Senate
15 October 1970

27^th Parliament · 2^nd Session

NOTICE OF MOTION
QUESTION
- EDUCATION
QUESTION
- SHIPPING
QUESTION
- DROUGHT RELIEF
QUESTION
- CHINA
QUESTION
- CHINA
QUESTION
- CHINA
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL LINE
QUESTION
- GEELONG REGIONAL TOURIST COMMITTEE
QUESTION
- MIGRATION AGREEMENT WITH MALTA
QUESTION
- AMERICAN REST AND RECREATION LEAVE PERSONNEL
QUESTION
- VIETNAM
QUESTION
- AIR SAFETY PATROLS
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL LINE
QUESTION
- INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
QUESTION
- INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
QUESTION
- LAUNCESTON TO BELL BAY RAIL LINK
QUESTION
- DIPLOMATIC SERVICE
QUESTION
- INDO-CHINA
QUESTION
- INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
QUESTION
- HYDATIDS
QUESTION
- WHEAT
QUESTION
- CHINA
QUESTION
- R EBRO A DCA ST OF QUESTION TIME
QUESTION
- RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT GRANTS
QUESTION
- VIP FLIGHT
QUESTION
- PRICE CONTROL
QUESTION
- NUCLEAR FALLOUT
QUESTION
- NUCLEAR FALLOUT
QUESTION
- RECORDING OF TELEPHONE CALLS
QUESTION
- KANGAROOS
QUESTION
- PILOTS
QUESTION
- BUILDING HEIGHTS NEAR AIRPORTS
QUESTION
- CULTURE
QUESTION
- TELEPHONE RECORDERS
QUESTION
- TELEVISION ADVERTISING
QUESTION
- TELEVISION
QUESTION
- TELEPHONE CHARGES
REPATRIATION ACT
SITTINGS OF THE SENATE
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY REGULATIONS BILL 1970
- Second Reading
AGRICULTURAL TRACTORS BOUNTY BILL 1970
- Second Reading
AIR NAVIGATION (CHARGES) BILL 1970
GOVERNMENT BUSINESS
- Precedence
INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL 1970
- Second Reading
INCOME TAX BILL 1970
- Second Reading
INCOME TAX (PARTNERSHIPS AND TRUSTS) BILL 1970
- Second Reading
SHELTERED EMPLOYMENT (ASSISTANCE) BILL 1970
- Second Reading
STATES GRANTS (MENTAL HEALTH INSTITUTIONS) BILL 1970
- Second Reading
- Second Reading
- Third Reading
SALES TAX (EXEMPTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS) BILL 1970
- Second Reading
ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Alister McMullin) took the chair at ] 1 a.m., and read prayers.

page 1139

NOTICE OF MOTION

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I give notice that on the next day of sitting 1 shall move:

That (here be referred to the Standing Committee on Primary and Secondary Industry and Trade the following matter: The problems of the rural industries of Australia now and in the foreseeable future; and [hat the Committee be requested ro recommend as soon as possible what immediate steps should be taken to meet the existing crisis in the rural industries and what long term measures should be taken to restructure and achieve the utmost efficiency in the rural industries in order to ensure as far as possible the prosperity of rural industries and of the community based on them.

Basically as we all know - and the Government has said so many times in this place - the first ingredient in this problem is for representations to be made in relation to what is considered to be a situation which is beyond the capacity or the reasonable ability of a State to meet in terms of drought, disaster or something of that nature. I have no doubt that in that context there is a start line. I think the more appropriate thing to do is to have a close examination made of the point of view expressed by the honourable senator, f will have his question referred to the Treasurer. lt must always be understood thai intervention by the Commonwealth starts at the level of representations by the Premier of a State to the Prime Minister. The intervention is on the basis- that there is a situation of disaster, drought, storm or other calamity which is in the nature of a national disaster and that it is beyond the capacity of the State concerned to meet it through its normal channels and normal sovereignty. The honourable dilator will understand that there must be some start J inc. otherwise the Commonwealth could be called upon from time to time to meet circumstances which the State could meet in the normal course of its responsibilities. That is the reason for it. As to the particularity of South Australia, I will have the honourable senator’s question referred to the Treasurer for a reply.

page 1140

QUESTION

CHINA

Senator MURPHY:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs. How long is the nonsense of Australia’s trading heavily with mainland China and yet refusing to recognise the existence of its government to go on? ls it not a fact that many years ago the Government of Great Britain under Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill recognised the existence of the Government of mainland China? Is it not correct that the recognition of such a government does not mean approval or disapproval but means simply the recognition of a fact of life when a government has established itself? How long are we to defy common sense by saying that the Government of mainland China is not the Government in Peking but is actually the Government in Taiwan? Will not the Australian Government, for the sake of its citizens and to maintain any kind of dignity, follow the example of Canada and recognise the Government of mainland China?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– I took my pencil out to record the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. In fact he has asked me 8 questions all of which are designed as a vehicle for him to make an exposition of his views in relation to Australia’s recognition or nonrecognition of Red China. I leave his intention to the judgment of everybody who heard the series of questions. Australia’s attitude in relation to the recognition of Red China has been clearly stated and is well known to all. In fact, it was reiterated yesterday in the other place by the Minister for External Affairs. I commend the remarks of the Minister for External Affairs to the honourable senator.

Senator Murphy:

– Will the Minister-: -

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONNot only has Senator Murphy asked me 8 questions but he is trying to help me give the answers.

Senator Poyser:

– The Minister needs some help sometimes.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON - I do not give the answers that honourable senators want and they cannot obtain any political mileage out of them. That is why they do not like them. The fact of the matter is that Australia’s attitude to the recognition of Communist China has been clearly stated. Senator Keeffe is still interjecting even though on his own say-so he does not believe in the Senate. Yet he is No. 1 candidate for the Labor Party in Queensland. If he wants to make things rough, then J can help. The fact is that what Canada has done is Canada’s affair. Australia’s attitude is determined in accordance with our own views, desires and interests and in the best interests of Australia.

page 1140

QUESTION

CHINA

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs: ls it a fact that although Great Britain recognised Communist China in 1949, in the 21 years since then Communist China has refused to receive an ambassador from the United Kingdom on the ground that no ambassador will be received until the United Kingdom breaks off relations with Taiwan? Does the Minister consider that that represents an attitude which should be endorsed by the Australian Government? Does he believe that in those circumstances the Australian Government could possibly consider destroying our relations with Taiwan and establishing relations with Communist China, which has treated the British diplomatic representative, the charge d’affaires, as a second class diplomatic representative and has refused under any circumstances to receive an ambassador?

Senator Sit KENNETH ANDERSON:

–

The views expressed by Senator McManns about the United Kingdom’s affairs with Red China are in accordance with my understanding of the position. Australia has an ambassadorial establishment with the Taiwan Government. Taiwan has an ambassador in Australia and we have an ambassador there. This is quite good and proper. As for relations between the United Kingdom Government and Red China, that is a matter for those 2 governments. As 1 said in response to the series of questions by Senator Murphy, there can be no doubt that even though the United Kingdom Government and Red China do have an understanding, this does not appear to have had any significant influence on the relationships between those 2 countries in the context of what Senator McManus said.

page 1141

QUESTION

CHINA

Senator MURPHY:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs: Is it not the fact that the Australian Government is adopting the international attitude that the Government on the island of Taiwan is actually the Government not only of Taiwan but also of the whole of mainland China?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

–

Again the Leader of the Opposition is seeking to put words into my mouth. I have been here too long to fall for that schoolboy practice. I would say lo him that the Australian attitude to the Taiwan Government has been quite clear. Our relationship with Red China has been quite clear. We trade with Red China in certain commodities and under certain conditions in accordance with United Nations provisions. There is nothing new about that.

Senator Murphy:

– It was a simple question that 1 asked.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Did the Australian Minister for Externa] Affairs state that the present Australian Government would not change its attitude to the recognition of Red China whilst the Government of that country would not recognise the Declaration of Human Rights and whilst Red China continued to assert that it intends to pursue its political policies by the use of force? Can the apparent intense interest of and the several questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition in this place indicate that, in the remote possibility of a change of political control of this Parliament, a government of Labor complexion would support Red China in its rejection of the Declaration of Human Rights and would also support a policy of force to achieve its political ends?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

The possibility of the Opposition being in government is so remote that one has to look at that suggestion with some scepticism. It is true that, speaking in another place yesterday, the Minister for External Affairs referred to this matter. He said:

We have stated - the Prime Minister has recently confirmed this and I now confirm it again - that of course we would like Red China to be in the United Nations provided only that it accepted the Declaration of Human Rights and abided by it and provided it was willing to abide by the principles of the Charter itself.

That is the point that the honourable senator made. The Minister continued:

The condition would be that Red China renounced the use of violence and force in an attempt to ensure its political objectives. Secondly, we have stated that if Red China does live up to its obligations we would be prepared to reconsider our position.

Those were the conditions that the Minister for External Affairs mentioned in the other place yesterday. They are consistent with the framing of the question put to me by Senator Webster.

Senator Webster:

– How does the Minister interpret Labor’s attitude?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– Who can interpret Labor’s attitude?

Senator Murphy:

– I rise to order. This is hardly a proper use of question time. It is inconsistent with standing order 99 that Government backbenchers, private senators, should seek to put a question to the Leader of their Party asking not merely about matters which affect the administration but also about the Labor Party’s attitude to those matters. That is making nonsense of question time, especially when the honourable senator asks what the Labor Party would do at some time in the future. This is ridiculous. If it is important that a question about Labor Party policy be asked, the honourable senator should ask me and not the Leader of the Government. This is making a joke of question time as I have said and it also conflicts with standing order 99.

The PRESIDENT:

– One would have thought that question time today, as Senator Cant remarked, was not for the purpose of asking questions but was for the purpose of giving information. Questions are not being asked, but information is being given. A lot of information has been given. That applies to both sides. In my keenness, I keep a note of what happens. As I have said previously, what the Minister says in his reply is his responsibility not mine. I do not uphold the point of order.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI did not reply, to that part of the question about which the honourable senator complained in his point of order.

The PRESIDENT:

Senator McManus:

– What was the answer they got?

Senator BISHOP:

– That does not matter.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– 1 do not think that my answer was interpreted to be a criticism of the United Kingdom Government at all. What I did say, as I recall it, was that this is a matter between the United Kingdom Government and the Government of Red China. It is equally true to say, as Senator Bishop has indicated, that it is normal diplomatic procedure for a country which does not have an ambassadorial establishment in a country to use the representation of some other country. There is nothing, odd or unique in that. It is just normal procedure in the language of foreign affairs, it is equally true also that representations were sought to try to identify the whereabouts of one Mr Francis James who is reported to be held in Red China. Because Australia does not have diplomatic representation there it is the normal procedure to make representations through the good offices of some other country. Quite frequently we do that in places where we do not have a post of our own. We have posts in many countries, but where we have not we use the good offices of some other country that has. This is normal procedure.

page 1145

QUESTION

INDO-CHINA

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Has he noted the rejection by Peking and Hanoi of President Nixon’s latest peace offer as a hoax and a deception? Will the Minister seek from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate as a matter of public interest enlightenment as to whether the Labor Party agrees with this rejection? If it does not agree, will he inquire whether the Labor Party will organise a moratorium to protest against the rejection?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

I have seen, as we all have seen, Hanoi’s reaction to and rejection of the Nixon proposals. As to the Australian Labor Parly, it will have to accept responsibility for its own behaviour. The people will be the judges.

page 1145

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Senator MURPHY:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs whether, if the Australian Labor Party were to organise a moratorium, we could be sure that Senator Sim and other Government senators would participate in it. That might make it a very tempting offer.

Senator Sim:

– Against Peking and Hanoi, yes.

Senator MURPHY:

– Is there anything to prevent Senator Sim from organising his own moratorium at any time? The other part of my question is this: Is it correct that in recent times Australia has sold to the Government of Red China many hundreds of millions of dollars worth of wheat and other rural commodities, that it has permitted the sale to the Government of Red China of steel, zinc and other strategic materials in appreciable quantities and that it intends to continue trading with the Government of Red China and to continue permitting Australian persons and companies also to trade with the Government of Red China?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

Bypassing the light hearted approach at the commencement of Senator Murphy’s question, it is true that Australia sells wheat and other commodities to Red China. It does so in accordance with the rulings of the United Nations on what are regarded as nonstrategic materials.

page 1145

QUESTION

HYDATIDS

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, although it has implications for the Minister representing the Minister for the Interior. 1 refer to Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin’s lengthy statement on the incidence of hydatids in the Australian Capital Territory and corroboration of the facts contained in that statement at last night’s seminar in the Australian Capital Territory on the same subject. On behalf of the dog owners of New South Wales I ask: Will the Government consider instituting a policy of confining to barracks, as it were, dogs in the Australian Capital Territory until this disease is eradicated, thereby avoiding the perpetuation of the disease cycle in adjacent State?

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– As the honourable senator rather hinted at the beginning of his question, I think this concerns both the Department of Health and the Department of the Interior. I shall place bis comments before the Minister for Health.

Senator COTTON:
LP

– As a fellow dog lover and one who is conscious of the problem of confining dogs to barracks, I too will aid the honourale senator.

page 1146

QUESTION

WHEAT

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Can the Leader of the Government in the Senate ascertain from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate whether the Australian Labor Party is in favour of selling wheat to Red China?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– That is a fair question. I will direct it in due course to Senator Murphy and invite him to reply.

page 1146

QUESTION

CHINA

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I address a question to the Leader of the Government. Does the Government seriously suggest that if China has aggressive aims which must be resisted by Australia, these aggressive aims would be advanced more by Australia having an embassy in Peking than they are by the extensive sales of Australian goods to that country?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI have made the Australian attitude abundantly clear. There has been no change in the Government’s attitude in relation to the establishment of diplomatic relations with Red China.

page 1146

QUESTION

R EBRO A DCA ST OF QUESTION TIME

Senator WEBSTER:

- Mr President, my question is directed io you. I refer to the question addressed by me to the Leader of the Government in the Senate relating to the inference which a reasonable person might draw from the question raised by the Leader of the Opposition regarding the apparent desire of the Opposition to recognise Red China and its present external policies. Will the effect of the raising of a point of order by the Leader of the Opposition be to exclude my question from the rebroadcast by the Australian Broadcasting Commission this evening?

The PRESIDENT:

– I have no knowledge of what the intention of the Leader of the Opposition might bc.

page 1146

QUESTION

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT GRANTS

Senator LAUCKE:

– I address a question to the Leader of the Government who represents the Minister for Trade and Industry in this place. Is the Minister aware that a Western Australian company which developed a revolutionary pneumatic shearing handpiece was denied a grant under the provisions of the federal industries research and development grants scheme on the specific ground that the research and development programme had not been directed by a person with a university degree or diploma? As technical advancement in many Australian industries has not been confined to the work of academically qualified persons, will steps be taken to remove this undesirable anomaly which denies practical and experienced technicians and engineers the benefits of federal research grants?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

I am not aware of the circumstances to which the honourable senator is drawing our attention but I shall seek information from the Minister for Trade and Industry. I hope to be in a position at an early date to provide the honourable senator with a reply to this question. It is true, as he says, that special grants are provided, but I do not know what conditions are specified in relation to the grants! [ gather from his question - I want to be sure of this - that he is saying in categorical terms that the grant was not approved for the reason that he mentioned.

