned, I think we are indebted to the Labor Party because in this debate this afternoon it has emphatically demonstrated once again that it is the big tax party. It has demonstrated that it would again cause - if it ever had the chance - economic chaos in this country. The Labor Party attempted to ignore that fact, but I will remind the people of Australia, that the cost will be borne by this country, by the taxpayers of Australia and that it will be borne in the form of runaway inflation and resurgent unemployment. Senator Rae has already mentioned the disaster that occurred in Australia under a Labor government in 1 974-75 when, as I recall it, 170,000 jobs were lost in a year. It is worth noting that the policies of a Liberal Government in the last year to July 1980 resulted in 212,000 jobs being added to the work force in this country. That is a stark contrast. Well may the Labor Party say: ‘Raise the standard’. Members of the Labor Party might look at themselves. Perhaps they can raise the standard of ALP policies. Perhaps they can raise the standard of ALP leadership and the standard of their sense of responsibility to this nation in the policies which they formulate. Senator Puplick and Senator Rae have well demonstrated again this afternoon the poverty of the Labor Party in economic management in its attempts to develop policies that might be of some constructive value to this country. It cannot do it. The best it can do is to come up with a second rate slogan. I therefore move:

That the business of the day be called on.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 706

MODERNISATION OF FLEET BASE AND DOCKYARD, GARDEN ISLAND

Report of Public Works Committee

Senator YOUNG:
South Australia

– In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969,I present the report relating to the following proposed works:

Modernisation of fleet base and dockyard. Garden Island, New South Wales, stage I.

page 706

CONSTITUTION ALTERATION (ELECTORS’ INITIATIVE) BILL 1980

Motion (by Senator Mason) agreed to:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to alter the Constitution so as to vest in the electors power to propose laws and to approve or disapprove such proposed laws.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Motion (by Senator Mason) agreed to:

That the second reading be an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

page 706

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Immigration (Unauthorised Arrivals) Bill1980.

Preference to Australian Goods (Commonwealth Authori ties) Bill 1 980.

Australia Council Amendment Bill 1980.

Museum of Australia Bill 1980.

Delivered Meals Subsidy Amendment Bill 1980.

National Health Amendment Bill 1980.

Nursing Homes Assistance Amendment Bill 1980.

page 706

EXCISE TARIFF AMENDMENT BILL (No. 4) 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 28 August, on motion by Senator Durack:

That the Bill be now read a second time. (Quorum formed).

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– The Bill we are now debating is one which trebles the excise on naturally occurring liquefied petroleum gas, increasing it from $14 per kilolitre to $41. 65c per kilolitre. In round figures, approximately half a million tonnes of liquefied petroleum gas is produced in Australia from refineries. A further1½ million tonnes is produced, mainly from Bass Strait, in naturally occurring form. Again in approximate numbers, the half a million tonnes which is produced from refineries is used on the domestic market and the naturally occurring production from Bass Strait is exported.

Prior to the Iranian revolution, the price of LPG was low. The Australian price for refinery produced gas used on the domestic market was tied to export parity by decision of the Government. Indeed, if the refiners had chosen to dispose of it elsewhere they would have had little option but to accept export parity. Following the Iranian revolution and the shortage of petroleum products generally induced by the revolution and the large decline in Iranian production, LPG prices on a world basis almost trebled. The Government attempted for some time to maintain the price of refinery produced gas at the pre-existing export parity, which was about one-third of the price then prevailing, which caused the BP company to flare refinery gas from itsWesternport refinery, thereby blackmailing or pressuring the Government into a price increase for the gas that it disposed of on the domestic market. The Government succumbed to that. That left the Government with a political problem as it had been urging motorists to convert motor vehicles to LPG on the ground that LPG was significantly cheaper than petrol.

With the initial and subsequent increases in LPG prices and the Government’s decision to maintain a price for petroleum products which was in fact somewhat below world parity price, despite all the rhetoric, the pre-existing gap between LPG as an automotive fuel and petrol almost disappeared. The Government’s initial reaction to that reality was to blame the Prices Justification Tribunal. The Government said that the pricing of LPG did not have anything to do with the Government, that the PJT was to blame for the prices which were being charged on the domestic market. That was one of the political problems. The other political problem, of course, was that numerous towns, many of them located in marginal electorates in south-eastern Australia, had installed reticulated gas supplies using LPG. Of course, probably a very much larger number of isolated homesteads, households and industries were dependent upon bottled LPG.

As a result of all those political pressures, the Government announced in January 1980 that a subsidy of $80 a tonne would be payable for LPG used for household use. lt also stated that the subsidy would be paid to wholesalers. In the first week in April it was announced that the subsidy would be paid retrospectively to 28 March. On 1 7 April a further statement was issued advising that the subsidy would be paid to retailers of liquefied petroleum gas. On 6 April a further statement was issued. In between those statements the ministerial responsibility apparently had shifted from Senator Carrick to Mr Garland, or perhaps Senator Carrick realised that the position was degenerating into such a shambles that it would be wise for him to get out of it. Mr Garland started making statements in July, repeating that the subsidy would be paid retrospectively to March and that it would be paid at retail level. By August - we had a debate in the Senate a fortnight ago and Senator Durack spoke on this subject - the Government’s intention in regard to paying this subsidy had reverted to paying it to the wholesalers, of which Senator Durack said there were, I think, some 440 at that time.

I repeat what I said then: It is not possible to administer this subsidy satisfactorily at a wholesale level. There are tens of thousands of retail outlets, and only the retailer is in a position to determine with any accuracy at all whether the LPG purchased will be used for household or domestic purposes or whether it will be used for industrial purposes. It is difficult enough for the retailer to determine that with any accuracy. It is absolutely impossible for a wholesaler to determine it when the wholesaler has no direct contact with the final consumer. What we can expect, if the Government proceeds in the way that Senator Durack indicated two weeks ago, is that industrial users of LPG will find some obscure retailer whose normal custom comes from domestic consumers and they will begin to buy their industrial requirements from that retailer, who will receive the gas at discounted prices, prices less subsidy from the wholesaler, and will then be in a position to appropriate to himself a substantial component of the Government subsidy. I would be interested to know what plans the Government has to overcome that sort of malpractice. The conditions it has laid down - unless they have changed since Senator Durack last stated them - are an open invitation for that malpractice to develop. The Government still says that the subsidy will be paid retrospectively to 28 March but it does not appear to have an idea in the wide world as to how that will be done.

If we take the Government’s assurance at face value, it is saying that it will pay, to an unknown number of distributors or retailers, an $80 a tonne subsidy for the gas which they sold over the last five months and which was used for domestic purposes but not for gas which was used for other purposes. It is clearly an absurd proposition to suggest that at this stage. The Government is exhorting the retailers to reduce their prices accordingly. The Government is saying that the retailers subsequently will be compensated by the subsidy. The retailers clearly do not believe the Government and nobody could blame them. The Government’s LPG policy, like so many of its other policies, is an aggregation of ad hoc opportunism most clearly demonstrated in the fundamental contradiction between what the Government says its policy, objectives are and the usage pattern which its pricing policies actually induce.

The Government asserted in April, and it has asserted on several occasions since, that its policy is to reserve liquefied petroleum gas for its premium use as an automotive fuel and a petrochemical feedstock. That is the stated intention of the Government’s policy. Its arbitrarily determined prices are that LPG for domestic use will be sold at $125 a tonne, LPG for automotive use will be sold at $205 a tonne and LPG for industrial users, including its use for petrochemical feedstock will be sold at $252 a tonne. The

Government claims that that is a premium end use to which it believes LPG suppliers should, as far as possible, be directed. In other words, the Government says: ‘It is our policy to encourage the use of LPG for a petrochemical feedstock. It is our policy to discourage it for other use but our prices for the petrochemical feedstock are $250 a tonne and our prices for domestic use for space heating, for the crudest of all uses, is $125 a tonne’. With that sort of business logic, with that sort of grasp of the effect of pricing on consumption and usage patterns, no wonder the country is in a mess.

When the announcement was made in April that prices for automotive use would be reduced by Government decree from the pre-existing level of around $250 a tonne to $205 a tonne the consequences of that decision were grossly misrepresented by a number of National Country Party politicians. It was claimed that, as a result of that decision, LPG would be cheaper for country people. Nothing in fact could have been further from the truth. Firstly, there is a negligible distribution network for LPG in the country. Indeed, there is a negligible distribution network outside any of the larger capital cities. So LPG for automotive use was effectively non-available to country motorists. However, the $50 a tonne price reduction determined by Government fiat was to be recovered by the oil refiners from other petroleum products. In other words, the $50 a tonne concession which the Government had, with seeming generosity, granted to metropolitan motorists was to be recovered from all motorists by higher prices for all other petroleum products including, of course, those products which were sold in the country.

The opportunism which has been the most consistent theme of the Government’s LPG policy has been compounded by massive self-delusion of the type which enables Government spokesmen to say that they are reserving LPG for its premium use as a petrochemical feedstock. They say that they will sell it at $252 a tonne. They are trying to discourage its use, so they say, for other purposes. But they will sell it for $125 a tonne for crude space heating. Evidently, the Alice in Wonderland syndrome has really taken root in the Fraser Government. The Government believes that if anything is said three times it becomes true, no matter how absurd it is. It is difficult to imagine any proposition more absurd than encouraging the use of LPG as a petrochemical feedstock and discouraging it for space heating when the price of the petrochemical feedstock is twice as high as it is for space heating.

The mixture of ad hockery, opportunism, selfdelusion and simple incompetence which the Government has displayed with its LPG policy has, of course, spilled over into other areas. Senator Carrick, for example, is still under the impression - at least he is if his public statements are to be taken at face value - that the introduction of a resource rent tax will increase the price of Australian crude oil. In a statement issued on 20 August he said:

As for oil pricing under a Labor Government . . . Labor’s policy … is far from clear and deliberately so because of the impact of its proposed resources tax.

For the twenty-fifth time and for the information of Senator Carrick I repeat, in the perhaps forlorn hope that this time he will actually grasp the subject, that the price of Australian oil is determined by government decree. The price of Australian oil is whatever the Australian Government says it will be. The introduction of a resource rent tax will affect not the price of Australian oil but the distribution, at whatever price is arbitrarily determined by the Government, between the Australian producer on the one hand and the Australian Department of the Treasury on the other. The secondary effect is that a resource rent tax, on purely technical grounds, is a much more efficient tax than any quantum royalty. Any first year economics student ought to know that, but obviously Senator Carrick does not.

The interdepartmental committee report on economic strategy - the Pentagon Papers of the Australian economy leaked three weeks ago - clearly show that the Government knows that a resource rent tax is more efficient. The interdepartmental committee report - the Pentagon Papers of the Australian economy which will send Malcolm Fraser the same way as the Pentagon Papers sent Richard Nixon, although it will happen more quickly in Mr Fraser’s case - state that a resource rent tax ought to be introduced. The committee’s grounds for saying so is that if a resource rent tax is not introduced the windfall gains which accrue to those who have the rights to mine lucrative mineral deposits or lucrative oil fields will be taxed away by the unions. The IDC then says, with a fair amount of logic, that the extremely high wages screwed out of the excess of profits of those companies by their work force will flow on to the economy generally with highly inflationary results.

There are three excellent reasons for a resource rent tax. Firstly, there will be more revenue for the Australian Treasury which provides scope for tax relief for other taxpayers without any increase in oil prices. Secondly, a resource rent tax is technically much more efficient, lt has a neutral impact on managerial decisions which determine when it becomes uneconomic to extract more oil from the field or the cut-off grades of ore from mines. A resource rent tax is just technically more efficient, as anyone with a passable level of economic literacy knows - something which, unfortunately, is clearly lacking in Senator Carrick.

Thirdly, of course - this ought to appeal even to the troglodytes of this government - is the argument that the IDC and the Government’s own department have raised. If any company operates at an excessive level of profit, at least some of that profit will in one way or another be appropriated by that company’s works force. The premium wages extracted in that way will then induce pressures for a flow-on through the rest of the economy, with obvious consequences on inflation. in another area of the mixture of incompetence and ad hockery - in this instance it would appear to be something even worse - I refer to the questions which I asked originally on 20 April, and which I repeated yesterday, of Senator Carrick. I asked why the price paid to producers of Australian oil from large fields which was supposed to have been indexed to the consumer price index from January 1978 to the present was increased by 14.8 per cent on 1 July when the CPI over the relevant period had increased by only 2.4 per cent. Senator Carrick, although he was first asked three weeks ago, was not even able to answer the question when I repeated it yesterday. I received from him today a letter in which he refers to the question which I previously asked and states:

Following a review of the indexation arrangements for the producers returns for parity oil from large fields the starting point for calculating increases in the Consumer Price Index was changed to September 1978.

In other words, the indexation base was shifted backwards from December 1978 to September 1978 as a result, says Senator Carrick, of a review. Who initiated the review? Was it the Government? Was it Esso-BHP which stands to gain $ 1 8m as a result of the Government’s repudiation of its own publicly announced policy? The policy announced by the Government in public was then superseded in private. It was suppressed and not announced to anyone. It was finally unearthed as a result of several parliamentary questions. As a consequence of that decision, Esso-BHP will gain $18m a year. Who initiated the review? Was it Esso-BHP? Was it the Department? Was it the Government? Was it some Minister who is a big shareholder in Esso-BHP? Or was it because Esso-BHP had promised to kick something into the Liberal Party slush fund. As a result of a furtive repudiation of its own policy by this Government–

Senator MacGibbon:

– I raise a point of order, Mr President. I should like you to apply Standing Order 418 to the honourable senator. He is imputing dishonourable motives to people on this side of the chamber.

The PRESIDENT:

– It is not a personal reflection. I call Senator Walsh.

Senator WALSH:

– I suggest to Senator MacGibbon that if he wants this matter clarified he should get on to his own Ministers and make them answer the questions I am putting. Who initiated that review? The facts are that the Government furtively repudiated its own previously publicly stated policy, lt amended it without notifying the public. It amended it in a way which benefits Esso-BHP by $I8m a year. My questions are: Why? Who initiated the review? Was it EssoBHP? Was it the Department? Was it some other Minister? Or was it Alice in Wonderland again? Why did the Government not tell the public that it had changed what was, as far as public record showed, the Government’s own policy?

All of this ad hockery, all of the consequences which flow from the Governent’s energy pricing policy, have been justified, according to Government spokesmen, by the concept of import parity itself. There is a remarkable Government reverence for import parity. It is as though it were based on some precise scientific calculation guaranteed to produce an infallible result. Import parity is not quite like that. Import parity, in fact, is whatever price happens to be set by the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries. That price is determined by such wild variables as the effect of revolution on oil production - the most important of all variables, probably. The OPEC price is a product of capricious variables which are then metamorphosised into something which masquerades as scientific truth in the Fraser Government’s propaganda machine. The fundamental article of faith held by members of the Government is that the optimum - the infallible - price for Australian oil is whatever price the combination of caprice and accident sets for OPEC oil. In other words, the Government’s ultimate belief is a belief in magic.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– in reply - Senator Walsh has been speaking to a Bill to enact an excise tariff proposal that was made earlier this year. I found it very difficult to relate anything whatever that he said in his speech, which lasted about 20 minutes, to the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 4) which is now before the Senate. In fact, I had very great difficulty in understanding what on earth he was talking about pretty well all the time except at the end of his speech when he addressed a series of questions, I think, to those listening to the debate which, if he genuinely wanted answered, he should have addressed to the relevant Minister or put them on notice.

It is difficult to understand just what attitude Senator Walsh takes to this Bill. If he is opposing it, as the Labor Party did in the other place, I find it an extraordinary stance. The Bill, as I said, implements proposals to increase the excise tariff which were part of a package of measures announced by the Minister for National Development and Energy (Senator Carrick) on 8 April this year. It increases the excise duty from $14 to $41 .65 per kilolitre, effective from April this year. The reason for that was that the producers of naturally occurring liquefied petroleum gas have had substantial increases in profitability over the past year due to increases in the price of LPG on world markets. These have risen substantially, and the Government decided that it was appropriate, and I think fair, to collect part of these windfall profits from the producers of naturally occuring LPG. That is what this Bill does. That is all it does and that is all this debate should be about.

I wonder whether the Labor Party will oppose the increase in excise duty which will take some of the windfall gains and the quite excessive profitability that was obtained by the producers of naturally occurring LPG as a result of these factors. It is the Government’s proposal that, in the interests of equity and fairness in taxation, those who have obtained such windfall gains should pay a higher excise duty and thereby return for the benefit of the public some of those windfall gains. That is what the Bill is about. I should have thought it would have commended itself to both sides of the chamber. I am sure Government supporters will give the Bill full support. I hope it will be passed, but I presume that the Opposition, for some unexplained reason is opposed to it.

Senator WALSH (Western Australia)- by leave - There seems to have been some confusion. The Opposition does not oppose this Bill. We did not oppose it in the House of Representatives and we do not oppose it in the Senate. I am sorry; I should have said that earlier.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without requests.

Sitting suspended from 5.57 to 8 p.m. (Quorum formed).

page 710

RAILWAY AGREEMENT (ADELAIDE TO CRYSTAL BROOK RAILWAY) BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 9 September, on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– The purpose of the Railway Agreement (Adelaide to Crystal Brook Railway) Bill is to enable the construction of a standard gauge railway line between Adelaide and Crystal Brook in South Australia, a distance, I believe, of 192 kilometres. Of course, all South Australians will welcome this long overdue legislation and the long overdue work of improving the standard in that State. The construction will be carried out by the Australian National Railways Commission at an estimated cost of $82m. If it is finally agreed to extend the work to the container terminal at Adelaide’s outer harbour, there will be an additional expenditure of approximately $10m. The railway works involved are very important to South Australia. They require the conversion to standard gauge of the existing broad gauge line from Salisbury to Merriton with a new construction at each end of this line - from Merriton to Crystal Brook and from Keswick-Mile End to Salisbury. The legislation also provides for a connection to be provided to Port Adelaide and Pooraka.

Because of the attitude that the Australian Labor Party has adopted to the railway line in South Australia, it is natural that it will not oppose the Bill. After all, the eventual linking of Adelaide to other capitals on the standard gauge rail system is long overdue. I do not think anyone in this chamber would disagree with that statement. It is five years since this proposal was first advanced to the point where it was beyond the planning stage. This construction will remove the considerable handicap from which Adelaide and South Australia have suffered since Federation. I am sure there is no disagreement with that conclusion. It will reduce journey times between Adelaide and Perth, Adelaide and the Northern Territory, and Adelaide and the eastern capitals. Obviously, it will improve railway efficiency and reduce transport costs. Importantly, it will give South Australia and its manufacturing industries much improved access to the valuable eastern markets. The legislation is surely a recognition by the Parliament and, belated as it may be, by the Government of the need to examine the increasing transport costs in the whole price structure in our country. It is pleasing that, despite all the delays, that is now recognised by the Parliament.

Clause 3 of the Bill repeals the Labor Government’s Adelaide to Crystal Brook Railway Act 1974 and the agreement contained in that Act. The Schedule attached to this Bill contains an agreement between the Commonwealth and South Australia. That agreement specifies the terms and conditions for the construction of the new Adelaide to Crystal Brook railway by the Australian National Railways Commission. As well as terminating the 1974 Adelaide to Crystal Brook railway agreement, the agreement restores the parties, as far as practicable, to their original positions by adjustments of property and finance. The agreement contains schedules setting out the works to be included in the project and the route to be followed, to which I referred earlier. In this legislation the Fraser Government, after almost five years, has finally taken the act of consummation. lt has recognised the need for the construction of a modern railway gauge link between Crystal Brook and Adelaide. This work was originally commenced by the Federal Labor Government in 1975, but it was promptly halted by the Fraser Government in 1976. It was part of the cutback in public sector spending, a concept to which this Government’s philosophy has been wedded. After that needless four and a half years of delay work is to begin on a modified plan to link Adelaide to the standard gauge system. We are entitled to be critical of those years of delay.

The viability of the new line has been enhanced by the integration of the former non-metropolitan South Australian railway system into the Australian National Railways system. This development was pioneered by the last Commonwealth Labor Government and the then Labor Government in South Australia. Connection of Adelaide to the standard gauge system was the subject of inquiry for 35 years. In 1921 the need was recognised by the government of the day and there were a number of proposals for standardisation right up to 1956. Time went by and little progress was made. A committee was then set up, known as the Wentworth Committee, which was followed by a scheme put forward by the then South Australian Premier, Mr Playford, in 1964. Subsequently, the Commissioner for Railways in that State, Mr Fitch, advanced a new scheme, a gauge conversion plan, similar to that to be found in the present legislation. After Mr Fitch’s proposal, the Prime Minister of the time, Mr Gorton, and the South Australian Premier referred the matter to a firm of consultants, Maunsell and Partners, which reported in 1 970 on the way in which the conversion could take place. However, it was not until 1974 that the plan finally received the assent of the national Parliament and that was in the period of the Whitlam Government.

