Senate
25 November 1971

27th Parliament · 2nd Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Magnus Cormack) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2103

SOCIAL SERVICES

Petition

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition:

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

That while the Commonwealth Parliament has acted to remove some inadequacies from the Australian Social Service system, a major inadequacy still remains in that a migrant who has been a member of the Australian workforce for many years, has paid taxes and acquired Australian citizenship, and seeks to live the last years of his life in his native land or, if an invalid, wishes to see his relatives in Europe, is denied pensioner transferability.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That the Senate, in Parliament assembled, seek to have Australia adopt the principle followed by Britain, Italy, Greece, Malta, The Netherlands, France, Germany, Turkey, Canada and the United States of America, who already transfer the social entitlement of their citizens wherever they may choose to live.

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

Petition received and read.

page 2103

NOTICE OF MOTION

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

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

That the Film Classification Ordinance 1971, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 25 of 1971, and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910-1970, be disallowed.

page 2103

QUESTION

THIS DAY TONIGHT

Senator MURPHY:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address a question to the Attorney-General in his capacity as Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral. Now that the PostmasterGeneral has indicated that the Australian Broadcasting Commission had no obligation to inform the police when the draft resister Michael Matteson appeared on a television programme last week, will the Minister tell us whether there has been any instruction to the ABC directly or indirecly that the producers of the programme “This Day Tonight’ are not to raise again the issue of last week’s segment involving the

Attorney-General and the draft resister? If there has been no such instruction either in regard to that programme or otherwise, will the Minister tell us why there has been no follow-up story about this issue which has received a great amount of publicity in the Press and on radio and commercial television, as well as exciting considerable interest in this Parliament?

Senator GREENWOOD:
Attorney-General · VICTORIA · LP

– Once again the honourable senator’s question covers a tremendous number of areas and involves a very great number of matters. In the first place, I do not think it has ever been suggested that the Australian Broadcasting Commission had a legal obligation to inform the police of what it was doing. Any comment which has subsequently taken place has been directed to the propriety or the serving of the public interest which is involved in what has been done. As to whether or not any instruction, directly or indirectly, has been given to the ABC, the question is so wide in its language that it is tremendously difficult to know what the honourable senator is seeking to ascertain.

As far as any direct instruction is concerned, I understand from the information available to me that no instruction has been given. As to intent to give any direction to or to control the ABC, no such intent is held by the Postmaster-General. I think it cannot be stressed sufficiently that the Commission is an independent body over which the Government has no control, except in the specific instances where the Minister may give a direction, in respect of which he must report to the Parliament. I should have thought that the whole of the circumstances relating to the interview on This Day Tonight’ are the very best evidence that anybody could want that the ABC is not subject to political direction.

page 2103

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE ‘<)

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

– My question also is addressed to the Attorney-General. I refer again to the two questions that I have asked the Minister regarding the charge by the President of the Australian Union of Students that the Government, for political reasons, is not proceeding against prominent student draft resisters. Has the Minister seen the statement issued last night by the President of the AUS in which he charges the Attorney-General with having misled the Senate in answering my two previous questions? Will the Minister, since he failed to do so yesterday, now specify by name which of the 7 draft resisters were referred to by the various anonymous case histories that he outlined in his answer to my question on Tuesday last?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I know the questions which have been asked by the honourable senator and I know the answers which I gave. Also I have seen the statement which was issued by the President of the Australian Union of Students last night. I think it is a grave matter that anybody outside the Parliament should suggest that a Minister is misleading the Senate, without giving some basis or reason for that allegation. I think also that it is a grave matter for an honourable senator to continue asking questions on a basis which suggests that a Minister has not been telling the truth to the Senate. 1 have been asked to specify the names of those who are alleged by this person from the Australian Union of Students to be people who are not being prosecuted for some alleged political reason. I do not withdraw one word of what I said earlier and I shall now give the details to the Senate and to the honourable senator in particular.

The first name which was mentioned by the Australian Union of Students was Mr Chris Joyce. My comment about Mr Joyce is that a prosecution was pending for failure to respond to a notice to attend for a medical examination. The next person is a Mr Ian Yates. It is alleged that he failed to register. The information which is available to me is that 2 registration forms for Ian Garth Yates were received. The first was submitted by his mother and she was advised that it would not be accepted. A second form, signed Ian G. Yates, was (> received dated 31st July 1970. The information in both forms was virtually identical. A certificate of registration was sent on 24th August 1970 and not returned. Advice that he was balloted out was sent on 2nd October 1970 and again not returned. The third person referred to is a Mr David Zerman. He is a person who is currently being investigated. That conforms with what I told the Senate. The Fourth person mentioned is a Mr John Varley, who has been prosecuted and is apparently at the present time being sought in order that a call-up notice can be served upon him. That is what I informed the Senate yesterday. The next person mentioned is a Mr Neil McLean, who is currently being investigated, as is Mr Garry McDougal. As far as Mr Simon Marginson is concerned, a registration form was received from him or from a Simon William Marginson who is undertaking a full time honours course at the University of Melbourne. Likewise a registration certificate has been received from him and be also has been balloted out. Those facts are consistent with all the information which has been given to the Senate. They were derived from information I ascertained from the Commonwealth Police and double checked with the Department of Labour and National Service.

page 2104

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Senator KANE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral. I ask: Firstly, will he name the Australian Broadcasting Commission employee who is claimed to be a former fellow student of draft resister Matteson and who issued the invitation for the latter to appear on an ABC television programme on Tuesday, 16th November? Secondly, who in turn authorised this employee to invite Matteson, for wham the Commonwealth Police have an arrest warrant, to make this television appearance? Thirdly, when can I expect an answer to my question of 18th August and 15th September concerning the alleged activities of Mr Jon (Darce) Cassidy, a special projects officer with the ABC, with the WorkerStudent Alliance?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I think I must convey to the Postmaster-General for his consideration the part of the honourable senator’s question relating to the names of the persons who were concerned with particular events which occurred recently. As to the latter part of the honourable senator’s question, I know that work is being done towards the preparation of an answer for him. I hope he will have one soon as possible.

page 2105

QUESTION

NURSING HOMES

Senator WILLESEE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the Minister for Health any evidence that the increase in Commonwealth assistance to nursing homes for the aged has been of little help to aged persons as most nursing homes have adopted the policy of increasing their charges by an amount at least equal to the increase in the Commonwealth assistance? If not, will he make inquiries and advise accordingly?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONI do not have any evidence that the significant increase of Si. 50 a day in the Commonwealth’s subvention to nursing homes has in fact been eroded by increases in the charges imposed by the nursing homes concerned. I will seek some information on the generality of the honourable senator’s question. I will do so primarily through the State governments and the State health departments concerned, which have basic responsibilities in relation to nursing homes. I would not for one moment suggest that it has not happened in certain circumstances, but it may well be that it was going to happen anyway. Representations were made to me as the Minister for Health by not only Government supporters and people in the community but indeed by many members of the Parliament who sit on the opposite side of the chamber to myself and who were concerned about the claims which were being made to them that many nursing homes had either put up their fees or were in the process of doing so. which was creating tremendous concern among the patients in those nursing homes. It was put to me very strongly in this chamber by honourable senator’s that the situation was critical. lt was against the background of that critical situation that I took to the Government the proposition that it should immediately step in to increase the Commonwealth’s, subvention from S2 and S3 up to $5. as it was to $6.50 a day for the intensive care patients. I am not saying that what Senator Willesee has referred to has not happened because it may well have happened in certain circumstances. But I do know that there is not a great margin of tolerance for excessive profits in nursing homes. I know that from my personal knowledge and from reports that come to government. It should be remembered always that there are not only nursing homes being run privately for profit b* organisations: but many also are run by charitable organisations which have pui the cost factor to me and to government quite clearly. Indeed, State governments have done so. I shall get information on a broader canvas because this is a very relevant question. I would not like it to be thought or imagined (hat the extra subvention and the increase pension that the Government has provided have simply been absorbed into extra profits being taken by the nursing homes in which patients are domiciled.

page 2105

QUESTION

NATIONAL SERVICE

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Can the AttorneyGeneral say whether the statement made yesterday by Senator Cavanagh that one of the wanted draft resisters was in the Senate chamber during the adjournment debate on Tuesday night was a statement of fact?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– 1 recall that yesterday Senator Cavanagh asked me whether I had any knowledge of the truth of a repot that a Mr Matteson had been in the Senate gallery. understand that a member of the House of Representatives made similar statements, possibly in more categorical terms. All I am able to say is that there were persons present in the gallery of the Senate on Tuesday night. One person was wearing a draft resister’s button or a button which may be categorised as such, and that person has been identified quite clearly and positively to my satisfaction. It was not Mr Matteson. I would point out, Mr President, that those honourable senators who gave publicly to a view that Mr Matteson was in the gallery, or those members of the House of Representatives who, in a mistaken belief that it was Mr Matteson, gave publicity to the claim, revealed very clearly how easy it is to be misled. Possibly they will be a little mow tolerant of the police in the difficulties they have in making accurate identifications.

page 2105

QUESTION

SOUTH EAST ASIA

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA

– I address my question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Is he aware that one of the most important meetings ever held commences today in Kuala Lumpur, attended by (he Foreign Ministers of Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia? Is the Minister also aware that the stated objective of this conference is the creation of a zone of peace and neutrality in South East Asia which will include the 5 members of the Association of South East Asia Nations plus Burma and all of Indo-China? Has any attempt been made by the Government to seek membership of or consultation with this group of nations? If not. why not? As the conference is scheduled for the next 3 days I ask the Minister will he, on behalf of the Commonwealth Government of Australia, send a message of fraternal greetings and best wishes to this momentous conference?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– 1 am not aware of the circumstances of the conference indicated by the honourable senator. I shall have the question referred to the Prime Minister’s Department. I am quite certain that that Department in turn will raise the issues involved in the question with the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Senator Brown:

– Will I put the question on notice?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONYes, perhaps you could do that.

page 2106

QUESTION

OVERSEAS INVESTMENT

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I address a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to a statement made by the Labor Deputy Premier of Western Australia, Mr Graham, who has just returned from an overseas tour. He said that ‘overseas companies are raring to go with their plans for Western Australia’ and that he did not think local resentment would discourage overseas companies from coming here, but it would not be very helpful. Does the Minister support this bipartisan approach to overseas investment? Will he note that Mr Graham’s views are in direct conflict with the policy of the Australian Labour Party as expressed in this Parliament?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– Without attempting to be uncharitable, I must say that I am not completely informed of all the machinations of Labor Party policy. As time goes by, looking into the crystal ball, I will naturally become more involved in Labor Party policy. But it is an occupational hazard for every honourable senator, whether he be on the Opposition side or the Government side, to have a critical look at the opposing party. I do not say that in any uncharitable way. It is a fact of life which we all recognise.

As to the question on capital investment, the Commonwealth has always been a capital hungry country. We are about 12 milion people with a vast continent. We need capital investment for our development. In fairness to everybody I think I should say that the tremendous progress which we have made in Australia has been significantly aided by our capacity to attract overseas investment to Australia. Everybody knows that. Everybody knows, also, that although Australians themselves invest in Australia’s development we wiil continue to need this overseas capital. The present rate of investment coming into Australia is significant. Capital investment is a shy bird. We have such wonderful capital investment coming into Australia because of security and confidence in the form of government which we have in Australia. When anybody in a high place in government starts to express a contrary view concerning investment coming into Australia and the proper safeguards which we employ, he is doing a grave injustice to Australia’s development.

page 2106

QUESTION

QUESTIONS

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Arising out of a question asked by Senator Sim I take the opportunity to remind honourable senators of a ruling which I have made on several occasions. It was made by my predecessors on numbers of occasions. I shall repeat the ruling so that honourable senators can refresh their minds: I remind the Senate that it has been ruled on many occasions that while questions may be based on newspaper and other reports quotations are not in order. The purpose of questions is to obtain information. Questions should be brief so that as many as possible may be asked within the time allowed. Therefore I reaffirm that honourable senators must frame their questions in such a way as not to contain quotations. It is obvious that any honourable senator asking a question based on newspaper quotations cannot give an undertaking to the Senate of the accuracy of the quotation which he is using.

page 2107

QUESTION

EDUCATION

Senator DONALD CAMERON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Does the Minister representing the Minister foi Education and Science consider that more research is needed into education generally as well as into some aspects of the national survey? Will he recommend an increased Commonwealth grant to the Australian Council for Educational Research to match the increased funds recently made available to that Council by the States?