Senator Laucke:

– Yes.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– That being so, I shall have the question referred to the Minister for Trade and Industry.

page 1146

QUESTION

VIP FLIGHT

Senator MURPHY:

– The Minister for Air was asked a couple of weeks ago about the records of trie use of VIP aircraft and he was requested to tabic the documents relating to their use since the last time such documents were tabled. Will the Minister tell the Senate now whether he will do so?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The

Leader of the Opposition asked me last week whether I would table in the Senate details of the VIP flight. I said then that I would look at the matter and endeavour to do so, if I could. I have looked at the matter. I have the manifest records and I am in the process of rechecking every individual who has travelled on the various flights. As soon as I have completed that task I shall table the flight information in the Senate.

page 1147

QUESTION

PRICE CONTROL

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– Is the Leader of the

Government aware that in the past 12 months 1,000 items of groceries have been increased in price by manufacturers, that increases are taking place at the rateat 50 items a week and that meat and groceries have shown the greatest rise? Has the Government made any move for a Commonwealth and State arrangement to reach an agreement that the States shall introduce some form of price control to counter this daily robbery of the wage and salary earner and those on fixed incomes?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– The honourable senator has referred to increases in prices of commodities over the last 12 months and has suggested that the Commonwealth should seek an arrangement with the States to introduce a form of price control. A few weeks ago in response to a similar question asked by the honourable senator I pointed out that price control as such has never proved to be the answer to variations of this nature. This has been the experience of the State governments, including a Labor government in New South Wales which abolished price control because it found that it was not successful. About the only commodities of which I am aware cm which price control is applied are petroleum products. The price of petrol determined in South Australia is used as a guideline by the other States. I do not believe that the solution which the honourable senator has suggested has any merit in it at all. Experience in Australia in the post-war years has completely demonstrated this to be the position.

page 1147

QUESTION

NUCLEAR FALLOUT

(Question No. 584)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister for

Supply, upon notice:

Will the Minister provide for the Parliament an accurate assessment, in layman’s language, of the degree of nuclear fallout in the eastern States of Australia as a result of recent French nuclear bomb tests in the Pacific.
Will the Minister also advise in how many areas of Queensland the fallout was measured and of the degrees of difference in the fallout measurements in the various areas of that State.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

See my answer to Question No. 586.
As I mentioned in my answer to Question No. 586, there is a network of 26 stations throughout Australia and New Guinea administered by the Atomic Weapons Tests Safety Committee. This network is supplemented to monitor shortlived radioisotope fallout immediately following nuclear weapons tests. The network is still gathering information relating to the recent test series by France. Eight of these stations are located in Queensland including one at Thursday Island. The other seven are situated at Brisbane, Charleville, Cloncurry, Longreach, Malanda, Rockhampton and Townsville. This work is expected to be completed in the near future, when the results of all measurements will be published in full in accordance with past practice.

However, it is already apparent that overall the fallout will be less than from the 1968 series of tests and I repeat that there is no reason to expect otherwise than that the National Radiation Advisory Committee will be able to reach the conclusion that there is no danger to health either for the population of Australia as a whole or for anybody living anywhere in Queensland.

page 1147

QUESTION

NUCLEAR FALLOUT

(Question No. 586)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister for Supply, upon notice:

Will the Minister supply to the Parliament exact and up-to-date details of the measurements of the nuclear fallout elements: caesium 137, strontium 90 and iodine 131 for the areas of Launceston and the Atherton Tablelands.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

The Atomic Weapons Tests Safety Committee conducts two complementary monitoring programmes for radioactive fallout in Australia. One is for long-lived radioisotopes- particularly caesium 137 and strontium 90; the other is for short-lived radioisotopes - particularly iodine 131. These are the radioisotopes which, in each category, are considered to be potentially the most hazardous to life. The monitoring is carried out at 26 stations throughout Australia and New Guinea. For long-lived radioisotopes it is on a continuous basis; for short-lived radioisotopes it is related to specific nuclear tests or series of tests and includes monitoring of all major milk supplies for iodine 131 whenever it is present in fallout.

The monitoring of caesium 137 and strontium 90 has been in progress since 1957. Although fallout from the USSR and US tests in the early 1960s is still occurringin Australia and the more recent tests by France have meant some small addition, the annual deposit of these two longlived radioisotopes in 1968 was less than a fifth of the deposit in 1964. This annual downward trend has continued. The annual rate of deposition of caesium il37 and strontium 90 is well below the value which the National Radiation Advisory Committee accepted in November 1965 as constituting no significant hazard to the health of the Australian population then or in the future. This would embrace all locations, including the areas of Launceston and the Atherton Tablelands.

The monitoring of short-lived iodine 131 has operated for all nuclear weapons tests by France in Polynesia, namely those in 1966, 1967, 1968 and 1970. Monitoring for fallout from the 1970 series of tests is still in progress. However, it is already apparent that overall fallout will be less than from the 1968 tests and there is no reason to expect otherwise than that the National Radiation Advisory , Committee will be able to reach the same conclusion as for the1968 tests, namely that the fallout is of no significance as a hazard to the health of the Australian population. This, too, would embrace all locations, including the areas of Launceston and the Atherton Tablelands.

The most recent complete set of data on fallout of caesium 137 and strontium 90 in Australia, appeared in the Australian Journal of Science of December 1969. This was in respect of the calendar year 1968. The data from the 1969 survey are still being finalised and will be reported later this year.

Complete results from monitoring iodine131 fallout from the 1968 series of nuclear tests by France were published in the Australian Journal of Science of May 1969. The data from the 1970 series are still being gathered as abovememioned and are expected to be published in 1971.

Experience over more than 15 years of these monitoring operations confirms that it is not possible to make meaningful statements, day-to-day, on fallout-levels as the measurements proceed. It is necessary for all data from an operation to be collected, and analysed as a whole, before final conclusions can be drawn.

page 1148

QUESTION

RECORDING OF TELEPHONE CALLS

(Question No. 689)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Postmaster-General, upon notice:

With reference to previous questions concerning the recording of telephone conversations allegedly made illegally by the manipulation of public call boxes, and a subsequent statement that no record of such calls was made, how is it that one of the investigating officers concerned has claimed that a recording was made and, in fact, has supported this claim by referring to topics discussed by the two parties.
If any such detailswere recorded how was the officer concerned able to identify the address of the parly called and the work address of the parly who made the call. ‘

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Postmaster-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

So far, it has not been possible to identify the case referred to by the honourable senator. If he would care to supply additional details, I will be pleased to have further investigations made. At this stage,I can only repeat the statement in my reply to his previous question that if it is suspected that a particular public telephone is being used to obtain calls without payment, it is normal practice to connect to it a machine which prints on paper the number dialled and the lime at which the call is made. Voice recordings of conversations are not made.
See answer to (1).

page 1148

QUESTION

KANGAROOS

(Question No. 709)

Senator MULVIHILL:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science, upon notice:

How many Stales issue licencesto control the activities of kangaroo shooters.
What is the form of the various State licences.
What has been the return from the purchase of licences for the past three financial years.
Does any separate levy apply to kangaroo meat operators? If so, how much do such levies return to the respective States.

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

The information requested relates to matters that are administered exclusively by the States. Detailed information regarding this administration is not accessibleto the Commonwealth. As a result of recent revisions to the regulation of the kangaroo industry, all Slates now administer, or will soon administer, a system of licences or permits.

page 1148

QUESTION

PILOTS

(Question No. (31)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minis- ter for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

What was the pilot strength of (a) TransAustralia Airlines and (b) Ansett Airlines as at 31st December 1965, 31st December 1966 and 30th June 1970.
What was the pilot intake by (a) T.A.A. and (b) Ansett Airlines (excluding former Queensland Airlines pilots) during 1965, 1966 and from 30th December 1966 to 30th June 1970.
What wasthe wastage from (a) T.A.A. and (b) Ansett Airlines, during the period from 30th December 1966 to 30th June 1970 and what were the reasons for such wastage.

Senator COTTON:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

page 1149

QUESTION

BUILDING HEIGHTS NEAR AIRPORTS

(Question No. 658)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the

Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice:

Has the Department of Civil Aviation laid down statutory rules regarding building heights near certain airports.
Is the Commonwealth able to make regulations in relation to the height of buildings adjacent to aerodromes not owned by the Commonwealth but which are in very real general use and which are filling a community need.

Senator COTTON:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

Yes. Under the Air Navigation (Buildings Control) Regulations (Statutory Rules 1966 No. 6 of 20th January 1966, and 1967 No. 66 of 1st June 1967 and 1970 No. 20 of 27th February 1970) detailed building height restrictions have been imposed over land in the vicinity of Sydney (Kingsford-Smith), Bankstown, Adelaide, Moorabbin, Melbourne and Essendon Airports.

Building in the vicinity of remaining Commonwealthowned airports is presently controlled to a limited extent under Regulation 92 of the Air Navigation Regulations.

The Air Navigation (Buildings Control) Regula tions will be progressively applied to these remaining Commonwealth-owned airports as soon as sufficient details of theforward planning requirements of each of the airports is available.

Yes. The Commonwealth has the power to make regulations to restrict the height of buildings or other structures on land adjacent to aerodromes not owned by the Commonwealth.

At present, the height of such buildings or other structures, which could be a hazard to aircraft flying in the vicinity of a licensed aerodrome, can be controlled to a limited extent under Regulation 92 of the Air Navigation Regulations.

In the case of aerodromes owned by a Local Authority, however, it has proved to be more satisfactory and expedient for the relevant Local Authority to create a By-Law to appropriately zone the various areas, and thereby prevent the building of structures which would infringe D.C.A. safety requirements. Private owners have no such powers and must rely on Regulation 92 of the Air Navigation Regulations.

page 1149

QUESTION

CULTURE

(Question No. 660)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister for External Affairs, upon notice:

What was the Australian point of view on cultural matters put forward at the InterGovernmental Conference on Cultural Policies held in Venice from 24 August to 2 September, as referred to in the Minister’s press release of 20 August.
In what cultural exchange programmes has Australia engaged with other countries in recent years.
How many cultural attaches are serving in Australian diplomatic posts abroad.
What recommendations were made or decisions reached at the Inter-Governmental Conference on Cultural Policies.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONThe answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows:

The Australian point of view on cultural matters put forward at the Inter-Governmental Conference on Cultural Policies, held in Venice from 24 August to 2 September 1970, is set out in the speech delivered in Plenary Session on 26 August 1970 by the Australian Head of Delegation, the Honourable N. H. Bowen, Q.C., M.P. A copy of his speech has been deposited in the Parliamentary Library.
A number of Government departments and instrumentalities are involved in Australia’s cultural exchanges with other countries. The principal exchanges for which the Department of External Affairs was responsible or with which it was associated in conjunction with other Government Departments or other organisations have, in the last four financial years, been as follows:
1. art exhibitions have been sent to India and Pakistan (1967-68); and to Thailand, the Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia (1970);

A sculpture exhibition toured New Zealand in 1968;

Libraries of books on Australia have been presented to universities, teaching colleges, schools, libraries and other institutions in 55 countries or territories, viz: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil. Burma, Cambodia, Canada, Ceylon, Chile, Colombia, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Ghana, Gilbert and Ellice Islands, Greece, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Korea, Laos, Lebanon, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Netherlands, New Caledonia, New Hebrides, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Rumania, Sierra Leone. Singapore, South Vietnam, Sweden, Taiwan, Tanzania, Thailand, Timor, Trinidad, United Arab Republic, United States of America, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Uruguay, Yugoslavia.
Australian writers attended a seminar on Indian/ Australian literature in New Delhi (January 1970); two Australian teachers participated in the leaching of English as a Foreign Language at a Seminar in India in May-June 1970. An Australian university lecturer visited India in 1970 to lecture on foreign affairs. An Australian artist taught Australian art in Cambodia in 1969-70;
Awards under several schemes have enabled nationals of Japan and the Republic of China to do research and post-graduate work in the arts and sciences in Australia and Australians to study the Japanese language in Japan;
Under a Fellowship Exchange Programme initiated by the Cultural and Social Centre of the Asian and Pacific Council (ASPAC) in 1969, holders of awards from Taiwan, Korea, and Vietnam have visited Australia and one Australian has visited Taiwan.
A concert was given by the Australian Youth Orchestra in Manila in July 1970; and,
The Marionette Theatre of Australia toured a number of Asian countries in 1967.
1. None.
2. The UNESCO Inter-Governmental Conference on Cultural Policies adopted twenty-four recommendations. These are set out at Section II, sub-sections A, B and C of the Draft Final Report of the Conference, a copy of which has been deposited in the Parliamentary Library.

page 1150

QUESTION

TELEPHONE RECORDERS

(Question No. 667)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

Are telephone recorders made available to any of the Australian Broadcasting Commission regional stations for obtaining quick and easy access to news stories.
What would be the estimatedpost of providing a telephone recorder to each regional station.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Postmaster-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Yes.
The Postmaster-General’s Department provides a unit known as a recorder-connectorto permit a recorder to be connected to a telephone line. Its cost is $8 for installation and $20 per annum rental. This unit is used in conjunction withtape recorders presently in use in A. B.C. studios.

page 1150

QUESTION

TELEVISION ADVERTISING

(Question No. 671)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister reprsenting the PostmasterGeneral, upon notice:

Does section 100 of the Broadcasting and Television Act provide that a commercial television licensee shall comply with such standards as the Australian Broadcasting Control Board determines in relation to the televising of advertisements.
If there is in fact non-compliance with this section by any licensee, what penalty, if any, is imposed for non-compliance.
Has there been any breach by any commercial television station, over the last 12 months, of standards 37 to 49 of the standards laid down by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board in respect of advertising.

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

– The Postmaster-General has provided the following answer to the honourable senators question:

Yes.
It has notbeen considered necessary to invoke the provisionsof section 132 of the Act concerning penalties in respect of any contravention which has occurred.
Yes.

page 1151

QUESTION

TELEVISION

Has the Minister seen a report that a commercial television station in Melbourne intends producing an Australian amateur dramatic programme styled ‘Acid Test’ in which it is intended to use amateur actors, show them in unedited performaces and then let a panel of adjudicators tell the amateurs where they went wrong? How much longer are Australian viewers to be allowed by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to be regarded as guinea pigs when there is so much professional talent available in Australia which is unable to obtain continuity of work in the professions of its calling on Australian Television? Does the Minister agree that the sort of programme which is envisaged is a deliberate skirting of the spirit of section 114 of the Broadcasting and Television Act, which stipulates that Australians will be used as far as possible in the production and presentation of programmes, and that this approach is likely to lead to a lowering of Australian dramatic standards? Will the Minister ask the Board to insist that this sort of programme will not be recognised as Australian drama under the Australian content provisions? If necessary, will the Government consider amending the Act to protect the employment rights and opportunities of professional Australian actors and dramatists?

The Postmaster-General has now furnished me with the following information in reply:

Although I have no specific details, I have been informed that a programme of the nature described is contemplated by a commercial television station. If and when such a programme is presented, the Australian Broadcasting Control Board will, in accordance with normal practice, determine the category into which it is appropriate for it to be placed for the purposes of calculating Australian content requirements. I do not perceive any need to amend the Act as suggested by the Honourable Senator - ample authority is already vested in the Board to deal with matters relating to Australian programmes.

page 1151

QUESTION

TELEPHONE CHARGES

Will the Postmaster-General give close attention to establishing a uniform telephone charge throughout Australia as a further incentive towards decentralisation, especially as communication costs are second only to transport costs?

The Postmaster-General has now furnished me with the following information in reply:

Theidea of a uniform or flat rate charge for all telephone calls, irrespective of distance,is one which has been considered by the Post Office on a number of occasions.

If a flat rate charge were adopted for all trunk calls, a rate of at least 60c per 3 minutes would be required to obtain the present level of revenue from this class of traffic. This estimate assumes that the present trunk call traffic pattern would remain unchanged. However, itis considered that almost certainly there would be a heavy reduction in the volume of shorter distance trunk calls which cost less than 60c at present, accompanied by a substantial increase in calls over the longer distances.This in turn would upset the whole balance of the telephone trunk line network which has been structured to cater for a traffic pattern which has remained fairly stable over a number of years. For example, circuits on the longer distance trunk routes would have to be augmented appreciably to cope with the additional traffic and, as the cost of this would have to be taken into account, the flat rate charge may need to be considerably higher than the amount of 60c already mentioned.