The people in South Australia have been very patient. One can imagine the degree of enthusiasm with which they will greet the passage of this legislation, principally because they recognise, as the Opposition does, that railways have always been used extensively in our country as a provider of social and commercial welfare services by charging lower rates than would normally be justifiable in the world of commerce. As a result, they normally incur large losses which have to be met by the taxpayers at both the State and Federal level. That has plagued our transport system in this country ever since it was first developed more than 100 years ago. As losses have risen pressures for cutbacks and expenditure reductions by railways have increased. I think it is shortsighted for governments to take the view that it is wrong to try to extend services because governments, both Federal and State, have to accept some financial responsibility for those services.

After the general election, the Australian Labor Party in government will require the losses sustained by the Australian National Railways Commission associated with the provision of social and commercial welfare-type services to which I have referred to be made good by the Commonwealth and State governments of the day. Those losses will be identified by the Commission and the Commission will be suitably reimbursed because we believe that those services are an integral part of the social fabric of our society. Only by governments accepting their responsibilities can we get a rational and accurate assessment of the financial performance of the Australian National Railways Commission and the advantages which flow from that Commission to the economy generally. Simultaneously, Labor in government will require the Commission to devote greater effort to improving the marketing of its services and to seeking expanded participation in performing those services in which it has obvious advantages.

I think it is important that in recent times people involved in transportation in the private sector have drawn attention to the need for improvements to be made in the public transportation system. Even people who are wedded to the concept of private sector activity in transport have drawn attention to the need for a vast improvement in and an upgrading of our whole public transport system. Regrettably, however, when it comes to publicly owned transport enterprises, the reaction generally from conservative governments, conservative economists and other people who believe everything should be done by the private sector, has been to put back operations instead of expanding revenues and market participation. We recognise that expenditure always should be controlled in any undertaking, particularly a public undertaking. Equally, vigorous and imaginative action should be taken to increase efficiency, quality of service and marketing. They are matters which would require the attention of a Labor government to ensure that maximum benefits flowed to the community as a result of an expansion of the activities of the Australian National Railways Commission.

We are concerned that since there has been greater Commonwealth involvement in South Australia’s railways a lack of confidence in job opportunities has been created. For example, the Minister for Transport (Mr Hunt), when introducing this legislation in the other place, said that a reduction of 1 37 jobs at Peterborough could well result from the standardisation project. The Opposition is concerned that, despite the soothing words of the Minister and the Commission, proper consideration has not been given to the railway officers employed at Peterborough and in South Australia generally. There is genuine concern that, as a result of the changes projected in this legislation, there may be some cutbacks in employment opportunities.

I refer honourable senators to a letter which a colleague received from the South Australian Division of the Australian Federated Union of Locomotive Enginemen, signed by Mr D. J. White, the Acting Divisional Secretary, and dated 1 3 August last. In the third paragraph of the letter Mr White refers to the issuing of uniforms to his members, which was agreed to in principle by the Commission in late 1 979. The fifth and sixth paragraphs of the letter read:

  1. . we also feel that questions should be asked of the Minister of Transport, Mr R. Hunt, in Parliament as to whether he is aware, and if so, does he condone, of practices by the ANRC that cause divisiveness, and are anything but an enlightened approach to industrial relations in these modern times.

Our members have the feeling, and rightfully so, that they are regarded as being the lesser importance in the role they play as employees of the Australian National Railways Commission.

As I said, that relates to uniform issues agreed to in principle by the Commission and to a commitment which in fact has not been fulfilled by the Commission. In fact, the Commission states: ‘We will look at it in six months’ time and make another decision then’. We say that if there is to be that kind of improvement in efficiency in the operations of the Commission, particularly in relation to this project and the improvements it will offer to our national railway system, there has to be goodwill and good faith between employee and employer. If there is to be a successful transition to an upgraded Australian National Railways Commission system there must be frankness and a proper relationship between the Commission and its employees. After all, railway employees have a reputation of being a most dedicated group of employees. But they need security of employment. They need to have confidence in and sound leadership and recognition from their employers.

However, we must remember that this Government, as has been the case with previous conservative governments, is bluntly opposed to the development of a truly national railway system. It is lukewarm about the concept. It surely must recognise, if it has any understanding of the value of a modern transportation system in a continent the size of Australia, that we as a parliament have a responsibility to create efficiency within a modern transportation system. This legislation seeks to extend, at least to South Australia, the concept of that efficiency. From across Australia - from industry leaders, from transport leaders, from manufacturing industry leaders - constant calls are made for a modern, efficient national railway system. At this time, when we have problems associated with energy and with increasing transport costs, surely it is not beyond the capacity of a national government worthy of its name to accept its responsibilities in these matters.

The people of South Australia - indeed, the industry leaders - must realise that only under a Labor government will an efficient national railway system be developed. Such a system is desperately needed if our industries are to be able to survive and to compete in the years ahead and if they are to be able to meet the challenges, of competition, both in the domestic market and the international market. I am sure that those industry leaders and transport leaders are beginning to recognise that this Government has proceeded with this project only because it could not dismantle the activities of the Commission and because its attempts to avoid meeting the requirements of the Tasmanian-South Australian railway agreements have failed. The self same industry and transport leaders have ridiculed the latest gimmick of the Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser. I refer to his latest pet project, the $ 1 billion election year gimmick of the electrification of the Sydney-Melbourne rail link. Labor initiated a technical study into electrification in 1975. In May last year, during a debate dealing with the railway system, I called for an economic assessment of the scheme.

However, without the necessary information, without the benefit of an inquiry, without the facts and without adequate advice, last December the Prime Minister went on record as declaring that $1 billion expenditure a vision splendid. If such a project were to be commenced now it would cost something like $1 billion. That money would be extracted from the taxpayers’ pockets. Of course, the electrification of the SydneyMelbourne rail link is desirable in the long term, but we challenge–

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator, keep to the terms of the Bill.

Senator GIETZELT:

– We are concerned about expenditure, Mr President. In that respect, diverting funds from the essential modification and modernisation of our rail system to schemes which will be costly to the ultimate modernisation of the total Australian railway system ought to be avoided by a government which claims to be acting in the best interests of the Australian people. After all, energy consumption is an important part of any modernisation of our rail system. When we consider that government railways in Australia consume only 9 per cent of the total diesel fuel used in Australia we understand why there is concern about the expenditure of the sort of money that the Prime Minister has suggested on the Melbourne to Sydney rail link.

Let us just imagine the sort of money that is necessary to modernise our rail system. This Government promised to provide $70m in five years for main line upgrading. In its first two years in office it spent a miserable sum of $5. 5m. This represented a shortfall of $22m. During the 1 977 election campaign it promised a $60m program for urban public transport. Of course, upgrading the railways is an essential part of modernising our transport system. In its first three years in office it underspent that undertaking, that promise, by $55m. In fact, it has cut the allocation for urban transport expenditure in this year’s Budget by some 44 per cent in real terms as compared with the 1976-77 Budget allocation. There is a relationship between the legislation that this Bill is to amend and the attempts of the Prime Minister to allocate $1 billion for the Sydney-Melbourne rail link.

After all, we are concerned about the total system. We do not believe that there has been sufficient inquiry into modernising the whole transport system in Australia. The allocation of funds to my State of New South Wales for the link with Melbourne will improve the transport system in the long term. It is justified when we look at the total problem of upgrading our rail services generally. The Adelaide to Crystal Brook standardisation project is long overdue. It is welcomed by the residents of South Australia and it is welcomed by the Parliament. It will dramatically improve the quality and efficiency of rail services in Australia. To that extent it is a step in the right direction. We wish the project and the men who work on it well. We hope that the Government’s commitment will see the job through to fruition.

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

– The Bill before the Senate is simply titled:

A Bill for an Act to approve an agreement between the Commonwealth and South Australia relating to the construction of a railway from Adelaide to Crystal Brook, and for other purposes.

The substance of the Bill is an agreement but the practical result will be, of course, a railway line. Very obviously in the first instance this measure is of importance for South Australia and in the second instance is of particular significance to Australia. It may be that it is a late arrival. It may very well be that its history has been chequered. Nevertheless, its arrival is greeted with a considerable amount of pleasure. The improvement it will make to the South Australian transportation system will consequently improve South Australia’s relationships with the rest of the country.

In the South Australian context, the projected line will become part of the intrastate communication and transport system. It will be particularly valuable and welcomed in the Crystal Brook area. Furthermore, it will be valued and welcomed in the areas served by railways to the north, the north-east and the north-west of South Australia. In the Australian context it will mean that fiAdelaide will be connected with the standard gauge system and therefore with the eastern and western seaboards. Furthermore, as is stated in the second reading speech, all mainland capital cities will be linked to the national standard gauge rail network on completion of this line. The Minister for National Development and Energy (Senator Carrick) pointed out in his second reading speech that the Bill repeals the existing measure relating to the railway between Adelaide and Crystal Brook and provides for the reimbursement to South Australia of payments made by South Australia under an earlier agreement. We were further interested to learn from the speech that the present plan suggests that some standard gauge services will be in action and working in under two years. All the works are expected to be completed by the middle of 1984. By that time Adelaide will have a new transport relationship with the rest of mainland Australia.

The Minister stated what is probably the impressive obvious when he said:

This project represents a milestone in Australian railway history.

He further stated:

The new line will provide important benefits to South Australia, the nation and the railways.

Railways as transportation units have had a varied history but for all that they have had a very significant influence on our economic and social development. When they were developed a long time ago they were the only means of communication between communities, cities, and States. They were the unit of suburban and city travellers. In passenger services they moved all the way from the bare necessities to the grand manor. They were the sole means of transport of freight, livestock and even parcels and mail. Apart from the major city and industry connections they were the social unit for rural and suburban areas. But today their existence is quite different and, indeed, sometimes open to question.

The development of highways and the efficiency of road transportation and airlines have meant that speed and convenience have overtaken what I might call the style of railways. But, for all that, the railways still retain their quite incredible and remarkable value as long distance instruments for the transportation, firstly of passengers moving in a special way, but now and more importantly, for the haulage of heavy freight over long distances. Railways open up the country. They relate to the rural community. They become the lifeline between industrial units and all their suppliers, agents and customers.

The new project, as the Minister has said, will contribute to the development of mineral resources, agriculture and industry both in South Australia and in the Northern Territory. Proposed mineral development projects such as oil at Mereenie and copper and uranium at Roxby Downs will have access to the new railway for reliable and economic freight movement. The livestock industry will benefit as reduced transit times and elimination of transfers will reduce bruising and permit the movement of greater stock numbers through increased turnaround. Already the new line between Tarcoola and Alice Springs has proved to be of particular benefit for the transportation of livestock. The completion of the Adelaide to Crystal Brook railway will result in considerable operational cost savings, a considerable improvement in transportation efficiency and a considerable saving to the Australian National Railways. It is expected to lead to significant increases in rail traffic. I think the new line will make a substantial contribution towards reducing the ANR’s operating losses in future years.

The operating philosophy for the new line is to provide an improved customer service. To this end it is proposed to operate longer and heavier trains and to operate them on faster schedules. A number of handling facilities will be developed on the new line between Adelaide and Crystal Brook. They will be located at several points. Main line operations will be improved considerably by the introduction of centralised traffic control between the station at Dry Creek and the station at Port Pirie. In the metropolitan area the new line will have a particular and interesting effect. A new standard gauge line will commence from the Mile End goods yard and continue on the western side of the broad gauge system to the station at Salisbury. Also, in the metropolitan area the new passenger platform will not be at the central Adelaide railway station as it now is, but the new line will have direct access to the existing railway station at Keswick. The station at Keswick is to be large. It will provide a regular train service to and from the central Adelaide railway station and, at the same time, its proximity to the Anzac Highway will enable the use of road transportation to the city centre.

The new line, which is referred to in the Bill also will provide connections and services at the Adelaide abattoirs, Pooraka and the adjacent stockyards, and other facilities relating to that area. At the same time a spur line is expected to provide services to the container depot at Outer Harbour. The details of this are currently under consideration. The benefits of the new project are tremendous. It will eliminate, for example, bogie exchange, gantry crane and manual transfer of virtually all traffic between Adelaide and Perth, Adelaide and Alice Springs, and Adelaide and Sydney via the Broken Hill line. The completion of the project is of singular importance not only in these matters but also it is a vital requirement for the Australian National Railways. It is vital to achieve what is described as its corporate objective of viability, which it wants to achieve and I think it is required to achieve by 1 988-89. So the completion of the railway by 1983-84 will be of tremendous value to ANR in this respect.

I have looked at the latest annual report of the Australian National Railways Commission, the report for 1978-79. In the Chair-man’s review the chairman, Mr K. A. Smith, has pointed out that in the period under review ANR had completed its first year of operation since the Commission assumed control of the former Tasmanian railways and the non-metropolitan South Australian railways. He went on to point out that total revenue from all sources was up by 8 per cent and the volume of goods traffic snowed an overall improvement. He said:

It is gratifying to be able to record that ANR succeeded in halting the rapid escalation of the deficit which has been evident in recent years. The level of Government subsidy is still a cause for concern but the operating loss this year was SI 5.8m less than 1977-78.

The introduction of the new line referred to in the Bill will add to the efficiency of ANR as a whole range of new operating skills are applied. Mr Smith further adds that the outstanding achievement of the year under review was the development of a management philosophy which has a planning horizon of 10 years. Another outstanding achievement was a substantial fall in the major item of expenditure, and yet another one was the commercial approach to rating. He makes the observation that the Australian National Railways has been set the objective of eliminating the need for government financial assistance for commercial operations by the end of 1988-89. This all points to the fact that the new line will aid considerably the efficiency of ANR and will assist considerably in the development of management policies which will build for Australia an efficient and effective railway transportation service.

In many countries throughout the world the role of railways is currently being re-examined. In Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom reassessments have been completed, new technology is being applied and business management is being used. For fast reliable and economic movement of bulk commodities the railways system, of which this new line will be a part in Australia, is now moving into its own. The development of containerisation and the interdependent and complementary relationship between road and rail have created a new public awareness of the importance of long distance and heavy transportation within a country, the relationship of roads and transportation units and, of course, the awareness of the place of rail in this total transportation situation.

The present Bill enabling a new railway from Adelaide to Crystal Brook is the latest Australian expression in the international trend in transport development. The economies of railway transportation are complex. Railways are a publicly owned facility and they are called to provide - as no other transportation system is called to provide - public services. Quite unlike road freight hauliers, railways are common carriers. They are required to carry all manner of freight and, in the passenger section they must provide, from time to time, concession rates in certain instances. In emergencies they can be called upon to provide transport services without charge. So the provision of rail services one way or another becomes a government responsibility and the authority controlling the railway has to control it responsibly.

The matter of patronage, or lack of it, on certain lines and in certain services has to be looked at very carefully, bearing in mind the responsibility of the Government and the authority and, indeed, the use of taxpayers’ money. In a recent observation the Chairman of the Australian National Railways Commission, Mr Smith, pointed out that, in his view, rail is more efficient than road transportation over long distances. He claimed that this distance criterion of 300 kilometres - which was the one that he used - will reduce significantly over the next few years. He pointed out that rail uses less than half as much energy as road to carry twice as much freight. This surely must make rail much more competitive in the future. I think it highlights the fact that we will need an efficient reliable railway system which will have to be designated as a national system, and its several parts and services will have to possess characteristics of a national integration.

For years in Australia we have had a railway system which has lacked integration. It has lacked total efficiency, it has been scattered all across this country in a variety of gauges and with a variety of managements - the narrow gauge dominant in Queensland and Western Australia, the broad gauge in South Australia and Victoria and the standard gauge in New South Wales - and all of them, in one way or another, on various interstate connections. This has presented very great problems to Australia. Over recent years the extension of the standard gauge system has contributed to the remedying of the problem and the new line, the subject of the Bill, is another step in the right direction.

Several references have been made in public articles relating to this line to the matter of the energy factor of railways. I have already cited one reference from Mr Smith. In 1978-79 the whole of the railways in Australia used some 680 million litres of diesel fuel and that was slightly less than 10 per cent of the country’s total diesel fuel usage. It was also less than 2 per cent - 1 .8 per cent - of Australia’s total petroleum products consumption. I note with some interest the statement made recently by Sir Peter Abeles of Thomas Nationwide Transport Ltd and other business interests in this country. He quoted an American study which found that a gallon of fuel gave four miles by air, 56 miles by road and 200 miles by rail. He said:

  1. . rail had become the cheapest and most efficient form of transport in terms of fuel consumption.

He also said:

The future of transport is in rail.

He said that rail would be the ultimate link between the capital cities of this country, and he went on to refer to the fact that the lines between Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne should all be electrified. He pointed out:

We have abundant coal resources to do just that.

The new line will create a number of employment opportunities, not the least of which as far as South Australia is concerned is the matter of the concrete sleepers which already have been manufactured in South Australia and installed in railway lines. The east-west line is currently undergoing a complete refitting of concrete sleepers, and the new line, I have no doubt, will be fitted with concrete sleepers. The Bill for the Adelaide to Crystal Brook railway line comes at the time of the completion and the opening of another new line - the Tarcoola-Alice Springs line. This line will revolutionise the communication development and transport of the northern and southern areas of South Australia as well as the Northern Territory. I suggest that the line referred to in .this Bill has a direct relationship to this newly completed railway line. They will contribute to each other’s success.

One of the more important consequences of these two events and the Bill is the current public interest in yet a further railway extension, that is, the line from Alice Springs to Darwin. The presence of the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Mr Everingham, in Parliament House today has given strength to this argument. The history of this development is well known. Parts of it go back over 100 years. We may be critical of government actions in the past in relation to this, but recent years have brought new technology relating to fuel and energy matters, railway construction, minerals and other development in the region and the all-important matter of national defence. Much is related to the efficient conclusion of southern rail links. Today, the Northern Territory is Australia’s fastest growing community. It is growing at the rate of some 6 per cent per annum.

If I may take a moment very quickly to relate this reference to the Bill, a recent study concerning the development of a proposed rail line from Alice Springs to Darwin points out that developmental projects with a freight level of 600,000 tonnes can be expected by 1990. This estimate does not include 1,300,000 tonnes of coal which will be required to fuel a coal fired power station in the Northern Territory or 720,000 tonnes from the MacArthur project which will add significantly to the operational viability of such a line.

There is the important factor in this connection which relates to defence, social impact and energy. Undoubtedly the strongest claim for the development of this new line is in the area of defence. The Department of Defence has pointed to the inadequate transportation system in northern Australia and has pointed out that the rail link would contribute substantially and directly to national defence capabilities. There is a strong argument for an immediate commitment to construct a rail line from Alice Springs to Darwin, following on the line from Tarcoola to Alice Springs, which has a direct relationship to the line from Adelaide to Crystal Brook. As far as defence is concerned, in the current atmosphere of international tension, defence issues can be expected to weigh very heavily in the decision-making process. I also believe that the social impact of a railway line is significant and beneficial. A new railway line provides new opportunities and circumstances to communities whether it be in South Australia or the Northern Territory.

Looking at the Alice Springs to Darwin situation, I believe it is important to point out that Darwin is currently the largest community in Australia that at this time is not yet served by a railway line. Its strong associations with the southern States mean that a powerful argument exists for serious consideration to be given to this line in the future as a totally natural consequence of the Adelaide to Crystal Brook line and the Tarcoola to Alice Springs line. In this respect, I quote from a document by Mr Everingham. The document states:

In South Australia’s case, the extension of the railway line from Alice Springs to Darwin would create thousands of jobs and inject tens of millions of dollars into the State’s economy … A railway feeding locally manufactured goods all the way to Darwin and returning cargo from South East Asia and landed across Darwin wharf would turn that figure from a straight loss to a substantially higher trading figure.

That would be of singular benefit to South Australia. Mr Smith, the Chairman of the Australian National Railways Commission, to whom I have made several references in the course of my remarks, has given strong support for such a development. He stated that this would be the biggest railway development in this country in more than 60 years and that it made sense but that it would need what he called ‘a national act of faith’. Those remarks concerned another railway line. The Adelaide to Crystal Brook line and the Tarcoola to Alice Springs line make out a strong case for the development of railways in this country as a national institution, a national enterprise and a significant unit of national transportation. The Bill will make Adelaide and South Australia an important and central feature of Australian activity. The Bill leads to that end and I think without hesitation it is to be heartily supported.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– The Senate is debating the Railway Agreement (Adelaide to Crystal Brook Railway) Bill 1980. In the course of my remarks, I, too, will be making some slight reference to the Alice Springs-Darwin link. I did notice that, although Senator Gietzelt was not allowed by you, Mr President, to speak about one railway line, Senator Davidson was allowed a great deal of latitude in talking about the Darwin line. I intend to make some reference to that also although most of my remarks will be pertinent to the Bill before the chamber.