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · TASMANIA · LP

– In answering a question without notice it would be quite inappropriate for me to recommend or to refuse to recommend a proposal for a grant. If the other, more general part of the question is put on notice it will receive consideration.

page 2107

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Senator McMANUS:
VICTORIA

– Will the AttorneyGeneral elaborate on his earlier statement that the Australian Broadcasting Commission is an independent Commission, not subject to direction by the PostmasterGeneral or the Government? Does not his statement mean that we as parliamentarians waste our time in presenting complaints of misconduct in the Australian Broadcasting Commission to the Postmaster-General or to the Government? As there is therefore no Government control of ABC news and information services what safeguard has the community against the danger that persons conducting such sessions on the ABC may not misuse their positions to slant information or present it unfairly, in accordance with their personal views.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– The question asked by Sentaor McManus opens up a wide range of subjects. An element of subjectivity must always come into the approach that one makes to these matters. I think the honourable senator stated the position substantially accurately when he referred to the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Commission and its ability to express such views as appeal to it but which may not appeal to the Parliament or to parliamentarians. Once should recognise that the Parliament itself established the Australian Broadcasting Commission as an independent body, that the Parliament laid down that the ABC should report to it each year, and that with regard to particular matters the PostmasterGeneral may give directions but he must inform the Parliament when he gives such directions. I do not believe that questions asked by members of Parliament and comments made by the public fall on deaf ears because I believe that the Commission is aware of comments which are made and seeks to establish a national medium which will give satisfaction. We all know that occasionally on the ABC things which may be regarded as lacking in propriety or as not serving the public interest do occur, but I think that ultimately, the Government and the Parliament should recognise that there is great virtue in having an independent national news and television medium.

page 2107

QUESTION

SYDNEY AIRPORT PROPOSALS

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Minister for Civil Aviation been drawn to a newspaper report of the first meeting yesterday of the Federal-State committee investigating sites for Sydney’s second international airport? Has the Minister noted the reported statement that the committee will concentrate on 4 sites - Richmond, Somersby. Duffy’s Forest and Wattamolla? Is this statement correct?

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

– I myself drew attention to the newspaper report this morning. When I read it I was slightly astonished. I thought that I would have prepared, for the purpose of accurately informing the Senate once again, the facts of the situation. As I reported to the Parliament on 15th September this year, this committee examined 16 different preliminary airport layouts and detailed plans of possible sites were examined. Those sites included Wattamolla. As a result of all these considerations the committee was able to discard a number of locations and end up wilh 4 that it could not reject or place in order of preference without extensive consultation with the Government of New South Wales, together with detailed surveys and other technical economic and operational investigations in depth.

Senator Keeffe:

– I’ll bet that what you are reading from is not signed by you.

Senator COTTON:

– The honourable senator does me an injustice. Whenever I can I try to come prepared. I do occasionally read the newspapers. The honourable senator did not need to make that remark. The 4 locations were Duffy’s Forest, Richmond, Somersby and Wattamolla. The committee recommended that the remaining investigations leading up to the selection of a possible site should be made by a joint Commonwealth-State committee. The terms of reference of that joint committee, which has already held its first meeting, specifically state that it should address itself mainly to the alternative sites, Richmond and Somersby, but without restricting itself to these locations if the committee considers that other locations merit detailed consideration. On 15th September I also informed the Parliament - the record will show this to be the case - that it was the Commonwealth’s view that for a variety of reasons Duffy’s Forest and Wattamolla were neither desirable nor satisfactory sites and that it was hoped that a quick determination could be made between Richmond and Somersby.

page 2108

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Will the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral agree that under the Broadcasting and Television Act it is only when the Postmaster-General gives instructions either in writing or by telegram to the Australian Broadcasting Commission that he has to report the matter to the Parliament and that he does not have to report if a verbal or telephonic instruction is given? Will the Minister ascertain whether any instruction has been given to the producers of the programme ‘This Day Tonight’ and to the news section of the Australian Broadcasting Commission that there is to be no follow-up programme or further reference made to the incident that occurred at the ABC studios at Gore Hill on 16th November? If such an instruction was given will he also ascertain who issued the instruction, what was the reason given for the instruction and report those details to the Parliament? Finally, I ask again: Will the Minister also affirm that the Commonwealth Police were not hindered in any way by anyone in the ABC in any attempt made by the Commonwealth Police to apprehend Mr Michael Matteson on 16th November?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– From my recollection of the Broadcasting and Television Act I understand the general position as set out by the honourable senator to be correct, but I will have a look at the provisions with a view to confirming it.

Senator Willesee:

– That is not what you said in answer to 2 other questions.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I do not know what Senator Willesee is trying to ascertain. I was asked by Senator Douglas McClelland whether, under the- Broadcasting and Television Act what has to be informed to the Parliament has to be in writing or in a telegram, and my recollection is that that is what the Act provides.

Senator Willesee:

– Why did you not say that in answer to previous questions?

Senator GREENWOOD:

– Because I used a general expression: ‘when the Minister gives directions’. It is implicit in this sort of attack which is being made that what the Minister himself has said and what I have said here is not worthy of acceptance. I have said that no instruction was given by the Minister -with regard to “This Day Tonight’, but I have been asked by Senator Douglas McClelland to check again, as it were, and I can assure him that I will check again and the PostmasterGeneral will provide an answer. 1 can say only that the Postmaster-General over a long tenure as Postmaster-General and the Minister responsible for the carrying out of the provisions of this Broadcasting and. Television Act has repeatedly said that he does not give instructions to the ABC as to what should be contained in its news programmes or current affairs programmes. I would have thought his constant statement ought to be accepted, particularly when there has never been any evidence brought forward that the contrary is the case. However, I will convey the honourable senator’s remarks to the PostmasterGeneral for his consideration.

As to the other matter - whether last Tuesday week there was a hindering by ABC employees of the Commonwealth Police - to my knowledge there was not; but there again it is not a matter to which any particular report has been directed because no question as to whether or not it has occurred has arisen previously. Therefore I am at a loss to know why the honourable senator raises the matter.

page 2109

QUESTION

PRIORITY PAID MAIL

Senator KEEFFE:

– Can the Minister representing the Postmaster-General advise the Parliament when the prion:y paid mail service is likely to be extended to Townsville and other northern provincial cities?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– 1 am unable to answer the question. It is quite apparent from recent reports from the PostmasterGeneral’s Department that this priority paid service which is proving very popular is constantly being extended to new areas. As to when it will be extended to the areas about which Senator Keeffe asks, I shall have to ask the Postmaster-General to supply the information, and I shall do so.

page 2109

QUESTION

DRUGS

Senator GUILFOYLE:
VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Health. Is any action being taken to implement one of the principal recommendations of the excellent report by the Senate Select Committee on Drug Trafficking and Drug Abuse, that steps be taken to ‘establish a more responsible approach to the reporting on the use of drugs and particularly of any bizarre effects’?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

As a matter of fact, I had proposed to make a statement at the conclusion of question time on this matter, but with the goodwill of the Senate and your indulgence, Mr President, perhaps I could do it now. It is very short. I think members of the Senate will be interested to know that efforts to achieve this desirable end are now to be undertaken as part of the national drug education campaign being conducted jointly by the Commonwealth and the States, that is, to establish a more responsible approach to the reporting of the use of drugs and particularly of any bizarre effects. Recently I wrote to organisations representing the various sections of the mass media and invited their comments on the recommendations made by the Select Committee. Very favourable and helpful replies have now come back from the organisations and, as a result, several suggestions which . will help to achieve a greater understanding of the objectives of the national drug education campaign and of the value of a responsible approach by the mass media to the whole subject of drug use will be taken up.

One suggestion has been that a national seminar should be held to discuss the role of mass media in meeting social challenges posed by drug abuse. I think honourable senators will agree that this is an excellent suggestion and I have accordingly approved arrangements for my Department to conduct such a seminar in Canberra over the last weekend in February 1972. It is planned to invite about 30 senior journalists from various sections of the media to attend the seminar along with representatives of Commonwealth and State authorities engaged in health education programmes concerned with drug abuse.

I feel that I should point out that in exploring this whole question of responsible reporting of drug abuse it must be first acknowledged that there will be different views on what constitutes responsible reporting. But by whatever criteria responsible reporting is judged, informed reporting must surely be an important element. In addition to the seminar action will be taken within a national drug education campaign to assist journalists readily to obtain factual information on all aspects of the use and abuse of drugs. This has come out of a report of a Senate select committee and I am sure that all honourable senators will join me in giving our blessing to the objectives of the seminar.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Why do you not let us discuss the report?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

That may also emerge. I will have to have a look at that aspect. We will have a seminar which will pick up one of the recommendations of a Senate select committee - to give wider publicity to the problem of drug abuse.

page 2109

QUESTION

POLITICAL PARTY FUNDS

Senator MURPHY:

– Does the Leader of the Government in the Senate recall that on 11th November I asked him whether the time had arrived for legislative provision requiring that all substantial contributions to political parties, direct or indirect, be published, included in the balance sheets of companies and certainly included in a public register available to all? The honourable gentleman may remember that he referred to the standards which applied in relation to his own Party’s financial support. He said that they were included in a public document and that he hoped that the same rule applied to other parties. I now ask the Minister whether it would come as a supprise to him to learn that a member of the public contacted a senior official of the Liberal Party in Victoria-

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– The

Liberal Party?

Senator MURPHY:

– Yes, the Liberal Party, in Victoria. He was told that the information was highly confidential and was very definitely not in a public document. I ask the Minister: Where may members of the public inspect the public document to which he referred? Would it be convenient for him to table a copy of it in the Senate?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

Yes, I remember the circumstances to which the Leader of the Opposition has referred. As 1 was travelling back to Sydney on the morning following the day on which the question was asked, on the aircraft I read a report in a Sydney newspaper stating that I had said that details of all moneys that my political party received were published in a public document. That was not what I had said. I had said that the standards which we applied regarding contributions were in a public document. 1 had clearly in mind that it was public knowledge that the Party of which I am a member has reservations as to the people and organisations from whom it will receive contributions.

The honourable senator referred to the words ‘public document’. I will need to refresh my memory from Hansard, but I was rather under the impression that I said that the standards which we applied in receiving contributions were publicly known. 1 contacted the newspaper concerned and pointed out the error in the report. The newspaper published a correction the following morning. I had said that we applied a series of standards before we accepted contributions from certain groups in the community.

Senator Murphy:

– That is what you meant, anyway?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– That was clearly my intention. That is the way it was reported in the newspapers, with one exception. I am grateful to Senator Murphy for giving me the opportunity to repeat, in response to his question, what I intended.

page 2110

QUESTION

WOOL

Senator POKE:
TASMANIA

– Does the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry regard the Government’s decision to appoint a special committee to ‘solve the wool industry’s problems’ as a vindication of the Opposition’s probing of the issue? Will he now agree that the problems of the wool industry are far greater than he has been prepared to convey in his answers to me over the past several months?

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

– I was not aware that I had not realised that very grave problems face the wool industry. I think all members of this chamber are aware of the position. The Government made an annoucement that, for this year only, it would make a deficiency payment to wool growers. It said that this would enable the industry to have a look at its problems and at the same time allow the Government to delve further into the information and to continue the examination that it has been carring but. The committee mentioned by the honourable senator only takes further the policy of the Government. A former senior public servant has been put at the head of a committee. The other members of the committee will be 2 representatives of the Department of Primary Industry and the Department of Trade and Industry’ and an official of the Prime Minister’s Department. They will examine thoroughly and discuss with representatives of the wool industry and the community as a whole the problems of the wool industry, and then put a report before the Government.

page 2110

QUESTION

FRUIT AND VEGETABLES

Senator LITTLE:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for’ Civil Aviation. Has the Department of Civil Aviation negotiated an international . freight agreement setting freight rates on fresh fruit and vegetables as at Sydney Airport, to which appropriate inter-capital rates must be added for those shipping from other

States? Was this agreement negotiated when Sydney Airport was the only international airport in Australia? Now that Tullamarine also is an international airport, has the Department considered the need to negotiate a new agreement which will allow Melbourne growers and merchants to compete on equal terms for the seasonal fresh Fruit and vegetables markets that exists in Singapore and Japan?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I have some understanding, but not a total knowledge, of this matter. The thought expressed by the honourable senator is a new one to me. Tt is a good thought and a useful one because, quite apart from this aspect, J believe that Australia has a singular capacity to grow fruit and vegetables that can be sent to out of season markets in the northern hemisphere. I shall take this matter up seriously. I thank the honourable senator for the suggestion.

page 2111

QUESTION

COMPULSORY UNIONISM

Senator YOUNG:

– 1 direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. As the rights of the individual are being ignored by trade unions in their demands to enforce compulsory trade unionism on some farmers on Kangaroo Island by imposing a black ban on their wool, does this mean that any farmer who employs non-union labour on his property will be similarly black-listed, thus preventing the delivery of wheat and livestock? Will the Minister seek the support of the leaders of the Australian Labor Party in order to change this dominant attitude of trade unions which could bring economic disaster to farmers as well as to rural dwellers and the economy generally?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I am a firm believer in the idea that, where a person works in and earns his livelihood from a particular section of industry and there is an organisation working for the welfare and benefit of those in that section of industry, thai person should be a member of that organisation. But it is abhorrent to me that, if a person because of conscience or some other reason does not want to join that organisation or union, he should be compelled to do so. I find it scandalous that, on an island like Kangaroo Island where there are people with small holdings whose income from rural commodities has diminished considerably and whose sons find that they have to go out and take jobs with neighbours to supplement that income, the unions should see fit to black ban their produce. That is scandalous, and I hope that it will not extend throughout the Australian mainland. In regard to the matter of speaking to the leaders of the union, I hope that common sense will carry the day with them.

page 2111

QUESTION

DRAFT RESISTER

Senator CAVANAGH:

– My question to the Attorney-General arises out of his reply to a question by Senator Young. Did the Attorney-General initiate an investigation as a result of my question whether Mr Michael Matteson was present in the public gallery of this House on Tuesday night? Was the Attorney-General satisfied that this person was not in the gallery simply because one person who was in the gallery and who was wearing a draft resister’s badge has been identified as someone else? Do I understand from the Attorney-General’s reply that as I was allegedly mistaken in my belief, that shows how easily it is to be misled and that that is a justification for trained law enforcement and detection officers being unable to arrest any one of 4 draft resisters who are daily making public appearances, 2 of them appearing on television?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I only know that yesterday Senator Cavanagh asked whether I would acknowledge the truth of the report that one Michael Matteson, a draft resister, while wearing a draft resister’s button, sat last Tuesday evening in the public gallery. I answered no. After question time of the Senate had terminated I made inquiries to ascertain whether there was any truth in what Senator Cavanagh had been alleging. After very few inquiries I was informed of the identity of the persons who had sat in the gallery. To my recollection and to the recollection of others from whom I had inquired, there was only one person who wore a draft resister’s button, and quite positively he was not this man Matteson.

With regard to the other matters to which the honourable senator has referred, all I can say is that it must be appreciated that the police in Australia obey the laws which we would have them obey. It would certainly facilitate the ability of the police to apprehend offenders - not only people who are offending against the National Service Act but other persons - to be able to walk into a person’s home without a warrant and generally give expression to a thought that a person might be able to be detected that way. But that is not our law and I hope that it never will be our law. It must bc recognised that there are, therefore, those kinds of limitations upon police action. It must be recognised also that the persons who are seeking to evade apprehension are persons who are not unintelligent, who are playing a game with the police and who are endeavouring to belittle the police authority. I regret, of course, that some honourable senators are rather inclined to support those persons against the police. By making sporadic appearances and then disappearing they are making life very difficult for the police. All I can say is that the police are diligently doing their job. I trust they will receive the assistance of the community and, of course, members of Parliament in doing that work.

page 2112

QUESTION

COAL

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Education and Science. No doubt the Minister is aware that Tasmania contains many millions of tons of coal, much of which could be very easily won. Will he say whether the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Organisation has investigated the possible use of this coal for chemical purposes? If it has not done so, will he advise me of the correct line of action to have such an investigation carried out?

Senator WRIGHT:
LP

– I shall have to refer that question to the Minister for Education and Science for anything like accurate information.

page 2112

QUESTION

INTERCEPTION OF TELEPHONE CALLS

Senator WILKINSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. Yesterday in reply to a question by Senator Murphy he said:

  1. . the offence contained in the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act is an offence of intercepting a communication in its passage over the telephone system.

Does this mean that telephone tapping which could be done without an interception of the message is quite legal, could be done at any time, and would not require ministerial permission?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– Telephone tapping in the sense of an unauthorised interception is unlawful unless consent is given by the Attorney-General in cases of national security. As to what might be involved in the precise question asked by Senator Wilkinson I am unable to say and I. feel that it would be imprudent of me to make any comment which would suggest that some form of obtaining information which has been transmitted over a telephone or which conceivably might or might not amount to a passage over the telephone system is lawful. Therefore I trust that the honourable senator appreciates why I decline to answer his question.

page 2112

QUESTION

EXCISE ON WINE

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– ls the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry aware that the 11.8 per cent annual growth factor in wine sales experienced in the 5-year period prior to the imposition of the 50c per gallon excise charge has disappeared completely? Is the Minister aware of the deep concern being expressed by grape growers in South Australia that the estimated intake of grapes by the co-operative wineries in the coming vintage will be reduced to 50,000 tons as against 70,000 tons last vintage and 90.000 tons in 1970? As an unsalable surplus of 20,000 tons is threatened, will urgent consideration be given to an inquiry into this position by the Department of Primary Industry? As the deterioration has occurred since the incidence of the excise charge on wines, is it not high time that this tax was abolished?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– I remind the honourable senator that an excise charge of 50c per gallon on domestic wine was imposed by the 1970 Budget. The industry has claimed that not only has the excise halted the strongly rising trend in wine sales but that it has reversed that trend, as the honourable senator pointed out in his question. The Prime Minister established an inter-departmental committee composed of representatives from the Prime Minister’s Department, the Treasury, the Department of Customs and

Excise and the Department of Primary Industry to examine the situation in the wine industry with particular reference to the effects of excise. The committee reported that comparative statistics were not complete but that there appeared to be a sales drop in some sectors of the industry. The causes seem to lie, in the main, in marketing problems and it could not be said that the excise was, as represented by the industry, solely or even largely the reason for the drop. Perhaps the worst affected sector is that of the co-operative wine makers in the River Murray region of South Australia, in respect of which the honourable senator has made representations. Their production of bulk wine has lost the traditional outlets to other wine makers and to the United Kingdom market where there has been a very severe drop in sales of bulk fortified wines. That is all the information I have. However, I will refer to the Minister for Primary Industry the points made by the honourable senator. If further information is made available to me about them I will convey it to the honourable senator.

page 2113

QUESTION

BOMBING OF ADRIATIC TRADE CENTRE

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I address a question to the Attorney-General. In view of the hoo-ha about draft resisters, I ask: Will the Attorney-General allay my fears that nothing is being done by the Commonwealth Police to co-operate with the Special Division of the New South Wales Police Department in apprehending the perpetrators of the bombing of the Adriatic Trade Centre in Sydney, which was obviously done by the far right in thai city?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– The apprehending of offenders for whom warrants for arrest have been issued and the detecting of wrongdoers in cases of suspected crime are among the most difficult tasks a police force has to undertake. This applies to not only the Commonwealth Police but also the State police forces and, I would venture to say, police forces throughout the democratic world. All I can say is that there are many offences which State and Commonwealth police have to investigate together and that, to the extent of their abilities and in the light of the assistance and information they receive, they do the best job they can. I am sure that the incident to which the honourable senator has referred would be one such example.

page 2113

QUESTION

PYRAMID SELLING

Senator MCAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration. Has his attention been drawn to a statement made yesterday by the Attorney-General of South Australia that pyramid selling organisations were leaving a trail of misfortune across Australia and were using doubtful methods to trap people into buying distributorships? Is he aware also that the Attorney-General of South Australia said that in many cases the promoters of these snide enterprises arrived here from the United States of America and Canada? Will he examine the immigration laws to determine whether action can be taken to restrict entry into Australia of people who come here with the sole purpose of making a quick underhand profit and who leave ruin and hardship in their wake? Will the Minister ascertain whether any of these foreign pyramid selling promoters are still in Australia and, if they are, will he take action, by way of deportation if necessary, to ensure their removal?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I will refer the comments contained in the honourable senator’s question to the Minister for Immigration for his consideration. I do not know whether he saw the statement of the Attorney-General of South Australia. I did not see it. Broadly, I would regard support for his comments as being available. But I should think that to suggest that people should be denied entry into an essentially free country, not on the basis of past conduct and not on the basis of their reputation or what they may have done, but on the basis of what they may do when they come to Australia would be to set a very hazardous criterion. When one adds to that the difficulties of denning what is the real offence involved in pyramid selling the problem becomes enhanced because what is involved in pyramid selling covers legitimate as well as possibly illegitimate operations. The intent which would have to be shown to give effect to the honourable senator’s question would be tremendously difficult to define and injustice could result. Having said that by way of comment, I will refer the honourable senator’s question to the Minister for Immigration for elaboration if he wishes so to do.

page 2114

QUESTION

COMPANY TAKEOVERS

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate aware of the tremendous growth in company takeovers by both overseas and indigenous major groups? Is the Government aware that the competition between rival groups to acquire Australian concerns invariably results in an above value payment being made for the shares of the companies being swallowed up? Does the Minister regard these transactions as inflationary? Has the Government given any consideration to levying an acquisition or takeover tax on these operations as a means of making higher social service payments to the needy?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

Levies and takeover taxes clearly are matters of policy in the first place and 1 will direct the question to the Treasurer. It would be singularly inappropriate for me to attempt to answer such a question at question time because it has many implications in it. There are certain procedures in relation to governmental intervention in these matters. I think the honourable senator and the whole of the Senate are entitled to a comprehensive reply to the question and that I shall get

page 2114

QUESTION

DARWIN AIRPORT

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Civil Aviation. I view of the acute apron congestion that now exists at Darwin Airport, as outlined in the Department of Civil Aviation Notice to Airmen of 11th November, I ask the Minister to what degree the proposed expenditure of $650,000 on additions to the existing terminal will relieve the present congestion.

Senator COTTON:
LP

– It will relieve it quite substantially. The honourable senator will appreciate that one of the things which has to be considered is the increasing flow of traffic through Darwin and the need, in due course, for a total examination of Darwin Airport and at some future point of time a new terminal. I will get for the honourable senator some uptodate figures to see for how many years ahead on the estimated traffic pattern the terminal looks like coping with the problem.

page 2114

QUESTION

SHIPPING FREIGHTS

Senator LITTLE:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport: What steps, if any, does the Government propose to take to protect the Australian dried fruit industry from the disastrous effects of a 25 per cent increase in shipping freights threatened by the North American shipping conference? Will the Government insist that overseas shipping interests be required to present evidence under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act to support and obtain the approval of the relevant Minister before any increases are allowed to the present level of freight charges?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I know that the Department takes an interest in the negotiations between the shippers and the shipping companies when freight increases are proposed and that it does everything possible to keep them well down. The problem of increasing shipping costs has been with us for a long time. It is due to a combination of factors including increasing labour costs and waterfront problems in other coutries as well as this one. The application of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act is really a question not for me but for the Attorney-General as that is a legal area. However I shall direct the question to the Department of Shipping and Transport and ask it to give a full reply, drawing upon information from the Attorney-General’s Department.

page 2114

QUESTION

DRUG SMUGGLING

Senator MULVIHILL:

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and stems from his earlier report on drug detection. Can the Minister inform the Senate whether his Department has finally abandoned the use of dogs to detect drug smuggling or whether it is considering switching from the Labrador breed, which has proved a failure, to the crossbreeds which have been used effectively by the United States drug agencies?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

The Department of Health is not directly involved in this way in drug detection. We do have a Drug Evaluation Committee. The use of dogs or other means of drug detection is a responsibility of the Department of Customs and Excise. Having been a Minister for Customs and Excise for 3i years I know the tremendous concern of that Department with drug detection. If the Minister representing the Minister for Customs and Excise has anything to add in reply I shall retire in his favour. I shall have some investigations made and obtain an answer for the honourable senator.

page 2115

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN FILMS

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Will the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, Aborigines and the Arts ascertain whether the Australian Film Development Corporation has invested in an Australian feature film called ‘Stockade’ on the basis of a return of I2i per cent of all profits made? Is the Minister aware that the producers of Australian feature films have tremendous difficulty in securing outlets for effective distribution of ‘heir productions because of the existing monopoly control on distribution in Australia? Because the Film Development Corporation under section 21 of the Act is empowered, subject to the Minister’s approval, to engage in the distribution of Australian productions, will the Minister request the Corporation to give immediate consideraation to establishing a distribution agency to ensure effective distribution in Australia and abroad of Australian productions? Finally, when can we expect to receive the annual report of the Corporation for the year ended 30th June last?

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

– I think the honourable senator will appreciate that I am not able to give answers to those questions because they cover a very wide area and require detailed material which I do not possess. I suggest that the most convenient course is for the honourable senator to place his question on the notice paper. I am sure that the Minister will provide him with a comprehensive reply.

page 2115

QUESTION

WOOL

Senator POKE:

– My question which is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry is supplementary to the question I’ asked a few moments ago. Will the Minister give consideration to referring to the special interdepartmental committee which the Government has set up to solve the wool industry’s problems a suggestion that it investigate why a one ounce ball of pure knitting wool sold over the counter costs 36c an ounce when wool is bought at 36c lb? How does the Minister explain the enormous profit on the manufacture and sale of one pound of wool bought at 36c? To whom does the profit go?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– If I could answer that question there would not be a problem in the wool industry at the present time. 1 shall refer the honourable senator’s suggestion to the Minister for Primary Industry.

page 2115

QUESTION

SPORT

Senator McLAREN:

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. On 14th September I drew the Ministers attention to the urgent need for the appointment of a Commonwealth minister for sport and requested his support in this regard. In reply the Minister told me that he would have the matter examined and let me have a reply in due course. I now ask the Minister to advise the Senate whether he has been able to make any progress in this most important matter?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSONWhen a question is directed to me concerning a matter which is not in my own portfolio it is picked up and referred to the relevant department for evaluation. In turn a message comes back to me which will enable me to respond in the Senate or send a communication to : the honourable senator. If the question is oh notice I am able to supply a reply in the usual way. A ministry of sport would clearly be within the responsibility of the Prime Minister’s Department. It can be assumed without my having to put my hands on ‘ the relevant paper that the question asked by the honourable senator would have, been sent to the Prime Minister’s Department. In. due course I shall obtain a reply from that Department. I shall now check to make certain that the system is working as I really hope it is working.

page 2116

QUESTION

HEALTH

page 2116

QUESTION

INVESTMENT

(Question No. 959)

Senator CAVANAGH:

asked the Attorney-General, upon notice:

  1. Did an article headed ‘Fund Scandal’ in Jobson’s Investment Digest or 3rd March analyse the Australian Fixed Trusts Group.
  2. Does the Group advertise for public investments and has it succeeded in attracting funds from many thousands of small investors.
  3. Do the backers of the Group list Sir John Hurley. C.B.E., as a Director.
  4. Are the funds of the Group stated to be in excess of $100m.
  5. Do the assets of balance sheets include the face value of shares held in bankrupt and near bankrupt companies.
  6. Will the Government ascertain whether the interests of the many thousands of small investors concerned are adequately safe-guarded in view of the clearly scandalous position alleged in the article.
  7. Does the Government consider that the Directors are fit and proper persons to remain in control of such a vast aggregation of the savings of small investors.
  8. Should some public warning be given to investors that the mere inclusion of a titled person as a Director in an investment company is no guarantee of its safeness as an investment.
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

  1. An article headed ‘Fund Scandal’ appeared in Jobson’s Investment Digest of 3rd March 1971 dealing with some of the activities of the Australian Fixed Trusts ‘group’.
  2. Certain companies in the ‘group’ act as managers of unit trusts and I understand that large numbers of people have placed funds with these trusts.
  3. Sir John Hurley is a director of AFT Limited - a company registered in the Australian Capital Territory.
  4. Yes, they are so stated.
  5. Of the companies referred to in the article mentioned in part (1) above only AFT Limited is incorporated under the Companies Ordinance 1962-1969 of the Australian Capital Territory. The most recent balance sheet of that company filed in the office of the Registrar of Companies for the Territory does not include a reference to the face value of any shares.

The article also refers to funds. Of those funds, only AFT Balanced Fund No. 2 is established under a deed approved pursuant to the provisions of the Companies Ordinance of the Australian Capital Territory.

Such a fund is not required to file a balance sheet with the Registrar, but at the end of each financial year it is required to lodge a return in the form prescribed by sub-section (1.) of section 85 of the Companies Ordinance. The most recent return of the Fund contains a schedule in which are listed the shares held by the Fund, with a reference to the ‘par/face value’ of those shares. However, it is stated in the schedule that the total value of the Fund’s securities is calculated on the basis of selling prices of securities on the Stock Exchange. The return is required by law to list all marketable securities held by the trustee irrespective of whether they are issued by companies that are insolvent or nearly so.

Other funds mentioned in the article are not established under deeds approved by Australian Capital Territory law and there is accordingly no requirement imposed on the funds to file returns with the Registrar for the Territory. I have not seen any return in respect of those funds and cannot comment upon them.

  1. (7) and (8) The Uniform Companies legislation of the Australian States and Territories regulates unit trusts throughout Australia. This legislation requires the appointment of an independent trustee for every deed constituting a unit trust. The legislation is constantly under review to ensure that it provides adequate safeguards for investors. At the meeting of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General held in Hobart on 28th and 29th October 1971, it wasdecided to appoint a sub-committee to formulate proposals for the establishment of a body to consider the need for legislation to unit trusts and mutual funds and syndications. This sub-committee consists of the Commonwealth Attorney-General and the Attorneys-General of New South Wales and Victoria.

page 2116

QUESTION

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY BAND

(Question No. 1395)

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Navy, upon notice:

  1. What has been the role and function of the Royal Australian Navy Band duringthe past 6 months.
  2. At what functions or on what public occasions has the Royal Australian Navy Band performed during the past 6 months and in each case:

    1. how many members of the Band performed
    2. what was the location of the performance
    3. what was the date of the performance
    4. what was the cost of transporting the Band to attend the performance.
  3. What engagements for public performances has the Band accepted for the next 6 months.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The

Minister for the Navy has provided the following answers to the honourable senator’s questions:

  1. Bands of the RAN are provided primarily to meet the ceremonial and training requirements of the Royal Australian. Navy ashore and afloat. As a secondary role and when service commitments permit, Bands are able to undertake other engagements.

Because of the high standard of musicianship maintained, RAN Bands are in constant demand to support a wide variety of non-service functions throughout Australia The numbers of requests received are such that if they were all to be accepted, the prime role of meeting ceremonial and training commitments of the Fleet and HMA establishments would inevitably suffer. It is frequently not appreciated that to meet the requests for Bands to support non-service functions, it is sometimes necessary for the Bands to travel considerable distances and be accommodated overnight locally. The cost for travel and accommodation for 30 men with their instruments is quite considerable and is a charge against Naval funds. While there is a certain element of Public Relations benefit and goodwill to be gained through participation in such events, it cannot be said that participation in such non-service activities is essential, or that they should receive priority in allocation of Naval funds for expenditure. As the honourable senator will be well aware economies have become necessary in all government departments this year and since March, funds available for travel and accommodation have been significantly reduced. Only essential travel has been authorised. In these circumstances the nonservice commitments which can be accepted by the shore based bands of the RAN have been restricted to the local areas around Sydney and Melbourne which will not involve the use of nonservice accommodation overnight.

Two exceptions to this general ruling occurred earlier in 1971. To avoid a late cancellation and to enable the band from HMAS Cerberus to attend a festival at Bright, the township of Bright provided overnight accommodation. Recently to meet a commitment in Portland, it became necessary for the Band to travel by coach and be accommodated locally, after arrangements to travel and live in. HMAS Vendetta fell through when the ship was required for operational duties in connection with the Rabaul earthquake.

  1. Details of public occasions and functions at which the shore based Bands have performed are listed below:
  1. Engagements for public performances accepted for the 6 months commencing 1.10.71 are as follows:

page 2119

QUESTION

AIRCRAFT DISPOSAL

(Question No. 1406)

Senator KEEFFE:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Supply the following question, upon notice:

  1. Were Vampire aircraft sold to a United States of America Company advertised for purchase by tender or were they sold by private treaty.
  2. How many Avon Sabre fighter aircraft, which have now been phased out of service, are still listed onthe Royal Australian Air Force aircraft register.
  3. Is it proposed to sell the Avon Sabre aircraft; if so, when will they be sold, and what method of sale will be adopted.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

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

  1. The Vampire aircraft were advertised in Australia, United Kingdom and United States of America for sale by public tender.
  2. Forty two (42) Avon Sabre fighter aircraft arc still listed on the Royal Australian Air Force aircraft register.
  3. No aircraft have yet been declared to my

Department for disposal.

page 2119

QUESTION

WEAPONS RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT SALISBURY AND WOOMERA

(Question No. 1527)

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Supply the following question, upon notice:

  1. To what extent are the launchings of sound ing rocket experiments at Woomera, in conjunction with the European Space Research Organisation the other activities by the Weapons Research Establishment at Woomera and Salisbury, likely to maintain continuing capability at Woomera and Salisbury.
  2. Are present activities on these experiments sufficient to maintain continuing scientific and other staff in these locations.
  3. Do future programmes, including those in co-operation with the United Kingdom, New Zealand and other countries, guarantee employment stability for the scientific and other staff at Woomera and Salisbury.
Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– The Minister for Supply has providedthe following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Although the Woomera and Salisbury establishments operated as integrated parts ofthe Long Range Weapons Establishment when the Long Range Weapons Project commenced in 1947, the interests at Salisbury have gradually broadened overthe years. Following re-negotiation of the UK/ Australia Joint Project agreement in 1968 only a small proportion of the Salisbury workload is related to the support of the Woomera trials; the major workload of the Salisbury establishment is now in support of the Australian Defence needs.It is thus necessary to considerthe Salisbury and Woomera establishments separately in answering the honourable senator’s questions.

While the launches carried out on behalf of European Launcher Development Organisation European Space Research Organisation and National Aeronauticsand Space Administration represented a significant contribution to the activities of the Woomera Range in the 1960’s launches for third parties are now a minimal percentage of the workload.

The main function of the Woomera Range is to conduct trials of weapons and launch rockets for Australia and the United Kingdom. In conjunction with the United Kingdom we have an agreed and satisfactory trials programme up to 1974 to retain staff levels and capability. Beyond this the programme is naturally less firm but again there is no reasonto expect thata satisfactory workload will not continue.

As a result of the increasing number of Australian initiated research and development tasks, Salisbury is now a viable establishment. Whilst continual review of procedures and organisational structures and updating of equipment and techniques have rendered replacement of staff wastage in some categories unnecessary in recent years, the workload is expected to continue at least at the present level.

I can assure the honourable Senator that there is no need to anticipate any reduction in staff at the Salisbury laboratories, and no retrenchments are contemplated

page 2120

QUESTION

MR FELIPE YSMAEL

(Question No. 1631)

Senator CAVANAGH:

asked the Minis ter representing the Minister for Immigration, upon notice:

  1. Has the Minister twice, in the past 18 months, rejected applications by Mr Felipe Ysmael for Australian citizenship: if so why were the applications rejected?
  2. Is a new application by Mr Ysmael presently being considered?
Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Mr Ysmael has not applied for Australian citizenship.

page 2120

QUESTION

RAILWAY SLEEPERS

(Question No. 1301)

Senator BROWN:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. Were tenders for the supply ofsleepers for the Port Augusta-Whyalla railway line received from both Australian and overseas organisations: if so, who were the tenderers.
  2. Were tenders specifically called for the supply of concrete sleepers.
  3. What prices and conditions were submitted by each tenderer.
  4. Did invitations for tenders, for both timber and concrete sleepers, close on the same day.
  5. Was the successful tenderer selected from lenders which did nothave subsequent variations if not, what were the reasons for the variations to the tender.
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. Tenders were received only from Australian organisations.
  2. Tenders were called separately for both concrete andtimber sleepers: (3)It isnot the practice of Commonwealth buying authorities to disclose details of unsuccesful tenders. The Minister for Shipping and Transport announced on 26 January 1971, that a contract had been awarded to Monier Pre-stressed Concrete for concrete sleepers for the Port Augusta-Whyalla line. At the same time he announced that a contract had been awarded to Millars Australia Pty Ltd for a similar number of timber sleepers for use on other Commonwealth railways.
  3. Tenders for concrete and timber sleepers closed on 22 September 1970 and 25 August 1970 respectively.
  4. The succesful tenderer for the sleepers for the Port Augusta-Whyalla line was selected from tenders which did not have subsequent variations.

page 2120

QUESTION

RAILWAY SLEEPERS

(Question No. 1302)

Senator BROWN:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. What were the results of feasibility studies to decide the type of sleeper to be used in the proposed Port Augusta-Whyalla railway line.
  2. Did such studies take account of experience in other countries and particularly in the United Kingdom, where the trend is now towards the use of timber sleepers.
  3. What are the estimated relative costs, including ballasting and associated installations, of positioning timber and concrete sleepers.
  4. Did Commonwealth Railways, in deciding upon the use of concrete sleepers, take into account the ready availability of timber species which have proved to be eminently suitable for sleepers.
Senator COTTON:
LP

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

  1. Studies by Commonwealth Railways suggested that although concrete sleepers cost more than timber they would have considerably longer life and should produce a smoother mid more stable st rack. The studies justified the use of the Port Augu.sta-Whyalla railway line as a trial for concrete sleepers.

    1. Overseas experience was taken into account in making the decision to carry out a full-scale trial of concrete sleepers. In examining the overseas situation it was noted that, in fact the trend in the United Kingdom is towards the extensive use of concrete sleepers.
    2. The initial cost of laying concrete sleepers is approximately 25 per cent gereater than for timber sleepers but over a fifty year period ii is estimated that they will be 12 per cent cheaper than timber sleepers.
    3. Commonwealth Railways did take into account the availability of suitable timber sleepers and at the time the contract for concrete sleepers was awarded additional contracts worth $480,000 for timber sleepers for Commonwealth Railways were also awarded.

page 2121

QUESTION

URBAN PUBLIC TRANSPORT

(Question No. 1632)

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

asked the. Minister representing the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

Did the Australian Transport Advisory Council meeting in Perth on 8th July 1971 determine that he and State .Ministers for Transport instruct their advisers to urgently prepare a report on the investment needs of urban public transport: if so, what progress has been made, and will the report be tabled in the Parliament in due course.

Senator COTTON:
LP

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

Commonwealth and State Transport Ministers have instructed their advisers to prepare iti gently, with the assistance of the Bureau of Transport Economics, a report on the investment needs of urban public transport

The preparation of this report is still at a relatively early stage - the information necessary to assess such needs is being gathered and the methods of economic and financial evaluation to be used are being developed.

The question of the release of this report being prepared jointly by Commonwealth and State officials is a matter for consideration by the Australian Transport Advisory Council.

page 2121

QUESTION

DARWIN TELEPHONE EXCHANGE

(Question No. 1S35)

Senator McLAREN:

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

When will the Darwin telephone exchange- be fully connected to the national Subscriber Trunk Dialling networks.

Senator GREENWOOD:
LP

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

The introduction of full STD facilities for Darwin subscribers is dependent upon the installation of several major broadband radio > systems. It is planned to provide the initial STD access from Darwin to the eastern States in 1974 following the completion of the BrisbaneMaryborough and Mt Isa-Darwin links. Full integration’ wilh the national STD networks will follow the provision of the Adelaide-Berri system in mid- 1975.

page 2121

QUESTION

NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL

(Question No. 1487)

Senator McLAREN:

asked, the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice:

  1. What Commonwealth funds have been expended and recommended for future expenditure by the National Water Resources Council on water resources projects in Australia.
  2. What projects have been assisted or will be assisted in each of the States and at what cost.
Senator COTTON:
LP

– The Minister for National Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: lt has been assumed that reference to the National Water Resources Council is intended to indicate the National Water Resources Development Programme under which the Commonwealth has agreed to make available up to $150 million to State Governments to assist them with their water conservation programmes.

  1. To date the Commonwealth Government has agreed to allocate $89 million to the various States for specific projects. Up till the 30th June,. 1971 total advances made to the States for these projects was S34.218 million.
  2. Comonwealth financial assistance has been approved for the following projects to the extent shown -

The two Victorian projects are virtually completed and work is continuing, with Commonwealth financial assistance, on the remaining projects, excepting Pike Creek Dam, where construction has not yet commenced.

page 2122

QUESTION

REHABILITATION OF EX-SERVICEMEN

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– Yesterday Senator Douglas McClelland asked mc the following question:

My question to the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation follows on the questions asked of- him by Senators Murphy and Georges. Can the Minister say whether full time educational training is available to servicemen returning from Vietnam, should they desire it, to enable them to qualify completely for a trade or profession in the same way as servicemen from the Second World War when not only those who served abroad but also those who served within Australia were able to receive such educational training and assistance? If- not, what type of educational training will be made available to servicemen returning from Vietnam? Will the Minister include that material also in the information which he bas undertaken to make available to the Senate?

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

Educational and vocational training is available, either on a full time or part time basis, for all national servicemen, regardless of whether they served only in Australia or outside Australia. Periods of training are limited to one year full time or two years part time. Members of the permanent forces do not qualify for these benefits through the Repatriation System, but there are certain training benefits available to members of the permanent forces through the Service departments.

page 2122

QUESTION

REPATRIATION BENEFITS

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
CP

– Yesterday Senator Murphy asked me the following question:

Will the Minister representing the Minister for Repatriation tell us whether all soldiers and other military personnel who have served in Vietnam are entitled to all repatriation benefits, covering particularly such matters as rehabilitation training, war service homes and total and permanent incapacity benefits? If not. can he tell us in what way the position of those who served there is different from that of others who served in previous wars?

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

Ex-servicemen, both permanent Forces and national servicemen, who served in Vietnam on special service’ as defined in section 3 of the Repatriation (Special Overseas Service) Act qualify for war pensions, service pensions and medical treatment in the same way as members who served in previous wars and war-like operations. These ex-servicemen are also eligible for assistance under the War Services Homes Act. National servicemen qualify for re-establishment training under Part IV of the Defence (Re-establishment) Act. They and their dependants also qualify for most of the miscellaneous benefits that were available to members who served in earlier wars and war-like operations and to their dependants, the exceptions being:

  1. Grant of fares to take . up employment, in certain cases (Repatriation Reg. 77);
  2. Grant of up to $150 for’ household furnishings to certain blind and permanently incapacitated members, and to certain widows (Reg. 80);
  3. Provision of tools of trade etc., by way of gift or loan to permit members or widows to engage in their callings or to obtain employment (Reg. 81). (NB A similar benefit is now available to certain trainees on completion of their courses);
  4. Transportation to Australia of widows who married members overseas, and of their children (Reg. 95);
  5. Transportation to Australia, of certain ex. servicemen who served -in forces of other dominions, and were domiciled in Australia pre-war (Reg. 96);
  6. Transportation overseas -of certain incapacitated members for their own benefit (Reg. 97);
  7. Transportation overseas of certain dependants for their own benefit (Reg. 98);
  8. payment of removal expenses of certain members who were trainees under the Commonwealth Reconstruction Training Scheme (Reg: 102a);
  9. Payment of removal expenses of certain members transferring to new localities in connection with land settlement, business undertakings or employment (Reg. 103);

    1. Payment of removal expenses of certain dependants of deceased members (Reg. 103a);
  10. Payment of a sustenance allowance to members waiting to enter into occupation of land or into possession of business (Reg. 178).

page 2123

SALARIES, FEES AND ALLOWANCES OF STATUTORY OFFICE HOLDERS

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave - I table a paper relating to salaries and annual allowances of permanent heads, chiefs of staff and statutory office holders. During the debate in the Senate on 29th April 1971 on the Salaries Bill 1971 I said that the Government was prepared to table at least annually a document setting out the various emoluments and allowances received by the holders of statutory offices. Honourable senators will recall thai the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) in particular raised the tabling of these documents. Certain honourable senators on this side of the Senate also raised the same issue.

Senator Murphy:

– 1 said that I he documents should be produced.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

Thai is so. 1 have tabled a paper setting out this information. During the debate I mentioned that the common practice of authorising the Governor-General to determine the remuneration for holders of statutory offices dates back to at least 1911 when the Fisher Government introduced the Commonwealth Bank Bill. There followed over the years many Bills which included such a provision - for example, the Repatriation Bill 1920 and the Institute of Science and Industry Bill 1920, both introduced by the Hughes Government, and the Australian National Airlines Bil! 1945 and the Snowy Mountains Hydroelectric Power Bill 1949, both introduced by the Chifley Government. These are but a few of the many.

Furthermore, in the past 20 years or so Acts which had provided for the specification of rates in the Act itself ‘or in regulations have been amended to provide for determination by the Governor-General. These . changes were made wilh the acquiescence and in some cases active support of the Opposition. Examples are the Tariff Board Bill 1950. 7 commodity board Bills in 1953. *he Broadcasting and Television Bill 1956, the High

Commissioner (United Kingdom) Bill 1957 and the Overseas Telecommunications Bill 1958. In the matter of allowances, the process of determination by the GovernorGeneral dates back as far as 1903 when determination by the Governor-General was incorporated in the Judiciary Bill for the travelling expenses of the justices oi ‘.he High Court.

However I think it is fair to say that the position now reached is unsatisfactory both to the Senate and the Government. The Senate feels that it cannot accept that the Parliament has no part in the determination of salaries for many statutory offices. Although to vary the current practice would present not inconsiderable difficulties, it is unsatisfactory for the Government to face continual Senate opposition to the Governor-General’s determination provisions.

During the debate on the Salaries Bill I also indicated that a great deal of information was being collected and work being done on the general question of the most appropriate means by which the remuneration and allowances for holders of statutory offices should be fixed I added that I would be taking up this question further with my colleagues in the Government, in the light of views expressed in the Senate on many occasions over the past year or more. I have now had this consultation with my colleagues.

I should say at the outset that the Government has not wished to discourage the interest being shown by the Parliament in the way in which statutory bodies of one kind or another should operate. Consequently the Government has decided that in future it will follow the general principle that a salary or allowance paid on an annual basis should be specificed by Act of Parliament and that any other allowance or fee not paid on an annual basis should be prescribed by regulation. As I have already mentioned, there are some difficulties in this approach. There is, of course, great diversity among the large and increasing number of statutory offices. The considerable amount of work done since then has confirmed that there are various matters of detail which will require further careful consideration before the

Government’s decision on the general principles to be followed can be implemented in full. Nevertheless, examination may show that it is not appropriate for all annual salaries or allowances to be specified in legislation.

Lt has not been possible to resolve all the questions of detail involved in giving effect to the principles that I have mentioned and it is clear that a substantial volume of drafting work will be involved. In the circumstances it has not been found practicable to bring in the necessary volume of legislation- about 100 Acts, containing a wide variety of provisions have so far been identified. Appropriate provisions will be included in future legislation for the establishment of new statutory offices.

It will be evident that the Government proposes making every effort to meet the expressed wish of the Senate, and accordingly it is hoped that honourable senators will accept the need to work under existing statutory provisions until the details have been worked out and appropriate legislative amendments made.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Opposition

– by leave - We welcome what has just been stated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson). The Senate originated this considerable change spontaneously in this chamber some 12 months ago and it is pleasing to see that the Government has acceded to the wishes which were first expressed here and then, I think, adopted as a general principle by the Opposition. The importance of the change is perhaps greater than may be seen on the surface. This is one of the means of bringing statutory corporations under the control of this Parliament. They have been given a great deal of freedom which varies from corporation to corporation, but at the very least the salaries of the high office holders in those corporations ought to be subject to the determination of Parliament. lt was quite unsatisfactory that these salaries had been fixed in a manner which meant that Parliament took no part in their fixation and was not even told what salaries had been fixed.

I think, the ignorance had: been carried so far than on the occasion which led to the movement in the Senate an inquiry was mads as to what was the salary of the office holder. It was discovered that not only was it not set out in any legislation, whether direct or delegated, but also it was not set out in the report of the corporation in question and it was- not contained in any public document. Indeed; I think when the’ Legislative Research Service section of the Parliamentary Library endeavoured tofind out what the salary was it was told that it could not be told and in effect thatthis was none of its business. This was an impossible state of affairs which had to be corrected. It is very pleasing to see that it is .being corrected. We therefore welcome what has been said and we look forward anxiously to seeing that it is carried out.

The proposal has practical importance in this way: Not. only does Parliament otherwise not know what salary is being paid, but also we are not even told when it is being altered. The way in which we learnt of alterations in certain salaries of these office holders was that those who had been, affected by the changes made by the Senate were made the subject matter of a special Bill which had tq’ be brought iri here showing that their salaries had been uplifted in accordance with the general 6. per cent increase awarded by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to wage earners generally. Otherwise, as far as I can understand, the Parliament would have’ been completely ignorant of the fact that, this principle was being applied to those, who hold high office in the statutory corporations. I repeat that we welcome tha proposal and- look forward to its implementation.

Senator BYRNE:
Queensland

– by leave- I welcome the statement made by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson). 1 should like to pay the Minister this tribute: The Senate has expressed a concern over a period of time in relation to these matters - a concern that has been taken info action to resist ordinances or regulations and sometimes statutes. The Minister is always sensitive to the opinion of the Senate, and I welcome that. I think the Senate deeply appreciates that sensitivity. This is another example of it. The attitude of the

Australian Democratic Labor Party is that while initially we did support the propositions that mostly came from the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Murphy) requiring amendments to be made to Bills as they were introduced, finally a point came when we took a stand that this sporadic approach to these matters was not a good one, that it was only a casual one which meant that merely because a Bill relating to a principal Act happened to come before the chamber the matter was dealt with in relation to that officer and no others. It was a very unsatisfactory method of procedure, and from then on we were not prepared to support the propositions that came from the official Opposition.

This is obviously the type of answer for which we have been looking. In other words, this lays down a general system. It designates quite clearly those categories in which there shall be a specification by statute of the salaries of statutory officers. It indicates the difficulties and also those things which can be a matter of prescription rather than legislation. I think that the will of the Senate has been acknowledged. That our concern has been reflected in the action of the Government is extremely commendable. 1 do thank the Minister for it. We hope that this will now put the matter on a proper basis and will obviate those irritating and continuous difficulties that used to arise as statute after statute came up. I have not had an opportunity to examine the statement in detail but it does appear to conform in general terms with the wishes of the Democratic Labor Party. We do welcome this new procedure which is now being adopted by the Government.

page 2125

STATES GRANTS (PRE-SCHOOL TEACHERS COLLEGES) ACT

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– Pursuant to section 9 of the States Grants (Pre-School Teachers Colleges) Act 1968-1971, I present a statement of payments authorised under the Act during the year ended 30th June 1971 and projects in relation to which the payments have been authorised.

page 2125

COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION CONFERENCE

Report of Australian Delegation

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– I present the report of the

Australian delegation to the Seventeenth Conference of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference held at Kuala Lumpur. I seek leave to propose a motion in relation to the report.

The PRESIDENT:

– Is leave granted? There being no objection leave is granted.

Senator WRIGHT:

– I move:

That the Senate take note of the report. The host of the Seventeenth Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference was Malaysia. We met at Kuala Lumpur in September of this year. Australia was represented by 6 delegates from the Commonwealth of Australia Branch, and by a delegate from each of the 6 Australian States. The Commonwealth of Australia Branch delegation consisted of Senator Bishop, Mr L. R. Johnson, Mr Lucock, Senator Sim, Mr Wallis and myself as leader. Dr R. J. Solomon attended as observer. The number present in Kuala Lumpur, including secretaries, was 237, representative of 71 branches and the General Council. Prior to the Conference, delegates and secretaries were able to visit many interesting parts of Malaysia and had ample opportunity to meet the people of the country. The length of the visit was 2 weeks. The Conference was opened by His Majesty the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and was supported by the Prime Minister, Tun Haji Abdul Razak bin Hussein. In the course of his most interesting speech, the Prime Minister dealt comprehensively with the parliamentary system of government in Malaysia and the Malaysian concept of democracy which had been evolved - not merely a formal matter, I may say.

The main heads of subjects discussed at the Conference were: The Commonwealth and Problems of World Security; Problems of the Environment; Challenges to Parliamentary Democracy; and Economic Development. Each of these was broken up into sub-heads which allowed delegates to discuss particular matters of concern to their own countries. In accordance with the practice of the Association, proceedings took the form of discussions and no resolutions were passed. A verbatim report of the Conference discussions will be issued by General Council and senators and members will be able to obtain copies.

The report of the delegation which has been tabled deals also with meetings of the

General Council and the General Meeting of the Association, which were held during the currency of the Conference. The Commonwealth of Australia Branch delegates returned to Australia with an added awareness of the value of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in promoting the best interests of the parliaments of the British Commonwealth and the members of those parliaments. We feel that there is great value in the personal contacts which are made between members of the parliaments in promoting the best interests of the Commonwealth of Nations, and that the best way in which this can be done is through the conferences and meetings arranged by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.

It is impossible to name all those who contributed so much to the conference and the visit, but special reference should be made to Tun Haji Abdul Razak, the Prime Minister of Malaysia; Tun Tan Siew Sin, Minister of Finance in Malaysia and Chairman of the General Council; Enche Mohd. Khir Johari, Minister for Commerce and Industry, who ably assisted Tun Tan Siew Sin in the conduct of meetings; and Enche Ahmad bin Abdullah, Secretary of the Malaysia Branch. Their competence and friendly approach were outstanding and too high a tribute cannot be paid to their courtesies. I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later date.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 2126

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY ELECTRICITY SUPPLY ACT

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– Pursuant to section 33 of the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Supply Act 1962-1966, . I present the Eighth Annual Report of the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority for the year ended 30th June 1971, together with financial statements and the report of the Auditor-General on those statements.

page 2126

REPORTS OF PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE

Senator CANT:
Western Australia

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

  1. Stage 5 Extensions of the Stokes Hill Power Station, Darwin;
  2. Brucella Vaccine Testing Laboratory at Canberra, A.C.T.

page 2126

QUESTION

REPORT OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Victoria

– On behalf of the Public Accounts Committee I present the One Hundred and Thirtythird Report of the Public Accounts Committee. I seek the leave of the Senate to have a statement incorporated in Hansard.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Prowse) - Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– -The statement, is as follows:

As honourable senators will be aware the Committee has for many years conducted combined inquiries relating to expenditure from the Advance to the Treasurer and expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund but has tabled separate reports on both aspects of these inquiries. The One Hundred and Thirty-third Report relates specifically to evidence, taken by the Committee in connection with expenditure from the Advance to the Treasurer in 1970-71. In chapter 1 of the Report the Committee has stated that it has sought to ascertain during its inquiry whether or not the departments that required funds from the Advance to the Treasurer had maintained efficient administration in the expenditure of funds under the items selected for public inquiry.

In considering this aspect of its inquiry, the Committee has taken into account the change in financial policy . which occurred in February 1971 and which was designed to achieve . substantial reductions in Commonwealth departmental expenditure. This change in policy affected in. many cases the amounts which departments might other-, wise have sought in the. additional estimates and cases also occurred where, for unavoidable, reasons, expenditure . under particular items could not be contained at the levels set in February ; 1971. As a consequence, some departments had recourse to. expenditure from the Advance to the Treasurer in circumstances where they might not otherwise have done so. Many of the explanations tendered by Departments during our inquiry made reference to this change in financial policy with its necessary consequential effects on administrative practices and arrangements. In considering these explanations, the Committee has sought to distinguish between the consequences arising from the change in financial policy and other circumstances which affected financial results and administrative performances.

The evidence taken during this inquiry has shown that in some cases expenditure from the Advance to the Treasurer was confined to urgent and unforeseeable requirements for which provision could not have been made elsewhere in the appropriation legislation. In other cases, however, there was evidence of clerical errors, administrative oversights, failure to establish soundly based administrative arrangements between departments and procedural weaknesses within particular departments. There was also some evidence of a failure on the part of one department to render accounts for payment promptly on another department and a failure by departments to pay accounts promptly. Attention has been drawn to these inadequacies where they have arisen.

One disturbing feature to which the committee would invite specific attention relates to the fact that in several cases amounts were charged to the Advance to the Treasurer without warrant authority in contravention of sub-regulation 1 of Treasury regulation 90 and that some of these overcharges were not detected until some time had elapsed after the close of the financial year. A further matter to which the committee would again invite specific attention relates to the quality of evidence tendered by departments. While considerable improvement has been achieved in this regard by most departments in recent years, inadequacies persist and we would therefore again draw the attention of those concerned to memorandum 66/385 of 16th October 1970 issued to all permanent heads by the Secretary to the Treasury. That memorandum indicates clearly that written submissions and explanations required by the Public Accounts Committee should be carefully prepared and thoroughly checked for adequacy and accuracy of detail and absence of ambiguity.

Allied to this matter the Committee would also draw attention to the fact that for many years its Secretary has issued notes relating to evidence for the guidance of departments appearing before it. These notes indicate the courses of action open to departments where errors are discovered by them in written submissions that they have tendered. Arising from the evidence taken during the present inquiry, however, the Committee would emphasise that these courses of action do not provide for the amendment of evidence by a process of secret substitution.

Ordered that the report be printed.

page 2127

SENATE ESTIMATES COMMITTEES

I am hopeful that the Committees will be able to report on the last day of November but in the motion I have put that date forward by one day.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

I move:

The Committees, with one exception, are very close to completing their hearings. As only 2 of the Committees are to sit at a given time, if one of the Committees concludes its work early this afternoon the arrangement is that one of the waiting Committees will then be called to meet.

When the bells ring it will be for the reassembly of the Senate. The Committees will not ring the bells so that there will be no confusion. It is hoped that the Committees will finish their work this afternoon. In that event the bells for the Senate to reassemble will ring at 8 p.m. Tonight I propose to seek the concurrence of the Senate to deal with Notices of Motion Orders of the Day 1 to 7, which deal with government business, but they are all related to matters of which we wish to dispose. Perhaps the bells will not ring until 9 p.m. When we reassemble it is my desire that we face up to the question of the disposal of those notices of motion. If by some extraordinary chance we dispose of them all before 11 o’clock tonight I will be seeking to bring on Senator Byrne’s motion under General Business which relates to the appointment of a select committee.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2128

QUESTION

PLACING OF BUSINESS

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

(12.2) - In the background of the explanation I have given in relation to the Senate Estimates Committees, I move:

That business of the Senate Notices of Motion 1-7 be postponed until a later hour of the day or the next day of sitting.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2128

EXCISE TARIFF BILL 1971

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– I move:

Mr President, this Bill amends the Excise Tariff in accordance with Excise Tariff Proposals No. 1 introduced into the Parliament on 17th August 1971. These amendments which operate from 18th August 1971, give effect to the Government’s Budget measures relating to excise duties. Increased duties are imposed on manufactured tobacco products and certain refined pet roleum products. A summary of the amendments is being circulated. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator Poke) adjourned.

page 2128

DIESEL FUEL TAX BILL (No. 1) 1971

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill, the first of 2 Bills dealing with diesel fuel, is to amend the principal Act by varying the rate of tax to be collected on diesel fuel. This tax is imposed on diesel fuel which has been purchased at a duty free price by a person who is the holder of a diesel fuel certificate and is subsequently sold or disposed of to a person who is not the holder of a certificate. As diesel fuel is free of duty only when sold to a certificate holder for use otherwise than in propelling road vehicles on public roads, this Act imposes a tax on such fuel which is subsequently disposed of to a person not entitled to the duty free concession. The variation in the rate of tax is consequent upon the customs and excise tariff changes contained in the recent Budget proposals. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Devitt) adjourned.

page 2128

DIESEL FUEL TAX BILL (No. 2) 1971

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMininister for Civil Aviation · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill, the second of 2 Bills dealing with diesel fuel, is to amend the principal Act by varying the rate of tax to be collected on diesel fuel which has been purchased at a duty free price and is subsequently used in propelling a road vehicle on a public road. A persons who is the holder of a diesel fuel certificate may use duty free fuel, purchased by virtue of his certificate, in propelling a road vehicle on a public road. However, he is required to notify the Collector of Customs of such usage within 21 days and to pay tax on the fuel so used. This Bill is complementary to the one just introduced and the variation in the rate of tax is consequent upon customs and excise tariff changes contained in the recent Budget proposals. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Devitt) adjourned.

page 2129

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL (No. 2) 1971

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– I move:

The Customs Tariff Bill (No. 2) 1971 now before the Senate provides for amendments to the Customs Tariff 1966-1971 to operate from 1st July 1971. The changes arise from the joint exercise conducted by the Departments of Trade and Industry and Customs and Excise in 1970-71 to simplify the Customs Tariff. Except where the volume of trade is not significant or where primage is being removed, the changes do not vary the existing rales of duty by more than2½ per cent of the value of the goods. These changes were given wide publicity in the daily Press and trade journals and Australian manufacturers and importers were invited to examine and comment on the proposals. Requests for alterations were considered and resolved before the proposals were finalised. Honourable senators will be interested to know that the Bill will reduce the total number of classifications in the Customs Tariff by 1,025, that is from 4,039 to 3,014 classifications. Comprehensive summaries are now being distributed to honourable senators setting out the changes and the duty rates. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Keeffe) adjourned.

page 2129

CUSTOMS TARIFF BILL (No. 3) 1971

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Civil Aviation · LP

– I move:

That the Bill toe now read a second time.

The Customs Tariff Bill (No. 3) 1971 now before the Senate proposes amendmentsto the Customs Tariff 1966-1971 and comprises 3 schedules. It is complementary, in part, to the Excise Tariff Bill which I have just introduced, giving effect to the Government’s Budget measures in relation to petroleum products and tobacco products. These fiscal changes are set out in the Third Schedule. To reduce the complexity of the explanations of the tariff changes I shall refer only to those affecting the General Tariff. The Preferential Tariff rates which are ordinarily fixed having regard to international commitments are approximately 10 per cent lower. The new and old rates of duty are set out in detail in the summary of tariff alterations which is currently being circulated for the information of honourable senators.

The First Schedule to the Bill, operating from 1st July 1971, incorporates changes arising from the Government’s acceptance of the Tariff Board’s recommendations on: Artificial flowers and fruit, etc; burial and cremation caskets, etc. (New ZealandAustralia Free Trade Agreement); diamond drilling machines; hardened casein, etc. (New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement); pins, hairpins and curling grips; pulp (New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement); refractory products; vegetable oils; and the Special Advisory Authority reports on: Cherries, and flue-heated economises. In the report on artificial flowers and fruit, etc, the Board recommended a duty of 30 per cent be applied to artificial Christinas trees. This rate represents an increase on the former substantive duty which was 7½ per cent. On most other goods which were under reference in this report the Board recommended a rate of 30 per cent. In the case of artificial flowers, foliage or fruit the Board recommended minimum rates of duty.

Following recommendations by the Tariff Board in relation to additions to Schedule A to the New Zealand-Australia

Free Trade Agreement, the Government has approved the following additions: Automatic petrol dispensing nozzles; hardened casein shapes; hoes and rakes; tents and sails; trailer axle assemblies, and certain laboratory equipment. Also relevant to this Trade Agreement, a report by the Tariff Board recommended that duty on softwood pulps be increased to 20 per cent except in respect to softwood pulps of New Zealand origin. New Zealand softwood pulps and pulps of other types from all sources remain free of duty. The Tariff Board recommended that in certain circumstances softwood pulps from any source should be admitted under by-law.

The Tariff Board, in its report on mining and metallurgical machinery, has recommended that a protective rate of 30 per cent should apply to diamond drilling machines. The duty was previously 74 per cent. The tariff change is restricted to diamond drilling machines and detailed consideration is still being given to the comprehensive recommendations of the report on other mining and metallurgical machinery. On pins, hairpins and curling grips, the report by the Tariff Board recommended a duty of 30 per cent on ordinary pins with solid metal heads, bobby pins and curling grips. This means no change in duty on bobby pins or ordinary pins with solid metal heads but a reduction in duty on curling grips of 15 per cent, ad valorem. On the remaining goods under reference, covering products such as hairpins, safety pins and berry pins, the Board recommended a rate of 74 per cent. This represents generally a reduction in the level of duties previously applying to these goods.

In a report on refractory products the Board recommended that duties of 20 per cent apply to most of the goods covered by the report. For refractory bricks of magnesite this means an increase in duty of 24 per cent, ad valorem. On refractory bricks of other materials there is a decrease in duty of 124 per cent, ad valorem. There is a reduction in the level of protection on heat insulating bricks of 20 per cent, ad valorem. In regard to other refractory goods the change in duties varies according to each product and I invite the attention of honourable senators to the summary provided. Turning next to the report on vegetable oils, the Board rec ommended the removal of the temporary sliding scale duties on a range of locally produced oils and little or no change in the normal duties apart from a conversion from a rate a gallon to a rate a ton. The rate of duty ou linseed, rapeseed. safflower and sunflower seed oils, for example, is S95 a ton. The Government has also accepted the Board’s recommendation that the industry be reviewed in 3 years time.

The Special Advisory Authority, in his latest report on cherries, recommended that a temporary duty of 6c per lb apply to brined cherries and a temporary duty of 22c per lb apply to drained cherries. The temporary rates of duties are the equivalent of those previously applying before the tariff changes made following the release of the last Tariff Board report on cherries. The Authority also recommended that purchasers of locally produced cherries from Australian brineries be allowed to import under by-law 3 lb of similar cherries for each 1 lb purchased locally since 22nd April 1971. This arrangement has been introduced as the local brining industry is unable to supply the whole of the Australian requirements. 1 turn next to another report of the Special Advisory Authority on flue heated economisers. The Special Advisory Authority has recommended that a temporary duty of 20 per cent apply to imports of flue heated economisers other than of cast iron or cast iron clad. The temporary duty is in addition to the normal duty of 74 per cent.

Changes in the second schedule of the Bill, operating from 26th July 1971, follow recommendations by the Special Advisory Authority in his report on cathode ray tube display terminals. He recommended that urgent action be taken to protect the manufacture of these goods by means of a temporary additional duty of 25 per cent. This duty is in addition to the existing rate of 74 per cent which applies to these goods. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Poke) adjourned.

page 2130

EXPORT INCENTIVE GRANTS BILL 1971

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

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

(.12.18)-! move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose of this Bill is to continue the incentives 10 exporters formerly provided under the Commonwealth payroll tax rebate scheme.

Honourable senators will recall that when the Pay-roll Tax (Termination of Commonwealth Tax) Bill was introduced on 28th September last - to give effect to the agreement to transfer the payroll tax to the States - the early introduction was also foreshadowed of separate legislation to give exporters the same benefits as they would have expected to receive in rebates of their payroll tax liabilities. The Bill proposes that direct Commonwealth grants be payable in respect of increases in exports during the financial years 1971-72 and 1972-73, the years for which the payroll tax rebate scheme was to remain in force. The grants will be equal in amount to the rebates that would have been allowed in respect of payroll tax levied at the rate of 2i per cent and will be governed by the same conditions of eligibility as applied under the rebate scheme. In broad terms, an exporter will be entitled to a grant of an amount equal to 10i per cent of the increased export sales made by him in either the 1971-72 or ‘ 972-73 financial years. The increase in exports will be determined by reference to a base period amount generally calculated as onethird of the value of exports during the first 3 of the 8 years immediately preceding the particular export year.

The grant in respect of a financial year will be limited to the amount that would have been payable by the exporter if the Commonwealth payroll tax had continued to be imposed at the rate of. 2i per cent. Where the grant is limited in this way any excess entitlement, up to an amount equal to one-half of the payroll tax that would formerly have been payable, may be carried forward and paid as a grant in any of the next 3 succeeding years in. the same way as excess rebate entitlements could have been carried forward under the payroll tax rebate scheme. The proposed grants scheme will be administered by the Commissioner of Taxation who is already responsible for the administration of the payroll tax rebate scheme. The Bill contains provisions for objection by a person who disagrees with a determination made by the Commissioner affecting that person’s claim for a grant. A decision of the Commissioner on an objection may be. referred to a taxation board of review for review and decisions of a board which involve a question of law may be taken on appeal lo the High Court. The Bm also contains provisions relating to the observance of secrecy along the lines of those contained in the payroll tax law. Notes of the various clauses of the bill are contained in an explanatory memorandum being circulated to honourable senators. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Wilkinson) adjourned.

page 2131

STATES GRANTS (HOUSING) BILL 1971

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to the proposals which were announced by the Treasurer (Mr Snedden) in the Budget Speech under which the Commonwealth would make direct grants of financial assistance to help the States continue to provide housing for low income groups. Th.se proposals will replace the arrangements under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement which is not being renewed. It may assist honourable senators if I briefly recall those arrangements. Under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement, amounts nominated each year for housing by each State from its annual Loan Council borrowing programme were advanced by the Commonwealth at a concessional rate of interest which was 1 per cent below the long-term bond rate. The advances were repayable by the States to the Commonwealth over a period of 53 years. The States were required to credit at least 30 per cent of the Commonwealth advances to home builders accounts for making loans to people who wished to obtain homes privately through building societies and other institutions approved by the Minister. The remainder of the advances were used by State housing authorities to provide housing, primarily for persons of low or moderate means, with the proviso that they could be required to set aside in each year up to 5 per cent of the housing advances made by the Commonwealth for the construction of dwellings for servicemen’s families.

The States have for many years now received the benefit of a concessional rate of interest on funds made available by the Commonwealth for housing. Advances under the housing agreements with the States have been used to provide reasonably priced rental accommodation for low income families and to assist these families to own their own homes by the offer of low deposit long term loans at a concessional rate of interest. We believe that the Commonwealth should continue to assist the States to provide housing for persons of low or moderate means but the assistance should be provided in a different and more readily identifiable form, so that the amount of the benefit being provided can be seen by all. Consequently, the Bill provides for Commonwealth housing assistance to the States in the form of cash grants, of which there are two separate kinds. The first is a basic housing grant which replaces the interest concession under the housing agreements. The second is a rental assistance grant to help the States meet the cost to them of reducing the rents of housing authority dwellings for families they consider to be in need of this assistance. I shall explain each grant and the conditions attaching to its payment separately.

Under the new arrangements the States will continue to determine the amount of their annual Loan Council borrowing programmes to be allocated to housing. However, instead of this amount being advanced to them at a concessional rate of interest, the Commonwealth will make cash grants of S2.75m a year payable for 30 years in respect of housing activities in each of the years 1971-72 to 1975-76. This means that to help housing activity financed from 1971-72 Loan Council borrowings by the States, $2. 75m will be paid to them in 1971-72 and in each of the succeeding 29 years. There will thus be a total payment to them of $82.5m in respect of 1971-72 housing activity. The same practice will apply in respect of each of the next 4 years. The total payment to the States will therefore be $4 12.5m, paid over 34 years.

The intention is to maintain through cash payments the assistance formerly provided by the interest concession, but to make it available over 30 years instead of being spread over 53 years as occurred with the interest concession because Commonwealth advances were repayable by the States over that period. This basic housing grant is to be distributed among the States in the proportions set out in clause 5 of the Bill, which were decided on after discussion between the Commonwealth and the States, and between the States themselves. Those discussions took account of the percentage of total Housing Agreement advances each State received in 1970-71, and the percentage which each State’s prospective allocation for housing would be of total housing allocations in 1971-72 The proportions shown in the Bill approximate the average of these two.

Payment of the basic housing grant is subject to conditions set out in clauses 7 and 8 of the Bill. As the maintenance of a satisfactory flow of funds to building societies remains an important objective of our housing policy, the grant is subject to the condition that at least 30 per cent of the moneys set aside by a State for housing continue to be paid to a home builders account for lending to persons of relatively modest means seeking housing loans through building societies and other approved institutions. However, the Minister may permit a State to pay to the home builders account a lesser percentage of the amount set aside by it for housing in exceptional circumstances, whether they be financial, or involve for example a major bushfire or flood, when a State may wish to make a significant addition to its allocation of funds to its housing authority without that addition carrying a commitment to increase the allocation to the Home Builders Account, I emphasise that the use of this discretion will not be a continuing one and it will be exercised only in exceptional circumstances.

Similarly, at least 30 per cent of the grant of financial assistance is to be paid to the Home Builders Account. In the exceptional circumstances I have just described the Minister may permit a lower percentage, to correspond with reduced proportion of moneys set aside for housing, being paid to that account. This part of the grant is to be used to reduce the payments, including interest that, but for the grant, would have been required to be made in respect of loans to home seekers from Home Builders Account moneys. So much of the grant as is not required to be credited to the Home Builders Account is to be made available to the State’s housing authority for the purpose of reducing the payments to that housing authority that would, but for the grant, have been required to be made by purchasers and tenants of housing authority dwellings.

In addition to the cash payment of basic housing grants amounting to $412.5m the States will receive a significant benefit from the Commonwealth’s contribution to the States’ Sinking Funds. This contribution was not made in respect of advances under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement because borrowings were by the Commonwealth, moneys then being advanced by it to the States. From now on housing moneys will be the States’ own borrowings. They will attract a Commonwealth sinking fund contribution of 0.25 per cent per annum for 53 years, which is the period over which those borrowings are repayable. The worth of this contribution cannot be precisely estimated at present because it depends in part on the amounts the States will actually allocate for housing in future years. However, it is likely to be of the order of Si 14m over 53 years.

The new rental assistance grant is provided for in clause 10 of the Bill. It is a payment of $ 1.25m in each of the next 5 years- - a total of $6.25m. It is intended as a general Commonwealth contribution towards the cost of the States of charging reduced rents to needy families occupying housing authority homes. It is to be used by the housing authority in each State to reduce the rents of dwellings for families they consider to have insufficient means to pay the rents ordinarily payable to the authority in respect of those dwellings. No comparable form of assistance was provided under the 1956-1966 Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. The distribution of this grant between the States is to be in accordance with the proportions set down in clause 10, which were settled after discussion with them. In those discussions consideration was given to the percentage of each State’s housing authority advances under the Housing Agreement to total housing authority allocations by all States under the Agreement in 1970-71, and to the comparable percentages of prospective housing authority allocations in 1971-72. The percentage decided on for distribution of the rental assistance grant approximates the average of these two.

Overall, therefore, the States will receive from these proposals: From the basic grant a substantial increase in assistance over the one per cent interest concession formerly available; a new benefit from the Commonwealth’s contribution to their sinking funds equivalent to an interest concession of nearly 0.3 per cent; and further assistance for their rental operations to the extent of $6.25m.

Other clauses in the Bill require the States to furnish certain information necessary to establish that a State has complied with the conditions governing the payment of the grants and provide for the repayment of a grant .if a State has failed to fulfil a condition relating to the payment of an amount of grant. Payments for the purposes of the Act are to be made in such amounts and at such times as the Minister determines out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, which is appropriated accordingly by clause 15 of the. Bil! I place on record for the information of honourable senators that the Commonwealth has decided to relieve the States of the obligation to use portion of their housing authority funds for the purpose of building homes for serving members of the forces. Henceforth, the Commonwealth will advance all the funds for this purpose under an arrangement accepted in principle by the States and the details of which are being worked out. This will enable the States to devote more of their housing funds to the provision of welfare housing.

The benefits for which provision is made in this Bill represent a new approach to Commonwealth housing assistance to the States. They are of much greater value than the arrangements provided under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement. The States have indicated their acceptance of the Commonwealth’s proposals, and I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Gietzelt) adjourned.

page 2134

HOMES SAVINGS GRANT BILL 1971

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator WRIGHT:
Minister for Works · Tasmania · LP

– I move:

That the Bill te now read a second time.

The Bill provides for an amendment to section 20 of the Homes Savings Grant Act consequential upon the States Grants (Housing) Bill 1971. Section 20 of the Homes Savings Grant Act provides for the payment of a grant of moneys to assist certain eligible persons who are purchasing or building their own home. However, the section precludes the payment of a home savings grant in respect of a dwelling house built by or for a State authority with money provided under the CommonwealthState Housing Agreement if it is purchasedfrom the authority, or from another person with the assistance of a loan of money provided under the Commonwealth-Slate Housing Agreement.

Under that Agreement such amounts as were nominated for housing by each State out of its Loan Council borrowing programmes were advanced by the Commonwealth at a concessional rate of interest, the benefit of which is passed on to purchasers of housing authority dwellings. Purchasers of subsidised homes built by the Slates with funds provided under the Agreement are excluded from the payment of a home savings grant because they already receive a significant benefit from the interest concession and to ensure, as far as possible, that these homes are reserved for those with very small means and on low incomes. This housing is made available below its true economic cost for social reasons and there are long waiting lists for the homes, largely because they are relatively so cheap. It would be wrong to inflate these lists and disadvantage the most needy elements of the community.

As from 1st July 1971, the Commonwealth will no longer make housing advances at concessional interest rates to the States. Instead, in accordance with arrangements provided for in the States Giants (Housing) Bill 1971, it is proposed to make direct grants of financial assistance to the States to be used in part to reduce the payments that otherwise would be payable in respect of dwellings being purchased from a housing authority and built from moneys allocated to a housing authority from the States’ borrowing programmes during the period covered by that Bill.

The provisions of section ‘20 of the Homes Savings Grant Act which exclude the payment of a grant in respect of the purchase of certain housing authority homes are not expressed to apply to homes which are purchased from a housing authority or with a loan from a housing authority with the benefit of a grant of financial assistance under the arrangements provided in the States Grants (Housing) Bill 1971. Clause 3 of the Homes Savings Grants Bill 1971 consequently provides for an extension to the existing disqualifications in section 20 to cover homes being purchased from a housing authority or with a loan from a housing authority where, by reason of a grant of financial assistance which has been applied in accordance with the provisions of sub-clause (2.) of clause 8 of the States Grants (Housing) Bill 1971. payments in connection with the purchase are less than otherwise they would have been. I commend the ‘Jill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Mulvihill) adjourned.

page 2134

PAY-ROLL TAX (STATE TAXATION OF COMMONWEALTH AUTHORITIES) BILL 1971

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 28th October (vide page 1563), on motion by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WILKINSON:
Western Australia

– On 6th October 1971 legislation was assented to which transferred to the States from the Commonwealth the power to impose payroll tax. It was evident at that time that it would be necessary for further machinery legislation to be introduced to cover matters not included in the legislation which was assented to. This Bill- the Pay-Roll Tax (State Taxation of Commonwealth Authorities) Bill 1971 - is a piece of that machinery legislation. Another piece of it was presented this morning in the form of the Export Incentives Grants Bill 1971. It could be that other forms will have to be brought into line in order to expedite the imposition by the States of a payroll tax.

When payroll tax was imposed by the Commonwealth its authorities were liable to pay the tax, but it was specifically provided that it would be payable only to the Commonwealth. With the handing over of payroll tax to the States it became obvious that the legislation would not cover the Commonwealth authorities. The legislation which is now before the Senate simply provides that the States may now tax certain Commonwealth authorities. A list of the Commonwealth authorities the States may not tax was incorporated in Hansard by the Minister for Health (Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson) during his second reading speech. I do not think it is necessary to go through the names of the instrumentalities covered by this legislation. The interesting point, as I have said, is that the States will have the authority to impose payroll tax on the Commonwealth instrumentalities listed. Whether they will in fact do so is their prerogative. I have no doubt that they will very smartly impose a payroll tax on these instrumentalities.T he Opposition has no objection to this legislation and is prepared to give it a speedy passage through this chamber. The Government has the Opposition’s assurance that it will not oppose this matter.

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

(12.44) - in reply - I thank the Opposition for its co-operation. In order to assist the speedy passage of this legislation through the Senate,I will not comment on it any further.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

Sitting suspended from 12.46 to 10.57 p.m.

page 2135

SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT OF THE AUDITOR-GENERAL

The PRESIDENT:

– I present the following papers:

Audit Act - Supplementary Report of the Auditor-General upon other accounts,for year ended 30th June 1971.

page 2135

ADJOURNMENT

Senate Estimates Committees

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

(10.58)- I move:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

May I be permitted to say that it is proposed that Estimates Committee B shall meet on Tuesday at 10.30 a.m.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.58 p.m.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 25 November 1971, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1971/19711125_senate_27_s50/>.