If a flat rale charge were introduced for all calls, whether local or trunk, a charge of about 10c per call would be necessary in order to maintain the present level of call revenue. Here again, this estimate assumes that subscribers would continue to originate thesame number of calls. The present ratio of local calls to trunk calls is about 14 to 1 and the effect on the telephone network of a flat rate for all calls is difficult to predict.It is likely, however, that the volume of local calls would be reduced substantially while trunk call trafficwould rise appreciably. The end result could bethat an appreciable proportion of the equipment and lines provided for present local call traffic would become surplus to requirement whilst substantial additional capital investment would be necessary on trunk routes to increase the capacity of those routes. These factors would, of course, have to be taken into consideration in determining a flat rate charge for all calls and the amount of 10c indicated could be understated to quite a degree.

Although a system of flat rate call charging would benefit subscribers who make a preponderance of trunk calls, particularly over the longer distances, it would severely penalise those whose calls are mainly local. Having regardto the ratio of local calls to trunk calls, it has been concluded that a flat rate call charging system would be inequitable to the majority of telephone subscribers.

I might add that, on information available, there are no overseas telephone administrations which have adopted a flat rate charge throughout the country for all telephone calls.

page 1151

REPATRIATION ACT

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– Pursuant to section 82 of the Repatriation Act 1920-1970, 1 present the reports of War

Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunals Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 for the year ended 30th June 1970.

page 1152

SITTINGS OF THE SENATE

The bells will be rung at 2.10 p.m. for the committees to assemble.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1152

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) proposed:

That today the Senate at its rising adjourn till tomorrow at 10.30 a.m.

Senator KENNELLY:
Victoria

– Can the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) give us any .idea of what time the Senate will finish tomorrow? I am not objecting to meeting tomorrow, but I would like to know what time we will conclude.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– We will finish at 4.30 p.m.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP

(11.57) - I move:

That unless otherwise ordered the Senate at its rising tomorrow adjourn until 3 p.m. Monday, 19th October. 1 included the words otherwise ordered’ pending the progress that we can make.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I think we would be better off if we waited until tomorrow before doing this. There is no necessity to do this today. If we wait until tomorrow we can see what the position is at that time. I ask him to defer or withdraw his motion in that respect. I do not want to say that we would oppose the sitting but why should we decide it now instead of tomorrow? Let us see how we get on. Is it not more logical to make the decision tomorrow rather than today? I. suggest that he accede to our request to let the matter stand over until tomorrow in order to see what progress we make.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON (New South Wales - Minister for Supply) - by leave - In response to the comment made by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy), I purposely framed the motion that way in order to give every honourable senator a fair indication of what is happening. I included the words unless otherwise ordered’ because I recognised the point made by the Leader of the Opposition. Tomorrow will be devoted to Bills. As I said earlier, we have to keep as close to what is happening in the other place as possible because of our anticipated rising at the end of the month. I think it is better to dispose of this motion now in accordance with the words I used. This gives us some flexibility. The Senate is master of its own affairs and, with the cooperation of honourable senators, if we can maintain progress on the messages that come through, we may not need to sit on Monday. I have no more desire than anybody else to sit on Monday.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– I think the proposition advanced by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Anderson) has a lot to commend it. It is a holding proposition and will depend upon the progress we make. Our progress will depend on the business discussed tonight. This may involve consultation. Actually we should discuss general business. However, whether we discuss general business is a matter which is in the hands of those who would wish to proceed with those matters. They might be prepared to vacate their position in order to enable Bills to proceed. In those circumstances it looks as if the matter can best be decided according to the progress made, and the motion moved by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson seems to be appropriate to accommodate that situation.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1152

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY REGULATIONS BILL 1970

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
Minister for Housing · Queensland · LP

(12.2) - I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The Bill which I now introduce seeks to give effect to the Government’s intention to increase the licence fees for radio-communication stations. It is necessary to define clearly the types of stations which require a licence and to amend the present station definitions in accordance with modern concepts to give effect to the proposed fee structure. Land, mobile, fixed, amateur and receiving are the 5 basic categories of radiocommunication stations. For mobile stations, usually installed in aircraft, ships or motor vehicles, land stations are the key or base stations. Those stations operated by hobbyists, sometimes referred to as ‘radio hams’, are defined as amateur stations. Those land and fixed stations not licensed to provide transmitting capabilities are termed receiving stations. The types of licences to be issued are set out in the schedule to the regulations. They all fall within one of the broad categories approved.

Since 1924, when it was set at $2, there has been no change in the level of the licence fee. The disparity between costs and revenues was not large enough, until about 1950, to cause concern since stations were few in number and were primarily provided as a means of emergency communication. Since 1950 there has been a rapid change in the situation, and the number of licences issued has risen from 5,115 to the present total of 136,000 by increasingly large annual increments. This growth has added greatly to the administrative and technical supervision costs. Because of a persistent deterioration which has led to the present annual deficit of $0.8m, it is proposed that licence fees be adjusted to a more appropriate level which will return an extra $460,000 in 1970-71 and $620,000 in a full year. These new fees do not seek to cover costs associated with Commonwealth Government services and certain services deserving of special consideration as a result of the community interests involved.

The fee for land and fixed stations will be $10. Receiving stations and mobile and amateur stations will pay a fee of $6. The variation in administrative and technical effort involved is reflected in the different fee levels. Stations operating as outpost services will continue to pay the existing fee of $2. In the outback areas of the Commonwealth, 5,000 such stations provide services associated with ‘schools of the Air’ or the Flying Doctor and aerial ambulances or are providing the only means of public communication and thus are required to handle telegraph traffic. Australian outback missions come within this group.

As the regulations apply in Papua and New Guinea, it is felt that missions in that Territory should be given similar treatment and be licensed for the present fee of $2. There are approximately 500 such stations. The present licence fee of $2. will also continue to be applied to ambulance services which are not included as outpost stations and rural fire brigades.It is proposed that stations established to provide speech connection to the public telephone system both in Australia and Papua and New Guinea will be licensed free of charge since the operators are required to pay the appropriate telephone tariffs. The issue of special licences will achieve this. They are already provided for in the regulations and may be issued without charge. The date from which the proposed fees will operate is 1st November 1970. I commend the Bill to the honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Willesee) adjourned.

page 1153

AGRICULTURAL TRACTORS BOUNTY BILL 1970

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to provide temporary assistance to local manufacturers currently producing bountiable tractors additional to the normal assistance provided by the Agricultural Tractors Bounty

Act 1966. The decision to introduce amending legislation was taken after an urgent review by the Government of the Australian -tractor manufacturing industry during which evidence was received from the two registered manufacturers - Chamberlain Industries Pty Ltd of Western Australia and International Harvester Co. of Australia in Victoria - that the industry was facing serious damage from import competition. Since the Special Advisory Authority is not empowered to recommend on variations in bounty assistance, it was not appropriate for the problem to be referred to him for consideration. The assistance now proposed will be additional to and at rates equal to those now paid on production under the present Act.

The assistance will be paid only in respect of bountiable tractors produced at premises registered under the Agricultural Tractors Bounty Act 1966 as at 1st July 1970. The amendment extends the bounty to 30th June 1972 subject to earlier termination by proclamation if appropriate. It is estimated that this additional assistance will cost the Government $ 1.25m to the end of the 1970-71 financial year, an amount which it is considered will sustain the industry in the current situation. The Government will review the situation before the 1971-72 Budget to determine the effect of this additional assistance and if necessary adjust the rate of payment. In addition, the Tariff Board will be asked to report on the question of longer term assistance to the industry. Without this further assistance it is possible that the country could lose an important industry involving a large capital outlay and directly employing some 1,400 persons, many of whom are highly skilled. Some reduction in the normal labour force has already occurred. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Cant) adjourned.

page 1154

AIR NAVIGATION (CHARGES) BILL 1970

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 14 October (vide page 1131).

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

-(Senator Lawrie) - Is it the wish of the Committee that the Bill be taken as a whole?

Senator Byrne:

– I have circulated a proposed amendment to clause 4. That is the only clause to which I wish to direct a particular amendment. As far as I am concerned, that would be consistent with the Bill being taken as a whole. I shall direct an amendment to clause 4.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– There being no objection, it is so ordered.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland (12.10

– The Democratic Labor Party proposes an amendment to clause 4. Copies of the amendment have been circulated. I move:

The 2 tables in the Bill, both of which relate to the proposed new increases, refer one to the domestic airlines and one to the international airlines. The tables set out the appropriate charges for each. There is an increase, in terms of the Bill, in both, but there is a margin of existing difference between the rates charged to domestic airlines and those charged to international airlines using our airport facilities. During the debate on the second reading of the Bill the Democratic Labor Party suggested, and in the amendment we propose, that there should be parity in these 2 charges - the domestic and international charges. That parity could be accommodated in 2 ways: Either by bringing the domestic charges down to the international level or by raising the international charges to the domestic level.

It is worthwhile contemplating the consequence, in the present context, of either of those processes. If we were to do the latter - that is, if we were to reduce the domestic charges to the international charge level - that may be the most satisfactory process. But we have to recognise that this Bill is associated with the annual Budget. The Budget proposed certain financial propositions, culminating in a certain financial situation after expenditure and receipts had been determined. It has been found necessary, at the instance of this Parliament, to introduce propositions which have affected balanced financial position of the Budget and which have received the approval of the Government. Steps are being taken in relation to the receipts tax. There was also some interference with the Budget in relation to the health scheme when additional charges were imposed by amendments moved in this place and carried. There are other propositions in the Budget that might well have attracted a similar interference with the structure. More particularly might that have been so in the case of the distribution of 50c a week extra to pensioners. Nevertheless, it was not thought proper in this Parliament, and no substantial formal amendment was carried, to increase the payments to pensioners.

However, the Budget has been interfered with. We consider it unwise to attempt further to prune the revenue which has already been rather severely truncated by the deliberations and the decisions of the Parliament. Therefore, consistent with that belief, we chose the first proposition 1 have mentioned to preserve equality, as far as possible, between the domestic and the international airlines. As we think it would be imprudent to reduce further the Budget revenue by reducing the charges to domestic airlines to the international level and in order to preserve such equity as we can command, it has been considered that, the best thing to do would be to suggest, in equity and in fairness, an increase in the rale charged to international operators to bring them up to parity wilh the domestic operators.

All those matters have been contemplated against the background of the investigation of the interdepartmental committee which is studying the whole structure of air navigation charges - at what charges should be levied, to what extent they should be levied against the operators and to what extent they should be legitimately charged against national development, the national economy, the national revenue and national self-interest. Without unduly prolonging the discussion on this matter, we move this amendment in those terms. It will not have the effect of reducing the revenue available to the Government in circumstances m which that may be imprudent because of what has been done. It will have the effect - this is not its real intention - of increasing to some extent the revenue available to the Government. Its more important consequence is to restore equity or produce equity to this extent between the domestic and the international airlines. It is in that context that we propose, pursuant to the general principle we enunciated in the amendment we moved at the second reading stage, that there should be parity between the 2 types of operators. It is in pursuance of this objective that we now put forward our amendment to this clause. We commend it to the Senate.

Yesterday the Australian Labor Party did not find it possible to support our amendment moved at the second reading stage, ft said that our amendment lacked specification. We are now producing an amendment that has the specification in the direction T have said and for the reasons I have given. In those circumstances we would look to the Opposition to support this amendment. If it does not reduce the level of charges on the domestic operators at least it does introduce the principle of equity, lt does not further truncate the Budget but in fact will assist by some increase in revenue the financial position of the Government, which has been made no easier by the operations of this Parliament in matters that we thought it proper to do so. In those circumstances. 1 commend the amendment to the Senate.

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– One did not sit quietly last night listening to a spirited debate that at times seemed to range fairly widely and not understand and realise that morning could dawn wilh’ a new formula for overcoming the problem. Therefore I took some trouble last night and this morning in looking at the situation in case what has now been proposed were in fact proposed. After looking at it very, very carefully 1 can assure my honourable colleagues in the Senate that the Government’s view that it cannot accept this amendment has not been arrived at lightly or without some consideration. This seems to be the broad position which may aid honourable senators.

The effect of such a proposal is to increase the air navigation charges paid by the international airlines by 20 per cent with effect from 1st January 1971. The Bill proposes a 10 per cent increase in these charges which will generate additional revenue of some $900,000 in a full year. The amendment would bring in an additional $900,000 annually from the international airlines. So one might say in response to Senator Byrne who suggested that it is in the interests of us all to support this amendment: ‘Why should the amendment be opposed?’ I again assure honourable senators that the Department of Civil Aviation does not enter into this kind of debate in the Senate without a consciousness of its responsibilities and the great interest that has been displayed in its affairs by the honourable senator both in this chamber and in the Estimates Committee.

But there are reasons why we believe it would be sensible and proper to oppose this amendment. The first is its adverse effect on Qantas Airways Ltd. If honourable senators would care to pursue this matter further, they will find on page 102 of the annual report under appendix 10 - I will not table the paper because it is available to honourable senators - the air navigation charges payable in the last 3 years by the various operators, both international and domestic. The amount of air navigation charges in the international field paid by Qantas will also be found in this report. We oppose the amendment because of its adverse effect on Qantas, first of all, which is the Australian people’s airline. It would cost the company about $400,000 per annum. Qantas is facing strong competition on its routes. Its mail revenue has been reduced by 25 per cent as a result of a decision made by the Universal Postal Union. It was not an Australian decision. Many other cost pressures are affecting the profitability of Qantas, not the least of which is the immense growth in the number of aircraft available. If honourable senators read this week’s issue of ‘Newsweek’ they will find a general article on the problem of the international airlines - too manyseats and not enough bottoms. The further rise in charges proposed here would affect Qantas and be a serious financial burden to the company.

We also oppose the amendment because of its adverse effect on other international airlines. They would be called upon to find an additional $500,000 per annum. Already these airlines have complained bitterly to me privately, to the Government, to various agencies, to all their friends privately, to newspapers publicly, and they have gone on television and really made their point that they think they are paying too much at the present time. I do not share this view but they have been very vociferous about it. They complained bitterly about the level of our charges and for some time refused to pay the increases introduced on 1st January 1969. It can be expected that there will be a similar reaction to such a drastic increase on this occasion. It will affect Australia’s relations with other countries whose carriers provide services to Australia.

Then there is the third point. Australia has observed consistently the recommended policies of the International Civil Aviation Organisation on charges. One of these is to the effect that caution be adopted in introducing or increasing charges. It implies gradualism in the approach to charging. In effect, as I said earlier, this represents a 20 per cent increase at this time, and it is hardly a gradual increase. It would be a flagrant departure, as far as we in ICAO are concerned, from the recommended policy.

There is another point. Such a move could be followed by other countries which may be persuaded to follow suit and, as a result, charges all over the world could rise substantially. This would affect Qantas Airways Ltd in its round the world services and the huge amount of money that it pays to the Australian taxpayer for its Australian rights to land and take off. The consequential increase in cost to the airlines would flow through the fare structure and would adversely affect tourist and business travel to Australia, not by a tremendous amount it is true, but by sufficient to produce some problems. One is always conscious of that factor. The cost of air freight would rise and that would have some effect on the economy. This could be regarded by us as an act to discourage tourism and perhaps throughout the world bring some inflationary trend into the air commodity market.

– I think I should point out that no-one is the master of time and no-one has any more time than anybody else in this exercise. Therefore the time argument, while it is interesting, is irrelevant. After all, the work of running the country must proceed and it must proceed in accordance with a programme. It would npt necessarily follow that this programme would be agreeable to everybody at any given point of time. If this programme is not adhered to and pursued the result could be a state of suspended animation of all legislation. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) raised an interesting constitutional question. I do not think that I am qualified to speak on it, nor do I think that it would impede our progress at the present point of time. However, I shall refer the Leader of the Opposition’s question to my colleague, the Attorney-General (Mr Hughes), for study by him.