Senator Davidson was quite right in his opening remarks when he said that this Bill was a late arrival. It is a very late arrival. I refer to a second reading speech which was made by my worthwhile colleague in the other place, the honourable member for Newcastle, Mr Charles Jones, when he was the Minister for Transport. In 1974 he introduced the first Bill to construct the railway line between Crystal Brook and Adelaide. Much of the wording to which Senator Davidson referred in the second reading speech of the Minister for Transport, Mr Hunt, appears to be as though it is just a straight lift from the Hansard report of the second reading speech made by Mr Charles Jones six years ago.

Senator Davidson mentioned the transfer of the Tasmanian and South Australian country railway services to the Commonwealth. They are now operated by the Australian National Railways Commission. Senator Davidson must well recall that his party hotly opposed that transfer. As a matter of fact, practically every day in this place the Whitlam Labor Government was castigated for proposing that transfer and for entering into negotiations with the then Premier of the South Australian Labor Government, Mr Dunstan, and the Tasmanian Labor Government. At one stage, Mr Nixon, who became Minister for Transport after the present Government came into office in 1 975, went to every length possible to find some legal way by which he could repudiate that transfer and get back to the status quo. Senator Davidson tonight said what a good thing that transfer was. I am pleased that he has seen the light at last because it was a good move.

I only wish that we had had a Labor government in New South Wales between 1 972 and 1 975 because the railway system in New South Wales would now be operated by ANR. That would have meant that, with Victoria squeezed into that little corner in the Commonwealth, it too would have had to become a part of the system and ANR would have been operating the whole of the transport system in the southern part of Australia to the benefit of every person who lives there. However, that was not to be. I live in hope that in the not too distant future we will see that transpire. ANR is the rightful body to operate our railway transport system.

Labor governments have a very proud record of constructing railways in Australia. A Labor government constructed the present east-west line from Port Pirie to Parkeston, as it was known in those days. A Labor government initiated and commenced construction of the Tarcoola-Alice Springs link. It was a Labor government which introduced this legislation six years ago to construct the Crystal Brook-Adelaide link. We are very proud of that. But we are not very proud of the way this Government has procrastinated over the years and has delayed the construction of the link. I refer now to some of the remarks made by Labor people when we were in government. I refer firstly to the Hansard report of the House of Representatives debate of 1 1 July 1 974 on the States Grants (Urban Public Transport) Bill 1974. Mr Charles Jones, the then Minister for Transport, said:

Also with regard to rail the Prime Minister and the South Austraiian Premier have recently signed an agreement to construct a new standard gauge railway from Crystal Brook to Adelaide. When the project, which is estimated to cost about $80m, is completed all mainland capital cities will be linked to Australia’s standard gauge system.

They are the very words which Mr Hunt used when he introduced this Bill into the House of Representatives and which Senator Davidson quoted a little while ago. That is why I said they were a lift straight from the second reading speech of Mr Jones six years ago. That shows how much delay has taken place.

I refer now to the remarks on 30 July 1974 of Mr Nixon, the then Opposition spokesman on transport, in the debate on the same Bill. I quote from page 802 of the House of Representatives Hansard of 30 July 1974. Talking about some delay in this project and the Alice Springs link, Mr Nixon said:

The simple truth about both projects is that that signing of the agreement was delayed by the South Australian Labor Government for purely political reasons, but the concept was complete and agreed upon back in 1972.

As Mr Nixon said in 1974, this whole concept was agreed upon eight years ago. Eight years later we have a Bill before this Parliament and we have Senator Davidson championing it. Eight years later we are talking about the signing of the agreement.

Senator Messner:

– Why didn’t you fix it up when you were in government?

Senator McLAREN:

– We did. I suggest that the honourable senator should wait until I am finished. What I am saying is that Mr Nixon was in no position in 1974 to criticise the Labor government when he said that the whole thing was signed and sealed in 1972. Eight years later we still have not laid one ounce of ballast on that track.

In a debate on an appropriation Bill on 1 7 September 1974, speaking under the heading of rail transport, Mr Jones had this to say:

The Government recognises the importance of railways in our national transport system. Recently agreement was reached with the South Australian Government for construction of a standard guage line between Adelaide and Crystal Brook, financed by means of grants and loans to South Australia. Expenditure this year is estimated at $900,000.

We have had some cat calls from the other side of the chamber about why the Labor Government did not proceed with the project. I will tell honourable senators opposite why we did not proceed with it. We were forced to an election in 1974. We had just come back into office and brought down this Budget at the end of 1 974, and what happened? We were subjected to procrastination and harrassment in this place. Everything was placed in our way and we were forced out of office in 1 975. However, the agreement was signed in 1972. 1 am using Mr Nixon’s words, not mine. I have quoted them from Hansard.

I turn to the second reading speech which Mr Jones delivered on the same Bill in the House of Representatives on 2 October 1974. 1 quote from page 2072 of the House of Representatives Hansard of that date. It was almost six years ago that the Labor Government introduced this legislation. In introducing the Bill, Mr Jones said:

This Bill seeks the ratification by the Parliament of an agreement made between the Australian and South Australian governments for the construction of a standard gauge railway linking Adelaide to the transcontintental line at Crystal Brook. Honourable members realise that the new railway will complete the linking of the mainland State capital cities to the national standard gauge network which has been a policy accepted by both sides in the Parliament.

Exactly the same words are used in the second reading speech of the Minister for National Development and Energy (Senator Carrick) about the Bill which we are debating tonight. Mr Jones went on to say:

The new standard guage line involves construction of a high capacity railway from Adelaide approximately 1 92 kilometres to link with the transcontinental standard guage line at Crystal Brook.

He also said:

The consultants -

That is, the consultants engaged by the Labor Government - estimated the total cost of the project to be about $81m at January 1974 prices. In common with other standardisation projects which were previously undertaken, the Australian Government is committed to meeting the total initial cost of the project; 70 per cent of the total expenditure will be treated as a non-repayable grant and the State will repay the remaining 30 per cent of the expenditure plus interest over 30 years.

But what do we see in this legislation? We see the whole onus of constructing this line insofar as expenditure is concerned being thrown onto ANR. A Labor government intended to fund its construction because it provides a public service. This Government always says that the user should pay. We believe that any railway line which operates at a profit is charging too much to the people who use it.

This Government, with its private enterprise philosophy, is not just closing country railway lines in South Australia. One of its first actions when it came to office in 1975 - it is not very pleasant to Government senators to be reminded of this - was to close down the only railway line which existed in the Northern Territory, yet day after day Senator Kilgariff from the Northern Territory gets up in this Parliament and presents petitions calling on the Government to construct a railway line from Alice Springs to Darwin. As I continually remind him, it was his Government which closed down the only railway line in the Northern Territory.

People who live in the Northern Territory and the north of South Australia have long memories. They know who was responsible for closing down their only railway line. Government senators will not fool anybody by coming in here and saying that they support the construction of a line. Senator Young and Senator Messner have asked by way of interjection why the Labor Government did not construct this line. I might as well ask them why they did not carry out the terms of the Northern Territory Acceptance Act 1910, a piece of legislation which called upon the Federal Government to be responsible for constructing a north-south line from Port Darwin to Port Augusta.

The Labor Party has not been in government much since 1910. For about seven or eight years during the Second World War it had to take over the running of this country. All capital works were suspended then because we had to fight a war. As I have said before, we would not even have a decent all weather road in the Northern Territory if the Curtin Government had not constructed it. In the three years we had in government after 1949- that is, from 1972 to 1975- we were not allowed to govern in our own right, so we could not carry out that work. But we did introduce the necessary legislation, and that is the whole crux of the matter. As Charlie Jones said in 1974 when he introduced that same legislation, the Labor Government was prepared to treat 70 per cent of the total expenditure as a nonrepayable grant and the States would have to repay the remaining 30 per cent of the expenditure plus interest over 50 years. I wonder what sort of agreement Mr Wilson, the South Australian Minister for Transport, has entered into with this Government? Will he be paying only 30 per cent of the expenditure plus interest over 50 years? I am sure that he will not. ANR will have to shoulder the whole burden.

I spoke exensively on the 1978-79 annual report of the Australian National Railways Commission when it was tabled a fortnight ago. Tonight Senator Davidson quoted from that report. In speaking to that report I referred to the remarks of the Commissioner in relation to industrial trouble. In doing so I referred to the average wage of people employed by ANR. That average wage has caused me some concern. The average wage of every employee of ANR, including the top wage earners as well as the lowest wage earners, is $218 a week, which is well below the average Australian national wage, yet we find honourable senators opposite continually slating workers who have to go on strike to seek better working conditions.

Senator Teague:

– What month was this?

Senator McLAREN:

– That is the report for 1978-79.

Senator Teague:

– That is two years ago.

Senator McLAREN:

– The figure is probably even less now. That is the latest report. I cannot gaze into a crystal ball and see what has happened because last year’s report is late. It will be interesting to see whether the figures have changed. But those are the figures in this report and that is the only one to which we can refer. The average wage paid to ANR employees is far below the average national wage of $21 8. 1 know that a lot of people, such as train drivers, firemen and administrators probably get a very high wage. But a great body of those people get a very low wage. They are the people I am concerned about. They are the people who have to run the railways. They have to do the hard work out on the permanent way, laying and maintaining the track. They are stationed at places such as Cook, Kingoonya and Tarcoola right out across the east-west. They are the people who have to suffer and so do their families, including their children. They are isolated from communities. Yet, when these people seek to get some recompense to get a better living standard and an increased wage, of course honourable senators opposite always castigate them because they say that those people should not go on strike, that they should work for a mere pittance.

Yet, that report is a very revealing document. It shows in actual fact what the railway workers are paid. I will always stand up for the railway workers, as does my colleague in the other place Mr Wallis, who was an ex-railway employee before he became a member of the House of Representatives. He always goes out of his way to put a good, strong case for railway workers. I hope that we will see some improvement in the working and living standards of railway employees in the very near future. I hope that when this line is constructed it will be a line of a very good standard. My colleague, Senator Elstob, will have something to say about how some of the standards are being lowered under the instructions of this Government to ANR. The Government is trying to curb expenditure. I will not encroach on what the honourable senator will be saying. He has some very revealing facts and figures which have been known to senators on this side for quite some time. I think it is a shame that ANR, because it is instructed by the Treasurer (Mr Howard) and by the present Minister for Transport (Mr Hunt), has to carry out these penny-pinching methods of which Senator Elstob will speak.

I will go back now to some of the procrastination that went on over the problems of bringing this line into fruition. I refer to a letter that was written to Mr Nixon by Mr Geoff Virgo, the then State Minister for Transport in South Australia. He was so concerned at the way this Government was holding up the construction of this line. This was back in 1976 - four years ago and two years after we introduced the legislation. Mr Virgo had to write to Mr Nixon in connection with the Adelaide to Crystal Brook standard gauge project. He stated: . . my attention has been drawn to the statement made by the Treasurer, the Hon. P. R. Lynch, M.H.R., in the House of Representatives on 20th May 1976 when he announced that the Government had decided to ask an independent committee to inquire into this project and into the Tasmanian railway system and in particular he said ‘reports on these matters are expected within two months’. As two months have now elapsed, I would have hoped to have had some advice from you on the findings of this inquiry.

In my letters dated the 15th April 1976 and the 29th June 1976, I strongly stressed the need for early advice regarding funding for the planning and construction of road and roadrail grade separation projects being carried out by the Highways Department in this state in relation to the Adelaide to Crystal Brook standard gauge railway project. You will also recall that I had discussions with you on the 23rd February 1976 whenI stressed the need for continuity of funds for planning and construction works being undertaken by the Rail Division of the State Transport Authority on this project.

You will be aware that considerable work on this project has been initiated in accordance with the Agreement and good working arrangements have been formed by our respective officers. However, we are now in a new financial year with one month already gone and the situation which had developed is most confusing and is leading to gross inefficiencies and is impeding other works programs. For example, work has been commenced by the Highways Department on the construction of an overpass on the Grand Junction Road over the broad gauge line and provision must be made now, at additional costs, for the standard gauge railway. It is essential therefore, that we have immediate clarification regarding the acceptance of the proportion of the cost attributable to the standard gauge project.

As pointed out in my letter of the15th April 1976 other works of a similar nature are proposed to be commenced this financial year and lack of information on the standard gauge project is seriously impeding these works. I would also mention that there is a group of engineering and planning personnel which has been established for the standard gauge project and they much have an early indication of your Government’s intentions. Needless to say, there are other important phases of the standard gauge project which are being impeded and for which early clarification is essential. Delay can only result in inefficiencies and non-productive costs.

In other correspondence dated 23rd June 1976, I have suggested that we should meet and discuss the problems associated with the transfer of the non-metropolitan railway system to the Commonwealth, but I have had no reply. I am sure you will agree that it is imperative that we should reach agreement on these matters, and therefore I further suggest that the problems associated with the standardisation project could also be discussed at such a meeting. Unfortuntely, the exchange of correspondence on both these important issues has not been fruitful, and an early meeting between ourselves would go a long way towards arriving at satisfactory solutions.

Yours sincerely, (Geoff Virgo)

Minister of Transport

That letter was written on 28 July 1976. On 3 August 1976 Mr Nixon replied to Mr Virgo. He stated:

Dear Mr Virgo, 1 refer to your recent letter concerning the independent enquiry into the Adelaide to Crystal Brook standard gauge project.

The composition and terms of reference of the committee to enquire into this project are yet to be finalised. This delay is unfortunate and I fully appreciate your concern that it could cause delays to the project. However I expect to finalise the committee and terms of reference in the very near future and will be directing it to complete its report within two months of establishment to avoid further delays.

I will advise you of the composition and terms of reference of the committee directly it is formed, and would appreciate your officers providing every assistance to enable the Committee to meet the time constraints that will be given.

Yours sincerely,

J. NIXON

That is the very man who, as I said earlier, criticised Mr Jones for some delays. I will quote Mr Nixon again to put the whole argument into context. I pointed out the argument by reading the letter from Mr Virgo to Mr Nixon and Mr Nixon’s reply which I note was dated 3 August 1 976. But what did Mr Nixon say in the House of Representatives on 30 July 1974, two years earlier? He said:

The simple truth about both projects is that the signing of the agreement was delayed by the South Australian Labor Government for purely political reasons, but the concept was complete and indeed agreed upon back in 1 972.

We have Mr Nixon, the then shadow Minister for Transport, saying in the other place on 30 July 1974 that the whole thing was finalised in 1972. Then on 3 August 1976 he wrote to Mr Virgo in answer to Mr Virgo’s complaint, making some excuses as to why he had not set up a committee to inquire into the matter. The Minister could not be right on both occasions. He was either misleading the Parliament when he made that statement on 30 July 1974 or he was misleading Mr Virgo. It was Mr Nixon who was procrastinating, when he wrote that letter to Mr Virgo on 3 August 1 976. We have the situation in a nutshell. We have the Government now trying to take the credit for the construction of this line. In fact it was Charlie Jones, the erstwhile Minister for Transport in the Labor Government, who initiated the proposal and entered into the agreements. Both he and Mr Whitlam entered into the agreements with the South Australian Government to get the thing under way. Now we come in here just about six years after that Bill was introduced in the other place. This Government is now claiming credit for the whole project.

I think the people will be able to judge for themselves who, in fact, initiated the Crystal Brook-Adelaide railway line and who, in fact, got on with the work of constructing the TarcoolaAlice Springs link. It will be left to us when we are returned to government in a few months to get on with the job of constructing the railway line from Alice Springs to Darwin. It is only Labor governments - the record proves it - which are concerned with constructing railway lines. It is only Liberal-Country Party governments which are concerned with closing down country railway lines just as this Government is doing in South Australia. I am sure, as I said here when I spoke to the Australian National Railways Commission annual report a fortnight ago, that the only reason the closure of some of the railway lines- the Gladstone-Peterborough link and one or two others in South Australia- has been forestalled is that a Federal election is in the offing.

If the Fraser Government is returned at the next election the people who live in the north and mid-north of South Australia will see the closure of those railway lines. Mr Wilson will not put up the argument over the closure of those lines which Mr Virgo was putting under the transfer agreement. Those lines cannot be closed without the consent of the State Minister. There has been some report about this matter in the Press. I quoted recently from the South Australian Hansard. Mr Kevin Hamilton, who is now a State member of parliament and who is an ex-president of the South Australian State Railways Union is very concerned about the closure of these lines. I think he said in the Parliament that the closure of these railway lines is being forestalled until the Federal election is out of the way. I hope, for the benefit of the farmers who live in the country communities of South Australia, that I and Mr Hamilton are wrong.

I live at Murray Bridge in South Australia and I have witnessed, as I have said in the Parliament before, the closure of some of the lines in the Murray lands. Tailem Bend used to be, after Peterborough, the biggest railway centre in South Australia, lt has gone into a rapid decline. That is of great concern not only to the people who earn their living from the railways but also to the small business people who live in Tailem Bend and Murray Bridge. The wage packet is declining monthly. The spending power is not there to enable a lot of the small business people to operate at a profit as they should. As I have said before, with the closure of these country lines the Federal Government will be called upon to subsidise the construction and maintenance of the roads which the heavy transports will use to cart grain, stock and super-phosphate. We know that road funding has dropped under this Government to such an extent that local government bodies are continually complaining.

The Labor Party supports this Bill and looks forward to seeing the railway constructed in the quickest possible time. We now have modern methods for constructing railways. This is borne out by the fact that the Tarcoola-Alice Springs link was constructed 12 months ahead of schedule. This was achieved because of not only modern machinery but also the good efforts of the people who worked on the line; the pick and shovel men, the people who had to live under those very austere conditions. They have to be congratulated for the job they have done. They are certainly closer to civilisation with the construction of the Crystal Brook-Adelaide link. I hope that before this line is completed an announcement is made to continue with the proposal to construct a railway line from Alice Springs to Darwin.

Senator YOUNG:
South Australia

– I am sorry that Senator Don Jessop is not here tonight to take part in this debate. Through unfortunate circumstances he is absent from the chamber and, as far as I know, absent from Canberra. He will be returning later this evening, but he will be too late to take part in this debate.

Senator McLaren:

– I saw him here an hour ago.

Senator YOUNG:

– Well, I have not seen Senator Jessop. The chamber knows where Senator Jessop has been. He has worked untiringly for the development and construction of this railway line from Adelaide to Crystal Brook. I am very pleased for the opportunity to take part in this debate because I have lived most of my life in the area of Alford which is very close to the township of Crystal Brook and to the proposed new standard guage railway line.

A lot has been said tonight about the possibility of building future railway lines in Australia and the need to upgrade some of our railways throughout this continent. It is unfortunate that the railway system throughout Australia was not standardised in earlier times. Nevertheless, we are seeing a progression now to standardisation. We have seen it from Sydney to Perth. We have seen it from Melbourne to Sydney. We have seen a new line constructed, which will be opened in October, from Tarcoola to Alice Springs. We are now seeing the proposal of a further line of standardisation from Adelaide to Crystal Brook which will link Adelaide with both Perth and Sydney. It actually brings in Melbourne-Sydney and SydneyPerth connections to Adelaide. Four major cities are now connected. When the Tarcoola line is opened Alice Springs will join the network. Hence we can see a great improvement in the rail system of Australia.

As a South Australian I am delighted to see that at last the final link is to be made from Adelaide to Crystal Brook. South Australia and Australia generally have been disadvantaged by the lack of uniformity of rail gauges throughout the continent. The connection of this new standard gauge will make a terrific difference to the efficiency of the Australian National Railways Commission itself. In the past its operations have been very costly because there has been a need to transfer from a broad gauge line to a standard gauge line. This has involved use of bogies, loss of time and high cost factors. Of course, now we are to see with this efficiency, a reduction in costs, a reduction in the time factor and, of course, great savings to the people who will be using the railway system. It will give greater encouragement for usage.

When the Alice Springs line is opened a lot more of the northern region of South Australia will be within easy access. I refer to the mineral development in the north of the State and also to the cattle industry further north in the centre of Australia. In the past it has taken up to five days to bring cattle down from the centre of Australia to the Adelaide markets. When this new line is finished a standard gauge railway line will run all the way from the port of Adelaide to Alice Springs. The journey will no longer take five days. The time will be reduced to approximately 30 hours. This will make a great difference to quality, and to cost. It will also lead to a shorter turnaround for rolling stock. A terrific saving can be made.

