Senate
13 March 1973

28th Parliament · 1st Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator (he Hon. Sir Magnus Cormack) took the chair at 3 p.m., and read prayers.

page 337

ACTIVITIES OF MR W. BURCHETT: COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY

Notice of Motion

Senator GAIR:
Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party · Queensland

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

  1. That, in view of the fact that Mr Wilfred Burchett has publicly stated that he is not opposed to a public investigation of his past activities, a Select Committee of the Senate be appointed to inquire into and report upon -

    1. whether or not Wilfred Burchett, an Australian citizen, during the period of the conduct of the war in Korea in which Australian troops were in combat as part of a United Nations force against the military forces of North Korea, did engage in activities likely to impede the successful conclusion of the conflict for Australia and/or in such activities as were likely to give aid and comfort to the enemies of Australia and thereby prejudice the interests of the Australian nation, namely:
    1. personal participation in enemy interrogation of Australian servicemen held as prisoners of war, and
    2. devising and/or disseminating ‘germ warfare’ propaganda which was used against the interests and activities of the United Nations force;

    3. whether at a time when the People’s Republic of China and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics were giving actual military aid to the forces of North Korea then engaged in hostilities against the Australian troops in the field, Wilfred Burchett then had any professional relationship, remunerated or not, with either of those Governments;
    4. whether during the period of the conflict between North Vietnam and South Vietnam, in which Australian troops were engaged, whether as advisers to the military forces of South Vietnam or in actual conflict against the forces of North Vietnam, Wilfred Burchett then had any professional relationship, whether remunerated or not, with the Government of North Vietnam;
    5. whether at any time whatsoever Wilfred Burchett has had any professional relationships with the KGB of the Soviet Union;
    6. whether, in the event that any or all of the above questions is or are answered in the affirmative, such conduct by Wilfred Burchett, so established, constituted an offence against the criminal law of the Commonwealth;
    7. whether in the event that question (1) (e) is answered in the affirmative Wilfred Burchett is still punishable at law for any offence so constituted;
    8. whether, in the event that question (1) (e) is answered in the negative, the appropriate public law should be amended in necessary respects to provide that conduct of such nature by any person will in future constitute a breach of the criminal law of the Commonwealth of Australia.
Senator Cavanagh:

– You have him guilty before he has been tried.

Senator GAIR:

– What are you crying about? We are giving him what he wants. We are trying to accede to his request. My notice of motion continues:

  1. That the Select Committee consist of 7 senators, three to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and 4 other senators, two to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition, one to be nominated by the Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party, and one to be nominated by the Leader of the Australian Country Party.
  2. That the Committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy.
  3. That the Committee elect one of its members as Chairman.
  4. That the Chairman of the Committee may, from lime to time, appoint another member of the Committee to be the Deputy Chairman of the Committee, and that the member so appointed act as Chairman of the Committee at any time when there is no chairman or the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the Committee.
  5. That, in the event of an equality of voting, the Chairman, or the Deputy Chairman when acting as Chairman, shall have a casting vote.
  6. That the presence of 3 members of the Committee shall be necessary to constitute a meeting of the Committee for the exercise of its powers.
  7. That the Select Committee have power to send for and examine persons, papers and records, to move from place to place, to sit in open court or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit.
  8. That members of the public and representatives of the news media may attend and report any public session of the Committee unless the Committee otherwise orders.
  9. That the Committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it. A daily Hansard shall be published of such proceedings of the Committee as take place in public.
  10. That the Senate authorises the televising of public hearings of the Committee, at the discretion of the Committee, and under such rules as the Senate may adopt.
  11. That the Committee shall ensure that the operational methods of law enforcement agencies be protected from disclosure where that would be against the public interest.
  12. That the Committee report to the Senate on or before the last sitting of the Senate prior to 30th June 1973.
  13. That the foregoing provisions of this Resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders.

page 338

QUESTION

UNITED STATES DEFENCE INSTALLATIONS IN AUSTRALIA

Senator WITHERS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: In view of the allegation made in last Friday’s ‘Australian Financial Review’ that the Leader of the Government in the Senate was one of those who tried to have the question of American bases on Australian soil reconsidered by Cabinet, could he now indicate what is the Government’s policy on this matter? Is it the approach outlined by Mr Barnard, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence, or the qualified approach expounded by Senator Willesee last Thursday night; or is the policy to be decided at this week’s Caucus meeting?

Senator MURPHY:
Attorney-General · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I think the Leader of the Opposition is trying to cause some trouble. He well knows what the Government’s policy is. The Government’s policy is what has been stated by Mr Barnard in the House of Representatives on behalf of the Government. The Government policy in respect of any extenuation, amplification, qualification, restriction, enlargement or diminution at any time will be stated in the House by the appropriate Minister and I do not propose to anticipate anything that might be said by him.

page 338

QUESTION

KANGAROO PRODUCTS: EXPORT BAN

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Customs and Excise whether he was one of those who attended the Melbourne Conference of Commonwealth and State Environment and Conservation Ministers. If not, is he aware that Western Australia already has strictly policed kangaroo control measures which adequately ensure that the species will not become extinct? Will he agree that, because of that State’s geographical situation and the menace of kangaroos to agriculture, such a system of control warrants special consideration by the Commonwealth? Is he aware that the lifting of the export ban is of extreme importance to Western Australia?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– Yes, I was present at the conference on wildlife conservation to which the honourable senator referred. It was attended by 4 Ministers of the Australian

Government and by Ministers of the 6 State Governments and was held on 9th March to consider a variety of items related to conservation and the protection of Australian wildlife. The meeting was chaired by the Minister for the Environment and Conservation, Dr Cass. The statement issued after the meeting said:

The Ministers agreed as follows:

The meeting is opposed to uncontrolled harvesting of kangaroos and related species (Macropods);

Recognises that for conservation purposes selective culling or harvesting of certain species of Macropods may be a legitimate management practice;

Agreed that a scientifically acceptable range of data gathering and control measures be drawn up to regulate culling or harvesting throughout Australia in the interests of conservation of the species and the general environment.

The Ministers decided to set up a working party to report on techniques of data gathering, management and conservation of kangaroos and related species throughout Australia.

The honourable senator asked about the export ban, as he called it. I should inform the Senate again, as I did before, that there has been a ban on the export of kangaroo skins and the skins of certain other species since November 1923. That policy of the law has not been enforced, or there has been consent to export by various Ministers of preceding governments. I am not sure how far that policy goes back. The Government of the United States of America has introduced a law - it is conditional now - which is to come into effect some time in the next few days and which will entirely prohibit the import of kangaroo skins or kangaroo products into the United States. The United States is the main market for kangaroo skins and products. There has been an insatiable demand for those skins. Something over one million skins and the equivalent of something of the order of 400,000 skins by way of products have been exported from Australia each year.

Earlier this year I announced that as from 1st April I would not consent to the export of any more skins. I indicate to the Senate that as a result of the deliberations last Friday it was quite apparent that there has been no coordinated management throughout Australia of the culling or harvesting of the species. As the honourable senator said, there has been some semblance of control in Western Australia, where some endeavour has been made, but on the whole it is quite clear that even the attempt made in Western Australia has not been emulated in the State in which the vast majority of the kangaroos are killed. The assessment of the position by the American scientists as to the lack of biological studies and co-ordinated management and control is substantially correct. I simply wish to add that the conference held in Washington on 2nd March has led to an international convention under which there will be restrictions not only on the export and the import of various skins, and my decision, resulting from the conference on Friday, is that the ban on the export of skins will continue after 1st April. J also decline to consent to the export of the products of such skins unless T am satisfied that it is in the interests of wise conservation of the species. Everyone hopes that the working party which has been set up will initiate control measures that will be directed towards conservation of the species, ‘but until those control measures are implemented I think the whole nation would expect me to refuse to consent to the export of skins while the threat of danger to the species exists.

page 339

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT SPENDING: POSSIBLE EFFECT

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– I wish to ask a question of the Minister representing the Treasurer. ls the Government aware that a large number of Australian people are becoming worried about the amount of Government spending that has been promised since this Government came to office? Will the Minister say what the extra expenditure is expected to be this financial year? What is the expected deficit for this financial year? What thought is being given to the effect of this Government spending on inflation and what is the expected rate of inflation for this financial year?

Senator WILLESEE:
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

– 1 do not have those figures al my fingertips. I ask the honourable senator to put his question on the notice paper and I will get an answer to it for him.

page 339

QUESTION

SEARCH OF AIRLINE PASSENGERS

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the AttorneyGeneral elaborate on the circumstances that prompted the minute search of 3 female passengers on a recent Canberra-bound air flight? Did it have any terrorist group overtones?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I am unable to answer the honourable senator’s question at this stage, but I will endeavour to do so later.

page 339

QUESTION

CHINESE BASES IN AUSTRALIA

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister assisting the Minister for Defence. In view of the Government’s bend ing over backwards policy towards China, does it intend to allow Chinese bases to be established in Australia similar to the American bases already established here?

Senator BISHOP:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I do not think that is a serious question. I am sure Senator Young does not believe it to be so. My answer is no. I am quite sure that Mr Barnard will support that. 1 will get his answer, as the Minister for Defence.

page 339

QUESTION

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION COMMISSION: NATIONAL WAGE CASE

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Treasurer. Does the Government intend to submit evidence to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission with regard to the current state of the economy? Is it proposed to impress upon those who are to make the decision the importance of considering, in the context of their deliberations, the economic capacity of Australia to pay in order to ensure that a responsible judgment is made concerning the future level of the national wage?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– I am not going to make any comment on the responsible attitudes of the Commission; I think that would be gratuitous. I hope the honourable senator did not mean what he put in the way that he put it. The question of the economic capacity to pay is one of the criteria considered by the Commission. I do not know what evidence the Government will be putting before the Commission. If I find out anything I will certainly let the honourable senator know.

page 339

QUESTION

LIGHT AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Supply: Has the Government given any consideration to the question of encouraging the return to Australia of those light aircraft manufacturing industries which transferred their operations from Australia because of the refusal of the previous Government to help them through their initial establishment problems? Would such a move not give a welcome boost to the local aircraft manufacturing industry while at the same time increasing the national defence potential? If no consideration has yet been given to this, will he invite the attention of the Minister for Supply to the proposition?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– As the honourable senator probably knows, the previous Government committed Australia to a policy of producing this aircraft in co-operation with New Zealand. Since this Government came to power - as I think has been well publicised - the Minister for Supply early in January took action to bring the 2 main Australian manufacturers, Hawker Siddeley Australia Pty Ltd and the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation Pty Ltd, into consultation with him. The Australian Industry Development Corporation also is co-operating. A meeting was held and these bodies were charged with looking at the stability and viability of the Australian aircraft industry. They were asked to report not later than 30th June on how best the Australian aircraft industry could be served. Last week, I think in answer to a question asked, by Senator Drake-Brockman, I pointed out that the Government had already sent a mission overseas. It is now in Europe looking at a replacement for the Mirage aircraft. The Government has told that mission, which is comprised of specialists, that it should have regard to the importance of Australian manufacturers sharing in the production of such an aircraft.

Senator Devitt:

– My question was about the light aircraft industry.

Senator BISHOP:

– I know. I am telling the honourable senator about these other matters, which are just as important. As is well known, as a result of promotion there have been sales of the Nomad aircraft. Recently the famous Australian racing driver, Jack Brabham, purchased one and he has options on some others. There have been publicity campaigns, including a recent demonstration by the Army at the Holsworthy Army base of the Nomad aircraft. Everything possible is being done quickly by the Government. I shall see to what extent the other information for which the honourable senator asks in relation to the light aircraft industry can be supplied.

page 340

QUESTION

WHISKY AU GO-GO NIGHTCLUB FIRE

Senator GAIR:

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Was it with his agreement or knowledge that the claim was made in Canberra on Friday last by anonymous Commonwealth officials that the Commonwealth Police had warned the Queensland Police 2 weeks ago that the Whisky Au Go-

Go nightclub was a target for underworld violence? Has the Attorney-General noted the statement by the Queensland Police Commissioner that he received such advice only on Friday night, a full 24 hours after the fire which killed 15 persons and destroyed the nightclub? Who is telling the truth - the Queensland Police Commissioner or the anonymous Commonwealth officials who presumably are associated with the Commonwealth Police or the Minister’s Department?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– A letter is being sent to the Queensland authorities. I think it probably fair to tell the Senate that, in fact, information was supplied to the Queensland Police well prior to the tragic bombing which occurred.

page 340

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH GRANTS COMMISSION

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Minister representing the Treasurer had an opportunity to examine the legislation establishing the Commonwealth Grants Commission, the body to which claimant States can apply for special Commonwealth grants? Does the Government propose to alter the franchise of the Grants Commission in order to permit all State governments, semi-government bodies and local government organisations to apply for special assistance to overcome the backlog of public works?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– Yes. The Prime Minister, in his policy speech and prior to that, indicated that it was time the 3 tiers of government were given the opportunity to carry out their correct role in Australian life. Legislation is under consideration at the moment which, as Senator Gietzelt suggests, will give local governing bodies or such regional bodies the opportunity to make claims before the Commonwealth Grants Commission.

page 340

QUESTION

TELEPHONE SERVICES IN REMOTE AREAS

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

– Does the Minister representing the Postmaster-General agree that telephonic communication for people in remote areas is a necessity, particularly if they live 100 miles or more from a doctor? Does the Minister also agree that the cost of erecting telephone lines for automatic exchanges to Postmaster-General’s Department specifications is prohibitive for individual subscribers when any distance is involved?

Are the criteria for the erection of telephone lines by the Postmaster-General’s Department in rural areas in the future to be based on profitability and not on need?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– In reply to the series of questions directed to me by Senator Maunsell, it Ls a fact that telephonic communications for people in remote areas are virtually essential, but because of the financial policies that were pursued by the previous Government so far as postal services were concerned, the financial burden became quite heavy on the ordinary citizen in the community, lt is the policy of the present Government that the cost of telephone lines should be more a matter for payment from consolidated revenue than, as was the case under the previous Government, one for payment in a heavy manner by the subscribers. As to the other questions addressed to me by Senator Maunsell, concerning the cost of erecting telephone lines connected to automatic exchanges according to Postmaster-General’s Department’s specifications, and whether the Department has carried out a feasibility study relating to the cost of telephone calls between Townsville and Brisbane. 1 cannot answer these questions immediately and I will therefore have them referred to the Postmaster-General for his consideration.

page 341

QUESTION

PREFERENCE TO CLERKS EMPLOYED BY OIL COMPANIES

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour. It is a fact that last week a full bench of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission approved in principle an application by the Federated Clerks Union for a new preference clause in the Clerks’ (Oil Companies) Federal Award? Does this full bench decision mean that members of the Clerks’ Union will get preference on, firstly, engagement by oil companies; secondly - -Stj dealing with engagement and employment by oil companies - promotion; thirdly, retrenchment - meaning that non-unionists will be the first to go- and, finally, choice of holiday dates?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– Yes, I have seen the report of the full bench’s decision and I understand that it does do the things which the honourable senator has mentioned and that there shall be preference to the many thousands of members of the Federated Clerks’ Union and that that judgment has been the result of Jong and earnest work by the Federated Clerks’ Union which has spent many thousands of dollars to get that decision.

Senator McManus:

– Hear, hear.

Senator BISHOP:

– As the honourable senator knows, preference to unionists is fairly widespread in industry. Many decisions applying to workers both in the Government and private sectors provide that sort of basis. May I simply add that I am rather surprised to hear Senator McManus say ‘Hear, hear’ in view of the attitude he adopted to the 4 weeks annual leave argument.

page 341

QUESTION

FOUR WEEKS ANNUAL LEAVE FOR PUBLIC SERVANTS

Senator McMANUS:

– My question is directed to Senator Bishop in the capacity in which he answered the previous question. On reflection, does the honourable senator feel that he ought to be surprised in view of the fact that the issue on which I disagreed with him and others on his side was whether his Government should keep its word on a definite promise which it made to the Pubiic Service, and does he not think on reflection that his Government is very fortunate that the Democratic Labor Party and others forced it to keep its word?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

- Mr President, after full reflection on what Senator McManus has said, 1 recall that frequently Senator McManus has told us what took place in the Labor Party when he was a member of it. He frequently told us what its history was. He knows that there is a document called “The Platform, Constitution and Rules of the Australian Labor Party*. He knows well that that document contains a policy of 4 weeks annual leave for Commnowealth employees and also, of course, preference to unionists. It seems to me that this is the real issue. I think on reflection that that is the complete answer to the question asked by Senator McManus. We were surprised that the Democratic Labor Party, having accepted preference to unionists - to right wing and to left wing unionists - would want to disturb the application of that principle to any sector of the economy.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Question time is the time for seeking information. My attention has been drawn to the standing order which states that questions must not contain matters of debate and the Minister must not debate matters when giving his answer.

page 342

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH PUBLIC SERVICE: MATERNITY LEAVE

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour. Does the Government intend to implement that part of its policy speech which provides that female employees of the Commonwealth Public Service shall receive maternity leave with full pay and benefits for 6 weeks before and 6 weeks after confinement? Will such maternity leave be provided for union members only, as stated in the booklet ‘Platform, Constitution and Rules of the Australian Labor Party’?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– The Minister for Labour has said already that he intends to bring in legislation to provide for maternity leave for officers and employees of the Commonwealth Public Service in conformity with International Labour Organisation standards. The honourable senator will have the opportunity of analysing this legislation to see to what extent it is related to other Labor Party policy.

page 342

QUESTION

ORDER OF QUESTIONS

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I wish to repeat that, as I have mentioned in the past, I attempt to take questions from honourable senators in a precise order from day to day. For example, today I have begun with those senators sitting at this end of the chamber on my left. I understand the problem of honourable senators trying to catch my attention. I would suggest to honourable senators, to save them the problem of standing up, that they hold their question paper up in the air. This will save them standing up and I will call them in due time.

page 342

QUESTION

REVALUATION OF CURRENCY: EFFECT ON WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Special Minister of State. Has the Prime Minister received a letter from the Premier of Western Australia concerning the adverse effect the present currency situation is having on the Western Australian economy? As the letter is reported to have been sent some 3 weeks ago, has the Government yet considered the case presented by the Western Australian Premier? When can the Premier of Western Australia expect the courtesy of a reply from the Prime Minister?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– This matter does not come within my portfolio. I ask the honourable senator to put the question on the notice paper and I will obtain the answer for him.

page 342

QUESTION

COMMUNIST CHINA: DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS

Senator KANE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is it a fact that the Government of Communist China has consented to the exchange of official representatives with the United States of America without exacting the slightest concession in regard to the recognition by the United States of the Nationalist Chinese regime in Taiwan? If so, does the Minister, now agree that the Government was most unwise in severing Australia’s diplomatic relations with the non-communist Government of Nationalist China?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– There has been no exchange of diplomatic representation on a permanent basis between the United States of America and the People’s Republic of China.

page 342

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION: FALL IN NUMBERS

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration. I refer to this morning’s news item which indicated that the number of applications by people in Great Britain to migrate to Australia had fallen by nearly 20 per cent this year compared with the same period for last year. Can the Minister indicate whether this trend is likely to continue? Is any deliberate program of promotion being undertaken to secure suitable migrants? Is this falling away due to lack of interest in Australia and the dangers of lack of opportunity? If not, what are the reasons for this decline of well over 5,000 migrant applications in 2 months?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have seen the report to which the honourable senator refers. I have not had an opportunity to discuss the matter with my colleague, the Minister for Immigration. However, I suggest to the honourable senator that one of the reasons for the falling off in the number of migrants coming from the United Kingdom to Australia this year compared with last year could be related to the economic circumstances of the United Kingdom as affected by her joining the European Economic Community. However. I will refer the question to my colleague, the Minister for Immigration, and ask him for a detailed reply.

page 343

QUESTION

PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the Special Minister of State noted that the Government of Spain has agreed to exchange diplomatic representatives with the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the basis that the Government of Spain will no longer recognise the Government in Taiwan, and that at the same time the Government of Spain has agreed to enter into diplomatic relations with the German Democratic Republic? Does he think that this might mean, after all, that General Franco is a secret communist?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– I understand that it is the position. I do not know specifically. As to the latter part of the question, no, I do not think that General Franco is an undercover communist.

page 343

QUESTION

SCIENTOLOGY

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

– ls the AttorneyGeneral aware that a report on the practice of Scientology was made by Mr K. V. Anderson, Q.C., now Mr Justice Anderson of the Supreme Court of Victoria, in 1965? Docs he know that after an exhaustive public inquiry extending over 2 years the report stated:

Scientology is evil, its techniques evil, its practices a serious threat to the community, medically, morally and socially and its adherents sadly deluded and often mentally ill.

Has the Attorney-General any reason for not accepting these findings? If he accepts these findings what steps has he taken or does he propose to take to protect the public in view of his authorisation of Scientology as a religious denomination under the Marriage Act?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– As the honourable senator well knows, an application was made by a body, apparently consisting of Scientologists, for recognition as a religious denomination under the Marriage Act. It is correct that the report made by a commissioner some years ago in Victoria found adversely against the Scientologists, if I may summarise it in that way. I am not quite sure now whether the findings that the honourable senator gave were the precise findings but I am prepared to accept what he says. Since that time Scien tologists in several States have organised themselves into a church called, as I recall it, the Church of the New Faith. That Church was incorporated under the laws of South Australia and also under the laws of Victoria.

Senator Wright:

– Limited or unlimited?

Senator MURPHY:

– I am not sure whether it was limited or unlimited. But there is no doubt that the matter was considered carefully by the authorities in those States and the Church was incorporated. Following that, some 18 months or 2 years ago, an application was brought in Western Australia under the National Service Act by a minister of the Church claiming to be exempt from the provisions of the National Service Act on the ground that he was a minister of a religion, to wit the Church of the New Faith. In effect, that was a case between that minister and the Commonwealth in the person of the then Minister for Labour and National Service and was heard by a magistrate exercising Federal jurisdiction. In a carefully considered judgment he found that the Church of the New Faith was a religion, that the applicant was a minister of religion, that he had been administering to the various adherents. No doubt the honourable senator would have available to him a copy of that judgment. In these circumstances, taking into account section 116 of the Constitution which, in effect, guarantees that there will be no discrimination between religions, it seemed to me that it is not the function of the Commonwealth to decide which are true religions and which are false religions and to start to discriminate between them.