There are a number of things which I should point out to honourable senators. Firstly, one should have regard to the Second Schedule of the Airlines Agreements Act, which contains the provision under which this whole process has been going on for quite a number of years. It is no new blush on the cheek of a new Minister. It has been going on for a long time. It has been sanctified by this Parliament, accepted by this Parliament, passed by this Parliament and is being worked to. Perhaps I should quote the relevant part of the Airlines Agreements Act 1952-1961. Section 8 of the Second Schedule states:

In implementing its policy of full recovery of the cost of facilities properly attributable to civil air transport, the Commonwealth will take into account the level of air fares, the rate of growth of the industry and the requirement of the airlines to provide a reasonable return on capital, and will not:

increase the rate of air navigation charges payable by the Commission and the company by more than 10 per centum in any period of 12 months; or
increase the amount of tax (including customs and excise duties) payable in respect of each gallon of aviation fuel in any period of 12 months by a greater amount than the corresponding amount of any increase in tax on motor fuel in that period.

Through time this has produced a set of circumstances which, let us remember, originated in and was sanctified by this Parliament and which has placed upon the Department of Civil Aviation and those who operate within its broad area a responsibility to recover the cost of operating the business from those who use the domestic airlines. One has some sort of general consideration like this: One works to the Airlines Agreement Act, which says that one has to make some attempt to recover these costs fully if possible. One does this through time and one asks the operators to pay. At the same time one tries to have an efficient and very safe airline which people will use. One tries to see that the operators make a profit; otherwise you do not recover costs because they do not have a business and, in effect, there is no safety because the operators cannot afford it. This is all part of the picture.

In the Department of Civil Aviation this produces a rather unique responsibility, because the Minister is administering a facility which belongs to the Australian people. It embraces Qantas Airways Ltd, Trans-Australia Airlines and the Department of Civil Aviation. The private operator, Ansett Transport Industries Ltd, operates under the same umbrella. It often calls for the Government to assist with capital and things like that. So the air transport industry is a public utility which is operated in two divisions, but it places upon the Department the unique responsibility of being accountable to this Parliament and the people for what it expends from revenue each year and how it recovers that expenditure. Honourable senators who have been involved in this exercise are aware that the Department presents what might be called an income and expenditure account which is looked at year by year. It endeavours to improve its position year by year while still being fair. I suggest to all honourable senators that this is an exercise in financial responsibility which is worth encouraging. I say no more than that.

Earlier reference was made to the fact that we were involved in a committee exercise. We certainly are. Reference has been made to the working group which has been studying several aspects of the cost and revenue of the Department of Civil Aviation. This working group was established by my predecessor, the honourable R. W. C. Swartz, following representations by the airlines in 1969. Its terms of reference are as follows:

To analyse Commonwealth civil aviation costs in Australia and Papua New Guinea with a view to showing these costs applicable to different categories of airports and facilities.
To identify those costs separately as far as possible with all users of facilities. 3 (a). To examine civil aviation revenues with a view to relating those to expenditures. 3 (b). If considered appropriate to develop for consideration by the Government, a revised charge structure with separate charges for airport and group facilities.

The working group is comprised of representatives of the Department of Civil Aviation, the Treasury and domestic and international airlines. It has completed its terms of reference up to part 3 (a). We have a report on those items, which now need to be up-dated with new sets of figures. The group has yet to report on the charging structure as required in terms of paragraph 3 (b). This report is very comprehensive. It covers many aspects of partners’ costs and revenues. It contains airlines views, valid for themselves, both domestic and international. But this is not necessarily the last word to be accepted by the Australian community through its Government.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– The motion for deferment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator

Murphy) will receive the support of the Democratic Labor Party. When be proposed a similar deferment in respect of the amendment moved by our Party to the second reading of the Bui we did not support it. That was a statement of general principle and the Australian Labor Party was unable to support it because it did not particularise. As I said in my earlier speech, this motion does particularise and the situation boils down to this: Allowing for the continuation of the operations of the investigating committee, the question arises as to whether the present position should be maintained or should be disturbed in the interests of further equity.

If no alteration at all was proposed to the existing charges, in the light of the deliberations of the committee and its hoped-for early recommendations, I do not think it would be proper for as to have interposed any suggestion of determining a re-altering of the rates. But as it is proposed by this increase to alter the status quo in spite of the continuing deliberations of the committee, I think it is equally justifiable at least to inject the element of equity at this stage.

In our opinion it would be desirable therefore that this proposition be accepted. Senator Murphy finds himself in the position with his party that he is unable at this stage to declare their attitude on this particularisation which now emerges in the proposed amendment, but given time, his Party, upon consideration, may bc disposed to support it. Therefore in those circumstances I think we should give the Australian Labor Party the opportunity to do so. For that purpose 1 think deferment of the Bill is condign and warranted.

I think I should tell Senator Murphy and the Opposition that the proposition which we suggest should be deferred is the one we put forward: That is merely bringing to parity, at the domestic level, the 2 charge rates. I do not think we would find it possible to support, for the reasons I detailed in my earlier speech, any alteration to reduce the domestic charges to the international level. T do not think it is competent to expect that because, as I said, it would impose an undue burden on the Budget.

As for the constitutional difficulty that may lie in the way of this amendment, I thought of this before proposing the amendment and took some advice upon it. My advice was to the effect that the term charges’ usually has been interpreted traditionally as a charge imposing something of the nature of a tax, whereas a charge of this nature, although the same term is used, is really a fee for services. This has not been considered a charge in the sense that the Constitution precludes it from being included in the Senate. That was the advice I received at that time and in pursuance of it I was prepared to propose the amendment. Senator Murphy, though speaking dogmatically, on a deeper analysis of the situation conceivably may be right. For those reasons we support the proposal for deferment of this Bill. We trust that after that deferment this proposal might find acceptance on all sides of the chamber.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– Mr Chairman. I want to make quite clear that I am not indicating the attitude of the Opposition. In accordance with the advice I have received as to the proper method of doing this, and for the reasons already stated,I move:

Question put. The Committee divided. (The Chairman - Senator T. L. Bull)

AYES: 26

NOES: 22

Majority . . . . 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

In the Senate

Progress reported.

Motion (by Senator Cotton) proposed:

That the Committee have leave to sit again on the next day of sitting.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– I will communicate with Senator Cotton and indicate what the position is, as soon as I can do so. The understanding is that the Committee defer this matter for a certain reason. I think it would be preferable in the interests of the Senate if it were dealt with without the necessity for a further vote. I will indicate to Senator Cotton as soon as possible what my Party intends to do.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– We would welcome that approach by Senator Murphy. This is not a matter to be unduly deferred. Consonant with the difficulty in which Senator Murphy finds himself, if he can obtain his guidance and conduct discussions as early as possible we would certainly welcome that approach as would, I should think, the Minister.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Sitting suspended from 12.53 to 8 p.m.

page 1161

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Precedence

Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth

Anderson) agreed to:

That Government Business take precedence of General Business this sitting.

page 1161

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT BILL 1970

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP

(8.1) - I move:

With the concurrence of .honourable senators I incorporate in Hansard my second reading speech.

This Bill proposes amendments to the income tax law which will have the effect of reinstating income tax deductions for interest on borrowings convertible into share capital, if the borrowings meet specified tests. The income tax law relating to convertible notes was amended in 1960 to withdraw deductions for interest on borrowings convertible into share capital. This was done to protect the revenue against legal tax avoidance. Tn the majority of pre- 1960 issues, companies were using convertible notes simply as a means of reducing their tax payments. On the terms on which convertible issues were commonly being made in Australia before the deduction was withdrawn they amounted to no more than deferred equity issues. Tax deductible interest payments were, in effect, being substituted for non-deductible dividend payments.

Last year the income tax law on convertible borrowings was reviewed by the Government with a view to restoring tax deductions for interest in certain circumstances. The objective was to revive the use of convertible securities in corporate financing, where that, class of security met the needs of borrowers and lenders and consequently enable companies to raise finance on favourable terms but without, at the same time, reopening the opportunities for exploiting the convertiblity technique purely for tax saving purposes.

In making this review the Government had in mind that convertible borrowings that replace what would otherwise be straight fixed interest borrowings are not in any way objectionable from a revenue standpoint. We also took into account the fact, that this type of borrowing could be a particularly appropriate means of financing development and expansion of Australian resources. During periods of development or expansion a company may not be in a position to declare attractive dividends and, although it may have undeniable prospects, it is at a disadvantage in seeking to raise equity capital and must, therefore, rely upon debt finance. If by appropriate use of the convertible type of security, it can lower the cost of servicing capital until profits are at a level where attractive divi dends can be paid, it might be able to obtain its capital requirements more readily. Under this type of security, Australian investors would not be restricted to fixed interest investment but would have access to equity in the companies concerned.

From an investor’s standpoint, convertible borrowings couple the advantages of a fixed-interest borrowing, in terms of income and security, with the sweetener of being able to convert the borrowing into share capital if the company performs successfully. They can, therefore, be a particularly suitable means of investing in developing companies with good but, to some extent, uncertain prospects for future growth. This feature of them could well provide an opportunity for Australians to acquire equity holdings in overseas-owned ventures, for. example in the extractive industries.

On completion of the Government’s review of the matter last year, it was announced by the Prime Minister on 16th September 1969 that interest on convertible issues made after the law was amended would be deductible for income tax purposes if the terms of the borrowing satisfied a series of tests outlined in his statement. These tests for determining eligibility for the deduction of interest were designed with convertible borrowings raised in Australia, rather than convertible borrowings raised overseas, foremost in mind. Subsequently and particularly in view of the establishment of the Australian Industry Development Corporation - the Government reviewed these tests to ensure that they were also appropriate for overseas convertible borrowings. In order to cater appropriately for convertible borrowings raised overseas, it was found desirable to modify some features of the original plan. We also found it desirable, mainly as a consequence of the revised tests applicable to overseas borrowings, to make some minor changes to the tests as they related to Australian borrowings.

I turn now to the basic conditions specified in the bill. All of these must be met by a convertible borrowing if interest on it is to be deductible for tax purpose’s. The first test is that the option to take up shares which may be shares in the capital of the borrowing company or another company - must rest solely with the lender and not with the company. A normal characteristic of fixed interest finance is, of course, that a lender has the right to receive repayment in cash. This test recognises this feature. At the same time, it will serve to impede legal tax avoidance by companies through their adoption of arrangements calculated to give a deferred share issue the semblance and guise of a fixed interest borrowing.

The shares that are the subject of this option may be fully paid shares of the company making the convertible issue or of an associated company, such as, for example, a subsidiary or parent company. It will be of no significance whether the shares into which the securities may be converted are issued to, and owned by. a Third Party, or are to be specially allotted to satisfy the exercise of the option to convert.

Another basic test to be satisfied is that any period of time in which the lender is precluded by the terms of a borrowing from exercising an option to take up shares must not extend for longer than 2 years from the date on which the convertible securities are offered for subscription. The terms of an issue may thus stay the exercise of the option to convert during the first 2 years of the borrowing, but after that initial period the option must be exercisable up to the 12 month period preceding the date of maturity of the borrowing. I mention that the tax consequences will be the same if the option is exercisable at all times during the option period, or at times during that period no more than 12 months apart. In this, we have had in mind to strike a balance between the financial needs and administrative convenience of borrowing companies and the interests of lenders to them.

Linked with the option provisions I have mentioned is a test that the last date for exercise of the option must in all cases be no later than 10 years after the date of offer of the convertible securities. This span of time is judged sufficient for investment by a company in a development or expansion project to become profitable enough to justify a share issue.

A further basic condition - but only as to borrowings on the Australian market - is that the borrowing is to have a currency of not less than 7 years. This test is designed to ensure that companies, particularly foreign controlled companies, that issue convertibles on the Australian market, do not prematurely close off a borrowing, and thus the lender’s option to acquire shares, before a project’s development has reached the point where its future profitability is generally known to Australian investors. Overseas raisings in foreign currency will not, however be subject to this minimum borrowing period condition. The considerations that are felt to make the test appropriate for local convertible borrowings have no relevance to overseas borrowings.

Of a corresponding nature is the further test that, for convertible notes issued in Australia, the terms and conditions of the borrowing must not vary, but must remain fixed as to interest rates and general conversion terms throughout the period of the borrowing. But for this test, terms and conditions of the borrowing could be manipulated so as to induce Australian lenders to exercise conversion rights earlier or later than might otherwise have been the case. The test is designed to make the lender’s choice of whether and when to exercise his option to convert real and not merely illusory.

This condition has, however, been thought not to be an appropriate one to impose without modification for overseas raisings in foreign currency. It is a feature of certain types of overseas borrowings that provision is made for interest rates payable on the borrowing to vary by reference to identifiable movements in particular international money markets. The Bill provides that changes in interest rates on a convertible borrowing under a provision of this nature will not have adverse taxation consequences in respect of overseas raisings in foreign currency. The Bill also provides that deductibility of interest on such an issue will not be affected if the terms of the borrowing contain features designed to make the conversion terms more attractive the earlier conversion takes place. From a revenue viewpoint, the sooner non-deductible dividends are substituted for deductible interest payments, the better - both the lender’s and the borrower’s Australian tax payments increase when this happens.

The final basic condition is common to both local and overseas raisings. This test specifies that the price payable for shares that may be acquired by the lender on the exercise of his option to convert must not be less than either the nominal, that is, the par, value of the shares or 90 per cent of the market price of the same kind of fully paid shares at a prescribed valuation date, whichever is the greater. It is to be noted that this is a floor price and, subject only to the prescribed minimum, the price payable for shares on the exercise of the conversion option is a matter for the company making the convertible issue.

The Bill sets out the. basis of valuation of shares for the purposes of the conversion price test both for shares quoted on Australian capital city stock exchange and those not so quoted. For quoted shares, the valuation period will ordinarily be the month that ends on the prescribed valuation date, that is, the date that is 6 weeks before the date of offer of the securities for subscription. If the shares were not traded in the month ending on the prescribed valuation date, but were traded in either of the 2 preceding months, the later of the months in which trading took place Will be the valuation period. The value of the shares will be determined as their weighted average market prices on all capital city stock exchanges in the valuation period.

For unquoted shares, and for quoted shares which have not been traded, the Bill provides that the valuation for purposes of the conversion price test is to be made by a registered company auditor in accordance with criteria specified in the Bill.

The amendments proposed by the Bill will apply to convertible securities to which subscriptions are made after the legislation receives assent, whether the convertible borrowing is an entirely new one or made to supplant an existing fixed interest-fixed term borrowing.

Explanations of the technical provisions of the Bill are contained in a comprehensive explanatory memorandum being made available to honourable senators. The conditions proposed for restoring the income tax deduction for interest on convertible borrowings correspond to a large degree with the terms on which convertible securities have in recent times been issued on international markets. The Government feels that the plan resulting from its review of the income tax law as it applies to convertible borrowings will offer worthwhile assistance to new and developing companies and, at the same time, present a barrier . to unwarranted tax savings through companies issuing convertible securities in plain substitution for share issues. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Wilkinson) adjourned.

page 1164

INCOME TAX BILL 1970

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP

(8.2) - I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time. With the concurrence of honourable senators I incorporate in Hansard my second reading speech.

This Bill will declare me general rates of tax for the current financial year 1970-71. As honourable senators know, a Bill of this nature comes before the Senate each year.

The general rates of tax payable by individuals for the current financial year, as proposed in this Bill, will result in tax reductions - substantial in the lower and middle income ranges - for most taxpayers. As mentioned by the Treasurer in his Budget Speech, the Government has been concerned at the way in which the present graduated rates scale has’ operated in a period of rising incomes. One effect has been to shift a growing share of the weight of taxation on to personal income taxpayers. The proposed reduction in personal income tax is one of several measures announced by the Treasurer to alleviate this effect. Another cause for concern was that the increase in the burden of personal income tax was not equally heavy at all income levels. By their nature, the proposed reductions - greater on a percentage basis at the lower end of the scale, tapering off to nil at the higher end of the scale - are aimed at a more equitable distribution of the burden of personal income tax.