One also looks at the advantage of more heavy haulage being used on the railway line. Feasibility studies show very clearly that over long distances good heavy haulage is far more efficient - the road transporters may not like this fact - on a rail system than it is on a road system. Big energy savings can be made with the use of rail as against road. Overall, we are getting a far more efficient rail system in Australia than we have had in the past. It will be more efficient with the completion of the Crystal Brook-Adelaide rail link which, in transit times alone, will save approximately 27 hours on the run to Sydney or Perth. There is a very big saving.

I made it clear tonight that I did not intend to speak at length. I add my support to this legislation. I think it is a great step forward not only for my State of South Australia but also for the transportation system of Australia generally. I look forward to the completion of this line. I hope that, with the completion of this line and the completion of the Tarcoola-Alice Springs line in a few weeks’ time, the nation san turn to adding a further connection to the rail system. I refer in particular to a railway system from Alice Springs to Darwin which eventually must come. There was a need for this system.

I hope that serious consideration will be given to the construction of a railway line from Alice Springs to Darwin which will connect Darwin to all the major cities of Australia. The exception will be Brisbane. I hope that in time we will see the connection of a standard gauge line running through to that area. Going further into the nottoodistant future, perhaps we will also see the electrification of the heavy haulage areas, the high volume areas, in the eastern transportation railway system. I hope we will have electrification as has happened in so much of Europe today. We are advancing and I look forward to further advances. I have much pleasure in supporting this Bill which will mean so much to the transportation system of Australia and, in particular, to my own State of South Australia.

Senator ELSTOB:
South Australia

– I wish to speak on the Railway Agreement (Adelaide to Crystal Brook Railway) Bill. We on this side of the House support the construction of the Crystal Brook rail link to Adelaide. This connection is long overdue. If one looks at the history of transportation in this country, one has to be amazed at the lack of planning and the lack of forethought in the establishment of the transportation system of this country. Over many years there has been simply no co-ordinated planning in our transportation system. Consequently, transportation in this country has cost the Australian producer astronomical sums.

It is unfortunate that we have not learnt from the past. Within a few weeks the new line from Tarcoola to Alice Springs will be completed. It is a sad reflection that we have not taken any notice of what has gone on in the past. Not one iota of knowledge has been gained. One would expect a train on a modern railway service to travel at a speed of something like 150 kilometres an hour, but that is not the case. The old Port Augusta to Alice Springs line was called the Ghan line. A person would get on the train on that line and eventually he would arrive at Alice Springs. He would not know when he would arrive. The design of that line took it over creeks and floodways. More often than not, the line was washed out. Eventually a new line to Alice Springs was built. It avoided all the floodways, but we failed to recognise our mistakes of the past.

I asked several questions at the Estimates committee hearings last week. To give the Senate some idea of the mismanagement and ill-planning associated with the new line, which we welcome today, I will give honourable senators some illustrations of what happened. We should have learnt from our past mistakes. It was decided that a new railway line should be planned from Tarcoola to Alice Springs and that a 53 kilogram rail would be used. If that 53 kilogram rail had been used, with the AL and CL types of locomotives, a train could have travelled on that line at a speed of about 100 kilometres an hour. Because of the mismanagement and ill-planning of this Government that was not the case. We did not plan to build that line with a 53 kilogram rail. The Government failed to do any forward planning. Broken Hill

Pty Co. Ltd could not supply the rails that were ordered so we had to resort to using secondhand, smaller rails. Today 40 kilogram rails are used on that line. That means that even with today’s rolling stock the speed is reduced to 70 kilometres an hour. We are supposed to be a modern country and we are supposed to be trying to reduce the cost of transportation to the primary producers of this country. Yet the Government is building a line on which trains can travel at only 70 kilometres an hour. It is a disgrace. But that is not the worst of it.

Some 53 kilogram rails were put into that new line. Some 40 kilogram rails were used and some 47 kilogram rails were used. On a 47 kilogram rail a train can travel at 80 kilometres an hour. If we were to plan a modern railway today - and that is what we should be doing - we should be lookng at a speed of something like 1 50 kilometres an hour. On main lines in this country we should be duplicating that kind of speed. If one had half a mind one would be doing some forward planning. Everyone in this or any country must recognise that we will run short of energy resources in the foreseeable future. We will have to go back to using rail and ship transport. I believe that we should have forward planning for that purpose.

My only hope is that the line from Crystal Brook to Adelaide will be built of a heavy gauge so that we can travel at reasonable speeds. If that is not done, there is simply no hope for the primary producers and the people who send their goods by rail. We cannot rely on road transport in the future as we have done in the past. Fuel will become scarcer and dearer. As I said, we will most certainly have to go back to using rail and ship transport. I believe that the Government can reduce the cost of transport in this country. Australia has the highest transportation costs of any country and yet we have not endeavoured to reduce these costs. Even today, when we are building a modern railway using the most modern technology and when workers have produced astronomical speeds of building railway lines, the Fraser Government has failed to do the long term planning necessary to construct this line to Alice Springs. It is a disgrace that transportation is left in the state it is and is not planned. There is no coordination or long term planning between the States and the Federal Government. We have not learnt the lessons of the past.

Many years ago, before Federation, States developed their own railways. Each State developed its railways of a different gauge. Insufficient planning has cost this country millions of dollars. Not only was a great cost involved but also different gauges caused great danger to the defence of this country. If we were sincere and dedicated to overcoming our transportation costs in Australia, we should have overall planning. We should be duplicating lines between the main capital cities. We should be looking to electrification of -these lines. In country areas where the traffic is not so great, we should be developing our own type of locomotive to run not on diesel but on coal - in other words, on turbo steam. That type of locomotive would be suitable in country areas. Turbo steam is not an innovation; it is a well-known theory. Yet we do not carry out any forward planning. I believe that is a disgrace to this country.

Much has been said about the cost of the Alice Springs line. A saving of $1.53m was made because we used light rail on the Tarcoola to Alice Springs line. That is another fact that I learned at an Estimates committee meeting last week. If this Government considers only how it can save money in the short term, such savings will be inappropriate in the long term if there is not also a reasonable saving to the primary producers and the people who transport their goods in this country. If they cannot transport their goods at a high speed they will not reduce their costs. We should endeavour at all stages to try to reduce transportation costs in this country. This. Government has failed miserably to do so. That is a disgrace. We have learned nothing whatsoever from the past. I asked several questions about the cost of transporting people and livestock. I know full well that the Australian National Railways Commission does not want to transport people or livestock. If ANR continually builds lines on which it is not possible to travel at more than 70 kilometres an hour, how can people be transported economically? How can livestock be transported economically over these lines? That will never be achieved if travel is limited to 70 kilometres an hour. I condemn this Government for the poor planning in the building of this new line with millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money. Because of poor planning the Government has destroyed everything to do with that new line. I believe that this Government should be made to pay for that mistake.

I hope that the line from Crystal Brook will be a heavy gauge line. I hope that it will be duplicated. As South Australia is geographically in the centre of Australia, it is necessary for that line to be built. I believe that many goods coming into this country could be dispatched economically from Port Adelaide. Port Adelaide could once again become a major container port. I hope the line from Crystal Brook is extended to Port Adelaide. As I said, South Australia is geographically in the centre of Australia and this line will certainly help the development of South Australia, the State from which I come and of which I am very proud. If the tine to Crystal Brook is restricted to a speed of 70 kilometres an hour, as is much of the Tarcoola to Alice Springs line, it will be totally inadequate. I ask the Government to look at the economies of this line. It must have concrete sleepers and be a 50-kilogram line. If that is done the line will be the answer to many of our transportation problems.

The line to Tarcoola is restricted to 19 tonnes per axle. In many other countries 25 tonnes per axle is the order of the day. It is a fallacy to try to save money in this way. A saving of a little over $1 m has been made but the economics of the line have been totally destroyed. I sincerely hope that the line from Crystal Brook to Adelaide will not be treated in the same slip-shod manner as the line from Tarcoola to Alice Springs. I believe the main transportation difficulties in this country have been brought about by inadequate planning. The rural people who transport large heavy goods across the length and breadth of this country are entitled to a transportation system equal to any in the world. I have said before that the cost of transportation in Australia is higher than that in any other country but we have done nothing about it. It is a disgrace to Australian planning and Australian governments not to have solved these problems. It is imperative that the Commonwealth and the States discuss all aspects of transportation in this country with a view to overcoming its cost. If we do not take that action we will not be competitive as an exporter. I believe that this will be vital in the next decade. I fear that we have not learned the lessons of the past. I hope that a committee will be established to try to solve the problems and come up with some satisfactory answers.

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

(9.39) - I thank the Senate for the discussion that we have had on the Railway Agreement (Adelaide to Crystal Brook Railway) Bill, which is to give legislative effect to an agreement which has been negotiated between the Commonwealth and South Australia for the construction by the Australian National Railways Commission of a standard gauge railway from Adelaide to the existing Sydney to Perth standard gauge line at Crystal Brook. As we have heard from a number of honourable senators, there is interest in this project and support for it. I thank honourable senators for the comments they have made. I will refer to the Minister for Transport (Mr Hunt) any matters that have been raised in this debate. Of course, it is understood that this Bill repeals the Adelaide to Crystal Brook Railway Act 1 974.

I have listened with some interest to the many comments that have been made. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

– I ask the Minister for Social Security (Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) a question relating to the Second Schedule to the Railway Agreement (Adelaide to Crystal Brook Railway) Bill, which concerns the route of the line adjacent to and into the township of Crystal Brook. I understand that a review has taken place. Will the line be allowed to go into the centre of the township of Crystal Brook and be part of the current railway system? If not - indeed, in any case - can we be assured that conversation will be held with the local government authority, the district council of Crystal Brook, in relation to the route of the line entering the township, because it is a matter of some importance locally and a matter of some significance and consequence?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

(9.41) - I understand that there had been considerable public controversy in the Crystal Brook area over the route of the railway. Senator Davidson reflected that in the question he raised. The Australian National Railways Commission proposed two alternative schemes. The first scheme was for the railway to pass through the town of Crystal Brook; the second scheme was for the line to join the existing Sydney-Perth line at a point about two kilometres on the Port Pirie side of the town. The Commission was requested by the Minister to provide a firm recommendation on the route, taking into account all engineering, financial and environmental factors, the preferences of the local community and the views of the Crystal Brook Council.

I am advised that after a study was undertaken by the consultants, P. G. Pak-Poy and Associates Pty Ltd and discussions were held with the local residents, ANR recommended the first scheme. It had found no engineering cost or environmental reason to prefer either alternative. The recommendation which was based on the express majority preference of the local community was therefore the one which was accepted. The Minister for Transport, Mr Hunt, approved the ANR recommendation and advised ANR and the Crystal Brook Council accordingly. I think it is fair to say that all possible efforts were made to ascertain the most suitable route and the final choice is seen to be in accordance with the majority decision of the local community. We regret it if the needs of all parties cannot be met on this matter of public interest.

The Minister has asked ANR to ensure that any adverse impacts of the selected route on local residents are minimised. With the discussions that were undertaken and the detailed consideration that was given to the matter, I think it will be accepted that the scheme that has been accepted, the first scheme proposed - that is, the one that permits the line to pass through the town of Crystal Brook - in the light of all the factors which had to be weighed, is the most suitable. 1 hope that explanation deals with the matter that was raised by Senator Davidson. If Senator Davidson requires any further details, he might seek them of the Minister.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) read a third time.

page 725

INCOME TAX (COMPANIES AND SUPERANNUATION FUNDS) BILL 1980

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

First Reading

Motion (by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a first time.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

– I use the motion for the first reading of the Income Tax (Companies and Superannuation Funds) Bill tonight to mention some matters which are pertinent to us as we face an election towards the end of this year. I suspect that it will be only a few days now before we will actually know what the date of the election will be. Once that happens, I can foresee that legislation will be passed very rapidly through this House and the other place so that members of parliament can get out on the hustings and look forward to the election date. In the weeks to come, with this election upon us, we can expect to hear promises of a better deal from the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and his colleagues. With that in mind, it is pertinent this evening to look back at some of the promises made by Mr Fraser in past election campaigns. To do so will give us a reasonable guide to the credence we can place in his 1 980 promises, the ones which will be given as we go forward to this election before the end of the year.

A matter in which many of us in this chamber quite rightly take a keen interest is social welfare. I start by examining some of Mr Fraser’s promises on this subject. I remember that back in 1 975 - to be precise, on 27 November 1975 - Mr Fraser made the following promise in relation to social welfare:

The real value of pensions will be preserved.

Two years later, on 1 5 March 1977, he said:

We are committed to take politics out of pension increases by giving automatic increases in line with price rises twice a year.

What are the facts? The real values which Mr Fraser spoke of were not preserved. Let us all remember how the Government cancelled the indexation of pensions which normally would have become due in May 1979. Will the pensioners forget that? Indeed they will not. They will realise that the Government had no intention of preserving the real value of pensions. Only in the face of continued pressure from the Opposition and from a wide variety of pensioner groups in the community did the Government reverse its stand. Still on the issue of social welfare, I recall a promise made by Mr Fraser on 27 November 1975, when he said:

We stand by our commitment to abolish the means test on pensions.

In the light of that promise, what are the facts? The facts are that in 1 978 the income test was reintroduced for pensioners aged 70 years and over. Another promise Mr Fraser made was:

Our family allowance is the most important innovation in welfare for decades.

He said that on 21 November 1977 and indeed when the family allowance legislation came before this House the previous year many of us saw it as an advance. Admittedly, the money for it came from another area, where rebates were being given in taxation deductions for children. The same amount of money was used as was used on the taxation deductions for children, but the redistribution was welcomed by us. But what are the real facts in relation to the family allowance? The facts are that the Government’s failure to index the family allowance means that some families are as much as $ 1 8 a week worse off than they were in 1975. The family allowance has not been increased since its introduction in 1976, despite a 47 per cent increase in the consumer price index since that time.

In contrast to the Government’s stagnant approach to the family allowance, the Australian Labor Party in opposition has outlined a positive scheme to assist families on low incomes. It is pertinent at this stage for me to mention some aspects of the family income supplement. The family income supplement scheme, devised by the Australian Labor Party is intended to be complementary to the normal family allowance payments and is designed to provide support to families which need help most. Our family income supplement scheme will assist all families on incomes of up to $270 a week who have dependent children. The greatest benefit will go to those families with children which have an income of below $155 a week. The scheme is based on a sliding scale of payments for each child. These payments will range from $1 to $4 a week for each child, dependent on family income. Families earning up to $8,000 a year or $1 55 a week will have their family allowance increased by $4 a week for each child. In this income group, a mother of two children will receive total payments, including the family allowance, of $70 a month. The rate decreases as income rises. It is $3 a week for each child in a family with income between $8,001 and $10,000 a year, $2 a week for incomes between $10,001 and $12,000 a year and $1 a week for incomes up to $14,000 a year or $270 a week. Payments under the family income supplement scheme will be additional to normal family allowance payments. Like family allowances, they will not be taxable and will be paid direct to the mother. No doubt efforts will be made by members of the current Government for purely political purposes to denigrate the family income supplement scheme. The electors of Australia, however, will be able to judge this scheme during the election campaign to come. They will see the merit in the Labor Party’s policy and will perceive the stark contrast between our initiative and the Government’s inaction.

I turn now to the area of taxation. I refer to some of the promises that have been made by the Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser. On 27 November 1 975 when he was delivering his policy speech Mr Fraser said:

We will reduce the tax burden. We will put an end to Labor’s tax rip-off.

Against this promise what are the facts? The fact is that the Fraser Government will go down in history as the highest taxing government ever. Not only are we paying more in direct taxation but also indirect tax has soared. Of course, it is hardly necessary for me to remind motorists of the iniquitous petrol tax that we now pay.

The burden of the Fraser Government’s income tax spree has fallen mainly on low and middle income earners. For example, a married couple with two children and with an annual income of $13,000 is now paying an extra $170 a year in tax. For some low income families with two children, the actual tax increase under the Fraser Government has been about 140 per cent. In case it is thought that this is only the view of a Labor senator who is speaking in this chamber tonight, I refer to what a major employer group has had to say about the tax burden. The Australian of 7 July 1 980 reported thus:

The Victorian Employers Federation stated ‘The income tax burden is severely affecting our nation’s productivity’.

The Australian further stated:

At a time when we need to put more effort into our work, the disappearance of at least one-third of our rewards to income tax acts as a big disincentive.

On the same night that Mr Fraser made the promise to which I referred earlier, the promise that he would reduce the tax burden, he also said:

We will fully index personal income tax for inflation over three years.

I repeat:

  1. . fully index personal income tax for inflation over three years.

What are the facts? In 1976, the year after Mr Fraser made that promise, the tax scale was almost fully indexed. In 1978 indexation was reduced to about half and in 1979 it was abandoned altogether. In 1980 indexation was granted at less than 40 per cent. Even in introducing legislation for less than 40 per cent indexation, the Treasurer (Mr Howard) and his Prime Minister continued to make the claim that this was 50 per cent indexation. It certainly was not, but even if it were 50 per cent it would still represent a breaking of Mr Fraser’s 1975 promise.

In 1975 Mr Fraser made much of the phrase taxation by stealth’. In failing to live up to his promise to index taxation, Mr Fraser is guilty of the behaviour he so soundly deprecated five years ago. The Prime Minister has been particularly vocal about tax avoidance. On many occasions he, with his Treasurer, professed a desire to close loopholes which permit tax avoidance. What are the facts in relation to tax avoidance? Tax avoidance is now a bigger business than ever. It has been estimated that the number of people involved in tax avoidance has risen by a factor of 14 in four years. The approach of the Government to tax avoidance schemes is to bring in legislation against individual schemes as they are detected. This has increased the size and complexity of the Income Tax Assessment Act and has opened more loopholes. According to Treasury figures,

Australia is losing something like $3, 000m a year through tax avoidance, forcing the wage earner to shoulder an unfair tax burden.

I move now to an area which is of concern to thousands of people throughout the community. It is of concern to thousands of families with children who are just about to leave school or who have left school. I refer to the area of unemployment. Again I look at how Mr Fraser’s promises have or have not been backed up by performances. On 27 November 1975 in his election policy speech Mr Fraser said:

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

Against that promise, what are the facts? In May 1975, before Mr Fraser made that promise 248,000 people- 4. 1 per cent of the work forcewere out of work. Three years later in May 1978, about two and a half years after Mr Fraser made his promise, 392,000 people - 6.1 per cent of the work force - were out of work. That represents an increase over those two and a half years. In May 1980, 431,000 people- 6.5 per cent of the work force - were out of work. The number of people out of work as a percentage of the work force has been increasing steadily since Mr Fraser made the promise that under his Government there would be jobs for all who wanted to work. In addition to that promise, on the same night he said:

We will be generous to those who can’t get a job and want to work.

What are the facts in relation to that promise? Firstly, since 1977 the unemployment benefit has been paid in arrears. Secondly, employees stood down as a result of an industrial dispute in which they are not involved are often denied benefits. Thirdly, the unemployment benefit for single people has not been indexed. For a person under the age of 18 years of age the rate has been stagnant at S36 a week. Even in the recent Budget the under 1 8-year-olds were not considered. The $36 which was initially set in 1975 would now be worth about $21.70. That is not my idea of generosity. Let us remember that Mr Fraser said:

We will be generous to those who can’t get a job and want to work.

I repeat: It is not my idea of generosity. I do not think that it is the unemployed’s idea of generosity. But what does one more broken promise mean to Mr Fraser? I suppose, to give Mr Fraser his due, he has honoured one promise in his catalogue of broken promises. On 27 November 1975 he said:

There will be no more jobs for the boys.

He has kept that promise, but sadly there are no more jobs for the girls either. Labor has a positive commitment to implement a job opportunities program which will, in its first year of operation, create 100,000 new full-time jobs and training positions in the public and private sectors of the economy. Our job opportunities program has been fully outlined by Labor’s Federal leader, Mr Hayden. One aspect of the program which I find very interesting and exciting is the plan to boost the current apprenticeship intakes by about 20,000 a year. There are currently far too many able young people in our community who could successfully complete an apprenticeship but find it impossible to seek out an employer who will accept them as apprentices. Another area in which Mr Fraser made promises was the area of interest rates. In his second policy speech on 21 November 1979 he said this:

Interest rates have begun to fall- and they will keep on falling.

What are the facts of what occurred after Mr Fraser said that? The facts are that interest rates rose again during the recent parliamentary recess and they had been rising up till then. The conflict that occurred between the increased interest rates which we saw in the recent parliamentary recess and Mr Fraser’s promise did not escape the attention of Australian journalists. For example, on 10 July 1 980 the Courier Mail in reporting increased rates stated:

The Federal Government is understood to have approved the changes - despite the fact that they cut across the 1977 election policy of the Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, to keep interest rates down.