An application was made in terms of the Marriage Act. A proclamation has been made, ft includes the organisation to which I have referred, together with a lot of other organisations in respect of which some persons in the community might offer a great deal of criticism. That is the position. If some person is then authorised to celebrate marriages in that religion under the terms of the Act, strict conditions are set down in the Act dealing with the requirements to be observed. If any of those requirements are not observed the person failing to observe them is exposed not only to remedies otherwise in the law but also to deregistration as a person authorised to carry out marriages. There are religious sects which may earn the disapproval of many sections of the community, but it seems to me that under the Constitution the Australian

Government has an obligation not to discriminate between sects. I think that this is a bad system. I think it is quite wrong that there should be incorporated in an Act of this Parliament some requirement that, in effect, the Government recognises religious denominations. I think that there should be another system. I do not think, in terms of the constitutional requirements against the establishment of religions, that such a provision should exist on the statute books. But while it is there, I believe that it should be carried out without discrimination between the various bodies which seek to avail themselves of the provision.

page 344

QUESTION

ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH EAST ASIAN NATIONS

Senator WRIGHT:

– I direct a question to the Special Minister of State in his capacity as the Minister representing the Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs. He will recall that since the excursion of the Prime Minister to South East Asia there have been various newspaper reports of proposals put by the Prime Minister on the subject of enlarging the Pacific-Asian association of nations. I ask the Minister whether the Prime Minister has formulated that proposal in any other responsible context? If so, will he refer me to it? If not. will he state when the Prime Minister intends to put that proposal before the Australian Parliament and the Australian people for their consideration?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– I suppose the honourable senator is referring to the Prime Minister’s visit to Papua New Guinea and Indonesia recently. There has been some Press publicity about the whole question of regional development in the South East Asian and Pacific areas. This is a subject of conversation and talk between a lot of countries in the area. The situation is that the Association of South East Asian Nations, which has been a success and which is loudly applauded by this Government, is discussing the question of enlarging its own membership. That is its business. The Association envisages, when it can be arranged and if they are willing to come into it, the 4 Indo-China States and very possibly Burma joining the Association. But at the same time the honourable senator must realise, as everybody does, that now that the People’s Republic of China is being recognised in the area, and now that Hanoi is being recognised in the area, the situation will arise where other voices in the whole area will have to be heard. Nobody expects that the expansion of ASEAN will be fast, because of the situation that I have just mentioned about other countries being invited to join it, and nobody suggests that giving a voice to the people outside ASEAN will be fast, either.

In answer to the honourable senator’s specific question, there is no formulation of policy on this matter. It would be far too early for anyone, let alone Australia, to be talking about any country at all. This is a thing that will develop or not develop as the months roll by. But the point is that everybody is realising the facts concerning what is happening in the area. These sorts of subjects are being talked about on unofficial levels, not only by Australia but also by countries throughout the Asian area. The fact is that when it was discussed with President Suharto he welcomed the talks on the general level of what might happen in this area in the months to come.

page 344

QUESTION

REFERENDUM ON EXPORT OF MERINO RAMS

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Primary Industry: By what method and when does he intend to convey explanatory notes regarding the referendum on the ban on the export of merino rams to those persons entitled to vote in the referendum? Did the Minister state last week that the Australian Wool and Meat Producers Federation, the Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers Council and the Australian Association of Stud Merino Breeders will be consulted and their advice obtained on aspects to be included in the explanatory notes? Does the Minister’s comment indicate that the advice of those associations will be sifted by the Minister’s Department and that only information which he or his Department feels will be conducive to a particular side of the argument will be included in the referendum papers? Who will formulate the case in support of the ban on the export of merino rams?

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Primary Industry · TASMANIA · ALP

– I reject the imputation in the latter part of the honourable senators question. I assure him that while I have anything to do with the referendum, a fair and impartial case will be presented for both sides. The 3 organisations to which the honourable senator referred will be asked to put their views. This will be done in conjunction with officers of my Department who, I am sure, will be equally impartial in their approach to this question. I do not think the final result will cause any concern or be such that one side is given greater emphasis than the other.

page 345

QUESTION

CAPITAL FUND FOR ABORIGINES

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs inform the Senate in relation to the capital fund for Aborigines of the number and total value of loans approved in each State and the Northern Territory for each year of operation of the capital fund and the number and total value of defaults and losses in each year in respect of each State and the Northern Territory?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– I am aware that the Government has approved of an additional advance of, I think, $6m for Aborigines. My knowledge does not extend to the allocation to each State and the annual allocations. I suggest that the honourable senator put his question on the notice paper.

page 345

QUESTION

CAMPAIGN AGAINST CRIME: ROLE OF UNIONS

Senator LITTLE:
VICTORIA

– As the Attorney-General has called for union assistance in a war against crime, can he inform the Senate of the role to be played by the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union of Australia? Does he consider that legal immunity for union officials has a major role in the campaign? Does the Attorney-General’s call to the public to help the police mean the end of Labor’s campaign on brutality charges against the police which was begun during the Springboks’ tour?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– The honourable senator seems amused, but I do not think it is amusing when there are outbreaks of violence against ordinary citizens in this country. I do not want to say anything about the cases which are under trial, but there has been a development in Australia of what has happened overseas. I think that the Australian people expect the Government to do whatever it can to stop that development. I have been in contact with the leaders in the industry which is intimately concerned with the area where this violence seems to be breaking out, those working in the industry and those unions which are concerned in that area. The suggestion which I made and announced yesterday to the assembled police commissioners of Australia and the region was welcomed by them; they said they would be united behind me in this regard. I do not think that any endeavour should be made to break down my attempts to get the people of Australia behind the police forces in their efforts to nip in the bud these outbreaks of a kind of violence which none of us should want.

As to the remarks about trade unions, in all sections of society there are people who break the law, but the officers of the various trade unions are concerned about what has happened in society. We should not attempt any divisive tactics; rather should we realise that we have the opportunity of stopping before it starts a most serious form of violence. I would ask that all honourable senators assist in what is an endeavour on behalf of the whole community.

page 345

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN COUNCIL OF TRADE UNIONS: PROPOSED BUILDING COMPANY

Senator HANNAN:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour. Is it not a fact that the Australian Council of Trade Unions is engaged in setting up a building company in Australia? If so, is it not a fact that finance for this company is coming predominantly from a foreign country which has been in the habit of inviting Mr Hawke, Senior VicePresident of the Australian Labor Party, to visit it? I hasten to add that it is not the United States of America. Is it not a fact that, under arrangements already published, overseas interests will be entitled to 4 seats on the board and to elect the chairman? In these circumstances, will the Minister outline what action the Government proposes to take to prevent this Australian enterprise from falling under foreign domination?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– The only information I have for the honourable senator is that I know that the Australian Council of Trade Unions has resolved to enter the housing field with the idea of giving workers low cost housing. I am not aware of the particular arrangements which the ACTU has made with another country, but I would be greatly surprised if it did otherwise than protect the Australian workers.

page 346

QUESTION

PALM ISLAND

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Has the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs criticised the Queensland Government for not allowing any person to visit Palm Island without a permit, as is reported in the Press today? Does the Minister not realise that the democratically elected Palm Island Aboriginal Council, not the Queensland Government, issues permits to visit Palm Island? As this Aboriginal Council does not want its island overrun by large numbers of visitors, the permit system is rigidly enforced. Will the Minister correct his misstatement as soon as possible?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– As I understand it, Palm Island is under the control of the Queensland Government. Although there is a council on Palm Island, the attitude of that council has been well demonstrated and related in this chamber by Senator Keeffe from time to time. The fact that the conditions operating on Palm Island are permitted to continue by the Queensland Government, which has autonomy over the island, is something which justifies the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs condemning the attitude of the Queensland Government.

page 346

QUESTION

FISHING INDUSTRY

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Can the Minister for Primary Industry advise the Senate what action, if any, is being taken currently, or what action is being prepared, to give effect to the statement included in the GovernorGeneral’s Speech to Parliament that the Government would initiate fishery resources surveys and exploratory fishing operations and that it would assist in the provision of equipment and facilities to develop fisheries based on those resources? Are there any specific plans to promote the fishing industry in South Australian waters?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– lt is true that this Government intends to develop the Australian fisheries industry to a greater degree than it has been developed in the past. I think it is well recognised that Australia lies 41st, I think, in the world’s nations as a taker of fish. It Ls the intention of the Government to rectify that position. Specific plans have not yet been formulated. I am unable to say anything more definite than that at this stage. I can assure the honourable senator that this industry will be given a lot of consideration in the ensuing months.

page 346

QUESTION

JETAIR AUSTRALIA LTD

Senator GIETZELT:

– -I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Supply. Has the Minister been able to make an examination of the files dealing with the Jetair transaction? Will he ascertain whether the file made available to the Senate last year includes all the documents on the sale of Government aircraft to the Jetair organisation at bargain prices?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– As I recall what happened on the last occasion that this matter came before the Parliament, Senator Wright, acting then for the Minister for Foreign Affairs, laid papers before the Parliament for consideration. There were some exclusions for reasons which he specified. I think that the question might more properly be directed now to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs who may choose to follow up what Senator Gietzelt has asked.

page 346

QUESTION

SCIENTOLOGY

Senator GREENWOOD:

– Again my question is directed to the Attorney-General and it relates to the subject matter of the question I asked him earlier. 1 ask him to have regard to the fact that by recognising Scientology as a religious denomination under the Marriage Act he has rendered lawful some practices previously unlawful in Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia. Having regard also to his unwillingness to answer my previous question, I again ask: Does he accept or reject the findings of the Anderson report on Scientology and the danger to the public involved in its practices? What steps has he taken, or what steps does he propose to take, to protect the public?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– The honourable senator has put to me a question of law. There is a psychological practices Act in Victoria. The best answer that I can give to the honourable senator is that, as far as I can recall, what has been done by the existing Government in regard to recognition does not alter the position in Victoria. The next thing I would say to him is that it is within the province of the Victorian Parliament to deal with any consequences which Victoria might have, by way of exemption from its own provisions, if an organisation becomes registered under the Marriage Act. I am not speaking from material in front of me, but as I recall it the particular organisation of Scientologists in Victoria has not been recognised. That is a somewhat different organisation from the others but I know that after lengthy consideration by the Victorian Government it permitted that organisation to be registered as a corporation under the laws of Victoria. If something needs to be done to make the Victorian psychological practices Act operative, that is within the province of the Victorian Parliament. It is hardly to be suggested that Victoria should decline to alter its own Act, which provides some exemption, but rather that the Government of the Commonwealth should take a certain course. I note the honourable senator’s amusement at the position. I suggest that his concern about protection of the public in regard to such practices as he said were referred to in the Anderson report is not a matter for the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth to take into consideration in dealing with recogition for marriage purposes.

page 347

QUESTION

REPLACEMENT OF MIRAGE AIRCRAFT

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP; NCP from May 1975

– 1 address a question to the Minister assisting the Minister for Defence. I refer to an answer he gave earlier this afternoon in which he expounded Government policy in regard to the manufacture in Australia of aircraft that may be possible replacements for the Mirage aircraft. I ask: Is that a departure from the policy espoused in the past by the Department of Supply? If so, what part of that policy is new? Does that mean that the aircraft selected, irrespective of performance, will be the aircraft which has the greatest Australian content?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– In answer to the last part of the honourable senator’s question, of course it does not. As I tried to explain earlier, the instructions to the mission were that it had to have high regard for the Australian capability to produce part of whatever aircraft was selected. Obviously, as specialists, they will be guided in their choice by the requirements of the Royal Australian Air Force. They will report back to the Minister. I said previously that since the Australian Labor Party has come into office - the honourable senator would know about our agitations when we were in Opposition - it has tried to promote the need to support to every extent the Australian aircraft manufacturing industry. We have given that some fillip. This is related to the agitations we carried on, when in opposition, in support of the Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation, the Government Aircraft Factories and Hawker Siddeley. I can assure the honourable senator that when these documents come before the Minister every opportunity is given to Australians to produce whatever requirements there are, including parts, where that is possible, convenient, efficient and not too expensive.

page 347

QUESTION

USE OF VIP AIRCRAFT BY SENATORS

Senator WITHERS:

– I wish to ask a question of the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I refer to the news report in which it was alleged that Senator Keeffe was refused permission to travel on a VIP aircraft. I ask: Does the Leader of the Government in the Senate think it reasonable that honourable senators should be treated as lesser persons than the local federal member for the area or the members of the Press who are entitled to travel on VIP flights in accordance with the rules laid down? If he does not think it is reasonable, will the Leader of the Government in the Senate take steps to have this matter rectified?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I think there is a great deal of force in what the Leader of the Opposition has put. I find his arguments very persuasive. May I say that these matters are matters for determination, at this juncture, by the Government. Senator Bishop has announced what the policy of the Government is. I think, if I am not mistaken, that he was asked a few days ago whether some reconsideration should be given to this matter in line with what the Leader of the Opposition has now put. I think it might be wiser to leave the matter there.

page 347

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH GRANTS COMMISSION: LOCAL GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES

Senator WRIGHT:

– I wish to ask a question of the Special Minister of State. It relates to a subject that was referred to by Senator Gietzelt. The Special Minister of State has affirmed the intention to bring before us proposals to expand the Commonwealth Grants Commission so as to give access to it to local governing authorities and, the Minister said, regional authorities. Will the Minister be specific as to whether all local government authorities are to have access to the Commission; that is. shires and local councils, municipalities and cities? Will the Minister define for us more definitely what is intended by the word ‘regions’ which, I remind him, is the expression used in the Governor-General’s Speech?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– As the honourable senator well knows, the Commonwealth Grants Commission is an independent body, and its independence must be maintained. When 1 used the word ‘regional’ I meant to convey that such areas will make the decision. The legislation has not yet been prepared; but, as I understand it. every little municipality, road board or shire in Australia will not be presenting its case to the Commission. That is my opinion. 1 do not want to pre-empt the way in which the Grants Commission will carry out its duties. The Grants Commission is one of the success stories of Australia. A document for which I have looked every year is its annual report, which I think is a thesis in itself. What will happen is that the legislation will make it possible for the Grants Commission to carry out what is envisaged in the Prime Minister’s policy speech and in the Governor-General’s Speech: that is, that the third tier of government will have some access to the Commission. Not only are we trying to equalise States but also we are trying to equalise areas within Australia. Whether the Commission will consider regions or individual bodies I do not know. I think it will be necessary to look not only at regions but also, sometimes, at some of those individual bodies which will be speaking on behalf of regions. This is a matter for the Grants Commission. I do not want to see it get away from the system under which it has worked and the independent position which it has held over the years.

page 348

QUESTION

WHISKY AU GO-GO NIGHTCLUB FIRE

Senator MCAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– My question, which is directed to the Attorney-General, follows the advice which he gave to the Senate earlier that the Commonwealth Government passed to the Queensland Government information which now can be related to the bombing of the Whisky Au Go-Go nightclub.

Is the Attorney-General prepared to tell the Senate to whom and when the information was given?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– Information was given on 27th February to Senior Sergeant L. J. Voigt of the Crime Intelligence Unit of the Queensland Police.

page 348

QUESTION

PROPOSED INTERNATIONAL AIIRPORT: HOBART

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation ascertain from his colleague whether he will take immediate steps to inquire into the estimated cost of converting, and the time required to convert, the Hobart Airport into an international airport so that international flights may provide international travellers with the opportunity to enjoy the very great attractions of the Wrest Point casino, with its international standard accommodation and unsurpassed surrounding scenic attractions?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– Yes, I am prepared to seek the cost from the Minister. Whether he is prepared to go into the details and to work out the cost of building an international airport at Hobart, unless he first has some convincing arguments as to why he should build an international airport at Hobart, I do not know. I shall submit the honourable senator’s question to him.

page 348

QUESTION

REVALUATION OF CURRENCY: EFFECT ON WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator SIM:

– My question is directed to the Special Minister of State. As the Minister, a Western Australian, is Minister assisting the Prime Minister, am I to believe from his reply to my previous question that he is unaware of the letter from the Premier of Western Australia or that he is unaware of what decision has been made on the request by the Premier and that he does not know when the decision, if any, is to be conveyed to the Premier?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– As I thought I made clear in my previous answer, I have no knowledge of this matter. In my job as Minister assisting the Prime Minister I do not sit in on everything brought before the Prime Minister. What happens is that there is a division of duties, and this is the only sensible way in which one can carry out an assisting role. This is done in the Department of Foreign Affairs where certain duties are allocated to me, and a similar system obtains in the Prime Minister’s Department. All communications between States and the. Commonwealth are on a Premier to Prime Minister level, and 1 suggest that is as it should be. If the honourable senator is really interested in this matter I will try to get some information for him and transmit it to him.

page 349

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN MEAT BOARD: MEMBERSHIP

Senator MULVIHILL:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry. In view of the clamour from Opposition benches on the desire to have worker responsibility in industry, can the Minister indicate whether the Government proposes to redress the injustice to trade unions by providing for trade union membership on the Australian Meat Board?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– I am not in a position, of course, simply to take people off Commonwealth statutory boards at will. Many of the appointments which have been made are for particular terms and therefore I am bound to accept them, whether I like the personnel or not or whether I think they are competent or not. until the terms expire. However, in specific answer to the honourable senator’s question I would make the point that the people I want to see on the various marketing boards in Australia and the boards concerned with primary industry are those who are most capable and who can do most in their particular spheres. I am not particularly concerned where they come from, nor do I think persons automatically have rights to membership simply because they belong to particular organisations. If they have something positive to contribute then I think they ought to be there; but if they do not, then I do not think they ought to be there.

page 349

QUESTION

SCIENTOLOGY

Senator GREENWOOD:

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General. I again ask him about the subject of Scientology. Why doss the Attorney-General claim that for the purposes of recognition of an organisation under the Marriage Act the practices of that organisation are irrelevant? In the case of Scientology does he not consider that its practices are highly relevant to whether it should be recognised? I ask, therefore: Does he accept or reject the findings of the Anderson report into Scientology, and, if he does accept them, does he propose to do anything to protect the public?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– It is not within my sphere of responsibility to accept or reject the findings of the Anderson report. I say again to the honourable senator that it appears to me that persons have constitutional rights whether we agree with them or not, and that after a thorough consideration of the issues before him a magistrate found that a certain organisation had come into being as a church - an incorporated church with a constitution. As I recall reading them, there were some references in the constitution to various matters such as adherents believing in the various books of the Bible, and in particular the Gospel of St Luke, and to a number of other matters, which were sufficient to convince the magistrate that this was a religion, that there was a religion being practised, that there were in fact a number of adherents who supported a minister who did the things that ministers usually do. All I am saying is that I think it is the obligation of the Australian Government not to set itself up as a judge in these matters.

I am not here suggesting, and I think it is not for me to say, anything about the validity of the beliefs of the body at all, but there is a provision for the recognition of religious denominations. It is obvious that an appreciable number of people belong to this small body which has been constituted as a church and incorporated as such under the laws of the various States. It has been duly found in proceedings between a member of it and the Commonwealth that it is a religion and he is a minister of religion. It seems to me that in those circumstances it is not for the Government to put itself in the position of drawing distinction between religions. There are obligations under the Act to be observed by this body. There are penalties for nonobservance. If in some way the requirements of the Marriage Act are not observed by the Scientologists, by the Church of the New Faith, or by any other church, the consequences which are provided for in the Act will be applied to that body.

The situation is as clear as it can be, but I feel that it certainly is not the obligation of the Australian Government to draw distinctions between these bodies. If once we start that practice, where will it end? No religion will be safe if the Attorney-General can say: I do not approve of the practices of one body which is lawfully registered under the laws of the States; I do approve of the practices of another body’. If we start this sort of thing, where will it end? It seems to me that this provision should never have been put into the Act. I do not think that the recognition of religious denominations in this way is a healthy provision to have in the laws of the Commonwealth. Even if it were a little more cumbersome, it would have been much better to provide that various reputable persons should be registered to carry out these marriage ceremonies. But the provision is there, and 1 do not propose to discriminate in the way in which Senator Greenwood apparently would wish me to do.

page 350

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN MASS COMMUNICATIONS COUNCIL

Senator CARRICK:

– I ask whether the Minister for the Media has now studied the written submission of the Australian Mass Communications Council to the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts to which his name is attached? Does he agree with the following key paragraph from section 1 of the submission, ‘Basic Philosophy of Broadcasting Stations’, which states:

Also in the context of television and radio as well as elsewhere, the present philosophy of free enterprise media as necessarily responsible to the public only in the sense of ‘giving the public what it wants’ must be carefully rescrutinised, for behind this ‘cheap popular entertainment’ philosophy, there may well be found to lie a ruthless ‘bread-and-circuses’ strategy of persuasive-manipulative-exploitative control over the Australian people, supplementing coercive control via establishment-orientated electoral gerrymandering in the interests of government by and for the rich and privileged few and their tame-cat legal decision-making bodies such as the Arbitration and Industrial Courts.

If the Minister does not agree with this statement, why did he not object verbally or in writing when the document was sent to him or when the document, and this passage in particular, was examined in full public session?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The answer to the first portion of the honourable senator’s question is no, I have not had the opportunity yet of perusing the submission that was made by the Australian Mass Communications Council to the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Science and the

Arts to which, he says, my name was attached. I understand from a question the honourable senator asked of me the other day that it was suggested I was a member of the Mass Communications Council, which organisation in fact did make a submission to the Committee. I have had inquiries made in my office as to whether I in fact did receive a submission from the Mass Communications Council. The simple fact of the matter is that at that time - namely, I think June or July of last year to which the honourable senator referred - I myself was a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Health and Welfare which was inquiring into all aspects of repatriation. My colleague, Senator J. R. Mcclelland, was and still is a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts which is inquiring into all aspects of radio and television. Apparently, when the submission was received in my office it was thought that it was for my colleague, Senator J. R. McClelland, and therefore was dispatched to him. In reply to the question about whether I subscribe to the passage read out by Senator Carrick, all 1 can say is that the policy of the Australian Labor Party is that the dual aspects of national and commercial television shall be made available to all sections of the Australian community.

page 350

QUESTION

LIGHT AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY

Senator DEVITT:

– I direct a further question to the Minister representing the Minister for Supply in relation to the aircraft manufacturing industry in Australia. Will he request the Minister for Supply, in pursuing the points which were brought out in my question and the questions of other honourable senators today, to have some special regard for the position of the light aircraft industry which formerly manufactured the Victa aircraft, which sought assistance from the Commonwealth Government and which, having had that application for assistance declined, moved out of the country? Would he also request the Minister to pay special regard to the manufacturers of the crop dusting aircraft, the Air Truk, which was manufactured here initially but which now, I understand, is being manufactured in New Zealand? Would he request the Minister to have another look at the situation so that if it is in the interests of this country so to do, those very important aircraft manufacturing industries may be induced to come back to Australia and resume their activities in this country?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– The honourable senator has asked what we can do about the transfer of some of the effective manufacturers who left Australia as a result, I think, of the previous Government’s policy. We will try to do all that we can. But I think that the die is cast. What I mentioned to the honourable senator was that, resulting from the placement of those industries in New Zealand, we have since made arrangements with New Zealand to produce the aircraft which, of course, we could have made in Australia. As to what extent it is now possible to give further assistance - we are doing that to a large extent - I will obtain further information for the honourable senator.

page 351

QUESTION

QUARANTINE OF ANIMALS

Senator JESSOP:

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Health say whether it is a fact that the Commonwealth Government has approved the relaxation of quarantine regulations to permit the admission of cats and dogs from Papua New Guinea, Norfolk Island, Hawaii and Fiji into this country? Is it a fact that rabies is endemic to Indonesia and that there is a strong likelihood of a spread of this disease from animals in West Irian to Papua New Guinea? If so, what added precautions have been taken by the departments concerned to ensure that positive safeguards are implemented against the introduction of this disease into Australia?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am unaware of the details submitted in the question of the honourable senator. I suggest that he place it on the notice paper.

page 351

QUESTION

SCIENTOLOGY

Senator PROWSE:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Attorney-General, is prompted by the exchange of questions and answers in relation to the practice of Scientology. Does the acceptance of loose and indefinite criteria and provisions in recognising a church mean that people practising witchcraft and similar practices can now apply to have their practices given benign approval and marriage ceremonies perpetrated under their rights recognised by law?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I find it difficult to answer that question. I have little doubt that some of the organisations that have been recognised as religious denominations do, in fact, recognise themselves that there are witches and that witchcraft exists. I do not know whether any of them practise witchcraft. The honourable senator might, by a very simple study of their theology, ascertain for himself which organisations still maintain that such beings as witches and demons in fact exist. But it is not for me, in the discharge of my responsibilities as AttorneyGeneral, to endeavour to transmit information on theology. I think this illustrates all the more how dangerous it is for government to start differentiating between religions. If, as the honourable senator would want, those who accepted witchcraft as a reality should be denied recognition, I would think that the results of that would astonish even the honourable senator.

page 351

QUESTION

KANGAROO PRODUCTS: EXPORT BAN

Senator LAUCKE:

– I direct a qeustion to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I seek further elucidation of the kangaroo products export ban decision. I ask the Minister: Were the States’ fauna authorities consulted before the ban was imposed? On what evidence did the Minister base his decision to impose the ban when the House of Representatives Select Committee on Wildlife Conservation indicated that a total ban was not necessary as not all species were in danger of extinction?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I think the answer to the first question is no, the conservation authorities were almost certainly not consulted, I think the reason being that they probably were not in existence at the time the ban was imposed. I think I was barely able to walk at that time. It was in 1923. It must be remembered that the policy of the law regarding the export of these skins has been a consistent one for some 50 years. The addition of the products, which was done earlier this year, was ancillary to that. But the question is whether the policy of the law and the prohibition imposed by the law should be waived. One would expect that there would be strong grounds for consenting to a waiver of a prohibition which is otherwise imposed by law. Of course, there has been further development since the inquiry by the House of Representatives committee. There has been the development of the American Government’s investigation of the question and the strong attitude which the Americans have taken, which probably makes almost irrelevant what is done by the Australian Government. If the import ban comes into effect in the United Slates in the next few days, then irrespective of what decision might be taken here the main source of demand for exported skins will be closed off.

Although there may be some variation between the species, it is quite clear that there needs to be a program of co-ordinating management throughout Australia - and I take into account what was said by Senator DrakeBrockman earlier and I am aware of what has been done in Western Australia - and a great deal more done than has been attempted. That is now recognised by the State Ministers, and a working party has been established to draw up plans. We hope that those plans will be implemented in the interests of conservation and of those who are concerned with the kangaroo industry.

page 352

QUESTION

SCIENTOLOGY

Senator GREENWOOD:

– My question, which is addressed to the Attorney-General, relates to his previous answers on the question of Scientology. 1 ask the Attorney-General, particularly having regard to the implication of Senator Prowse’s question and his answer to it: Did he or did he not, in determining to recognise Scientology, give any consideration, in the light of the Anderson report, to whether harm to the public might result.

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I gave a great deal of consideration to all the factors involved, including the Anderson report, the possibility that the body in question would become subject to very great criticism and the probability that the honourable senator would endeavour to make political capital out of this decision, as he is trying to do.

page 352

QUESTION

NEWSPAPER POSTER: SECURITY OF PRIME MINISTER

Senator HANNAN:

– Having regard to the earlier answer given by the Attorney-General relating to his dedication to law and order I ask: Has his attention been drawn to the screaming banner poster of this week’s Murdoch ‘Truth’ stating ‘Plot to Kill Whitlam’? Will the Minister assure the Senate that proper security precautions will be taken to protect the person of the Prime Minister?

Will he further assure the Senate that Cabinet dissension has not reached these alarming proportions?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I did not see the poster to which the honourable senator has referred. My understanding is that the people at the administrative level who are responsible for the security arrangements for the Prime Minister are satisfied with those arrangements. As to the honourable senator’s remark about Cabinet dissension, I am afraid that as always the honourable senator is living in the past.

page 352

QUESTION

REFERENDUM ON BAN ON EXPORT OF MERINO RAMS

Senator WEBSTER:

– Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware that on several occasions 1 have invited him to advise the Senate of who will provide for the referendum the arguments in support of the ban on the export of merino rams? Does the Minister, in stating the names of 3 primary producer associations, believe that both sides of the argument will be provided by all or any of those associations’? Can the Minister state which sector of the Australian public was most vocal in support of the ban on the export of merino rams? Again I ask: Who will provide the argument to support that case?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– I do not know that 1 can say which particular section of the Australian community was most vocal in its desire to support the ban. So many interests were in support of or in opposition to the embargo that it would be very difficult to nominate particular sections or organisations. 1 can only restate the answer that I gave earlier to Senator Webster. I personally have sufficient faith in the impartiality of my departmental officers in conjunction with the industry organisations that, have been nominated to believe that an impartial case will be presented to wool growers. I just cannot understand what is in Senator Webster’s mind which would suggest to him that there will be some imbalance in the arguments put forward. He can rest assured that the arguments which are put forward will be fair arguments.

page 352

QUESTION

SCIENTOLOGY

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I again address a question to the Attorney-General because his last answer to me appears to be inconsistent with the answer he gave to me earlier. In view of his statement that he did consider all factors, including the Anderson report, I now ask whether he accepted the findings in that report? If he did not accept them, why did he reject them? If he did accept them, does he not consider that there is a case for protection of the public?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I indicated that I had taken into account various factors, including the existence of the Anderson report, lt is not for me to set myself up as if I were the Victorian Government to accept or reject the findings of that report. That was one of the facts of life, as there are many other facts of life, and it was taken into consideration. 1 think the honourable senator is forgetting that if the public needs protection in some way against a citizen’s conduct, the State of Victoria to which he has principally referred has ample authority to protect its citizens against conduct which in its opinion ought to be made illegal. If citizens break the law, let them be dealt with.

The Marriage Act contains certain provisions. If persons have been permitted by the Government of Victoria to organise themselves within the law of Victoria, it seems to me that the honourable senator should nol be complaining about the fact that the persons who have organised themselves into churches are entitled to recognition. Although I have nol the documents before me, my recollection is that the recognition which has been given extends at the moment to the Church of the New Faith in South Australia and Western Australia. 1 am not quite certain of that, as I have not the documents here. However, I feel that it was not extended to the one in Victoria. lt may be that under some previous policy, which may be questionable also, organisations of any kind had to be operating in more than one State before action could be taken and because of that technicality recognition was not given. However that may be, surely the illegal conduct of any citizen is a matter to be dealt with under the appropriate law; and if Victoria thinks that some conduct should be prohibited, then let it make the appropriate law and administer it and not ask the Australian Government in the administration of the Marriage Act to make distinctions between bodies which have set themselves up as churches and have been registered and incorporated under the laws of various States, or suggest that the Australian Government should in some way have to discriminate between them and determine their falsity or truthfulness. That is a function not of the Australian Government but of the States if they want to prohibit certain conduct.

page 353

QUESTION

SHIPPING: COASTAL TRADE

Senator YOUNG:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. Following statements made by the Minister for Transport, including those made prior to his coming to office, that the coastal trade would be reserved for Australian owned, built and manned vessels, what steps does the Minister now intend to take in relation to the Australian National Line entering the Australian coastal tanker trade?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– Plans are now under way in the Department of Transport to increase the Australian National Line’s share of the Australian coastal trade until such time as it has control of most of that trade. This includes the building of ships for that purpose.

Senator Young:

– Tankers?

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I do not know the attitude of the Department on this. I am prepared to submit the question, as it relates to tankers, to the Department.

page 353

QUESTION

MINIMUM WAGE

Senator WEBSTER:

– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether he was a party to a decision by the Government to support a $13 increase in the minimum wage. If so, what is the estimated cost of such an increase to Commonwealth and State government payrolls and what is the expected cost to private industry? Did the Government consider the impact of these likely costs?

The PRESIDENT:

– I do not think the first part of that question should be addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate because the whole basis of parliamentary government is collective responsibility. There is a Minister in the Senate who may answer the rest of the question if he so desires. He is the Minister representing the Minister for Labour or the Minister representing the Treasurer.

Senator Murphy:

– I suggest that in view of the time the appropriate course is for that question to be placed on the notice paper and then the appropriate Minister can look at it

page 354

QUESTION

PROPOSED AIRPORTS: RESUMPTION OF LAND

Senator HANNAN:

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation. Is it not a fact that the Commonwealth Government has power to proclaim certain areas of land as being required for Commonwealth purposes at some future time - for example, in respect of a proposed airport? Is it not a fact that during this period the owners of that land are virtually unable to deal with it and that its value drops accordingly? Can the Minister advise whether any such proclamation has been made in respect of any proposed jet airport or other airport near the town of Cranbourne in Victoria? If this has been done, can the Minister state when the owners will be definitely advised of the acquisition, how much of their land will be required and the amount of their compensation?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– As the representative of the Minister for Civil Aviation I would say that, as the honourable senator knows, the Commonwealth has power to acquire land compulsorily. This is rarely done for airport purposes without consultation and planning with the States. The fair value of the land is paid as compensation. I do not know that land devalues as a result of possible acquisition by the Commonwealth. I know of no plans to acquire land at Cranbourne in Victoria. I shall refer the question to the Minister for Civil Aviation to see whether he can add anything further.

page 354

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

Senator McMANUS:

– I direct my question to the Minister for Works. Is the new system of allocating contracts which he has envisaged in operation at the present time? Will regulations or legislation be necessary in order to implement the new system? Does he propose to make a statement for the information of contracting firms and possible tenderers on the principles on which allocation of contracts will be decided.

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– There is no difference in the system operating now; it has operated all along. As I stated in the direction given to the Director-General, one of the things to be taken into consideration in allocating contracts - only one of the things - will be the relationship of the contractor with the trade union movement, as well as the relationship with the trade union membership employed by the contractor. Since that statement was made we have had very happy relationships with contractors. I do not think that this principle will have the effect of denying a contract to any building firm in Australia. Firms which trade unions had claimed had had bad relationships with the trade union movement have rung me and assured me that their relationships with the building trades will be satisfactory. So what I did in announcing the direction has solved the problem of bad relationships between contractors and building trades. I do not think that there are any problems. I am mindful of the fact that the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission went further, perhaps somewhat in justification of the attitude I took. We. are now consideraing the adoption by employees of my Department of the Commission’s formula which gives preference to unionists on time of appointment, on time of promotion and on time of termination. As the Commission has accepted the principle, I think it is one which can be applied throughout the Public Service.

page 354

QUESTION

DIVORCE LAW REFORM

Senator HANNAN:

-Has the attention of the Attorney-General been drawn to a newsletter, dated February 1973, from the Divorce Law Reform Association of Queensland which urges support for him personally and which states, in part:

Instant free divorce on demand this year - For those in the know, especially with money, instant divorce on demand has been available in Australia since 1959. The new rules since 1st February now make it free.

Is this a true statement of the effect of the new rules?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I think it might fairly be said that the new rules have removed the requirement to pay fees on the filing of petitions and the other pleadings in matrimonial causes matters. It seemed to me that it was a very serious anomaly in the law that a person might have to pay a fee, for example, to file a defence to the proceedings. Happily these fees have been removed. I think it is up to the honourable senator, with his extensive knowledge of the law, to determine for himself whether the other statements in the document are correct, but I must say that I am pleased with the approbation which has generally been given by the divorce law reform associations throughout Australia to the very great improvements which have been made in the rules.

Senator Webster:

– That is a lot of rubbish. Have a word with the judiciary.

Senator MURPHY:

– I am reminded by Senator Webster’s interjection about having a word with the judiciary that a few minutes ago I was supplied with a judgment delivered in 1972 by the Chief Judge in Divorce in New South Wales in which he said:

The Act and rules made thereunder have now been in operation for over a decade. The legislature might be disposed to give some consideration to the improvement of some of the machinery which has been shown to creak discordantly.

That is one of the more charitable remarks which have been made about the previous rules. I am pleased to say that the ones who are mostly concerned - that is, the members of the public who have been affected by the divorce rules - want an improvement and seem to be pleased that there is a disposition to move towards an improvement in the procedures. What is really needed is an overhaul of the Act itself in accordance with the principles which I have enunciated in this chamber.

page 355

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN MASS COMMUNICATIONS COUNCIL

Senator CARRICK:

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for the Media, is supplementary to a question I asked of him earlier. If, as it seems, the Minister dissociates himself from the Marcusian principles and philosophies in the submission of the Australian Mass Communications Council, does he consider that a person who publicly espouses such views on the media and in the community is a suitable person to have been appointed as a member of the Australian Broadcasting Commission?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Mr

President, I am not quite sure whether f follow the question asked by Senator Carrick. 1 assume that he has related his remarks to Mr Lashwood, who is the President of Actors Equity in private life, who was one time but is no longer a member of the Mass Communications Council, who is now a very honourable member of the Australian Broadcasting Commission and who, I understand, is contributing substantially to the discussions that take place from time to time in the Commission. I do not know what views Mr Lashwood subscribes to in that regard. I am proud to say that I had the honour of recommending him to the Labor Government for appointment to the Australian Broadcasting Commission. So far as I am concerned, I do not intend to prejudge any recommendation that might be forthcoming to the Senate from a Senate standing committee that is based on evidence it has received.

page 355

QUESTION

DIVORCE LAW REFORM

Senator RAE:

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General and concerns an answer he gave to an earlier question. In respect of the removal of the necessity to pay fees upon the filing of documents in relation to divorce proceedings, I ask: Does the Attorney-General intend to ensure that the State governments are reimbursed for the loss of revenue derived in this respect, which revenue was used to offset the cost of the administration of the divorce laws in Australia?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I think it is reasonable that they should be. I have no doubt that when the States have a good point they will insist that it be given effect to. I think something has been done or is in the process of being done in this direction. It is certainly reasonable that this should be done. I will leave it at that.

page 355

PROPOSED ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURE 1972-73

Senator WILLESEE:
Special Minister of State · Western Australia · ALP

– I lay on the table the following documents:

Particulars of proposed provision for additional expenditure for the service of the year ending 30th June 1973; and

Particulars of proposed provision for certain additional expenditure in respect of the year ending 30th June 1973.

Senator MURPHY:
Leader of the Government in the Senate · New South Wales · ALP

– by leave - Mr President, it will be necessary fairly soon for me to move for the reappointment of Estimates committees if the intention is to pursue the previous practice. I should inform you, Mr President, that there have been various discussions about committees. I think everyone would be anxious to get this matter cleared up within the next day or so. If the Estimates are to be looked at it will be necessary for the Estimates committees machinery to be geared in such a way that the Estimates can be looked at in an efficient manner.

page 356

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE VETERANS’ RESIDENCES TRUST

Senator BISHOP:
Minister for Repatriation · South Australia · ALP

– Pursuant to section 10 of the Royal Australian Air Force Veterans’ Residences Act 1953-1965, I present the annual report of the Royal Australian Air Force Veterans’ Residences Trust for the year ended 30th June 1972, together with financial statements and the Auditor-General’s report on those statements.

page 356

COMMONWEALTH RAILWAYS: ANNUAL REPORT

Senator CAVANAGH:
Minister for Works · South Australia · ALP

– Pursuant to section 41 of the Commonwealth Railways Act 1917- 1968, I present the annual report on the operations of the Commonwealth Railways for the year ended 30th June 1972. The financial statements of Commonwealth Railways operations for the year ended 30th June 1972 were tabled in the Senate on 19th September 1972.

page 356

MINISTERIAL COUNCIL MEETING

Senator CAVANAGH:
Minister for Works · South Australia · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators 1 present the communique and points of agreement of the ministerial council meeting held on 9th March 1973 between Mr Tom Uren, M.P., Australian Minister for Urban and Regional Development, Mr J. B. Fuller, New South Wales Minister for Decentralisation and Development, and Mr Murray Byrne, Victorian Minister for State Development and Decentralisation, concerning Albury-Wodonga. Copies of this communique will be available to honourable senators in the Parliamentary Library.

page 356

TOBACCO INDUSTRY ACT

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Primary Industry · Tasmania · ALP

– Pursuant to Section 7 of the Tobacco Industry Act 1955-1965, I present the seventeenth annual report on the operation of the Act for the year ended 30th June 1972.

page 356

QUESTION

PLACING OF BUSINESS

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate · ALP

– I move:

That intervening business be postponed until after consideration of Government Business, notice of motion No. 5.

This motion relates to the Social Services Bill which needs to pass this week if the Senate desires its provisions to operate and the payments to be made, as the legislation intends, I think, on the Friday.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 356

QUESTION

DAYS AND HOURS OF MEETING

Senator MURPHY:
Leader of the Government in the Senate · New South Wales · ALP

– There has been some discussion about the times of sitting. I have not been able to resolve, from the discussion, what should be done. I am trying to achieve some agreement with the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Withers) and with the other leaders in relation to whether the proposed times are satisfactory. As this matter has not been resolved, I propose that we do the same as we did last week, with one exception. I understand that there may be a function on Thursday morning which honourable senators will be attending. If that does not arise, we could sit on Thursday morning; but at this stage 1 propose that we do not. I shall give some notice of this to honourable senators. I propose that instead of sitting at 11 a.m. we will sit at 2 p.m. If my information is not correct, we can easily adjust the time during the week. I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Repatriation Bill

page 357

COUNCIL OF THE AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

The PRESIDENT:

– 1 inform the Senate that I have received a letter from the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Murphy) resigning as a member of the Council of the Australian National University.

Motion (by Senator Murphy) - by leave - agreed to:

That in accordance with the provisions of section 1 1 of the Australian National University Act the Senate elect Senator Wheeldon to be a member of the Council of the Australian National University from 13th March 1973 to 30th June 1974.

page 357

HOUSE COMMITTEE

Consideration of Report

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate · ALP

– I move:

This motion simply puts that report back on the notice paper. We did not deal with it last session.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 357

REPATRIATION BILL 1973

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended. Bill (on motion by Senator Bishop) read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator BISHOP:
Minister for Repatriation · South Australia · ALP

– I move:

As you know, Mr President, the Government is moving quickly on a broad front to implement the policies for which it received a mandate on 2nd December 1972. Among those policies were a number of proposals related to repatriation. The Bill currently before the Senate is designed to give legislative effect to important Government proposals relating to improvements in pension rates and conditions of eligibility. In saying that they are important, I do not intend it to be taken that other matters in the repatriation field are necessarily placed in lower order of priority. They will

Repatriation Bil! 357 be kept continually under review. In fact, honourable senators will be aware that the funeral benefit payable on the death of entitled ex-servicemen has already been increased from S50 to $100. Regulations giving effect to this increase were notified in Gazette No. 16 of 8th February last. I will now outline to the Senate the provisions of the Bill.

The Special Rate War Pension

The Government’s view is that the special or total and permanent incapacity rate payable to a man or woman who has been classified as totally and permanently incapacitated because of war related incapacity should not be less than the adult Commonwealth minimum wage. Accordingly, the Bill provides for an increase of S3. 10 a week in the special or TPI rate, taking it from $48 a week to $51.10 a week, lt should be remembered that the minimum wage is a gross wage, subject lo income tax. All war pensions, on the other hand, are tax free, so that the real value of the special rate is far greater than it first seems. But we must add also the value of any special allowance such as recreation transport allowance or attendant’s allowance for which a pensioner may be eligible. I might add that this special rate is also payable to certain tuberculosis sufferers, to the blind, to those suffering from the more serious double amputations and to those who are classified as being temporarily totally incapacitated. A total of 21,104 pensioners will receive this increase, at a cost of $3. 4m in a full year.

The Intermediate Rate War Pension

The intermediate rate is one of the different rates of war pension designed to cater for the various degrees of war related incapacity, lt is payable to those whose incapacity permits them to work only part time or intermittently and will be increased by $2.55 a week, taking it from $34 to $36.55 a week. The cost for a full year for the 1,900 pensioners involved will be $0.25m.

The General Rate War Pension

The Government’s policy is that the general rate of war pension should be progressively increased until it has reached the equivalent of 50 per cent of the adult Commonwealth minimum wage and that it should be maintained at that level. Bearing in mind that over 190,000 ex-servicemen and women receive a 13 March 1973 war pension within the general rate scale, we have always maintained that the Government’s goal in this direction would have to be reached in stages as resources permit. As a first step, this Bill provides an increase of $2 a week at the 100 per cent rate, taking the maximum of this pension from $14 to $16 a week. Honourable senators will be aware that the general rate presently scales down from 100 per cent to 10 per cent according to the assessed degree of incapacity. All general rate war pensioners will benefit from this increase. There are 190,880 general rate pensioners and the cost of this increase for a full year will be $8.34m.

The War Widow’s Pension

The Government is acutely aware of the loss endured by the nation’s war widows and the difficulties they have faced, and are still facing in their daily lives without the assistance, comfort and support of a breadwinner. As a first step in the Government’s program in this area, the Bill increases the basic war widow’s pension by $1.50 a week, taking it from $20 to $21.50. The cost in a full year of this proposal will be $3.94m affecting some 50,500 widows. Additionally, most war widows are eligible for a domestic allowance of $8.50 a week and many may also qualify for a means test pension.

Honourable senators will notice that column 3 of the scale in clause 20 of the Bill lists a rate of $43.10 per fortnight for war widows whose husbands held ranks higher than Captain (Navy), Colonel, Group Captain and relative ranks. This rate is the last vestige of the former practice of paying war widows’ pensions according to the ranks held during war service by their deceased husbands. It will be phased out in future pension movements.

Cost of Increases

The total cost of these increased war pension payments will be $15.93m in a full year, and $8.5m for the 1972-73 financial year.

War Pensions for Student Children

The Government’s policy on war pensions for student children, which is reflected in the Bill, is that they should be continued until completion of full-time education in respect of dependent children who are not receiving a maintenance or living allowance or salary from Commonwealth sources that equals or exceeds the allowances payable under the Repatriation Soldiers’ Children Education Scheme.

Service Pensions in respect of Student Children

In relation to children of service pensioners, the Bill also reflects the Government’s policy that a child should continue to be recognised for service pension purposes irrespective of age, for as long as the child continues to undertake full-time education.

Service Pensions Generally

Those who suffer from pulmonary tuberculosis, or who have served in a theatre of war and are over 60 in the case of men, or 55 in the case of women, or, permanently unemployable, qualify for service pensions, if they satisfy the existing means test. As you know, Mr Deputy President, the Government is committed to abolishing the means test within the life of this Parliament, but 1 will not dwell on that particular point at the moment.

The proposed increases in age and invalid pensions will, under the provisions of the Repatriation Act 1920-1972, apply automatically to service pensions and there is no necessity to amend the Act in order to honour the Government’s commitment to increase immediately means test pensions by $1.50 a week. The increase will take the maximum service pension to $21.50 a week for a single ex-serviceman, and to $18.75 a week for a married ex-serviceman or an eligible wife. The cost of these increases will be, $6m for a full year and $3. 15m for the 1972-73 financial year.

Removal of Certain Disadvantages Suffered by Dependants of Ex-Servicemen

In the repatriation legislation as it stands there are certain dependants of ex-servicemen who suffer disadvantages which the Government considers unjust, and the opportunity is being taken to remove, these disadvantages.

First, where a claimant for a pension dies after a decision on his application has been given by the Repatriation Commission, his legal personal representative has not been permitted to lodge and prosecute an appeal with an entitlement appeal tribunal or an assessment appeal tribunal. A legal personal representative should be allowed this right and this is the purpose of clause 5 of the Bill, lt should be borne in mind, however, that action taken under this new provision will be subject to other provisions of the Act that govern and place time limits on claims and appeals procedures generally. For example, a decision of an appeal tribunal cannot be expressed to operate from a date earlier than 3 months before the date on which the claim for pension was lodged. In certain other limited cases, the decision can have effect from a date not earlier than 4 years before the date of decision or determination. There is also a time limit for the lodgement of appeals with an assessment appeal tribunal.

Secondly, where an ex-serviceman lodges an application for service pension, but dies before a decision is given, the claim lapses and no pension is payable to his estate in respect of the period up to death, in spite of the fact that, bad he lived, the pension would have been paid as from the date of implication. Under the Social Services Act payment of arrears of pension can be made in the circumstances described and the Bill currently before the Senate inserts in the principal Act a provision similar to that of the Social Services Act.

Thirdly, Mr Deputy President, at the present time some de facto wives and some exnuptial children are recognised under repatriation legislation. Other Commonwealth Acts such as the Compensation (Commonwealth Employees), the Social Services and the National Health Acts recognise additional categories of these dependants. The Government is of the view that the present provisions of the repatriation legislation are too restrictive and should be brought into line with these other Acts.

The Bill therefore embodies proposals to recognise for war pension and associated benefits a de facto wife or widow who has lived continuously with an ex-serviceman on a bona fide domestic basis for at least 3 years preceding consideration of her status, or the member’s death, as the case may be, if she is or was wholly or partly dependent on him and any ex-nuptial child of an ex-serviceman.

The Bill also recognises for service pension purposes a de facto wife who has lived with an ex-serviceman on a bona fide domestic basis for at least 3 years preceding consideration of her status and any ex-nuptial child, foster child or ward in the custody, care and control of an ex-serviceman.

Review of Entitlements

In view of the substantial improvements to be introduced by the Government, some of the present entitlements under the Repatriation and Social Services Acts have been reviewed. These entitlements, which have their origins well back in the history of these pieces of legislation, have to date allowed some people eligibility for means test pensions from both departments. This dual eligibility has placed these people in a more favoured position than other members of the community, and the substantial improvements being effected, and to be effected, make it advisable that steps be taken to gradually correct this situation. Therefore, on this occasion, where dual means test pensions are already being paid, no pension will be reduced, but only one department will give effect to the proposals, and the other will continue its pension at the current rate.

The dual means test pensions which may presently be received under the Repatriation and Social Services Acts are those payable to the widow or deserted wife of a service pensioner - such a widow or wife can continue to receive her repatriation service pension at the same time as she is receiving a civilian widow’s pension under the Social Services Act - and a service pensioner suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis - such a pensioner can also receive at the same time an age or invalid pension under the Social Services Act.

The Bill provides that, where a widow or deserted wife of a Service pensioner is also receiving a civilian widow’s pension under the Social. Services Act, her Service pension will not be increased on this or any future occasion. Service pensions payable to persons suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis will be increased under the general provisions relating to Service pensions. For the future, any person who has an eligibility for means test pension under both the Repatriation and Social Services Acts will have to elect to receive a pension under one or the other.

Another anomaly which this Bill removes from the Repatriation Act is that preventing a person, otherwise eligible for service pension as an ex-servicewoman, receiving it if she receives a war widow’s pension. Such an exservicewoman will now become eligible for service pension, even though receiving a war widow’s pension. A war widow currently in receipt of an age or invalid pension in addition to her war pension may, if she is eligible for a service pension, and so wishes, transfer to the Repatriation Department and receive her full entitlement under the Repatriation Act.

The increased pension rates will be retrospective to 7th December 1972, the first pension pay day after the recent elections for the House of Representatives. The Bill appropriates the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the extent necessary to provide during the current year the additional payments to which it gives effect. It gives me great pleasure, Mr President, to introduce this legislation. It represents major steps in the Government’s provision for those who have served the nation in time of war and it adds a further dimension to the large and varied legislative program upon which the Government has embarked. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Rae) adjourned.

page 360

REPATRIATION (SPECIAL OVERSEAS SERVICE) BILL 1973

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator BISHOP:
Minister for Repatriation · South Australia · ALP

– 1 move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill amends the principal Act to recognise for pension and other purposes the same classes of de facto wives and widows and ex-nuptial children as recognised by the amendments to the Repatriation Act contained in the Repatriation Bill 1973. The Bill provides for the payment of war pension to student children over the age of 21 years. The principal Act is amended also to incorporate a provision enabling payment of pensions and other amounts unpaid at the date of death of the claimant. The opportunity has been taken to delete definitions identical with those of the Repatriation Act and to provide that these terms shall have the same meaning as in the Repatriation Act. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Rae) adjourned.

page 360

REPATRIATION (FAR EAST STRATEGIC RESERVE) BILL 1973

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator BISHOP:
Minister for Repatriation · South Australia · ALP

– I move:

This Bill amends the principal Act to recognise for pension and other purposes the same classes of de facto wives and widows and ex-nuptial children as recognised by the amendments to the Repatriation Act contained in the Repatriation Bill 1973. The Bill provides for the payment of war pension to student children over the age of 21 years. The principal Act is amended also to incorporate a provision enabling payment of pensions and other amounts unpaid at the date of death of the claimant. The opportunity has been taken to delete definitions identical with those of the Repatriation Act and to provide that these terms shall have the same meaning as in the Repatriation Act. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Rae) adjourned.

page 360

INTERIM FORCES BENEFITS BILL 1973

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator BISHOP:
Minister for Repatriation · South Australia · ALP

I move:

The Bill amends the principal Act to include provision for pension, allowance or other benefit under the Act or regulations that is unpaid on the death of the claimant to be paid to his estate in respect of the period up to death. The amendment follows upon a similar amendment by the Repatriation Bill 1973 in respect of payments under the Repatriation Act and Regulations. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Rae) adjourned.

page 361

SEAMEN’S WAR PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES BILL 1973

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Works · ALP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The Bill before the Senate relates to seamen’s war pensions and allowances. The Act which it amends was first passed in 1940 to provide appropriate war pension benefits for Australian seamen and their dependants, having been framed on British war pensions legislation but drawn to conform to Australian conditions, chiefly along the lines of the Australian Repatriation Act. With some 30 years having elapsed since those wartime days, I think it appropriate that 1 should remind the Senate of the extent to which the Australian Merchant Navy suffered at the hands of the enemy during the 1939-45 War. As a result of service at sea during the war, 288 Australian seamen were killed, 39 died of injuries, 37 died while prisoners of war, 9 were lost at sea, 5 died of illness and 8 died from unknown causes - a total loss of 386 lives. Many of these seamen lost their lives in ships sunk as a result of enemy action whilst employed in Australian coastal waters. In all over 30 ships were lost around the Australian coast, of which 13 were Australian, whilst many others were attacked by submarine or suffered some form of war casualty. The Bill, which continues to provide some recognition of the service that these men gave, is complementary to the Repatriation Bill in that it applies the same important improvements in war pension rates and conditions of eligibility to be provided under that Bill to the corresponding provisions of the Seamen’s War Pensions and Allowances Act.

Under the Bill the existing general rate pension is increased from $14 to $16 a week and the existing widow’s pension is increased from $20 to $21.50 a week. The amount of $43.10 a fortnight appearing at the foot of column 2 of the First Schedule being inserted by clause 5 results from the former practice of fixing the widow’s pension rates according to the rank or rating held by their deceased husbands. This is to be phased out in future pension movements. The intermediate rate of war pension is being increased by $2.55 a week to $36.55 a week. This is the rate paid to seriously disabled persons whose warcaused incapacities render them incapable of working other than on a part-time basis, or intermittently. The Bill does not have to provide for the increase of$3. 10 a week in the special (totally and permanently incapacitated) rate, bringing it to $51.10 a week, or for various increases in the weekly amounts payable in respect of the serious disabilities set out in the Fifth Schedule to the Repatriation Act, as the increases in rates under that Act will apply automatically to seamen pensioners by virtue of section 22A of the Seamen’s War Pensions and Allowances Act.

As has been stated in connection with the Repatriation Bill, the Government’s policy on student children of war pensioners which is given effect to in this Bill in conjunction with the Repatriation Bill, is that they should not terminate at age 21 but be continued until completion of the student’s full-time education. This applies only in respect of dependent children who are not receiving a maintenance or living allowance or salary from Commonwealth sources that equals or exceeds the allowances payable under a repatriation children education scheme. Clause 3 makes the necessary amendments.

As has also been indicated in connection with the Repatriation Bill, whilst some de facto wives and some ex-nuptial children are recognised for war pension purposes the Government considers the present provisions too restrictive and in need of being brought into line with the recognition now afforded such persons under other Commonwealth Acts. The Bill therefore includes, in clause 3, amendments which will recognise for war pension and associated benefits purposes any ex-nuptial child of a seaman coming under the Acts. In addition to de facto wives already provided for in the Act, it also recognises a de facto wife or widow who has lived continuously with such a seaman on a bona fide domestic basis for at least 3 years preceding consideration of her status, or the seaman’s death, as the case may be, if she is or was wholly or partly dependent on him. The Bill does not appropriate the small amount of funds required to cover the increased benefits, as the necessary funds are included in the appropriation under the Repatriation Bill. The increases in pensions will be retrospective to 7th December 1972, the first pension pay day after the recent elections. The Bill reflects the concern of the Government for those who served Australia in time of war, and I commend it to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Rae) adjourned.

page 362

SOCIAL SERVICES BILL 1973

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 8 March (vide page 273), on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– The proposal with which the Social Services Bill 1973 deals relates mainly to an increase in the base pension rate of $1.50 a week and some further increases - in some cases substantial - in some unemployment and sickness benefits. The Opposition does not intend to oppose the Bill nor does it intend to delay its passage through the Senate. However, there are some remarks 1 would like to make on it. Some of them relate to clarification which it may be possible to obtain at some stage during the debate. I refer first to the second reading speech of the Minister for the Media (Senator Douglas McClelland) in which he said:

This Bill has promptly honoured the undertaking of the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) made when he delivered the policy speech of the Australian Labor Party.

The policy speech is then quoted:

The basic pension rate will no longer be lied to the financial and political considerations of annual budgets. All pensions will be immediately raised -

I pause there to emphasise the word ‘immediately’ - by $1.50 and thereafter, every spring and every autumn, the basic pension rale will be raised by $1.50 until it reaches 25 per cent of average weekly male earnings. It will never be allowed to fall below that level. it becomes a little curious when we read what the Minister said later in his second reading speech as recorded at page 272 of the Hansard record:

We have made a positive start. Within a few months- 1 emphasise the words ‘within a few months’ - we will be taking further action to overcome this thoroughly undesirable situation where social security benefits provide a living standard below a poverty line defined by the researchers who set it at a very austere level

I simply draw attention to the fact that the promise of the ALP, as enunciated by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) in his policy speech, was for an immediate increase of $1.50 and thereafter what most people would take to be 2 increases of $1.50 in every year. Now, in March, we have the introduction of a retrospective increase of $1.50 back dated to December which, 1 assume, is the immediate increase promised in the policy speech. We have the indication from the Minister, as I have quoted him, that in a few months time, further steps will be taken. Therefore, I ask whether the Minister will indicate at some stage whether it is proposed that there should be during this autumn session of this year a further increase of $1.50 or whether there will be no such increase. If no increase is to be granted, it may be that many people voted at the last general election upon the basis of misunderstanding.

One of the good things about this Bill is that it is a reflection of the fact that as a country becomes more affluent it can afford, to do more for people who deserve and who are entitled to assistance out of the public purse. But the thing that underlies, and must underlie, all welfare programs is the continuation of sound economic policy. Sound economic policy must precede improvements in welfare. Without that sound economic policy the possibility of increasing welfare provision to those who need it and those who deserve it is simply not a proposition which a government can entertain. Unsound economic policies now place this country and all pensioners in jeopardy. Already we find that there are indications of gross inflation to take place this year. Already we find indications that with the rate of inflation this year, unless economic policies are changed by the new Government, it will not be possible at the rate proposed ever to achieve a base pension rate of 25 per cent of average weekly male earnings. I hope, and I am sure all honourable senators on this side of the chamber hope, that the Government will realise that some of the matters on which it has embarked already will have a disastrous effect upon the economy unless they can be curbed and unless they can be related further to sound development and the curtailment of inflation. I am sure that neither the Minister nor any other honourable senator opposite would deliberately set out to make a situation in which pensioners were not able to achieve the proposed 25 per cent of average weekly male earnings. But this is something which I warn honourable senators opposite will happen, in my view, unless some of the economic policies are changed. 1 also make the point that the selected basis of 25 per cent of average weekly male earnings is something which in many ways is unfortunate. The trouble is that average weekly male earnings fluctuate considerably from time to time during the year and, therefore, they are not as reliable a basis for varying pension rates as would be a relationship to national income per capita. Having said that I make no further comment about this proposal, the general nature of which I do not take any exception to, however unfortunate it may be that this method was used.

There is one other matter to which I should like to draw attention, and I ask the Minister to give some attention to it. The table which was produced by the Minister is, on the face of it, misleading. I am not suggesting that it was made misleading intentionally, but the table does fail to take into account the supplementary assistance allowance for rent of $4 a week when comparing the amount of the pension and the poverty line as promulgated by Professor Henderson and his assistants at the Melbourne institute of Applied Economic and Social Research. It appears on the face of it that the table which was produced by the Minister has failed to take that fact into account and is therefore out by $4 a week. If there is some other explanation then undoubtedly we would be interested to hear it.

There is another matter in the Minister’s second reading speech to which I should like to direct his attention in order to seek some clarification. The Minister stated, as appears on pages 17 and 18 of the circulated copy of his speech: 1 am informed that, on this occasion, having regard to the retrospective nature of the legislation applying to the increases in pensions and the many time-critical administrative tasks which need to be performed, the earliest practical dates for the Department of Social Security to pay pensions at the increased rates will be 22nd March in the case of age and invalid pensions and 27th March in the case of widows’ pensions. In this regard, officers of that Department are working on the basis that the Bill will receive an early passage through both Houses.

I add, as I indicated earlier, that the Opposition certainly will not do anything to prevent that from coming about, but I should like to know whether it is proposed that the payments to be made on 22nd March and 27th March respectively will include the retrospective payments which are provided for in the Bill, or whether those payments will be made at some later date. We believe that some clarification of that is necessary. It is just a simple matter which no doubt the Minister can clear up so that people’s expectations will be confirmed or people will know where they stand as to when they can expect to receive the payments.

Some of the more gross mis-statements, allegations and assertions which appear in the Minister’s speech are merely assertions of political opinion rather than suggestions in fact, and I do not propose to deal with them. On behalf of the Opposition I simply take exception to some of the completely unsubstantiated and wild remarks that have been made. I draw attention to one paragraph of the second reading speech, on page 4 of the circulated copy, in which the Minister stated:

The bulk of the unemployed today are the innocent social casualties of the disastrous economic policies of the last Government and its 1971 Budget.

I suggest that that is a preposterous statement in the light of the recently published unemployment figures. The full benefits flowing from the former Government’s 1972 Budget and its sound economic planning have showed up completely the falsity of the assertions which were made at the time of the election, that there would be 200,000 unemployed in Australia. We were going to have disastrous unemployment, according to those who put forward the Labor Party’s case before the last election. That assertion has now been shown to be untrue by 100 per cent. Labor spokesmen doubled what has been the actual number of persons unemployed in Australia. It would hardly be possible to suggest on any basis of reason that the unemployed at the present time, whose numbers are not significantly different from the percentage of the working population who were unemployed in 1969 or 1970, could be described as being the innocent social casualties of the economic policies of the former Government and its 1971 Budget.

It reminds me a little of the question which Senator O’Byrne asked Senator Bishop recently. Senator O’Byrne referred to the remarkable increase in wool prices, the fall in unemployment and a number of other things and inquired whether these were all the result of the new Government’s activities - at least that was the impression which one might have gained. One could say Senator 0’Byrne was even suggesting to Senator Bishop that the new Government should claim credit for the rain which has broken the drought in Australia. The other suggestion was equally as preposterous as that. If the present Government can successfully claim credit for the rain, then perhaps I would be prepared to give it credit for the drop in the unemployment figures. Otherwise, it is simply preposterous to suggest that a government of less than 3 months could, within 2 months, have made such substantial changes.

We all know that during the period of what was sometimes known as the ‘dumbvirate’ the Labor Government was able to effect all sorts of changes because they did not have the squabbling and fighting which has been going on since the Government has consisted of more than 2 men. But not withstanding even that fortnight, I do not think the Government can possibly claim to be responsible for the fall in unemployment figures. I think I can say proudly that it is only as a result of the overall sound economic management of the Liberal-Country Party Government in the past 23 years that this country is able to provide the extra $126m a year needed to grant the increases provided for and welcomed by the Opposition in this Bill.

Senator MCAULIFFE:
Queensland

– The Bill before the Senate is designed to amend the Social Services Act in order to provide for welcome increases in age and invalid pensions and unemployment and sickness benefits. The Austraiian Labor Party, running true to form and always honouring its promises, said in its policy speech that it would introduce these measures which would give a rise of $1.50 a week in the basic pension rate and again in the spring and in the autumn sessions until such time as the basic pension rate reaches 25 per cent of average weekly male earnings. As I said, the Australian Labor Party, running true to form, on the first day of business in the life of the new Parliament introduced the legislation which is now before the Senate, and it is the intention of honourable senators on this side of the chamber not to speak at length on this measure because its speedy passage through the chamber will allow pensioners to receive this benefit as soon as possible. The Bill also provides that the increases will be retrospective to the first full pay period after 2nd December last - again keeping an election promise.

Senator Rae in his speech said that the Government is not honouring its promise because it had stated in its policy speech that it would introduce the amendments immediately. He is an experienced senator and a lawyer, and he knows that amendments to the Social Services Act require legislation. The Government has acted in the best interests of all concerned in introducing this measure as speedily as possible. Another thing on which the Government has given an assurance is that while it is the Government - and this will be for many years - the pension rate will never again fall below 25 per cent of average weekly male earnings. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) in the other place said that even if there was no rise in the average weekly earnings, the pension rate would be increased so that the promise of granting a $1.50 a week increase in pensions in the spring and autumn sessions of the Parliament would be honoured. This is in sharp contrast to the performance of the Liberal-Country Party coalition governments. When they were in office we used to hear, on the eve of an election, reference to a 50c a week rise in pensions.

Sitting suspended from 5.45 to 8 p.m.

Senator MCAULIFFE:

– Before the suspension of the sitting 1 had said that honourable senators on this side of the chamber wished to see this legislation pass quickly through the Senate so that social service recipients would have the early benefit of the improvements it contains. Possibly the legislation does not go far enough as we cannot ever do enough for the people who have retired after a lifetime of service to the country and are looking for a dignified way of life. It has been calculated that the pension increases envisaged in the Bill will cost about $58m this year and that increases in unemployment and sickness benefits will cost about $8.7m this year. The wonderful thing about it all is that the people of Australia can look forward confident in the knowledge that while a Labor Government is in power they will be treated with the respect and sympathy to which they are entitled as citizens of this country.

They have confidence because they do not share the dismal view of Senator Rae. He talked about inflation and joined the prophets of gloom who see nothing good in the economy and say that we are spending money too freely. He is not in step with the financial experts of the Australia and New Zealand banking group, the manager of which recently said that the currency was more buoyant than it had been at any other period in the last 4 years. The people of Australia are intelligent and have common sense. They do not share Senator Rae’s dismal views. A recent poll conducted by Australian Nationwide Opinion Polls, the results of which were announced last weekend, and the result of the South Australian elections last weekend completely vindicate the policies that this Government is pursuing.

In speaking in the Address-in- Reply debate 1 said that this Government has achieved more in 100 days of office than any of its predecessors achieved in the previous 23 years. I repeat, despite the criticism levelled at me by Senator Withers, that His Excellency said in his Speech that we are embarking upon the most comprehensive legislative program in the history of this country. The public opinion poll results published last weekend completely vindicate the progressive and humanitarian approach of the Government to these very important matters.

The Bill before the Senate corrects many anomalies and serious injustices which were created and aggravated by Liberal and Country Party coalition governments over the last 23 years. I want to congratulate Senator Douglas McClelland, the Minister for the Media, who represents the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) in the Senate, on his excellent second reading speech. Not only did he deliver it in a very capable manner; but the contents of his speech were most illuminating. Because this measure is progressive and humanitarian it can do nothing but benefit the great majority of Australians. The Minister said that certain serious injustices and anomalies had to be corrected and indicated that the Bill would provide very generous increases in all pensions and in the unemployment and sickness benefit rates.

The increases range from $1.50 a week to $14 a week and contrast greatly with the increases in pension rates we were educated to expect from the previous Government. Its policy was to increase pensions by a max imum of 50c a week and such increases were always dangled as a political carrot before electors on the eve of an election in an endeavour to win votes for themselves. Our progressive policy is in deep contrast with the miserable and dismal performances of our predecessors, as is highlighted by the fact that between October 1961 and October 1964 married pensioner couples received no increase whatever in their pension rates. Between October 1964 and October 1968 the increases for married couple pensioners totalled 75c a week. Our opponents, during their period in office, accepted the consumer price index as the measuring stick on which to calculate pension increases. A quick calculation on that basis will show that our predecessors granted to pensioners half the increases that they should have received. Pensioners have never caught up and the previous Government had no intention of their catching up.

The greatest thing that has ever happened to the pensioners of this country is the return of the Australian Labor Party to the Treasury bench. While I am referring to the alleged generosity to pensioners of the previous Government I should point out that between 1950 and 1970 the average increase in weekly pensions granted to married pensioners was 52.5 cents, and to single pensioners 43.5 cents. Any thinking person with humanitarian instincts could only describe that situation as nothing short of miserable and in no way calculated to help pensioners overcome the difficulties in which they found themselves.

What is this Government going to do about it? Already it has clearly indicated that it will make substantial increases and improvements in the circumstances of social service beneficiaries. The people know our intentions regarding pensions. It is well known to the electors that the ALP intends to tie the basic pension rate to average weekly earnings. When that result is achieved, never again will the basic pension rate fall below 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. The Government is increasing the basic pension rate by $1.50 a week and has pledged that it will make regular increases to pensions during the autumn and spring sessions of Parliament until the basic pension rate equals 25 per cent of average weekly earnings.

The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam), supported by Cabinet and the Parliamentary Labor Party, has pledged to the people of Australia that never while a Labor government is in office - and that will be for many years to come - will the basic pension rate fall below 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. We have honoured our promise and this is in sharp contrast to the promises of our opponents. 1 can recall that in 1949 when the antiLabor Parties were endeavouring to gain office they made promises to the people, among them being that they would put value back into the pound. How often did we hear that? They promised that they would abolish the means test for social services, but in 23 years in office our opponents did nothing whatever to abolish the means test. They must stand condemned in the eyes of the people of Australia as members of a political party that has completely repudiated its election promises of 1949.

They will not hoodwink us by saying that they will do something about it now. I can remember when former Prime Minister John Gorton visited Brisbane in July 1969 and addressed an assembly of women belonging to a section of the Liberal Party. He told them in no mean manner that his Government had no intention of abolishing the means test at that time or at any future time while he was Prime Minister. His stand was supported by his successor as Prime Minister, Mr McMahon. and by Mr Wentworth as Minister for Social Services. Mr Wentworth occupied that post for many years but did nothing in that time about abolishing the means test.

What do we hear now in the other place? When this measure was debated there members of the Opposition said that the Government should not delay for the 3 years lifetime of this Parliament. We have promised to abolish the means test, but they are imploring the Government to abolish it in the 1973 Budget. What hypocrisy! This comes from a party which promised to do it in 1949 and never did one stroke towards even a gradual abolition of the means test, lt has the effrontery now to call upon the Australian Labor Party to abolish the means test in the 1973 Budget. The Bill also honours another election promise of the Labor Party in that the class B and class C widow pensions will be brought into line with the pension payable to class A widows, namely, $21.50. a week. What did the previous Government do? It treated some widow pensioners as second and third class citizens and paid them $2.75 less than the pension that it paid to class A widow pensioners. I am very happy to say that the Australian Labor Party has placed all widow pensioners in the same category. These pensioners will be paid $21.50 a week, which represents an increase of $4.50 in the pensions of class B and class C widows.

The Government also has taken the opportunity to adjust the anomalies and serious injustices that appear in unemployment and sickness benefits. It is well known that honourable senators opposite have no time for the unemployed or those unfortunate people who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in necessitous circumstances and thrown on to the labour market. I have heard some honourable senators opposite express these views. They would like to place these unfortunate people in the category of people who would prefer to remain voluntarily unemployable.

Senator McManus:

– Who said that? Which honourable senators opposite?

Senator MCAULIFFE:

– I am not referring to Senator McManus. I give him credit for having some humanitarian instincts left in him. But I have heard some honourable senators opposite say that there are in the community people who want to remain voluntarily unemployable. It is true that there may be a few people who pass into this category; but I know from personal experience, from interviewing people in my office and from speaking to people I run into and who make requests for help, that there are many people who are unjustly placed in this category. They are in an unfortunate position which receives particular attention before they are accepted for the unemployment benefit. I am happy to say that this Government is genuinely doing something about this situation. The previous Government stands condemned because in the 23 years for which it was in control it failed to take any action to help these poor unfortunate people.

Under the Act as it stands at the moment, with the exception of those people who receive 6 weeks of continuous sickness payments, 18 and 19-year-olds who are out of work through sickness or because they are unable to find employment are entitled to receive $11 a week, while 16 and 17-year-olds in similar circumstances are entitled to receive $7.50 a week. 1 have never been able to understand why a boy or girl of 17 years of age is expected to live on $3.50 a week less than a boy or girl of 18 years of age. That was the type of thinking that was foisted upon us by the Liberal-Country Party Government for 23 years. Why that state of affairs was allowed to exist is beyond my comprehension. When the royal assent is given to this Bill, which was introduced into this chamber by Senator Douglas McClelland, the juniors to whom 1 have referred - the 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20-year-olds - will all receive S21.50 a week from this Australian Labor Party Government. This represents an increase of $14 a week for 16 and 17-year- olds and $10.50 a week for 18, 19 and 20- year-olds and is further proof of the miserable attitude displayed by honourable senators opposite when they were in government. The unmarried adult or the minor who has no parent in Australia receives $17 a week under the existing Act but when the royal assent is given to the Bill now before the Senate he will receive an increase of $4.50 a week which will increase his payment to $21.50.

Before I conclude let me refer to an election promise that was made by the then Prime Minister, Mr McMahon. He did not make any specific promise of a pension increase, but he did promise the electors of Australia that if his Government was returned there would be pension increases in line with increases in the consumer price index and that there would be 6-monthly automatic adjustments. I want the Senate to ponder that for a moment. The Australian Labor Party said that if it was elected it would tie the basic pension rate at 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. In the 10-year period 1961- 62 to 1971-72 the increase in the consumer price index was 30.6 per cent while the increase in average weekly earnings was 95.8 per cent. Taking $20 as the mean, if the pension had been increased in line with increases in the consumer price index over that 10-year period, that $20 would have increased to $27.68. But if average weekly earnings had been used as the basis for increases - the philosophy advocated by the Australian Labor Party - that $20 would have increased to $38.12, or over $12 more than under the other system. That shows the sort of trick which the previous Government was playing on the people of this country. I am pleased to say that its reign has been brought to an end and that the, Australian Labor Party has been allowed to occupy the treasury bench and deal with the tremendous backlog that developed over the 23 years the previous Government was in office.

I hope that in the future consideration will be given by the Minister to doing something for the pensioner in the 60 to 70 years age group, the person who has retired after 50 or more years of service as a worker. Such people to whom I speak find it increasingly difficult to make ends meet. They should be given some financial assistance in addition to the basic pension to allow them to cope with this transition from full employment to retirement. I know that everything cannot be achieved at once. There is wonderful humanitarian legislation contained in the Bill before the Senate and I know that the Minister will give consideration to the suggestion I have made because he has a deep interest in the welfare of others, particularly those less fortunate than ourselves, and adopts a great humanitarian approach to these matters. Everything cannot be achieved immediately because there is a tremendous backlog to overcome. The Bill before the Senate deserves the full commendation of the Senate and the Minister is to be congratulated on introducing it so early in the session. I sincerely hope that it receives the enthusiastic and unanimous support of all members of the Senate.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

– The Labor Government has brought a social services Bill before the House of Representatives and the Senate very promptly and I think all speakers so far have indicated that they are pleased that the measures contained in it are approved by the whole of the Senate. To an extent, the Government has adhered to its promise in relation to social services. Senator McAuliffe, who has just resumed his seat, made a great deal of what the Government promised and what it now intends to do. In a number of instances there was some question in the minds of many of us as to what were the promises of Mr Whitlam and those seeking to gain office. In the Senate last week we heard the point made that Mr Whitlam undoubtedly had promised the Public Service 4 weeks annual leave. When he came to the Parliament he intended to grant the 4 weeks annual leave only to certain members of the Public Service, lt was to the credit of the Democratic Labor Party and some other honourable senators that in that instance they kept Mr Whitlam and the Government honest. In this matter of social services, whilst congratulating the Government for acting quickly and for bringing in these measures, pensioners who have seen me in my offices have some doubt as to the promises that were made. They have indicated that they thought that if they voted for the Australian Labor Party there was to be a $100 bonus for all pensioners.

Senator McLaren:

– Who suggested that?

Senator WEBSTER:

- Mr Whitlam did.

Senator McLaren:

– He did not. He called on Mr McMahon to do it and he did not. Get your facts right.

Senator WEBSTER:

– The Government, through Senator McLaren, seems very excited about people keeping their promises. Senator McLaren was very quick to reply to what 1 just said but in reference to Mr Whitlam’s promise of 4 weeks annual leave his silence indicates that the Government had to be made honest in respect of that matter. Pensioners came to me and said that they believed that they would be getting a $100 bonus at Christmas time as was promised by this Government. The very words of the Prime Minister indicated that there would be an immediate payment of $1.50 and then successively, twice yearly, a payment of $1.50. Some pensioners, perhaps not being as shrewd as those who made the statement, thought that they would get $1.50 and that they could then look forward to another $3 this year. There would be some reason for all of us thinking that this should follow. I would encourage the Minister for the Media (Senator Douglas McClelland) to look into this matter and see whether the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) or the Government made this promise. Perhaps it would be better served by doing just that and seeing that there is a further rise in the social service benefits, particularly for aged pensioners, in the ensuing year.

I mentioned that all honourable senators will be extremely pleased to be associated with a Bill of this nature. I noted that the Minister for the Media said that he was pleased to see that this Government had done more in 100 days than the previous Governments had done in, I think, nearly the last 23 years. I remember a story that I heard once about a woman who lost a very good husband. This man had worked very hard and had provided very well. After losing her husband she decided that she would live very well. She bought a car and threw money about as though it was going out of fashion. Probably she achieved more in the first 100 days than she had in the previous years during which she was managed by her good husband. I put to the Senate that this can happen in business and that the business of government is the biggest in this country. I hope that the directors of this business at this time have suffcient intelligence and sufficient economic nous to know how far they can go in these many areas of expenditure.

Senator McLaren:

– You can rest assured of that.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I hear Senator McLaren, with his excellent business experience behind him, saying that we can be assured of that point. My understanding is that only one honourable senator on the Government side of the chamber has ever had the responsibility of having to find an income for himself. The situation generally is that they have been employed by others, and all credit to them. I do not argue about that but there is a difference between that and having to go out into the hurly burly and provide for one’s self by one’s own initiative. However there is only one person on the Government side who has done what I referred to, I understand, and perhaps honourable senators realise who he is.

I was very disappointed with the wording of the Minister’s second reading speech. I do not think that it elevated him in any way but perhaps one may excuse him because he is new to the job. He sought in his second reading speech to criticise the previous Government. Among the numerous statements he made - I will read some of them - were the following: ‘seriously unjust’, ‘objectionable forms of discrimination’, ‘ending the punishing meanness with which unemployment and sickness benefits were paid’, ‘no more poor house alms giving mentality’, ‘official meanness’, ‘invective in suffering’, ‘social casualties of disastrous economic policies’, ‘meanness of unemployment benefit rates’, ‘blundering economic policies of the last Government’, and actions by mean men for too long’. I do not think that those comments are reasonable in these circumstances when in fact this Government is able to act at the present time because it has inherited reserves provided by the former Government. This socialist Government is acting on the basis of the reserves it inherited at an early date in December 1972.

Senator Wright:

– Its members are just biting the hand that feeds them.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I acknowledge the wisdom of the comment made by Senator Wright so that it may appear in Hansard. The Minister may get some esteem from those statements but I think one point is certain: Were it not for the economic policies of the previous Government there would be no money available for the payments proposed in this Bill. The Labor Party has had little time as yet to see the fruits for which it can claim credit following the handing out of funds, lt is very simple for Ministers to say - it is something that every Minister wishes to be able to do and something which every Government wishes to do - that they are anxious to increase pensions. The future may prove the wisdom or otherwise of the manner in which this Government goes about implementing its various measures. I was quite interested to read the ‘Treasury Information Bulletin’ of January 1973. What was stated is by no means a criticism of the Government but there were some interesting comments. I shall read just 2 of them. The first is this:

In the Budget papers it was estimated that the 1972-73 Budget would result in an overall deficit of 1630m. That estimate has been revised upwards substantially as a result of subsequent developments. As the figures stood at the end of January the estimated deficit for the year is put at $958m. This deficit would be easily a record in money terms; the previous highest was S642m in 1967-68.

The next comment, appearing at page 3 of the ‘Treasury Information Bulletin’, followed a discussion about where money may have gone. This is what is stated.

Finally there are the effects of measures taken by the present Government since taking office. Measures approved by the Government on the expenditure side are estimated to add $168m to expenditures in 1972- 73 and $33 lm in 1973-74. The major items have been in the areas of social service benefits and pensions (the estimate of cost in 1973-74 includes $99m as the cost in that year of providing for 2 further rises of $1.50 in the basic pension rate in the spring and autumn thereof), repatriation, unemployment benefits, war service homes entitlements and employment creating grants to the States. On the other hand some savings have been made . . .

The document goes on to point out that a saving of $16m in 1972-73 and $62m in a full year resulted from the abolition of national service and the. cessation of defence

1 1 105/73-5-1161

aid to South Vietnam. In net terms the decisions taken by the present Government ate estimated to add Si 52m to Budget expenditures in 1972-73 and $269m in 1973-74. It is a great pleasure for any Minister or any government to grant benefits to any class of people in the community, but no benefits paid to any class of people in the community are free. We have not heard from the Government as to where it is going to find the money to meet this increased expenditure.

Senator McAuliffe:

– Oh, really!

Senator WEBSTER:

– The great publican on the Government side of the chamber is slinging off at me. The point is I really do not know where the money will come from to meet this increased expenditure. The Commonwealth Government is the largest business in Australia and the proper management of its affairs is quite important.

Senator McAuliffe:

– And, on the honourable senator’s submission, we are not capable of doing so?

Senator WEBSTER:

– It pains me to hear such ignorant comments as have been made by honourable senators opposite. No benefits are free. This Government will make somebody pay at some stage for the increased benefits, lt will be interesting to find out during the course of the next year or so where this money is to come from. I hope the Government will indicate where these additional funds are to come from.

This Bill provides for considerable increases in benefits. The Minister for Social Security, Mr Hayden, has said that the Government is doing something positive right now. There have been some reasonable increases in pension rates, but I do not think that these increases are unwarranted. I would like to know whether a study has been made of the pension rates that are paid in countries similar to Australia. The Minister for the Media may be able to enlighten me on this aspect. I hope he will be able to obtain that information from the advisers who are sitting next to him. I hope the Minister will, when he is replying to this debate, give the Senate an example of the level of the age pension rate in. say. New Zealand or Great Britain. That would enable honourable senators to make a reasonable comparison of the rate that is paid in those countries and the rate that is paid in Australia. My understanding is that even with these increases the pension rates will not be up to the level of those paid by certain other countries. One of the best things that could be done in this community would be an increase in the pension rate to the highest level to which it can be increased. That would be of benefit to everybody, particularly age pensioners. I request the Government to give consideration to the question of whether the factors which prevail at present will enable it to increase these benefits even further in the ensuing year.

Senator McAuliffe made great play about what the Prime Minister had said. I wonder how many hollow words were spoken in what was not a jolly statement but a jolly awful statement that he made. The Prime Minister, in delivering his policy speech, said:

The basic pension rate will no longer be tied to the financial and political considerations of annual budgets.

I wonder what it has been tied to in this instance.

Senator McAuliffe:

– Average weekly earnings. The honourable senator has not been listening.

Senator WEBSTER:

- Senator McAuliffe said that it has been tied to average weekly earnings this year. Perhaps the Minister was a little remiss in his comment that it would not be tied to average weekly earnings this year. The honourable senator should check the facts. He may learn if he does so. The Prime Minister’s policy statement continues:

All pensions will be immediately raised by St. 50 and thereafter, every spring and every autumn, the basic pension rats will be raised by $1.50 until it reaches 25 per cent of average weekly male earnings. It will never be allowed to fall below that level.

I wish to pose 2 questions to the Minister for the Media which 1 hope he will not avoid answering. They relate to the Prime Minister’s statement that the basic pension rate will never be allowed to fall below a certain level. I ask: If the present Government stays in office, when is it hoped the basic pension rate will reach that level? That is the first question I wish to ask. For the benefit of pensioners I hope the Government will indicate when it expects the basic pension rate to reach that level. I see a great difficulty in any government achieving this level. I predict that under the present socialist Government we will not see the low rate of inflation that we saw over the past years of the Liberal Party-Country Party Government. I suggest that the rate of inflation will probably increase to somewhere around 12 per cent in the coming year. It will be interesting to see what happens. My understanding is that, with the rate of inflation that is with us today, by the time there has been a S3 increase in the pension this year the basic rate will have dropped behind the level of 25 per cent of the average weekly earnings by some 60c.

Senator Milliner:

– What about the 50c you gave them?

Senator WEBSTER:

– Apparently Senator Milliner thinks what I have said is all rubbish. I do not doubt that the statement which was made by . the Prime Minister has been looked at very closely by the Labor Party. I hope the Minister for the Media will answer the following 2 questions for me: How is it expected that the 25 per cent of average weekly male earnings level will be reached and by how much, if a S3 increase is paid to age pensioners this year, will the rate fall behind the projected figure due to the present inflationary trend? I hope the Minister will answer those 2 questions. The reality of basing pension rates on average weekly earnings is a very interesting point as far as I am concerned. I spent some time attempting to find out what the average weekly earnings really were. The Labor Party made a very attractive promise when it said that pensioners would get 25 per cent of the average weekly earnings.

Senator McAuliffe:

– That is better than the consumer price index as a basis.

Senator WEBSTER:

– It depends upon what is involved. I think the ‘it’s time’ slogan was a very attractive one. It was a slogan which an American publicity organisation put up to the Labor Party and that it adopted. It was a very attractive proposition. I believe the next slogan will be ‘don’t blame me’. The offer to increase the basic pension rate to 25 per cent of the average weekly earnings was a very attractive one. But what are the average weekly earnings? My understanding is that the average weekly earnings figure is a little remiss in what it actually purports to be. I make that comment based on information I have obtained from the excellent research service of the Parliamentary Library. I was supplied with the following information by it:

Estimates of average weekly earnings are derived from details of employment and wages and salaries recorded on (i) monthly payroll tax returns, (ii) other direct collections, and (iii) from estimates of the unrecorded balance.

The figures cover civilians only, as members of the defence forces are excluded. Also excluded are selfemployed persons and their earnings, pensioners and the pensions they receive, and also persons on unemployment benefits if they are continuously on unemployment benefits throughout the whole month covered by the Pay Roll Tax return. They could be included if they were on unemployment benefit for part of a month and were employed for the rest of the month. In such a case, only the wages paid for the period of employment would be included in the compilation of average weekly earnings.

In the calculations the gross earnings of employees are taken into account. In addition to salary and wage payments at award rates the total earnings figures include earnings of employees not covered by awards, overtime earnings, over-award and bonus payments, payments made in advance or retrospectively during the period, such as holiday pay, payments for long service leave, etc. As well as the particulars of salaries and wages recorded on pay-roll tax returns, other direct collections are used such as Commonwealth Government employment and wages and salaries paid, and estimates of the unrecorded balance.

Because separate total income figures are not shown for males and females on pay-roll tax forms, estimates of average weekly earnings are calculated on the basis of ‘employed male units’, i.e. total male employment plus a proportion of female employment. This proportion is determined by the estimated ratio of female to male earnings. For the June quarter 1971 a revised series of Average Weekly Earnings was issued, with revisions carried back to the September quarter. . . .

As statistics of average weekly earnings are derived from pay-roll tax returns as their main source, they cannot claim to measure the average income of wage earners. Many wage and salary, earners also receive income from other sources - rents, dividends, interest, child endowment, etc. - and their average income will exceed their average earnings. A similar effect results from a person having more than one job as that person will be recorded as an employment unit for each separate job, however some improvement on this latter point has been attempted in the recent revision of the series.

In spite of the many criticisms that can be made of a heterogeneous collection of basic data summarised down to one single figure for Australia as a whole, the usefulness of average weekly earnings as an economic indicator lies in its ability to show movement in average earnings from year to year (and to a lesser degree from quarter to quarter) and to point out trends in economic conditions and the potential purchasing power of consumers.

In that information there is a comment in relation to this figure to which the Prime Minister has attempted to tie the pension. I again state that it is not a true indication of average weekly male earnings.

The factor with which we all should be concerned, and with which the Government undoubtedly is concerned at this time, is that of poverty, which we should attempt to eliminate as much as possible in what we call an affluent society. 1 press the Government for a greater investigation to be made so that social service payments are not made available to individuals who, perhaps in some instances, do not wish to work. They may have some reason why they prefer to be unemployed and to receive social service benefits. I hope that the payments will be made to those who are genuine hardship cases. The inquiry into poverty which was instigated by the former Government found favour with the Whitlam Government. As I understand the situation, the inquiry has been extended in its areas of investigation. I hope the Government will follow the wisdom which is found in that inquiry. I imagine that that will be very difficult to do. I will have sympathy for the Government when it is confronted with the situation that there are great areas of poverty within this country. I hope it will find some method of directing the major portion of social service payments into those areas.

But T question the intentions of the present Government. If we look at the figures which were given in the second reading speech of the Minister for Social Security we find a comparison of existing and proposed payments to pensioners and beneficiaries. I take only one of the comparisons. I take this one because perhaps it is the most outstanding. The list is headed: ‘Type of pensioner or beneficiary’. An instance is given of an unemployed standard family consisting of a man, his wife, one daughter 6 to IS years and one male student 16 to 21 years. The poverty line adjusted for that household composition is $58.74. Undoubtedly honourable senators on the Government side have read these columns. For that family the poverty line has been drawn at $58.74 and the present Government proposes a payment of $48.50. That is $10.24 below the poverty line.

I ask the Government - because of its great intentions which have been expressed - whether it really has mct this situation as it should have. Perhaps it should be prepared to say that although it has taken some steps in this matter they are far below what it, as a government, hoped to do for some individuals in the community. No matter how proud honourable senators on the Government side may be in pointing out what has been done, this family is still $10.24 below the poverty line. I cannot but criticise a government which claims to have achieved greatness in this matter but which this year is paying and is content to pay to some families an amount well below the poverty line. I ask the Minister whether he will have an opportunity this year to adjust this area of social service payment, because I think this is very important. If the previous Government was remiss in paying an amount below the poverty line to that type of family, I hope that this Labor Government will show more sympathy and meet that difficult situation.

One other problem which has concerned me in relation to the announcements by the Government - I see very little wisdom in what it has done - relates to several points it has made about unemployment. One of the deciding factors in the public mind is that the Labor Government, through the Minister for Labour (Mr Clyde Cameron) and honourable senators in this chamber, has been saying what a disaster the unemployment figures were for Australia. Undoubtedly, anybody who is genuinely unemployed is in grave difficulty. It has been my experience, as an employer of not a small number of persons, that over many years difficulty has been experienced in areas from the very menial to the very sophisticated type of employment. One could find this difficulty even in the area of top line accountants and in the legal service. I happen to be involved to some extent in the timber industry and I have attempted to find top line machinists. At the time I was a member of the Timber Workers Union and I was a delegate to that union on many occasions with Mai Fennel who Senator Brown, who is trying to interject, would know very well. I have found that there has not been an availability of individuals either through private employment sources, as a result of public advertisements or through the Commonwealth Employment Service. Undoubtedly the situation has been such that any employer would say, even today, that it is very difficult to get the type of employee he wants, in any category.

I have met the man who heads one of the most attractive philanthropic institutions in Victoria, an institution which I believe attracted many people to vote against the former government because of its policies relating to unemployment. I have a high regard for the reverend gentleman who heads this institution. I spent a great deal of time talking to him about the booklets which his society had put out criticising the former government and saying what should be done about unemployment, instancing the very great problem which his society had with the very many unemployed persons who had come to it for assistance. I posed to him my view that he would find that, generally, there was a very large percentage of unemployed people who, because perhaps of some mental or physical disability, could not be considered as permanent employees. I put to him that this was not an instance of persons from overseas, individuals who might be termed new Australians and who found it impossible to get work in Australia, but that they were persons who had particular problems about staying in particular jobs. I made an appointment with him on 2 occasions so that I could go to his office where he could let me meet individuals whom he knew were unemployed, who had been out of work for some time and who could demonstrate that they were eager to be employed. He was unable to introduce me to any such persons from among the many thousands whom he had said came under the banners of his society. There was also a group at the Trades Hall in Melbourne which had a traditional background of being permanently unemployed.

I believe that this Parliament will have to give its attention to attempting to overcome what has become a very great psychological problem and which will perhaps be made more serious by the legislation now before the Senate. It is a very great psychological problem and the community must do something about it. But to blame the Labor Government for the fact that 103,000 people were unemployed at the end of February is in my view totally wrong; likewise it is totally wrong to say that this unemployment figure is entirely a result of the policies of the former government. A large number of persons in the community are unable to work, owing to some physical or mental disability in the environment which our society has built, and we shall have to overcome this problem.

But is it wise for a government to say that if a person does not present himself for employment in reasonably tidy attire, or does not wash himself before he seeks a job, and he is rejected on account of his appearance, he should be granted unemployment benefits immediately? That is what the Government of today is encouraging and I say it is a mistake which the Government is making. I would ask the Government to look carefully, please, at this proposition. I know that a direction has gone to many employment officers - I think they are officers of the Department of Social Security - that benefit payments should be made on this basis immediately. I suggest that that is entirely wrong. I suggest it is encouraging people to remain unemployed because the Government, which is the head of the community, says to an individual: ‘If employment which is exactly to your liking or is in line with your original form of work or profession is not available, you will be able to obtain unemployment benefits immediately.’ I do not think that policy is conducive to getting people into the work force quickly.

Having regard to the present circumstances and the publicity on this subject I am wondering what type of employment may be made available to an unemployed senator. 1 do not know whether the employment offices would not say immediately: ‘We cannot find similar employment for you, Senator, therefore you must be given unemployment benefits immediately.’ Thus we have available these 2 forms of encouragements which have been thought up by stupid men. They will encourage individuals whom I regrettably see from time to time, poor men I see as I go to work of a morning, men who have slept in the city gardens. What a criticism it is of all of us in our affluent society that a person who has spent the night in the public gardens must be rejected when he presents himself for a job. Yet that is the basis on which this Government says it is entirely acceptable that he should be given immediately the advantage of unemployment benefits.

A third aspect of this Bill which does not meet my line of thinking is that a person on reaching 16 years of age should be entitled immediately to full unemployment benefits. I do not suggest that all 16-year-olds are likely to take advantage of the $21 allowance which is payable as the unemployment benefit. I have a son who is nearly 16 and this would be a pretty big sum to him if he wanted to go out to work at 16. It would have been more constructive to persuade the youth in our society to become active and attempt to find work. All of us in this chamber faced a difficulty when we were of that age and starting our careers. We all faced that difficulty, or 1 imagine that every senator faced the kind of problem that I faced at 16. What was the kind of work that we wished for? Who would be our employer? We all recall the great difficulty we had of going before an employer and attempting to secure a job. I believe that the problem that will flow from this policy is that many young people will believe they will be much better off by staying at home, and they may be encouraged on this basis from within the home. Senator McAuliffe is shaking his head. I suggest to honourable senators that all of us saw a variety of young people over the Christmas period who will fall into just this category, who are willing to join with two or three others on unemployment benefits and so live very well, thank you - and they are able to do so as a result of the wonderful actions of this Labor Government. I do not think that it is in the interests of this community for it to provide a full unemployment benefit for the lad who cannot find employment immediately after leaving school. I think that situation would be conducive to encouraging young men to stay unemployed. Of course, this will not apply to everybody but it will influence the thinking of some. I think it is regrettable that the Labor Government should have taken that initiative.

The Government has said that unemployment benefits will not pander to lazy layabouts. I am quite certain in my mind that the economic policies of this Government will lead to considerable unemployment in our community. In past years we have experienced unemployment at the rate of 2 to 2i per cent, but our unemployment rate has been the lowest of the countries similar to ours. I will be interested to have a look at the picture after Labor has been in government for about a year. We will have a great problem. Admittedly a socialist government will take up the slack in employment by putting the unemployed on to the Commonwealth Government payroll. I asked the Prime Minister the number of people who had been put on to the Government payroll since Christmas, and the Prime Minister said that it was too big an exercise to work out. But this practice of putting people on the Government payroll will get the unemployment figures down. We urge the Government in its beneficence in attempting to give benefits to people in the community, many of whom are deserving of our closest attention, to realise that 20 per cent of the total Commonwealth budget is paid out in social service benefits at the present time. In order to provide these benefits, the Government has to realise that it must encourage employment by private industry. The Government’s support of the principles of a 35-hour week, 4 weeks annual leave and a $13 increase in the minimum wage will lead to unemployment in the community unless these things are introduced in very cautious stages.

The Government has to contend with the problem of inflation in our community. I believe that its actions are leading to greater inflation. Although the results of its early activities in this field will not be known for some time, 1 think any reasonable judge of the situation would say that we will be very fortunate if we get away with an 8 per cent or 10 per cent rate of inflation. I suggest to the Government that the benefits it has granted should be made known to the community by improving the already excellent standard of the publicity leaflets that the previous Department of Social Service put out. I think that many aged pensioners and many unemployed people in the community were not aware of the full benefits that were available. In attempting to control the situation of making payments only to those in the community in need, I suggest that the Government should consider making grants to those churches and other institutions which have demonstrated an interest in assisting and making their services available to the unemployed, the aged, the homeless men and women, those in the community who have suffered a broken marriage or children who have been left without parents. The careful allocation of these grants to the extent of Sim or $2m to those institutions would be of great benefit to the Government and of immediate benefit to those people in whom they have demonstrated an interest in helping. I congratulate the Government for some of the actions it has taken in this Social Services Bill. However, I would heartily criticise it for some of the actions it has taken and suggest that the future will prove whether its actions are in the public interest.

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– I only wish that the proceedings of the Senate were being broadcast this evening so that the young men and women in Victoria, particularly those between the ages of 18 and 20, could have heard the address delivered by Senator Greenwood tonight.

Senator Milliner:

– It was Senator Webster.

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– I am sorry; I mean Senator Webster. I can be forgiven for being confused because they are both of the one ilk and tend to mouth the self-same attitudes. First of all, I want to give the lie. direct to the claim that was made by Senator Webster in the earlier part of his address. He claimed that the present Prime Minister - the Leader of the Australian Labor Party - dishonoured an election promise. The promise which the honourable senator suggested the Leader made was that a Labor Government would give a bonus of between $50 and $100 to all pensioners. The honourable senator had an opportunity to read the Prime Minister’s policy speech if he wanted to, but of course he did not want to do so. I wish to quote directly from it. The undertaking given by the Prime Minister is as follows:

The basic pension rate will no longer be lied lo the Financial and political considerations of annual Budgets. All pensions will be immediately raised by $1.50 and thereafter, every Spring and every Autumn, the basic pension rate will be raised by, $1.50 until it reaches 25 per cent of average weekly male earnings.

I underline the next sentence: lt will never be allowed to fall below that level.

It will not while Labor is in government. That is the only undertaking that the Labor Party gave to the pensioners of this country as regards the. relationship between what they receive and the identifiable common denominator to which it could be related - ‘namely, average weekly earnings. So much for the honourable senator’s first observation.

Senator Webster then asked where the money is coming from. 1 have heard this question asked often. I regret that the honourable senator cannot stay and hear a reply to his remarks, but I intend to reply to them anyway. The honourable senator represents the same element which yesteryear suggested that because it was proposed that a woman who had children should receive child endowment she would sell her body to obtain child endowment. That is the sort of conservative element which the honourable senator represents - the self-same sort of person who said that it was impossible for this country to have a 40-hour week; the self-same sort of person who suggested that this country could not provide 4 weeks annual leave for ordinary day workers and 5 weeks annual leave for those who work shift work; and one could go on ad infinitum. The time is never opportune, according to people like Senator Webster. If honourable senators opposite had had their way the people of this country would still be working 60 hours a week for a mere pittance.

Senator Webster then went on to suggest that we should compare pension rates in Australia with those in the United Kingdom or New Zealand. What has the situation in those countries got to do with what we are dealing with this evening. It is as sensible to suggest that we make that comparison as it was for the previous Government to suggest that we should compare the unemployment rate in Australia with that of other countries. We say now in government as we did then in opposition that we are concerned about people and not statistics. Referring to the honourable senator’s question about where the money is coming from, the honourable senator would know as well as 1 do that over the last 8 or 9 years the average rate of increase in Consolidated Revenue, drawn from direct and indirect taxation as well as other sources, has been between $600m and $800m per annum, without any alterations to the taxation schedules whatsoever. So during the life of this Parliament one can anticipate a minimum increase in Consolidated Revenue in the vicinity of $3 ,000m.

Of course, we will not be engaging in the extravagant adventures in which the previous Government engaged. I direct the attention of honourable senators briefly to one such extravagant adventure, and this was a classic. I refer to the Fill aircraft which was purchased in a time of dire need. We were told that we were about to be attacked - that we were threatened by the hordes from Indonenesia. So we entered into an arrangement to purchase 24 aeroplanes.

Senator Wright:

– This is irrelevant.

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– This is relevant. We should have received 124 aeroplanes for the final price we have to pay. We entered into an arrangement to purchase the 24 aeroplanes for $US125m. We are informed that the latest cost that the taxpayers will have to pay is $360m. But we still have not got one of the aeroplanes. I suggest that the Government should ferry them out by boat rather than fly them because they might not all get here.

Of course, when the previous Government became involved in ventures such as Vietnam, it not only cost this country a tremendous amount in terms of money but almost tore this nation asunder. It spent millions of dollars on what has been proved to be a wasteful method of raising an army - by conscription and national service. In that respect another great saving will be made by this Government which will provide the wherewithal that Senator Webster was so concerned about. He asked where would the money come from. Of course, the taxation rorts perpetuated by people whom honourable senators opposite represent will be stopped. I point out that this is only the first instalment of a social security program to guarantee, as of right, an income to people who are aged, invalided, widowed, sick or unemployed. It amazes me that the former Government, now in opposition, showed discrimination between those classes of people to whom I have just referred. I do not know how the former Government could discriminate between widows in classifications A, B and C.

How could it differentiate between people who were sick and entitled to sickness benefits under this Act, which will be amended in due course? A person had to be sick for at least 6 weeks to be eligible for assistance and received a lower social service benefit during that time. If he were ill for long enough he would receive an increased benefit. Then of course we have the case of a person who happened to be unemployed whom Senator Webster wanted to call a malingerer but did not have the intestinal fortitude to do so. That person would not be on the bread line, but below the bread line. That will all be changed. The honourable senator then queried - this just makes one smile - whether it was feasible for the Australian Labor Party, in accordance with the clear statement made by our leader, to increase the pension rates by $1.50 in the spring and autumn sessions of the Parliament until such time as they represented a full 25 per cent of the average weekly male earnings. He is now concerned that it may well be that because of the movement in the average weekly male earnings $1.50 a session would not be adequate to reach that percentage. I am pleased that the honourable senator showed such concern because I would anticipate that if, in due course, we found that $1.50 is inadequate he would agree to our increasing that amount to meet the undertaking we have given to the people of Australia. I want to quote briefly from the second reading speech of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) in the other place. Obviously, Senator Webster did not read the second reading speech, but that does not surprise me. He said:

We are mindful that, if there is not some abatement in the rate of growth in average weekly earnings in 1970-71 of 11.3 per cent, then the regular annua] 2 promised increases of $1.50 will have to be increased to achieve pension rates at 25 per cent of average weekly earnings within a reasonable time.

If Senator Webster had read the second reading speech of the Minister in the other

House, probably he would have changed most of the material that he used. Most of it was purely assumption. In fact, I would say that it was a figment of the imagination. If he had not approached the Bill in this way, he would have been able to deal with it more objectively. The honourable senator said that even with the increases, we were still providing a pension rate for a standard family that is below the poverty line. I regret to say that for the time being this is so although we have considered the matter in relation to certain figures resulting from an examination by the Institute of Applied Economics and Social Research at the Melbourne University. Again, I say that this points to the double standards and hypocrisy of this senator. I shall cite the figures for a standard family before the change of government and compare them with the position that will exist under the new Government. I repeat that this is only the first instalment by the Labor Government.

Senator Milliner:

– The payments are retrospective.

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– I am pleased to be reminded that they are retrospective to the first full pension payment after 2nd December 1972. 1 am also pleased at this because, otherwise, J would have been much more agitated when listening to Senator Webster. However long honourable senators opposite want to drag out this debate the people who are entitled to be recipients of these new social security payments will receive them retrospectively.

A table on page 272 of the Hansard record shows a comparison of existing payments, determined by the former Government, and proposed payments to pensioners and beneficiaries. We are about to make a decision in relation to this matter tonight. Senator Webster referred to the standard family. I will go over the figures again because I think they are illuminating. A standard family consists of a man. his wife, one daughter aged 6 to IS years, and one male student aged 16 to 21 years. The poverty line, adjusted for household composition was S58.74. The pension was S3 1.50. So a comparison with the poverty line gives a minus figure of S27.24. That means, in effect, that the existing rates as determined by the previous Government provided a standard family with a handsome income that was $27.24 below the poverty line. With the increases, the value of the pension will be $48.50. It is true that it will still be below the poverty line, but it will be only $10.24 below the poverty line. I repeat that this is only the first instalment of a Labor Government. It is still $17 better than the amount paid by the former Government. This has happened in only the third week of the life of this Parliament. It is the third month of the year.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– It is the first piece of legislation introduced by the Labor Government.

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– Yes. I wish to make one other reference in passing before I deal with what I think is an extremely important matter. It is the concern that was registered by Senator Rae earlier this afternoon. He was wondering whether a pensioner could anticipate a further pension increase in this autumn session. All I have to do to reply is to direct his attention to my remarks on Senator Webster’s attitude to this question. I think that that dispenses with the matter raised by Senator Rae, except to say this: He was concerned about whether we would be able to arrest the inflationary state of affairs which honourable senators opposite now want to disown but which was brought about by 23 budgets over 23 years of incompetence. But even in the short time that we have been in office there is clear evidence of a revival of confidence in the economy and a stimulation of our manufacturing industries. Whilst I am not the greatest supporter of the Melbourne Herald’, because T have been on the receiving end of its comments too often, I think that Mr Peter Cairns is acknowledged as a contemporary conservative economist and, therefore, it seems to me to be reasonable to quote what he has said. According to a report on page 11 of the Melbourne ‘Herald’ of Saturday, 10th March last, he said:

A record February fall in unemployment and a sparkling 8 per cent annual growth rate in the nonfarm sector of the economy in the December quarter are facts.

So, too, are an encouragingly high level of retail sales and a surge in new house and flat approvals and car registrations.

These 3 booming areas of consumer spending seem certain to receive a further boost from the deferred national wage case which reopens on Tuesday.

A decision is expected in late April or early May.

It will give added stimulus to the upturn in consumer spending expected later this month when pension increases start to flow, and later in the year when the Budget tax cuts for low income earners, foreshadowed this week, begin to take effect.

I refer briefly to another article titled ‘Share Market Points Up Again’ by Mr David Jefferson on the same page of last Saturday’s Melbourne ‘Herald’, which states:

Industrial and mining share prices were still climbing when trading closed at the Stock Exchange yesterday.

Senator Milliner:

– What date is that?

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– It is 10th March 1973. What I am saying is that there is clear evidence that with a change of Government since 2nd December 1972 there is a renewed confidence in our ability and, as Mr Cairns says, the facts are clear and speak for themselves.

I now want to direct the attention of honourable senators to a matter which has concerned me for some time. I cannot expect the new Government to deal with everything in 5 minutes, but I ask the Minister to give some attention to this matter in due course. On 10th October 1972 I asked the following question of the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services:

My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services. Will the Minister give urgent consideration to an appropriate amendment to the Social Services Act which will enable an applicant who has been refused social service benefits, including unemployment benefits, to have ready access to an appeal tribunal before whom the applicant can contest unfavourable decisions made by any officer of the Department, including the DirectorGeneral.

Senator Greenwood, who at that time represented in this chamber the Minister for Social Services, indicated that he would convey my question to the Minister for Social Services. In due course the Minister answered the question. He informed me that a committee under the chairmanship of, I think, Sir Henry Bland was examining what is described as the discretionary powers under the various statutes. There has been no clear statement on that question ever since. Sections 13, 14 and 15 of the Social Services Act are quite explicit. Section 13 states:

The Director-General shall, subject to this Act, determine claims.

Then section 14 states:

Whenever il appears to the Director-General that sufficient reason exists for reviewing a determination, direction, decision or approval of an officer under this Act (including a determination, direction, decision or approval of the Director-General), the Director-General may review the determination, direction, decision or approval and may affirm, vary or annul it.

Section 15 states:

A person affected by a determination, direction, decision or approval of an officer under this Act (except a determination, direction, decision or approval of the Director-General) may, within such time (if any) as is prescribed, appeal to the Director-General and the Director-General may affirm, vary or annul the determination, direction, decision or approval.

In other words, as the Act is presently constituted, there is one arbitrator and there is no appeal. I have had occasion to challenge this question with a Minister in another place, and I will refer to a particular incident because it is important to bring the point out. In the middle of last year a major dispute occurred at what is known as the W Station at Yallourn in Victoria. The principal contractor, A and L Thompson, engaged 20-odd contractors and more than 1,000 men were employed on the job. The terms of employment were based on a negotiated agreement between the contractors collectively and the various unions which had members employed on the job. The agreement expired and was due for renewal. There were negotiations but the employers took a stand which made meaningful negotiations impossible. The employers in concert, at the same hour on the same day, issued notices to the 1 ,000 employees - sacked them on the spot.

When applications for unemployment benefits were lodged at the Morwell district office they were initially refused. Then they were refused for more than a month. If honourable senators know the particular location in the State of Victoria they would know that there is no alternative employment available. The men had to draw up their roots, leave their homes and take their families to the city in order to try to find employment. They retained no equity for the investment which they had made in their homes. Others stayed around the district and tried to obtain employment here and there, but as soon as an employer knew they were from W station they were refused employment, and this is a known fact.

In my view the Department - acting, I believe, on advice from a higher level - was attempting to bludgeon these workers back, to starve them to the point where they had to go back and to agree to the terms of employment, which were unacceptable to them, that were being offered by the employer. 1 made a protest to the then Minister for Social Services, Mr Wentworth. I had discussions on 2 occasions with him in his office. I found that he had to rely on the advice that he received via the Melbourne office of the then Department of Labour and National Service. Of course, we have deleted the national service element from the Department, In other words, the Minister for Social Services in Canberra had to rely on advice from his office in Morwell, which was transferred through the Melbourne office of the Department of Labour and National Service to Canberra. Those men never knew why they were being denied their unemployment benefits, and there was no way in which one could test the reason for their being denied these benefits, which reason was given in secret by one department to another. 1 say without hesitation that it is a deplorable situation, and I would expect that the Labor Government will amend that section of the Social Services Act, to say the least.

I could go further and refer to persons whom I have seen who have applied for an invalid pension. Of course, one has to be 85 per cent incapacitated in accordance with the Act before one is entitled to an invalid pension. But again, one person makes the decision, and that person is an officer of the Department, a paid servant of the Department, a medical officer. If he says no, then the applicant is not entitled to an invalid pension, and there is no way in the world you can test that decision. I am asking the Minister for the Media (Senator Douglas McClelland) to convey to the Minister in the other place the fact that there is need for some appeal machinery whereby a person who has been denied any of the benefits to which we have referred and which are incorporated in the Bill we are discussing tonight will have a right publicly to test the reasons for the refusal to grant an invalid pension.

I have clear evidence at the moment from a constituent, a doctor who has been treating a patient for more than 10 years. One can never convince me that a medical officer who sees a person for 5 minutes at the Commonwealth centre on the corner of Spring and La Trobe Streets in Melbourne can know that person as well as a doctor who has attended him for 10 years. Fortunately, the doctor who has been attending my constituent for 10 years has been prepared to give me a lengthy and detailed opinion. I hope that in due course the Department will have the applicant examined by another doctor so that a wrong can be rectified. But that is not an efficient way of dealing with the matter I have raised. I ask the Minister for the Media to convey to the Minister for Social Security in another place the need for the establishment of appeals machinery of a public nature. The claims made and the reasons for any denials could be tested in a public place.

I repeat that this Bill is only the first instalment in our social security program. The cries will come from the Opposition: ‘Where is the money coming from? You will be creating inflation. You will be literally destroying the very things that you are trying to achieve for the less fortunate people in the community.’ I remind honourable senators opposite that we had 23 years experience in opposition. Only a fool does not learn by other people’s mistakes. We have been able for 23 years to observe the mistakes made by members of the Opposition when they were in office. If we make the same mistakes, we do not deserve to be in government. I believe that we deserve to be in office. We have learned by the mistakes of our opponents and the people of Australia can be assured that the undertaking we have given can be met and will be met.

Senator LITTLE:
Victoria

– The senators of the Australian Democratic Labor Party, like all the other speakers in this debate, support the Bill before the Senate. Tt is the result of the recent election campaign and embodies some new philosophies in the field of social services. I must commend them because, after all, they are veering towards the policy that has been enunciated here by the Democratic Labor Party almost monotonously Budget after Budget for the last 10 years. They are veering towards the idea of an independent tribunal setting the pension rates and leaving it to Parliament to find the money for them. However, this measure does not complete the cycle because it is not an independent tribunal which is to fix the rate. The rate has been plucked out of the air by a political party in the course of an election campaign in which promises were made to the people. But at least it is breaking away from the traditional approach that the rales of pension are fixed not on the basis of the affluence of our society but on the basis of statistical figures in budgetary programs which cannot foresee what the income of the total community is likely to be or the requirements of the years ahead.

We have always argued that an independent tribunal such as those that fix wages and other things in this country is far better able to consider scientifically all the facts than is Parliament itself where the main impetus is of a political character. We still hold that view. I agree with some of the suggestions that Senator Webster made. He referred to a figure fixed as 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. Perhaps he erred when he suggested that the whole of income was involved as the figure fixed is 25 per cent of the average weekly earnings. Of course, there must always be grave faults in the figures as they are at present calculated because there is really no valid reason for collating the necessary statistics to give a completely accurate figure. Taken over the whole of Australia they seem to represent a good approximation of what the actual figures would be likely to be and for that reason. I suppose, as an objective they are better than nothing at all.

I repeat that this legislation represents a step towards the DLP ideal of pension rates being fixed scientifically on the basis of society’s capacity to earn, to pay and to maintain not a weekly cash income for pensioners but an ability to live in comparison with the standards of the rest of the community enjoyed at a particular time. Money can be a very unreliable measuring stick of a person’s capacity to live to a specific standard. Even the barometers that allegedly express a standard of poverty as compiled by universities do not take into account a great deal of the most extreme poverty in the community brought about by self-inflicted wounds. Before backbench senators opposite hasten to interject that I have the idea that every person is a loafer or something like that, I remind them that humanity is made up of people. People all have a great number of weaknesses. We all know that if children are pandered to excessively weaknesses rather than strength of character may develop. We also know that we have in the community a difficult problem that is shared by countries throughout the world. I refer to alcoholism. Gambling is another unfortunate problem. Some people live below the poverty level because of weaknesses in over-indulging in such practices. I am not referring to the majority in the community. They are a very small minority but they constitute many of the group who are living below poverty standards. To increase their monetary income may in no way at all increase their standard of living. It may only be doing the bookmakers or hotel keepers a good turn. That is a fact of life.

It is also a fact of life that social service needs cannot be gauged entirely by trying to prevent those people from indulging in their particular weaknesses. That would also give a distorted picture. But it is a foolish person who does not try to consider all these aspects of life when trying to deal with problems in the best interests of the people as a whole. I sound that word of warning to the Government. It may race too rapidly into some proposition without duc thought and thus aggravate some of the evils in the community.

I join with Senator Webster in offering a word of warning about payment of the employment benefit of $21.50 a week to 16 and 17-year-olds. In some cases such payments would be essential. I have in mind young people who have no families to help them and to encourage them to keep employment. In such cases $21.50 a week may be inadequate, but there are not many young people in our community in that extreme position. The great majority of them have parents who will help them and who realise that for young people the big world of employment outside can sometimes be frightening. lt was frightening for our generation when we entered it at 13 or 14 years of age. It was a little like learning to swim but not learning to dive at an early age. In your lateteens or early twenties the tendency is that if you have never dived into a swimming pool you may never learn to dive at all.

So it is for young people seeking employment. It is a big decision and they have to grasp the nettle and front up to it. The spurs of necessity can often cause young people to grasp the nettle, front up to the problem and do something about it. Over indulgence saps away the will until it becomes a habit of living. It happens not only to the children of workers, the children of rich people, intelligent children or unintelligent children. Sometimes young people of the highest intelligence are more susceptible because their natures are sensitive to these sorts of pressures. People who have studied child delinquency and related problems will confirm that I am stating the facts of life and not just products of my imagination. I want the Government to think seriously for a moment of the difference it now creates.

Senator Brown, who has now left the chamber although he criticised Senator Webster for doing so, tried to present a case that this amendment would give complete equality to the beneficiaries under the Social Services Act. The only time I interjected while he was speaking was to ask how he justified the inequality between the married person and the unmarried person. I would have thought that if we were to give them complete equality each person should stand alone and the fact of his being married or single should be completely irrelevant to the amount of pension he is paid. This is the case that the Democratic Labor Party has presented lo the Senate in every budget session since I came here. I have presented this case on those occasions. I can see no reason to discriminate in our social services legislation between married and unmarried people on the basis of the old adage that 2 can live more cheaply than one. At what standard can 2 live more cheaply than one? If one of the married couple happens to be subject to illness - and this is a common problem with the aged - the expense, which can be quite high, is shared by the two. Yet they are supposed to live more cheaply than one. The more there are in a team, whether there are 2, 3, 4 or 5, the more certain it is that one will be afflicted with a constantly recurring illness.

This burden is reduced when a person is living alone because he is assured of a higher income as long as we perpetuate the old fashioned idea, which was adopted when pensions were introduced, that 2 can live more cheaply than one. At what standard can they do that? The fact that they need to share enjoyments, to pander to one another to make the marriage work or to be entertained in different ways very often adds to their expenses. Surely we do not say that because they are pensioners there should be no joy in life for them any more. So, in the Government’s enthusiasm to wipe out all the old inequalities it is perpetuating another. I am not being harshly critical. I am merely advising. 1 compliment the Labor Party for, providing that the increase granted to a married couple is double that granted to a single person. In this respect the Government has not aggravated the discrepancy which already exists. But it has done nothing to retrieve the situation and strive for the equality which it says is part of its philosophy on social services.

That same viewpoint on equality can be extended to 16 and 17-year-olds who will be eligible for assistance provided they are not student children of unemployed or sick beneficiaries under the Act. If they are merely unemployed, those 16 and 17-year-olds will get §21.50 a week. A university student on a scholarship and receiving a living allowance would receive, according to the 1971 figures which are the latest I have been able to obtain, something like $13 a week, lt is hardly encouraging to our younger people to stay at universities on a living allowance of $13 a week, with the increased expenditure which life at a university entails unless they are also receiving assistance from their parents, when a person who is not working at all is getting $21.50 a week. 1 have no doubt that the living allowance for those on scholarships has been increased since 1971, but I do not think it would have reached $21.50 a week. I quote as my authority the annual report of the Commonwealth Scholarships Board, which says that the living allowance per scholar, deleting all the students not receiving a living allowance - and most of them are not - is $701.87 a year. That was for the year 1971. The living allowance per scholar was $292.43, but apparently that is arrived at by spreading the total amount of living allowance over all those receiving scholarships as distinct from those who are paid a living allowance.

I draw attention to the discrepancy between what a young person who is unemployed will receive under the Social Services Act, that is, $21.50, and what a student will receive. After all, they both eat the same things. I do not know that a student eats more or less than a young person who is unemployed. I imagine that their intake of food and their requirements for clothing and shelter would be similar. Some young unemployed people of 16 or 17 years of age would still be having their accommodation and most of their clothing provided free of charge by mum and dad, just as some students do. These comparisons show an unhealthy tendency to encourage in our community less desirable features and 1 do not think that any of us want to do that to our young people, lt is not even a majority of our young people but only a very small minority which can be corrupted by such a thing, but are they not the ones we should be thinking about mostly? We all like to think that our own family circle is immune from these pressures and that those in it would not be corrupted by anything at all. But the percentage of people who are corrupted by it today may grow and it may become very fashionable to change one’s way of life in much the same way as there are changes in fashions for clothes and fashions for living, for example, being a surfie. Once we find an easier way to live it is human nature to pursue it unless there is pressure from something else that we desire.

We see surfies give away sleeping on the beach when they meet a nice girl; they start to think of matrimony, begin to grow up and accept the responsibilities of life. They give away being surfies and living on unemployment relief, very often for a large part of the year, in favour of a steady job. That occurred at 14 or 15 years of age in our generation and it can occur at 16 or 17 years of age in the present generation. The incentive to settle down may not present itself to an individual until he is well into his twenties. Of course, if it does not, that way of life becomes a habit and one lacks ambition for the whole of one’s days. Anybody who lived through the 1930s for different reasons had plenty of compulsion to receive no income because very often his parents were out of work also and could not help him. In those days young people, finding it hopeless to seek employment and because of disappointment day after day and week after week, ceased to look for employment. It happened to me - I was a young person in the 1930s - and it happened to countless hundreds of young people with whom I mingled. Many of us, because of the hopelessness of seeking employment, went through phases of failing even to look for employment. I am certain that, for the completely different reason that it is just too easy to live without employment, we can create a similar philosophy if the current trend is carried too far and we provide for the unemployed 17-year-old a standard of living that is far above that provided for the hard-working university student or the student child of a person in receipt of the unemployment benefit. What is the allowance paid to such a parent to keep his student child of 16 or 17 years of age, in comparison with that paid to a person of 16 or 17 years of age who, not being a student, declares himself unemployed? Is it proposed to say to the invalid pensioner or to the parent receiving unemployment or sickness benefits that he will receive $21.50 for each student child? Of course it is not. I am not suggesting that it is possible or that the economy would stand it, or that it would be a good idea.

Senator Wright:

– What was the figure you mentioned?

Senator LITTLE:

– The figure of $21.50 because that is what it is proposed to give to the unemployed person of 16 or 17 years of age. We know that it is a matter of statistics but we must remember that the Government is dealing with human beings. Too great a discrepancy in the availability of this sort of relief will not do what the Government is setting out to do and could create greater problems than the problem it is trying to solve. There are a few young people in our community of that age who are unemployed and who could suffer enormous hardship; but the great majority of them in a community as affluent as ours have people who can help them. They can help them in a better way than the State can help them. Such people can help them wisely in individual ways, knowing their full requirements.

Heaven knows that most of us here, in the Senate have gone through that phase of life in which it has been our joy to help our children, whether they have been unemployed or have been students. As one who has reared a medical student I can say that a lot of relief is going to such parents now. Medicine is such a long course you find that you have on your hands a young man of 24 summers who has no income because according to a means test the income of his parents is said to be sufficient to deprive him of a living allowance or anything that his scholarship may have earned for him. You find that you have to fork out to keep a young man in that situation at the standard to which you would like to see your son of 22, 23 or 24 years able to live. Perhaps you are not only keeping him in the bare essentials of food, clothing and shelter. After all, it is perfectly reasonable for a young man in his twenties to take his girl out and so on, and that comes back on to the parents. I do not think that any parents complain about it because they want to achieve one of the rewards in life - that of knowing that they are in a situation to help.

I instance these cases to show that before going too far we should consider the whole broad spectrum. The requirements of individuals vary so enormously that we can create a problem greater than the problem we are setting out to alleviate. This excellent Bill fulfils an election promise but the Government has shown some restraint. My view is that the Government is going about as far as it is discreet to go in one bite. It is true that economies, whatever economists may say about them, given sufficient time adapt themselves to almost anything providing the shock is not too sudden and is not beyond the digestibility of the economy to sustain in one bite. I believe that the Government is showing some wisdom in not trying to achieve its whole objective in one blow. If it did so it may destroy whatever benefits it achieves. It may overreach itself and add to the problems it is trying to overcome.

I come to what 1 think should be a major warning to the Government in the area of social services. I. would like to see an Australia that is completely free of the influences of other things and of other nations when trying to assess the standard of living that we can achieve for our people. But whilst I would like that, 1 have to face the facts of life and consider the sort of world in which we live. We live in this world and we will have to live alongside other countries in the future. We are part of Asia and many of the things that we regard as everyday rights are not yet part of even the wildest dreams of the people with whom we shall have to live and trade, for their benefit as well as our own. I have learnt a little of economics and have led a varied life. I am getting to the stage where I can look further back in my life than I would like. I wonder whether we can do all we would like to do in our country without seriously disrupting our own way of life and the way of life of people around us if we try to do it too quickly. We should not endeavour to achieve too quickly this aim in our social services field of 25 per cent of the average weekly income. We should be sensible and reasonable. We should not call the boss a mongrel just because he is the boss. He is only another Australian like the rest of us. We should not regard a trade unionist or a trade union official as being somewhat akin to God, because of the position he holds, and therefore capable of no wrong or mean attitude whatsoever. We should forget all that sort of thing. We should recognise when setting out to achieve a quarter of the average weekly earning as the income for those on social services that the first principle is that as earnings increase, the take-home money, so too should social services. They should increase by one-quarter of the increase in earnings. Of course, the bigger the difference, the less effective the amount equivalent to one-quarter of it becomes to maintain the standard of living.

There are other facets that cause increases in prices and costs. True it is that increased productivity can mean more leisure, shorter hours, longer leave, long service leave and payment in lieu thereof, increased sick leave and perhaps even more public holidays. I mention all the benefits that might pertain in this country but - and I have studied these things to some extent - few of them pertain in the countries with whom we will be trading in the next quarter of a century. Those things are not likely to spread very rapidly in those countries although there is a movement in some of the more progressive countries towards the type of benefits which we have. Every time we decrease working hours, increase leisure time and increase annual leave we will be adding to the cost structure a percentage of the cost of those things, although not all of it because increased productivity may cope with some. The percentage that will be added to the cost structure will have to be met also by social service recipients. They will have to pay also but this cost will not register in increased average weekly earnings, because they are affected only by the take-home pay. There are some things in the economy which are uncontrollable when we think in terms of lifting the standard to a better level and maintaining it.

If the Government does not pay regard to the things I mention it could find that what it is setting out to achieve now may be stolen. The Government should pay honourable senators sitting in this corner the compliment of recognising that we do not want to see that happen. We want to alert the Government to the dangers. We consider that that is our function in this Parliament and we do that tonight with the best of goodwill. We ask the Government to accept the reasoning that we outline in regard to these problems in the spirit in which it is extended. This may increase the possibility of successful ventures in this area. I think everybody in the Senate wants to see an improvement in the living standards of the people concerned. If those standards have not slipped behind, it is true that they have not maintained the same progress as those of us who are in a position to earn an income have maintained in the last quarter of a century. Although pension amounts have increased enormously, honourable senators have heard me deplore in this place before the attitude adopted at times by the previous Government when giving something to pensioners. I refer to occasions on which comparison was made between what was given now and what was given by a previous government or with what was given when pensions were first introduced by one Party or the other. Those things are irrelevant and have nothing to do with this matter. Each day stands alone on these questions. The problems of today are not related to the problems of the 1930s and the problems of the 1930s were not related in any way to the booms and busts that followed the 1914-18 war or the land booms that preceded that. No government has approached this problem with the idea of inflicting hardship or injustice upon anybody. Each government is trying to do what it can see its way clear to do in accordance with the thinking of the time. There is no more classic example than the time when the economy of Great Britain, to which country most of us owe our forebears, was based to a large extent on child labour.

Those who have been students of the economic circumstances and labour conditions of that era will know that it was not due so much to the inhumanity of the employers that that system persisted for so long. Indeed some wealthy employers led the fight to get children out of the coal mines and spinning mills of Great Britain, but they were resisted greatly by many of the parents of the children, who could not see how their families could survive without the incomes they had been used to receiving from the labours of the child members of their families. At that time children of 6 and 7 years of age worked in the mines. That was in a day and age when industrialisation was relatively new. It was an evil that crept in which was dealt with over the years, although perhaps not as quickly as it should have been. People in different strata of society played a part in the alleviation of that problem. It was alleviated and finally overcome by the good sense and good will of everyone rather than by any sanctimonious cry that one section of the community was completely wrong and another completely right. Anybody who doubts what I have said should read the British Hansards of the time when the first child labour Bills were brought before the British Parliament and see what the different mem bers of Parliament had to say. Petitions were presented on behalf of parents of children who were working in mines and spinning mills urging the Parliament not to legislate against their standard of life, which they could not see being maintained if child labour were abolished from the mines and spinning mills.

Let us approach the amending legislation that is before us by generously conceding to the Government that it is trying to do something, by criticising it where we feel it is necessary to do so and by sounding those warnings and proving, by relating the facts to the economic circumstances of this day and age, that there are dangers in this country’s believing that it can outstrip by far countries in its immediate vicinity insofar as wages and conditions of employment are concerned, particularly where leave is involved. These cost factors have to be taken into consideration. Most of the labour saving devices that can improve productivity that are known and available to us are also known and available to our trading partners and competitors in Asia. Those countries in which they are not already available are rapidly becoming acquainted with them and they are becoming available to them. I have in mind the efficiency of some of the enormous export complexes that have been and are being built in Singapore, Taiwan and Malaysia. Those countries have realised that they have the advantage of cheaper labour than we have. They are building these complexes right on the waterfront and there is no recourse to unnecessary transport. The raw materials are brought in by ships and unloaded directly into factories. Hundreds of government built factories are being rented in some cases to some of the largest international combines. In those factories the raw materials are manufactured into all the commodities that are required for modern living. The manufactures are then loaded back on to the ships and exported.

Most of the exporting in this country to this point of time has been done as a sideline to other forms of production. We even bring into Sydney those raw materials that it is necessary to bring in from abroad and then put them on a truck and take them to a train for carriage to Melbourne, where they are, manufactured into something, and then we have a reversal of the process. After doing this we try to send them abroad at a competitive price. We should recognise that we are caught in the trap of having established industries. Many of the emerging nations do not have them. Therefore they can afford to start where we have finished. We have to look to the competition they will provide.

I well remember discussing in Japan with one of the leading electronic producers in the world - J will not give him a free advertisement - the question of annual leave. He could not understand what I meant. I explained the situation to him. He said: ‘We have that for our chosen employees. We send the very good ones to Hong Kong for a fortnight on a paid holiday’. I asked him what the employees who were not so good received. He said that they did not get anything at all. That is an enormous incentive for productivity, is it not? We may not approve of it. 1 am not suggesting that such a system should apply in Australia. So honourable senators should not attack me on that point. 1 am just telling a fact of life. Annual leave is an enormous productivity producer in Japan. We have a different system in Australia at the moment. We provide 3 weeks annual leave to everybody. Even the most redundant employee in a plant gets 3 weeks annual leave. That is our approach to this issue, and I would not want to change it. I am not advocating that we alter our approach. I am merely pointing out that other countries have a different approach.

Senator Gair:

– .Anyone who gets in the family way gets 12 weeks off.

Senator LITTLE:

– Yes. In some Japanese factories there is a great deal of paternalism, even under these circumstances.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Marriott) - Order! Would you please get back to the substance of the Bill, Senator Little.

Senator LITTLE:

– Yes, Mr Acting Deputy President. I was discussing the ability of the economy to pay for the social service benefits that will be provided by this legislation and the effect on their purchasing power of certain things. I was warning the Government that it is not just a matter of Australia doing what it thinks it can do on its own. Australia cannot live in a world of its own. It has to have trading partners, lt also has to take into consideration the different conditions that apply throughout the world. Australia has to formulate an economy capable of paying for these sorts of things and sustaining these sorts of conditions. In the conversation that I had with the head of the Japanese electronics firm to which I have referred, I drew a comparison between the conditions applying in Australia of 3 weeks annual leave, sick leave, public holidays and long service leave and what is provided in Japan, which has the highest standard of living of all Asian countries. He said to me: ‘I give up. 1 should not be an employer. I should be an employee. They live better than I do’. 1 doubt the validity of his statement. I have no doubt he meant in terms of annual leave. I say that, because I have found that Japanese businessmen generally work longer hours and drive themselves a lot harder than most, but not all, of our businessmen. Many of the people who run small businesses in Australia probably work for longer hours than those stipulated in many industrial enactments.

These are all factors to be taken into consideration when determining what social service benefits should be paid. We of the Democratic Labor Party believe that if there have been mistakes made in this Bill it has been because nothing has been done to narrow the discrepancy between the benefit paid to a married couple and the benefit paid to 2 unmarried people who live together. Two unmarried people who irrespective of whether they are of the same sex or opposite sexes, live together, receive $5.50 more than a married couple who have lived together most of their life and who have probably, because of their married state, provided more in a general sense to the prosperity of this nation than the others. There should not be a discrepancy between the incomes of persons who have reached the age which is set down in the Act on the basis of whether they are married or single. The Australian Democratic Labor Party has always held that philosophy. I have pointed out what we think is one of the discrepancies in this Bill, but we compliment the Government because it has not aggravated that situation. This legislation was promised to the Australian people. We are glad that the Government has carried out its promise as rapidly as it has. The payments are to be made retrospectively. We assure the Government that nothing that will be done by this Party will stop this Bill passing through this Parliament so that the benefits can be made available to the pensioners, the sick, the invalids and the unemployed in the community as quickly as possible. We support the Bill.

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

– 1 support the Social Services Bill 1973 which is before the Senate tonight, lt is the first Bill in the social services sphere which the present Government has introduced. It provides a series of benefits for people in the community who are in need. The Parliament supports the measure and is pleased to speed it on its way. As the Senate is well aware, the Bill provides for a series of increases in all pensions and in unemployment and sickness benefits, lt increases these benefits by amounts ranging from $1.50 a week to $14 a week. There is provision in the Bill for restrospectivity. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) said in his second reading speech that an amount fo $l26m will be involved in a full year and an amount of S66m will be involved this year.

The Minister was less than fair in his speech when he reflected on the social services record of the previous Government. It is true that by far the greatest majority of people now recognise that social services are a right conferred by citizenship and not a privilege which may be conceded with some philanthropic motive to those people who are described as the deserving poor and needy. Today social services represent a significant proportion fo the gross national product in any advanced economy. No Treasurer in this Parliament would consider the estimates for social security measures to be just some sort of charitable enterprise upon which the government was embarking. Today expenditure under the heading of social services is regarded - and 1 would say rightly so - as a proper charge on the income of the country. Given the economy’s capacity to meet the commitment, no member of this Parliament would wish to limit the benefits to people who are in need. No member of this Parliament would wish to limit the benefits proposed in this Bill. However, what can and should be refuted are the allegations made by the Minister. In a great proportion of his second reading speech be imputed improper motives to the former Administration.

Charity and philanthropy may properly be regarded as the outcome of emotion. They are desirable characteristics and attributes in all people. However, a national government’s social security program can never be taken seriously if it seems to be inspired simply by some sort of emotion or emotional gimmickry. In this respect the Minister’s speech is full of emotive phrases which, I observe, invite some contemplation as to whether the measures proposed in this Bill are based on as sound a judgment as perhaps the Minister thinks they are. I turn to some of the phrases which he used. They were repeated earlier in this debate, but 1 think we would be unwise to let them pass unchallenged. The Minister referred to what he called: . . the more objectionable forms of discrimination which will be eliminated by this Bill.

He claimed that the Government had ended the punishing meanness with which unemployment and sickness benefits have been paid’. He went on even further to say that in his view there will be ‘no more of this poorhouse alms-giving mentality which sees merit in official meanness and virtue in suffering, as long as it is in others’. These are unworthy observations. They do not reflect in any degree whatsoever the creditability of the program which the previous Government employed and which it put into action. The Minister blamed the last Government for the bulk of the unemployment today. He stated all of these md other factors without any factual evidence to back up the allegations. He even went so far as to say, with the almost untried arrogance of the nouveau riche: ‘We have ended this injustice practised by mean men for too long’. I am sorry that the Minister said this about distinguished former Ministers for Social Services. I am sorry that the Minister put this on record as his comments on a social services program which has been built up over a long period of years and, in recent years, with great intensity. This Government has built upon that program and it has brought down a Bill which the Minister asks us to support in this place. He knows that we will support it. As I have said, we are supporting it.

The Minister has deliberately used emotive language and over-emotional terms to cover up a lack of factual information to support his allegations. This section of his speech is completely inconsistent. Yet, on his own admissions, he points out that the Liberal-Country Party Government - let me write this into the record again - followed a policy of increasing pensions faster than rises in prices generally and that there were some significant increases during its time in office. The previous Government’s record in initiating a wide range of social services was a good one. I claim that it had a practical approach to the multiple qualifications which form a background to social welfare. Social welfare needs to be distributed to that section of the community which stands in the greatest need. If there is a large distribution and a large social welfare program, care must be exercised so that funds are not wasted and so that the administration is not top heavy. At the same time the individual dignity and personality of people must be constantly preserved. There must also be an encouragement of self-help and rehabilitation must always be kept in mind. As one who has been interested in social welfare over a period of years. I claim that those factors were the hallmark of the previous Government’s program of social welfare. It was followed by a policy of continuing review of the needs of those citizens in the community who were in need as well as continuing provision to help others to help themselves.

I turn to some observations made by the former Treasurer in his 1972-73 Budget Speech. He stated that he and his colleagues had been ‘determined to find room for measures having merit on broader grounds of social welfare and equality’. With particular reference to social services he stated:

The Government has given particular attention to relieving hardship.

He went on to make it clear that every possible step was being taken within the scope of budgetary responsibility to broaden the bases of eligibility for social services. In another speech - this needs to be said with emphasis - the same Treasurer stated:

Expenditure on social welfare and repatriation constitutes the largest single item of the Commonwealth’s own expenditure.

The largest single item of Commonwealth expenditure was devoted to social services and repatriation. These statements, Mr President, I think you will agree, do not suggest for a minute that this responsibility for social welfare in our community under that Government were characteristic of what the Minister described as ‘mean men in practise of a poorhouse, alms giving mentality’. It also remains to be seen whether another section of the Minister’s speech will in due course stand up to the light of day. He has pointed out that common needs deserve common rates of benefit’. I ask the Senate whether it thinks this Bill will stand up to the test of time in this Government’s administration and effectively remove all forms of injustice and inequality from the community? The Govern ment has claimed - it has put down in chapter and verse - that it proposes to remove, and that it will effectively remove, all forms of injustice and inequality from the community, and it has pointed out that common needs deserve common rates of benefit. I merely draw the attention of the Senate to this section of the Minister’s speech and invite the contemplation of it by both the Senate and the community in due course.

Any discussion relating to social welfare and social security invites, of course, reflection and comment upon the means test. I draw the attention of the Government to a statement made by a former Leader of the Labor Party, the late right honourable Ben Chifley. I am aware that this extract I am about to quote is taken from a speech made a long time ago, in 1950; but Mr Chifley is often quoted in this House by members of the Labor Party, and they rightly regard him as one of their great men and a most distinguished Treasurer. Mr Chifley said he was ‘not greatly concerned about abolishing the means test so that everybody in the community above the prescribed age limit may receive an age pension, even though that is part of Labor’s policy’. lt is interesting to speculate what would be the reaction of a Minister of today to that particular philosophy and to a statement like that. As has already been observed, I say again that the measures proposed by this Bill are not opposed. But what is rejected and what is answered are the Minister’s unjust allegations against the previous administrations whose records stand investigation in such matters as the modification of the means test, broadening of the basis of eligibility for pensions and continuous endeavours to improve the welfare of all Australian citizens. All this is fully recorded and acknowledged and is open to study by all concerned with investigating the facts rather than making unfounded emotional criticism. Each government has tried and does try to do its best in this regard.

So while we support the measure that is before the Senate, I rake the liberty of observing that a wideranging and widespread distribution of a large amount of money - and when dealing with social welfare both this government and previous Governments were dealing with large amounts of money - does not necessarily solve all social welfare problems. I hope that the measures that are before the Senate tonight and which are included in this Bill will be effectively administered, and I ask the Minister and the Government to ensure that the Bill and the money that is distributed will be geared to policies of retraining people and to rehabilitation. I ask them to take steps to enable self-sufficiency to be recovered, and I challenge them to provide efficient management of these very large sums of money. A program of great financial dimensions can become extravagant; it can produce inward-looking attitudes; it can produce laziness and a sense of unnecessary dependence - and all these results could well be compounding all our social problems and not necessarily solving them.

All of us who have spoken or who have given thought to social welfare measures in recent times have examined them, in both discussions and speeches, from the standpoint that pension rates and other benefits should not be geared to political decisions. The Prime Minister in his policy speech has said ‘No longer will pensions be tied to financial and political considerations of the annual Budget.’ This looks like a new approach and all new approaches are popular - but all new approaches must be examined critically. When an approach is new it sometimes tends to attract some sort of idolatry from the community, and the community regards it as the answer to all the social ills of the community. 1 want to observe that it is not true to say that the basic pension will no longer be tied to political considerations. The Government has claimed that it will be related to 25 per cent of the average weekly male earnings. I think it is true to say that over the next 12 months that average will rise and will continue to rise and the pension rise may have to be in excess of 2 instalments of$1. 50 a week.

While the Minister may have admitted that his Government might have to review the question of the rate at which the pension shall be increased to achieve the target of 25 per cent of the average of the weekly male earnings, I think I must point out again that one of the important planks which the Labor Party put down in the election campaign was its desire to have a pension rate which, to quote the Prime Minister again, ‘will no longer be tied to financial and political considerations of annual Budgets’. Let us not be mistaken, and let the people not be mistaken. Until that 25 per cent level is achieved the increase in pension rates will continue to be tied to financial circumstances that will arise from political judgments and political decisions. So the Government which claims that pensions are no longer to be determined by political considerations has already set the pattern by which pension increases will be determined - and that pattern is nothing less than political consideration.

I make that observation as I support the Bill and sound some warnings. The people of Australia should watch the situation to see that people in need get full value from their increased pensions, and also to ensure that the increase really obtains for them that which the Government has promised them. I have pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Mr President,I have listened to this debate and I am pleased to know that all sections of the Senate support the legislation and I am delighted to know that it will receive an early passage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 387

ADJOURNMENT

Maroochy Shire Council

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! It being 10.30 p.m., pursuant to the order of the Senate, I put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator MILLINER:
Queensland

– I rise tonight because I feel an injustice has been done to many people in the Shire of Maroochy. I might say in the first place that the Shire of Maroochy in Queensland is approximately 100 miles north of Brisbane. The Shire of Maroochy is governed by a chairman, a deputy chairman and councillors elected by popular vote. They have as their responsibility many things concerned with the improvement of affairs in a shire. Recently the actions of some of the councillors have come under severe criticism. In fact, a petition bearing 3,500 names was presented to the Queensland Parliament from the people in the area asking that a judicial inquiry be made into the affairs of the Maroochy Shire Council. The Premier of Queensland passed the petition over to the Minister for Local Government, Mr McKechnie, who, I might say. said on one occasion that he felt that legislation should be introduced because he had been talking to a taxi driver and the taxi driver thought it would be a good idea. The Minister in his wisdom recommended to the Government that no action be taken. We have a situation in which at least 3,500 people were prepared to put their names to a petition asking the Government for a judicial inquiry into something which has been happening in their immediate neighbourhood but the Government has declined to accept the position.

Senator Devitt:

– Are you talking about the Queensland Government?

Senator MILLINER:

– That is the Queensland Government, yes. We find that this situation has arisen as a result of what may be regarded as land dealings. A parcel of land was to be rezoned from rural to commercial use. While it was zoned as rural it was bought by a company, some of the members of which are councillors of the Maroochy Shire Council. That parcel of land was bought for $100,000. During the process of purchase and subsequent resale the land was rezoned as commercial. Of course, this enhanced the value of the land. I might say that during the period of rezoning the people in the area were notified that objections, if there were any to its being rezoned, were to be lodged with the Shire Clerk. The Council did not wait until after the closing date for objections to be lodged before it proceeded to rezone the land. The land having been rezoned, this company of which some of the councillors of the Maroochy Shire Council are directors, sold that land for $425,000.

Senator Devitt:

– What was the area of the land?

Senator MILLINER:

– I am sorry, i cannot give the honourable senator the precise details of the area. So in fact they made a profit of $325,000 in 41 days. Obviously this was of concern to the people in the area who have held protest meetings and so on. Legitimately they presented their petition to the Parliament but the Government took no action whatsoever. I do not know whether the Commonwealth Government can take action in this matter but I hope that it can. If it cannot, I hope that my raising the issue will be a warning to the responsible Minister in the Commonwealth Government to see that these things do not happen under the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Government.

I might say that the member for the area, Mr Low, M.L.A., is a member of the Australian Country Party. He has been most irate and very critical of the procedures adopted by the Maroochy Shire Council. I do not raise this matter for political reasons because Mr Low is the only person I have mentioned by name. The Deputy Chairman of the Council is Mr Bill Benardos. Mr Benardos is a very respected citizen of the community. He has held the position of Deputy Chairman of the Council for some time. He also has been most critical of the actions of the Shire Council in relation to this land. So 2 responsible people in the community are concerned about this matter. I know nothing of Mr Benardos’ political affiliations. I know him to be a gentleman very much interested in sport and in all things connected with the welfare of young people, particularly those in this area. He has been elected by popular vote on more than one occasion and he is now Deputy Chairman of the shire. So it will be seen that this is not a political matter at all. It is a matter of whether people have used their power as councillors to further their own interests rather than the interests of the people they represent.

People in the State Government will say that I am putting up a centralist plea. Such is not the case. I am putting forward the proposition that I believe that people have been injured, not financially but morally. They have been injured because of the maladministration of certain people in the Maroochy Shire Council, and that is the reason I raise the issue tonight. 1 trust that the Minister for Urban and Regional Development (Mr Uren) who is represented in this chamber by the Minister for Works (Senator Cavanagh) will go into this matter further. If anything can be done to assist these people I hope the Minister will do so. 1 ask him also to refer the text of this matter and any further reports he may have on the matter to the Attorney-General (Senator Murphy) for his consideration and report.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Works · ALP

– T sympathise with Senator Milliner. I think what he has recited tonight is occurring in most States of the Commonwealth at the present time. Unfortunately the Commonwealth Government has no legal control over the matter at all. The control of land prices is a matter for the State governments. In his policy speech the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) stated that if Labor was elected to office there would be an attempt to control land prices. When

Labor was voted into office in December the Prime Minister wrote to the Premiers of the various States asking them to establish a commission in each State for the purpose of controlling land prices. The Commonwealth Government did not feel inclined to increase housing loans so that land investors could make greater profits. The proposal was that land be obtained jointly by the Commonwealth and the States and let on a leasehold tenure basis under a land rental system so that the home purchaser would not have to outlay so much money when purchasing his house. The Western Australian, South Australian, Victorian and New South Wales governments all have announced land value stabilisation schemes for various areas in which there are pressures for urban development. This action is preparatory to subsequent acquisition by the Government. The Premier of Queensland has not replied to the Prime Minister’s letter. The Prime Minister has recently written to Mr Bjelke-Petersen again urging him to follow the other States and introduce a land price stabilisation scheme. Among areas mentioned by the Prime Minister as necessitating some scheme of stabilisation so that huge profits would not be made in land development and speculation was the very place of Maroochydore that the honourable senator has mentioned. We have urged the States to co-operate with the Commonwealth to control land prices and all States have agreed excepting Queensland where this racket is going on at the present time. But we have no constitutional power to intervene in the States’ control of land. Although I will refer the matter to the Minister concerned. I am not hopeful of any improvement without the co-operation of the Government of Queensland.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 10.41 p.m.

page 390

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

page 390

PUBLIC SERVANTS: ANNUAL LEAVE

(Question No. 57)

Senator WEBSTER:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

How many Commonwealth Public Servants have (a) been granted 4 weeks annual leave; and (b) not been granted 4 weeks annual leave as at this date.

Senator MURPHY- The Prime Minister has supplied the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question:

To provide the information would require Departments to undertake examination of all personnel records at Central Office in each State. In the circumstances I am reluctant to authorise the time and expense involved in obtaining and collating the information, particularly in view of the Government’s intention to amend section 68 of the Public Service Act to provide for 4 weeks leave to staff employed under the provisions of that Act.

page 390

AUSTRALIAN PROTEST TO UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Question No. 118)

Senator WOOD:
QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister repre senting the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Did the Prime Minister express himself very strongly in favour of open Government; if so, why has the Prime Minister not released to the Parliament and the public the contents of the protest he made to the President of the United States of America in connection with the bombing of Hanoi and Haiphong, North Vietnam, by the United States’ Air Force.
  2. Will the Prime Minister now release the contents of the protest.

Senator MURPHY- The Prime Minister has provided the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. and (2) As indicated by the Special Minister of State in answer to Question No. 56 (Hansard, page 193) there are limits of the kind of material which can be publicly released in the interests of open Government. I do not propose to make public the contents of the communication the honourable senator has mentioned.

page 390

VIETNAM: INVITATION TO VISIT AUSTRALIA

(Question No. 16)

Senator GAIR:

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

What were the remarks made by Mr Whitlam concerning Dr Cairns and his invitation for the National Liberation Front and Hanoi representatives to visit

Australia which were made on the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s program ‘Four Corners’ telecast on 19th and 20th September 1970.

Senator WILLESEE- The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: 1 wish to remind the honourable senator that a ceasefire agreement in Vietnam has recently been signed and that Australia now recognises the Government of North Vietnam. I do not propose, therefore, to table the record of a television interview which I gave over 2 and a half years ago, when circumstances were quite different.

page 390

AUSTRALIAN REPRESENTATION IN INDIA

(Question No. 20)

Senator LITTLE:

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

  1. Does the Government propose to appoint Mr Bruce Grant as Australia’s representative in India.
  2. Is Mr Grant a journalist with the Melbourne Age.
  3. Was he the prime mover behind a letter from 16 prominent persons published on 23rd November 1972, just before the Federal election, calling for a change of Government.

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

  1. The appointment of an Australian representative in a foreign country is the subject of government to government consultation before any public announcement is made. Comment on any speculation about the identity of the person who might be appointed would be contrary to diplomatic practice.
  2. Yes.
  3. I have no information on this matter.

page 390

TAIWAN: DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS

(Question No. 3)

Senator McMANUS:

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

  1. What were the reasons for the cancellation of a proposed cultural visit to Australia by a professor from Taiwan.
  2. Why was a judo team from Taiwan refused permission to compete as a Chinese team in Australia.
  3. Has the Government determined to ignore the existence of Taiwan as de facto an independent country.

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

  1. The proposed visit to Australia by Professor Teng of the Music Research Institute of the Chinese Cultural College, Taipei, was to have been made under the Cultural Awards Scheme administered by the Department of Foreign Affairs. On -2nd December 1972 Australia’s diplomatic relations with Taiwan came to an end and dealings between Taiwan and Australia at official level thereupon ceased. In these circumstances it was clearly inappropriate to proceed with a Government-sponsored cultural exchange with Taiwan. There is of course no bar to privately arranged cultural visits to Australia.
  2. During January a judo team from Taiwan sought entry to Australia to compete in championships in Sydney that month. The team was advised that its members would be permitted to travel to Australia in an individual capacity and that they should not identify themselves with the government on Taiwan, nor purport to represent ‘Taiwan’, ‘The Republic of China’ or ‘China’. This advice, which was consistent with Australia’s position set out in (3), was accepted by the judo team, though in the event it was unable to secure plane seats in time to compete in the championships.
  3. Australia extends no recognition to the authorities on Taiwan and can therefore have no official dealings with them. The Government does not seek to prevent or hinder continuing private contacts with Taiwan.

page 391

NORTH VIETNAM: AUSTRALIAN SUPPORT CLAIMED

(Question No. 14)

Senator GAIR:

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

Did Senator Wheeldon claim on Hanoi Radio on 23rd January 1973 that there were Government Ministers from Australia who, by their actions, showed they supported the North Vietnamese: if so, was the report correct and who are the Ministers?

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

The Australian Government feels under no obligation to comment on statements made or reported to have been made by members of parliament in the course of private visits overseas.

page 391

BASKETBALL PLAYERS: VISIT TO TAIWAN

(Question No. 18)

Senator GAIR:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs upon notice:

  1. Why has a proposed women’s basketball tour of Taiwan, scheduled for November, been cancelled.
  2. What was the Government advice reported to have been given to basketball officials in Canberra on 19th February.
  3. Is the Government responsible for the decision to negotiate a lour of Peking.

Senator WILLESEE - The answer to the honourable senators question is as follows:

  1. This question should be directed to the Women’s Council of the Amateur Basketball Union of Australia.
  2. and (3) No Government advice to basketball officials was sought or given on 19th February 1973. On 15th January 1973. the Women’s Council of the Amateur Basketball Union of Australia wrote to the Minister for Foreign Affairs asking for a considered opinion concerning its proceeding with a visit to Taiwan by the Australian Women’s Basketball team and for advice whether the Government could grant any financial assistance for a visit to China. The Department of Foreign Affairs replied to this letter on 24th January, making the following points among others.

    1. The Government does not seek to prevent or hinder continuing private contacts with Taiwan. It was for the Council to decide whether it wished to include Taiwan in its proposed tour.
    2. The Government is hoping for an expansion of Australian-Chinese contacts at all levels and a visit to China by the Australian Women’s Basketball Team would fit in well with this, but again it was for the Council to decide whether to arrange such a tour or not.
    3. The Council’s request for financial assistance in the event that it arranged a visit to China was under consideration.

page 391

REPUBLIC OF CHINA: OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY

(Question No. 21)

Senator LITTLE:

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

Will the Government oppose or support any claims by Communist China for the former Embassy of Taiwan’s property in Australia which was referred to in Press Statement D/64.

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

The Government has taken no position on the question of ownership of property in the name of the former ‘Republic of China’ Embassy or Consulates at the time Australia recognised the People’s Republic of China.In the Government’s view, that question is strictly a legal matter which it is for the Australian courts to decide should the matter be brought before them.

page 391

AUSTRALIA AND CHINA: DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS

(Question No. 24)

Senator LITTLE:

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

  1. Does the Joint Communique establishing diplomatic relations between the Australian Government and Communist China contain the following reference to Taiwan: ‘The Australian Government recognises the Government of the People’s Republic as the sole legal Government of China, acknowledges the position of the Chinese Government that Taiwan is a province of the People’s Republic of China and has decided to remove its official representation from Taiwan before 25th January 1973.’
  2. What were the references to Taiwan contained in the similar Joint Communiques establishing diplomatic relations between Communist China and Canada and Communist China and those non-Communist countries with which it established diplomatic relations in 1972.

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

  1. The passage quoted from the Joint Communique is correct except that the words ‘of China’ should be inserted after the words ‘People’s Republic’ where they first occur.
  2. The information requested is as follows: Canada (Joint Communique of 13th October 1970)

The Chinese Government reaffirms that Taiwan is an inalienable part of the territory of the People’s Republic of China. The Canadian Government takes note of this position of the Chinese Government.’ Malta (31st January 1972)

The Chinese Government reaffirms that Taiwan province is an inalienable part of the territory of the People’s Republic of China. The Government of Malta takes note of this statement of the Chinese Government.

Argentina (16th February 1972)

Greece (5th June 1972)

The references are in the same terms as those used in the Sino-Canadian communique.

Mexico (14th February 1972), Mauritius (15th April 1972), Guyana (27th June 1972), Togo (19th September 1972), Germany (Federal Republic of) (1 1th October 1972), Malagasy (6 November 1972), Luxembourg (13th November 1972), Zaire (19th November 1972), Jamaica (21st November 1972), Chad (28th November 1972).

No reference. (None of these countries, excepting Zaire, had diplomatic missions in Taipei at the time of signing of their joint communiques with China.) Japan (29 September 1972)

The Government of the People’s Republic of China reaffirms that Taiwan is an inalienable part of the territory of the People’s Republic of China. The Government of Japan fully understands and respects this stand of the Government of China and adheres to its stand of complying with Article 8 of the Potsdam Proclamation.’

Maldives (14th October 1972)

The Government of the Republic of Maldives recognises that the Government of the People’s Republic of China is the sole legal Government of China and that Taiwan is an inalienable part of the territory of the People’s Republic of China.’ New Zealand (21st December 1972)

The Chinese Government reaffirms that Taiwan is an inalienable part of the Territory of the People’s Republic of China and that Taiwan is a province of the People’s Republic of China. The New Zealand Government acknowledges this position of the Chinese Government.’

Also during 1972 the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, which were already in diplomatic relations with China, negotiated joint communiques on the exchange of Ambassadors with China. The references to Taiwan in these communiques were as follows:

United Kingdom (Joint Communique of 13th March 1972)

The Government of the United Kingdom, acknowledging the position of the Chinese Government that Taiwan is a province of the People’s Republic of China, have decided to remove their official representation in Taiwan on 13th March 1972.’

The Netherlands (16th May 1972)

The Chinese Government reaffirms that Taiwan is a province of the People’s Republic of China. The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands respects this stand of the Chinese Government and reaffirms that it recognises the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legal Government of China.’

page 392

AUSTRALIA. EAST GERMANY AND CHINA: DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS

(Question No. 25)

Senator LITTLE:

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

  1. What was the date of signing of the Joint Communique establishing diplomatic relations between Australia and (a) East Germany; and (b) Communist China.
  2. What was the date of release of the Press Statements by the Government announcing each of these Joint Communiques.

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

  1. (a) The Joint Communique was agreed but not actually signed by Australia and the German Democratic Republic. The date on which the joint communique was issued giving effect to the decision to establish diplomatic relations was 22nd December 1972.

    1. The joint communique establishing diplomatic relations between Australia and the People’s Republic of China was signed in Paris at 7 a.m. on 22nd December 1972, Canberra time (9 a.m. on 21st December, Paris time.)
  2. 22nd December 1972.

page 392

SINGLE PARENT CO-OPERATIVES

(Question No. 38)

Senator KANE:

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

What exactly are the single parent co-operatives referred to in a speech made by, the Minister in Perth on 19th January, for which he said he was thinking of providing financial assistance.

Senator BISHOP- The Minister for Labour has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

Single parent co-operatives are arrangements between parents who, by reason of decease, divorce, desertion, or wish, are single and who want to take care of their children during the day on a cooperative basis. In my Perth speech 1 instanced these cooperatives as examples of the sort of project that might be supported in a Local Initiatives program.

page 393

SOCIALIST INTERNATIONAL

(Question No. 29)

Senator KANE:

asked the Minister repre senting the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. What was the date of the recent meeting of the Socialist International in Paris.
  2. Did any representative of the Australian Government or the Australian Labor Party attend this meeting; if so, who were they.

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

  1. The Socialist International met in Paris on 13th and 14th January 1973.
  2. No official representative of the Australian Government or the Australian Labor Party attended this meeting.

page 393

NORTH VIETNAMESE TRADE DELEGATION

(Question No. 36)

Senator KANE:

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

Was the interpreter of the North Vietnamese trade union delegation which visited Brisbane on 6th February, during an Australia-wide tour, reported as saying ‘We welcome very much the actions by the Federal Government of Australia which has given us many facilities’; if so, what exactly were the facilities given by the Australian Government to the delegation.

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

The North Vietnamese trade union delegation visited Australia on a private basis at the invitation of an Australian trade union. Apart from the issue of letters of authority to enter Australia no facilities were provided by the Australian Government.

page 393

PRIME MINISTER’S VISIT TO INDONESIA

(Question No. 66)

Senator CARRICK:

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

  1. Is the allegation correct that the Prime Minister, during his Indonesian visit, instructed his staff, including diplomatic staff, to brief Australian journalists, so as to denigrate the Indonesian Foreign Minister. Mr Adam Malik, to the effect that Mr Malik is unreliable, erratic and out of favour with the Indonesian Government
  2. Did any such briefing take place by any person, whether directly authorised by the Prime Minister or not?

Senator WILLESEE- The Minister for Foreign Affairs has furnished the following reply:

  1. The allegation is quite false. I issued no such instructions.
  2. Not so far as 1 know.

page 393

NUCLEAR TESTS BY CHINA

(Question No. 102)

Senator CARRICK:

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

Has the Australian Government communicated in any way with the Government of the People’s Republic of China regarding past or future nuclear-testing, whether atmospheric or underground, by that country; if so, what was the precise nature of the Australian Government’s communication and what was the response of the People’s Republic of China.

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

No. See, however, House of Representatives Hansard of 16th August 1972 at page 221 and Senate Hansard of 17th August 1972 at page 208.

page 393

PRIMARY INDUSTRY EXPORTS: EFFECT OF CURRENCY DECISIONS

(Question No. 51)

Senator WEBSTER:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. Did the Minister, in a recent television interview, say that there was no particular problem created for primary producing export industries by the recent currency decisions of the Labor Government.
  2. Does the Minister believe that this situation still prevails; if so, on what basis of fact does he affirm his previous statement.

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

  1. No.
  2. See answer to (1).

page 393

REPATRIATION: FUNERAL BENEFITS

(Question No. 50)

Senator WEBSTER:

asked the Minister for Repatriation, upon notice:

Did the Minister, in a Ministerial newsletter of 9th February 1973 state that, in regard to Repatriation Funeral Benefits, ‘some dependants of deceased exservicemen are also eligible’; if so, which relatives are ineligible.

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

Yes. A Repatriation funeral benefit is payable in respect of any of the following dependants who die in indigent circumstances:

war widows and orphans,

the widowed mothers and widowed step-mothers of deceased unmarried ex-servicemen whose deaths were related to war service.

Eligibility in respect of this particular benefit does not extend to any other relatives.

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– On 8th March 1973 (Hansard, page 251) Senator McManus asked me a question without notice concerning the Prime Minister’s remarks about the Australian Labor Party Federal Executive and Federal Conference. The Prime Minister has now supplied the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question:

I have nothing to add to the remarks I made at my Press conference on Tuesday. 6th March 1973.

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– On 28th February Senator Withers asked, without notice, a question relating to recognition by the Australian Government of the Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (Hansard, pages 26-27). The Prime Minister has supplied the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question:

My Government considers that there is only one Vietnamese nation, and it looks to the day when that nation will be unified by peaceful means and with the free consent of the Vietnamese people. In the meantime, however, there are two Governments each controlling important sections of the country and each enjoying a wide degree of international recognition. Although both Governments have claimed sovereignty over the whole of Vietnam, each is prepared to have diplomatic relations with Governments that recognise the other. The Australian Government does not express any view on the territorial jurisdiction of either Government but takes the position that, with respect to North Vietnam, it recognises and has diplomatic relations with the Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, and that, with respect to South Vietnam, it recognises and has diplomatic relations with the Government of the Republic of Vietnam.

On the question of withdrawal of troops, I wish to invite honourable senators’ attention to the relevant Articles of the Paris Agreement on Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam. Honourable senators will recall that on 28th January, on behalf of the Government, I welcomed the signing of this Agreement. Article 13 of the Agreement states that ‘the question of Vietnamese armed forces in South Vietnam shall be settled by the two South Vietnamese parties’.

Article 20 of the Agreement calls on foreign countries ‘to put an end to all military activities in Cambodia and Laos and to withdraw their troops from those countries’.

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– In the Senate on 28th February 1973 Senator Poyser asked the following question without notice:

What progress, if any, has been made by Qantas Airways Ltd in replacing the outdated DC4 aircraft now operating on the Australia-Norfolk Island-New Zealand service?

The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following reply:

Qantas still has under consideration the type of aircraft which would be most suited for this service. The type ultimately proposed could quite significantly affect the degree of aerodrome works and therefore the extent of any environmental problems which may result.

page 394

AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY: POLICY OF GOVERNMENT

page 394

RECOGNITION OF GOVERNMENT OF NORTH VIETNAM

page 394

QANTAS SERVICE TO NORFOLK ISLAND-NEW ZEALAND

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 13 March 1973, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1973/19730313_senate_28_s55/>.