The Bill proposes the retention of the present system, under which the tax payable is the sum of the amount calculated at the general rates and a 2.5 per cent levy. By comparison with the present rates scale, the proposed general rates scale provides reductions of some 10 per cent in tax payable on taxable incomes up to $10,000. On taxable income above $10,000 the percentage reductions in tax taper off, reaching 4.4 per cent at $20,000 and cutting out altogether at $32,000. Since the 2.5 per cent levy is based on the tax otherwise payable, the amount of this levy will be reduced by the same percentage as the reduction in tax at the general rates.

The proposed reductions in tax payable under the general rates will, of course, also be fully reflected in the tax payable by primary producers to whom the averaging provisions apply and by taxpayers whose rate of tax is based on a notional income.

The Bill also proposes to liberalise the age allowance provisions in 2 ways. Firstly, the level of taxable income which is completely exempt from income tax, is to be raised. Single aged persons - that is, residents of Australia aged 65 or more for men and 60 or . over for women - previously paid no tax if their taxable income did not exceed $1,300. For 1970-71 the exemption level will be $1,326. A married aged person did not pay tax last year unless the combined taxable income of husband and wife exceeded $2,262. This exemption level will now become $2,314. These increases are in line with the increase in maximum pension rates.

The second benefit arises from adjustments to the ‘shading-in’ arrangements, which are designed to ease the change from complete exemption to tax at normal rates. Details of the proposed ‘shading-in’ rates for those to whom the single person provisions apply are set out in the Sixth Schedule to the Bill and for those to whom the married provisions apply, in the Seventh Schedule. The broad overall effect will be to reduce tax payable by aged persons for 1970-71 with taxable income in the ‘shading-in’ range by approximately 10 per cent or more as compared with the previous year.

The proposed reductions in personal income taxation are estimated to have a value to the taxpayers concerned of $289m in a full financial year and $228m in 1970-71. They are reflected in revised scales of tax instalment deductions to be made by employers from salaries or wages paid to employees, with effect from 1st October this year. As a result, many taxpayers will already have received the benefit of greater take-home pay. The reduced rates will also be reflected in amounts of provisional tax payable in respect of the income year ending on 30th June 1971. The changes to the age allowance are estimated to have a value to aged taxpayers of $2m in 1970-71 and $3m in a full year.

I turn now to the rates of tax payable by companies. The rates of primary tax payable by all companies for the 1970-71 financial year are to be increased by 2.5c in the dollar. In line with the practice that has been followed since the inception of the Commonwealth income tax in 1915, these rates will be imposed in respect of income of the preceding year. As companies are. not on a pay-as-you-earn basis, they pay tax in the year following the year in which the income is derived. Public companies will accordingly pay 42.5c in the dollar on the first $10,000 of taxable income for 1969-70 and 47.5c in the dollar on the balance. Private companies will pay 32.5c in the dollar on the first $10,000 and 42.5c in the dollar on the balance. The rates of tax payable by life assurance companies, co-operative companies and nonprofit companies will also increase by 2.5c in the dollar. The rate of additional tax payable by private companies, which have not distributed sufficient profits as dividends, will remain at 50 per cent.

In line with the increase in the rates of tax payable by mutual life assurance companies and other life assurance companies in respect of mutual income, the rates of tax payable on the investment income of a superannuation fund that does not invest a sufficient proportion of its assets in public securities, but which would otherwise be exempt from tax, are being increased by 2.5c in the dollar. This change will have effect for the 1970-71 income year of funds affected.

Apart from the features I have mentioned, the provisions of the Bill generally follow the pattern of previous legislation, and further explanations do not seem necessary at this stage. Technical features of the Bill are explained in the explanatory memorandum which is being circulated. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Wilkinson) adjourned.

page 1166

INCOME TAX (PARTNERSHIPS AND TRUSTS) BILL 1970

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP

(8.3) - I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

With the concurrence of honourable senatorsI incorporate in Hansard my second reading speech.

The purpose of this Bill is to declare the rates of income tax for the financial year 1970-71 on income of certain superannuation funds, trust estates and members of partnerships.

These are special rates for the purposes of certain anti-avoidance legislation enacted in 1964. Apart from minor changes connected with the increase in the exemption levels of the age allowance proposed by the Income Tax Bill 1970, the Bill follows the same pattern, and declares the same rates, as in recent years.

A rate of 50 per cent is declared in respect of the income of a trust estate, other than a deceased estate, to which no beneficiary is presently entitled and which is not taxed as if it were the income of one individual.

A similar rate of 50 per cent is declared for the taxable income of a superannuation fund that is not exempt from tax. This rate does not apply to the investment income of a superannuation fund that is subject to tax only because of the fund’s failure to comply with the ‘30/20’ rule concerning investments in public securities. The rates for the latter class or fund are declared in the Income Tax Bill 1970.

In relation to income from a partnership over which a person lacks, or is deemed to lack, real and effective control and disposal, a rate of further tax sufficient to bring the aggregate rate on the income up to 50 per cent is declared by this Bill. This further tax will not be payable by aged persons whose taxable income does not exceed the new upper limits of the range of income within which the age allowance provides partial relief and which I explained in my speech upon the Income Tax Bill 1970. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Wilkinson) adjourned.

page 1166

SHELTERED EMPLOYMENT (ASSISTANCE) BILL 1970

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
Minister for Housing · Queensland · LP

(8.5) - I move:

That the Bill be now read asecond time. With the concurrence of honourable senators I incorporate in Hansard my second reading speech.

The purpose of this Bill is to extend and make more effective the Government’s program of assistance to sheltered workshops. It is the sort of assistance the Prime Minister had in mind when in his policy speech of October last year he said:

During the next Parliament we shall pay special attention to … the positive rehabilitation of the handicapped and the invalid so that they may return to normal life. . . .

The Bill gives effect to three specific proposals contained in the Budget Speech - namely, a subsidy towards the capital cost of accommodation for disabled persons working in normal industry; payment of a training fee in respect of persons placed in normal employment by a sheltered workshop organisation; and a subsidy towards the salaries of certain sheltered workshop staff.

At this stage of the development of sheltered workshops, these items have been selected as the forms of assistance which will meet their most immediate needs, and will help them to attain their objective of improving their services for the increasing number of handicapped people who look to them for help in overcoming the many problems they encounter.

Under the Sheltered Employment (Assistance) Act, introduced in 1967, capital subsidy of 2:1 is available towards the capital cost of sheltered workshops, workshop equipment, and residential accommodation for workshop employees. Subsidy is also available, for up to 3 years, towards the cost of rent for workshop premises. in the 3 years that this legislation has been in force sheltered workshops have become a vital force in tackling the social, vocational and economic problems of the handicapped.

The effectiveness of the Government’s assistance can be gauged by the fact that more than 100 sheltered workshops - employing an estimated 5,000 handicapped people - have been approved for assistance and are now producing goods worth $5m a year. This figure is rising at the rate of approximately Sim each year. The wages paid to their handicapped employees, most of whom are invalid pensioners, are also increasing steadily.

Government assistance to the extent of almost $5m has been granted to workshop organisations during the past 3 years. To this must be added the money, amounting to more than $2m, contributed by organisations and other groups conducting workshops. To these organisations also goes the credit of organising the workshops, of endeavouring to make them viable economic establishments, while at the same time administering them sympathetically and in the interests of their physically and intellectually handicapped employees. Credit is due too, perhaps most of all, to the handicapped people themselves whose courage and determination has been the greatest single factor contributing to the marked success of the sheltered workshops.

The Bill now before the Senate represents the second stage of Commonwealth assistance. It is calculated to provide aid in specific areas where financial help is needed and to recognise the community service which workshop organisations are providing at their expense.

The capital subsidy of $2 for $1 which is at present available for the accommodation of persons working in sheltered workshops, most of whom have been assessed as 85 per cent incapacitated for work, will be extended to include subsidy for hostels for disabled people who are working in normal industry.

The need for ‘half-way houses’ for the physically and mentally handicapped is something that few will dispute. There are many disabled people who are able to hold a job in commerce or industry, but who need special facilities or supervision to enable them to cope with the ordinary acts of daily living - accommodation designed for wheelchairs, or help in building confidence and adjusting to a way of life that we take for granted.

For some people accommodation of this type will be a permanent requirement, for others it will provide a stepping stone to their complete social and vocational rehabilitation.

The proposed amendment of Section 9 of the Principal Act means that all existing and future subsidised hostels will be able to offer accommodation to eligible disabled persons regardless of whether they are working in a sheltered workshop or in normal employment.

The second feature of the Bill is that it provides for a training fee of $500 to be paid to a sheltered workshop organisation where a former employee who is disabled to the extent required for invalid pension purposes, graduates to normal employment and is able to retain such employment for a period of twelve months.

A considerable amount of time is spent by many sheltered workshops training their disabled employees until they reach a degree of proficiency which enables them to accept outside employment. Sheltered workshops are, therefore, continually losing their most proficient workers with resultant loss of their productive capacity. Because of this there has been an understandable reluctance on the part of many workshops to encourage their best workers to attempt the step to open employment. Nevertheless, last year, workshops placed in outside employment almost 500 disabled people, a majority of whom were or had been invalid pensioners. I am sure (hat the

Senate will agree with me that this is a magnificent effort, which deserves reward and merits stimulus.

The proposed training fee of $500 is a recognition of this valuable secondary function of sheltered workshops. It will be paid in respect of disabled people who complete their period of twelve months normal employment on or after the date on which the legislation comes into effect. The fee will generally be only payable once in respect of an individual and then only if that person has been undergoing a period of training of at least six months in the sheltered workshop.

Payment of a $1 for $1 subsidy towards the salary costs incurred by sheltered workshop organisations in the employment of persons to provide special supervision, or medical guidance, counselling, social work or other services for their disabled workers is the final provision contained in the Bill.

Because sheltered workshops are business enterprises, they must have regard to their overhead costs the same as any other commercial organisation. But business firms, as a rule, do not have to employ staff on a full-time or part-time basis to provide medical guidance, counselling, or training to the same extent, or to attend to the personal needs of severely handicapped people. Sheltered workshops have to provide more staff for purposes of supervision and training than is normally expected in industry, and to this extent are financially disadvantaged by comparison.

The subsidy of $1 for.$l will assist sheltered workshop organisations to meet these additional expenses and by reducing the amount of money, obtained either from outside sources or from their own business activities, which they are required to use for these purposes, will permit them to apply a greater proportion of their income towards improving their operational efficiency and by this means providing a better service and higher remuneration for their disabled workers.

The 3 new provisions contained in the Bill will enable sheltered workshops to assume a more important role in catering for those people, who notwithstanding their physical and mental disadvantages, want to work to the best of their ability; some to augment their invalid pensions, others with the objective of achieving full economic independence by entering or reentering the normal workforce.

The measures are designed to provide encouragement and to give the workshops an incentive to do these things.

It is expected that sheltered workshops will play an ever increasing role, in collaboration with the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service, in serving the needs of those who are physically or mentally handicapped. The Bill is designed to provide the assistance that is required at this stage for their continued development. I am confident that it will receive the support of all honourable senators. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator O’Byrne) adjourned.

page 1168

STATES GRANTS (MENTAL HEALTH INSTITUTIONS) BILL 1970

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bill (on motion by Senator Dame Annabelle Rankin) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:
Minister for Housing · Queensland · LP

(8.4) - 1 move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

With the concurrence of honourable senators I incorporate in Hansard my second reading speech.

The purpose of the Bill before the Senate is to extend the operation of the States Grants (Mental Health Institutions) Act 1964-1967 for a further period of 3 years from 1st July 1970 to 30th June 1973.

Under the States Grants (Mental Health Institutions) Act 1964-1967, capital assistance grants have been provided to the States in respect of mental health institutions, on the basis of $1 from the Commonwealth for each $2 expended by the States.

The 1964-1967 Act, which is being extended by this Bill, applies in respect of mental health institutions’ which are defined as being institutions ‘carried on exclusively or principally for the care and treatment of mentally ill or mentally defective persons’ and which are conducted by or are in receipt of maintenance grants from a State. Assistance is made available by the Commonwealth in connection with expenditure made for the acquisition of land and buildings to be used as mental health institutions, the construction and alteration of buildings used for this purpose and the acquisition of equipment for use in mental health institutions.

Under the 1964-1967 Act it was necessary for the States to obtain prior approval, before 30th June 1969 for expenditure to be incurred up to 30th June 1970. Because of this time factor, no approvals have been given to any State since 30th June 1969.

In order to ensure continuation of assistance over the next 3 years, it is necessary to provide machinery for approval to be given for expenditure incurred between 30th June 1969 and the date the new legislation receives Royal Assent, in cases where prior approval for the expenditure had not been obtained before 30th June 1969. A provision has therefore been included in the Bill which allows the Minister, or a person authorised by the Minister, to approve expenditure incurred during that period. Any such approvals will be deemed to have been given before the expenditure was incurred.

In addition to new projects commenced between 30th June 1969 and the date of Royal Assent, this provision will also cover cases where final expenditure on projects already approved exceeds the amount previously approved.It is anticipated that in practice it will apply mainly in these latter cases.

Once the new legislation receives Royal Assent, the established procedure of obtaining prior approval to expenditure will apply. It will be necessary in all cases for expenditure to be approved before 30th June 1972 if it is to attract Commonwealth assistance.

It will be noted that Section 6 of the 1964-1967 Act has been repealed. The purpose of this Section had been to ensure continuation of a provision in the earlier 1955 Act which specified certain amounts as the level of the respective States’ entitlement. When amending legislation was enacted in 1964 and again in 1967 not all the States had reached the level of entitlement specified in the 1955 Act and Section 6 was necessary to preserve that entitlement. However, all States have now received their entitlement under the 1955 Act and continuation of Section 6 is therefore no longer necessary.

The Commonwealth has provided material assistance to the States under this legislation, and the 1955 Act, amounting in aggregate to just on $44m. There is no doubt that the States have derived great benefit over the past 15 years, as a result of the Commonwealth’s participation in this particular area of mental health, which has in turn enabled the States to provide greatly improved facilities for mental patients.

However, the Government is aware that the various States are now placing more emphasis on expenditure on community mental health projects, such as early treatment psychiatric centres, day centres and hostels and on integrated services. It also recognises that the emphasis on capital expenditure in traditional mental health institutions is declining in favour of such projects, a large proportion of which qualify for Commonwealth assistance under the legislation which this Bill proposes to continue.

It is evident, from an examination made of the States’ proposed capital works programmes over the next 3 years, that there is still a significant amount of capital works to be done to warrant continuation of the Commonwealth’s participation in the form of capita) assistance grants.

The development by the States of community and integrated mental health services will be kept under observation by the Commonwealth so that at the end of the 3 year period, the Government will be in a position to consider what future role the Commonwealth should play in the mental health field. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator O’Byrne) adjourned.

SALES TAX BILLS (Nos 1 to 9) 1970

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 13 October (vide page 1067), on motion by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

Thar the Bills be now read a secondtime.

– Senator Greenwood has tried to dismiss these increases as being unimportant. An increase of 2i per cent on 25 per cent is actual by an increase of 10 per cent. The previous sales tax has in fact been increased by 10 per cent, that cannot be laughed off. Senator Greenwood may think that these increases are unimportant, but they will not be laughed off by the community. The Government is in fact striking at the heart of the economy. It is striking at the standard of living of every person in the community. The Government is increasing inflation, lt is acting in an unjust and inequitable manner. The Opposition will not accept what the Government is doing.

I note that the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) has gone across the chamber to tell Senator Greenwood that his interjections are not helping the Government’s case very much. The Leader of the Government is quite right in doing so. I think he should restrain Senator Greenwood because if Senator Greenwood continues in this way he will expose more and more of the deficiencies in the Government’s case. I hope Senator Greenwood will continue with this kind of attitude. It shows the real philosphy of the Liberal Party of Australia. I hope the Leader of the Government will not silence him because it is better for the Oppocsition’s case if Senator Greenwood keeps interjecting.

Senator Greenwood:

– That is what the Leader of the Government is telling me.

Senator MURPHY:

– I thank the honourable senator. I have just indicated to the Senate that that is exactly what the Leader of the Government would be telling the honourable senator. From whichever angle one looks at these increases one can see nothing but injustice. The Government has lost its heart. It professes that it wants to look after the family man and it speaks about what it is doing. These words are spoken so often by honourable senators on the Government benches that they sound like a record being played. Every time mention is made of the plight of the low and middle income earners, the poor and the sick the Government says that it is very concerned about them and it will look into their problems. But the hard fact of the matter is that all it actually does is come forward with taxation measures which strike at the standard of living of these very people. The Government is determined to make the tow and middle income earners bear the brunt of the development of this country by having to meet the taxation which is imposed. It is not a case of those who are best able to afford it having to pay the most taxation. The Government has turned away from this principle and is striking at the people who are less able to afford to pay taxation. It is doing so in a direct and indirect manner. For these reasons, the Opposition will oppose the substantive measures and the ancillary measures which are before the Senate. The whole lot ought to be thrown out by the Senate if it is in fact a self respecting legislature which is concerned about acting on behalf of the citizens of the community.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– The introduction of a sales tax Bill or a series of sales tax Bills is nothing unique now in the presentation of financial measures to the Parliament. It has become almost an annual event. On every occasion on which Bills of this nature come forward they are, naturally, resented because of the type of taxation they impose. I think we are all concerned at the fact that sales tax, by its nature, is an imposition across the board. It can fall like the rain from heaven equally upon the rich and the poor. Therefore basic concern is felt by members at this type of tax, which is completely impersonal and neutral and fails alike on the rich and the poor. It falls heavily on large families who have a lot of purchases in the fields attracting sales tax. But we must also concede that certain grave financial problems are now presented to those who have the responsibility of framing financial documents in the modern Australian economy. The point is that the margin of financial manoeuvre and of elasticity is becoming more and more reduced and circumscribed every year as our fixed commitments grow. The wider the ambit of the welfare state becomes, the move embracing becomes the solicitude of the Government for various segments of society, the greater is the fixed commitment of the Budget in relation to the provision for those committed services.

While we do regret these things unfortunately we have to go along with them. If we are going to eliminate some type of revenue we have correspondingly to truncate some type of receipt and some type of government concern. Unfortunately it is becoming the position that one must pay the money and take one’s choice. In. relation to sales tax the choice is a very unpalatable one. Nevertheless the concern of this Parliament for the form and the content of the financial documents has been expressed in many ways. Already the Budget has been the subject of a substantial piece of criticism in relation to the imposition of receipts tax. The financial position of the Government in relation to the Budget has been severely eroded by that which has been given a very high priority in the consideration of this Parliament, to the point of the rejection of the receipts tax Bills as presented and the representing of them in a more limited fashion.

We must accept that to that extent the Government now finds new financial responsibility. Money has to be discovered from some source. Therefore any approach to this Budget must be one which is coloured by a sense of parliamentary responsibility. I am not here to defend the Government’s financial measures. Our Party on all occasions faces the situation as it is and particularly faces the realities of a situation. This occasion is no different from others. While we are concerned with the imposition and the extension of a tax and the raising of the level of any impost, we are equally concerned that services which are provided shall continue to be provided. All that must be done within the financial circumscriptions of revenue which already has been limited by the actions of this Parliament.

– Yes, because it gave a provision. The Opposition knows that the balance of the Budget will not be defeated and therefore it can manage to get away with its failure to reject the Social Services Bill without the political consequences. We are moving now in the shadow land of pre-election. Propositions that are put forward here are not put forward with the same sense of sincerity as they might be at other times. I want to tell the Opposition this: We are going to fight this election as I think the Australian people expect it to be fought, both in relation to the Government and to the Opposition, and that is on the question of the acceptance and discharge of public and parliamentary responsibility. That is the case we are going to present to the country - the discharge of public responsibility, the extent to which the Government may have failed to do it and the extent to which the Opposition has consistently challenged it by its activity in and out of parliament. This type of approach to this series of Bills is another illustration of a total sense of parliamentary irresponsibility. On this occasion if we find it necessary to support these Bills while we rejected the receipts tax Bills it is because we are prepared, whatever the political consequences may be, to accept and discharge our parliamentary responsibility. We are satisfied it is this which the Australian people are looking for. They are looking for a government that will in the full sense accept its responsibility and for an Opposition which is prepared to accept its parliamentary and public duty and responsibility. We are satisfied that because the Democratic Labor Party on every issue has consistently elevated public responsibility to the forefront of its thought and programme of action we will receive corresponding support. The attitude of our Party on this matter is in complete pursuance of that programme of action, and that is what we propose to present to the people. Notwithstanding the implications on people who are going to find the burden of this tax very considerable, in view of the general concept of the Budget we support this proposition. We trust that the official Opposition in its approach will display a sense of responsibility which has been conspicuously lacking from its attitude to other Bills.

For those reasons and without unduly going into details in this matter an examination of the figures will show, strangely enough, that the amount of additional revenue which will be discovered by this means will to a substantial degree accommodate the increased social service payments so far as they have been made and without it might make them more difficult to provide. For the reasons I have indicated the Democratic Labor Party supports this measure, as I say, with regret but in the general acceptance of the necessity to preserve this Budget for such benefits as it does provide.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I support the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) when he continued the debate on these Sales Tax Bills. Again I want to emphasise the highlights of the speech he made. He said that the increase in sales tax would be one of the militant factors, if one wishes to describe it in that way, that would lead to increased inflation in Australia.

Senator Webster:

– That is a popular word for you.

Senator KEEFFE:

– It cannot be applied to the Australian Country Party. Members of the Country Party did not even turn up to address the farmers. Senator Young was out there and someone told me he was a farmer but I presume that he needed addressing. I want to ignore completely the rather childish interjections coming across the chamber and to refer to the Budget Speech presented in this chamber earlier this year and to the following words of the Treasurer (Mr Bury):

The Government has. decided lo increase the rale of sales tax on goods currently in the 25 per cent class to 2H per cent.

He went on to list broadly what would be covered in this respect. I propose to refer to these in detail in a moment. In this financial year it is estimated that the increased revenue will be $23m. In a full year it is estimated to be S25m. I want to refer now to the schedule which lists some of the things on which sales tax has been increased. According to the Government they are luxury items. Senator Murphy said that one of the prime end results of this Bill would be an increase in inflation.

I refer the Senate to the schedule dealing with motor vehicles. If we look through the vehicles covered by this increase of 2i per cent to 27* per cent we find included sedans, racing cars, taxi cabs, estate cars and vehicles so constructed as to be capable of being readily converted into station waggons, estate cars and similar vehicles. I suppose there is nobody in this community today who does not use a taxi cab, probably at least once a week if not more often. Consequently the people who own taxi cabs would be justified in passing on the increased cost to the people who use them.

I turn now to the classification including jewellery and imitation jewellery. I do not think there is a woman in the community who would think that jewellery is a luxury these days unless it is of the class of diamond that Richard Burton is able to purchase for Elizabeth Taylor. This schedule includes precious stones, semi precious stones, pearls, cultured pearls, imitation, reconstructed or synthetic stones and pearls and personal adornments. The only things that are not included are goods of a kind used exclusively or primarily and principally as parts of domes for human wear. One can imagine one of our more delectable females wearing only. 3 diamonds. These would not be subject to sales tax.

I now want to come to the ordinary things that we use at breakfast, lunch and dinner. This category embraces knives, forks, spoons or other cutlery, scissors, cutlery sharpeners, school or university badges. The Government does not even eliminate the kids when it decides to reap a little bit of extra blood money. This schedule also includes school badges and badges which denote membership of organisations or associations of persons. The Government did not even exclude the Returned Services League. It decided that all these, people should pay an extra 2i per cent. This schedule also includes studs, sleeve links, tie clips and all the things that are regarded as the normal aids to dressing of the males in society. It also includes serviette rings, bookends, bookmarks, collar boxes, handkerchief boxes and so on. The list goes right down to include toothpicks. So now we are not able to eat some of the tough steak reserved for the Australian market without finding that the toothpicks required have been taxed an extra 2* per cent.

Senator Webster:

– Incorporate the list in Hansard.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I know thai this is all in Hansard. However the chances are that you have not read Hansard. If you sit there quietly for a moment and listen to what T am saying you will learn of some of the things on which you will have to pay extra sales tax. The list includes fountain pens, ball point pencils, and propelling pencils. These are the sorts of things that are essential in everyday life, whether you are writing an order for the butcher, whether you are a youngster doing homework or whether carrying out the ordinary routine of business and day to day work. This schedule also includes watches. The only things which are not included are braille watches and clocks and alarm clocks. Probably I would not be regarded as being too cynical in saying that no member of the Government uses an alarm clock because they have never woken up.

I turn now to toilet, beauty preparations and similar materials. These include powder compacts, powder puffs, powder sprays, powder bowls, lipstick containers and perfume sprays. For years and years the women of Australia have been asking for sales tax to be reduced or eliminated on all ordinary toilet preparations. But this is one of the areas in which the Government makes its biggest vicious kill so far as sales tax is concerned and it cannot resist the opportunity on this occasion of adding an additional 2i per cent. I presume there are some red blooded males on the Government benches. If they had the opportunity of seeing the women of this country refusing to use any cosmetics at all or any scents or any of the normal preparations they would probably be reduced to the stage of deciding that they ought to remove sales tax altogether and perhaps pay a bonus for the use of these things. I am not being nasty in saying that because the same thing applies to males. The Government believes that this is an area in which essential things are bought. Because there is a compulsion on the part of both males and females to purchase these things the Government looks upon it as one of the most lucrative areas for tax gathering. 1 will go a tittle further in this schedule. It includes cameras and their accessories, photographs including negatives, and all of the things normally regarded as being the hobby of people who use their $3 or $4 cameras to take shots of the things they want to remember. Yet the Government cannot resist increasing the tax on these items. Further down the schedule it lists wireless receiving sets, television receiving sets, record players and pickups, combined wireless receiving sets and gramophones and every other combination of that sort of goods such as records for gramophones and phonographs. It also includes projectors. I cannot read the entire 5 pages covered, in due deference to Senator Webster. A message has been passed across to me from the Government benches suggesting that there is an item on the last page that I should not miss and I do not intend to miss it. However, this list includes records for gramophones and phonographs, protective envelopes, stands, cabinets and other equipment designed for the storage of those records. It also includes sound tape recording. 1 do not know how the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation will get on unless it is able to get its recording tapes free of tax, which no doubt is the case.

The position is that all of these things have been affected by the imposition of this additional tax. Senator Murphy said earlier today that it will lead to only one thing - an increase in inflation. On the last page reference is made to totalisator equipment and things like that. I am not particularly worried about this, not being a bettor. However, included in the schedule are contraceptives. Government supporters are keen to see that I refer to these in my speech. 1 suppose that today the medication commonly referred to as the Pill is the contraceptive most in use in this country yet the Government has singled it out for a 2i per cent increase. I do not wish to talk about moral values so far as the use of this medication is concerned but I think it is pretty puerile of the Government to impose an additional 2i per cent in this field. 1 refer the Senate now to the document entitled ‘Commonwealth Finance 1969-70, Bulletin No. 8’ in which there are some very interesting tables. Listed at page 1 of that booklet are Commonwealth funds, receipts and outlay. We find that the Government will receive $6,338m from taxation. There are a couple of other interesting points that ought to be referred to and I intend to mention them. On page 3 of this booklet it is stated that the Commonwealth proposes to outlay $16m for law, order and public safety. In 1965-66 - only a very short time ago - the outlay on this item was a mere $7m. The following year it rose to $10m, then to $12m and then to SI 3m. This year, with the Moratorium and things like that, the Government has had to find $16m for this item. But for education it can find only SI 57m. On cultural and recreational facilities the outlay is $15m, which is Sim less than the outlay on using the baton and the jackboot.

If the Government trebled the expenditure on cultural and recreational facilities it would probably be getting somewhere because there would then be less need for people to engage in protests, as they have to do in the present society. I propose to speak on the motion for the adjournment tonight. 1 propose to talk then on some other aspects which I do not intend to cover in this contribution. In order to avoid reading out this table of figures, with the concurrence of honourable senators I incorporate it in Hansard.

– Gutter language is all right for a gutter party.

– lt is $360m over a period of 5 years. You can work it out for yourself. It is $50m this year, and that is more than the increase in pensions will cost, lt is more than will be raised by the increases in taxation we are now debating. When the Treasurer presented the Budget he said that the Government could not alford to pay the pensioners an increase of more than 50c a week. That is to cost about $3 1m a year, but $50m can be grabbed out of the air at any time to try lo buy an election. The same thing happened a couple of years ago when the Commonwealth Government gave the

Western Australian Government about S40m or $50m for the Ord River scheme. If the Government has its way, it will use public money to buy itself back into office on this occasion.

Senator Webster:

– I thought you said that the Government was giving the pensioners too little. Now you are saying that it is taxing people too much with this tax. Be consistent, man.

Senator CANT:

– The Government is giving the people too little. It could have afforded to give them more. Where did the $50m come from to buy off the State Premiers? That could have been used to give the pensioners an increase of SI a week instead of 50c. This is the sort of accounting that Senator Webster does not understand because he does not want to understand it. Along with the rest of the Opposition. I oppose the measure.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– The Senate is discussing the motion for the second reading of 9 Bills to amend the Sales Tax Act. I have listened to 3 honourable senators opposite in an attack upon this measure. The attack has been characterised by extravagant language, emotional appeals, a singular lack of argument, and a complete lack of merit. It should be remembered that sales tax in this country is imposed to raise revenue. The revenue is necessary for the purposes of government. That has been accepted by successive governments, as it is accepted by governments in virtually every country in the world. If members of the Labor Party want to criticise this measure they should never forget that the Party which introduced sales tax in Australia was the Australian Labor Party. Although it has had opportunity - fortunately over only an 8-year period in the 40 years that sales tax has been imposed in this country - it did not take advantage of il to repeal this measure.

Senator Webster:

– Senator Cant forgot to tell us that.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– We all like Senator Cant. He is doing the best he can to put a good case on his own Party’s performance. We must allow for the fact that he is circumscribed by the limitations which the merits of his case impose. The purpose of sales tax is to raise revenue.

If the people of this country require government expenditure in areas where that expenditure should be made, revenues have to be provided. That is basically the justiication for sales tax. The fact that on so many occasions we have heard this chorus which we are hearing tonight from the Labor Party merely exemplifies, if exemplification is necessary, that it has been in Opposition for many years. Oppositions will always oppose sales tax increases. Governments must, of necessity, rely upon measures which will enable them to get the money they need. This Government is merely repeating an example which was set for it when 40 years ago a Labor Party government introduced into this country sales tax legislation.

In this country the procedure for imposing sales tax is an exceedingly cumbersome method. It is cumbersome because of the nature of the Acts which are required to impose the legislation. If one examines the sales tax legislation one finds that 22 Acts of Parliament are necessary for the imposition of the tax and that 3 sets of regulations are necessary for its enforcement. One finds a multiplicity of forms and procedures which have to be observed. Nine Sales Tax Bills have to be passed. Each Bill deals with a particular form of taxation. That is necessitated by section 55 of the Commonwealth Constitution which states that every Act imposing taxation must deal with a particular form of taxation. Rightly or wrongly, 40 years ago an eminent lawyer advised that the particular forms of taxation which were necessary in order to impose the appropriate sales tax legislation were 9 in number. So we have a category of transactions which are identified in each of the Sales Tax Bills.

The imposition of the sales tax depends not so much upon the Sales Tax Acts which the Government is seeking to amend at the moment, but rather upon the Sales Tax Assessment Acts. Strictly speaking, these Acts do not impose taxation but they fix the conditions under which the liability is imposed. They fix the conditions of assessment. They prescribe the requirements for collection and for administration. The reason for an Assessment Act as distinct from a Taxation Act is to be found in section 55 of the Commonwealth Constitution, to which I have referred. Of course, the Sales Tax Assessment Acts are not being amended on this occasion. The tax is imposed by the Sales Tax Acts and the Bills which actually impose the sales tax at an appropriate rate upon the sale value of the goods - these Bills which the Senate is considering - raise the rate from 25 per cent to 27* per cent. T think it is significant to acknowledge that the increase is 2* per cent - from 25 per cent to 27* per cent.

The Labor Party seeks to make much of this increase, lt uses an emotive form of description and from that emotive description it seeks to build an argument, lt says that the increase is 10 per cent on the existing rate. Of course it is 10 per cent, but if we realise that the increase is from 25 per cent to 27* per cent of the sales value of particular commodities, the increase is not a substantial one.

Senator Georges:

– The tax is not applied on the sales value of the goods, lt is on the wholesale value of the goods. The sales value rises by the profit margin fixed by the retailer. Sometimes that is 100 per cent.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I am noi concerned with what might be an increase from time to time in the sales value because whatever that increase is the sales tax, as I think the honourable senator said, is imposed on that value. If, as is the position, the current rate of tax is 25 per cent, all that these Bills do is to increase the rate from 25 per cent to 27* per cent. The increase in the sales tax can be fairly described as a modest increase. In total it will provide $29m for the Commonwealth Government in a full year. The Treasurer (Mr Bury) said that for the current year it will provide $23m. I was saying that the sales tax legislation is imposed by a variety of Acts. Apart from the 9 Sales Tax Acts and the 9 Sales Tax Assessment Acts, there is a Sales Tax (Procedure) Act and a Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act. The tax is based upon the sale value and is designed to fall upon the last wholesale sale of the goods. For that reason I think it was quite extraordinary that Senator Murphy, in the first 5 minutes of his major speech attacking these measures, suggested that the sales tax is capable of snowballing from I transaction to another so that the price increases from transaction to transaction. That is not involved in the sales tax. The tax is imposed upon the last wholesale transaction.

In all the circumstances in which the many types of transactions are categorised as liable to tax. double taxation is avoided by a system of certificates of registration and quotations. All manufacturers and wholesalers are required to register with the Commissioner of Taxation. They are required to lodge returns, lt is on that basis that the sales tax is imposed - not as a snowballing multiplier but on 1 transaction. It is designed to coveT the last whole- safe transaction.

Senator Murphy:

– I would agree completely with the honourable senator on that. There is no doubt about that. Any person who purports to represent the rightful sales tax as being another amount by purporting to add anything and by purporting that this is the sales tax is a criminal. Is that not clear?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I would have thought that he ought to be regarded as a criminal. Perhaps under the terms of the legislation he is a criminal if he is found out. I accept what Senator Murphy said.

Senator Murphy:

– My point was that, in the nature of things, once one adds a cost the natural tendency is to have a snowballing effect - not a multiplication of taxes.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I think the interjection is too lengthy.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I accept the interjection which you, Mr President, tolerantly allowed. If I misunderstood Senator Murphy in any way, I apologise to him. I certainly understood his remarks in that way when I rose to speak. If I was mistaken, by his interjection he has made his point clear. The Sales Tax Acts impose rates of certain percentages of the sales value. Those rates apply to the last wholesale transaction. The Acts apply to the sale of goods and commodities which ate categorised in the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act. This is part of the cumbersome procedure which is involved.

I took the trouble to read the speech made by Prime Minister Scullin when he introduced the sales tax legislation in 1930. One of the features of his speech which attracted me was the statement that one of the advantages of the sales tax legislation was its simplicity of administration. I think that, in terms of the development of the sales tax legislation, simplicity of administration is the last thing which could be claimed for it. I instance that by taking 1 example, say a motor car. Prior to the introduction of this legislation the sale of a motor car was taxed at the rate of 25 per cent of the sales value. When the proposed legislation is enacted, the sale will be taxed at the rate of 271 per cent of sales value. Why is it that the sale of a motor car can be taxed? For the answer I think one has to look at the Commonwealth Constitution which gives the Commonwealth the right to impose taxation. Then one has to look at the Sales Tax Assessment Act, which has been passed by Parliament and which requires a manufacturer or a wholesale merchant to be registered. The Sales Tax Assessment Act provides that sales tax shall be imposed by the Sales Tax Act and shall be levied and paid upon the sale value of goods by manufacturers or wholesale merchants. Transactions in respect of which the tax is payable include any one of those transactions categorised separately in seriatim Sales Tax Act by Sales Tax Act over the 9 separate Acts. Thirdly the Sales Tax Act declares a rate of tax which is currently 25 per cent and which will in due course be 27J per cent in respect of the goods covered by the Second or the Fifth Schedule of the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act. Therefore it is to the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act that one has to go to find the particular goods in respect of the sale of which the tax is payable at the rate which is fixed by the various Sales Tax Acts. It is difficult to see where there is simplicity of administration in this procedure.

Accordingly, if one looks at the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act, one sees listed the goods in respect of which sales tax in one of these many transactions which are specified in the Sales Tax Assessment Act and the Sales Tax Acts is applicable. Under the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act we find that the First Schedule lists the goods which are totally exempt from sales tax. One finds in the Second Schedule certain goods, most of which are contained in the table which has been incorporated in

Hansard by Senator Keeffe, in respect of which a rate is fixed by the Sales Tax Act. The Third Schedule lists household goods of various descriptions in respect of which the rate of tax, speaking from recollection, is 24 per cent. There was a Fourth Schedule which was repealed in 1962. The Fifth Schedule contains a category of commodities which are, broadly, the vehicles which are capable of transporting passengers. We commonly call them cars. Hence a motor car being in the Fifth Schedule is one of the commodities liable to tax. The rate was fixed at 25 per cent. If the sale can be fitted into any one of the transactions embraced by the 9 Sales Tax Acts and the 9 Sales Tax Assessment Acts, then the rate will be hereafter at a rate of 27* per cent. It is the Sales Tax Act which makes the tax payable.

What do these amending Bills do? In the first place, they raise the rate of tax on goods in the Second and Fifth Schedules - all honourable senators have been given a list of the types of goods to which those schedules refer - from 25 per cent to 27J per cent. It should be noted, particularly in view of the criticisms which have been directed at this legislation, that the tax measures do not affect household goods, nor do they make any goods which in general were previously non-taxable - that is goods in the First Schedule - liable to taxation. One should stress, however, that there are 6 categories made taxable which previously were not taxable. They are specified in the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act, and strictly they do not arise for debate on this measure. They are certainly not of a character which could be regarded as being household goods of general use.

Finally, the amending Bills do not affect the 15 per cent rate which is applicable to goods not specified in any of the schedules. I think it is significant to note that over the years the amount which sales tax legislation produces for the Government as a proportion of total revenue has been diminishing. In 1958-59 the proportion of sales tax received represented 17 per cent of total revenues. In 1963-64 sales tax provided only 13.5 per cent of the total revenue? of Government. In 1968-69 it was 11.7 per cent. In 1969-70 it was 9 per cent. On my calculations of what is estimated for the year 1970-71, notwithstanding the increase, it will still represent only 8.2 per cent of the total revenues which are raised by the Government. Therefore it is not a significant amount, lt is not a significant proportion.

One might ask: Why then is it being increased? The sales tax is being increased, as is made apparent from the Treasurer’s Budget Speech, because there must be a recognition by government, in a discharge of a responsibility which it has to the community, that it must ensure that there is as far as can be achieved a balanced budget. The needs of the economy were expressed and recognised by the Treasurer at the time he presented his Budget. He instanced that there were - 1 have stressed this already - growing expenditures and requirements upon government. There was a need, furthermore, for the Government to honour a promise to give income tax relief. Furthermore, there was the obligation on the part of the Government so to order its affairs that we would not have a galloping inflation, the type of cyclical fluctuations which would in the long term reduce the real value of the money which the people had in their purses and pockets. The fundamental justification for sales tax revenue, as I stressed earlier, is that it provides revenues for government, and it is an incidental justification that in the imposition of taxation the economy may also be controlled in such a way as to prevent the development of those factors which it must be of constant concern to government to keep in check.

– I appreciate that the Leader of the Australian Labor Party is very careful in the language he uses. Everyone will agree with that. Not only did he say that not enough money was being spent in the right direction but that not enough money was being spent generally. I am afraid that Senator Cavanagh cannot have it in the way that he seeks to put it now. The point is that the Labor Party is faced with a dilemma which it has not yet resolved, lt wants more money to be spent and yet it wants to cut down on the means which this Goverment, imposes to raise revenues, lt has not yet said what type of revenue producing scheme it would introduce in order to make up for the gap. Whilst that position prevails the Labor Party is properly to be castigated for its policy of financial irresponsibility which is devoid of any appreciation of what is required as a fundamental in the government of this country. Nothing has been more clearly demonstrated than the fatuous sort of opposition which has been raised to this measure tonight.

We have had from Senator Murphy an extravagance of language. I think he was carried away by the emotion of the case he was putting. He talked of hundreds of thousand of millions of dollars being involved. That is not the case with regard to this legislation. He stressed by way of some opposition that this was legislation which fell heavily on the family man and on business men, and that it was one of the worst ways of raising revenue. That is fair enough. I accept that a general criticism of that character can be levelled. But aso I think it should be recognised that arguments against indirect taxation of 30 years ago are not arguments which have the same applicability today. Sales tax legislation these days is not flatly regressive. Sales tax legislation now is selective. One instance of this is the fact that we have 4 schedules in which the various types of goods which are subject to sales tax are categorised and we have different rates applying to the different schedules.

Senator Cavanagh:

– On baby powder but not on dog powder.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– 1 concede that in the particular example which Senator Cavanagh mentions. I am not sure of the facts. I accept that there are anomalies here and there, but it is the constant concern of government to be able to select, so far as it can, the rates of tax applicable to certain transactions. Over the years there has been a pretty fair appreciation of the relative rates. My own personal view is that government should show a more constant concern about the applicability of the rates applying to particular commodities in the schedules of the Exemptions and Classifications Act. I know, and I think all honourable senators like me know, that we have received year by year letters from the cosmetics manufacturers and retailers complaining about the rates of sales tax which are applicable to cosmetics. 1 think they present a fairly strong case and I should have thought that government ought to give consideration periodically by means of some committee which is charged with an examination of the sales tax legislation and the relevance for utilitarian purposes of the rates of taxes on particular commodities to whether changes ought to be made from year to year. I think this is desirable because one of the unfortunate things which government must bear in maintaining legislation of this character is the fact that it appears unrelenting and inflexible year by year in maintaining in some categories those commodities about which there is some concern. I suggest that to the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) on the basis that it might be one matter that the Government might take into account in its further consideration of this legislation.

But the main attack, as I understood Senator Murphy, was an allegation that the Government did not need to introduce this 2.5 per cent increase in sales tax. He said it was introduced because the income tax cuts had necessitated it. He did not go on to say whether or not these income tax cuts should have been made and he did not indicate what he would do or what his Party would do if these tax cuts were not instituted. I think his failure to indicate what he would do is highlighted by the fact that we all know that last October both major political parties promised income tax cuts. The Government, under the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton), indicated that it would provide taxation relief in the sum of $200m over a 3-year period commencing with the Budget in 1970. We do not know what precise sum the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Whitlam, had in mind, except that he said that anything the Prime Minister could do he could do better. Of course, we all know that there is no business for Mr Whitlam which is better than show business.

Be that as it may, when you have an acknowledgement in that way that income tax cuts are what the electorate wants - indeed it is an offer which is put to the electorate by the Government and the Opposition - it indicates a recognition of community feeling, in those circumstances I do not see how government can avoid carrying out what the parties have promised. If the promise is carried out and the consequence of carrying it out represents some damage or danger to the economy, government must make up the revenues which it has lost. The Government has increased sales tax and that is the way it is making up the loss.

From the Opposition we have not had one practical suggestion, and in the absence of a practical suggestion as to how the revenue would be raised to make up the loss necessarily brought about by reason of the income tax cuts, the opposition which they pose to this sales tax measure must be regarded as hypocritical, as insincere and as being made solely for the political advantage which the Labor Party gets from opposing a tax measure which in its character must be regarded as unpopular.

Those considerations, to my mind, represent the main considerations which ought to be advanced in this debate. No government will deny the necessity for imposing tax measures or for increasing the rates of taxation, but because it is a government it has a responsibility to ensure that expenditures are met. I think that one of the features which over the years has suggested that the people of this country merit the government which they have elected is the fact that responsibility in these measures has always been one of this Government’s characteristics. In this measure, as in others, I think that characteristic is evident.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

Senator GEORGES:

– No, they are company taxes and, in effect, they are also income taxes which the Commonwealth gathers on behalf of the States and min.buses to the States. In effect the sales tax is raised for a similar purpose. I suggest there are many other avenues for raising finance in this country which would avoid the necessity of imposing sales tax which, irrespective of what the Government says, bears down upon the ordinary people in the community. I ask the Government to appreciate the point of view of the Opposition which looks on these taxes as taxes which increase costs and charges and are iniquitous in the whole area of their operations. For this reason we intend strongly to oppose the Bills and vote against them.

It is all very well for the DLP to suggest that it can see no other alternative. Members of that Party say they see no need to erode the Budget as it has been presented. They suggest that at some future stage this matter can be corrected. 1 feel that the DLP shifts away from the responsibility of facing what this country desperately needs and that is a double dissolution which will take both these Houses back to the people. If it achieves nothing more than bringing the election of the Senate and the House of Representatives together it will have achieved something indeed, lt will put the policies of all parties completely to the test at the right time; that is at a time when so much dissatisfaction is found in the community. But the DLP will shirk its responsibility on al! occasions, ft goes as far as the brink and then it withdraws because it realises its popularity is not of such a great extent that the people will return its members to this place in the same numbers as at the present time. This is the secret of the voting pattern of the DLP.

One would expect the DLP to oppose this provision, but of course they know that if they opposed it we would be forced to go to the country at the same time as the House of Representatives and that would mean a loss in Queensland of one of their number and also a loss in Victoria. They are not prepared to suffer these losses. At the same time the Government is not prepared to see them suffer such losses because it is upon the DLP support that the Government depends for its majority in the Senate. I say to honourable senators: Do not fool yourselves, because that is the secret of the Government’s success. The Government will support and encourage the DLP. It will compromise with them as it did on the receipts tax legislation. It wilt compromise with them on matters of defence. In effect the Government is controlled and ruled by this Rump of 4 in this place. I am not bringing the Country Party into this debate because it is part and parcel of the Government. But this unholy alliance between the DLP and the Government has worked to the detriment of this country for the last 10 years to my knowledge. It has worked to the detriment of the ordinary person. 1 suggest that the DLP accept full responsibility for this because the Government knows no better.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
10.6 · LP

– in reply - Honourable senators are debating the Sales Tax Bills (Nos 1 to 9) 1970. One would not have thought so after listening to most of the speeches. With the exception of Senator Greenwood’s and Senator Byrne’s, who spoke to the issues of the matter, the rest of the speeches varied from Norfolk Island, to transactions on the stock exchange and every other conceivable subject except sales tax Senator Keeffe waxed oratorical on all sorts of imaginary subjects which had no relationship to the Bills at all. It is a fact that this is a sales tax Bill. Most of the speeches have been in the context of a Budget speech, f sent out to find whether Senator Georges had spoken during the Budget debate. Senator Murphy is not immune to this criticism. He made a second Budget speech. I feel bound to admit that he was provoked by some interjections initially from this side of the chamber. The proposal in this Bill is something within the framework of the Budget. I thought we would have been getting down to a matter of substance on the sales tax - but I suppose this is politics.

During the debate there has been some trenchant criticism of sales tax, per se, by the Labor Party. As Senator Greenwood pointed out it is interesting to note that this tax was introduced by the Scullin Government in 1930. It is true that the rate has increased significantly since then. It is rather odd that we hear from members of the Opposition this strong criticism of sales tax as a means of raising revenue. To my recollection the Labor Party has never voted against a sales tax Bill when it has been brought forward at Budget time. Now it proposes to vote against this sales tax measure. It is almost as though they were crying crocodile tears. As Senator Georges has only been here 2 years I suppose be can be excused. Last year he did not vote against the measure. The honourable senator is in a climate in which he is trying to have it both ways. In our hearts we recognise that this is a form of raising revenue. It is used in the indirect sense. It is equally true that on this occasion additional revenue of $29m will be raised. This will continue to be a method of raising revenue.

As I said when I spoke during the Budget debate, the tendency in the free world today is to move more into the indirect field in terms of revenue raising rather than in the direct sense. As I am looking at Senator Georges I remember that he made a great contribution about taxation on earnings over the $10,000 mark. Something like 4,950,000 people pay tax and only 1 per cent of that number have a taxable income of over $10,000. So oratorical remarks we have heard tonight really are not germane to the issue. We all understand these facts. It would not matter whether we were in Government or the Labor Party was in government; sales tax would be imposed. It is a form of raising revenue which is necessary for the administration of government. In fact on this occasion it provides for an increase in revenue of some $29m.

I do not think I need perpetuate what has been going on all night or to get into a second Budget debate. Let us face it: This is a revenue raising tax - an essential tax for the purpose of raising revenue for Government expenditure. I suggest that the Opposition is making a great mistake on this occasion. As distinct from former occasions, this is simply a Budget item. The Opposition recognises this fact. However, because of some political manoeuvre, perhaps because of a special event to take place on 21st November, the Opposition has decided to make a great spirited effort this time in opposing this Bill and voting against this increase in sales tax. The Opposition has had since 1949 to vote against sales tax. It has not seen the light before and I do not think it is sincere on this occasion.

Question put:

That the Bills be now read a second time.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator Sir Alister McMullin)

AYES: 25

NOES: 23

Majority . . . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time and reported from Committee without requests or debate; report adopted.

Third Reading

Motion (by Senator Anderson) put:

That the Bills be now read a third time.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator Sir Alister McMullin)

AYES: 25

NOES: 23

Majority . . . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bills read a third time.

page 1193

SALES TAX (EXEMPTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS) BILL 1970

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 13 October (vide page 1068), on motion by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WILLESEE:
Western Australia

– One of the alterations to the exemptions and classifications contained in this Bill was brought to my notice and I asked the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton) a question on it the other day. I understand that Qantas Airways Ltd, which was enjoying exemption from sales tax, will not enjoy that exemption after this Bill becomes law. I asked the Minister whether that was true and whether it was a fact that this alteration would cost Qantas in the vicinity of $lm a year. He said that it was true that this was happening, but at that stage he was unable to confirm or deny the figure I suggested. I am wondering whether he has any more information now. As I understand the position, the estimate is that this alteration will cost Qantas about $900,000 a year, plus the cost of extra staff that will have to be employed.

Also, I would like to know why Qantas has to lose this exemption at this stage. Is it because of pressure from overseas air lines which think thatthey will obtain some gain from this alteration? Is there some agreement under which they can exert pressure? What warning did Qantas have of this alteration? As I understand the situation, it came very suddenly and has caused a great deal of trouble in future budgeting by Qantas. It does not take a lot of reasoning to work out that if a company is budgeting and it thinks that it has another$1m a year to spend and it suddenly finds that it has not, its planning will be thrown out to that extent. Can we have some comments from the Minister in regard to this matter?

Senator COTTON:
Minister for Civil Aviation · New South Wales · LP

– I will have to be very quick. In response to Senator Willesee’s question, I directed this matter to Qantas Airways Ltd within about 6 hours. He andI are in 2 different positions. He has information from Qantas that I am unable to obtain. Officers of Qantas told me that it was impossible for them to arrive at an accurate figure for me to give to Senator Willesee. They did not know what it was. I said to them: ‘Can you give us some indication, such as between something and something or something plus or minus?’ They said: ‘No, we cannot. It will take an involved calculation over some period of time to work it out. We will need the help of the Treasury and the Taxation Branch on this matter. Therefore, Mr Minister, we cannot help you’. I said to them: ‘We want it urgently and quickly’. They said: ‘We do not have it. So, perhaps there is a lightning fast calculating genius at Qantas who has all these things in his head but is keeping them especially for his close friends. I would like to be able to say that I will obtain this information for Senator Willesee as fast as I can; but, of course, the limitation that I have is that I have to work through the official people who run Qantas.

The other point that I mention to Senator Willesee is that, as far as I can detect, it is a fact that no undue influence was used by anybody. This was regarded by the Treasury as a proper adjustment in a situation which it thought conferred on Qantas a benefit that properly the airline ought not to have in the competitive world of international air traffic in which it lives.

The other point Senator Willesee makes is that this alteration will cause tremendous adjustments in Qantas budgets and will cause some great difficulty. That has not been communicated to me as the responsible Minister. The Qantas budget comes down regularly. There has been no request for revisions or for things to be held up. So, I will do everythingI can to obtain the information for Senator Willesee; but I cannot go along with him on the amount he mentions the problems this adjustment will cause, the difficulties it will create or the extra staff that will be required. So far all this information has been denied to me.

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The Senate divided. (The President - Senator Sir Alister McMullin)

AYES: 25

NOES: 23

Majority . . . . 2

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

page 1194

ADJOURNMENT

Nuclear Fallout - Trade with China

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! It being after 10.30 p.m., in accordance with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the. Senate, 1 formally put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I will not detain the Senate for long. Today I received replies to questions Nos 584 and 586. I am not satisfied with the replies and I propose to mention some of the facts associated with them. Honourable senators will recall that earlier this year Senator Wilkinson and 1 endeavoured to obtain some details of the nuclear fallout in areas of northern Australia. Some weeks ago I asked the appropriate Minister whether he would supply to the Parliament exact and up to date details of measurements of nuclear fallout elements caesium 137, strontium 90 and iodine 131 in the area of Launceston and the Atherton Tableland. That was supplemented by this question:

Will the Minister provide for the Parliament an accurate assessment in layman’s language of the degree of nuclear fallout in the eastern States of Australia as a result of recent French nuclear bomb tests in the Pacific? Will the Minister also advise in how many areas of Queensland the fallout was measured and of the degrees of difference in the fallout measurements in the various areas of that State?

Frankly, I am not satisfied with the replies I received today to those questions. My doubts have been reinforced by replies to questions we of the Opposition have asked about the establishment of the Jervis Bay nuclear power station. On the last occasion on which I asked in the Senate whether the type of establishment to be set up there would lend itself at a later date to the production of nuclear weapons, I was told by the Minister concerned that it was not known what type would be set up. It was not known whether raw uranium would be used. The Eighteenth Annual Report of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission was tabled today. At page 13 it states:

After Cabinet consideration of the report of the feasibility study, and further discussions with the New South Wales Government, the Prime Minister announced in October 1969 that the Commonwealth Government would ‘take Australia into the atomic age by beginning the construction of an atomic plant at Jervis Bay to generate electricity. He said: ‘We believe that Australia will make increasing use of atomic power in the years ahead, and that the time for this nation to enter the atomic age has now arrived.’

We still do not know the type of reactor that will be used at Jervis Bay. Today has particular significance because an aerial bomb explosion took place in mainland China. In addition, two underground explosions occurred, one in the United States and one in Russia. On the news broadcasts 1 heard nothing about protests by this Government about the aerial explosion in mainland China. Perhaps it is too far away, or we do not want to offend the Chinese because they might cut down on their purchases of our wheat. No attempt has been made to ratify the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. No real protests have been lodged about the French atomic tests in the Pacific.

In a moment I will quote from the replies I have received, as they bear out what 1 am about to say. On 15th May an atomic test was carried out in the Pacific by France. An explosion of a so-called hydrogen bomb took place on 3rd July, more than 2 months ago. Although it is now 15th October, the replies furnished today by the Minister for Supply (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) state that testing of the fallout from those explosions has not yet been completed. The Minister said in one of his replies:

The monitoring of caesium 137 and strontium 90 has been in progress since 1957. Although fallout from the USSR and US tests in the early 1960s is still occurring in Australia and the more recent tests by France have meant some small addition-

I would say that that is a rather hypocritical statement.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

–

What do you mean by ‘hypocritical’?

Senator KEEFFE:

– 1 will explain it to you in a moment.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

–

Obviously you cannot explain the words you use. Are you referring to the author or to the statement, in using the word hypocritical’?

Senator Keeffe:

– I am referring to your advisers, if you want to put it that way, or you yourself.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– That is what I wanted you to make clear.

Senator KEEFFE:

– It comes from either category. We are living in a sick society and it is no wonder that we are going bad in the middle.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– You find it easy to throw words around, but you should pull yourself up a bit.

Senator KEEFFE:

– I hope you can back up your statements later, because you have certainly given nothing in these replies. I am sorry about that, Mr Deputy President. The Minister provoked me into making those statements. The reply I was quoting continues: the annual deposit of these two long-lived radioisotopes in 1968 was less than a fifth of the deposit in 1964. This annual downward trend has continued. The annual rate of deposition of caesium 137 and strontium 90 is well below the value which the National Radiation Advisory Committee accepted in November 1965 as constituting no significant hazard to the health of the Australian population then or in the future. This would embrace all locations, including the areas of Launceston and the Atherton Tableland.

Two paragraphs further on the Minister refers me to an article that appeared in the Australian Journal of Science’ of December 1969, in respect of data for 1968. A further reference is made to the Australian Journal of Science’ published in May 1969. Those extracts from the scientific journals set out in scientific terms the fallout over Australia from nuclear weapons tested by France in Polynesia from July 1968 to September 1968. No layman could understand them. One would need a science degree to be able to absorb the statements made by the scientists who compiled the report of May 1969. That is also true of the article that appeared in December 1969. It sets out the fallout of strontium 90 in the Australian environment during 1968. Those journals contain significant statements. If one had made a study of these matters one would be able to make some assessment. The average layman who has made no study of nuclear fallout finds it virtually impossible to understand the statements in the journals.

I want to know - and I ask this with all due respect of the Minister - why the tests have not been completed. I know that scientists say that results can be taken over a period of 35 days, but apparently the preferable period is 50 to 60 days. If there were an explosion in May this year why is no report available now? If the hydrogen bomb were exploded on 3rd July this year why Ls no report available? There must be some explanation for it. Why does the Government indulge in secrecy regarding fallout from nuclear tests? Why is it very tame cat in its approach to protesting? Why does it have no knowledge of what will happen about the establishment of the nuclear power station at Jervis Bay? 1 make this charge - and i make it with sincerity and with some misgivings - that either the senior advisers - and I ani not talking about the run of the mill scientists or the men who do all the hard work - have misinformed the Government or the Minister does not want the country to know what the fallout is, particularly in the milk producing areas of Queensland. In the ‘Australian Journal of Science’ the scientists who wrote the story admit that the fallout in the Queensland area is appoximately double that in any other State. They still maintain, of course, that it is below the danger level. Who knows what the danger level is? Many years ago it was said that DDT, the pesticide or insecticide, had no effect on human beings. Today countries are banning DDT because of its cumulative effects and long-term dangers, particularly upon the young. Who knows what the cumulative effect of strontium 90 or iodine 131 will be? I have talked to medical people about this. They admit that they do not know what the long term effects are.

In order to bolster the war-mongering sections of the community members of the Government are deliberately suppressing information that ought to be made available. I ask a simple question. I ask for the measurements taken of these 3 elements resulting from fallout to be set down in black and white. The Government is refusing to give this information either because it has been hoodwinked by its high level technical officers or because it is deliberately suppressing information that ought to be made available because it wants to suppress the information and because it fears that the fallout could have a long term effect on the nation’s children and on generations yet to come. I challenge the Minister to tell the truth about this and to put down something in black and white, if he has the courage. If he has not the courage. I will say so for the next 5 weeks until the Senate election campaign is over and I will continue to say it afterwards. The Minister either accuses his advisers or admits that he has fallen down as Leader of the Government in the Senate.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
Minister for Supply · New South Wales · LP

(10.43)- First of all 1 would say to Senator Keeffe that his trouble is that he wants to see a bogy. Because he wants to see a bogy he is prepared to malign everybody who does not want to see the bogy with him. He maligns officers of the Public Service and myself. He takes away their character by inference and by the snide use of words.

Senator Keeffe:

– That is a lie.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

–

That is not a lie and the honourable senator has proved it by his own words.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) - Order! Senator Keeffe’s remark is offensive. The honourable senator will withdraw it.

Senator Keeffe:

– I will withdraw it. lt is an untruth.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

–

Senator Keeffe sought some information. I obtained some information for him. That information did not suit him. Therefore he went into this diatribe to which we had to listen. Tomorrow I will have officers of my Department study what he said. I will ask them to disregard all the spurious matters. I will ask them to ascertain whether there are any matters of substance in what he said. If there are, I will provide an additional answer.

Whilst I am on my feet, if I may, with your permission, Mr Deputy President, I wish to mention that at question time today I answered 2 questions asked by Senator Murphy about trade with Red China. In my reply I indicated that strategic goods would not be supplied because of a certain procedure. I refered to the United Nations. To the extent that I referred to the United Nations I was completely at fault. I had in mind of course the COCOM list which was issued by the Co-ordinating Committee of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries. Because of the pressure of question time, I said ‘United Nations’. Actually where I was at fault was that I was confusing the issue with Rhodesia. The United Nations has applied sanctions in relation to Rhodesia. I confused COCOM with the United Nations. I wanted to correct that at the first opportunity.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.45 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 15 October 1970, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1970/19701015_senate_27_s46/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate15 October 1970

NOTICE OF MOTION

Senator MURPHY:NEW SOUTH WALES

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Senator MULVIHILL:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator WRIGHT:Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

QUESTION

SHIPPING

Senator BISHOP:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

QUESTION

DROUGHT RELIEF

Senator LAUCKE:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

QUESTION

CHINA

Senator MURPHY:

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

Senator Murphy:

Senator Poyser:

QUESTION

CHINA

Senator McMANUS:VICTORIA

Senator Sit KENNETH ANDERSON:

QUESTION

CHINA

Senator MURPHY:

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

Senator Murphy:

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL LINE

Senator LILLICO:TASMANIA

Senator COTTON:Minister for Civil Aviation · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

QUESTION

GEELONG REGIONAL TOURIST COMMITTEE

Senator POYSER:

Senator WRIGHT:LP

QUESTION

MIGRATION AGREEMENT WITH MALTA

Senator FITZGERALD:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator Dame ANNABELLE RANKIN:

QUESTION

AMERICAN REST AND RECREATION LEAVE PERSONNEL

Senator MARRIOTT:TASMANIA

Senator WRIGHT:LP

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator KEEFFE:QUEENSLAND

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:Minister for Air · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP

QUESTION

AIR SAFETY PATROLS

Senator DAVIDSON:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator COTTON:LP

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL LINE

Senator KENNELLY:VICTORIA

Senator COTTON:LP

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Senator WEBSTER:VICTORIA

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

Senator Webster:

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

Senator Murphy:

The PRESIDENT:

The PRESIDENT:

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

Senator McMANUS:

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

QUESTION

LAUNCESTON TO BELL BAY RAIL LINK

Senator RAE:TASMANIA

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

QUESTION

DIPLOMATIC SERVICE

Senator BISHOP:

Senator McManus:

Senate
15 October 1970

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

Senator LILLICO:
TASMANIA

Senator COTTON:
Minister for Civil Aviation · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

Senator FITZGERALD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Minister for Air · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator COTTON:
LP

Senator KENNELLY:
VICTORIA

Senator COTTON:
LP

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator COTTON:
LP

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator COTTON:
LP

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Senator COTTON:
LP

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP