Senate
14 May 1971

27th Parliament · 2nd Session



The Senate met at 10 a.m.

The Clerk - Honourable senators, I have to announce that the President, Senator the Honourable Sir Alister McMullin, is unable to attend the sitting of the Senate this day. In accordance with standing order 29 the Chairman of Committees, Senator Bull, will take the chair as Deputy President.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) took the chair, and read prayers.

page 1901

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE ORGANISATION

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to an article in the National Times’ of 10th-15th May this year which stated that inquiries and reports had been made by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation on the private lives of at least one Minister and other members of the Parliament in matters quite unconnected with political affairs or the national security. The article suggested that such inquiries were continuing with some diligence and, apparently, inaccuracy. Will the Leader of the Government in the Senate make some statement on this matter to allay public disquiet?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONHistorically, since the creation of ASIO, there have never been responses to questions about its responsibilities directed at question time. For that reason I will refer the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition to the Attorney-General. I feel bound to say, however - speaking personally now - that it is inconceivable that the allegations which appeared in the National Times’ could have any substance at all. I cannot accept that there is any substance in the article. For my own part, if there were any substance in the article I think it would be an intolerable situation.

page 1901

QUESTION

OIL SPILLAGES

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. In view of recent information conveyed to me by the Minister, that 305 oil spillages have occurred around the Australian coast during the past 12 months and that in 110 cases the offender was not detected, does the Minister for Shipping and Transport contemplate the creation of a coastguard service or alternatively, the use of additional naval patrol boats for this purpose?

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

– I do not know, but I shall ask him.

page 1901

QUESTION

UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS

Senator MILLINER:
QUEENSLAND

– Has the attention of the Leader of the Government in the Senate been directed to the headlines on the front page of this morning’s issue of the ‘Canberra Times’ which read as follows: ‘Australia takes softer line on USSR’? Does the Minister agree that this phrase properly interprets .the Government’s changed policy on its future relationships with the USSR?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

To use the phrase that is sometimes used I think the report could be called journalistic licence. We all live with that; it is a fact of life. I have not read the article. 1 can refer only to the point the honourable senator makes in his question. I have seen in the journals this morning in the limited time available to me a reference to a speech by the Prime Minister, Mr McMahon, at a function last evening in Sydney. As I read the article, what he has put down seems to me to be quite logical and proper and a fair statement of Australia’s attitude in relation to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It should be remembered that the USSR has an embassy in Canberra and that we have trade relations with the USSR. To suggest that there is a movement away from an earlier attitude and a soft line approach is a distortion of the realities of the situation.

page 1901

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH TENDERS

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Works a question. In the letting of tenders for public works in the various States is any preference given to local tenders as against tenders from interstate firms?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is no. In all public tendering it is quite immaterial where the location of the tenderer’s business is in relation to the job. The tender is considered entirely upon its merits, that is to say its price merits. Of course consideration is given to the competence, experience and solvency of the tenderer. But the location of his business or residence in relation to the location of the job is quite immaterial.

page 1902

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH SCHOLARSHIPS

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science, relates to the report in this morning’s Press of a nearly blind student at Laverton High School who was very talented but who was unable to sit for the Commonwealth secondary schools scholarship examination because there are no facilities for people with this incapacity. In view of the fact that other handicapped persons who have sight can sit for such examinations will the Minister see to what extent special facilities can be made available to avoid any discrimination against people without sight?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I am very grateful to the honourable senator for drawing my attention to this case, about which I had not known. I shall ask the Minister for Education and Science to give it consideration.

page 1902

QUESTION

CHINA: TRADE

Senator BUTTFIELD:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry and has particular reference to those honourable senators who claim that Taiwan-Australia interests should be submerged for those of Red China and Australia in the recognition of Red China. Is it a fact that the United States ambassador in Taiwan has publicly predicted that Taiwan’s international trade volume may be equal to or in excess of that of mainland China in 2 or 3 years’ time? Is it a fact that, taking 1968 as a base year, Taiwan increased its international trade by 33 per cent last year and by 23.9 per cent in 1969 while mainland China increased its trade by 6.3 per cent in 1969 and 5.8 per cent last year? Can the Minister give similar figures for the volumes and growth rates of trade between Taiwan and Australia and Red China and Australia?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I understand that what the honourable senator has said is correct. I have some figures which show a tremendous expansion of trade with Taiwan. I will get the detailed figures which the honourable senator requests. It is interesting to note that in some figures which I have it is shown that Australia’s exports to the Republic of China in Taiwan have doubled in money value since 1968. In 1968 they totalled $24,573,000 and. in 1970 they totalled $49,937,000. It is a most remarkable expansion of trade for Australia in its export field. Every one of us would want to see that continue, I am quite sure.

page 1902

QUESTION

STANDING COMMITTEE ON HEALTH AND WELFARE

Senator FITZGERALD:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the

Leader of the Government in the Senate: As the report of the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare on mentally and physically handicapped persons in Australia was introduced into this Parliament on 5th May last with much acclaim and support, and as this matter refers to the administration of a number of Ministers, will the report be read by those Ministers and the respective departments? Will the recommendations contained in the report, particularly those concerned with finance, be fully considered by Cabinet before the 1971-72 Budget is introduced into the Commonwealth Parliament?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONIt is axiomatic that when a report is put down in this place the relevant departments have regard to it and give it consideration. Once a report is put down, with all the prestige and responsibility of the Senate, it has to be taken into the relevant departments and given consideration. That consideration starts at the top and goes down through the departments concerned. The Minister concerned has to give consideration to whether or not he will report to Cabinet his judgment on what can be done about the recommendations in the report. In that way the processes of government work to give consideration to any recommendations that are made. Tt will be a decision of government as to if, how and when any recommendation made is brought to the Parliament for consideration.

page 1902

QUESTION

CUBA

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign

Affairs: Did the Minister issue a statement this week denying that the United States Government had objected to the sale by Australia of sugar harvesters to Cuba? If so, can the Minister reconcile his statement with the reported statement of the US State Department’s Press officer, Mr Robert McClosky, in which he said that the United States had made representations to the Australian Government about the sale?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I ask the honourable senator to bear in mind that I have seen only a Press report of Mr Bury’s statement of yesterday. I have not seen even a Press report of the statement attributed to the United States Minister. In those circumstances the only course that I can take responsibly is to ask the honourable senator to put the question on the notice paper. However, I will facilitate as early an answer as possible.

page 1903

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT LEADERSHIP

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate aware of a bold advertisement in today’s Press inserted by a group calling itself Businessmen for Democratic Government and favourably disposed towards the Government postulating to Liberal Party branch secretaries that the man to be Prime Minister is Billy Snedden? Does this mean that the present Prime Minister is not acceptable to a wealthy, vocal and influential section of Government supporters whose past activities are well known for their ultimate results? Does this presage another major upheaval in Government ranks over the question of leadership as this advertisement implies? Does the Minister recall the last occasion on which this powerful group aserted in influence in Government ranks, leading ultimately to the replacement of a Prime Minister? Where will this new move end and what can be done to identify these people and give some protection from unwarranted interference with democratically elected leaders? More importantly, what counter measures can be employed to restore stability to Government ranks so that the affairs of this nation can be conducted without the constant threat posed by these people to leaders and Ministers?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

The honourable senator has displayed an extraordinary gullibility. AH the questions which he asks stem from an advertisement inserted in the press. I would add only that I saw the advertisement this morning and had a good laugh.

Senator Devitt:

– Whose side are you on?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– I think that is an insulting remark, really; but I know that the honourable senator does not mean it that way so I will pass it by. I believe that it is a completely mischievous and stupid advertisement, but that is the area of politics in which we live. I have read articles from which inferences could be drawn that Mr Whitlam should be replaced by somebody or other as Leader of the Opposition, or even that Senator Murphy should be replaced in his position. 1 have even read similar comments about myself. So, all in all, I think the honourable senator should treat the advertisement with a good horse laugh. That is my suggestion to him. The loyalty of our Party to the Prime Minister is paramount and will always remain so. That is no reflection on the other Party which has been linked in the advertisement.

page 1903

QUESTION

ADVERTISING

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

– I wish to ask a question of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, supplementary to the question asked by my colleague Senator Devitt. Does the honourable gentleman in all seriousness believe that it would be a good idea for approaches to be made to the news media of Australia suggesting that when they accept payment for advertisements which mention the names of public figures at least the names of the people inserting the advertisements should also be contained in those advertisements so that the public of Australia will know whether they are humorists or people trying to damage the reputations of public men?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– I am not completely aware of the requirements of a journal in relation to advertisements, except that political advertisements inserted during an election campaign must be authorised by some people. I will have to make inquiries, but I would not even grace the advertisement that has been referred to by bothering to find out who put it in the newspaper. Perhaps it is the silly season. Why the proprietors did not print it in the comic section in the back of the newspaper I do not know.

page 1904

QUESTION

CHINA

Senator CANT:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Industry. When compiling the answer to the question asked by Senator Buttfield relative to trade with Taiwan and continental China, will the Minister list the goods upon which trade is restricted with continental China in order that a proper and realistic comparison can be made?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– Yes, I will ask the Minister to do that. He would probably incorporate the actual trading figures between Australia and mainland China. That might equally help.

page 1904

QUESTION

WATER RETICULATION

Senator LAUCKE:

– I desire to ask a question of the Minister who represents the Minister for National Development in this chamber. Has a determination as yet been made n respect of South Australia’s request to the Commonwealth for financial assistance to implement the proposed water reticulation project to the Kimba area from the Polda Basin on Eyre Peninsula in South Australia?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– Not to my knowledge, but knowing the interest of the honourable senator in this matter, as soon as I hear anything about it I shall make the information available to him.

page 1904

QUESTION

CHINA

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I ask: Does the Minister recall a statement on China by Mr Patrick Shaw, the Austraiian delegate to the United Nations, on 13th November 1968? I remind him that Mr Shaw said:

In the light of the foregoing analysis of the foreign policy now being pursued by the leaders in Peking, it is difficult to see how that regime can be seen as qualifying for membership.

He was referring to membership of the United Nations. In view of the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday indicating a much more favourable attitude by the Australian Government towards China, can the Minister advise the Senate of the changes in China’s policy which justify the

Government’s new approach to the problem?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– My Leader asks me, as representative of the Minister for Foreign Affairs in the Senate, to answer the question. An extraordinary attitude of mind must be attributed to the honourable senator who asked the question, which seems to imply that immutability of opinion is chronic with some people. It was indicated by Mr Bury, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in his first statement on foreign affairs early in April, that international opinion with regard to mainland China was changing and that this Government had been keeping under review and constantly studying in view of diplomatic exchanges from time to time, the effect of that change of opinion. On Tuesday of this week the Prime Minister made a statement to the effect that the possibilities of engaging in effective and useful dialogue would be explored, and his statement yesterday - as has been reported this morning - is simply in line with the Government’s outlook that study and review have produced a change of emphasis in our Government’s attitude to this proposal.

page 1904

QUESTION

SCRAP METAL

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I direct a question to the Minister for Supply. By way of preface I indicate to the Minister that I raised this question with him early in this session but have not recived an answer to it. I ask: Will he have discussions with the Metal Trades Employers Association to ascertain whether Australian foundries can increase their intake of scrap metal so that we can then begin mopping up massive numbers of used car dumps that are becoming a permanent feature of the Australian landscape?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI must admit I hope I will not be written up in the Press for admitting this that I do not recall being asked this question previously. I will certainly take it up immediately, have it referred to my Department and get a reply to the honourable senator expeditiously. If, as I expect, the Senate sits next Tuesday, I would hope to have the answer by then.

page 1904

QUESTION

THE SENATE

Senator WILKINSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr Deputy President, my question is addressed to you.

Would you inquire to see whether the microphones which the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate wear round their necks are operating? I noticed this morning that the microphone which the Leader of the Government in the Senate is using does not appear to be operating. It is very difficult for us to hear him when he turns round and addresses honourable senators on his side of the chamber. I think that the microphones on the table are the only ones operating. Yesterday when Senator Murphy was addressing himself to a motion he was asked repeatedly to speak up, yet he was wearing a microphone round his neck. I think that the microphones are not operating to their maximum efficiency, and that the situation should be rectified.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I have heard frequent complaints about honourable senators not being able to hear other honourable senators, including those who sit at the table. I understand that it is hoped that some improvement to the system will be made during the forthcoming recess. I will have investigations made and will let the honourable senators know the result.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

Mr Deputy President, could I advert to the same question before we deal with other questions? There is not a shadow of doubt that there are dead spots in the Senate chamber so far as audibility is concerned.

Senator Wilkinson:

– Your .microphone is working now.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

Yes, it is working now. As Senator Wilkinson was speaking I tapped it and suddenly it began to operate. But there are dead spots in this chamber which make it very difficult for some honourable senators to hear what is being said. It is almost impossible for us sitting at the table to hear, for instance, Senator Bishop and Senator Wriedt when they speak. Also, it is almost impossible for us to hear Senator Georges when he speaks. I have discussed this matter with the Clerk of the Senate and I understand that during the forthcoming recess another examination will be made to see whether the system can be improved. It is better than it was, but it is still not operating to maximum efficiency.

page 1905

QUESTION

CONVERSION TO METRIC SYSTEM

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question which is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science relates to the coming conversion to the metric system. I refer particularly to a statement made by the head of a metric conversion research team that the metric system will be far more difficult for Australians to understand than was the decimal currency system at the time we changed to that system, and further that the changeover to the metric system is far closer than most people realise. Will the Minister arrange for an examination to be made of this claim and to press for an intensification of public education programmes, especially as far as housewives, motorists and the general public are concerned?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– The Senate will be aware that the Metric Conversion Board has already commenced its duties and has constituted, I think, 10 or 12 committees. Each has an independent function, which is to ensure that the public has facilities for, and does understand the implication of, the changeover. I think everybody would realise that the complexities of this change will be more far ranging than the conversion to the decimal currency system, but I am very grateful to the honourable senator for asking this question. I will bring the matter to the notice of the Minister for Education and Science. If any further steps in this direction are required I feel sure that he will accept the suggestion made by Senator Davidson that they be taken.

page 1905

QUESTION

JETAIR AUSTRALIA LTD

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I preface my question, which is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, by reminding him that on 30th April members of the Opposition raised the matter of the Jetair Australia Ltd mini-scandal and requested that the Government conduct an inquiry into the matter or table all documents associated with the transaction. I now ask the Minister: What action has the Government taken or what action is it likely to take in this matter? Alternatively, will the sum of approximately $200,000 overspent on the deal be written off to experience?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI do not know why the honourable senator alluded to a sum being ‘overspent on the deal’, but I do know that he has made a fairly sustained speech on the matter using the forms of the Senate, as I recall the situation. He quoted in part the documents which have been put down by myself, the Minister for Air and the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In my view, the matter has been disposed of and I do not propose to will it any further. I think that there is an outstanding question which Senator Wriedt asked about some element of the transaction and which has to be answered. I hope to be able to have an answer some time during the day or on Tuesday. Senator Keeffe expressed his views in relation to the matter. I replied that I had given all the answers that I was required to give. As Minister for Supply, I think that is as far as I need to go.

page 1906

QUESTION

PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Senator MARRIOTT:

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In view of the well known and unfortunate instances of visitors to mainland China, even those whose views were known to be favourable to the country, being held incommunicado for long periods without any justifiable reason being made known, can any action be taken by the Federal Government, through any diplomatic channels, to ensure the safe return to Australia of the Leader of the Australian Labour Party, Mr Whitlam, and his party at the end of their proposed visit to China?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I presume that my colleague Senator Marriott is referring to the unfortunate experience of Mr Francis lames. From time to time diplomatic vigilance is being exercised to elicit any information with regard to that person. I hardly think that Mr Whitlam would need our solicitude either going to or coming from Peking, but he can rest assured that the Australian diplomatic services will be vigilantly taking every step to ensure that he is returned to Australia so that the Opposition may have the advantage of his services for a long time yet.

page 1906

QUESTION

PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTTEES

Senator MURPHY:

– Can Senator Wood, in his capacity as Chairman of the Stand ing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, tell the Senate something about the international co-operation between committees of the House of Commons which are concerned with the supervision of delegated legislation and his Committee, particularly the requests for information about the procedures of his Committee?

Senator WOOD:
QUEENSLAND

– I have received a letter from the Chairman of the House of Commons Select Committee on Statutory Instruments in which he has inquired about the operation of the Senate Standing Committee of Regulations and Ordinances, and with which he has forwarded a copy of the special report to the House of Commons from the Select Committee concerning its methods of examination of statutory instruments. Honourable senators will be interested to know that on examination T find that the Senate Committee’s operations under standing order 36A are less restricted in their scope than are the terms of reference of the House of Commons Committee which limits the grounds on which the Committee may report to that House. lt will be of interest to the Senate to know that this report is to be considered by the Select Committee of Procedure in the House of Commons in the near future. The Chairman has advised me he would very much welcome our comments on the report as a whole. In particular, on paragraphs 14 and 15 relating to the method of dealing with delegated legislation in the House of Commons, and has asked whether in the light of experience in the Australian Senate, we consider that, if the House of Commons Committee had wider terms of reference similar to those of the Senate Committee, this would facilitate action on a report when it was tabled in the House of Commons. It might be of interest to honourable senators to know also that the House of Commons in Canada has been examining its procedures for the oversight of delegated legislation, and in this regard has looked to the operations of the Australian Senate Committee for guidance.

page 1906

QUESTION

EYRE HIGHWAY

Senator BISHOP:

– My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government or to the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport. I refer to the bituminising of the Eyre Highway and also to the most recent request, late in April, by the Premier of South Australia to the Prime Minister for further consideration of some financial arrangements to complete the highway. In view of the proposition now advanced by the South Australian Premier and the commencement of the work to be finished by the South Australian Government in 1973 on that section of the highway between Ceduna and Penong, will the Minister examine the extent to which financial assistance might be given to enable the highway to be completed, especially when the evidence is growing that the highway is used almost exclusively by other than South Australian traffic?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

I can only report to the Senate in response to this question that I have an indication that the Premier of South Australia has written to the Prime Minister concerning the Eyre Highway and that the matters raised in the Premier’s letter are receiving examination so that a decision can be made on the matter and reply given.

page 1907

QUESTION

PETROL PRICES

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral. Has there been a resolution of the problems arising from the plans of the Premier of South Australia, Mr Dunstan, for resale price maintenance in relation to the sale of petrol? Is the resolution one which gives full and unrestricted freedom to petrol retailers to sell to the public at whatever rate of cut price a retailer fixes and in whatever quantities he and the public desire?

Senator GREENWOOD:
Minister for Health · VICTORIA · LP

– The power of the States with regard to transactions within the States is well known. The Commonwealth has no power to interfere in that area. I do not know whether there has been an official resolution of the problems to which the honourable senator refers, but I have noticed a Press comment attributed to the Premier of South Australia which, if true, indicates that it has been resolved in a manner which ought to be recognised by the people of Australia as indicating an extraordinary attitude. As I understand the Press statement attributed to the Premier of South Australia, he has said that those people who sell cheap petrol at a price lower than that which ordinarily prevails may continue to sell cheaper petrol, but that they may not open more selling places or trade at a loss. This to me, if it is true, not only represents an interference in ordinary competitive processes which will mean cheaper petrol - of course, the whole tendency of the Government’s Trade Practices Act is to promote competition and the benefits of price reductions which flow from it - but also indicates that in South Australia an authoritarian Labor Party Government is prepared to take action of this character, contrary to what I believe to be the best interests of the motorists.

page 1907

QUESTION

WINE

Senator DRURY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Excise seen the figures for wholesale wine sales for the March quarter? Since these figures show a 9 per cent drop in sales, whereas up until now sales have been increasing steadily, will the Minister consider removing the SOc a gallon excise on wine which is widely believed to be the cause of the decrease in sales?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I think the honourable senator knows that an interdepartmental committee, consisting of (representatives of the Prime Minister’s Department and the Departments of the Treasury, Customs and Excise and Primary Industry, is examining the situation of the wine industry, particularly the effect of the excise duty on wine. I am quite sure that that committee will have before it the figures that the honourable senator mentioned and I am sure that it will take them into account.

page 1907

QUESTION

ROAD ACCIDENTS

Senator DONALD CAMERON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Health whether he has seen the announcement by the Victorian Chief Secretary that from 1st June road accident injuries will be a ‘notifiable condition’ and that doctors will be obliged to report to the Health Department in detail on all injuries caused by road accidents. Will the Minister consider adopting a similar policy in the Territories under Commonwealth control?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I noticed the report to which the honourable senator refers. I am not sure of the extent to which it concerns me or my Department throughout Australia. I will give consideration to what he said in respect of the Australian Capital Territory.

page 1908

QUESTION

PETROL PRICES

Senator BISHOP:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. I ask him whether he considers it competent to reply in the terms he used to questions put to him about arrangements made by the Premier of South Australia relating to petrol. On 2 occasions in the Senate the Minister has taken the opportunity to criticise the State Premier on 2 bases instead of using his position as Minister representing the Attorney-General to supply information. He could check with the Department and then give the Senate proper and factual answers to questions. Instead of doing that he has launched out on a number of guessing expeditions, mainly on a political basis and flowing from Press reports. I ask the Minister whether in future he will supply the answers to questions in a proper form, including an answer to the question I put to him recently. I then asked: Is South Australia the only State in which price control abtains in relation to petrol and does the Commonwealth Government now accept South Australian prices as providing the basis for uniform petrol prices throughout Australia?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I know that this is a political chamber and that we have our political interests, but I am surprised that members of the Labor Party should become so tender about some points which can be made against them when, day by day we witness them attempting to make political points against the Government parties. I say, with all respect, that this is a hard house and what is good for one side is good for the other. I say in response to what Senator Bishop said that this Government is concerned, as far as it is competent to do so, to maintain within the community competitive processes which tend to promote efficiency and tend to reduce prices. This has been made quite clear in statements made in recent times. If in South Australia there is a tendency towards a cheaper price for petrol I think it is within my competence, as Minister representing the Attorney-General, when asked a question, to point out that if the

Government of South Australia is taking action which restricts those who sell cheaper petrol this is contrary to the general policies which this Government is pursuing.

page 1908

QUESTION

PETROL PRICES

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– The question I wish to ask the Minister representing the Attorney-General is supplementary to the last question asked of him by Senator Bishop. Has the Minister noticed a report in today’s Press that arrangements have been made for the establishment of 10 selling outlets for an independent oil company that wishes to supply petrol to South Australian motorists on a cheaper basis than now prevails in that State and that the Victorian company XL Petroleum Pty Ltd is setting up 2 outlets in South Australia also for the purpose of supplying cheaper petrol? Has the Minister noted that the South Australian Government has provided facilities for motorists in that State to obtain the same cheap petrol as is sold in other States?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I noticed the report to which the honourable senator has referred. I also noticed the report to which I referred in my answer to Senator Rae’s question that the Premier of South Australia has said that an independent group which has been selling petrol in South Australia may continue to sell cheaper petrol providing it does not use any more distribution outlets and does not trade at a loss. It will be interesting to see whether the principle which the South Australian Government has applied to one company will be applied to the company to which the honourable senator has referred or whether it will be given differential treatment.

page 1908

QUESTION

WHEAT

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to the statement made by Mr C. J. Perrett, the former General Manager of the Australian Wheat Board, at a Legacy luncheon that the Federal Government’s failure to recognise the People’s Republic of China was a barrier to wheat trade with China and that Australia will have an uphill job regaining this trade. In view of the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday on the likelihood of the recognition of China by the United Nations and Australia, will the Government commence as early as possible setting diplomatic and economic machinery in motion to recover our previous share of the Chinese wheat market?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI saw in part a television interview with the gentleman referred to. I think he said other things as well. His contribution at a Legacy function, or whatever it was, seemed to have a number of aspects which went both ways on this issue. I shall concentrate on the one that Senator O’Byrne has put. All I can say is that to my knowledge and to the knowledge of everybody else the Wheat Board is in continual discussion and communication about the sale of Australian wheat. I think that those honourable senators who take a long term view of this matter will agree with me when I say that the Board has done a magnificent job. I do not think that that can be challenged. I am quite certain that the Wheat Board will continue to do a good job in disposing of Australian wheat. It has access to mainland China and its representatives go there to transact business. I think that the foreign affairs side of the honourable senator’s question has been well canvassed and the Government’s view has been well expressed.

page 1909

QUESTION

SUPERANNUATION AND TAXATION ANOMALIES

(Question No. 942)

Has any deputation from either the Council of Commonwealth Public Service organisations or the Commonwealth Bank Officers’ Association been seen by the Treasurer or any senior officer of his Department since 18 September 1970 concerning the level of pension for superannuated officers and also a complaint about taxation anomalies; if so, when was the deputation received, and by whom; and if not, was any request to receive a deputation made by either of the two organisations, and why was the request not acceded to.

The Council of Commonwealth Public Service Organisations, with which the Commonwealth Bank Officers’ Association is affiliated, wrote to my predecessor on 18 September 1970 about adjustments of Commonwealth Superannuation pensions and amendment of the income tax law and asked that he receive a deputation from the Council for the purpose of discussing its proposals.

In responding to the Council’s representations, my predecessor explained that the matters that the Council had raised had, in accordance with earlier undertakings, been carefully considered during the preparation of the 1970-71 Budget and that he had arranged for the proposals to be brought forward for further consideration when the two matters were again examined by the Government.

It was also explained to the Council that its submission had been in such detail as to make it unlikely that anything could be added by the personal discussions that the Council had suggested. But the Council was invited to present in writing any further arguments that it might wish to add in support of its proposals, my predecessor indicating that he would not hesitate to agree to an interview if, on consideration of the further arguments of the Council, there appeared to be real purpose in his meeting a deputation.

page 1909

QUESTION

PAPUA NEW GUINEA: FISHING AGREEMENT WITH JAPAN

(Question No. 942)

Senator WRIEDT:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for External Territories upon notice:

  1. When does the fisheries agreement between Australia and Japan in respect of tuna long-liners operating in New Guinea waters expire.
  2. What steps have been taken since the inception of the agreement to establish an indigenous tuna fishing industry and with what results.
  3. Does the Government intend to renew the agreement; if so, under what conditions.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. Under the Fisheries Agreement between Australia and Japan in respect of Papua-New Guinea, Japanese boats may engage in tuna longline fishing in waters designated under the Agreement until 27 November, 1975 or such later date as may be agreed in consultations between the two Governments. These consultations must be held by 27 November 1974. The Agreement also provides for Japanese long-line tuna vessels to have access to the ports of Rabaul and Madang until 31 December 1973.
  2. Commercial tuna fishing requires advanced expertise, access to markets and substantial capital investment. In the past, small-scale tuna operations from Territory ports have not been successful. In recent years the Government has, therefore, encouraged Japanese fishing companies to develop a tuna industry based on Territory ports under specially negotiated joint venture arrangements. To date three such arrangements have been negotiated with Japanese companies which are at present conducting surveys of skipjack tuna resources in waters adjacent to New Guinea.

These arrangements were made with the full concurrence of the Papua New Guinea Adminisitrator’s Executive Council. A prerequisite to any long-term arrangements with these companies would be satisfactory provision for indigenous participation in training and employment at all levels and also in provision for access to a share of equity.

  1. Consultations for any extension or renewal of the existing arrangements in respect of PapuaNew Guinea within the terms of the Australian/Japanese Fisheries Agreement would be undertaken in the light of circumstances at that time.

page 1910

QUESTION

PAPUA NEW GUINEA: RURAL WAGES

(Question No. 954)

Senator O’BYRNE:

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

  1. Did the Minister for External Territories on 9 March declare his opposition to the recommendation of the Cochrane Report on rural wages in New Guinea, namely, that such wages be increased on a cash, ration and accommodation basis from $4.83 to $5.90 with a further increase to $6.40 after 12 months.
  2. Did the Minister support his stand by saying that New Guinea’s exporters of coffee, cocoa and copra would be out of business if rural wages were increased beyond economic levels; if so, can he explain this stand following a detailed survey of wages needs in the Territory, where the indigenous people live in an economic structure geared to European wages.
  3. Does this mean the Government is satisfied to see a continuation of economic discrimination which can only exacerbate tensions in the Territory over economic and racial discrimination by the Administration and employers.
Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

  1. No. On 9th March, 1971 in reply to a question without notice by the Honourable Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives I said that legislation had been introduced into the House of Assembly for Papua New Guinea to increase the minimum wage payable in the Territory to $5.90 per week as recommended by the Board of Inquiry on rural minimum wages under the Chairmanship of Professor D. Cochrane (Hansard, page 699).

The fact that the legislation does not provide also for the further increase to $6.40 per week twelve months after the $5.90 becomes effective, as recommended by the Board of Inquiry, does not indicate opposition to the recommendation’.

The Administrator’s Executive Council was of the opinion that the Board’s recommendations as to the level of the wage and to the suggested reforms of a more general nature would have farreaching effects and are of national importance. The Council considered that the effects of the conversion to an all cash wage and simultaneous increase to $5.90 per week on rural industries and employment should be known before the wage level is further reviewed; also, that this review should be made by a Minimum Wages Board to be established.

This view has been endorsed by the House of Assembly. The House passed legislation on 19th March 1971 to increase the minimum wage to $5.90 per week and to establish a Minimum Wages Board. This Board will determine minimum wage levels in both urban and rural areas.

The Board of Inquiry has been commended by both the Ministerial Member for Labour and the Administrator on the way it carried out its inquiry and for the quality of the report.

  1. Yes. It is vitally important to the Territory that export markets be preserved and developed for the Territory’s rural industries.
  2. Unless wage levels for Papuans and New Guineans are related to local conditions and the Territory’s economy, the Territory will have no propect of becoming economically self-reliant. To attract Australians to service in the Territory for as long as they are needed, earnings of Australians there have to be related to wage levels in the Australian economy. Otherwise Australians with skills in short supply in the Territory will not be attracted to go to Papua New Guinea to take part in the development of the country and to train indigenes. It is completely unrealistic to brand these conditions as economic and racial discrimination.

page 1910

QUESTION

DC3 AIRCRAFT

(Question No. 934)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister for

Civil Aviation, upon notice:

  1. How many DC3 aircraft are there within Australia and its Territories?
  2. Where are the aircraft located and who owns them?
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. There are 48 DC3 aircraft on the civil register of aircraft for Australia and its Territories.
  2. The owners and the locations of the aircraft are as follows:

page 1911

QUESTION

FOREIGN AID

(Question No. 1095)

Senator WILKINSON:

asked the Minis ter representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Does Australia’s foreign aid include the private investment of Australians in other countries; if so, is it a fact that Australian Government aid to overseas countries would not exceed 0.59 per cent of the gross national product without this private investment?
  2. Does Australia’s aid to Papua New Guinea account for about 80 per cent of Australia’s total foreign aid?
Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

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

  1. The Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, which comprises major western aid donors including Australia, uses three measures of resources flows from developed to developing countries, the total generally being expressed as a percentage of gross national product:

    1. the total net flow of official and private resources;
    1. net official flows; and
    2. net official development assistance.

The total net flows of official and private resources’ corresponds to the definition used in the much publicised one per cent target. Australia’s foreign aid defined in this sense includes Australian private investment in developing countries. This index is deficient in a number of respects as a measure for comparing the relative aid efforts of donor countries, in particular because it lumps together private and official flows which are generally motivated by entirely different considerations.

Net official flows’ reflects that part of the flow of resources to developing countries which has been the subject of Government decision but it includes various transactions which are not considered to be concessional in character. The more accepted and utilised measure is ‘official development assistance’ which omits non-concessional elements.

The following details of Australia’s aid performance in 1970 illustrate the conceptual difference between the three measures.

  1. It is not clear to what measure of foreign aid the honourable senator is referring. In respect of each of the three described indicators, the Territory of Papua-New Guinea received less than 80 per cent of the relevant aid flows in 1970. In 1970, 71.7 per cent of Australia’s net official development assistance was directed to the Territory.

page 1911

QUESTION

TAXATION

(Question No. 1124)

Senator DEVITT:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

Will the Minister have a close and detailed examination made of representations, during the past several years, for a greatly increased zone allowance for the west coast of Tasmania and will he direct officers of the Commonwealth Taxation Office to visit the area to examine the claims which have been spelt out in considerable detail in earlier submissions supporting such an increase?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

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

I can assure the honourable senator that all requests for increases in the zone allowance or for alteration of the zone boundaries receive careful and sympathetic consideration. Those representations for an increased zone allowance in respect nf the West coast of Tasmania received in the past have been examined by the Government with careful consideration being given to the material submitted in support of the representations. The Government, however, has found itself unable to agree to the request for an increase in the zone allowance for this area.

Many requests for increases in the zone allowance or alteration to the zone boundaries from residents of other parts of Australia have also been received and it is not possible to consider the representations of the residents of the west coast of Tasmania in isolation. It is the Government’s custom to examine all these representations during the preparation of the Budget when their relative merits can be assessed in the context of the scope available for the granting of concessions. I shall, therefore, arrange for the proposal to increase the zone allowance for this area to receive further careful consideration during the preparation of the 1971-72 Budget.

page 1912

QUESTION

EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET

(Question No. 882)

Senator BYRNE:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister a question upon notice which, I may say, has a particularly new significance in the light of announcements made in Britain yesterday regarding Britain’s entry into the European Common Market. The question is as follows:

Will the Senate be provided with an opportunity to debate the consequences to Australian trade of the emergence of the European Common Market, more particularly in the event of Great Britain joining it, and the resulting need to develop new export markets particularly in South East Asia?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

I agree with the honourable senator that this question and particularly the answer to it have been caught up by events. Three or 4 days ago we read with great significance that the United Kingdom Government’s chief representative was completely despondent but this morning we read in the Press that it is almost certain that Bri tain will now enter the EEC. For what it is worth I will give the answer to the question. It reads:

Since there is a motion on the Senate Notice Paper concerning the import levy systems being introduced by the United Kingdom, it would seem an appropriate time when this motion comes before the Senate for the honourable senator to raise general matters relating to the future of Australia’s trade with the United Kingdom, particularly in the event of the United Kingdom joining the EEC.

I think we have to wait a few more days to find out whether Britain will join the EEC.

page 1912

QUESTION

NEW GUINEA: ENTRY PERMITS

(Question No. 958)

Senator WILLESEE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for External Territories upon notice:

Have entry permits been granted to Filipino workers to enable them to work on a road construction project in the New Guinea highlands; if so, how many permits have been granted, on what grounds were they granted and what steps had previously been taken to fill these positions with indigenous workers.

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

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

The matter referred to is one which falls within the authority of the Ministerial Members for Public Works, Labour, and Trade and Industry. The Administrator on the advice of these Ministerial Members has provided the following information:

Dillingham Corporation of New Guinea Pty Ltd has been awarded a contract worth approximately $13m to construct a total of 86 miles of road and 13 bridges in the Western and Southern Highlands and the Chimbu District. The project is being financed partly from funds provided by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and the International Development Association. A condition of the loan was that all member countries of the Bank be canvassed for bids and that they be able to tender on an equitable basis. IBRD requires that strictly commercial considerations will apply in the award of a contract supported by Bank funds.

Some Asian firms tendered on the condition that they would be able to import non-European technicians and skilled craftsmen to work on the project. A competitive tender by Dillingham’s was accepted by the Administration on the basis that the company would be allowed to use nonEuropean skilled labour recruited from overseas on the project, provided that the labour would be engaged on wage rates and conditions of employment no less favourable than comparable Papuan and New Guinean workers employed in similar occupations.

On 9th June 1970, the Administrator’s Executive Council recommended that approval in principle be given to the importation of non-European technicians and skilled craftsmen to work on the project subject to a check being made to ensure the existing legislation was adequate to ensure that such persons could be repatriated without difficulty at a time acceptable to the Administration and subject to entry conditions acceptable to the Department of Trade and Industry.

On 5th February 1971, Dillinghams sought Administration approval to import between 80 and 90 English speaking Filipino skilled workers for the project. Approximately 20 would be brought in in March and the balance in April.

In approving the admission of the Filipinos, the Administration has, - granted temporary entry permits for each worker valid for 12 months in the first instance - approved the admission only of technicians and skilled craftsmen not available from within the Territory - agreed to the admission of only one lower level worker, a cook, to meet the food requirements of the Filipinos - laid down conditions under which the company must train agreed numbers of Papuans and New Guineans in road construction work both on-the-job and at a training school to be run by the company at Goroka; the training to be to standards acceptable to the Department of Labour.

The first 11 Filipinos arrived in Port Moresby on 15th March. The company is paying wages at rates prevailing in the Philippines plus an attraction allowance. The full complement of Filipinos will be located in 4 separate construction camps in rural areas.

page 1913

QUESTION

BANKING

(Question No. 1052)

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. What are the functions of commercial organisations referred to as merchant banks.
  2. Do they carry out banking functions; if so, are they subject to any Government or Reserve Bank of Australia controls as are applied to recognised banks.
  3. Is the statement in The Sunday Australian that merchant banks have brought large sums to Australia from overseas to take profit from Australia’s excessively high interest rates correct.
Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

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

  1. The term ‘merchant bank’ is used in Australia in relation to various companies undertaking a wide range of financial and commercial activities and it is difficult to define their functions precisely. However, companies termed ‘merchant banks’ would carry out operations within the following broad categories - arranging and providing short and medium term corporate finance, providing underwriting/sub-underwriting facilities, operating in the market for short term funds and providing commercial bill acceptance/ discount facilities, advising on company mergers, acquisitions and reorganisations, and carrying out portfolio management.
  2. Some of the functions carried out by ‘merchant banks’ are also undertaken by authorised banks, but they do not hold authorities to carry on banking business in Australia and are not subject to Reserve Bank controls as applied to authorised banks under the Banking Act 1959- 1967. They are, of course, subject to the requirements of the Companies Acts. Where more than 25 per cent of the equity is owned by overseas interests, the Government’s guidelines in respect of borrowings in Australia are applicable.
  3. No information is available on the amount of funds which may have been brought to Australia by ‘merchant banks’ nor on the purpose of any such transfers. As far as the level of our interest rates is concerned I would emphasise that the Government believes that these should be determined primarily in the light of domestic economic and financial considerations. The current level of interest rates is an important aspect of the Government’s measures to counter the inflationary pressures that exist in Australia today and in this context they are not excessive. There is no firm evidence to suggest that large amounts of overseas capital are at present being attracted to Australia because of interest rate considerations. Nevertheless we cannot of course be entirely oblivious to overseas interest rates and the Government is watching the situation closely. I should point out, however, that as a result of increases in some short-term rates overseas in recent weeks there has been a significant narrowing and in some cases and elimination of the disparity in short-term rates between Australia and overseas.

page 1913

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

On 28th April 1971 Senator Fitzgerald asked me a question without notice concerning the economy. The Treasurer has now provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The honourable senator’s question covers a <broad range of very diverse topics, many of which are not, of course, matters of Commonwealth reponsibility, but I would make the following observations on some of the issues he has raised.

In an address to the nation on 29 January the then Prime Minister outlined steps the Government intended to take to combat inflationary pressures in the economy. Measures having both shorter and longer term effects were indicated, designed not only to have effect in relation to short-term pressures in the economy but also through increasing competitiveness and flexibility to improve its performance in the longer run. It was decided to reduce, by $75m, the Commonwealth’s proposed expenditures as they stood at that time - details of the proposed reductions in expenditure were announced on 16 February. The expenditure reductions have already had some effect but will have their main effect on Commonwealth expenditure in the remainder of the financial year. In relation to public authority expenditure it should be noted that the States will be reducing their estimated expenditures this financial year by over $60m. The Parliament has approved legislation suspending the special 20 per cent investment allowance on plant and equipment used in manufacturing and has before it legislation dealing with resale price maintenance. The Government has, of course, announced that it will shortly forward to the Tariff Board references which will enable it to begin a progressive review of the Tariff.

Government policy is, of course, undergoing continual development as circumstances change. In this context the Government has, since February, approved some further expenditure commitments, such as the recent increases in pensions, the additional capital for the Australian Wool Commission and additional assistance to the States to help them reduce their Budget deficits. The actual payments made by the Commonwealth in the months since February are published in the Monthly Statements of Commonwealth Financial Transactions, to which I refer the honourable senator.

As to the question of benefits, it does not seem necessary to detail the advantages to the community generally which arise from the maintenance of reasonably stable prices and the control of inflation. Equally, the benefits to those involved - the pensioners, the States and the wool industry - arising from the expenditure commitments mentioned above, should be quite clear.

The matter of doctors’ fees has been the subject of answers to a number of other questions. The other particular matters mentioned are essentially ones for decision by the authorities concerned, and on which it would not be appropriate for me to comment.

Finally, it is not the case that inflation has increased further since the Government announced its programme of anti-inflationary action in February. The evidence suggests that the accelerating trend of price increases evident through most of 1970 did not continue in the March quarter 1971. The rise in the consumer price index in the March quarter was about the same as in the December quarter 1970 after allowing for the direct effects on the latter of the rises in indirect taxes and charges announced in the Budget. Nevertheless, the Government does not view the current rate of increase in consumer prices - of the order of 5 per cent - as acceptable, and policies will continue to be directed to reducing and eliminating inflation without the disruption to the economy which drastic measures would entail.

A sharp reduction in the rate of increase in consumer prices and in inflation generally will not be achieved overnight. For one thing, the effects of recent sharp increases in wage costs (including the 6 per cent award in the National Wage Case) will take some time to work their way through the economy. While they have already been reflected in sharp rises in costs in industry - building is a notable example - the full impact has not yet been felt in consumer prices. Reduction in the rate of increase in average earnings below the present 9 per cent per annum or more is a prerequisite of bringing under control inflationary forces emanating from the costs side.

page 1914

QUESTION

NEW GUINEA: FILIPINO WORKERS

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I have an answer to a question without notice which was asked by Senator Mulvihill on 15th March 1971 relating to Dillingham Corporation of New Guinea Pty Ltd. The honourable senator asked what power the Minister had to direct rates of pay. The answer is none. A detailed answer has just been incorporated in Hansard in reply to question No. 958 asked by Senator Willesee, which gives a long explanation as of the position of Dillingham Corporation workers. I thought I should draw the attention of the honourable senator to that answer.

page 1914

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) agreed to:

Thant unless otherwise ordered the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 18th May 1971, at 11.00 a.m.

page 1914

PARLIAMENTARY RETIRING ALLOWANCES TRUST

Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) agreed to:

That in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Trust Act 1948- 1968 Senator Murphy be appointed a trustee to serve on the Parliamentary Retiring Allowances Trust on and from 1st July 1971.

page 1914

QUESTION

PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE

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

– by leave - At the request of Senator Branson, I move -

That Senator Branson be discharged from attendance on the Privileges Committee and that Senator Withers be appointed in his place.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1914

STATES GRANTS (RURAL RECONSTRUCTION) BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 13 May 1970 (vide page 1900), on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Upon which Senator Wilkinson had moved by way of amendment:

Leave out all words after ‘That’, insert - the Bill be withdrawn in order that the Agreement between the Commonwealth and the States be amended to make provision for more detailed criteria on eligibility and to ensure that every bona fide producer, within an acceptable means test, is eligible to receive assistance which will enable persons:

to remain in primary production where it is considered, on technical and economic evidence available, that financial viability can be achieved within a reasonable time;

to move out of primary production where it is considered, on technical and economic evidence available, that financial viability cannot be achieved within a reasonable time;

to participate, with their family, in a fully co-ordinated rehabilitation programme including technical college education or at least its equivalent’.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– Last night before the Senate adjourned I was talking about land values generally and the effect of the depression in wool prices and droughts. I had said that there was no prospect of establishing any standard of values. I had mentioned that it was very difficult to get some of the State and Federal Authorities to accept the fact that there were lower values. I quoted some cases of death duties being charged on the previous high values. I would like to mention another possibility which could arise in the operation of this rural reconstruction scheme. If a man on a property being successfully reconstructed was killed in a car accident or in some other way we could have the possibility of rural reconstruction money being taxed by the death duty people. I think this is something which should be looked at in view of what has happened in the past in this regard.

I would like to touch on local authority problems, particularly in those areas that are suffering because of low wool prices and the effects of a long drought. There is now no chance of the local government authorities being able to collect a large part of their rates from people in those areas. This ties in with rural reconstruction because the property owners who will be assisted have to pay shire rates. With no chance of a large part of their own rates being collected local authorities in those areas will collapse. This will occur because at present people simpy do not have the money to pay shire council rates and the shires will not be able to carry on unless they get some assistance from outside. This is due to a combination of the collapse of prices for wool and some other primary products and, in many cases, the failure of farmers because of the effects of drought. It has been pointed out that while I have dealt principally with wool in discussing rural reconstruction, all primary industries are eligible and can apply for assistance. I have here a circular sent out by the Queensland Rural Reconstruction Board. It states:

Objectives:

The general principle is to distribute available assistance as widely as possible. However, the over-riding objective is to help restore to a profitable basis those farms and farmers with the capacity to maintain progress once assistance has been given by the Board and other parties.

Supervision:

It is an essential part of the Scheme that close supervision of property management and the financial affairs of an assisted farmer is maintained. Every advance made will be related to a plan of operation and budget for the property within which the assisted farmer will be obliged to work.

If the Board deems it necessary and it has the requisite supplementary security all monies receivable on account of the property will be received by the Board or its appointed agent which will disburse payments within the approval budget.

As I said earlier I believe that this scheme must be started but I think we will soon find that it has to be broadened and that more money will have to be made available. We will have to look at this as soon as possible to see what is absolutely necessary to carry it on and get money to these people so that they can get their properties to the stage where they become as asset to the community. Despite the build-up of minerals and manufactures Australia still is dependent mainly on primary production exports for foreign exchange. We cannot get away from that fact and it has to be borne in mind all the time.

The Australian Democratic Labor Party has moved an amendment to each of these Bills. The first seeks to set up an inquiry into all aspects of primary production. We have opposed this sort of thing before because we believe it would take too long. There are at least 40 different primary industries. If an inquiry is necessary for a particular industry we could possibly look at the position and we might be able to go along with that specific inquiry. We have had the spectacle of an economic inquiry on which a lot of time and money was spent in producing a report, but not much action has been taken on that report.

The Democratic Labor Party’s other amendment relates to the second Sill and is, I believe, a bit too general as it stands at the moment and I cannot go along with it. I think that wool will again come into favour on a world basis but it will take some time and, in the meantime, a major recovery operation must be mounted in the wool industry. We cannot let the wool industry collapse, especially as in many parts of Australia no diversification is possible. It would take too long to get it reestablished when things come right, and they can come right quicker than we realise. At one time there did not appear to be any future at all for sugar and then, within the comparatively short space of a couple of years, the position changed completely. We have seen this happen to other commodities, one being butter.

Senator Mulvihill:

– What about the sugar industry? If Cuba comes in to the general market how will that affect Australia?

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– That could possibly affect Australia but I think, at present as far as we can tell the sugar industry is on a pretty firm basis. Not many months ago we were told of mammoth stockpiles of butter in European countries, but that seems to have melted away, disappeared or been sold almost overnight and now Australia is being asked to increase its exports of butter. If this situation applies to other industries, it could apply also to wool and other produce. I have referred mainly to wool in the proposed scheme, but the scheme is designed to cover all primary industries. The thinking behind the States Grants (Rural Reconstruction) Bill represents a major change of attitude on the part of all 7 Australian governments towards our rural industries. We must remember that our rural industries provide a good market for many secondary industries and, conversely, that our large population provides a base market for many of our primary industries. It must not be forgotten that since the first European settlement in Australia our primary industries have made possible our great expansion and development as a nation by providing abundant quantities of cheap food for our people at prices usually well below world parity. The

Government must do all that it can to see that our present prosperity as a nation is assured for all of our population. I support these Bills and commend them to the Senate. I hope that they will be passed as soon as possible so that we can get on with doing something for this section of the population which, through no fault of its own, is in such a desperate plight.

Senator POYSER:
Victoria

– I support the amendment that has been moved by Senator Wilkinson on behalf of the Australian Labor Party. It is obvious, in listening to this debate, that very few honourable senators in this chamber are satisfied with the legislation. Each speaker, with the exception of Senator Lawrie, has had critical things to say about the legislation. Some senators have been very critical and others have offered only minor criticism but it obvious that the legislation does not receive the full support of this house. It will probably be passed because, again, we are faced with a time factor in dealing with the Bills in this House which prevents amendments being considered in the other place because that has risen. But this should not be a reason why a positive amendment which has been submitted by the Australian Labor Party should not be carried by the Senate. It is more positive than the other amendments which are before the Senate for consideration. It asks that the Bills be withdrawn for the purpose of improving them. Some honourable senators from the Australian Country Party have been asking for that to be done during the debate on the motion for the second reading. On the other hand the Australian Democratic Labor Party has submitted 2 amendments. One provides for a long term project which would take quite a considerable time to introduce and to obtain a benefit from. The other amendment has been described as something which will immediately assist the rural producers of this country. But again we find that the amendments to these Bills are merely expressing opinions of the Senate. I am becoming disillusioned with any amendments which start with the words ‘in the opinion of the Senate’ whether they are submitted by the Democratic Labor Party or by ourselves.

It is now traditional for the Government to reject any opinions which come in this way from the Senate. In the last few months, indeed, in the last 3 years, we have consistently taken a stand in relation to certain matters. We have consistently amended motions with an opinion addendum which has never been considered or implemented by the Government. We are faced with the position of either voting for an amendment which has positive attitudes and positive means of assisting the rural community or voting for 2 amendments which will not, in my view, be given any consideration by the Government. In this chamber we are debating 2 Bills which I think every honourable senator believes should give true and proper assistance to rural communities throughout the Commonwealth. As has been said by many speakers in this debate the rural industries are facing a crisis similar to, if not worse than, the crisis which they faced in the depression years in this country. Yesterday I was interested to hear Senator Sir Magnus Cormack refer to that terrible time that we went through in Australia. One of the tragedies of the present position is that the rural industries are going through these extremely hard times when this country is, to all intents and purposes, very affluent. We have an affluent society in which the farming community throughout the Commonwealth has debts amounting to something near $2, 500m. This is a fantastic situation.

The Bill before us provides $100m, $75m of which attracts interest and $25m of which is a direct grant to try to solve the problems of great magnitude which are facing the rural industries. This is not the way in which we can solve the problem. This is the way in which we can get to a situation, as indicated by Senator Prowse last night, where only 10 per cent of the applicants who need assistance are going to be accommodated. When we read the fine print of this Bill we find that the method whereby a person can obtain some assistance is to walk around the town in which he lives or the capital city of his State begging and pleading for somebody to assist him financially. Only when he reaches the stage at which no other avenue whatever is open to him will he be in a position to obtain the assistance which he urgently needs. In my State of Victoria we find this situation. No doubt Queensland and other States have exactly the same situation in relation to drought relief funds which were made available by the Commonwealth. A person had to be destitute before he became eligible for assistance. It seems to me that under legislation like this we are putting shipwrecked fanners into a leaking lifeboat and pushing it off from the shore to float. This will create further burdens over a number of years for people who are endeavouring to make their properties a viable operation.

It is equally tragic to me to examine the whole aspect of the viability of the rural community over the years. In the 1940s the Labor Government brought back to viability the major rural industries in this country at a, time when they were in a position such as they are facing now. The Labor Government introduced legislation which assisted the wheat industry and the dairying industry. It also brought in a marketing system that made sure that our wool was sold on the world markets to the best advantage of the growers in this country. In the 22 years in which the people in the country areas have relied on representation mainly from the Country Party and to some degree from the Liberal Party, and on a Liberal-Country Party coalition, the situation has returned to the stage of the depression years. All we hear is that things have caught up with us; that we have a cost price squeeze; that it is nobody’s fault that this has happened; that it is one of those things that happen under the normal processes of supply and demand.

In reality costs have gone so high in this country because of the inflationary policies of this Government. Those inflationary policies have continued since 1949, when Mr Menzies won office on the basis of putting value back into the pound. We have a situation now in which land values in the farming community are far in excess of the value of production. We have aided and abetted this situation by the inflationary manner in which we have allowed land prices - for instance in the cities - to raise sky-high. Who are the people who have built up the farm prices to this extent? In very many cases they are the city farmers who have made a million dollars or more out of land shark deals in the cities and who then go out and buy these farms as a hobby and as a tax dodge.

There are many hundreds of such farmers throughout the community - doctors, dentists, lawyers and all kinds of people who have not the ability to operate these farms. They put in managers and are able to take vital taxation from the coffers of the Treasury. They are able to do this with the ill-gotten gains which they, particularly the land sharks, have been able to obtain in the city areas. There have been and there still are too many of them operating land deals and holding the ordinary people to ransom as far as their housing needs are concerned. So we have a situation now in which we are bringing in legislation of a depression year nature to save once magnificent industries that were of great value to Australia. We are giving too little far too late to help the small farmer and the people in the small towns and cities associated with rural production.

We are now paying the price for allowing big American, Japanese and other combines to come into our country and take most of the mineral wealth out of the ground. They are moving at a great rate to take over the vast rural producing areas of this nation. Apparently our only remedy is to say to the dairy farmer: ‘You sell your dairy farm to the fellow next door’; or to say to the sheep farmer: ‘You sell your sheep property to the fellow next door; we must make the farms bigger’. This country was built up on the basis of the small farmer who worked hard and efficiently and was able to gain the great export earnings that we have lived on for so many years. Now we have reached the stage where we have to do something desperately, and quickly.

Senator Sim:

– Tell us what we should do.

Senator POYSER:

– If Senator Sim looks at the Opposition’s amendment he will see that is contains positive references which will assist greatly. The advice that farmers have received from Country Party Ministers for Primary Industry over the years has been to diversify. The attitude has been that if the wool industry dropped, the farmers were advised to diversify into dairying and wheat. When the dairying industry got into an adverse situation it was advised to turn to beef production. When the wheat industry got into trouble it had no product into which it could diversify.

Then the Government had to start introducing systems of direct assistance.

Senator Webster:

– What would you put the $100m into?

Senator POYSER:

– The only industry of any magnitude which has a basis of viability at the moment is the beef industry. I want to give a word of warning in relation to that industry because at present there is great diversification into it. Senator Webster, as a Victorian, knows the situation in relation to this matter because there are many wheat farms in our State which had never carried one head of cattle in their history but which are now carrying 50, 60, 100 or more head of cattle in an attempt to make ends meet.

Senator Webster:

– What would you advise? Do not just criticise; give us advice.

Senator POYSER:

– The situation we have reached is due to the failure of this Government to control inflation over a period of 22 years. That is the real reason why people are in such trouble. It is true that costs have risen, but they have been allowed to rise because this Government believes that everything will find its own level. Things are now finding a level that is putting the rural industries of this country into complete bankruptcy. The real answer to our problems at this late stage lies in the Senate supporting the positive matters contained in the Opposition’s amendmentmen t. I commend the amendment to the Senate.

Senator YOUNG:
South Australia

– It is very easy to see the problems and it is very easy to see the reasons which have caused them; but it is not very easy to solve the problems. This is something that this Government is endeavouring to do. We know that throughout the years there have been many problems with primary industry. We have seen increased costs and falling prices, as Senator Poyser and so many others have said. We can see the reasons for the increases in some of these costs, such as the policy of development we have had in Australia, our industrial development and our policy of full employment. Although all people in this country support the concept of full employment, we must appreciate that this has enabled militancy in certain sections of the trade union movement to take advantage of the situation and which make demands for increased wages. As Senator Lillico said last night, this greatly encourages and facilitates increased costs. The tariff structure also has had its effect upon costs. All these things are finally reflected in the cost structure of primary industry. For years increased costs were countered in primary industry by increased productivity; but there are physical and economic limitations on how far one can increase productivity.

I now turn to price factors. Many of these factors are beyond the control of this country because so much of our primary produce today is related to overseas sales. Of course, we are only another supplier in the international market. Although we have had international grains arrangements and other marketing agreements, we still have seen reduced prices for wheat, falling prices for wool due to competition of synthetics, and so on. Today the price of wool is the lowest it has been for 23 years. It is also the lowest price in relation to costs that the wool grower has ever received. This has had very adverse effects upon the whole of primary industry. The wool grower would definitely be the hardest hit; but from this sector the effect spreads out much further and reaches not only the sheep farmer, be be a big pastoralist or a small high density sheep farmer, but also the mixed wheat-sheep farmer and the course grains grower. The greatest adverse effect has been on the wool industry, with its depressed prices at the present time - the lowest for 23 years.

Over the years there has been quite an indebtedness within the rural industries. When one looks at the figures one finds that the gross indebtedness in the rural industries has increased from $977m in 1960 to $1,603.9 in 1970 and to $2,086m one year later. We can see the escalation that has taken place in recent years. Much of it, particularly the final escalation, is related to the fall in wool prices. In the wool industry the indebtedness has increased from $980m in 1966-67 to $l,200m this year. This spells out very clearly just what the situation is in the wool industry. Wool farm income has fallen from $760m in 1966-67 to an estimated

J3M1/71- J- [75]

S290m this year. Not only has indebtedness increased, but incomes have been drastically reduced. The situation now is that many property owners are no longer able even to service their debts, let alone to derive an income. One hopes, and the indications are, that there may be an increase in wool prices this year. One cannot forecast what these increases will be, but one can say that there is no doubt that wool prices would have been much lower than they are had it not been for the Government’s assistance in setting up the Australian Wool Commission which has certainly added a few cents per lb to the price of wool.

The difficulty in servicing debts is only one of the problems. We also run into another problem of many properties not being big enough to produce a turnover on which the owners can make a reasonable living. There are figures to show that many property owners today are not even earning the equivalent of the basic wage. The small size of properties has been criticised by Senator Poyser. I suggest to him that he should not deal too heavily with this area because if we go back through the political history of this country we will find that in the early post-war years, when the Labor Party was in office, many of these small properties were set up for soldier settlers. This is an unfortunate aspect. Many properties were set up for wool production with 2,000 sheep. It was considered that such a property was a living area and would provide a good living. In not too many years we found that 2,000 sheep would not provide a good living. So let us not start pointing fingers around this chamber to indicate who is right and who is wrong. All of us have to admit that we have had to pay a price for the industrial development that has taken place in this country, the inflationary trends and the demands for higher wages. But’ let me also say that Australia has had one of the most stable economies in the world. We can look overseas and see economies that have run away as a result of inflationary trends. This country has been fortunate in having both a stable economy and a stable government. This has helped. Nevertheless there are problems in Australia which are beyond the control of our Government and which have influenced the situation that we have today in primary industry.

Opposition criticism is levelled at the Government on the basis that it is doing too little too late. The Government has done much to assist primary industry over the years. It has done it in many ways, such as a subsidy on superphosphate, taxation deductions, assistance in wheat stabilisation and, in the case of the wool industry, establishment of the Australian Wool Commission, etc. The Government has done many things but I will not take time to dwell on them.

The Opposition has said that this Bill should be rejected. I think it is most unfortunate that the Opposition should make what I consider to be a purely political statement on a matter of this magnitude. This Bill should commend itself to the Senate. The Bill does not attack all the problems but it does attack the base of the problem. If the. Government set to work and adopted a cold hard economic approach to the whole situation it would assess the real financial value of the rural industries to this country and their export earning value. Then it would assess in cold hard dollars and cents how much assistance should be given. But in doing this it would have to go further and assess how many farmers it should force off the land and bring the number down to a minimum. Some economists have said that there are too many farms and too many farmers.

That may be an economic assessment.

But this is not just an economic problem. It is also a social problem. It is a human problem. It concerns families who have lived and worked on their properties, some of them for generations. This is their life. As I said, it is more than just an economic problem; it is also a social problem. This social problem does not stop with the farmers; it spreads to the people in rural areas and in the cities who are affected by the farmers’ affluence. So this social problem has a very broad effect. One must look at the problem jointly as a social-economic problem. I say again that this Bill should commend itself to the Senate.

There are 3 main aspects to this Bill. Various measures are being used to attack this problem - debt reconstruction, farm buildup and rehabilitation schemes. I am very glad to see that flexibility is provided for in Part IV of the Schedule to the Bill. I shall deal later with the particular areas that concern me. Paragraph 24 of Part IV of the Schedule reads:

  1. The operation of the Scheme in relation to all of the States will be reviewed from time to time as appropriate by the Commonwealth and the States in the light of experience; in its administration.

I think that is very important. The paragraph continues:

  1. A review under sub-clause (1) of this clause shall be carried out not later than the time necessary to enable to be brought, into operation by the first day of July; 1972 any adjustments or amendments which it may be agreed should be made to the Scheme in respect of -

    1. the funds to be provided for the Scheme;
    2. the allocation of funds between the States;
    3. the provisions for losses (other than unforeseen losses) and write-offs available to the States under the Scheme;
    4. the interest rates to be charged to borrowers; and
    5. the proportion of the financial assistance applied to farm build-up.

All these things are very important aspects of this scheme. It isspelt out very clearly that they can be reviewed by both the Commonwealth and States and amended, if it is thought necessary, in the light of experience. I repeat that I am pleased to see that the Bill allows for flexibility and change if it is seen to be necessary.

One of the areas about which I have some concern is that when the scheme was first being discussed it was based not on today’s wool prices but on wool prices of perhaps some 12 months ago. Since that time we have seen a big fall in wool prices. Because of this drastic fall in wool prices in the last 12 months there are many farmers today who now are not eligible to participate in the scheme. I hope that this matter will be kept in view and that some consideration will be given to the introduction of an interim or stop-gap measure in the hope that in the next 6 months the price of wool may improve by 5c per lb. If it improved by even 5c per lb, such an increase in the price of wool could make viable some growers who at the present time would not be regarded as an economic proposition and therefore eligible for assistance under the scheme. I emphasise this point very strongly, because I think it is most important. We have seen what we hope will prove to have been a trough in wool prices. It would be wise, I think, for the Government to introduce some interim measure until we have a clearer picture of overall wool prices and the wool situation.

Let me make it clear that the aim of this scheme should be to help the greatest number of growers. We must make sure that this scheme does not base its assistance on the position of the man right at the bottom of the ladder, because there are growers who would have left the industry in any case and growers who did go out of the industry even during times of reasonable affluence. There are some growers who for many reasons will never be effective and efficient managers of their own properties. So we have to be careful that we do not tend te assist too much in this area so that not enough assistance can be given to those farmers who are deserving of it and who, if they had that assistance, would become a viable proposition again and have some security in the industry.

Another matter that concerns me is the fact that growers cas apply for assistance under this scheme only after they have been refused credit from the normal lending finance institutions. This could cause a run on the scheme inasmuch as some of these financial institutions may prefer not to carry this type of debt with the rural industry because it may be more lucrative for them to move into other areas. In that situation many growers may be forced to apply for assistance under the rural aid scheme. 1 feel that this is one area that may have to be watched very closely. However, the situation could be just the reverse. There may be many growers who, because they are efficient, are short of liquidity and who, because they have been good farmers and are able to borrow from a bank are paying high rates of interest, will be disqualified from obtaining assistance under this scheme and a lower rate of interest which could really help them and be of great benefit. So it does work both ways. These are problems that exist within the scheme, and experience will help to see how some of these problems can be overcome.

The Opposition has also criticised the fact that this scheme will be administered by the State governments. I believe that this is one of the most essential parts of the scheme because it keeps the administration very close to the problem. No body could assess accurately from a long way off what should be done in a certain area, because there are variations between properties, and variations between districts. In one district the primary industries may be diversified, but in another district seasonal or soil conditions may prevent diversification.

There are also variations between States. Another important reason why the administration should be close to the problem is managerial ability. Some farmers may not be good managers. Another farmer may be an excellent manager, needing only a little more land to make his business viable. He is the man who must be helped. If the administration is close enough it will know the effective and efficient managers and can help them. If the administration is handled from Canberra many of these personalities would not be known, so it is essential that the scheme be administered by the States.

However, it is also essential that the Commonwealth keep a very close eye on the States because we must make sure that the States administer the scheme flexibly so that the greatest possible effective assistance can be given to the greatest number of growers. The sum of money to be spent on the scheme has been criticised. It has been said that the amount allocated to the States is far too small. The sum of $100m was recommended by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. I remind honourable senators that paragraph 24 (2.) (a) of the Schedule refers to ‘the funds to be provided for the scheme’, and states that the scheme will be reviewed in the light of experience. It can be amended and funds increased if necessary. This will depend upon requirements as the scheme gets into operation. 1 do not think the criticism by the Opposition of the amount is justified.

I wish to refer again to Part IV of the Schedule. It is essential that the scheme is not uniform between the States. There can be variations in administration of the scheme in the States. That is essential for the reasons 1 have given, and also for the reason that the Commonwealth must watch the operations of the States very closely. Paragraph 10 of Part II of the Schedule provides:

  1. – (I.) The provisions of the Schedule to this agreement may be amended from time to time by agreements between the Ministers of the Commonwealth and of the States for the time being responsible for the administration of the scheme. (2.) Where so agreed between the Commonwealth Minister and the Minister or Ministers of the relevant State or States, the amendments to the provisions of the Schedule to this agreement may be made and take effect as between the Commonwealth and one or more of the States without affecting the operation of this agreement as between the Commonwealth and a State the Minister of which has not so agreed.

I think those provisions are essential. The thread that shows out right through the whole of the Bill is flexibility, the opportunity to make such changes as become necessary from time to time. The amendment moved by the Opposition concerns me. It starts with the words, ‘the Bill be withdrawn’. One cannot but be very critical of such a suggestion. We have heard the pious pleas of the Opposition to help primary industry, today and on other occasions. But in the proposed amendment the Opposition asks that the Bill be withdrawn. At the same time honourable senators opposite refer to the great problems of the primary industries and the need to give assistance. If the proposed amendment is carried, the Opposition would have this Bill withdrawn and probably delayed for months at a time when farmers are in urgent need of help.

Senator Willesee:

– Read the next part.

Senator YOUNG:

– After suggesting that the Bill be withdrawn it goes on to say that there should be a means test. One wants to know what the policies of the Opposition really are. In some policies it is critical of a means test, but in respect of primary industry the great Opposition advocates of assistance for primary industry want to introduce a means test. I am very surprised at the wording of the proposed amendment and I wonder what the Opposition really means. I would like to go a little further.

Senator Willesee:

– I think you should be honest and read the amendment properly.

Senator YOUNG:

– I will read it.

Senator Willesee:

– Read it honestly.

Senator YOUNG:

– If you want it read–

Senator Willesee:

– It asks that the Bill be withdrawn in order to do certain things.

Senator YOUNG:

– Yes, but how? The Senate is sitting today and members of the other House are not here.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Bring them back.

Senator YOUNG:

– That is what the honourable senator says. The amendment asks that the Agreement between the Commonwealth and the States be amended. The Commonwealth and State governments have spent a long time in reaching agreement. The Opposition wants the Bill withdrawn and a new agreement reached. Until that is done, whichever way it is looked at, there will be great delay. Honourable senators opposite spent a lot of time criticising this legislation and the Government’s policy. I have been honest and I have said that we know the problems, but it is very hard to solve them. The Government is attacking the problems through a flexible Bill in an honest endeavour to find solutions. I ask honourable senators opposite whether, instead of just offering criticisms as they have done and saying that the problems are easy to solve, they could tell us how they would solve them.’ The amendment they have moved does not offer any solution to the problems. I support the Bill.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Senator Young has said that the amendment moved by Senator Wilkinson on behalf of the Opposition is a sheer political move. Frankly, having heard Senator Young’s approach, I suggest that his partial reading of the very sincere amendment moved by the Opposition in a genuine endeavour to assist all people connected with primary industries is merely an audacious political stunt. So that the people listening to the broadcast of these proceedings will appreciate and understand the amendment proposed by the Opposition, I intend to read it in full and not in part as Senator ‘ Young did. The Opposition has moved the following amendment to the motion that the Bill be read a second time:

Leave out all words after That’, Insert - the Bill be withdrawn in order that the Agreement between the Commonwealth and the States be amended to make provision for more detailed criteria on eligibility . and to ensure that every bona fide producer, within an acceptable means test -

We want to assist the battlers.

Senator Byrne:

– How long would it take to re-write the agreement?

Senator DOUGLAS MCCLELLANDI have only a short time to speak.

Senator Byrne:

– Yes. but how long would lt take to re-write the agreement?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I suggest that it could be done in a matter of moments. I will show in a minute or two that the New South Wales Government wants it re-written. I will start to read the proposed amendment again so that it will be understood. It states:

The Bill be withdrawn in order that the Agreement between the Commonwealth and the States be amended to make provision for more detailed criteria on eligibility and to ensure that every bona fide produce,, within an acceptable means test, is eligible te receive assistance which will enable persons:

to remain in primary production where it is considered, on technical and economic evidence available, that financial viability can be achieved within a reasonable time;

to move out of primary production where it is considered, on technical and economic evidence available, that financial viability cannot be achieved within a reasnoable time; and

to participate, with their family, In a fully co-ordinated rehabilitation programme including technical college education or at least its equivalent.

All of these people - either those who stay within the rural sector of the economy or those who because of the financial policy pursued by this Government, are being forced to get off their properties - are entitled to receive assistance. We of the Opposition speak with some emotion about this problem. Farmers, especially small farmers, today are walking off their properties because they are not receiving assistance. Young men living in country towns are going broke. They cannot get jobs because the rural industries are suffering. Only yesterday an article in the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’ stated that industrial observers believed that unemployment figures for this month may be the highest for some months in western New South Wales. There are 200 workers unemployed in the towns of Bourke and Cobar and if this legislation is passed as is contemplated by this Government, a great number of the 2,000 land holders in the western division of New South Wales will be forced to leave their properties and the Government will be doing nothing to assist them. We say that all of these people and all of their problems have to be catered for if there is to be any justice or any common sense brought to bear in relation to the rural sector of the Australian economy.

The Commonwealth scheme proposed by this Bill offers aid only to those producers who seem to have some good prospects of recovery. But these people will be offered interest rates of 6i per cent and they will be required to repay the money over a maximum period of 20 years. It will not be a grant, it will be merely a loan, and certainly I do not think that one could call it a long term low interest loan.

Senator Devitt:

– It will be a burden.

Senator DOUGLAS MCCLELLANDIt will be a burden, as my colleague Senator Devitt says. The scheme certainly will not assist anyone who has to move out of primary production to be retrained in in another vocation. Senator Young himself expressed concern about the fact that farmers literally will have to hawk themselves around the financial institutions and to the offices of the private banks before they will become eligible to receive assistance under this scheme. I ask Senator Young: What hope will these people have of getting any assistance from the private banks in Australia when the rural economy of this nation is in its present state and when all the forecasts by Government spokesmen indicate that the position will get worse? Therefore, the only thing that this Government, if it has any honesty, can do is to include in the scheme all those who need assistance.

The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) not long ago said that over the last 6 years the index of prices received by farmers had fallen by 7.3 per cent while the index of prices which farmers paid had risen by 19.8 per cent. Who has been responsible for this? This Government has been in office for 22 years. Its supporters come into this Parliament and talk about the action which the Government is taking to curb the inflationary spiral that has been developing during the period it has been in office. The Government has no national policy because there is a division of interests between those who sit in the corner representing the Australian Country Party and those who sit on the other side of the Parliament representing the Liberal Party. All of these problems will continue to exist until there is elected a government which has a real national policy which is designed to cater for all sections of the Australian community and to make this nation a unified, concerted nation working as a team for the benefit of all Australians.

This morning we have heard a great deal, especially from members of the Country Party, about trying to do something for decentralisation. The problems of farmers, as we all know, are high rates, excessive interest charges, high telephone and postal charges, excessive freight costs, poor transport arrangements and inefficient or insufficient port handling arrangements. All of these things are being bitten at here, there and everywhere by this Government, but there is no concerted policy or attempt to deal with them. I will say one thing about decentralisation: If the Government is to encourage industries to move into country areas in order to provide work for people who now cannot obtain work or who are being forced to leave their properties, it has to come to the party. In order to encourage businesses to move into country areas the Government has to ensure that those businesses will be able to compete with some equity against their counterparts operating within the coastal cities. On 30th September last I received an answer from the Postmaster-General (Sir Alan Hulme) to a question in which I asked what steps the Department had taken to review telephone trunk line charges in country areas in order to assist the States to achieve decentralisation of industry. The PostmasterGeneral’s reply was as follows:

Requests have been made on numerous occasions by decentralised industries for a reduction in telephone trunk call charges, but the conclusion has been reached that in a situation of continually rising costs, the Post Office is just not able to effect any reduction in these charges. The loss of revenue which would result from granting reduced trunk rates to decentralised industries cannot be ignored; it could well be of such substantial proportions as to make it necessary to offset it by increasing charges for other services. Such action could scarcely be considered equitable to users of Post Office services as a whole.

In other words, the answer which the Postmaster-General gave was to the effect that the Government was not prepared to do anything to assist industries to move into the bush where they are so badly needed. We have been chided about our amendment. It has been stated that we have moved it for sheer political purposes. Senator Byrne of the Australian Democratic Labor Party has asked: How long would it take to get the States together? As recently as the 6th May the New South Wales Minister for Lands,

Mr Lewis, on behalf of the New South Wales Government, sent’ a telegram to the Federal Minister for Primary Industry seeking changes in the Commonwealth’s rural reconstruction scheme. Mr Lewis, according to the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’, made a speech in the New South Wales Legislative Assembly. As the Government well knows, he is not a member of the Australian Labor Party; he is a Liberal member of the New South Wales Parliament. In the New South Wales Legislative Assembly Mr Lewis said that he was deeply concerned that farmers who would have to walk off their properties would get n0 help and that that the terms and interest rates of the scheme for those . attempting to stay on the land were not flexible enough. He also said that unless the Commonwealth scheme could be improved it might not be acceptable. He said that the city populations had not yet begun to realise the extent of the tragedy developing in the rural sector. He said:

I believe, and the Premier backed my view this morning, that we cannot, allow people to walk off without anything.

But what will this measure do, if it is passed by this legislature? Thousands- of peoplepeople who have lived all their lives on their properties and who have worked their properties with the assistance pf their, wives and children - will be forced to leave their farms and to seek jobs . in cities with already swollen populations. The situation on the north coast of New South .Wales today is an example. I refer to the kind of situation to which Senator Poyser, referred. On the north coast of New South Wales Pitt Street farmers are buying up at inflated prices small dairy farms which are considered to be uneconomic. They buy them as tax dodges. The sellers are moving into the country towns trying to obtain work. But they and their teen-age children cannot find work. So many families are coming to the cities to swell the numbers there. When a person buys the property for taxation purposes at an inflated price, the valuations on adjoining properties rise because the valuations are based on comparable sales that have taken place. This is increasing rates and is having a very serious effect on the spiralling costs of farmers in that area.

Allied with that situation on the north coast of New South Wales is the situation in Bourke and Cobar today where 200 men are unemployed. The great bulk of the 2,000 rural producers in the western division of New South Wales are being forced to walk off their properties. They are wondering what will happen to them next. That illustrates the urgency of the situation. This scheme fails completely, as all the other schemes that have been proposed by the Government have failed. In the last Budget there was a $30m wool aid scheme. Not long ago I made representations to the Minister for Primary Industry about a young wool producer from Delungra. I will not read the details of my letter, but I will read a portion of the Minister’s reply. It states:

In order to ensure that only those wool growers who are largely dependent on wool for their living receive a grant, assistance is confined to persons receiving a substantial proportion of their total income from wool, Eligibility for full assistance is limited to growers whose gross income from wool made up at least 30 per cent of their total gross income from all sources ie the year ended 30th -June 1969, with phasing cut arrangements so that assistance ceases whew gross income from wool is 33 and one third per eni.

The fact that he-

I will not name my constituent - obtained almost 33 and one third per cent of his gross income from wool does not constitute grounds for giving him special consideration. Nor can the further decline in his wool income in 1970-71 be taken into account as the scheme is for 1 year only.

There must be thousands of cases like that. I placed on the notice paper a question as to how many applicants had received assistance from the Government under this scheme. The answer supplied to me was that as at February, from recollection, about 15,000 people had received assistance and that over 10,000 applications had been rejected. This Government is introducing legislation that will assist only a sector of the primary industries of this nation. We believe that the whole scheme has to be reviewed completely to ensure that not only those who are staying in the industry but also those who are being forced out of it, because of economic circumstances or because of the Government’s policy, should receive assistance to enable them to readjust themselves and their families towards assisting in making this nation a better place for all to live in. The amendment moved by Senator Wilkinson certainly has the support of all members of the Labor movement. Surely it also must have the support of the New South Wales Liberal Government. Therefore, because I am a proud member of the Labor movement and because I represent in this Parliament New South

Wales, I support the amendment moved by my colleague.

Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia (12.1

– I commend the Government for the introduction of the 2 Bills. The Loan (Farmers’ Debt Adjustment) Bill 1971 is to amend the Loan (Farmers’ Debt Adjustment) Act 1935-1950 to allow the funds available to the States in accordance with that Act to be used for the same purpose as the funds to be provided by the Commonwealth under the States Grants (Rural Reconstruction) Bill, which is the second Bill being considered at present. The original Loan (Farmers’ Debt Adjustment) Act of 1935 authorised the making of grants to the States for the purpose of discharging, in whole or in part, the debts of farmers by means of compositions or schemes of arrangement between farmers and their creditors. The States were empowered to use the funds to make either grants or loans .to farmers. One of the conditions in the Act was that repayments to the. States were to be used for the same purposes and were to be so arranged as to provide a revolving fund. At June 1970 the States had cash balances totalling $7. 6m in this account. Loans outstanding to the States from the various farmers totalled $4. 6m. Now it is agreed that the States should use the balance available to them to implement the provisions of the States Grants (Rural Reconstruction) Bill. 1 was delighted to hear, in the second reading speech of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson), when he was introducing the Loan (Farmers’ Debt Adjustment) Bill, a reference to the decision of the Government to advance to the Commonwealth Development Bank $10m out of the next Budget to enable the Bank to expand its operations. The money to be advanced will provide further means of facilitating desirable structural adjustment in rural industries. The Board of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation has agreed to widen the lending activities of the Commonwealth Development Bank. At present the Bank does not approve loan applications for property purchases which do not involve substantial developmental features. It has now been decided that the Bank will enter the field assistance to farmers to acquire additional land to build up the size and operational efficiency of their farms. Those eligible for assistance will be working farmers whose properties may be too small to constitute an enterprise viable in the long run or farmers who, by acquiring additional land, will assist the adjustment process through enabling uneconomic farms, as determined by the vendors, to be purchased.

So we have a very constructive backgrounds of assistance which will operate in conjunction with the provisions of the States Grants (Rural Reconstruction) Bill. The purpose of that Bill is to provide our approval for the execution on behalf of the Commonwealth of an agreement between the Commonwealth and the States for a rural reconstruction scheme and to appropriate funds for grants to the States for carrying out the scheme. The amount involved is $100m over a period of 4 years. I appreciate that this provision will not provide a panacea for all the troubles besetting the rural industries, but it is a step in the right direction. I feel that much more finance will be needed than is provided for at this stage. However, as I say, it is a beginning, and a most commendable one. Clause 24 of the Schedule to the States Grants (Rural Reconstruction) Bill provides for a review of the provisions of the loan. This is a very important part of the agreement and I propose to make a special reference to it. The clause states: (1.) The operation of the Scheme in relation to all of the States will be reviewed from time to time as appropriate by the Commonwealth and the States in the light of experience in its administration. (2.) A review under sub-clause (1.) of this clause shall be carried out not later than the time necessary to enable to be brought into operation by the first day of July, 1972 any adjustments or amendments which it may be agreed should be made to the scheme in respect of -

  1. the funds to be provided for the Scheme;

In other words, there is to be a review of the amount of money which has been made available. I trust that on the basis of experience it could well be that additional funds will be provided. The clause continues:

  1. the allocation of funds between the States;

Again this would be a matter of deciding whether, in the light of experience, any variation was required. It continues:

  1. the provisions for losses (other than unforeseen losses) and write-offs available to the States under the Scheme;
  2. the interest rates to be charged to borrowers; and
  3. the proportion of the financial assistance applied to farm build-up.

This is related to financial reconstruction.

With regard to the exchange of information, clause 25 of the Schedule provides:

The Authorities of the States and appropriate Commonwealth officers associated with the Scheme will meet together as appropriate and at least once in each year and exchange information on any matters pertinent- to the Scheme.

In that clause we have provision for a continuing liaison between the Commonwealth and the States to ensure that the scheme will be effective, that it will meet situations as they are found to arise and, overall, will achieve those things that the Bills now before us seek to achieve. I feel that this review clause gives a resilience to the execution of the plan. It is in the light of this preparedness to have continuing further looks that I feel that within these measures we have a practical approach to the problems of the industry.

The problems of rural industries are not economic only; they are social problems and very personal problems. In hard business reviews there can be condemnations or criticisms of certain aspects of investment in rural industry, but it is true to say that nowhere in the world has efficiency in rural production reached the heights that we have achieved here in Australia. It is unthinkable in a world of rapidly increasing population and increasing food requirements that Australia, which is one of the most blessed and efficient granaries and natural food and fibre producers, should not continue to play a major role on the world scene in providing rural products in volume. We are passing through the most difficult era that rural industries, especially the wool industry, have ever experienced, but I feel that all is not lost. It is amazing to note from time to time that we are in a situation in which there appears to be no hope ahead, but then through our ability to carry on and ride the storm we emerge into a better condition. I have no doubt that in respect of the major problems which now confront us these little silver linings will come through the dark clouds. Through a sympathetic acceptance of a difficult situation and a preparedness to act in the way provided for in these 2 Bills, I feel that we can emerge to a condition wherein the 2 sectors of our economy, complementary one to the other, can ensure the general welfare of the people of our country.

I feel that the recognition by the Government and the people of the essentiality of rural industry is imperative. The Government is showing its recognition through this legislation. I feel that the public interest can be served with long term advantage only if the whole of this country’s potential continues to be used. This calls for the retention of our rural industries in a buoyant condition as we come through a very difficult world situation. It is only by the attainment of that which we seek so keenly that we will arrive at a balanced population throughout the community. In other words, we must accentuate that the most undesirable move towards cities would be detrimental over all to the way of life of the community as a whole. Consideration has to be given to the distribution of potential income earning capacity via secondary and primary industries, but consideration must be given also to a well balanced basis for that which we are all seeking, that is, a life of happiness and cooperation as a community in an environment which has consideration for all sections of the community. I feel that here today we are doing something of real importance in endeavouring to maintain a situation wherein we retain a balanced economy.

I was very impressed with the principles and attitudes enunciated by the addendum to the second reading as proposed by Senator Kane. There is much merit in the thinking that has gone into these expressions of opinion as to what should be done. The members of the Democratic Labor Party are to be commended for their references to these problems and for their presentation of what in their opinion would be desirable. I hope that the Government will look very closely at what has been set out by Senator Kane and his colleagues in respect of the problems before us. However, I feel that in certain parts of the amendments there could be improvements. There could be less detail in expressing the principles contained in the amendment. I look forward in the continuation of this debate to a consideration of these amendments and to seeing whether we can, by accepting attitudes and thinking which could well be referred to the Government for its consideration, achieve that which we all seek to achieve: A better condition for the rural industries of Australia. I support both Bills.

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

– I enter this debate at a fairly late hour because, having listened carefully to the observations which have been made by honourable senators, particularly those on the Government side of the chamber, it is my impression that there are a number of facts which ought to be weighed carefully for a total understanding and appreciation of the difficulties of primary industry. Some of these matters have not been touched upon, or if they have been mentioned they have not been given the significance which they should have been given. I was intrigued and impressed, in fact pleased, to hear Senator Laucke allude to the fact that these Bills do not go far enough. That is the very basis of the proposition which the Opposition now puts forward - they do not go far enough.

The problems of the primary industries of Australia have not grown up overnight. The elements within this section of our national endeavour have been pretty evident for many years. Very little action of any positive nature appears to have been taken over the past several years to solve the problems, or even to provide some amelioration of them, for those engaged in rural industries in Australia. It seems, firstly, that the Government proceeded on the presumption that the problems would resolve themselves in time. It adopted this view: ‘Leave it alone and it will work itself out’. It was alleged that one of the philosophies of that well known Australian Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, was: What is, is good. Do not touch it, do not fiddle with it and eventually it will iron itself out’. Perhaps that happened in his day, but I think he left a legacy of problems which are proving rather difficult to iron out now.

Coming back to the problems of rural industries, I think the same basic philosophy and approach are manifest in the Government’s attitude to these things. 1 am not suggesting that the Government has not been deeply concerned about the problems of rural industries in Australia or that it has not been conscious of them. But I am pointing out that the Government has done so darn little about them. It seems to have been groping in the dark during the past few years, hoping that the problems would resolve themselves. These problems are too deep and too fundamental to be allowed to continue in the hope that they will resolve themselves. Too many people get hurt along the way. There has been such an effluxion of time and the rural economy has been poised on a razor’s edge and been so finely balanced over the years, that we cannot permit this sort of thing to go on. We cannot permit the Government to continue with the approach: ‘Well, let it go and it will work Itself out’.

I know that M> years ago the return on capital invested fat primary industries was in the vicinity of 2 per cent. I do not think there is any other section of industry in this nation which could anywhere near approach viability ob the basis of a return - on capital of 2 per sent. I have not gone into the details and checked the statistics but I am almost certain that it could be demonstrated that the return on capital invested . in rural industries has suffered a very serious decline in the intervening years and is below that figure. At this point of time in 1971 our rural industries have been bedevilled by economic problems for a great many years, or at least particular sections of them have been showing signs and indications that ail is not well, and something positive ought to be done about it. Now an agreement has been negotiated between the Commonwealth, which has the overriding responsibility in this direction, and the States. Under the terms of this agreement the Commonwealth will make available $10Om. An area of latitude in the operations is left to the States. The allocation of this money is intended to cure a substantial part of the problems. But now we have heard an acknowledgment from the Government side of the chamber - I suppose it could be regarded as an admission; I accept it as such - that the provision in these Bills is not sufficient.

Where do we go from this point? Do not think for a moment that the Australian Labor Party is against propositions to assist the rural industries of this nation. Heaven knows, the Labor Party has promoted orderly marketing and has tried to inject into or build into our primary industries some balance and some system whereby the sort of problems we are meeting at present at least can be minimised if not overcome. But these Bills do not do that. Surely nobody can rise in this place and suggest that what we are now doing will be the solution to the problems facing a substantial section of our primary industries. It will not do that. Anybody who persists in expressing that view is deluding himself and is trying to fool the nation. The situation has reached such a serious stage at the present time that we can no longer tolerate this kind of thing.

Honourable senators on both sides of the chamber have made observations about this particular part of the Australian economy - this essential and terribly important part of our economy; this section of our economy upon which, it may well be argued, this nation has grown. It was our primary industries that raised the overseas capital which enabled Australia to expand in the field of secondary industry, and allowed us to develop other sections of the national economy and proceed to this stage of our growth and development.

I am not talking off the top of my head; I am talking now from the experience of a person who worked in primary industry. Perhaps I am the only person in this chamber who was what is called a small farmer. 1 took on a small property in the post-war years. I developed it and expanded it. I doubled its carrying capacity and improved its economics in a number of directions. But then the insidious onward march of increased costs, increased interest rates, increased transportation charges and increased problems of living in a rural community caught up with me, swallowed me up, steamrolled me, overcame me despite the fact that I was working from the very early hours of the morning until late at night, as one must do when operating a small family farm. I had hoped to establish my family there.

Senator Webster:

– During what years did this happen?

Senator DEVITT:

– I went onto the farm in 195 J and stuck it out for 6 years. I per.servered and improved the property, but you get sick of copping the thick end of it all the time, knowing that you are producing goods, putting them onto the market and getting one-third of the price for which ultimately they are sold on that market. Let me give one example of that. As a corollary of dairying one normally engages in pig raising and producing bacon. In those days we were getting about 2s 6d, 2s 9d or 2s lOd a lb for bacon although it was being vended over shop counters in Australia for some 7s 6d to 8s a lb. People used to say to us: ‘My word, you farmers must be doing pretty well. Fancy getting 7s 6d a lb for bacon’. It was the devil’s own job to persuade them that the farmers were hot getting that much at all. The point I am making is that you can work your fingers to the bone on a farm. Proper regard must be given for the special position of farmers in the Australian community. Special recognition - must be shown of the problems and difficulties they face, the costs they incur : and the hard work they put into their properties. These things must be acknowledged. The insidious onward movement of the forces which tend to make his life more difficult proceed apace.

We must look at these things in a particular context. We must consider whether a farmer owns his property, be it large or i small. He may very well have a fully eco nomic and viable proposition or he may be one of those who, in the post war years, was forced to pay an exorbitant price for his- land and now faces crippling interest rates and other charges. These are 2 entirely different propositions. We hear talk about getting rid of the small farmers because they are no longer a viable or eco- >nomic proposition. I do not accept such talk at face value. I think there are standards and measurements of judgment to be applied in relation to the viability of these people which may very well change the Whole picture, and the whole outlook and approach to this matter. I deplore any move by anybody which will spell the end of the small farmer in this country. I am quite positive and definite about that statement. I think he has been in the past the very basis upon which our society has grown, and it has not been a bad society, either. It is with some nostalgia and emotion that I deplore and lament anything that will mean the demise of the small farmer in the Australian scene.

But what are the alternatives? One is the forcing of the small farmer away from his farm into the nearest town. In doing so we are adding to many of the problems of our urban communities. Honourable senators would know a lot about this matter. These problems are growing and not diminishing. They are getting more difficult all the time, as is evidenced by the pleas of the municipal authorities throughout the land for the Commonwealth to do something about helping them to meet their very heavy obligations on limited incomes. That is one of the corollaries. There are many others. The mere movement of masses of people from the rural community into towns does not seem to me really’ to solve the problem, lt does not get to the heart of the problem at all. I think, that the problem is deeper, wider and much more fundamental. I believe that Australia has failed, and failed dismally; .in promoting the sales of its commodities in other parts of the world. I think that a laissez-faire attitude has been adopted towards this matter. As I said at the outset of my remarks, we seem to have adopted the attitude that the problems will resolve themselves. I know it is the philosophy of some people that we should not fiddle with them because ultimately they will cure, themselves. Perhaps it could be acknowledged that this is so in a good many areas of human endeavour. But to say in a word that we will resolve the problems of primary industries or at least make a substantial contribution to the resolution of the problems of primary industries by wiping out the small farmer is not coming to grips with the real problem.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Does it not appear to be the policy of the Government?

Senator DEVITT:

– It appears to be. I cannot read anything else into the actions of the Government in facilitating the movement of farmers from small properties to other areas of endeavour.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Get big or get out.

Senator DEVITT:

– That is right. As Senator Douglas McClelland has pointed out, the expression ‘Get big or get out’ has been regarded in a very derisive or derogatory way for a long while, but it is in fact what is happening. It is something, as I say, that I deplore. If the intention of this legislation or of a similar measure is to facilitate that sort of thing in our society, I will object to it and 1 will fight against it at every conceivable opportunity.

Financial problems are fundamental to primary producers. I shall give honourable senators an instance of the sort of thing that has happened over the years. I want the Senate clearly to understand that I am not condemning the people who facilitate the provision of finance to assist primary producers, but 1 believe that the Government’s approach, outlook and philosophy in this regard are quite wrong. I am in pretty close contact all the time with people on the land. In fact, I am in very close contact with them. I have an abiding interest in the land. I am constantly confronted by people who say to me: ‘Senator, can you help me in the area of finance? I have bought a property and have cleared substantial portions of it. I have erected buildings on it and purchased plant and equipment for it. I have got to the stage where I want to make this property an economic concern. I want to make it reach its full economic potential so that it will return to me some of what I have put into it. I can get financial accommodation here and there from legitimate banking institutions for various things, but when it comes to stocking my property to its capacity I run up against difficulties. The banking institutions seem, to be most reluctant to lend money to enable me to purchase stock for my property’. One can appreciate the problems involved in providing collateral security. There is no doubt - I suppose it is because of the actions of some farmers - that the judgment is made on the basis of the dishonest entrepreneur. I know that dishonest operators have obtained finance for the stocking of their properties and gone off and sold some of their stock somewhere else. The people who have advanced the finance to enable them to put these animals on to their properties would be out of pocket over this deal; in fact, they could be very seriously disadvantaged over it. But I suggest that it ought to be a proper function of the banking institutions of this country to make an assessment of the character and capability of a person before advancing finance and then to be backed by some sort of guarantee from the Government I know that the banking institutions go into all sorts of details about establishing a person’s bona fides and his ability to operate his property. If some sort of evaluation has been made by the banking institution of the character and capability of the person the banking institution should be backed in some way by the Government if it advances finance. There should be some sort of governmental backing - underwriting, if you like - of the legitimate banking institutions which are prepared to advance finance on the basis of their assessment of the potential of a property, its carrying capacity and the like. I have struck a lot of problems in this regard. I suppose most honourable senators who have connections in the rural community will have come across similar problems.

What happens is the farmers have to go to the machinery agencies, the stock and station agents or the auctioneer firms for financial assistance. These organisations have been very good in the past. I am not criticising them. I wonder what would, have happened to the rural community had they not in fact come into this quasi financing area. But it is only natural that these organisations would want to look after their own interests. What happens is they go to the banking institutions and obtain money from them on their own name and the backing of their organisation. This money is obtained at the going rate of interest. They then lend it out to the farmers for the purchase of their stock. The organisations make an assessment of a farmer’s capability; you can be sure of that. They lend this money to him at an interest rate of a couple of per cent more than the rate at which they get it from the bank and they impose restrictions, limitations, prohibitions and this sort of thing which require him in turn when he develops his stock of pigs or beef, if you like, as a corollary to the dairying industry to sell his stock back through them. In other words, the farmer gets money from them at 8i per cent interest - if the Government were serious about solving the problems of the rural industries of this country it could give it to him at an interest rate of 3 per cent less - to put stock on the property that he has developed with his own labours, energies and initiatives and then he is required to sell his stock back through that organisation at 5 per cent interest. I suppose this is fair enough from the firm’s point of view but the fanner pays such a crippling rate of interst that he has no hope on earth of making a profit out of his property. We should be looking at these problems. We should not simply be saying: There is a problem, but we cannot do much about it. We will buy him out and join his property onto the next block’.

I know of instances in my own State of Tasmania where a whole community which has had its own entity and viability, with shops and schools and the like, has practically gone out of existence because a big entrepreneur has come along and bought up farm after farm. I know of people who have 3 dairy farms. There is a gradual taking over of properties and a movement away from those properties of the pioneers who went on to them and cut down the bush, tilled the land, planted and grew crops on it and took it to the point of production before having to move off it because they have been caught up in the passage of time and the economic movements in our society which have shattered any chance they may ever have had of staying on and keeping their family together as a community. This is rather sad. It is something that I deplore greatly.

The man in the country has very great difficulties to face. For instance, to take one aspect of family life today, the man in the country who wants to give his children a reasonable education comparable with that which is available to people in the urban areas has a problem. I do not know whether honourable senators know what he has to go through to do that. In the first place, he has to suffer his family leaving him, and he has to pay board for his children somewhere in the town, he has to pay for them to travel day after day - this surely must affect the capacity of the children to learn - or he has to make some other arrangements for his children to go away from the property. I suppose that in many cases they go away from the property; which is a natural enough thing to do. He is beset with these problems which receive inadequate consideration in the total outlook on the economic affairs of the rural community.

The man on the land receives taxation deductions and benefits of that kind, but they do not compensate. He has the problem of getting medical attention if anybody becomes sick. He has the problem of transportation to sustain the economic life of his farm. He has all these problems that flow from being in the country. I think that when we make a cold and abstract financial approach to the affairs of the land we overlook the fact that many people in the Australian community still love farming. It is their very life and existence. The psychologists say that the man who gets his hands into the soil is doing himself good; that it is good, for the soul and good for the person. I feel that this Bill is just a cheese-paring measure.

Before I finish my comments, I wish to turn briefly to another thing that strikes me as being fearfully odd in the Government’s approach, and that is something that was touched upon by Senator Lillico last night; Despite the endeavours - the writhings, if you like- of people in primary industry to maintain an economic viability, we find the Government, by its actions, making these problems greater, or adding to the difficulties’ of the people in primary industry. I refer particularly to the New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement, because it is worth referring to as a very obvious instance of the fact that the Government talks in a certain way but does not back up what it says with action which will give some credibility to what it says. This Agreement was born in great tribulation because a substantial section of people in primary industry and those who had some feeling for them constantly drew attention to the problems which could flow from the freer entry of primary industry commodities into this country when the primary producers themselves were doing their utmost to sustain themselves or keep themselves going.

I do not want to go over again those things which I have mentioned ad nauseam here, such as the problem of a dairyman who tried to grow potatoes and found that the market failed because the shipping service was bad, or the farmers on whom all. the pies and rings were imposing such a burden that they had to grow another crop- green peas. This was a. very good cash crop and helped out tremendously. Had we been able to assist this industry and keep it going, things would have been all right. But right at this point of time problems are arising again in the pea industry. The manufacturers are saying to the producers: ‘If you can accept a lower price than we are giving you at the present time, we believe we can keep the industry going’. There has been a downward movement in the return to producers. They have striven their hardest to increase their output per acre. They have applied the latest scientific and technological means to increase their productivity so they can make their operations economic. All along the line, instead of there being a recognition that costs are rising and difficulties are mounting, the manufacturers, who have the whip, hand is this industry - there is no doubt about that - have been saying to the producers: ‘You must . accept a lower price’. So the producers are not getting the fruits of their, labour, they are not getting the benefits of their, increased output which they ought to be getting, as most other people are. If one puts more in, one normally expects to get a fettle more out.

I feel very strongly for these people in primary industry. But I come back to the point 1 was making. The former Deputy Prime Minister, who was Minister for Trade and Industry when the New ZealandAustralia Free Trade Agreement was being negotiated, gave all the undertakings in the world that he would make absolutely certain that if there was any threatened damage or any possibility of damage or harm to the pea growing industry of this country the provisions of that Agreement would be invoked to protect the Australian grower. Thai was just an empty-sounding phrase because, no matter how many times we have tried - I have tried desperately in this chamber - to get the Government to change the Agreement and to put some sort of a stopper’ on the increasingly freer flow of primary industry commodities into this country, our efforts have been in vain. Despite those pleas, the undertakings which were given at the time have been repudiated and not one step has been taken by this Government.

Senator Lillico has repeatedly alluded to this matter in this chamber, so have I and so have honourable members of another place; but the Government has set its face firmly against any intervention that might give some chance to people growing canning peas to achieve viability and to meet the problems, difficulties and vicissitudes of increased interest rates, increased charges, increased costs and increased burdens all along the line. So the Government comes along with this proposition to provide $100m to reconstruct rural industry. Do not let us kid ourselves. It is a sop. It is a stop-gap measure. It will not meet the situation. In a few years time another situation will break out somewhere else. We have seen in industry in this country the growth of the monopoly interests, the amalgamations and the great combines coming together. We have seen the Harley Street specialists in primary industry. I was shocked and horrified to learn about 12 months ago that the largest farmer in Australia lives in Los Angeles. He controls a property of 11 million acres, I believe - two-thirds the size of my home State of Tasmania.

What we are doing by this measure is facilitating just this kind of thing. We will see the end of the small farmer and the end of village life, with all the joys, delights and happiness - I know them because I have lived there - that can exist in rural communities. But above all I think we are chipping off, chopping away and hacking at the flesh of our primary industries. It is just fatuous for people on the other side of this chamber to say what they have said. I have noticed a lack of real conviction in what they have said in this chamber so far. I sincerely hope that those who follow me in this debate will speak with a little more conviction and with a little more appreciation and understanding of the tremendous problems that are besetting the primary industries of this country. One of the reasons why I found myself drawn so strongly to the Australian Labor Party in its approach to these questions of primary industry was that this Party believes in orderly marketing. It is terribly important that in any field of human endeavour there be some sort of discipline, and orderly marketing is the sort of discipline which gives an opportunity to people in the various sections of industry to make a go of it.

I think I have said what I wanted to say. I sincerely hope that we do not regard this measure as the be all and end all. It represents a rather stupid, idiotic, cheeseparing, inefficient and insufficient approach to the problems of primary industry because this is not the way we should go on - every now and again injecting into industry a few million dollars of funds that belong to the people of this country, without really getting to the root cause of the problem, without attempting to assess what we are up against and without really going out after markets. Mr Acting Deputy President, you will be very well aware that not so long ago I asked why . we cannot assess trends in primary industry 5 months ahead. The former Minister for Primary Industry was saying to the producers last year: ‘Cut down on production. We will not help you any more if you continue to add to production’. At that time Tasmania was setting a record because it was promoting through the State Department of Agriculture extension services, more development, more production per acre and that sort of thing, completely contrary to the stories being told by the Minister for Primary Industry. I said to some of my friends: For God’s sake cut back because you will get caught shortly’. They said: ‘We do not think we will’. I said ‘You will. The Minister for Primary Industry has said that you have had it. Cut back’. Within a period of 5 months we were running around looking for cheese. Here we are at this time unable to meet the requirements of the rest of the world for our butter. What sort of system is it when we have all the latest computers, technological details, scientific advancements - the lot - and we still cannot assess what is going to happen in one of the most essential areas of human endeavour in this country. It is of no use for anybody on the other side of this chamber to get up and say that the Labor Party has no concern for Australia’s primary industries. What rot. What nonsense. We on this side are deeply concerned and we have proved this by our past performances and we will again prove it in the future. Let nobody think that they will get away with trying to persuade or cheat the people of Australia into believing that they have solved the problems of rural industries by chucking out $100m.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

– The States Grants (Rural Reconstruction) Bill is, in the Commonwealth Government’s view, a substantial measure aimed at relieving the physical and economic difficulties in which many primary producers find themselves at the present time. I believe the intention of this measure is very worthy and that it can be said to be one of very many measures which the Federal ‘Government has adopted in conjunction with State governments to bring about agreements for the relief of this sector of the community. I believe this measure substantially has the support of the State governments. Publicity has been given to the fact that each State government accepts the scheme, and also the producer organisations have declared their support for it. Credit is due to the Federal Government and the State governments for their ready recognition of the problems facing our primary producers. It is obvious that in many instances our primary producers are just , not capable of getting themselves out. of financial trouble by their own resources and endeavours. Many of the troubles which progressively dog primary producers and which bring disaster are due to… circumstances beyond their control.

We have heard members of the Opposition criticising the Government for its attitude towards the primary industries. Senator Devitt, who spoke so soundly in regard to rural problems which- he has faced in his State of Tasmania, pinpointed very well the problems which beset Governments and the producers. He said that when one is dependent on overseas markets one, is unable to determine what will be the state of the market in the near future. Senator Devitt pointed out very correctly that 12 months ago in the dairying industry most producers and primary production authorities were very cautious about what could be produced and sold in the future. At that time the Federal Government, with all the information available to it, was faced with the prospect of -the entry of Britain into the European Economic Community. This situation obviously looms much larger today than it did 12 months ago. The authorities were saying to the producers: Be very cautious’. What a tremendous change has occurred due to world demand. We will ever face this situation, in spite of the Socialistic views of the Opposition which would like to control primary producers to what they produce, the volume of production and where they produce. That is untenable to primary producers of Australia.

If a poet can write that Australia is a brown and sunburnt country and can go on to say that following flood, fire and famine it will pay us back threefold, then indeed the early 70s are the years in which primary producers will be waiting to be paid back threefold for the problems which they face today. Those producers who for three-quarters of a century have been the mainstay of Australia’s export income and upon whose effort this country’s economy has been built face at this time the lowest prices for their products ever known in that period. If we look at the most important industry in Australia, the sheep raising industry, we certainly see that the price for the fibre which is produced and also the price for mutton and Iamb are absolutely disastrous.

The problems of the producers have been well aired in this Senate and indeed throughout this country. But perhaps for the first time - certainly for the first time to my knowledge - every sector of the Australian community acknowledges the difficulties which face the man on the land. Most of us support this very substantial measure of assistance which has been worked out with the wisdom of the Federal and State governments. I said that every sector of the Australian community acknowledges the difficulties of the producer, but we find the Australian Labor Party has now moved an amendment the initial words of which state that ‘the Bill should be withdrawn’. I acknowledge to Senator Willesee that the amendment goes on to say that it is in order that something may be done. It is amazing that whilst we are able to say that the Commonwealth and every State government have agreed to the basis of this scheme not one member of the Opposition has said what the Labor Premier in South Australia has said. Has he asked for the withdrawal of the scheme? Not a sound is heard on this from the Opposition. It is just plain humbug and rubbish when supporters of the Opposition put forward this proposition that this measure should be withdrawn. The Opposition wishes the $100m to be withdrawn from the primary producers of Australia. Where would the Opposition put that amount of money?

Senator Cavanagh:

– The amendment does not suggest that.

Senator WEBSTER:

- Senator Cavanagh is one who wishes to see the introduction of a 35-hour working week. What would be the effect of a 35-hour working week on the primary producers? Within a few weeks the Opposition will be making demands on Mr Hawke for the introduction of a 4-day working week in Australia. What are the thoughts of the Opposition for the situation which faces the primary producers of Australia.

Senator Cavanagh:

– We want to assist them.’

Senator WEBSTER:

– What a weak answer that is. It is a pity that we hear this sort of humbug pronounced in this House. Senator Devitt said that we should have a unified and concerted team in Australia. They are the words which Senator Devitt used. The Opposition should reflect this within its own ranks first to demonstrate to the people of Australia how it can be achieved. It is a very simple matter to say that this scheme which was evolved . by State and Federal governments does not encompass all that private individuals may desire. I am not one who is attracted to that proposition. I .see great areas of benefit that should be’ encompassed in this scheme. There are good .arguments as to why the interest rates should be lowered and why so much .more, money, should be available in a scheme such as this. But $100m is not a small amount. It can be fairly said that this scheme is not without terms which will not allow a State financing authority to interpret some of the provisions quite loosely. It is a scheme which can be reviewed from time to time and amended. It is one which envisages subsidiary schemes as indicated by the initial comments of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) in his second reading speech. This point is one in which I believe the ambit of the Government’s encouragement for primary industry perhaps should have been encompassed in the scheme we have before us. I draw attention to the fact that the Minister said:

It is recognised that in respect of farm build-up the particular circumstances of some industries such as the horticultural industries may need additional consideration of their special problems. These will be looked at separately.

The Minister has declared that this measure must be widened even if it is necessary to bring in some other measures. I hope that the Federal Government is indeed quick in reviewing the scheme and seeing that it is able to work and encompass most primary producers who are obviously in trouble at this time. I also hope that the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry (Senator Drake-Brockman) will take back my comment that I am not greatly encouraged by the way in which the Government has acted since I instanced here so many weeks ago the problem of the pear producers in the Goulburn Valley. At the request of the Government the Premier of my State wrote to the Government and said: ‘We are anxious that you assist.’ But what do we find is the situation as at this date? 1 would suggest to the Government that prompt action will need to be taken in concert with the State governments to amend some of the propositions we see put forward in this scheme. But to go to the extent that the Opposition has done and request the withdrawal of the measure is plain stupidity. Not all primary industries and not all primary producers are in financial trouble but most certainly there are those who have in recent years been faced with disaster as a result of unreasonable returns for their stock and produce. Where industries have not been stabilised there is the experience of uncontrolled markets and hence uncontrolled returns to the producer. I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1935

PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– by leave - I move:

Section 12 (5.) of the Public Works Committee Act provides that the Committee shall not meet or transact business on a sitting day of either House of Parliament during the time of the sitting except by leave of that House. The Public Works Committee wishes to sit and has arranged to sit in Sydney on Tuesday, 18th May, to consider a matter of great importance to the Navy.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia (12.59

– We started off in a small way by granting leave for the Estimates Committees to meet during the sittings of the Senate and it seems that this is now becoming the practice. This practice was frowned on by those who framed the Standing Orders-

Senator Wright:

– There is no intention that senators on the Committee be there.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– If that is the case I will not oppose the motion, but at some time we must stop this practice which is in fact a breach of the Standing Orders.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

page 1935

PRIVILEGE

The Clerk:

– Honourable senators, yesterday the Senate agreed to the following resolution:

  1. That the Senate adopts the Report of the Committee of Privileges, presented to the Senate this day, upon articles in the ‘Sunday Review’ and the ‘Sunday Australian’ of 2nd May 1971.
  2. That Mr J. R. Walsh, Editor of the ‘Sunday Review’, and Mr H. R.’ Rothwell, Editor of the Sunday Australian’, do attend the Senate, on their own behalf and on behalf of their publishers, at a quarter-past two p.m. on Friday, 14th May 1971.

The Usher of the Black Rod - Mr Deputy President, Mr Walsh and Mr Rothwell are in attendance.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull)- Ask Mr Walsh and Mr Rothwell to attend the Senate. (Mr Walsh and Mr Rothwell being in attendance)

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Mr Walsh and Mr Rothwell, the decision of the Senate is that you, on your own behalf and on behalf of your publishers, be severely reprimanded for the publication of contents of a draft report of the Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse in Australia, prior to its presentation to the Senate. I therefore, on behalf of the Senate, severely reprimand you as guilty of a breach of privilege. Gentlemen, you may now withdraw.

page 1935

STATES GRANTS(RURAL RECONSTRUCTION) BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Senator WEBSTER:

– Prior to the suspension of the sitting I was dealing with aspects of primary industry and I had noted that not all primary industries nor all primary producers were in financial trouble at this time. I had mentioned that the level of market prices for wool is virtually beyond the control of producers and certainly beyond the control of the Government. It seems that many people now engaged in wool and sheep production must leave the land. This is an - untenable situation for Australia. It is unacceptable to me. The objective of the legislation that we are discussing should be to retain people who are resident in rural areas in such areas. They must stay beyond the bounds of the metropolitan areas. Rural finance authorities should be at least encouraged by the provisions of this legislation to. give consideration to this aspect, although it is not specifically provided for in the Bill.

Frequently in this House we have heard mention -of viability. In actual fact how does one define ‘viability’? Strictly interpreted viability means capable of liv- ing or,, as the ‘Oxford English Dictionary’ puts it, ‘able to maintain a separate existence’. I question whether viability, as it has been referred to by all honourable senators, would be capable of an interpretation which would encompass our wish to see farmers retained on the land. Let me instance the real problems of the rural industry as they were expressed by the Minister for Air (Senator Drake-Brockman) in his second reading speech. I question whether the facts which were given have really come home to members of the Parliament or people m the community generally. I draw attention to some remarks in the Minister’s second reading speech. The Minister said:

A Bureau of Agricultural Economics survey in 1966-67 - a reasonably good year for the wool industry - indicated that some 20 per cent of wool growers in Australia had net farm incomes of less than $2,000 per annum to cover servicing of their debts and living expenses.

I have attempted to explain that viability has to be the criterion which is observed by the administering authorities. I refer again to the interpretation of viability: Viability means ‘capability to live’. Does any honourable senator believe that we are able to lend more money to a man who has $2,000 per annum to cover servicing of debts and living expenses, charge him an interest rate and expect him to continue to operate viably? I think these are particularly important points. The Minister said that 20 per cent of the wool growers earned less than $2,000 per annum to cover servicing of their debts and living expenses. The Minister continued:

Today that percentage has doubled.

That means that 40 per cent of Australian wool growers have incomes of less than $2,000 to cover servicing of debts and living expenses. The Minister went on to state:

It is - also of major social importance to the Australian community. There ‘ are some 89,000 wool growers running .flocks of 200 sheep oi more.

Nobody in this chamber, in fact nobody in the community, would say that a man earning less than $2,000 to. cover servicing of his debts and living expenses is in a viable situation. From. the. facts given in. the second reading speech one can conclude that 35,600 wool growers must leave the land if there is no possibility of being assisted by this scheme. Surely the points which have been made in the debate by honourable senators from both sides of the chamber indicate that the general criterion must be reviewed which is involved in the agreement and which : admittedly has been subscribed to by representatives of all States and the Federal Government-

Senator Poyser:

– Under duress in some cases.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I did not hear the South Australian Labor Premier say he agreed under duress. When you spoke on this Bill you said that members of the Australian Labor Party felt that the amount of $100m should be withdrawn from the primary producers. You did not reiterate what the Labor Premier of your State said before he signed this document. You know, as do we, that the granting of assistance is a step in the right direction. We on this side of the House are willing to look at the facts.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) - Order! Senator Webster, you will direct your remarks to the Chair.

Senator WEBSTER:

– We have to put up with the type of comment which is made by members of a Party who say: ‘Withdraw $100m of assistance to this industry.’

Senator Devitt:

– I rise to a point of order. I put it to the chamber that at no stage did my Party suggest that the amount of §1 00m be withdrawn. We said that the Bill should be withdrawn and rewritten. There was no thought at all that any benefit to be conferred upon a primary industry should not be so conferred.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! That is a matter for a personal explanation which the honourable senator may make after the conclusion of Senator Webster’s speech.

Senator WEBSTER:

– The misunderstanding of the position is well noted. Honourable senators opposite have no understanding that if this Bill is withdrawn the very basis upon which the States and the Commonwealth have agreed to assist primary industries falls down. But I take Senator Devitt’s point very well. He has little recognition of- the problems involved. The honourable senator does suggest, in the words of his amendment, that this Bill should be withdrawn.

Senator Devitt:

– No doubt that is why primary industry is is such an unhealthy state.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! Senator Devitt will cease interjecting.

Senator Gair:

– Put him out.

Senator Devitt:

– Oh, pull your head in.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I am most anxious, within my own abilities, to try to pinpoint where I see there should be alterations to this scheme.

Senator Devitt:

– Well, vote against it.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! Senator Devitt and Senator Gair will cease interjecting.

Senator Devitt:

Mr Deputy President, will you ask him to pull his head in?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! The honourable senator will cease interjecting.

Senator WEBSTER:

- Mr Deputy President, I hope that you will not side with the Opposition on that.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! Senator Gair and Senator Devitt will cease interjecting.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I have used the word ‘viability’. I emphasised where the general proposition is mentioned in the Bill. As members of the Opposition have said, the various States have argued as to whether they are completely free to administer this scheme. Viability is particularly important. Sub-clause (b) of Part I of the Schedule to the States Grants (Rural Reconstruction) Bill reads as follows:

The general principle to be applied is to distribute the available resources as widely as practicable, but the over-riding objective is to help restore to economic viability those farms and farmers with the capacity to - maintain viability once achieved.

Part II of the Schedule states that the purpose of debt reconstruction is to assist a farmer who, although having sound prospects of long term commercial viability, has used all his cash and credit resources and cannot meet his financial commitments. The test of eligibility, as set out in clause (2.) (b) of Part II of the Schedule, is as follows:

  1. there is a reasonable prospect of successful operation with the assistance possible under - the scheme, the prime requirement being ability to service commitments, and to reach the stage of commercial viability within a reasonable time.

The Victorian Government has pointed out to the Federal Government that the terms of this scheme indicate that consideration must be given to the conditions which applied at the date of the signing of this agreement. Taking that point into account and attempting to understand that we are talking about viability, what has been agreed is that consideration will be given to evaluating the commercial viability of a farmer under conditions which existed when wool was 35c or 38c a lb.

It is impossible for State authorities to work within the ambit of that clause and come up wilh the type of decision that we wish to have in relation to farmers generally. Let me quote the experience of the rural finance authority in my own State of Victoria. I know that in some of the western areas of Queensland, in New South Wales and Western Australia the problems are perhaps even greater than those in Victoria.

Senator Lillico:

– What about Tasmania?

Senator WEBSTER:

– That may be so in relation to Tasmania. I say to the credit of the authority in my State that I know of no authority in any other State which has been able to state the experience that it has gained with applications that have come in for this assistance. In about the second last week in April 873 applications had been received in Victoria and 237 had been processed. I invite the attention of the Minister to the point I am making as to the area in which commercial viability can be assessed, as this is a criterion of the authority. I also invite the Member’s attention to the likely result from that situation, bearing in mind that the arrangement proposed suggests that 35,000 wool growers are to leave the land. I disagree with that proposition.

In the category of grazing there are 153 applications; the likely number of approvals on the criteria under this Bill is 14. In the category of wheat and sheep there are 50 applications; the likely approvals are 9. In dairying there are 13 applications; the likely approvals are 3. In the category of orchards there are 3 applications but only 1 likely approval. In the category of mixed fruit there is 1 application but no likely approval. In mixed dairying there are 9 applications and 1 likely approval. There are 237 applications for farm build-up but the number of applications processed is 8. The general thought that is put forward - I draw it to the attention of honourable senators but not as a demand in regard to what the States must do - is that 50 per cent of the $100m that is to be allocated under the scheme should go to farm buildup. I do not know what the situation is in the other States - it may be vastly different - but Victoria’s experience is that of 237 applications submitted only 8 were for farm build-up.

Let us realise that very few people, no matter what their circumstances, are interested in investing additional capital in their properties at present, particularly if it means borrowing money at 6 per cent or 6i per cent. The interest rate puts beyond the capabilities of farmers the achievement of a viable rural industry. The situation in Victoria up to this week has not changed that situation. To date 349 applications have been processed. Of that number 207 relate to grazing, only 21 of which have prospect of approval. Eighty applications relate to wheat and 11 have prospect of approval. Of 27 applications relating to dairying 3 have prospect of approval.

There are 5 applications relating to orchards and one has prospect of approval. There are 2 applications relating to dried fruits but neither has prospect of approval. There are 16 applications involving mixed farming and 1 application is likely of approval. Of the 349 applications only 12 are for farm build-up. It is. of interest to note that all 12 applicants are very doubtful about receiving assistance because of the very heavy borrowing load they are carrying at the present time. Those individ,uals, I am lead to believe, are seeking . nearly 100 per cent assistance for farm build-up. We must bear in mind that the term ‘viability’ as it relates to them suggests that they must have something to put into the pool when they build up their properties.

In relation to the question of how a farmer in the wool industry will ever get out of his problems, let me quote some figures. In 1966-67, after allowing for nor. mal costs and station-hand award rates plus a small margin to the operator, and depending on size and efficiency of the farm, there was between $1.50 and $2 per dry sheep per year available to service debts. Using present prices and costs, the latter associated with , indices of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, and possibly , being optimistic by allowing for a 20 per cent increase in wool cut per sheep and a 20 per cent increase in cattle numbers carried, the current return per dry sheep equivalent to service debts today would be between 20c and 45c.

Senator Prowse:

– What. wool prices were, they operating on?

Senator WEBSTER:

– I am a little inclined to go along with your thought that the price of wool is slightly lower now than it was when these figures were cai- ‘culated. The fact is, however, that if we are looking to viability only, we will not be assisting too many farmers when we realise that if we calculate on taking 10 lb of wool off a sheep, multiply that by the value of wool today and substract the costs associated with marketing it and a further debt servicing charge which is demanded under the scheme-

Senator Wilkinson:

– Then redraft the Bill.

Senator WEBSTER:

– But we should not throw it out. There needs to be an arrangement with the States whereby the Commonwealth and the States have an immediate investigation and discussion on this matter. I do not doubt that the Minister will be giving us some encouragement along those lines. But let me continue on the point that if in 1971 a person accepts an interest load at the rate of approximately 8 per cent there is no provision to reduce any capital debt where there is an obligation of more than $6.25 per sheep on a property. This was the situation in Victoria when the cases of 237 applicants were reviewed. These 237 applicants applied for $7.5m, and the likely and possible approvals amounted to $750,000. I hope that the Minister for Air will convey these figures to the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) whom he represents in this chamber. Of the applications analysed, 10 per cent of the applicants owe less than $8 per dry sheep or equivalent, 17 per cent owe between $9 and $14 per dry sheep or equivalent, and 73 per cent owe more than $15 per dry sheep or equivalent. If these figures are to be the basis of the number of people we are likely to assist, the general objectives that I feel would represent the wishes not only of individual Ministers but also of the Government, mean that there has to be some alteration to that general criterion which states that viability must be one of the important issues.

This Bill formalises an agreement between the States and the Commonwealth. I appeal to the Minister to put into operation immediately the provision that will allow the various States to air their views as to the operation of the agreement. There are a number of things to be altered in this agreement, particularly the provision which gives no legal right to the States to be protected against bad debt losses which may arise. We find within this provision that the Commonwealth agrees to review the position. Paragraph 20 of Part II of the Schedule states inter alia:

  1. . the Commonwealth agrees to review the position with the State with a view to adjusting amounts payable to the Commonwealth by the State under this agreement to the extent of such losses.

The legal authorities in Victoria indicate that no protection is given to the States; but the Commonwealth will agree to review the position. I realise that it is easy to say, for instance, that interest rates should be lower, but I believe I have put up a case to show that interest rates are an impossibility for most of those people who believe they will be helped by this scheme, because they cannot countenance extra borrowing at the present time.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– You said that they believe they will be helped.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I said that they believe they will be helped. I imagine that anybody who applied under this scheme in Victoria considered that he might be helped. Not everybody should be helped. I do not doubt that, in view of the number of applications I have mentioned, the likelihood of being helped under the criterion here is pretty light, I believe that the interest rates are far too high. The volume of cash to be made available must be subject to review. I congratulate the Government. An amount of $100m is no light figure; but 5 times that amount is needed. Indeed, one of the grazing associations made this comment yesterday. There is a need to tell the States that in the early part of this scheme the 50 per cent allocation required for farm build-up is to be based more on the likely demand and on the experience which the States have at the present time. Review is urgently needed of the terms under paragraph 20, which indicates that viability is to be assessed on incomes as at the date of this agreement. Let us not get away from that. The Minister must have some comment to make on this.

This agreement was drawn up and arrived at when the price of wool was 35c or 38c per lb. What are the States to do? Are they to evaluate an individual on the basis of his income of 35c or 38c per lb, or the price of wool today? I believe that the State authorities should indicate their significant concern to the Commonwealth on this matter. Changes must come about so that the small property holder can be given an opportunity to remain on his farm. Apart from the basis that viability has to be maintained, help should be given to many farmers on small properties who choose the harder living conditions of country life, so that they can remain on the land, away from the luxuries of the cities where people run a greater risk of lung cancer and other ills.

One point requires attention immediately. If certain individuals have run out of finance and see little prospect of making a profit, or even of servicing their debts out of the income that their sheep are likely to provide for them in the immediate future, consideration should be given to making social service payments available to them when they are in fact out of work. There is no reason why, after an evaluation of their financial situation, it would not be possibleto make a living payment to them as is done with other individuals in the community when they are out of work. I think that is quite a worthwhile suggestion.

I ask the Commonwealth to tackle immediately the problems involved in this scheme. There is provision for alteration. I direct the Minister’s attention to the comment of the Victorian Minister for Lands in a second reading speech reported in

Victorian Hansard at page 5038. The

Minister very clearly indicated the attitude of the Victorian Government to this legis lation. The Tariff Board has made it clear that secondary industries generally have protection of about $2,700m a year. In round terms, that boils down to support of about $200m a month. In the light of that situation, it is not very much to say that not only should $100m be devoted to this scheme but also the Department of Primary Industry, the Treasury and the Minister for Air (Senator Drake-Brockman), who is at the table now, and who represents in the Senate the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair), should indicate that the Commonwealth will be ready and willing to expand the scheme until it does more than touch on the 5 per cent of primary production debt that is incurred at present. I commend the Bill to the House and I think the Opposition is completely lacking in responsibility in moving that a Bill such as this should be withdrawn with the idea of taking some other action.

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

Mr Deputy President, I claim to have been misrepresented.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) - Do you wish to make a personal explanation

Senator DEVITT:

– Yes. It would not do any harm to acknowledge that I was intemperate in my outburst a little while ago and to express my regrets for it. It was promoted by what Senator Webster said. He claimed that the Labor Party proposed to deny the rural community of Australia the assistance of $100m to be made available by these Bills. I do not wish to prolong the matter but I would like to place on record that nothing could be further from the truth. The proposition put forward by the Opposition is consistent with the observation made by Senator Webster, that it will be found that 5 times the amount provided by these measures would be required to meet the situation, I merely explain that the Opposition has no intention whatever of taking away from th rural community- the assistance of $100m.

Senator HANNAN:
Victoria

– I congratulate my colleague Senator Webster on his masterly analysis, of some of the problems facing the primary producer: I also defer to him because, of ‘ his undoubted mastery of the etymological derivation of the words ‘viable’’ and ‘viability’. Senator Devitt, too, has to be congratulated on his thoughtful speech. Itis a pity that he spoilt it by making a couple of irrational outbursts at the end , I. think, too, that he was unnecessarily pessimistic, and despite the urgent problems’ which everybody agrees face the rural community at the moment, it seems to me to be an extraordinary situation that the Australian Labor Party wishes to withdraw$ 100m from the rural producers. It is simply an exercise in semantics to saythat the Labor Party wants to withdraw the Bill merely to redraft it because everybody knows that the House of Representatives has risen and the practical effect of carrying the Labor Party’s amendment would be, in truth and in fact, to deny this money to the rural sector of the economy. It does not matter what the intention is; the practical effect is that the rural community would not receive the money.

I agree completely with what Senator Devitt said about the desirability of keeping the small farmer in existence. The economic experts seem to use the expression get big or get out’. But that philosophy is entirely alien to the political philosophy of the Government. There are very many reasons - other than money reasons - why a man or a family wish to maintain himself or themselves on the land. Perhaps before I leave Senator Devitt’s remarks, I should refer to what he said about the period when he was in primary production in 1951-52-

Senator Devitt:

– From 1951 to 1956 - for 6 years.

Senator HANNAN:

– I do not know whether he was engaged iri the production of wool at that time, but if he was, all I can say to him -is that every wool producer in Australia would love to return to the -wool prices which obtained in 1952 at the height of the Korean war.

Senator Devitt:

– I was ki dairying.

Senator HANNAN:

– Then those remarks do hot apply to Senator Devitt’s -position. I welcome this legislation which is similar in many respects to the pilot scheme” which was. announced in. the Marginal Dairy Farms Agreement Bill which was passed last session. I think” that one good effect of the legislation - quite’ apart from its undoubted economic impact - is the psychological impact which it must make on city dwellers. Many people who reside in our cities and large provincial towns believe that the primary producer is being feather-bedded, to use a term which will be remembered–

Senator Prowse:

– -It is more like a bed of nails.

Senator HANNAN:

– As Senator Prowse says, it could well be more like a bed of nails. I do not share the belief which I mentioned. One has only to listen to the facts that have been adduced in this debate by honourable senators on both sides of the chamber to realise that that belief, which is so widely held in the cities, is utterly unfounded. Senator Webster and Senator Devitt also touched on the social problems which are encountered by people in rural areas. There are difficulties in getting adequate educational opportunities and even radio and television facilities which are regarded as essential concomitants of modern living. Also to be considered are sporting and cultural activities, medical facilities, hospitals and all the other matters that go to make up the amenities of life in . a modern society. Rural producers in certain areas are prejudiced in this regard. Distance is one of the things against which the farmer is continually fighting. A farmer’s access to communication facilities, including telephones and railway services suffer because of the distance which separates him from the capital cities. In these circumstances one does not have to be Mandrake to realise why so many people have drifted to the cities and why, understandably, many of them have come from the arid and semi-arid pastoral zones of Australia.

Another matter which has to be taken into consideration is the plight of country storekeepers. The costs of rural producers are rising rapidly, at the rate of 3 per cent a year, while prices are falling at the rate of 3 per cent a year. That gives a 6 per cent imbalance against the rural producers. This means that very many of the small shopkeepers are finding it impossible to carry on. These shopkeepers are people who like to eke out an independent economic existence in country towns. In recent times, while on political business, I have visited several country towns. I was amazed and horrified at the number of empty shops and at the number of commercial premises which were to let. By and large a very severe recession - I would not say a depression - has set in on people in rural areas. It is not only the man actually on the farm but also the man who supplies the farmer with his daily requirements who is feeling the pinch.

In his economic challenge, the farmer has to look for markets. He has to fight his indebtedness to financial organisations, and of course there is the incessant fight against the cost-price squeeze. Rural industries rely on exports. Depending on the industry, the state of reliance on exports varies from 45 per cent of produce in some industries to 95 per cent of produce in other industries. For example, 70 per cent of our wheat is exported and more than 90 per cent of Australia’s wool clip goes overseas. It is interesting to note also that as a result of Government stimulation we are developing fresh markets. In recent times we have been encouraged by substantial sales of wheat to the United Arab Republic. Those sales, on the last assessment that I read in the Press, roughly equal the sales which had been made previously to Communist China. Since I am informed, on credible authority, that large quantities of the wheat sold to Communist China were sold at less than the cost of production, it does not appear to me that the loss of sales to that country is the major trade problem which very many of our commentators seem to think that it is. I agree with Senator Webster’s figures on average farm income. About 40 per cent of farmers are earning less than $2,000 a year. It may be true that the farmer has free milk, free potatoes and other vegetables and other free commodities that the city dweller does not have, but in return for this the farmer may well have to work a 65 or 75-hour week. No-one in his right mind in this country at the moment, in this affluent society, would regard $2,000 a year as a reasonable reward for a working week of that nature.

I conclude by saying that the rural producer in all his shapes, sizes and forms - the large man, the middle man and the small man - has an important and a continuing role to play in Australia’s economic existence. The city dweller must be apprised of the fact that he cannot act on the Jack principle. He cannot say: ‘I’m all right. It does not matter what happens in the country’. Without a rural community living in frugal comfort at least, the city cannot be supplied adequately or properly. The main point to which I draw the Senate’s attention is this: We must realise the plight of the rural industries. I believe that the $100m to be distributed, through the machinery which the Government has devised, while not being the panacea for all the primary producer’s ills, should go a long way towards making viable - if I may use that word which Senator Webster used - so many rural enterprises which otherwise might have failed.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Minister for Air · Western Australia · CP

– in reply - I take this opportunity to thank all honourable senators who have contributed to the debate. I note that there were 16 speakers in the debate. Furthermore, I should like to say for the purposes of the record that a number of honourable senators said to me that they would like to speak in the debate but would not do do so because time was running out; nevertheless they mentioned one or two points to me. I inform all honourable senators that we have carefully noted the points that were made by them. Although I shall not reply to those points now, they have been noted by the Department of Primary Industry and we shall see what can be done about them.

There has been no outright opposition to this measure, although considerable concern was expressed by nearly all speakers about certain aspects of the legislation. This measure arose from a proposition which the Commonwealth submitted to the States last December. It offered the States a loan of $100m at an interest rate of 3 per cent per annum, with a 3-year holiday from repayments, which were to be made over a period of 20 years. The States considered this offer and would not accept it They came up with a proposition for a grant of $25m and a loan of $75m, and they had calculated the proportion of that $100m that each State should receive. Since then there has been considerable discussion between officers of the Commonwealth Department of Primary Industry and officers of the various State Departments of Agriculture. In addition, there have been Ministerial discussions. This Bill is the outcome of those discussions, during which the best knowledge available in the Commonwealth and State departments was brought to bear on the subject.

At no time has the Commonwealth Government or any State Government said that this measure will meet every situation, but they have agreed that when the Bill is passed through the Senate and becomes operative the Commonwealth Government and the State governments, having gained some experience from it, will consider various other matters, many of which have been raised by honourable senators in the course of this debate. In the schedule to the Bill is a review clause by which the Commonwealth gives an undertaking that, together with the States, it will review certain matters which will enable amending legislation, if that is required, to be brought before the various Parliaments so that it may be brought into operation before 1st July 1972.

Some comment has been made on the use to be made of the funds made available to the States under this measure. A number of honourable senators made the point that the agreement provides that half the funds for each State should be used for farm build-up. Senator Prowse was one of the first to make this point. I point out to the Senate that this is purely an objective. In some States there will not be the need that there is in other States for farm build-up. Doubt has been expressed by some about whether the States will be able to use 50 per cent of the funds they receive for farm build-up, but this is a matter which can be determined only by individual experience and the type of application of funds needed by the States. It is believed that it will be necessary to overcome the structural problems of small farm sizes in order to allow farmers a reasonable standard of living commensurate with that enjoyed by the remainder of the community. There seems to be some doubt about this. Some honourable senators have expressed the view that they do hot believe this should be done.

I want to draw the attention of the Senate to a report of a Commission set up on 4th March 1943 by the Minister for Post-war Reconstruction. Ten reports were presented and they dealt with various aspects of the reconstruction of our rural economy in the post-war period. The 4th report, dated 28th August 1944, was on financial and economic reconstruction of farms. This sort of report brings us close to the various reconstructions schemes of the 1930s and the 1940s. I would like honourable senators to note this recommendation made by that Commission at that time. Among other matters it recommended.

That any future scheme for debt adjustment should be part of a general measure which provides for a reorganisation of farms on a basis of their productive capacity and for the reconstruction or elimination of uneconomic farms.

Another important recommendation was:

A greater measure of success might have been achieved if the Commonwealth had taken a more active part in scrutinising the States’ legislation to ensure that the principles agreed to were incorporated in their schemes and that there was general uniformity in approach.

In view of what we are doing now it might be a useful exercise for honourable senators to consider those 2 recommendations of the Commission at that time.

Senator Wilkinson mentioned interest rates and said that the interest rate of not less than 6i per cent over a period of 20 years was too high. I pointed out earlier in my remarks that when the Commonwealth first made an offer to the States the interest rate was 3 per cent. However, I think Senator Wilkinson will agree with me that this interest rate of 6) per cent is most concessional when compared with the annual services charges and interest and capital repayment. The sum involved could be brought to about 8i per cent of the debt. Compare this with a commercial loan over 5 years at 7 per cent where servicing costs would represent about 24 per cent of the original loan.

Senator Little:

– What guarantee is there that the interest rate will be 7 per cent in 5 years time? It might be back to 3 per cent.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– I did not say that.

Senator Little:

– 1 know. But the honourable senator said that the comparison is good because the rate today is 7 per cent. That is a usurious rate. It was paid on hire purchase loans at one time.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– Let me go on. 1 stated that this legislation provides a period for review. The State and Commonwealth officers will have a chance to gain experience when this scheme gets into operation and then there will be time for a review. The aim of this legislation is to reconstruct viable farms. I think Senator Webster asked: What is a viable farm? I think he mentioned the figure of 38c as being the price of a pound of wool when this legislation was drawn up but the price is very much below 30c. Senator Douglas McClelland made the point that in New South Wales the Minister for Agriculture had taken up this matter with the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair). I have a telegram here-

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I said the Minister for Lands.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– Yesthe Minister for Lands. I have the reply in which Mr Sinclair makes the same point - that if this legislation is passed through the Senate he will review the position. The officers of the Department of Primary Industry conferred with their fellow officers in the States and the Minister for Primary Industry had talks with the Ministers for Agriculture, or Ministers for Lands as they are in some States, and they all agreed that any scheme introduced would be unrealistic if it omitted cases which required the bridging of too large a gap between the terms provided under this scheme and normal commercial terms. That is another reason why this rate of interest has been fixed. The Government considers also that there are better ways of providing assistance to the primary producers than allowing a low interest rate to be fixed which may distort the whole of the economy. Much has been said during the- course of the debate about the maximum of $1,000 which has been set aside for rehabilitation. 1 admit that in the present day and age, having regard to the costs and so on, this is a pretty small amount, but the Minister has given an undertaking to the States that he will review the situation as soon as this legislation conies into effect.

I turn to the amendment moved by Senator Wilkinson on behalf, of the Australian Labor Party. In his opening remarks Senator Wilkinson spoke of the delay in bringing this legislation before the Parliament. I believe that, in view of all the aspects involved it was a pretty good effort on the part of those concerned to get the legislation to this stage from the end of December, especially in view of the differences of opinion and environment as well as the other differences between the States themselves. Senator Wilkinson’s amendment seeks the withdrawal of the legislation from the Senate so that the States and the Commonwealth can have a further look at it. The States of Queensland and Western Australia have informed the Commonwealth that they want the money which will be made available under this legislation as soon as possible. Senator Wilkinson will appreciate that because the Western Australian Parliament has not sat for some time is has not been possible to amend the Loan (Farmers’ Debt Adjustment) Act insofar as it concerns Western Australia. An amount of $430,000 will be made available to Western Australia when that amendment comes into effect. Western Australia wants this money as soon as it can get it. The various representatives in this chamber of the State of Queensland have pointed out that drought conditions prevail in that State. Queensland also wants the money as soon as it can get it. For that reason, I believe that we must go on with this legislation.

Senator Wilkinson said that restrictive provisions or a means test should apply to this legislation. No honourable senator from the Opposition side of the chamber has told me what is meant by a means test. I take it that the Opposition is saying that a farmer who does not make more than $2,000 or $6,000-1 do not know what figure the Opposition is putting on it - over and above his expenses should come within the ambit of this scheme. The Opposition has not spelt out its proposition. I believe that the imposing of this restriction would make the legislation more restrictive than it is at the present time. It does not matter what a farmer makes; the important thing is whether he can meet his repayments and interest as well as his other commitments. If he cannot meet his commitments and he cannot get money to assist himself he must come within the ambit of this scheme if he is in a position where assistance under this scheme will make him, if not a successful farmer, at least a viable farmer.

I have dealt already with the other points relating to eligibility and the ability of a farmer to service his debts. I turn now to rehabilitation loans. I have said that at the present time we have no knowledge of how many men will be involved under this provision; nor have we had any experience to tell us where the cut-off point will be for those who will have to move off their farms should that be necessary. We must wait until we can gain some experience. As soon as we have that background the question of greater asistance to those who leave their properties will be considered. No doubt as soon as this legislation comes into operation the Minister and his advisers will be looking at this situation and discussing it with the States. Therefore, taking that view the Government cannot support the amendment moved by the Australian Labor Party.

I think all of us in this chamber realise that the man on the land is part of the backbone of this country and that the smaller farmer, the man who perhaps finds it most difficult to stay on the land, must be kept there should he desire to stay. For that reason I support this legislation. I cannot support the Opposition’s amendment.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be left out (Senator Wilkinson’s amendment) be left out.

The Senate divided. (The Deputy President - Senator Bull)

AYES: 24

NOES: 27

Majority . . 3

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

Mr Acting Deputy President the Australian Democratic Labor Party indicated yesterday through Senator Kane that it would move an amendment to the motion, that this Bill be now read a second time, after the disposal of the amendment moved by Senator Wilkinson. That position has now arisen.I move the following amendment: At the end of motion add - but the Senate is of the opinion that there should be constituted an expert Commission of Inquiry into the whole structure of the rural economy which would examine its importance, its role and its function in the Australian economy, and in particular examine the following subjects: (a) Expected export demand for Australian rural products, taking into account:

the policies of the European Economic Community;

the possibility of Australian associate membership of EEC;

reciprocal trading agreements on the basis of securing constant markets for rural production by tariff concessions to consumer countries ex porting secondary products to Australia (Japan in particular); (4) the possibility of a South East Asian Community;

Rural producers’ costs, taking into account:

the Australian tariff;

government policies and other factors tending to raise costs In Australia;

incidence of railway freights on rural producers (in comparison with urban charges);

road transport;

the wage structure of the rural economy;

Finance

Financial structure required to support necessary changes and the service and finance for such purpose.

Policy, taking into account:

whether there is a case for permanent or temporary subsidies from the urban to the rural sector;

whether any aggregation or re organisation of present rural holdings is necessary, and if so, whether it should be achieved by independent action by rural producers, or through government-assisted schemes;

expected future rural labour force required;

rural education including re-training for any farmers facing displacement;

establishment of decentralised industrial towns which would offer employment within that region.

Senator Little:

– I second the amendment.

Senator BYRNE:

– I do not propose to address myself to this amendment at any length. The 2 Bills were discussed together and the motion which stood in the name of Senator Murphy was, by agreement of the Senate, permitted to be debated in conjunction with the Bills. That motion was for a reference of the state of the rural economy to a committee of this Senate. There is no need for me to expatiate at any length on the content of the amendment now before us. I have only one or two comments to make. If this debate has highlighted anything it has highlighted the confusion that exists in the minds of those who have directed their attention to this problem, to its depth and, more particularly, to what the remedies are. It is precisely because of this that we seek to have an expert commission appointed to discover what is the depth of the problem, over what area it spreads and what are the possible solutions.

The need for this commission has been highlighted today because of the announcement yesterday that Britain is almost certain to join the European Economic Community. While the newspapers as yet have not had the opportunity of canvassing the implications of that entry, from what I heard on the radio this morning rather deep dismay is expected in the Australian rural industries because apparently almost complete priority and preference will be given in the EEC to the agricultural products from within that community. We also have a new situation in regard to the American-Australian-Cuban situation relating to the supply of farm machinery in that the South American republics which are members of the Organisation of American States are pressing the United States in the circumstances for the rescission - or apparently that is expected - of the Australian sugar quota on the American market. These two things illustrate just what are the additionally serious problems which are now facing the rural economy. Insofar as the first part of our resolution asks that the implications of Britain’s entry into the EEC be investigated immediately and in depth, great point is lent to that reference by the developments of the last 24 hours. So for that reason we firmly commend this amendment to honourable senators.

We have said, and we reiterate, that this is not by its nature a short term solution. But, of course, we are not dealing with a short term problem. It is a short term problem and a long term one and this part of our approach on the rural question goes to the solution of the long term problem. The amendment which we propose to move in relation to the second Bill is one which purports to deal with the short range solution to the critical situation in which the rural industries find themselves. For those reasons we commend this amendment to honourable senators and I trust it will receive the endorsement of this chamber.

Senator WILKINSON:
Western Australia

– This amendment was foreshadowed by Senator Kane earlier in the debate. Unfortunately, apparently Senator Byrne was not present when Senator Kane started speaking. In the early part of his speech Senator Kane said that a great deal of information concerning rural industries is already available in the various State Departments of Agriculture and in the Commonwealth Bureau of Agricultural Economics. It was our contention, based on our understanding that this was the fact although we did not say so, that if we had brought forward our amendment it would not have meant a prolonged delay to the passage of the Bill. If that was all that this amendment sought to do the Opposition would be prepared to give serious consideration to it. I think honourable senators should have a look at what this amendment actually seeks to do. It seeks to have set up an expert commission of inquiry into the whole structure pf rural economy. Such an expert examination would take anything up to 5 years. But what will happen to primary producers in those 5 years?

Senator Byrne:

– We have explained that.

Senator WILKINSON:

– The honourable senator has asked for an expert commission - that part is all right - but the Australian Labor Party wants some action now and this Bill is supposed to deal with the situation now. I direct attention to paragraph (a) of the amendment which relates to the expected export demand for Australian rural products, taking into account among other things the policies of the European Economic Community. Where will that information be ascertained? We said that because of information to which we have access the Bill should be re-written, but our amendment was defeated. This amendment refers also to the question of finance and says that the expert commission should take into account the financial structure required to support necessary changes and the service and finance for such purpose. If we talk to experts on agricultural economics - I mean not self-styled experts but professors, of agricultural economics in any of the Australian universities - we will get a differing set of answers. What more expert information would be available? It does not matter which way we look at the amendment. If the amendment would enable the Bill to be amplified so that it would have some immediate effect, we would consider it. All that is proposed is the setting up of some sort of royal commission which would go on forever and a day. This is supposedly to show the people that we are concerned for them. But what is the use of such an

Inquiry? What the farmers want is some action - something now. As I said during the second reading debate, in Western Australia alone - agriculturally one of the smallest States - 3,500 persons will never be able to get anywhere with their farms and a further 3,000 will leave their farms.

I do not want to prolong this debate. The Opposition will not support the amendment because it would not do the industry any good. It will be much better if the Senate supports the motion which Senator Murphy will move this afternoon to refer certain matters to the Standing Committee oh Primary and Secondary Industry and Trade. This should ensure that action will be taken within a reasonable time.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Minister for Air · Westtern Australia · CP

– The Government cannot accept the amendment. We believe that if the proposed commission of inquiry were to perform its task properly it would take a long time, perhaps 2 or 3 years. Earlier I pointed out that the Rural Re-construction Commission which was set up in March 1943 brought down 10 reports, the last of which was completed in 1946. That Commission took 3 years to make its inquiries, so, this bears out my belief that the proposed inquiry would take a long time. -Senator Douglas McClelland - The situation is much worse today.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– That is quite likely. It would entail more investigation. The possible subject matter of a general inquiry would be inflation and general economic policies. Matters to be referred to the proposed commission would come under about 26 headings and include such topics as the Australian tariff, Government policies and their effect on rural industry, the specific effects of customs duties and items used in the rural industries.

Senator Byrne:

– They are problems and you cannot by-pass them.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– I know. These matters would be of assistance to the rural industries. If we take other rural industry matters there are 11 headings in that category. We believe that there are many existing methods of obtaining factual information and advice. First of all there is the Australian Agricultural Council and its committees which are made up of State representatives from the major agricultural bodies. There are the State departments dealing with agriculture and industry and producer organisations such as the Bureau of Agricultural Economics and a host of other organisations. If the Government wants a special investigation carried out it can turn to reports such as the report on debt reconstruction and farm adjustment which was prepared recently by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Then there are the industry sponsored committees of inquiry such as the Wool Advisory Committee which is still continuing its investigations; the Canned Deciduous Fruits Advisory Committee, the Commonwealth Grape Advisory Committee and the Cotton Advisory Committee. Each pf the industries can have an advisory committee. There is a whole wealth of information besides this which is already available as Senator Wilkinson has just said. For those reasons and because of the length of time which this inquiry would take we on this side of the House cannot support this amendment.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be added- (Senator Byrne’s amendment) be added.

The Senate divided. (The Deputy President - Senator Bull)

AYES: 0

NOES: 48

Majority 45

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– I draw the attention of honourable senators to Part IV of the Schedule to the States Grants (Rural Reconstruction) Bill. Clause 3 of Part IV reads as follows: (31 Nature of Assistance

A loan on such conditions as to interest rate, if any, and repayment as are determined by the Authority up to a maximum of $1,000 in any’ one case.

First of al I want to be critical of the amount that the Government is making available for rehabilitation. In a State like Western Australia, $1,000 would not even pay for the removal of furniture to the city where these people would have to go to work. The money is not a grant. It is a loan, with whatever interest may be attached to it Therefore it is of little use as a rehabilitation measure for the people who are eligible to receive’ it. Let us look at what people are eligible for assistance under Part V. Clause 2 sub-clause (a) reads as follows:

The applicant’s property must have been purchased by an adjoining owner who has been assisted under the farm build-up provisions to make the purchase or the applicant must have been unable te secure assistance under the debt reconstruction provisions because his property is assessed not to have sound prospects of long term commercial viability.

In the first place he can only be joined on four sides because only 4 people are able to make an offer of purchase for his property. That is the first limitation; he has to be joined. Secondly, it has to be a viable proposition over the long term. I do not think very many people will qualify under this provision for rehabilitation. What I want to draw attention to is that for every farmer who leaves his property, 3i families have to leave the town. What provision is the Government making to assist the farm workers, the people who depend upon the prosperity of the farming areas, to rehabilitate themselves? What is the Government doing to assist the small businessman who goes broke and is unable to carry on his business in the rural area? These are the rural votes which the Country Party relies upon but what is it doing to try to assist these people to rehabilitate themselves? Are these people to get this $1,000 by way of loan, grant or any other means in order that they may bring themselves to the city and get another job? The Democratic Labor Party is not interested in assisting them because that Party only gets a few votes from around the suburbs of the towns. Forty per cent of those are preferences.

Senator Little:

– We got 45 per cent in Murray.

Senator CANT:

- Senator Little would not know what this is all about. The fact is that there is a howl every time something happens to the rural industries but nothing is said when something happens to those who live in the rural communities, who are part of the rural communities and upon whom the rural industries are dependent for the services that they provide. They are just thrown to the wind. They do not get any consideration in this Bill which provides $100m for rehabilitation of. people with farming properties. In any case the $100m is not of any use because it will be payable only to those who are viable. A person who is not in a viable position gets nothing out of this anyhow. Whatever good the Country Party is doing, it is only supporting another set of subsidies to be paid to the people who do not need them.

The Country Party forgets all about the people who have been their servants all along. What about the railway people who serve them and the road transport people who will not be able to work in these areas? Is there any provision for the rehabilitation of these people? Not one bit. So long as the Government is handing out money to farmers, the Country Party is quite satisfied. It is not satisfied to be helping other people in the community. Therefore, this Bill should be condemned.

The Government is completely heartless when it fails to take into consideration the great majority of the population in the country areas, these small businessmen and others who make up the rural communities. They are not given one piece of consideration and they should remember when they go to the polls that they are the people who are forgotten every time, despite the fact that they comprise seveneighths of the population in country areas.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– During the course of my speech at the second reading stage I made mention of the fact that on 6th May the New South Wales Minister for Lands had stated in the New South Wales Parliament that he, on behalf of the Government of New South Wales, which of course in an anti-Labor Government, had lodged a telegram with the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) objecting to the manner in which Commonwealth legislation was drafted. In his reply to the debate today the Minister for Air (Senator Drake-Brockman) who in this chamber represents the Minister for Primary Industry mentioned amongs other things that the Minister for Primary Industry had replied to the New South Wales -Government to the effect that after this legislation was passed through the Senate he would review the rate of interest being charged on . the loans made available under the legislation. I ask the Minister now -whether he is prepared to outline publicly the telegram that was received from the New South Wales Minister for Lands and the reply by the .Minister for Primary Industry.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Minister for Air · Western Australia · CP

– I am not prepared to do that.

Senator Milliner:

– Did I interpret the Minister correctly? Did he say that the small businessman would benefit under the scheme?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– Yes, he would benefit indirectly. He would get the debts paid that were owing to him.

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

– I think that there is a lot of duck shoving going on. The Minister has said that small businessmen will receive assistance under the Bill, and the Schedule, I take it. I would like the Minister to point out where it is indicated in the Schedule that the small businessman is to be assisted. I draw attention to the remarks that the Minister made a moment ago. What did he mean when he said that probably other legislation will be brought in to assist the service industries, the other people who live in the rural communities? The Minister’s final remark was that the States will assist them. Is it the intention of the Commonwealth to make money available to the States in some other Bill to provide this assistance? If the Minister can answer those 2 questions I would be very pleased.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Minister for Air · Western Australia · CP

– I said that the small businessman indirectly would benefit from this scheme. He must benefit because he will have some of the debts paid that are owing by him at the present time.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– With a loan?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– No, the loan will be made to the producer who applies for it. In relation to rehabilitation, Senator Cant made the. point that $1,000 was not enough. This matter,., which is between the Commonwealth and the States, is to be looked at as- soon as this legislation becomes operative and when we have some experience of what is happening in that particular field. If a man who works in the town is unemployed, he has certain sources from which to obtain assistance. If the businessmen in . the community need assistance, in the view of the State, no doubt the States will come to the Commonwealth with a plan seeking some financial assistance in that way. .

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Senator Drake-Brockman) read a third time;

page 1949

THE SENATE

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Bull) - At question time today Senator Wilkinson asked a question concerning the quality of the sound in the Senate chamber. The Australian Broadcasting Commission advises that microphones used by the Leader of the Government (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) and the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) in the Senate are working normally and have been in use at all times when the senators wearing them were addressing the Senate.

The ABC is aware of certain limitations in the broadcasting and sound reinforcement systems and has been given approval to proceed with their complete replacement during the next December-January recess. When completed, there will be enough additional microphones to provide one for each desk, that is, one microphone for two senators. With more modern supporting equipment there should be an immediate improvement in the quality of sound passing from the microphones. In addition, modern speakers will be fitted to senators desks so that the quality of sound from the sound reinforcement system will be clearer and stronger. With the acoustic treatment which was recently undertaken in the chamber, the ABC anticipates when the Senate resumes after the Christmas-New Year recess that it will have the best broadcasting and sound reinforcement standards that can be achieved in this building.

In the meantime, senators are asked if they will assist the ABC by not moving microphones or handling them. Movement can only adversely affect the way a microphone functions and can possibly put it out of action. While the Senate is sitting, an ABC technical operator is always on duty, turning microphones on and off, and controlling sound levels. He is immediately aware of any fault but must sometimes give second place to sound reinforcement to ensure that the broadcast quality is adequate for transmission to all States. There is close liaison between the Usher of the Black Rod and the ABC to maintain the best possible service to the Senate.

page 1950

ABSENCE OF THE PRESIDENT

Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) - by leave - agreed to:

That during the absence of the President the Deputy President shall on each sitting day take the Chair of the Senate and may during such absence perform the duties and exercise the authority of the President in relation to all proceedings of the Senate and to proceedings of standing and joint statutory committees to which the President is appointed.

page 1950

ADJOURNMENT

The Senate

Motion (by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) proposed:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator BRANSON:
Western Australia

– I will hold the Senate for only a minute or two. I believe I owe my colleagues, the Senate and the people an explanation of why this morning I did not ask the Senate to call on the adjourned debate on General Business Order of the Day No. 23 resulting from the motion that I moved yesterday. That motion is as follows:

That the Committee of Privileges inquire into and report upon the question as to how the ‘Sunday Review’ and the ‘Sunday Australian’ obtained and published the information upon which was based the articles which were referred to the Committee and which have been found to be a breach of privilege.

I shall give the reasons why I did not ask the Senate to call on the adjourned debate. My first reason is that I am of the opinion that it would have been improper for the Senate to debate my motion prior to the Deputy President’s reprimanding Mr Walsh and Mr Rothwell at 2.15 this afternoon. That was one of the main reasons. My second reason is that I am of the opinion that as a private member I should not attempt to interpose General Business while the Senate is dealing with Government Business.

Senator Cavanagh:

– And you have not the numbers.

Senator BRANSON:

– Never mind about that. We will come to that. It is a different point. I desire to make it quite clear to Senator Cavanagh and all other honourable senators that immediately the Senate has disposed of the remaining Bills on the notice paper I intend to seek the leave of the Senate to have my motion disposed of before the Senate adjourns for the winter recess.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 3.55 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 14 May 1971, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1971/19710514_senate_27_s48/>.