Associated with interested rates, we could look at inflation. It is an important area which I must not neglect because Mr Fraser again made promises in this area. We are all conscious of the Government’s determination to bring inflation down, even at the expense of keeping unemployment at an unacceptably high level. Let us look at one of the promises that Mr Fraser made on 12 September 1978. He said:

Inflation at an annual rate of S per cent is within our reach by mid- 1979. It will go on falling under the policies of this Government.

Yes, he spoke of an annual rate of 5 per cent being within our reach by mid- 1979. What are the facts in relation to inflation? Inflation is now running at just over 10 per cent. It did not get anywhere near the 5 per cent which he spoke of in mid- 1979. Although inflation is running at about 1 0 per cent, some vital components of the consumer price index have risen even more steeply, for example, food prices. In Brisbane, the capital of the State that I represent, food prices rose by 15.1 per cent over the past year. Associated with inflation and interest rates are living standards, and in this area Mr Fraser made some promises as well. I remind honourable senators of the promise he made in his policy speech on 27 November 1975. He said:

Our reforms will give back to people money they earn by their own hard work and which Labor has taken away from them.

On the same date he said:

Our reforms will maintain the purchasing power of wages and ease the pressure for excessive wage demands.

What are the facts? In real terms wages have been reduced under this Government and taxes on working Australians have increased to such an extent that since 1975 the living standard of the average Australian family has been eroded by $25 a week. This Government consistently has gone before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and advocated the deliberate lowering of Australia’s real wage levels. I remember being at the first Arbitration Commission hearing after this Government came to power. The argument that was put forward by the Government’s advocate was patently weak and puny. It was totally rejected by the Commission. However, at later hearings the Government’s advocate got his act together and had some partial success, but not the level of success that the Government had hoped for.

I turn to Government spending, particularly in one area which Mr Fraser stressed in 1975 and 1976. lt is interesting to think of this aspect tonight as Mr Fraser has just flown home today. On 27 November 1 975 he said this:

There will be no international safaris by members of parliament. Australia does not need a tourist as Prime Minister.

About four or five months later, on 25 March 1976, he said:

On my own visits overseas, commercial aircraft will be used as far as possible. The argument that Qantas cannot provide adequate security is a specious argument and false.

We all know how Mr Fraser came home today. We all know how he has been flying overseas in the last week or so. It must not be forgotten that Mr Fraser became so obsessed with his own safaris that he spent $40m of the taxpayers’ money on two VIP jets for his overseas trips. What are the facts in relation to these safaris of which he spoke? The Senate Hansard of 23 April 1980 records that in the first three years of Government Mr Fraser, as Prime Minister, made a total of six overseas trips; Mr Peacock, as Minister for Foreign Affairs, made 21. Mr Whitlam, as Foreign Minister and Prime Minister, made only eight overseas trips in his term of office. Many of us - I suppose all of us in the Senate - represent some rural areas. Let us have a look at the promises made by Mr Fraser for rural people. In his policy speech on 27 November 1975 he said:

We will give the rural community the confidence and certainty it so desperately needs.

On 21 November 1977 he also said:

Petrol prices in all the country areas will be reduced to within a cent per litre of the normal city retail price - without any increase in city prices as a result.

What are the facts in this area? We are all too well aware of how this Government introduced an iniquitous petrol tax and escalated petrol prices as a result. The tax has had a dire effect on rural dwellers. I have seen petrol prices in North Queensland as high as 53c a litre, a crippling price for those engaged in the rural and fishing industries in the north.

One of the areas which is of major importance to many people in the community is health. On 27 November 1975 Mr Fraser made a pertinent and quite terse statement when he said:

We will maintain Medibank.

How we all remember it. The facts are that Medibank was mangled by introducing change after change. Eventually it was abolished, leading to the present confusing situation. There have been so many changes to the health insurance scheme that there is only one part everyone can understand - that is, that it costs you more. The Government’s approach is in sharp contrast to the approach of the Australian Labor Party. Labor remains committed to the principles of full and universal health care coverage. That will be our long term objective in Government.

In the economic circumstances that we can foresee, however, it will not be possible to move to that goal in a single step. The first step will be the area of greatest need, of highest Labor Party priority - that is, the typical Australian family. This step in the restoration of a universal health scheme under the next Labor Government will give full medical coverage to all children under 16 years, to dependent students and to expectant mothers. They will not have to join a medical scheme and will not have to make a direct contribution. In addition, Labor’s family health care plan will ensure that there will be no direct charge from a doctor to an eligible patient if that doctor is prepared to use the bulk billing system at the scheduled fee level. In other cases, where the doctor chooses to charge the patient directly, the patient will be reimbursed at 85 per cent of the schedule fee, with a maximum patient contribution of $10. These are clear commitments which have been made by the Labor Party. They will be introduced in the 1981 Budget of the new Labor government.

I could go on further about Mr Fraser’s promises, but the rest is quite well known. In fact, Mr Fraser’s credibility gap has become quite legendary. During the weeks ahead, the men and women of Australia will choose between two alternatives. One alternative is the present Government, which has failed dismally over the five years during which it has been in office, and which is led by a Prime Minister whose word means absolutely nothing. He is a Prime Minister who has broken more promises than a Boeing full of bigamists. The other alternative is the Australian Labor Party. The Labor Party’s progressive policies are designed to revive Australia after five disastrous years of Fraserism.

Senator WATSON:
Tasmania

– During the recent parliamentary recess a very significant event occurred approximately 2,000 kilometres from Australia’s eastern shoreline. I refer to the independence celebration of Vanuatu on 30 July 1980. Honourable senators may recall that Vanuatu was formerly the New Hebrides. Australia was represented at those celebrations by its Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Andrew Peacock, a person whose stature is widely acknowledged, especially in the Pacific area. Australia also sent along a warship, HMAS Yarra, and its band played with great distinction during the independence celebrations. We sent along an Orion aircraft to participate in that very memorable flypast. Australia also provided a brilliant fireworks display during the evening of the celebrations.

This new republic may be small in terms of population. It has only 1 1 2,000 persons living in a scattered group of about 80 islands, lying approximately 800 kilometres west of Fiji and 400 kilometres east of New Caledonia and occupying an area of 1 2,000 square kilometres. Despite its size, Vanuatu is strategically important to Australia. It may be remembered that it was through this area that the Japanese planned their invasion into Australia. It was from the town of Santo that the Americans launched their invasion drive into Guadalcanal.

The move to independence has not come easily and solving the problems of the future may be equally difficult. For example, the population is not evenly distributed. There are two major towns, Vila and Santo. Tanna is known for its very active volcano. Although it is a small island it is the most densely populated. This newly independent republic has profound differences in geography, language, religion, tribes and customs.

Despite all this there is an underlying sentiment of Melanesian identity. Eighty-six per cent of the population lives in the coastal island settlements. Many of Vanuatu’s problems stem from 74 years - since 1906 - of condominium rule, when Britain and France jointly ruled the New Hebrides.

This extraordinary history led to dual systems in education, police, the judiciary, law, currencies and even postage stamps. For example, British district officers always had to seek the agreement of their French counterparts before any action could be taken. The British were responsible for looking after the British residents’ interests, while the French were responsible for looking after the French residents’ interests. For 92 per cent of the population, joint rule prevailed. The condominium government had a record of friction and divergent policies and the veto frequently applied. It is no wonder the locals referred to it as pandemonium government.

The British were always reluctant partners in the New Hebrides. It is generally recognised that the British moved in there only at the request of Australia and also to keep an eye on the French. Therefore it is understandable that the British presence was always modest and retiring. During the 1970s, we saw the British policy of withdrawal from the Pacific area. For example, independence has been granted to the former colonies of Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, the Solomons, Tonga and Tuvalu. This was Britain’s attitude towards Vanuatu.

Australia now sees its role as partially filling the vacuum created by Britain’s hasty withdrawal from the area. Britain’s aid of ten million pounds sterling in 1979 and in 1980 is based on the assumption that Australian and New Zealand aid will tend to move in and fill this aid breach. France, on the other hand, is showing a greater reluctance to withdraw from Vanuatu. Some commentators have suggested that France fears that a strong Vanuatu could act as a force of attraction for New Caledonia’s own Melanesian people to seek independence. However, I believe this does tend to oversimplify the situation.

The move to independence in New Caledonia comes from only approximately 36 per cent of the population and that 36 per cent is divided as to the form and nature of the independence. It is split principally along racial lines. The European population in New Caledonia is also significantly higher. For example, there are 45,000 Europeans to 55,000 Melanesians. Essentially the independence movement in New Caledonia comes from the Loyalty Islands and along the eastern coast of the main island of New Caledonia. To many people in Australia, it may appear curious that France regards New Caledonia as an extension of France rather than as a colony. New Caledonia sends a senator and two members from the lower house to sit in the French Parliament in Paris. During my short time there, in discussions with officials, I detected there was some significant difference between what Paris wanted compared with the demands of the local settlers. France undoubtedly wants to maintain a presence in the Pacific, especially in New Caledonia, which yields many tonnes of nickel each year while Polynesia, which is further east, provides sites for nuclear testing. French citizens have substantial business interests in the area. In Vanuatu, prior to independence, the French colons held 54 per cent of New Hebrides land while the French Government held a further five per cent.

This French connection led to some of the recent problems on the main island of Espiritu Santo. Prior to the independence of this island, the French colons and the French state held 80 per. cent of arable land. Perhaps this is the one aspect of the problem since on independence all land reverted to the customary owners. The French colons were uncertain whether they would get adequate long term leases. As I mentioned, there are many business and family ties between settlers in New Caledonia and Vanuatu. Many of the colons, especially on Santo, failed to realise the reality of the election last year and what independence means. For this reason many of the French colons sought to align themselves with Jimmy Stevens who received a degree of notoriety as early as 1 963 in his land reform movement. Some of the colons saw in Stevens, a man of mixed British and Tongan origin, a charismatic leader and a useful front for their own opposition to the emerging nationalist government.

His job was made very much easier by the fact that he received an abundant source of finance from the Phoenix Foundation, an organisation originally led by one Michael Oliver, who made money from real estate dealings in the United States of America. Honourable senators may recall that this Foundation had previously tried unsuccessfully to establish independent tax-free states on tiny islands in the Carribean and the Pacific. But, to the credit of the United States Government, it warned the Phoenix Foundation leaders that if they meddled in insurrection in the New Hebrides they would be arrested and charged. Shortly after this declaration the Foundation moved its headquartes to Amsterdam, but it continued until fairly recently to provide funds and the trappings of independence to many of the Santo rebels.

Father Lini, the popular Prime Minister, has indicated that he will take all steps necessary to keep Santo within the unified group of the new nation, and he is justified in doing so. After all, Espiritu Santo is the largest island in that group. Father Lini’s government received a majority on all the islands, including Santo and Tanna. It is rather unfortunate that when the British and French troops were sent to Santo on 28 July they were of little help, for the simple reason that the British could not act without the acquiescence and consent of the French, who were unwilling to give that consent to act against French colons. However, with the arrival of the Papua New Guinea troops, themselves of Melanesian descent, the situation was clarified. I pay great tribute to the Papua New Guinea troops for the way in which they conducted their campaign in helping to reunify Espiritu Santo with the remainder of the Vanuatu group of islands. 1 think it is rather a shame that that great leader, Michael Somare, is now trying to make some political capital out of the sending of Papua New Guinea troops to assist his brothers across the water. Australia has stood very strongly behind Father Lini, and the Australian presence and Australian help has assisted Father Lini in these very difficult days. Tanna is another island where there have been some difficulties. Honourable senators may recall that the Jon Frum organisation is very strong there. The cargo cult influence is very strong on this island. But British troops took unilateral action on the island of Tanna and quickly moved in to quell any attempted rebellion. Independence came after 10 years of struggle. A decision was taken in 1 974 to set up a representative assembly but the subsequent moves were erratic, disturbed and punctuated with electoral disputes. The first assembly sat in November 1976. This assembly was dissolved in 1977. It is interesting to note that much of the leadership emerged through a church influence which provided strong leadership qualities. The political development, largely through the early National Party which later became the Vanuaaku Party, had similarities to the Indian Congress parties of the 1 930s and 1 940s because there was a strong structure and broad internal support for the government. In Vanuatu there is a strong indentity between church and politics. In fact, the Government is frequently said to be one of the pastors and priests. For example, in the ninemember Ministry there are three Presbyterian ministers and one Anglican priest, in addition to four church elders or lay readers.

In last year’s elections the Vanua-aku Party, headed by a New Zealand-trained Anglican priest, Father Walter Lini, received over 64 per cent of the popular vote. It obtained 26 of the 39 seats in the representative assembly. The election was monitored by United Nations representatives, who declared the elections to be free and fair, with over 90 per cent of the population casting votes. The Vanua-aku Party also gained an 8 to 7 majority in respect of regional assembly elections held on the island of Espiritu Santo and the island of Tanna. These two areas had previously been thought to be opposition strongholds. For example, the French colons were very much taken aback by the electoral decision. They had expected a much closer result. Generally, the French colons backed the so-called or selfproclaimed moderate parties, some of which wished to maintain certain links with France. But this new Government of Father Walter Lini now has the very difficult task of reconciling nationalistic feeling on the one hand with die-hard colonial sentiment on the other, at the same time finding a role for the opposition parties in a democratic system. But the French links will remain.

Whilst Vanuatu will become the forty-fourth independent member of the Commonwealth, it will also take its place in the French international organisation known as the ACCT. The 74-year rule of the condominium government has left a legacy of problems. This was acknowledged to me when I was there by Father John Momis, a senior Minister from Papua New Guinea, who said that although Papua New Guinea had its problems with Australia, these were insignificant compared with the legacies left by Britain and France in Vanuatu. Father Momis went on to say that he felt that Papua New Guinea was indeed fortunate in having Australia as a decolonising power. A major problem with the condominium government was that it failed to provide an effective infrastructure outside the two principal towns of Port ‘Vila and Luganville or Santo. Australia has had an important part to play in Vanuatu. Since the 19th century this area has been regarded as part of Australia’s special sphere of interest, not only in the political area but also in the missionary area. Australia and New Zealand have sent many missionaries to this centre.

In the future, I can see closer links between Canberra and Vanuatu and Sydney and Vanuatu, far stronger than ever existed between the New Hebrides and Paris and the New Hebrides and London during the condominium days. It is acknowledged that Australia’s role has been important in easing the tension in the New Hebrides and also, but to a lesser degree, in New Caledonia. For example, Australia does not want to see Vanuatu forced to seek aid from further afield, particularly when the Soviets are anxious to gain a foothold in the South Pacific area. At the moment, the economy could not be considered to be self-sufficient, but amongst South Pacific countries it does have the potential to become economically viable. The new Government wishes to expand its export base beyond the traditional exports of copra, canned beef and frozen fish, and to develop Port Vila as a tourist destination. It is a beautiful city. Vanuatu offers certain tax haven facilities and financial services to foreign corporations, but while I was there I could not see a lot of evidence of Australian tax money going into that area. If Vanuatu is to become politically stable it could provide a very useful bridge between anglophone and francophone countries in the Pacific. If unity is not achieved - I believe it will be achieved - it could well fall into a political morass and dilemma and would thereby present serious problems for Australia.

As I mentioned earlier, Australia’s role has been quite significant. We had the first foreign representation when Australia opened a Consulate in 1978. This was upgraded to High Commission status on independence with Michael Ovington in charge. Australian aid contributed something like 25 per cent to the developmental budget in 1976-79. Andrew Peacock recently committed $ 12.5m in development aid over the next three years. On request from Father Lini, the Prime Minister, Australia provided substantial assistance during those difficult days immediately after independence by way of reconnaissance aircraft, sending supplies in through Hercules aircraft, some back-up equipment and help to the Papua New Guinea troops.

Australia’s understanding in that area is largely due to the selection of the right men to represent Australia. With Dr Malcolm Leader, Australia has a highly trained Consul-General in Noumea who is anxious to bring Australian and French political interests into close and frequent dialogue. The Australian Consulate up to independence was run by Bill Fisher who has now returned to take charge of the South Pacific desk here in Canberra. Bill Fisher and his wife Kerry, in addition to their diplomatic duties, took an active part in the community life in Vanuatu. In fact, the tribute that was paid from the pulpit of the Paton Memorial Church in Vila just prior to Bill’s departure was a great testimony to his interest in the people and the welfare of the community in which Bill and Kerry served. I think it is important that our foreign representatives do not sit in ivory towers and enjoy the fruits of office and privileges of moving amongst an elite society. Bill and Kerry Fisher have proved that they can mix well. In doing so they have contributed to promote friendship between Australia and Vanuatu.

I must also state that I think it is great that Australian politicians have taken such an interest in this area. I refer particularly to the interest of my colleague Senator John Knight. During his diplomatic days he spent some time in Suva. He also participated in the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence: Australia in the South Pacific. This inquiry was led by Senator Peter Sim. He also took part in the official Australian parliamentary delegation to the South Pacific led by Senator Peter Durack in 1977. Australia has an interest which is displayed by some of our politicians including Senator John Knight. I think it is important that we maintain close relationships between these newly emerging nations in the Pacific. 1 believe that in Vanuatu Australia has a strong ally and a very firm friend. Vanuatu has a very significant motto. It says: ‘In God we stand’. I think this reflects the attitude of the leaders and the people of Vanuatu because this new nation can provide a degree of spiritual leadership that is starting to wane in other developed countries such as Australia. I believe, as I mentioned earlier, that we have a strong friend in Vanuatu. I wish it well.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

– In September last year the Government announced a program which was called the school to work transition program. As a matter of fact the Government five times since has announced exactly the same program. All the announcements have been made in response to a very great degree of community concern about youth unemployment in Australia. The announcement in September 1979 was made in response to a particularly high Gallup poll expression of concern about the level of youth unemployment in Australia. It was made at very short notice following a very brief discussion at the Australian Education Council meeting between the Federal Minister for Education, then Senator Carrick, and State Ministers for Education. Senator Carrick suggested that something had to be done about youth unemployment. That matter was discussed very briefly with the State Ministers. Then it was announced by the Commonwealth Government as a program in September 1979.

In announcing that program the Government chose to ignore, as it has always ignored, very important findings about the nature of youth unemployment in Australia, particularly findings such as the findings of the Government’s own Williams

Committee of Inquiry on Education and Training. This Committee drew the conclusion that youth unemployment exists because there are no jobs, and not that in any sense it could be blamed on the education system. The school to work transition program was announced ignoring that finding as it has been assiduously ignored by the Government. The Government ignored the fact that six or seven years ago there was no large youth unemployment problem in Australia. This was not a matter which was considered as an issue of national concern as it is now, although the education system was operating in much the same way then as it is now.

In announcing the program the Minister indicated that it was a response to a very important social problem, as the Government saw it, in Australia. Part of the problem was the fact that many kids were leaving school in some ways or another unsuitably trained or educated or were lacking in sufficient social confidence to enable them to obtain satisfactory employment. The implicit suggestion in all this was that somehow, of course, it was the fault of Australian young people and not a fault of the Government which has consistently since 1975 promised that it has some sort of magic cure to the problem of unemployment. I suppose, in a sense, to a lot of young people that constituted a message of hope, that at last the Fraser Government would do something about the young people who were leaving school and who were unable to find employment because of alleged inadequacies of their own.

The approach to the announcement of this program can be seen by the fact that the Commonwealth Government gave educational authorities something like a week’s notice that it intended to spend reasonably significant sums of money. The Government asked the education authorities in the States and in the private sector whether they could report back to the Government in a week or so on the sorts of programs they felt could be introduced with the new money which would be available from the Commonwealth. Of course, right from the beginning it was a shambles. It was ill-considered, ill-conceived and based on false premises about the nature of unemployment amongst young people and false premises about the nature of the changes which had taken place in Australian society. It had all the essential qualities of a gimmick. Of course that was the sad thing about the program right from the beginning. Nonetheless, I hasten to concede, in the school to work transition program some moneys have been made available, particularly to education authorities, which have been of assistance to some young school leavers. There is no doubt about that. Now, after talking about this program for so long and with such fervour and pride, the whole thing has fallen apart in September 1 980. This falling apart is recorded in yesterday’s Australian Financial Review in these terms:

The State Governments have opted out of the Commonwealth’s School to Work Transition program for next year because of dissatisfaction over its present operation.

The States have refused to provide S9m for the scheme next year to add to the Federal Government’s $28m commitment.

The article then goes on to record grave dissatisfaction with the States about the way in which the program was being operated, ft notes particularly the dissatisfaction expressed by Mr Hamer, the Premier of Victoria, that the scheme could not operate effectively until the Commonwealth formulated a system of allowances to be paid to transition participants. Transition participants are kids who have left school and who have not got jobs and whom the Commonwealth purports to assist through this scheme.

There are many illustrations of the failure of this scheme and the Government’s shocking management in terms of its follow-through of the stated intentions. I want to refer to some of those examples. I refer, first of all, to my own State of Victoria. The amount available for Victoria in the calendar year 1980 under this much vaunted school to work transition program is $6m. As at 6 August 1 980 of the $6m available for the calendar year $1 .84m had been approved by the Commonwealth Minister. But funds actually paid by the Commonwealth Government to the Victorian Treasury this year total only $560,000. Of course, the reasons for that are obviously very clear when one looks at what the Victorian Premier has been saying about the school to work transition. I will refer to that in a moment. The Commonwealth Government has always imposed its own very rigid guidelines on how the scheme is to be administered and has refused to recognise the efficacy of State schemes. As at 10 September none of the projects approved by the Victorian employment committee at its meeting on 6 August had yet been approved in Canberra. The Victorian employment committee has become a body of some interest and controversy in the last few days. That is a matter 1 will refer to in a minute. But the fact of the matter is that that responsible body was appointed by the Victorian Government to approve and to devise programs which would be of value and benefit to school leaving kids in Victoria and which would be financed, it was hoped, by the school to work transition program money.

Nothing is more iniquitous about the Fraser Government’s involvement in the much talked about scheme than the issue of training allowances for kids who go into the scheme, presumably with some degree of hope that the Government is concerned about them. They will lose any unemployment benefit which they might have. They will go into, perhaps, a course of short duration in the technical and further education sector, which will assist them in job skills, social skills or literacy and numeracy. They might sit amongst a group of students who are getting apprenticeship payments and allowances or alternatively are getting the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme allowance or some form of State government assistance. The so-called beneficiaries of the school to work transition program are expected to sit in that educational situation alongside people who are getting allowances of various kinds. What do they get for being taken out of the unemployment statistics? Nothing.

Of course, it is not as if the Government has not known about this. In October 1979 Senator Carrick, who was then the Minister for Education, went down to launch this scheme in Melbourne. The Victorian Liberal Minister for Youth, Sport and Recreation, Mr Brian Dixon, tackled the Minister, Senator Carrick, at the launching of the school to work transition program about what was to be done about this question of allowances. At the end of a heated exchange, Mr Dixon walked out on his Liberal Federal Minister because he got no satisfaction about these fundamental questions of concern to the people who would be the alleged beneficiaries of the school to work transition program.

Whatever one says about Mr Dixon - plenty of things both for and against Mr Dixon can be said in political terms - he has consistently displayed himself as a Minister who has a genuine concern about youth problems in Victoria. He brought that concern to the attention of the then Minister for Education, Senator Carrick, in October last year. In September 1980 - 11 months later - nothing has been done about the matter of allowances. It is not only Mr Dixon who brought it to the Minister’s attention. On 8 May 1980 the Premier of Victoria wrote to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). His letter which was headed ‘School-Work Transition Program - Allowances’, stated:

Dear Mr Fraser,

I refer to previous correspondence about Victoria’s participation in your Government’s School-Work Transition Program and, in particular, to the question of allowances to be paid to young people who participate in the scheme.

The Victorian Government views the rationalisation of these allowances as a matter of major concern.

The Premier then went on to set out a paper prepared by. the Victorian Government on how the school to work transition program of the Fraser Government could be improved in the interests of the kids who were the hopeful beneficiaries under the scheme. That letter, with the accompanying paper, was dated May 1980. There has been no action whatsoever by the Fraser Government, as at September 1 980, on the very question that the Premier of Victoria raised in May of this year. Of course, the Government expresses itself as being concerned about the problem of youth unemployment, but it takes no action in respect of the fundamental questions which concern unemployed young people in Australia. I hope the Fraser Government will soon begin to realise that it is no longer dealing with an aberrant situation of a few kids who are unemployed. It is dealing with what is increasingly becoming a serious social problem in Australia and may indeed have repercussions in terms of social problems for many years to come in this country. The problem is being dealt with in a callous way by a government which can spend millions of dollars on all sorts of ridiculous frolics of its own but does not have any money for these important and significant programs which it has announced and praised with much verbal gusto. It has shown little follow-up initiative. Not only did the Premier of Victoria write to the Fraser Government in May of this year warning it of these problems, but also at the Premiers’ Conference in 1980 briefing notes were supplied by the Victorian Government on the school to work transition program. The briefing notes begin with these words:

The School to Work Program as it stands is ill-defined directionless and would tie up the State in terms of educational priorities and funding even more than such programs as the Schools Commission Program did.

The Premier, after being provided with briefing notes for the Premiers’ Conference by his own department in Victoria, was then provided with examples of programs which had been, as it was described, knocked back in Canberra following Victorian approval.

Let me refer to some of those programs which have been knocked back. They are of particular importance in some areas. An example in the Ballarat region was given. The Victorian Government approved a program aimed at identifying students with learning difficulties and providing adequate programs for them. The Victorian Government suggested $5,000. That suggestion was knocked back in Canberra. Reference was made to youth action teams. There was a proposal to develop community action abilities and skills in young people through their schooling. An amount of $25,000 was suggested for the very large group of unemployed kids in Ballarat. That suggestion was knocked back by the Fraser Government.

In regard to clerical secretarial aid, there was a concerted regional response to the problems of school to work transition. An amount of $12,000 was suggested for kids in the Ballarat electorate. That suggestion was also knocked back by the Government. That is the sort of thing which the Victorian Government has had to put up with. We will certainly be making available in the coming weks the details of the knockbacks by the Fraser Government to unemployed kids in provincial towns in Victoria. They have been very extensively provided by the Hamer Government minute. These matters will have to be drawn to the attention of the people in these towns. When one considers all the wordy rhetoric that has gone on about the school to work transition program there is a record of total failure in the way it has been administered in Canberra and a record of grave concern not only by the Opposition in this place but also by State governments such as the Victorian Government. The most important matter in all those criticisms which criticism runs through them all, is the eleven-month failure to deal with the question of allowances for kids in the school to work transition program.

Of course, there are wider ramifications to this whole matter of youth unemployment than the details of a school to work transition program. The examples in Victoria that I gave are multiplied across the Commonwealth of Australia. For example, one could be listening to this Parliament in Darwin or in Hobart. The same message would be quite apparent. Programs to help young students or potential young students in each place are knocked back. Those young people are unable to obtain-any assistance because of the inaction of the Federal Government to implement a program about which it has talked and talked. When one looks at the figures one can see that nothing very much has happened. This program was claimed by Senator Carrick at the end of 1 979 to be one of the major initiatives of the Fraser Government in education. Its concern and care for young unemployed kids leaving school who could not get jobs was to be dealt with by this flagship of Fraser social concern- the school to work transition program. The ship is riddled with holes. It was riddled with holes by May 1980 and in September 1980 it is sinking fast.

Senator Mulvihill:

– It will have to be scuttled.

Senator BUTTON:

– I do not think that will be necessary. I think it is just about going down under its own steam, if that is the appropriate expression. It is a matter of grave concern that in all this exercise the Commonwealth Government, as I say, has talked about the issue but has not been able to administer it in an effective way. That failure goes back to the whole matter of management and social concern about the issues which are inherent in the nature of a program such as this. I wish to touch briefly on one or two other aspects of the program, but at this point I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 735

DEFENCE SERVICE HOMES AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1980

Bills received from the House of Representatives.

Suspension of Standing Orders

Motion (by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage, and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole.

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

Bills (on motion by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle) read a first time.

Second Readings

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

(10.55)- I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows -

Defence Service Homes Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1980

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Defence Service Homes Act to increase the maximum loan under the Defence Service Homes Scheme from $15,000 to $25,000. The higher lending limit will apply to all types of assistance at present available under the Act. The present lending limit of $15,000 has been in force since 1974. The raising of the maximum loan to $25,000 will offset increases since that time in the cost of acquiring a home and substantially reduce the amount of funds required from an eligible person’s own resources or from supplementary borrowings.

The Government has reviewed the interest charge on loans under the Act and has decided that the present generous rates of 3.75 per cent per annum on loan amounts up to $12,000, and 7.25 per cent per annum on the next $3,000, will be retained. Where the loan exceeds $15,000 the Bill provides for interest to be charged at 10 per cent per annum on that part of the loan above $15,000. Provision also is made in the Bill for an interest charge of 10 per cent per annum on any additional loan assistance.

In connection with the interest which will be payable on defence service homes loans I would draw the attention of honourable senators to two significant features. Firstly, the rate of 10 per cent on loan amounts in excess of $ 1 5,000 is below that normally charged by banks on housing loans. Secondly, because of the retention of the existing rates on amounts up to $15,000, the effective overall interest charge on a defence service homes loan of $25,000 will still be slightly less than 7 per cent per annum.

The Bill includes a number of other technical amendments as a consequence of the replacement of the present two-tier interest rate structure with a three-tier system and the introduction of a new top tier rate of 10 per cent. As honourable senators are aware, in addition to the increase in the maximum loan provided for in this Bill, the Government has already acted separately to reduce from 14 months to 10 months the waiting period for a loan to purchase a new or previously occupied home. These decisions are reflected in the 1980-81 Budget which provides for a total defence service homes lending program in the current year which is almost 50 per cent higher than in 1979-80. The Government has given a clear indication, therefore, of the importance it places on the Defence Service Homes Scheme as a means of meeting the housing needs of former and serving members of the Forces. The proposed increase in the maximum loan of $10,000, or662/3 per cent, is the largest single increase since the commencement of the Scheme more than 60 years ago. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Repatriation Acts Amendment Bill 1980

This Bill provides for amendment of the Repatriation Act and the Seamen’s War Pensions and Allowances Act to give effect to the Government’s Budget decisions. The Repatriation disability pension is to be disregarded by half in determining eligibility for fringe benefits. A new temporary incapacity allowance is to be introduced and it is to be similarly treated in determining eligibility for service pension and fringe benefits. Free medical treatment is to be provided for all disabilities, irrespective of cause, to Australian mariners who were captured and detained by the enemy, and to those veterans and Australian mariners who suffer from an amputation or loss of vision in one eye resulting from a service-related disability or a war injury respectively. In addition, the amounts payable for amputations or loss of vision, to orphans, and as attendant’s allowance, are to be increased. Provision is also to be made for pension to be adjusted in the event of any over-assessment of the new temporary incapacity allowance or the existing loss of earnings allowance that arises from a subsequent decision on pension assessment that applies retrospectively.

The Bill also includes certain provisions which are consequential upon amendments to the Social Services Act. These are to exclude the pay, allowances or any gratuity paid to a member of the Defence Forces Reserve or Emergency Reserve Forces as income for the purpose of the income test in respect of the service pension, and to restore that portion of service pension that is currently suspended in respect of inmates of mental hospitals.

A major decision taken by the Government, to be put into effect by this Bill, is in relation to the extent of the disability pension to be taken into account in determining eligibility for fringe benefits. As a new allowance, called the temporary incapacity allowance, is also affected by this decision, I think I should briefly first explain to the Senate the nature of this allowance which is in itself a new initiative on the Government’s part.

The temporary incapacity allowance is to be introduced as from 1 Novermber 1980, by regulation, to compensate veterans who undergo hospitalisation for a service-related disability and are totally incapacitated by that hospitalisation and consequential outpatient treatment or convalescence for a continuous period of more than 28 days. The amount of the allowance will be the equivalent of the special - total and permanent incapacity - rate for the period involved, less any disability pension the veteran may already receive, lt will be backdated to the date on which the veteran was admitted to hospital and will be income test free. In line with current provisions in the Repatriation Act in relation to pensions, the Bill provides that only half of the temporary incapacity allowance be taken into consideration when determining the rate at which a service pension is payable to a veteran.

The Bill also provides for the current income limits in the Repatriation Act to be amended so that only half of any disability pension including the temporary incapacity allowance be taken into consideration in the assessment of income for the purpose of determining a service pensioner’s eligibility for free repatriation medical treatment and pensioner health benefits and associated fringe benefits. At present the disability pension is halved in assessing the rate of service pension whilst the full amount is taken into account for determining entitlement to fringe benefits. To illustrate the effect of the new provision, a single pensioner on the full 100 per cent general rate pension of $44.10 a week, who previously would not have been eligible for fringe benefits, may now qualify provided any other income he receives does not exceed $1 7.95 a week.

I know this initiative by the Government will be welcomed by a very large sector of the exservice community. We have been concerned that many repatriation pensioners have lost their entitlement to fringe benefits which are worth, on the average, many hundreds of dollars a year, because of a few cents increase in their disability pensions. The Government fully realises that such cases will continue to occur - they would continue to occur no matter how much income it was decided to disregard - but I would emphasise that we are concerned to see that those in the greatest financial need should not unnecessarily lose their eligibility for fringe benefits, which is exactly what this new initiative is intended to achieve. Provisions covering the disregarding of half of a disability pension, including the temporary incapacity allowance, are to come into operation on 1 January 1981.

Part of the Government’s long term policy objective in relation to veterans is to extend eligibility for free repatriation medical treatment to all veterans. This is necessarily a long term objective because of the substantial cost and need for increased staff resources. There are two distinct provisions in the repatriation regulations enabling treatment for veterans. Under the first, treatment may be provided for any incapacity which has been accepted as service-related. Treatment may include any form of therapy available at departmental facilities or from any other source approved by the Repatriation Commission. Under the second, the same treatment is extended to certain categories of veterans, subject to certain qualifications, for all conditions whether or not they are accepted as related to the veteran’s service. 1 am pleased to announce another significant step toward the Government’s objective. As from 13 November 1980 all Australian mariners who were captured and detained by the enemy and all veterans and Australian mariners who suffer from an amputation or loss of vision in one eye resulting from a service-related disability or war injury respectively, who do not now qualify on other grounds, will be eligible for free medical treatment, subject to certain qualifications, for all conditions irrespective of cause. I should mention that this move will align Australian mariners with other Australian veterans in respect of the benefits available to persons who were prisoners of war.

I am pleased to inform honourable senators that, in addition, provision has been made for increases in many other repatriation benefits. The addition to pension for a veteran in receipt of the general rate pension, who has had a limb, or limbs, amputated, or has lost an eye or the vision in an eye as a result of service-related causes, is to be increased. The new rate for a veteran suffering from loss of vision in one eye will be $5.80 weekly whilst the new rate for a veteran with one leg amputated above and one leg amputated below the knee will be $25.80 weekly.

The levels of orphan’s pension are also to be increased. The rate applicable for a child in the care of his mother, adoptive or step-parent, will rise by $1.30 a week to $13.80 a week. If both parents are deceased, or the child is not being maintained by a parent, adoptive parent or stepparent, the rate will rise by $2.60 to $27.60 a week. The rate of attendant’s allowance is to be increased from $1 7.50 to $19.32 a week in the case of a veteran who is blind or is suffering a cerebrospinal injury. In the case of a veteran who has been blinded and is afflicted with total loss of speech or total deafness, the allowance is to be increased from $35.00 to $38.65 a week. Increases in additions to pension for amputations or loss of vision, orphan’s pension and attendant’s allowance are to come into effect on 13 November 1980.

The Bill provides for pension to be adjusted in the event of over-assessment of the new temporary incapacity allowance or the existing loss of earnings allowance. For example, the temporary incapacity allowance is to be paid at a rate equal to the difference between the assessed rate of disability pension and the special- TPI - rate. If a subsequent decision is made which increases the assessed rate of pension during the period in which the allowance was paid, it will be necessary to make an adjustment in respect of the amount of the allowance paid. As a consequence of amendment of the Social Services Act, the Repatriation

Act is to be amended to exclude the pay, allowances or any gratuity paid to a member of the Defence Forces Reserve or Emergency Reserve Forces as income for the purpose of those pensions that are subject to an income test, and to align the payment of pensions and sickness benefits to the inmates of mental hospitals with those payable to patients in other institutions.

In conclusion, I would emphasise that the Government is concerned to see that those who served their country in time of war are appropriately compensated for any losses they have suffered or sacrifices they have made. This is not to say that we can accede immediately to every request for additional or increased pensions or allowances but, although available funds are limited, it is worth noting that in this year expenditure under the Veterans’ Affairs portfolio will be in the region of $ 1,600m. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned.

page 737

INCOME TAX (COMPANIES AND SUPERANNUATION FUNDS) BILL 1980

First Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

– Before I was interrupted, I was talking about the school to work transition program. I wish to make one or two general points about this program which was launched by Senator Carrick under the title ‘A Comprehensive Policy for Transition from School to Work’. If there is anything favourable that can be said about it, it is not that it is comprehensive. It is the most incomprehensive, mismanaged program that one can possibly imagine. That is why the State Premiers have condemned it and the States have not withdrawn from it.

It is a tragedy that the Commonwealth is now forced back into a position of saying that it will continue to pay its share of the money and it hopes that the States will come back into the scheme in the future. The scheme began as an exercise in what Senator Carrick would call cooperative federalism. The States and the Commonwealth were going to get together to tackle the important social problem of youth unemployment. They were going to get together to do that and the Commonwealth was going to provide a lot of the money. It was to be a great scheme to make an impact on this important social issue.

Of course, the Commonwealth has administered it so badly in the views of the States that the whole scheme has now fallen apart and we are left with absolutely nothing in terms of any assurances about a continuing program. I described the scheme as a battleship which is sailing in a cloud of smoke in terms of this Government’s view of the social implications of youth unemployment and the nature of youth unemployment. When one asks a question about this matter in the Senate one gets an answer which suggests that somehow kids are to blame for not having jobs - an answer which is given by a Minister in a government which was elected on the promise of getting rid of unemployment in Australia. It is a shame and a disgrace to this chamber that a Minister in this place suggests day after day that it is no longer the fault of a government which sought election in 1975 in the most peculiar circumstances, in the most reprehensible circumstances, and which again sought election in 1977, on the basis that it could do better on issues such as this.

In 1980 the Government is pleading to the people of Australia: ‘It is not our fault - it is the fault of the kids who are concerned - that these problems are still with us’. That was implicit in an answer given by Senator Carrick again today. He said that some of them lack motivation. Who is supposed to supply them with motivation? If it is not a Prime Minister who said he was going to lead this country to some sort of new nirvana, who is supposed to supply them with motivation? Are they to be condemned in this glib fashion as people who lack motivation and therefore have to be written off by a government of this kind? That whole patrician attitude is endemic in every sort of Fraser Government pronouncement about anything. There is always somebody else to blame other than the Fraser Government. It is the trade unions, the unemployed, people who lack motivation or people who are insufficiently loyal in some way or another.

Senator Grimes:

– Or the Russians.

Senator BUTTON:

– Yes, or the Russians. They are good. It is all sorts of people such as those who are to blame for these things. It is never the Government, the Government which is responsible in terms of its own rhetoric for these problems and which is responsible in terms of the functioning of any decent government to deal with these problems. There are no better examples of this sort of thing than those which were mentioned in the recent debate which has taken place about the function of the Victorian employment committee, a committee appointed by the Hamer Government., In the last couple of days a report has been leaked, apparently by the Victorian Employment Committee or somebody on it, about the situation of young, unemployed people in Australia.

Debate interrupted.

page 738

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT:

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

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the negative. (Quorum formed).

page 738

INCOME TAX (COMPANIES AND SUPERANNUATION FUNDS) BILL 1980

First Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator BUTTON:

– Before the debate was interrupted I was drawing attention to the superficial and expedient nature of this Government’s approach to youth unemployment. In the last week or two there has been some discussion of the findings of the Victorian Employment Committee on this issue. What have Fraser Government spokesmen done about that report? First of all, they have sought to discredit the report on the basis that it is not an official document. Secondly, they have sought to discredit it on the basis that the sample was not large enough, that the methodology was not adequate and things of that kind. For God’s sake, who are they to criticise when they have commissioned no such report themselves at any time? Let us look at what the report of the Victorian Employment Committee had to say. The Government has criticised the report because it said only 21 1 young unemployed people were interviewed. How many young unemployed people has the Fraser Government interviewed to find out how they feel about being unemployed? 1 think the answer is none. Secondly, the criticism is offered that the sample size was too small. The professional advice for the Victorian Employment Committee in doing this survey was obtained from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, not a body whose findings the Government shrinks from using in most circumstances. The sample size was that specified by the Victorian Government -200.

The report itself set out the limitations of a sample of that kind. It said that one could make only estimates of major trends from a sample of that size. It said that it was not possible to obtain accurate quantitative estimates about the characteristics of particular groups but that one could estimate certain trends. Mr Viner has said in another place that it is not a comprehensive survey of unemployed young people. What, one might ask, is more comprehensive? The Australian Bureau of Statistics survey of 30,000 households is based on going to 30,000 households in Australia and asking whether the people there are employed, but its definition of employment is based on whether a person has worked for an hour or more in the last week. lt is important to point out that the Victorian survey covered nearly 5,000 households, and all of the 21 1 in-depth interviews were taken from those 5,000-odd households. I think some of the characteristics of the people who were interviewed indepth are important. I draw the Senate’s attention to the fact that more than one-quarter of the sample interviewed had obtained their higher school certificate, 8 per cent of those interviewed had tertiary education qualifications, but 53 per cent had not gone beyond fourth form. That is the first survey done by any government body or instrumentality which very much supports the conclusions of the Williams Committee on Education, Training and Employment, which stated that education is not the cause of unemployment; it is part of the general economic malaise. lt is worth noting that on page 96 of that report it is stated that some 47 per cent of the unemployed thought that their schooling had not been helpful. The conclusions that we can draw from this, in political terms, are simply that we need more accurate assessments of the demand for people in specific areas and more accurate assessments than we presently have about the nature of unemployment and the nature of the people who are the victims of that unemployment. If the Government is so confident about its development aims which it touts about for electoral purposes, why are its policies not flowing through to training young people as the tradesmen, technicians and engineers who will be needed? Why has the Government cut the growth rate of the technical and further education sector and why is it incapable of making workable arrangements with the States on school to work transition programs?

The importance of the Victorian Government exercise is that in a sense it shows up the sham that is the Fraser Government’s policies on these issues of important social concern. As I said, its policies are battleships with holes in them. They are sinking fast and they are being clouded over with a smokescreen of empty rhetoric about the nature of youth unemployment and about responsibility for the sins of the country being vested in everyone in this society other than the Fraser Government. Bertolt Brecht once said of the Government of the Weimar Republic in Germany: ‘The Government has lost confidence in the people. The Government has decided to dismiss the people’. That is the current strategy of the Fraser Government in relation to all these matters, and particularly in relation to important social questions such as this. It is a strategy which ought to be condemned totally by this Parliament and the electorate of Australia.

Senator MASON:
New South Wales

– I wish to use the convention of the first reading of a money Bill in the Senate to raise an issue of some importance to the people of New South Wales. I refer to standards in the construction currently being carried out by the Australian Gas Light Co. of a natural gas pipeline and an associated liquid fuel pipeline between Sydney and Newcastle which passes through the highly populated areas of Windsor, Blacktown, Glenorie and Schofields as well as many suburbs of Sydney and Newcastle. Almost daily somewhere in the world there is a catastrophic accident, quite often in a city, due to faults in natural gas pipelines. I regard it as a matter of national importance that the standards for the construction of these pipelines, which are criss-crossing our country in increasing numbers all the time, are rather important. I feel that it is a sad matter that in New South Wales we are permitting to be constructed through the most heavily populated part of Australia a line of a standard which is lower than it should be. Why are there these catastrophic accidents? Although we are very used to natural gas and petroleum, which we use every day, they have an explosive power of 10 times their own weight in TNT. They are highly dangerous substances with which we have become far too familiar and hence treat with a certain measure of contempt.

Natural gas pipelines have increasingly become a target for terrorist activity. It has appalled me to read how often such terrorist activities accur in the United States of America. Many, of the explosions have resulted in heavy fatalities, and personal injury, as well as enormous damage to property. In Essex, Ontario, in February 1980 a drunk man drove his car into a natural gas meter, breaking the top off the meter. Electric circuitry in the towtruck which tried to move the car to allow workers to repair the gas meter ignited the natural gas and the ensuing explosion levelled one entire city block, damaging 20 per cent of all other shops in the city area and injuring all six people on the scene at the time. Luckily, as the explosion occurred at 2 o’clock in the morning, not many people were in the city area. Had it occurred during the day it would have been an accident of world proportions.

In the United States of America gas escaped from a ruptured pipeline in a remote area. When a repair crew arrived six hours later one of its vehicles ignited the gas at a point about 30 metres from the rupture - as far away as that. Five workers were killed in the resulting fire. In a sparsely inhabited valley in the United Kingdom a tiny crack in a pipeline suddenly ruptured and gas escaped. Fortunately, the sounds associated with the collapse of the pipe warned residents to move quickly from the area and they were evacuated. From the hills surrounding the valley the residents saw a white vapour cloud 460 metres long and three to six metres high form in the valley. Forty minutes after the rupture occurred the vapour cloud exploded and the resultant fire storm in that valley damaged almost every house there.

I mention those incidents because we have not yet had that kind of accident in Australia, but if we continue in the way we are going it will happen. Because of that kind of accident, in many parts of the world standards have been set to reduce the hazard which, in a tragic way and without warning, can expose city populations to the most harrowing accidents, which nobody has any right to wish on anybody, much less the peaceful citizens of one of our cities going about their ordinary business. It is a stupid person who cannot learn from experience. It also is a stupid nation which cannot learn from experience overseas. Standards for the pipeline which, as I said, passes through many suburbs of Sydney and Newcastle, are the responsibility of the New South Wales Government, but 1 raise the matter here because the fate of our largest city is a matter of national importance and certainly concerns this House. It certainly concerns me as a senator for New South Wales. I hope that, as a result of what I am disclosing, it will be possible for the Federal Government to take some action which will change a project which I and many citizens in Sydney who have come to me about the matter are convinced is now on a disaster course of the worst nature.

The basic fact is that, for one reason or another, construction of the pipeline is being permitted to meet standards less safe than they should be, when judged by standards imposed elsewhere in the world, especially in the United States and the United Kingdom. The wall thickness of the pipes is between 5.31 millimetres and 8.48 millimetres, but the British Institution of Gas Engineers standard, TD1, stipulates that pipes with a thickness of wall which is less than 9.52 millimetres - that is nearly twice the thickness of the thinnest pipes being used in New South Wales - are susceptible to penetration from outside mechancial interference. Outside mechanical interference relates to earth moving- to any sort of activity near the pipeline.

We are talking about the most heavily populated and one of the most heavily industrialised parts of our nation. Obviously, those sections of pipeline which are laid in areas which can and in some cases definitely will be subdivided should have, according to the British standard, a wall thickness of at least 9.52 millimetres so that they cannot be cracked by the functioning of earth moving equipment by operators who, with the best intention in the world, might not know those sections of pipeline are there. Once something is buried in the ground it is accepted that it is there and years later people might not even know of its existence, although perhaps they should.

British standard TD1 specifies also that any gas pipeline, running at the boundaries of a high density traffic area, must have an even greater wall thickness- a thickness of at least 11.91 millimetres, which is more than twice that required under the minimal standards in New South Wales. A large section of the pipeline near Wyong runs parallel and very close to the SydneyNewcastle expressway. In those respects alone, according to the most informed overseas opinion, under the streets of our largest city and between two of our most crowded metropolitan areas we are creating something of a time bomb. If we allow the pipeline to continue to be constructed in accordance with the present standards, I predict that some day it may cause an appalling urban disaster which we might have been able to prevent - in fact, which we certainly would have been able to prevent - had we taken steps at the right time. The right time is now because the pipeline is being built now. That is why I raise the matter at this time.

No reference is made in the Australian standards to the distance of separation required between the gas pipeline and the residential areas. But all British standards define that distance according to the pressure under which the pipeline operates. The pipeline we are speaking of operates at a pressure of 1000 lb per square inch and it has a diameter of 20 inches. According to the British standard TD1 it should have a minimum separation from occupied buildings of 1 60 feet, or 48 metres; but in places it is planned to run the pipeline within a few feet of occupied dwellings. It is running within a few feet of hospitals and business premises.

In addition to this minimum separation from buildings, pipes in occupied areas in the United Kingdom are required by the code to be encased in concrete which is reinforced with wire mesh. The reason for that is obvious. It is to hold the pipe if there is a danger of fracture from outside interference. I am informed that the only places where concrete casing will be used in the Sydney to Newcastle pipeline are where the pipeline passes under heavily trafficked roads. All British codes require a minimum soil cover of one metre where blasting is not required and six hundred millimetres, or two feet, where blasting of rock is required. In practice, these soil cover depths are considered too small. Indeed, pipelines in Britain are laid with one metre of cover where blasting is required and with two metres of cover where there is no blasting. I am told that AGL will be laying the pipeline from Sydney to Newcastle with only 450 millimetres of cover where blasting is required and with 750 millimetres of soil cover where it is not required. Here again, there is an erosion of acceptable international standards. lt would appear that the New South Wales Energy Authority has allowed AGL to use the 1972 and 1 975 standards for gas pipelines rather than the most modern 1 979 standard because the pipe was in fact bought in 1 972, although construction began only very recently. Indeed, so far a total of only 1 5 kilometres of the pipeline has been laid in bits and pieces out of a total finished length of approximately 160 kilometres. The Australian Democrats feel that the use of these outdated standards is highly irregular, to say the very least, and ought not to be permitted. Citizens who are concerned about this pipeline have been in touch with British engineers, who have replied that they could not believe that anybody would be allowed to use a standard which was outdated before work was started on the pipeline.

When the Moomba to Sydney pipeline was built eight years ago, AGL bought pipes in bulk - I gather to save money, which is a laudable enough intention - but it stored these pipes, according to my information, with only a plastic covering. As a result the pipes corroded, particularly at the ends, where strict quality control is required to avoid gaps when the welds are put in between the pipes. When these pipes came to be inspected to determine their quality and availability for use in the Sydney to Newcastle line they were stripped of their old coating and visually inspected. On this basis, 800 of the 23,000 pipes were rejected as unfit to be used as they had corroded too far. The rest were accepted for use and, indeed, are being used. Dr Robert Jones of the New South Wales Institute of Technology, an expert on pipelines and corrosion, maintains that pipes which have so obviously corroded cannot have the extent of that corrosion determined by visual inspection alone and must be X-rayed. I gather that this has not been the case with the AGL pipes. Therefore, there is a possibility of one of the pipes eventually cracking or of gas escaping from an inadequately welded joint, the leaking gas forming a vapour cloud and, as has happened in other countries, the vapour cloud being ignited and exploding.

Altogether, it is a rather sorry story, one not unusual in our country. This is the lucky country, the happy country, and we think we can get away with things that those in other parts of the world do not get away with. I suggest it is a very dangerous happening.

I wish to raise one other aspect of this matter, and it is, I think, of national importance. I refer to the increasing recourse by large and wealthy organisations to the processes of law to try to suppress the efforts of concerned individuals or citizen movements to raise matters of this kind. I agree that nobody can or should wish to limit anybody’s right to justice, but it is one of the facts of life that a large and wealthy organisation can readily intimidate people without great financial resources simply by taking out a writ against them, perhaps for defamation, and often on very slender grounds. The intimidation, of course, comes from the fact that, because our legal processes are so lamentably complex, various legal devices can be used to run up costs alarmingly, even before a matter can go to court. This process of intimidation is a very real and effective one which is used unjustly and against the public interest. Quite often the plaintiff is a very large and wealthy organisation whose legal costs in any case may well be deductible.

I mention this matter because a member of the citizen movement in New South Wales concerned with this pipeline did attract such a writ and, indeed, felt intimidated by it - wrongly so. The matter came up for mention on 8 August. Fortunately at that point the presiding judge remarked that this was just another example of a large public company attempting to stifle public opinion. The judge told the defendant to feel free to comment, just as he had been doing, on the pipeline standards compared to those overseas - very much the sorts of facts I have brought forward here today. The judge said - I agree with his statement - that all that the defendant had been doing was referring to construction details compared to those used overseas and that this did not constitute defamation. Nevertheless, AGL had seen fit to bring the action for defamation. I understand that this matter will not now proceed but will be finalised quite soon. One can say that it has come to a happy ending. But not all cases do so. I refer this whole area of concern to the Attorney-General (Senator Durack). I have mentioned it once before in the Senate. I think it is a matter of urgent concern to this country. I beg him, as chief law officer of this nation, to give it some consideration.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

- Mr President, I ask:

Are you prepared to be governed by people who have lurched into crisis after crisis, scandal after scandal, embarrassment piled on embarrassment, week after week, month after month, year after year? Will you accept another three years of waiting for next week’s blunder, next week’s sacking, next week’s deception, next week’s lie?

That is a quotation from the policy speech of the Leader of the National Country Party (Mr Anthony) delivered on 26 November 1975. Those words have reverberated in the ears of this scandal-ridden government throughout the Garland affair, the Lynch affair, the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation affair, the IBM affair, the Ellicott, Beggs and Robinson affairs, the Boeing affair, the Newman-Webster affair, and the Sinclair, Withers and Staley affairs. Today they exploded on Mr Anthony himself as the tip of the Chrysotile-Woodsreef-Commercial Bank of Australia-Country Party scandal was exposed in the House of Representatives. The extraordinary story of government patronage of the Chrysotile Corporation Ltd goes back nearly two years to 24 October 1 978 when the Government reversed its decision made only 1 2 days before to adopt an Industries Assistance Commission recommendation and not provide assistance to Woodsreef Mines Ltd and its subsidiary, Chrysotile. On 12 October in a Press statement issued by Mr Anthony it was stated:

The Government has accepted a recommendation by the Industries Assistance Commission against giving short term assistance to the production of asbestos in Australia.

Twelve days later on 24 October, the same Minister stated:

The Commonwealth Government will offer a loan of up to $ 1 .4m to assist in maintaining the operations of the Chrysotile Corporation Ltd asbestos mine at Barraba.

No credible explanation for that contradiction has ever been offered by the Government. The fact that the mine is in the electorate of New England and that the Bingara branch of the National Country Party strongly supported Woodsreef before the IAC hearing may be relevant. The most convincing explanation offered by non-government sources was that the Commercial Bank of Australia, with which senior members of the Country Party had and have a very special relationship, according to evidence tendered to the IAC, stood to lose up to $ 15m if the assets of the company were liquidated.

About this very special relationship between the Commercial Bank of Australia and senior Country Party Ministers much has yet to be revealed. The prima facie case of Government patronage of Chrysotile is corroborated in the 1979-80 annual report of the Export Development Grants Board. Appendix 8 of that report which appears on page 1 1 2 shows that the Chrysotile Corporation received $395,000 as an export development grant. The Chrysotile Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Woodsreef Mines, is solely engaged in the production and export of asbestos. Asbestos is an ineligible good for export grants, although it may be eligible if it is further processed. When this fact was pointed out today to Mr Anthony, the eloquence that he displayed in November 1975 deserted him. One of his colleagues looked very grave indeed. Whether that was related to the link between Chrysotile and the Commercial Bank of Australia which had lent him money to repay some of the money previously stolen, but then in his possession, is a matter for speculation. Mr Anthony was unable to respond other than to say that it must have been approved by the Board. At the end of Question Time he explained that following advice from the Bureau of Mineral Resources and I quote his words:

  1. . the Board determined that highly refined asbestos fibres exported by the Chrysotile Corporation were eligible.

That explanation or excuse does not get Mr Anthony or his colleagues off the hook. The shipping manager at the Barraba mine, when contacted yesterday by telephone said: ‘We sell only the raw fibre milled from rock. We merely pressurise it into the bags’. On the same day an officer of the Bureau of Mineral Resources said that raw and milled asbestos were regarded by the Bureau as one and the same thing. Until Mr Anthony tables the advice which he alleges was given by the Bureau, and unless it says what he claims it says little, if any, credibility can be given to his explanation or apologia. I challenge him to produce the alleged advice. The full ramifications of this sleazy operation have yet to be revealed. When they are, senior members of the National Country Party may have to revise the conclusion that they have had a lucky escape.

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– Tonight I wish to take the opportunity, provided by the first reading debate on the Income Tax (Companies and Superannuation Funds) Bill 1980, to speak on the economic policies of the present Government. I believe the policies of the Government are those of a concerned government, a government concerned with the welfare of Australia and Australians. They are the policies which I believe will project this country into the 1980s with economic stability. Once more the

Government has accepted the challenge to continue its fight against inflation while maintaining its priorities in the areas of social welfare, education and defence. I believe any government that neglects its policies in relation to defence is selling the nation short, is not talcing care of its responsibilities to the nation, and will not be a responsible government as is this government.

It is interesting to note that the Government has not attempted to woo the Australian public with cheap gimmicks in this, an election year. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has as always put the future of this nation foremost and the Budget that was brought down is no exception. This is borne out when one studies the flamboyant proposals put forward in the alternative Budget of the leader of the so-called Opposition. The people of Australia have not forgotten the chaos of the early 1970s when the Whitlam extravaganza, with its cast of thousands, opened to the catch tune of ‘Its Time’. But as we all know, it folded shortly after due to the lack of public support. Clearly, Mr Hayden has shown that he has not learnt from the excesses of the past Labor Government and the people know very well who will ultimately pay for this Utopian dream that he has. It is the taxpayer who will pay, the little bloke, the battler, those people who Mr Hayden and his team of supporters purport to represent. I know that I can identify with these little people - the battler, the bloke out in the bush who is struggling to make a quid. I know that the scars of economic insanity are still very tender indeed. The memories of public sector explosion to the detriment of private enterprise are still fresh in the minds of the Australian people.

As a senator for Queensland, a State of vast areas, I would like to analyse the Opposition’s policy on petrol pricing. I think this is really worth looking into much more closely. I call on the Federal Opposition to come clean and to clarify its policies on petrol pricing. It is not easy to know exactly what Labor’s policy is. Some Labor spokesmen had claimed that Labor policies would mean cheaper petrol. Some had acknowledged that they were just an alternative formula for price increases. It seems to me - I am sure it seems to many other Australians - that Labor’s policy is whatever is most convenient for any Labor candidate at a particular time. This is what it seems to me to be and I am sure this is what it seems to be to many other Australians. The election campaign claims of cheaper petrol I believe are a fraudulent gimmick and, furthermore, Labor’s policy as expressed by its official spokesman on minerals and energy, Mr Keating, would in fact mean dearer petrol and empty bowsers. I refer to Mr Keating’s admission that Labor’s proposed resource tax would probably raise more revenue than the existing oil levy by the present Government. I point out that it would be impossible for petrol prices to be lowered if the taxes on producers were to go through the roof.

Senator Rae:

– What did Labor do to the farmers when it was in office?

Senator BONNER:

– I will be coming to that very shortly, Senator Rae. If the taxes on producers were to go through the roof- I stress that there should be incentives to all Australian producers to make Australia self-sufficient in oil - Labor’s policy of a resource tax and a solialistic hydrocarbons corporation would strangle oil exploration, as Labor’s policy did in 1973-75. 1 warn the people of Australia that Labor’s promises to country people have to be seen in the light of the fact that Labor had abolished petrol price equalisation in 1973. 1 am sure many of the people in the outback areas remember that and remember it very well as, indeed, I do. World parity pricing of petrol is essential because it encourages conservation of a scarce pertroleum resource, conversion to other fuels such as coal or gas, oil exploration and development, and the production of synthetic crude such as in the Rundle shale oil project in my State of Queensland. The Labor spokesman had, indeed, accepted the logic of oil parity pricing and, in promising cheaper petrol, Labor were trying to have it, I believe, both ways. This cheap trick for Labor would be very expensive for all Australians.

Having briefly touched on Mr Hayden’s dream for a totalitarian state, I completely dismiss his proposed alternative Budget for the sham that it is and know that the Australian people when the election is held will do likewise. (Quorum formed). I do not want to take up a great deal of the Senate’s time this evening so may I just congratulate the Prime Minister and the Treasurer for the soundness of their economic policies - policies which I have said are tailored to meeting this nation’s economic needs and planned improvement in the quality of life of our people without straining the purse. I think that is very important indeed.

There are a couple of other matters I want to touch on. Without wishing to start a brawl with my Tasmanian colleagues, I raise a matter which concerns me. I have travelled quite extensively throughout my State and I have found areas of grave concern. I know that we do some very sensible things in relation to our smaller State, Tasmania, because of its isolation but it also needs to be borne in mind that there are people in my State of Queensland who, too, suffer from isolation. In vast areas of Queensland there are people who, I believe, are entitled to some assistance from the Government to help them to enjoy the quality of life enjoyed by people on the eastern seaboards of not only my State but also New South Wales and Victoria. The cost of living, in those remote areas, which is affected by high freight costs and that type of thing is causing great hardship to many people.

I had some research done in relation to prices paid by people in the cities and towns on the eastern seaboard compared with prices paid by people who live in some of the isolated areas of Queensland. I will compare supermarket prices on Thursday Island with those in Cairns. Two kilograms of sugar cost $1.49 on Thursday Island whilst in Cairns they cost $1.10. A half pound of tea costs 98c on Thursday Island and in Cairns it costs 78c. Daffodil margarine costs $1.19 on Thursday Island but only 96c in Cairns. A large packet of cornflakes costs $1.71 on Thursday Island but $1.30 in Cairns. A large tin of powdered milk - and milk, particularly powdered milk, is a very important commodity - costs $4.32 on Thursday Island but only $2.24 in Cairns. A pint of milk costs 90c on Thursday Island. In Cairns it costs only 57c; and so it goes on.

Senator Messner:

– What does a bottle of wine cost there?

Senator BONNER:

– The honourable senator should ask someone else about that. I do not drink the stuff. Half a pound of tea costs $1 in Burketown. The same tea costs only 75c in Brisbane. A tin of jam costs $1.20 in Burketown. The same commodity costs 30c in Brisbane. In Burketown a packet of cornflakes costs $1.20 and in Brisbane it costs 53c. A small tin of powdered milk costs $1.30 in Burketown and $1.03 in Brisbane. I ask the Federal Government to liaise with the Queensland Government in some way or other about helping the people in those areas by doing something about the freight of goods.

Senator McLaren:

– Vote in a Labor government. That is your only chance. Get rid of Petersen.

Senator BONNER:

– The honourable senator on the other side of the House who is squawking does not live in an isolated area. He would not know what it is like to live in an isolated area such as Burketown, Doomadgee, Aurukun, Mornington Island, Kowanyama and Mitchell River. A lot of the people who live in those areas are not on the highest of incomes because they live in Aboriginal communities. Their foodstuffs have to be brought all the way from Cairns around the western side of Cape York Peninsula by barge. The cost of freighting items such as soft drinks, lollies, bread, flour, tea and sugar is making it almost impossible for the people in those areas to be able to enjoy the things that other people enjoy.

I am surprised at the attitude of Senator McLaren, who is sitting on the other side of the chamber. I am talking about people. I am not talking about the chooks that he had in his fowl run. I am talking about people with families, including little children. I ask that the Federal and Queensland governments look at the matter realistically and try to assist those people who live in isolated areas, lt is important that people are encouraged to live in those areas. There are vast areas of seaboard there and anything can happen, so it is important that we have people living in those areas. I ask that the Federal Government look into the matter and, if necessary, talk with the Government of Queensland about whether something can be done. I believe that is not an unfair or unrealistic request to make. It is done in other areas. I want to know why it cannot be done in my State of Queensland.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · Western Australia · LP

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows -

This Bill will formally impose income tax for 1980-81 on the income of companies for 1979-80 and the income of superannuation funds for the current year. The rates of tax are also declared by the Bill and are the same as for 1979-80, with one minor exception. The exception is a superannuation fund taxed in accordance with section 121 DA of the Income Tax Assessment Act. Such funds, which are broadly in the nature of accumulation trusts, are taxed at a rate equal to the maximum rate of personal tax and, in consequence of the change in the standard personal rate, the rate of tax for these funds is to be reduced from 61.07 per cent to 60 per cent for the 1980-81 financial year. The provisions of the Bill follow the same lines as in other years and details of the various rates are set out in the explanatory memorandum that is being made available to honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Wriedt) adjourned.

page 745

INCOME TAX (INDIVIDUALS) BILL 1980

First Reading

Debate resumed from 9 September, on motion by Senator Chaney:

That the Bill be now read a first time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows -

This is an annual measure which formally imposes personal income tax for 1980-81 at the rates declared in the Income Tax (Rates) Act 1976. Honourable senators will recall that, following the economic statement of the Treasurer (Mr Howard) of 6 March 1980, the Income Tax (Rates) Act 1976 was amended in the autumn sittings to declare rates of tax payable by individuals and trustees generally for 1980-81. These rates reflect the decision that there is to be half indexation of the personal tax rates scale for the 1980-81 income year.

It is worth recalling the effects of that earlier legislation. Application of the 3.8 indexation factor has meant that for 1980-81 the standard rate of 32 per cent will not apply until taxable income exceeds $4,041 . It was $3,893 last year. The other steps in the scale have been correspondingly increased so that the 46 per cent rate will apply after $17,239 and not $16,608 as previously. The maximum individual rate of 60 per cent will not apply until the taxable income exceeds $34,478. It was $33,216 for 1979-80. The resulting tax reductions benefit all taxpayers, and, together with associated increases in rebates for dependants, have been reflected in lower PAYE deductions from 1 July last. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Wriedt) adjourned.

page 745

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL (No. 4) 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 9 September, on motion by Senator Chaney:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– We are dealing with four Bills cognately. The Bill which I think is of most interest is the Income Tax (Individuals) Bill 1980. The Opposition will not be opposing the Bills but I will, on behalf of the Opposition, be moving amendments to the Income Tax (Individuals) Bill 1980 and the Income Tax Assessment Bill (No. 4) 1980.

The hour is late, the chamber is almost empty and members of the Press appear to have gone home. So I do not expect-

Senator Rae:

– There are two protesters.

Senator WRIEDT:

– The chamber is well manned on the Opposition side but I do not see many people on the Government side.

Senator Rae:

– Ten minutes ago there was not an Opposition senator in this chamber.

Senator WRIEDT:

– If Senator Rae cannot count, that is his fault. He had better go back to school. 1 was interested in the speech made a few minutes ago by Senator Bonner. The honourable senator obviously read from a prepared speech. At some time this evening he was given his marching orders and told: ‘Go into the chamber and read this prepared speech because you have not been contributing much lately’. I was interested in his references to the little battlers. I wonder whether he realises that the little battlers of this country were given in real terms an average increase in wages and salaries of about 5 per cent during the three years of the Whitlam Government and that under the Fraser Government in every case the real value of their incomes has been reduced. That is what has happened to the little battlers of this country. There are another 200,000 little battlers looking for work under the Fraser Government. These people cannot get jobs because of the policies of the Fraser Government.

It is interesting that Senator Bonner, who is the first Aboriginal member of this Parliament - and that is to his credit - overlooks the fact that it was the Labor Government that gave the little battlers of the Aboriginal community their first decent deal since Federation. Labor, in its first two years of office, quadrupled allocations for Aboriginal health, education and housing in order to give the little battlers of his own people a chance. Senator Bonner did not tell us much about the sorts of deal the little battlers of Aurukun, Mornington Island and Noonkanbah are getting under the Fraser Government. He did not tell us about increased levels of personal income tax that the little battlers are paying. He did not tell us that income tax has risen from $9 billion under the previous Government to $18 billion this year. He did not tell us about the tax distribution system under which the higher one’s income the bigger the refund one gets and the lower one’s income the smaller the refund one gets. In fact the Government is taking money off the taxpayers. That is the story of the little battlers. Senator Rae sat in his place with a big grin on his face and said nothing about these people.

Senator Rae:

– Tell us about the Hayden rip-off.

Senator WRIEDT:

– These are things the honourable senator will be told about over and over again during the election campaign, and that is what is worrying him. Even the documents which the Government’s own advisers are giving it, led by Senator Rae’s great friend Mr Fraser, are telling the Prime Minister that his policies are wrong and that the great burden under the Fraser Government has in fact fallen on the payasyouearn taxpayers of this country. Every aspect of income tax since this Government took office has been an attack on the people that Senator Bonner calls his little battlers, his friends. Malcolm Fraser has not had to battle from the day he was born. That is why we have placed emphasis on the ordinary people of this country. Tonight 1 had no intention of delaying the Senate on these matters, but in view of the tirade of abuse which was delivered by Senator Bonner against the Opposition, I thought it only proper that I should respond to some of the points which were made. For the more formal part of my brief contribution to this debate, I move the amendment to the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1980 which states:

At the end of the motion add ‘, but the Senate is of the opinion that (a) the provision of a deduction from income tax for superannuation contributions by the self-employed and by unsupported employees is inequitable, favouring high income earners at the expense of lower income earners, and (b) the Bill should contain a provision to replace the deduction by a rebate of 40 cents in the dollar for the first $1200 of superannuation contribution’.

I also propose to move as an amendment to the Income Tax (Individuals) Bill 1980 the following amendment:

At the end of the motion add ‘, but the Senate is of the opinion that the income tax schedule to apply to individuals in 1980-81 is inadequate and unfair in that the majority of taxpayers will be obliged to pay a higher proportion of their income in income tax in 1980-81 than in 1979-80, and that these increases will be most severe for low income earners’.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– in reply- The Government rejects completely the amendment moved by Senator Wriedt to the second reading of this Bill and foreshadowed to the Income Tax (Individuals) Bill. It believes that both amendments are completely misconceived and it is hoped that the Senate will reject them and give the Bills a speedy passage.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 746

INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS) AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1980

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 9 September, on motion by Senator Chaney:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 746

INCOME TAX (INDIVIDUALS) BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Amendment (by Senator Wriedt) put:

At the end of the motion add ‘, but the Senate is of the opinion that the income tax schedule to apply to individuals in 1980-81 is inadequate and unfair in that the majority of taxpayers will be obliged to pay a higher proportion of their income in income tax in 1980-81 than in 1979-80, and that these increases will be most severe for low income earners’.

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

AYES: 20

NOES: 27

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Thursday, 1 1 September 1980

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 747

INCOME TAX (COMPANIES AND SUPERANNUATION FUNDS) BILL 1980

Second Reading

Consideration resumed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

Senate adjourned at 12.5 a.m. (Thursday)

page 748

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Weekly Hansard (Question No. 2438)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 21 February 1980:

  1. 1 ) When did the weekly Hansard for the last week of the Senate sittings 1 9 to 23 November 1 979, become available.
  2. Is a delay of this nature usual; if so, why; if not, what was the reason for the delay in this case.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The weekly Hansard for the last week of the Senate sittings 19 to 23 November 1979, became available on 30 January 1980.
  2. A delay of this nature is not usual, although the practice of incorporating as many answers to questions on notice as possible does somewhat delay publication of the last edition for a parliamentary session. In this case the delay was exacerbated by the absence on leave of the majority of Printing Office staff during the Christmas holiday period.

Broadcast Lines Between 2BS Bathurst and 2LF Young (Question No. 2681)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 16 April 1980:

  1. 1 ) Is radio station 2LF Young to be placed on relay from 2BS Bathurst.
  2. Have Telecom landlines been booked to enable programs originating at 2BS to be broadcast on 2LF between the hours of 2 and 6 pm Monday to Thursday.
  3. Will the Minister undertake to ensure that the views of local residents are taken into account before any such move is made, so as not to jeopardise local programming needs.
  4. Will the Minister order a Broadcasting Tribunal inquiry into this matter.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) In response to a letter sent on 6 June 1980 to Mr R. B. Camplin, Managing Director of Young Broadcasters Pty Ltd (licensee of commercial Broadcasting Station 2LF Young) the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal has been advised that although a two-way link was being planned there was no reason to suggest that management would jeopardise a successful and viable operation by turning 2LF into a mere relay of2BS.

It was pointed out by Mr Camplin that . . . ‘before any steps are taken to share programs between stations the Tribunal would be fully informed; but in any case, program sharing as a result of a two-way landline is intended to be an extension of current services’.

  1. Telecom has received a request for the provision of broadcast lines between 2BS Bathurst and 2LF Young.

There are at present no available channels between Bathurst and Young to allow the installation of these broadcast lines. However, this is one of the projects which is programmed for completion in the 1 980-8 1 financial year.

  1. The Tribunal is required to consider all the aspects relating to any proposal for approval of the introduction of such an arrangement, having particular regard to operational and economic factors of the case.
  2. The Tribunal may, if it thinks fit, hold an inquiry into any matter before taking any action in accordance with the provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act.

European Community: Links with the Western and South Pacific Regions and South East Asia (Question No. 2771)

Senator Evans:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 1 May 1980:

What is the nature of the links which are: (a) in operation; or (b) under negotiation, between the European Communities and each nation and territory of the Western Pacific, South East Asia and the South Pacific regions.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. Seven developing Pacific Island countries - Fiji, Kiribati, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Western Samoa - are among the sixty signatories of the Lome II Convention which entered into force in March 1980 and which offers three principal advantages to its ACP (African, Carribean and Pacific) members:

  2. Trade - Preferential access to EC markets.

    1. Stabex - A scheme to compensate for losses of earnings caused by fluctuations in market prices or production shortfalls for major commodities (eg copper, copra).
    2. Aid- The European Development Fund provides concessional financing, on a bilateral or regional basis, for approved development projects. The Convention stipulates that 10 per cent of the total EDF resources should be applied for financing regional cooperation projects.

Assistance in various forms to the Pacific Group under Lome II is likely to reach close to A$30m over five years.

The Community has a physical presence in the Pacific region through its Aid Office in Suva and has a Project Officer in Port Moresby.

The most significant formal link in respect of South East Asia is provided via the ASEAN/EC Cooperation Agreement which was signed in March 1980. The Agreement covers matters relating to trade and industry, investment and transfer of technology. It is essentially an expression of principles and intentions to work together to promote mutually beneficial economic relations between the EC and ASEAN.

The Community has a physical presence in the region through the Commission’s Office which is located in Bangkok.

  1. The Cook Islands are shortly to commence negotiations to accede to Lome II.

Oil Embargo Against South Africa (Question No. 2797)

Senator Rocher:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 1 May 1980:

  1. Did a recent conference in the Netherlands call upon the United Nations (UN) Security Council to impose a mandatory oil embargo on South Africa.
  2. Was the conference sponsored, supported or held under the auspices of the UN Special Committee against Apartheid.
  3. Were any Australian groups or organisations represented at the conference, if so: (a) which groups or organisations were represented; and (b) do any of these groups currently receive, or have any received in any of the last three financial years, funds from Commonwealth or State governments or agencies.
  4. Of the groups so funded: (a) how much; (b) on what occasions; (c) for what purposes, if any, were specified; and (d) from what sources were they funded.
  5. Did the conference’s final decision claim that an oil embargo was urgently needed in view of the growing threat to international peace and security posed by the South African Government.
  6. What threat does the South African Government pose to international peace and security, if any; how, and how rapidly is it growing.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. An international seminar on an oil embargo against South Africa was held in Amsterdam from 14 to 16 March 1980. lt adopted a declaration calling for a total embargo on the supply of crude oil and oil products to South Africa. The seminar called on all governments, pending a mandatory decision by the Security Council, to take unilateral measures to implement an oil embargo. The seminar further called for an international campaign by all governments, organisations, and individuals to secure an urgent and mandatory decision by the Council.
  2. The seminar was organised by the Holland Committee on southern Africa and the Working Group Kairos in cooperation with the UN Special Committee against apartheid.
  3. and (4) There were no Australian groups or organisations represented at the Conference.
  4. In its declaration the seminar stated that there was an urgent need for positive and effective international action to secure the implementation of General Assembly Resolution 34/93 of 12 December 1979 on an oil embargo against South Africa. The seminar further expressed the conviction that sanctions were imperative ‘in view of the growing threat to international peace and security posed by the apartheid regime’.
  5. Following the achievement of independence by Zimbabwe, international attention is turning increasingly to South

Africa with the objectives of obtaining independence under majority rule for Namibia and the abandonment of apartheid by the Government of South Africa. So far this year there have been a number of violent clashes in South Africa between the South African authorities and coloured and black demonstrators protesting against aspects of the apartheid system. There is a grave risk that incidents of violent confrontation will increase in number, and in destructiveness if the South African Government does not show clearly that it is seriously re-examining, with the objective of bringing to an end, the apartheid policies on which South African society is based and that it is ready to enter into full consultation with the non-white population of South Africa in order to establish mutually acceptable constitutional arrangements. There is the further grave risk that the war in Namibia will escalate and that outside parties will become increasingly involved if the South African Government does not very soon fulfil its commitment to accept internationally agreed arrangements for Namibia to obtain independence. In June and July 1 980 South African forces carried out a series of raids into Angola against bases of the South West African Peoples Organisation. These involved South African forces in direct clashes with Angolan forces. Such actions can only increase the threat to peace and security in Southern Africa.

The United Nations Security Council has the role of determining what constitutes a threat to international peace and security. In June the Security Council adopted by unanimous vote Resolution 473 (1980) which expressed grave concern over the situation in South Africa. Resolution 473 (1980) expressed the hope that the inevitable change in South Africa’s racial policies could be attained through peaceful means, but declared that the violence and repression by South Africa, and its continuing denial of legal human and political rights to the great majority of the South African people ‘greatly aggravate the situation in South Africa and will certainly lead to violent conflict and racial conflagration with serious international repercussions and the further isolation and estrangement of South Africa’.

The resolution stopped short of declaring that South Africa’s policies posed a threat to international peace and security, although it did reaffirm earlier resolutions which imposed a mandatory arms embargo against South Africa. The Council has resolved to meet again ‘not later than 30 September 1980’ to review the situation.

Statutory Authorities (Question No. 2876)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 1 5 May 1980:

What are the names, dates and terms of appointment and salaries of all persons appointed to the boards and commissions of statutory authorities under the jurisdiction of the Minister for Post and Telecommunications.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

National Citizens’ Radio Association (Question No. 2885)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 15 May 1980:

Has the Minister for Post and Telecommunications received correspondence from the National Citizens’ Radio Association (NCRA) of Australia over the past 10 months in relation to various Citizen band radio matters; if so, has the Minister replied to the questions raised by the NCRA; if not, when will the Minister reply to the Association.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

The answer to both parts of the honourable senator’s question is yes.

During a recent visit to Brisbane I had discussions with Mr T. Watkin, National Director, on the issues raised in the correspondence from the National Citizens’ Radio Association.

Bolivia (Question No. 2997)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 19 August, 1980:

  1. 1 ) Has Australia protested at the action of the military junta in Bolivia which seized power in defiance of the recent national election result.
  2. Will Australia deny diplomatic recognition of the General Meza regime.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) See Senate Hansard of 26 August, page 400.

Distributors of Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Question No. 3015)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August 1 980:

How many distributors of LPG were registered for the purpose of obtaining the LPG subsidy on:

31 March 1980;

30 April 1980;

31 May 1980;

30 June 1 980; and

31 July 1980.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

  1. to (d) Nil. Distributors could not be registered until the legal schemes in relation to the States and the Northern Territory were formulated on 3 July 1980.

Standing Advisory Committee on Commonwealth/State Co-operation for Protection Against Violence (Question No. 31 12)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 26 August 1 980:

  1. 1 ) Who are the members of the Standing Advisory Committee on Commonwealth/State Co-operation for Protection Against Violence.
  2. What recommendations have been received from the Command and Management Conference held in June 1980.
  3. What consideration has been given to those recommendations by the Minister for Administrative Services.
Senator Chaney:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Membership of the Standing Advisory Committee on Commonwealth/State Co-operation for Protection Against Violence (SAC-PAV) comprises senior public servants and police officers of the Commonwealth and all States.
  2. Participants in the SAC-PAV Command and Management Conference held from 30 June to 1 1 July 1980 discussed a wide range of strategic and tactical issues arising from the response to and management of terrorist incidents. Recommendations arising from the discussions are contained in a Conference Report which will be tabled at the next SAC-PAV meeting in October. It would not be proper to disclose the content of the Report before it has been formally accepted by SAC-PAV; indeed it could be contrary to the national interest and inimical to contingency planning to publicise any details of the arrangements for countering terrorism.
  3. 1 am of course aware of the principle matters stemming from the Conference. Most of the recommendations are of a procedural nature and can in fact be implemented, with SACPAV endorsement, under the policy guidelines which have already been established and agreed by the Commonwealth and State Governments.

Passports (Question No. 31 15)

Senator Evans:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs upon notice on 21 August 1980:

  1. 1 ) Since the commencement of the Passport Amendment Act 1979 (25 October 1979), how many applications for passports have been refused under each of the following sections: (a) s. 7a; (b) s. 7b; (c) s. 7c; (d) s. 7d; and (e) s. 7e.
  2. Since the commencement of the Passports Amendment Act 1979 (25 October 1979), how many Australian passports have been cancelled upon the Minister or authorised officer becoming aware of circumstances which might have prevented issue under each of the following sections of the Passports Act 1938: (a) s. 7a; (b) s. 7b; (c) s. 7c; and (d) s. 7d.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. (a) 25; (b) none; (c) none; (d) none and (e) 1.
  2. (a) none; (b) none; (c) none and (d) none.

Taxation: De Facto Wives (Question No. 3132)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 27 August 1980:

Is the Treasurer able to provide further information in reply to Senator Colston’s question without notice relating to the case of a man claiming a de facto wife as a dependant for income tax purposes (see Senate Hansard, page 1331, dated 2

April 1 980) and as outlined in the answer to Question 2737 (see Senate Hansard, page 29 1 0, dated 23 May 1 980) .

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

On 22 May 1980 I sent a letter to the honourable senator supplying the information asked for in his question without notice of 2 April 1980. I shall send a copy of the letter to the honourable senator.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 10 September 1980, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1980/19800910_senate_31_s86/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant