Senate
10 October 1973

28th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 28th Parliament
  3. 1973

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Magnus Cormack) took the chair at 12 noon, and read prayers.

page 1085

AUSTRALIAN DEMOCRATIC LABOR PARTY

Senator GAIR:
Queensland

– by leave- I desire to inform you, Mr President, and members of the Senate that on this day I have relinquished the position of Parliamentary Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party, a position which I have occupied for the last 8 years. The road has not been an easy one. There were 2 members of my Party in the Senate from 1965 to 1968. During that time we were required to keep abreast of events and a great deal of hard work was done in studying documents and other material. I think that on occasions we succeeded in stealing the initiative from the official Opposition in those days, much to its chagrin. Our numbers later increased to 5, but this is still a small number among whom to spread the work load. Nevertheless, under the circumstances I believe that we have done a reasonably good job. We placed very high- this was almost our paramount objective- in our order of priorities the belief that we should conduct ourselves responsibly, with balance and common sense and at all times having regard to the welfare of Australia and its people.

Senator McManus, who has been my deputy over that period, has been selected unanimously to fill my position. Senator Byrne from Queensland has been elected Deputy Leader. Senator Kane has been selected Secretary and Senator Little will be the Whip of the Party, although he will still receive his present salary. In June I celebrated the 41st anniversary of my election to the Queensland Parliament. So I have had a good deal of experience and I hope that I have gathered some knowledge in my years in Parliament. If I have not I have no right to be here. I will continue to interest myself in the affairs of the nation and as soon as I am properly recovered I hope that I will regain the voice that I once possessed and let it be heard.

Senator McMANUS:
Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party · Victoria

– by leave- I think it would be wrong if I did not make it known to the Senate that at our meeting this morning the Australian Democratic Labor

Party unanimously placed on record its appreciation of Senator Gair’s 8 years of sterling service as Leader of our Party. We also recorded our congratulations on the fact that he has spent 41 years in the parliamentary service of the people of this country. It is our earnest wish that he will continue giving for years to come the service he has given over the past years.

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

-by leave- On behalf of the Government I thank Senator Gair for the statement he has made to the Senate. I extend our official congratulations to the new Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party (Senator McManus), to the new Deputy Leader (Senator Byrne), to the Whip and also the Secretary of the Party. We inform the Senate and the Democratic Labor Party that we hope that the relations between the Government and the new office bearers will be cordial and that they will continue to do to the official Opposition what they used to do to us.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition in the Senate

– by leave- On behalf of” the Liberal Opposition and also on behalf of the Australian Country Partybecause by friend and colleague Senator DrakeBrockman has said that he desires to be associated with these remarks- I say that I can understand why after 41 years of a very active and perhaps, at times, turbulent political life Senator Gair now would like to take things somewhat easier. I know that my ex-leader in this place, Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson, also wishes to say something after me about his long and friendly relationship with Senator Gair. I think I ought to say that in spite of Senator Gair’s reputationI know that he will forgive me for this - for being somewhat abrasive towards his political opponents, I certainly have never suffered from this abrasiveness. I have always found him to be one of the best members of the Parliament with whom I have had to deal. That remark applies to the 4 Parties which are represented in this chamber. My relations with him have always been good and I think those of my Party generally have been also. We wish Senator McManus success in his new venture as Leader of the Democratic Labor Party. He is a man for whom we have always had a lot of respect, both for his intellect and debating capacity in this place. We know that he will do well in that position. Senator Byrne becomes, with a number of us, a distinguished member of the ex- Whip’s union. The Whips and the ex-Whips are the most distinguished group in this place. For that reason I congratulate Senator Little on joining that very distinguished group which sits in this chamber.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:
New South Wales

-by leave-I join with the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Murphy) and the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Withers), who spoke on behalf of all Opposition parties, in offering our congratulations to the new Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party (Senator McManus). But more particularly, having been a former Leader of the Government in the Senate for four and a half years prior to December last it was my responsibility to have discussions with leaders of the other parties.

I had discussions with Senator Murphy who now sits in the chair of the Leader of the Government in the Senate and with Senator Gair who was the Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party. That is the very essence of the way in which our Senate has been working having regard to the fact that we are primarily a second chamber and also to the fact that the Government did not have a majority. There has been a high degree of co-operation in the management of the second chamber. I put on record that during the years I was Leader of the Government in the Senate and had contact with Senator Gair as Leader of the third Party we did not always agree. But there is no doubt that the honourable senator has a capacity, gained over long years of parliamentary life, to be able to make himself clearly understood. He was able to make his intentions and the intentions of his Party clear.

One of the wonderful things about the relationship I had as Government Leader with Senator Gair was that whenever he said in discussion with me that his Party would take a point of view on a certain matter, his word was his bond on behalf of his Party. One could be sure in the management of the second chamber of the national Parliament that at least that particular party would take a point of view. One could put it out of one’s mind in relation to the future in this chamber of the matter concerned. I offer my congratulations to Senator Gair for the wonderful yean of parliamentary life that he has had both as a Premier of a State and as leader of a party. I wish him good health for the remaining years that he will have here. I hope to have left to me about the same number of years that he will have here. I should like to recall one little snippet in lighter vein, if I may. I often said to my loyal party members who sat behind me: ‘If you fellows take on Vince Gair you will get a lesson in being on your feet in the political arena. If you are going to take him on on a certain subject, make sure you know that subject before you start.’ I commend that advice to Government members even though he will now be sitting on a back bench. I wish him well.

Senator TURNBULL:
TASMANIA · IND; AP from Aug. 1969; IND from Jan. 1970

-by leave- 1 would like to add congratulations to Senator Gair on behalf of the independent senators but mainly on my own behalf because I have been associated with him much longer than have the other two. If ever we had a grand old man of politics we have him here now. His humour, his sense of justice, his very pertinent and pungent wit in interjections, I think, have put fear into members of this chamber. I hope that he will be here for at least 3 more years; that is, of course, if the Democratic Labor Party does not arrange a double dissolution, a matter about which he has not yet told us. I hope that he does not arrange a double dissolution yet so that we may continue to enjoy Vince Gair’s humour and attitudes in this Parliament. I wish him well and hope he has many more years to go. I hope that his next 3 years here will be the happiest of his political life, when he will not have to worry very much about anything. If ever a man deserved an honour from his country, this man does. It is unfortunate, of course, that honours have been discontinued by the present Government, but perhaps when it institutes the new honours, he will be the first to receive the Order of the Kangaroo. I hope that he gets some recognition by the Commonwealth Government. We also extend our congratulations to the new leader of the Democratic Labor Party (Senator McManus) and to his officers, paid and unpaid, and wish them well in the future.

page 1086

PETITIONS

National Health Scheme

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– I present the following petition from 1 8 citizens of Australia:

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

That they oppose the Australian Health Insurance Program and any National Health Scheme;

That they wish to retain the right to choose their own medical care by selecting a general practitioner, specialist or any other medical classification of their own choice under the present conditions in private consulting rooms and also the right to choose an intermediate ward or private hospital of their own choice.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will take no measure to interfere with the existing health scheme.

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

Petition received and read.

National Health Scheme

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I present the following petition from 20 citizens of Australia:

To the honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble Petition or undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the proposed ‘ Free ‘ National Health Scheme is not free at all and will cost four out of five Australians more than the present scheme;

That the proposed scheme is discriminatory and a further erosion of the civil liberties of Australian citizens, particularly working wives and single persons;

That the proposed scheme is in fact a plan for nationalized medicine which will lead to gross waste and inefficiencies in medical services and will ultimately remove an individual ‘s right to choose his/her own doctor.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will take no measures to interfere with the existing health scheme which functions efficiently and economically.

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

Petition received and read.

page 1087

NOTICES OF MOTION

States Grants (Petroleum Products) Bill 1973

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Leader of the Australian Country Party in the Senate · Western Australia

– I give notice that contingent upon the States Grants (Petroleum Products) Bill 1973 being read a second time I shall move:

That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole on the Bill to consider the insertion of a new section 7A in the Principal Act.

Hostilities in Middle East

Senator KANE:
New South Wales

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

  1. 1 ) That the Senate, noting reports-

    1. that in the hours immediately before the outbreak of war in the Middle East, the Israeli Government with United States diplomatic help sought to avert hostilities,
    2. that Israel offered assurances to both the Egyptian and Soviet Governments of its peaceful intentions in the hope of preventing an outbreak of hostilities, and
    3. that despite these Israeli efforts United Nations observers have reported that it was Egyptian and Syrian forces which commenced hostilities by attacking Israeli positions on the ceasefire lines along the Suez Canal and the Golan Heights. views these attacks by Egypt and Syria on Israeli positions as a grave threat to world stability.

  2. That the Senate condemns these attacks as endangering world peace; and accordingly, the Senate calls on the Australian Government to use its influence in the Security Council to bring world pressure to bear on Egypt and Syria to withdraw their forces behind the 1967 ceasefire lines and agree to realistic negotiations for a Middle East settlement based on Israel’s right to existence.

page 1087

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS: ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ADMINISTRATION

Senator WITHERS:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I refer to the allegations made in the Senate last night concerning officers of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and other persons associated with the administration of Aboriginal affairs, such as Dr H. C. Coombs. I understand from what the Minister said last night that a certain Dr Carr is investigating the viability of the turtle farming project. I ask the Minister: Will he take positive action to institute a royal commission to inquire into all the allegations made by Senator Georges and not just into the matters which relate to the viability of the project, which, as we understand it, was one of the less contentious allegations made by Senator Georges?

Senator CAVANAGH:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I would not have thought that the question of viability was one of the less contentious issues raised last night by Senator Georges. The whole basis of his speech, as I understood it, was that money was being wasted on a project which could never be viable. The Prime Minister, on information such as that, has directed Dr Carr, the outstanding world authority on turtle farming, to make an investigation. The other allegations made by Senator Georges were of interference by officers of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, particularly Mr Dexter, and Dr Coombs and of representations which were made to the Prime Minister, possibly deceiving him and resulting in some unfavourable attitude of the Prime Minister towards a particular Minister. I have been in consultation with Mr Dexter today and can give to these allegations an absolute denial. All the minutes and reports of the Aboriginal Co-operative Advisory Committee will be available. Every allegation which was made last week is the subject of a reply from the Department and that reply will be tabled in the Senate. If the reply is unsatisfactory, that will be the time to raise further questions and to suggest that there should be some further inquiry into the matter. The short answer to the honourable senator’s question is that at this stage I will not take any action to put in train a royal commission into the allegations made last night.

page 1087

QUESTION

PRICES AND INCOMES CONTROL

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is it a fact that the Prime Minister at the meeting of the Federal Executive of the Australian Labor Party held in Adelaide last weekend stated that the Government would not legislate for any form of wages freeze if the people granted the Commonwealth a power over incomes? If so, how does the Government justify the Prime Minister’s discriminating commitment given yesterday that incomes of persons other than wage earners would be regulated if the Commonwealth secured this power?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-It is not the purpose of question time to have put up some kind of proposition about what was said in the Federal Executive of the Australian Labor Party and then for me to be asked to start justifying what was said. That is about the furthest one could contemplate a question being removed from the purpose of question time, which is to ask for information about the administration of departments for which Ministers are responsible.

Senator Wright:

– I rise to order. Mr President, I submit that the Senate should not allow Senator Murphy under the cloak of a reply to define the functions of questions. I submit that that is within your jurisdiction under the Standing Orders. A question asking for a definition of the responsibility that the Prime Minister accepts if he is given a power is one of the most pertinent matters upon which the Parliament should be informed. Senator Greenwood is entitled to a reply to his question asking whether the Prime Minister’s statement was to the effect that if given this power he would not use it to control wages.

Senator MURPHY:

-That is not what he asked.

Senator Wright:

– I rise, as I infrequently do on points of order, because of the importance of this matter to parliamentary authority.

The PRESIDENT:

– Members of the Standing Orders Committee know my opinion about the Standing Orders as they relate to questions. I have come to the morbid conclusion that if I applied the Standing Orders vigorously no question would ever be asked. Debating questions are asked and debating answers are given, and until Senator Murphy steps outside the bounds of what I consider to be a reasonable reply I shall allow the answer to continue. I call Senator Murphy.

Senator MURPHY:

-I have finished.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I ask a supplementary question. Is it a fact that the Prime Minister at the Federal Executive meeting of the Australian Labor Party held in Adelaide last week stated that the Government would not legislate for any form of wages freeze if the people granted the Commonwealth a power over incomes? If so, how does the Government justify the Prime Minister’s discriminating commitment given yesterday that incomes of persons other than wage earners would be regulated if the Commonwealth secured this power?

The PRESIDENT:

– The 2 specific questions asked are within the bounds of the Standing Orders.

Senator MURPHY:

– What is said in the Federal Executive of the Australian Labor Party is a matter for the Australian Labor Party. We have a Federal Conference which makes policy decisions, and it is open to everyone- the Press, radio and television- to come to it. Meetings of the Federal Executive are not open. I do not propose to start the precedent of telling the Senate what occurs in the private sessions of the Federal Executive of the Australian Labor Party.

page 1088

QUESTION

TAIWANESE FISHING BOATS

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– I ask the

Minister for Primary Industry: When the 2 Taiwanese fishing boats were arrested off the Western Australian coast on 3 May were 2 other boats boarded within the 12-mile limit? If so, where did those boats come from and why were they not arrested and brought to Western Australian ports?

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Primary Industry · TASMANIA · ALP

-I am not aware that 2 other boats were boarded. If that was the case, it has not been drawn to my attention. However, I shall obtain the necessary information for the honourable senator. But I want to state now quite authoritatively as far as the Australian Government is concerned, that if there is any imputation of discrimination on the part of the Australian authorities I reject it as I have rejected it in the past.

page 1088

QUESTION

THE SENATE

Senator McMANUS:

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. It is prompted by the fact that as a result of illness the ranks of the Ministry in this chamber have been seriously depleted, so much so that it was necessary for the Leader of the Government to make a plea for the indulgence of the House around about the present time. My question is this: In view of the increasing strain being put upon honourable senators by the longer working hours, by the extension of the period during which Parliament meets, by the excessive load being placed upon those members who participate in the committee system, as well as a number of other factors, will the Leader of the Government at an early date- within the next week or two- conduct discussions with the parties in this chamber with a view to ascertaining ways and means by which the work of the Senate may be carried on, but if possible, with the intense strain under which members are at present operating being minimised? I point to the fact that not only are ordinary members of the Senate indisposed at the moment but also 2 Ministers are indisposed, and we are informed that their illness is due to overwork and exhaustion.

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– What the Leader of the Australian Democratic Labor Party says is sensible and correct. I will undertake that such discussions take place. It is evident to everyone, I think, that honourable senators are operating under this strain which is caused from overwork. The arrangements which have been made in the past were intended to deal with a situation which is completely different from that which we have now. I think it is plain to everyone that if we continue in the way in which we have been operating, far more than the 2 Ministers will be ill. But they are not the only ones who are ill at the present time; other honourable senators also are ill. I think we ought to face up to altering our arrangements. Probably we ought to get some kind of professional advice on this matter, apart from looking at it simply as being concerned with the arrangements of the House. I am suggesting that probably we ought not to overlook at least some sensible medical advice as to the length of hours that honourable senators and Ministers ought to sit. There has to be some sensible allocation of time in view of the fact that we have to consider not only the health aspect but also our duty to deal with the legislative program and supervision through committees, and the fact that Ministers have to perform ministerial responsibilities. I thank Senator McManus for his suggestion and I will act upon it this week.

page 1089

QUESTION

OIL POLICY

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In view of the threat that the Middle East crisis could exacerbate the world fuel shortage, will the Leader of the Government advise the Senate whether our present oil policy in Australia could be reviewed and whether exports of hydrocarbons to Japan from our limited resources could be tailored to give our present and future domestic requirements the highest priority?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– My understanding is that the Government has authority to deal with the export of hydrocarbons and any other form of energy producing material. I recall that earlier this year a regulation was made by me, as Minister for Customs and Excise, which touched on this matter. I think that the regulation stated that no energy producing material could be exported without the consent of the Minister for Minerals and Energy. So it is completely within not only the constitutional power but also the legislative power and ministerial responsibility of that Minister to see that Australia ‘s position in the future is safeguarded.

page 1089

QUESTION

GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT: WAGE AND SALARY EARNERS SHARE

Senator COTTON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is it a fact that statistical figures which are freely available show that over the 10 years just ended the share of gross national product going to wage and salary earners has risen from 55.5 per cent to 59.8 per cent? Is it also a fact that during the same period the share going to profits has declined from 15.6 per cent to 15.3 per cent? Once the Minister has ascertained that these figures are correct, will he inform the Prime Minister so that in future the Prime Minister may give us, in his Press conferences, items of fact and not of fantasy?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-At least the Prime Minister conducts regular Press conferences, unlike his predecessors who were not prepared to face the media and the public through the media. Those conferences are full of accurate information. It is very easy to speak in the large terms in which the honourable senator did about the amount of income going to wage earners and about profits. When one looks at what is happening, not all the money received is shown as profits. There are capital accretions and all sorts of ways in which accountants can juggle the national figures, in any event, as well as other figures to make them come out any way they like. I have seen other sets of figures which show a falling away in the real share of income by wage earners. If one were to consult the average housewife I think she would say that in the years preceding the entry of this Government into power there was a steady erosion of the position of the wage earner.

page 1089

QUESTION

INDEMNITY AGAINST CATTLE LOSSES

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

-Has the Minister for Primary Industry any knowledge of a company known as Tas Stock Company (Victoria) Pty Ltd, which is now operating in Victoria but whose head office address is given as 2 Hilder Street, Burnie, Tasmania, and which sells indemnity against the loss of cattle by farmers? If he has any such knowledge, can he confirm or deny whether reports that the company is a bogus one and that its cheques are impregnated with rubber are correct? Was this firm the subject of some criticism by the Tasmanian Farmers Federation? Will the Minister ask his Department to carry out an investigation of the company?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-.! have no knowledge of the matters raised by the honourable senator. I shall make the necessary inquiries.

page 1090

QUESTION

WINE AND BRANDY: EXCISE DUTIES

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Has the attention of the Minister for Customs and Excise been drawn to a statement reported to have been made by the Premier of South Australia that the tax measures against the wine industry announced in the Federal Budget were worse than those imposed by the Liberal-Country Party Government? Will the Minister say whether he had a conference with the South Australian Premier yesterday concerning the impost on brandy? Did the Premier of South Australia remind the Minister of the undertaking he gave to the wine industry of South Australia as State Chairman of the Australian Labor Party Federal Election Finance Committee that the election of a Labor Government would save increased excise costs in the future? In view of the fact that the Premier of South Australia is now over the barrel with respect to the impost on brandy, does the Federal Government intend getting him off the barrel by removing this cost that will cause grave problems to the grape industry in South Australia?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I noticed the statement by Mr Dunstan, the Premier of South Australia. I did not discuss the matter with him yesterday, but I spoke to him on the occasion of the meeting of the Federal Executive of the Australian Labor Party in Adelaide on Friday last, outside the meeting.

Senator WITHERS:

– Did you not speak to him inside?

Senator MURPHY:

-No, Mr Dunstan is not a member of the Federal Executive. But he was kind enough to take us to lunch on the Friday. He has expressed his concern publicly about this matter. This Government certainly would treat very seriously what Mr Dunstan is putting. He certainly put the position very vigorously to me. The understanding this Government had was that the impost on brandy was not really covered by the undertaking which was given in respect of wine. But I have no doubt that as the Premier of South Australia has expressed the view that he has and has pressed the Federal Government strongly, this matter, as the honourable senator suggests, should be and will be taken into consideration by the Federal Government.

page 1090

QUESTION

AVAILABILITY OF FINANCE

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I preface the question by saying that no doubt the Minister is aware that over the last weeks people trying to borrow money have had great difficulty in obtaining finance from banks and from building societies due primarily to the restrictions imposed by the Reserve Bank of Australia. Is the Minister aware that there is considerable concern that the Government now plans to control lending by credit unions such as those operated on behalf of teachers and public servants? Can the Minister end this concern by stating categorically that the Government does not intend to control lending by such lending groups?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-The question of interest rates and to what extent the Government would be concerned in dealing with banking or transactions in the nature of banking outside of the banking corporations themselves- the ones that are spoken of as banks in the strict sense- is an important matter for the Treasurer. I think that this question ought to be drawn to his attention because I am not in a position to be able to state precisely what is happening. I will pass the question on to the Treasurer for an answer to be made available to the honourable senator as soon as possible.

page 1090

QUESTION

DIVORCE JURISDICTION

Senator DURACK:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-I ask the AttorneyGeneral whether it is a fact that the Government proposes to remove divorce jurisdiction from the supreme courts of the States and confer it on the superior court which I understand the AttorneyGeneral will be establishing shortly? If this is the case, has he discussed this proposal with the Attorney-General and the chief justices of the States? Is he aware of the serious impact which this proposal would have on the status and jurisdiction of the State supreme courts?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-What has happened in this field is a matter for the Parliament. Any change would have to be made by Act of Parliament and would not be simply a matter for the Government. The attitude taken in the past on the question of divorce was to have a free vote on the substantial issues. I do not know whether this extends to the question of where the jurisdiction should be exercised. I suppose that that question might more properly be a matter for Government attitude. I have have discussed the matter with one of the Chief Justices and on occasions, I think, with several other judges, but there has been no formal discussion with all the judges

The problem in this area of where jurisdiction should go is a very difficult one. It concerns the question whether a Federal law, particularly such an important law, should be dealt with by State courts or Federal courts. If I may have the indulgence of the Senate for a moment, my own feeling is that these matters should be dealt with by Federal courts established by this Parliament. The reason for saying that is that if we have an extremely important matter which is being handled by a State court, the tendency is for this Parliament and even for those responsible for the administration of it- that is, in the executive sense- not to interfere in the matter and not to exercise the interest which otherwise would be shown, because it is being handled by a State court. Suggestions have been made that rather than speaking to, say, the Chief Justice, I, as Attorney-General, should get the Prime Minister to write a letter to the Premier who would then go through these mechanics, which make it very awkward.

Senator Wright:

– It is not, of course, for the purpose of making them amenable to Ministers.

Senator MURPHY:

– One is speaking of the proper executive responsibilities, and when one turns to parliamentary responsibilities there is a tendency for those in this Parliament, for example, not to ask questions and not to concern themselves with these matters because they are being handled in the State courts. When one turns to the State parliaments, the tendency again is for them not to concern themselves with these matters because they relate to a Federal Act. Therefore, one finds that the problems tend to fall into a no-man’s land. I have seen this happen over some years. For example, the matrimonial causes jurisdiction is an extremely important area, yet it is a rarity in this Parliament to have any questions asked about what is happening in that jurisdiction. This position applies equally in the States. That is one aspect of” the problem. I hope that very shortly honourable senators will have an opportunity to express themselves in debate upon these matters.

page 1091

QUESTION

WHEAT: GRAIN INFESTATION

Senator WILKINSON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry. Statements have been made to the effect that the Australian Government now has refused to honour its commitment to provide Sim to assist the State governments and wheat growers to combat grain infestation. Can the Minister indicate whether these reports are correct and, if so, why is the Government now going back on this undertaking?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– I understand it has been claimed that the Australian Government has gone back on an alleged commitment in respect of this matter. For the benefit of the Senate, I wish to point out that at the meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council I gave no commitment that the Australian Government would in fact meet half of the cost of this program. In fact, I have a copy of the minutes of that meeting which indicate that when I was asked whether the Commonwealth would in fact give a commitment, I said: 1 cannot give you that undertaking because this is a matter which will have to go before Federal Cabinet.

I appreciate the opportunity to spell that out.

page 1091

QUESTION

HOUSING: INTEREST RATES

Senator LITTLE:
VICTORIA

– Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware that the recent increase in interest rates ordered by the Labor Government will mean that home buyers will have their commitments already entered into, increased by from $1,000 to $2,000, averaging from $100 to $200 a year? Does the Minister also appreciate that this increase in payments must inevitably increase the profits of the money lending institutions, which will increase their obligation to pay higher income taxes? Appreciating the fact that no government would wish to increase its own income from taxation by placing this unfair burden on workers who are home buyers, will the Government at least allow the amount of all increases in interest payments on home purchases as an income tax deduction?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-Without accepting as factual all the matters raised in the honourable senator’s question, particularly his remark about the Government ordering increases in interest rates, I will pass the suggestion made by him to the Treasurer for his consideration.

page 1091

QUESTION

WINE AND BRANDY INDUSTRY

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-The Minister for Primary Industry will recall that on 25 September I asked him whether he had received any submissions from the Wine and Brandy Producers’ Association of South Australia Incorporated in relation to any likely Budget effects on that industry. The Minister informed me that he was to meet representatives of the industry on 9 October. Did the Minister meet these representatives yesterday? If so will he outline the matters the deputation raised with him? What is the likely result of any submission presented by the deputation?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– I did meet representatives of the wine and brandy industry, including the South Australian Premier Mr Dunstan, in Canberra last night. The main concern of the deputation, and I might say that this was strongly supported by Mr Dunstan, was the removal of the preferential rate for brandy under the Budget provisions and also the removal of exemptions to the industry under section 3 1 of the Income Tax Assessment Act. Both of these matters are apparently of grave concern to the industry in that State. They pointed out to me the disadvantages that will flow from these decisions. I could not give any undertaking to the deputation of what action might be taken by the Government other than to say that I would personally support further consideration of the matter. I have indicated to one or two of my colleagues that I feel the matter should be further considered.

Sitting suspended from 12.47 to 2.15 p.m.

page 1092

QUESTION

PRICES AND INCOMES REFERENDUM

Senator KANE:

-Does the Minister representing the Minister for Labour agree with the Prime Minister’s attack on those unions opposing power over incomes in the coming referendum? I refresh the Minister’s memory by reminding him that yesterday the Prime Minister stated:

Some are spending more money opposing incomes power than in supporting prices power.

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

-I thank the honourable senator for the information. I well know what the Prime Minister said. This is one of the fears of the Prime Minister. Unfortunately the position is that workers have always been opposed to any freeze of wages; something that has happened only in war time. The fact is that wages have been regulated since we have had an Arbitration Act- I think since 1904. Perhaps there was more severe regulation prior to that. Of course what is not understood is the present desire to take in other than wages in wage fixation. What the Prime Minister said concerned the question of incomes going to arbitration. There has never been a suggestion to freeze wages. The question is whether the same treatment that is afforded the working man today should be extended to other sections of the community.

page 1092

QUESTION

CHILE

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: Is he now in a position to indicate whether immigration and diplomatic representatives in Santiago have been given instructions to assist Chileans who may be apprehensive of the current political situation in that country?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I am not able to give any detailed information but again I point out, as with the answer to the question about Israel, that in the normal course assistance would be given by the office of the Ambassador and by other officials who might be present and concerned with Chile. But I shall obtain the precise information for the honourable senator before the day is out.

page 1092

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN WOOL CORPORATION

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

-My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry. With wool prices falling at each sale in recent weeks and the report that the Australian Wool Corporation has increased its purchases of wool, will the Minister inform the Senate what steps are being taken by the Government to provide adequate finance for the Corporation to enable it to operate effectively in the event of another recession in the wool industry?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– It is true that the Australian Wool Corporation has bought in quite significantly in the last few days. I understand that this is mainly due to the telecommunications problems which apply at the present time between Australia and other countries and within Australia as a result of industrial problems. It is not the policy of the Government to interfere with the Corporation when it exercises its judgment concerning reserve prices. The present situation is quite exceptional. I think that when the situation returns to normal the Corporation will not be buying in the quantities that it is at the present time. Prices, of course, have not declined and it is unlikely that they will. At this stage I do not intend to take any action so far as the judgment of the Corporation is concerned. I think that the activities of the Corporation in the past have indicated that its commercial judgment has generally been sound. When the present problem is overcome I feel certain we will go back to the normal situation that obtained in the past.

Senator Maunsell:

– Will it have adequate finance?

Senator WRIEDT:

-I am sorry . . .

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The Minister has not finished his reply.

Senator WRIEDT:

-. . . that question was asked. The current position is that the Corporation does have adequate funds from 3 sources: Appropriations by the Australian

Government; profits of its own trading activities; and I think the third component is a reserve fund which it has at its disposal. I am not sure of the precise amount of that fund but from memory it is in the vicinity of $50m. There is no need at this stage for an additional appropriation from the Government and, so far as I know, the Corporation has not sought it.

page 1093

QUESTION

EMIGRATION TO SOUTHERN RHODESIA

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Has his attention been drawn to advertisements in several Australian newspapers under the caption ‘Rhodesia Welcomes You’? Among other things, the advertisement offers assisted passages to Australian skilled workers and professional personnel to migrate to Rhodesia. Do these advertisements constitute a breach of Australia’s international obligations as a member of the United Nations? If so, what action does the Government intend to take to preserve our nation’s integrity in the eyes of the international community?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-Yes, I believe that those advertisements constitute a breach of international obligations. I am looking into this matter and I have some notes on it. The advertisements appear to infringe Security Council resolution No. 253 of 29 May 1968 which states:

Calls upon all States members of the United Nations or of the specialised agencies to take all possible measures to prevent activities by their nationals and persons in their territories promoting, assisting or encouraging emigration to Southern Rhodesia, with a view to stopping such emigration;

The Security Council resolution No. 277 of 18 March 1970 decided that:

Member States shall immediately interrupt any existing means of transportation to and from Southern Rhodesia.

The Government has written to the various newspapers pointing out these resolutions to them and indicating that while newspapers are legally free to publish such advertisements because the Parliament has not passed any Act pursuant to the resolutions, nevertheless the Government believes it is not in the national interest for newspapers to publish advertisements which could be held to be in breach of Australia ‘s international obligations. Legislation is in contemplation in order that Australia may be able to implement its obligations, and again I remind the Senate that several years ago the Senate itself called upon the Government to do all in its power to implement those resolutions.

page 1093

QUESTION

DAIRY INDUSTRY SUBSIDY

Senator WRIGHT:

– I direct a question to the Minister for Primary Industry. I refer to the decision of the Government to reduce the dairy subsidy from $27m to $18m. Is the reduction to be operative from 1 July this year? Is the reduction operating now in anticipation of the Budget? Further, is the Minister aware of the concern felt by dairymen in Tasmania at the effect of this reduction? What consideration has been given to proposals to take the place of this dairy subsidy?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-Senator Wright and I were participants in a public debate in Tasmania only a week ago before an audience of about 500 dairymen. I would assume that he would be aware of the substance of the information sought in his question to me.

Senator Wright:

– It is asked for the information of the Senate and the public.

Senator WRIEDT:

– If you will be a little patient, I will give it to you. The phasing out of the bounty has operated from 1 July this year. As to matters relating to adjustments within the industry, I have indicated on several occasions that we are awaiting submissions from the industry and from the various States on what they consider to be the most effective way that adjustment payments can be made. I think it would be an error for the Australian Government to direct from Canberra how those adjustments should take place without prior consultation with the States and the industry.

page 1093

QUESTION

TAIWANESE FISHERMEN: COURT PROCESSES

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Primary Industry. At the risk of being accused of engaging in emotionalism I refer to the Minister’s statement yesterday in reply to a question by Senator Drake-Brockman in which he said that the decision to gaol the 2 Taiwanese fishermen was a decision of the Perth District Court. Did the Minister advise me on 27 September that a warrant of committal was issued by an officer of his Department? Therefore is not the gaoling the Minister’s responsibility? Why was the warrant of committal issued when appeals against both the convictions and sentences have been lodged and are awaiting hearing? Did the Minister have any information that suggested that the 2 captains were about to leave Australia? If so, what was the information?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– I had no specific information, nor did my Department, which would cause us to believe that they would leave the country but it was reasonable to assume that that could happen. In fact it was the decision of the Perth District Court that the fines be paid or 6 months imprisonment be served in default.

Senator Sim:

-You issued a warrant.

Senator WRIEDT:

-That is so. As I have stated before in answering questions about this matter, we have been requested on many occasions to exercise our authority to ensure that these infringements do not take place.

Senator Sim:

-I am not arguing about the procedure. I am arguing about the facts.

Senator WRIEDT:

-That is the substance of the matter and we have exercised that authority. I do not believe that any wrong action has been taken. If we do not protect the declared fishing zone in Australian waters, particularly Western Australian waters, these infringements will continue. I think it is only reasonable that the Government should ensure that if a re-trial is ordered in this particular case the masters of those 2 vessels be present as Crown witnesses.

page 1094

QUESTION

NATIONAL HIGHWAYS SYSTEM: DEFENCE IMPORTANCE

Senator DAVIDSON:

-I refer the Minister representing the Minister for Transport to the reported statements of the President of the Australian Road Federation that a national highways system would be of tremendous defence value to Australia. Has the Minister seen the statement and can he tell me whether there has been any consultation between the Department of Transport and the Department of Defence in relation to a national highways plan? Can the Minister also say whether the Department has carried out research into the relationship of a national road system with interstate transport costs and the servicing of remote areas and decentralised centres?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

-On behalf of the Minister for Transport I can report that the Department of Transport recognises the importance of the relationship between defence and a proper roads system. I do not know whether this applies so much to remote areas as to strategic areas. I do not know whether there has been any conference on this question. I shall refer the question to the Minister and get further details on this matter.

page 1094

QUESTION

CIVIL RIGHTS OF DISSIDENTS IN USSR

Senator HANNAN:
VICTORIA

-Mr President, I address my question to your august self. I refer to the resolution passed unanimously in the Senate on

Thursday 27 September dealing with the question of the abrogation of the civil rights of dissidents within the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Would this be a convenient time for you to inform the Senate of the action taken by you upon such resolution and the answer, if any, which may have been received in relation thereto?

The PRESIDENT:

– I reject the epithet august’ because I have no wish to follow in the path of Caesar Augustus. Specifically in answer to the honourable senator’s question, after the Senate had carried that resolution I felt that I had a responsiblity to examine the constitutional proprieties and to decide whether the Senate could convey such a message by resolution. I satisfied myself that it was constitutionally proper. I have had indited and sent to the SecretaryGeneral of the United Nations the terms of the resolution of the Australian Senate in this context. But as a matter of incidental intelligence I wish to go on and add for the benefit of the honourable senator who asked me this question that the general procedure of the United Nations is to refer these matters to the Committee on Human Rights. The number of such messages that it receives in a year averages 100,000.

page 1094

QUESTION

TELEPHONE NUMBERS

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-I will take up this matter with the Postmaster-General.

page 1094

QUESTION

RENEWAL OF MINING LICENCES

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether he has seen reports that mining companies in the Northern Territory are gravely concerned because no indication has been given by the Government that exploration and mining licences will be renewed this year. Is it correct that this Government does not intend to renew these licences and has the aim of nationalising or gaining control of mining companies in the Northern Territory? Will the Government make an early statement on this matter in order to clarify the situation?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I am not aware of the facts of this matter. It seems to come within the scope of the portfolio of the Minister for Minerals and Energy. It may be concerned also with that of the Minister for the Northern Territory. In any event, I will pass on the question to the appropriate Minister with the honourable senator’s comments.

page 1095

QUESTION

CHILD CARE CENTRES

Senator GUILFOYLE:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Education. I refer to the answer given yesterday to a question on notice which I asked relating to the child care centres research program. The information provided listed the main areas of research covered by grants totalling $ 1 84,000. 1 am interested to read of the projects but again I ask in the terms of my original question for information relating particularly to assistance to the States for training courses for staff who will be subsidised under the program. Has the Minister any information to convey on this subject?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-Before the day is out I shall endeavour to get for the honourable senator information on the training of those engaged in child care.

page 1095

QUESTION

ABORIGINES ON UTOPIA STATION

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs whether he is yet in a position to give the facts in connection with the plight of some 200 Aborigines on Utopia station in central Australia who have been reported as subsisting on a starvation diet. Is their welfare not the direct responsibility of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs? What action is being taken in respect of their well-being?

Senator CAVANAGHThe report which I received on this question was that the squatter had refused supplies to the Aborigines. I believe that there was some justification for the report that there was a system under which some Aborigines were without food. But my Department is sending emergency supplies to meet the position. I believe it is under the control of a group in the Northern Territory. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs is sending supplies so that those who are refused food do not go hungry.

page 1095

QUESTION

POSTAL DEPARTMENT

Senator RAE:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Postmaster-General. Is it a fact that holders of private post office mail boxes and private mail bags have, at the suggestion of the Department, this year paid their annual rental fee in advance until March 1974? Is it a fact that in breach of what might have been regarded as a contract the PostmasterGeneral’s Department has sent out notices to such private box and bag holders stating that the charges will be increased from 1 October 1973? Will the Minister ask the Postmaster-General to reconsider the equity of this action and to defer the increase until March 1974?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-I shall refer the honourable senator’s question and his observations to the Postmaster-General.

page 1095

QUESTION

HOUSING FINANCE

Senator KANE:

– Does the Minister representing the Treasurer agree that when credit is rationed it is the middle and upper income earners who get preference from lending institutions for housing finance? Does the Minister agree that the present restrictions will force many low income earners out of the market for housing finance? Is the Government aware of the injustice of a credit policy which discriminates against low income earners who desire finance to buy homes? In the present situation of lighter credit, what steps has the Government taken to protect against discrimination those low income earners, especially the young, who are not at present buying homes but who will want home finance?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-I would think that in general terms the first observation made by the honourable senator was a correct one. There is a tendency of the kind he has suggested. Unless there was some kind of government intervention, of course, at times it would be the middle and high income earners who would be able to get credit while the lower income earners would not. The problem of inflation in the field of housing is brought about not only because of the reduced value of money but also because of the heavy strain on the building industry. All honourable senators are aware of that and the Senate would be aware also that the Government is doing everything it can within the economic powers of management that it has to see that there is adequate housing for the whole population and especially for those on low incomes. Insofar as it can cushion the effects on those people who would be hit hardest by such a situation, the Government has endeavoured in every way, as the Senate would expect it to do, to try to save the position of the low income earners. This is obviously the philosophy of the Government. The Government, the Treasurer and others are endeavouring to do their best to see whether they can make the situation as easy as possible for those who would otherwise be hurt most.

page 1096

QUESTION

WOOL

Senator YOUNG:

-I ask the Minister for Primary Industry: Has the Australian Government sent any wool to North Vietnam as part of the Government’s aid program to that country? If it has, how much wool has been sent to North Vietnam and how was it acquired?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– I cannot answer that question. I am not familiar with the situation but I shall obtain the information for the honourable senator.

page 1096

QUESTION

NEW SOUTH WALES POWER STRIKE

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA · LP; IND from June 1978

-1 ask the Minister representing the Minister for Minerals and Energy whether he recalls that in the letter of 24 September sent by the Minister for Minerals and Energy to the Snowy Mountains Council, Mr Connor issued a direction that the Snowy Mountains Council should operate the permanent works of the Authority in a manner that did not run counter to the intentions of the 35-Hour Week Committee. I ask the Minister whether that statement means that the supply from the Snowy was to be reduced so that the restriction on power, which the 35-Hour Week Committee operating the power strike was imposing on industry in New South Wales, could be intensified. If so, does he not agree, in the presence of honourable senators, that it is a gross abuse of ministerial power in the operation of a public utility to act in support of strike functions?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– My understanding is that full and complete details of the matter raised by the honourable senator were dealt with in the House of Representatives yesterday in an able and convincing fashion by the Minister for Minerals and Energy. In order to clarify the matter further, if Senator Wright needs further clarification, I shall obtain from the Minister a specific answer to the question.

page 1096

QUESTION

PRICES AND INCOMES REFERENDUMS

Senator JESSOP:

– I ask a question of the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is it a fact that the Australian Government Publishing Service called tenders for 8 million brochures or pamphlets promoting the yes referendum case before the conclusion of the debate in the Senate? If so, has a tender been let? Is it the intention of the Government to post these brochures to all eligible voters? If so, will the Government also provide 8 million brochures for the promotion of the no vote and enable these to be posted?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– If the people concerned prepared the case or placed the order during the time that the Senate was debating the matter, they acted with great expedition. As I recall it, the debate on the Constitution Alteration (Incomes) Bill, was a very short debate. My understanding is that when there is to be a referendum there is some legislative requirement that equal numbers of the yes case and the no case be sent to all eligible voters. I do not know whether there has been any ordering. Frankly, I do not think any case has been prepared. It is unlikely that it has. Provision may have been made in advance to give the Australian Government Publishing Service some notice, but so far as I know, no case has been prepared. Whatever is done will be done in the usual course. I am sure that that course involves sending to every eligible elector both the yes case and the no case.

Senator Cavanagh:

– In the one document.

Senator MURPHY:

-Senator Cavanagh reminds me, and it is my recollection, that both cases are sent in the one document.

page 1096

QUESTION

BRANDY: EXCISE DUTY

Senator LAUCKE:

-Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware of the widespread concern among grape growers, particularly in the irrigated areas of South Australia, at having received notification from wineries that because of the effects of the brandy excise increases these wineries will not require grapes from the growers for the coming vintage? To enable planning to be done well ahead, and in the light of replies to questions on this matter prior to the suspension of the sitting, will the Minister make this matter one of extreme urgency so that the growers and the wineries will know where they stand in their planning for the coming vintage?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– Prior to the suspension of the sitting I indicated that I had discussions with a deputation from South Australia yesterday. I can assure the honourable senator that the matters which were raised were listened to with the utmost seriousness. I also assure him that I will take whatever steps can be taken to further the consideration which I indicated earlier today.

page 1096

QUESTION

SUPPLIES OF BEER IN VICTORIA

Senator HANNAN:

– I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate in his capacity as a great humanitarian. Is he aware that there is an industrial dispute at Melbourne’s largest brewery, that the supply of 90 per cent of the beer in Melbourne has been cut off and that many hotels are now ‘pubs with no beer’? Is he aware that current reports in Melbourne indicate that the R. J. Hawke Hotel and the John Curtin Hotel have ample supplies? Will he use his influence to ensure that drinkers who are of other political persuasions are able to be reasonably satisfied?

The PRESIDENT:

– I call Senator Murphy, the Minister for humanity.

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-I thank the honourable senator for his appropriate description of me. I would say that there might be other solutions to the problem. Maybe some people will change their political persuasion now that they are deprived temporarily of the solace of their drinking. They might be able to see in a clear light the wisdom of the Government’s policy and probably will come along to refresh themselves at the 2 hotels named and drink the health of the Australian Government. I understand that this would be a State matter and not one which could be put at the door of the Australian Government. There is a tendency to blame the Federal Government for everything that goes wrong in the community. In this instance all we can do is hope that the industrial disputes will be solved and that matters will get back to normal. The fact that the 2 hotels mentioned have supplies probably shows their foresight.

page 1097

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS: ESTIMATES

Senator WRIGHT:

– I direct a question to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. It refers to the 2 sums of public money which Senator Georges disclosed last night were appropriated for Aboriginal affairs and which seem to be in jeopardy. The first amount of approximately $400,000 and the other of $ 1.6m were set aside for Aboriginal enterprises. From where does the authority come under the Appropriation Act for those moneys to be handed over to a commercial company incorporated for the purpose of carrying on business? Will the Minister request the Auditor-General to examine the validity of payments to those commercial companies and ask the Auditor-General whether his report on this matter, which I understood the Minister to say last night was under consideration at the present time, could be available to the Senate before we consider the estimates for this Department?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– I visualise long questioning on this matter, I believe next Monday, during the consideration of the estimates for the Department. I can assure the honourable senator that all the information available will be supplied on that occasion. I believe that the whole file on the turtle farm is at present before trie Auditor-General for examination. Senator

Georges told us last evening that the money was paid out of the Aboriginal Trust Fund. The Minister or the Department would appear to have the power to pay money out of the Fund to an enterprise which would further Aboriginal welfare and employment. The Department’s belief is that this is one method of furthering employment in that area. I do not think we should consider this as a commercial enterprise. As I understand the position, there is only one shareholder in the 3 companies, and that one shareholder is myself. I have not received any dividend from the companies.

page 1097

ENGINEERING SERVICES, SANDERSON DISTRICT, NORTHERN TERRITORY

Report of Public Works Committee

Senator POYSER:
Victoria

– In accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969-1972, 1 present the report relating to the following proposed work:

Engineering Services, Malak and Karama Neighbourhoods, Sanderson District, Darwin, Northern Territory.

page 1097

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION BILL 1973 (No. 2)

Second Reading

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– I move:

In April last, my colleague the Minister for Repatriation, Senator Bishop, introduced into this Chamber a Bill to make a number of important amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. He pointed out that this was the first stage of a radical transformation of industrial relations in Australia proposed by the Government. It was a Bill for which the Government had a clear mandate. The major changes had been outlined in the policy speech of the Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, who was speaking on the authority of the decisions of the Twenty-Ninth Commonwealth Conference of the Australian Labor Party held in Launceston in 1971. Our policies had been stated and explained throughout the 3 years preceding the previous elections. That Bill sought to make a number of major changes in the legislation. Briefly stated, these were:

Improvements in the Commission’s procedures for handling industrial disputes;

Procedures to ensure that certain types of agreement were acceptable to members of organisations affected by them;

Provision for democratic control of unions and the full participation by union members in the affairs of their organisation; Provision to overcome some of the problems created by the Moore v. Doyle case;

Provision to remove existing barriers to trade union amalgamations;

Provision to enable action to be taken for the recovery of wages at law within a period of 6 years instead of 12 months at present provided by the Act;

Elimination of the power to award costs in proceedings before the courts, the Registrar or the Commission;

Removal of various defects in the 1972 conciliation and arbitration legislation;

Protection of organisations and members from some tortious liability in connection with industrial disputes;

Provision to remove the Commission’s power to ban strikes and the removal of all penal sanctions on strikers.

That Bill was rejected by the Opposition parties at the second reading stage. This rejection occurred without any opportunity being given to the members of the Senate to debate the many important clauses of the Bill, some of which incidentally were clauses designed to remedy defects which the Opposition, when in Government, had undertaken to rectify or which it supported when in Government.

The failure to pass the Conciliation and Arbitration Bill has had serious effects on the operations of the Commission. The complete separation of the conciliation process from the arbitral process, introduced by the 1972 legislation, has proved unworkable and the Commission has been forced to operate in a manner not sanctioned by the law in order to bring serious disputes to an end. The Ford dispute and the recent maritime engineers dispute would never have been settled if the provisions of the Lynch law had been observed to the letter. This is because the most experienced members of the Commission- the presidential members- are not permitted to conciliate.

Similarly, because the clause in the Bill dealing with the Moore v. Doyle situation did not become law, the problem of solving the demarcation dispute between the Transport Workers Union and the Waterside Workers Federation which disrupted the Sydney waterfront for weeks became almost insoluble. The Government was therefore faced with the question of whether it should re-introduce its original Bill intact or the alternative course which the Government has decided to adopt to remove from the Bill those sections which the Opposition regard as controversial, namely those provisions eliminating penal sanctions and those protecting organisations and their members from certain tortious liabilities. A separate Bill representing those provisions will be introduced as soon as the legislative program permits. There should be, therefore, no reason why the Opposition should not readily agree to the reforms which are now contained in this Bill- reforms which are urgently required and which undoubtedly have the support of most organisations, employer and trade union alike, which have the major interest in the effective operation of the conciliation and arbitration machinery.

The Government has taken this opportunity to include a few desirable reforms which were adopted by the Australian Labor Party at its recent Conference in Surfers Paradise. New matters which have been included in this Bill are: provision will be made for an organisation to have an absolute right to be represented in proceedings before the Industrial Court by an officer, member or employee. At present in most circumstances, an organisation has to seek the leave of the Court to be so represented. where an employer contends in arbitration proceedings that a claim for improved terms and conditions of employment should not be granted because he cannot afford the cost of those claims, provision is made for the Commission to disregard the contention unless the employer produces evidence to support his contention. provision will be made for the Minister for Labour to be able to appoint arbitration inspectors. provision will be made that where the Australian Government intends to intervene in any matter before the Commission or Court, the Minister for Labour shall be responsible for the intervention rather than the AttorneyGeneral as at present. This is the first step in transferring complete responsibility for the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to the Minister for Labour. provision for stricter control over officially conducted ballots. provision will be made to further strengthen the democratic processes in relation to union elections by providing that all full-time federal officers in an organisation must be elected by direct election of the members of the organisation and that the only officers who can be elected by the collegiate system shall be parttime officers of an organisation’s federal management committee. provision will be made for the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and the Industrial Court to be prefixed by the word ‘Australian’ rather than ‘Commonwealth’ in accordance with the practice that is being adopted by this Government generally. provision will be made for requests for financial assistance by members of organisations in respect of actions under sections 140 and 141 of the Act to be determined by the Industrial Registrar rather than by the AttorneyGeneral.

With the retirement of the last surviving member of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, Sir Richard Kirby, there is no longer any reason to retain this body in existence. It no longer exercises any functions. The Bill repeals Part IV of the principal Act which provides for this body and makes a number of consequential changes.

I believe that the new amendments which I have outlined are necessary measures and are not controversial. In particular, I believe honourable senators will approve of the power to determine financial assistance to union members being taken out of the political arena and being given back to an independent statutory officer in the person of the Industrial Registrar. This will ensure that irrespective of the political complexion of the Australian Government the determination of whether financial assistance shall be made available to a person who wishes to test the validity of a union rule, or to obtain an order for the observance of the rules, shall be made without any consideration of the particular political philosophy of that person. Apart from these matters and the deletion of those sections of the previous Bill which related to protection against the law of tort and to strike sanctions, the remainder of this Bill is, subject to what I say below, similar to the Bill introduced in this chamber during May.

In keeping with the co-operative spirit with which this measure was introduced, a number of Opposition amendments have been accepted by the Government in another place. Significant amongst these is the provision for the Commission to arrange for an arbitration inspector to investigate and report upon safety matters which may arise in connection with industrial disputes. Honourable senators will welcome this provision which, by enabling an independent assessment of safety issues, may make a contribution towards a reduction in the number of industrial accidents in this country.

Other Opposition amendments accepted by the Government include provision for the fresh conduct of an election for a office in an organisation where a candidate dies during the conduct of the ballot. A returning officer for an election or ballot is required to make available information reasonably sought by a member of an organisation for the purpose of determining whether an irregularity has occurred in the conduct of the election or ballot. The Government has also accepted an Opposition amendment to the provision of the Bill eliminating awards of costs against parties in proceedings before the Court, Commission or the Industrial Registrar which enable the tribunal to award costs against a party instituting proceedings vexatiously or without reasonable cause.

Mr Deputy President, because of the unprecedented amount of important legislation which the Government has to introduce in this session, I do not wish to delay the business of the chamber by a detailed recital of all the provisions of this Bill which were contained in the Bill previously introduced. In the course of Senator Bishop’s second reading speech on that occasion he not only explained in detail the provisions of the Bill but outlined the philosophy which prompted those reforms. Those members who wish to refresh their memory on these matters may do so by perusing his speech in the Hansard of 1 5 May last. I believe it is essential that this Bill should be dealt with as a matter of urgency. Many of the amendments relating to the procedure of the Commission are required urgently. Because of defects the present procedures are causing difficulties and. delays or the use of irregular procedures. It will be in the interests of an improved system of conciliation and arbitration for this Bill to receive a speedy approval by the Parliament. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Greenwood) adjourned.

Motion (by Senator Cavanagh) proposed:

That the adjourned debate be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I rise to speak to the motion that the adjourned debate be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. I do so in order to obtain from Senator Cavanagh in his capacity as Minister in charge of this Bill and also as the Minister in charge of Government business, what his intentions are as to the debate on this measure. I assume that it will not be debated tomorrow. But it would be of assistance to the Opposition parties to know whether the Government proposes to list the Bill for debate next week or the week after or at some later stage. The Minister will appreciate from the course of conduct which was followed in the House of Representatives that the Opposition has a number of amendments to propose. Those amendments, of course, were not allowed to be debated in the House of Representatives because the debate on the Bill there was somewhat ruthlessly cut short. As has been indicated, the Opposition in this chamber will seek every opportunity to debate this measure fully. Accordingly it must be anticipated that a number of hours will be taken in the debate on this measure.

It is for those reasons that I use this opportunity to ascertain from the Minister when he proposes to bring this measure on for debate. One would also hope that he might also give some indication as to whether it is proposed by the Government that there will be opportunity for a full debate on this Bill in this chamber, which was not the position which prevailed in the House of Representatives. I am quite sure that there is a recognition on the part of the Opposition of the need to tidy up some provisions of the conciliation and arbitration legislation. But we will be co-operative to ensure that the measure passes this Senate in due course in the form in which the Senate as a chamber believes that it should pass back to the House of Representatives. I raise these matters in order to obtain some indication as to when the debate will take place and what will be the course of that debate.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I anticipate that there are no other speakers and I call on the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to close the debate.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– The honourable senator will realise that I am not a free agent. The composition of the notice paper is decided each morning by me in conference with the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Withers). We had a conference this morning and we were in complete agreement as to what should be on today’s notice paper. There may be many occasions on which agreement cannot be reached. Rather than list this matter for debate in this chamber and risk the possibility of an adverse vote I would not bring it forward for consideration. However, as the second reading speech of the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Bishop) stated, this Bill is of the utmost urgency. I realise that it can not be discussed tomorrow. However, it will be the first matter raised by me with the Leader of the Opposition at our conference next Tuesday morning. Whether the Bill will be discussed in the Senate next Tuesday will depend on Senator Withers and myself. Senator Greenwood could probably get more information as to when it will be discussed from Senator Withers than he could from me.

Senator Greenwood:

– But you will be wanting to have it next week?

Senator CAVANAGH:

-We want to have it as early as possible.

Senator O’Byrne:

– The Estimates Committees will be sitting on Tuesday afternoon.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I do not know whether this Bill will be dealt with on Wednesday. But we want to discuss it next week.

As honourable senators know, I am one who is strongly opposed to the application of the gag. I do not know of any amendments that have been made to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act in this chamber that have not been subject to a gag. I have suffered from the gag on previous occasions. If this matter can be fully discussed early in the session the gag will not be applied. There are some 27 Bills on the notice paper to be discussed and I believe that another 80 will be introduced in this session. We do not want to be here on Christmas Day but unless some action is taken it is inevitable that this will be the case. If this legislation can be discussed soon I think that it will be the first conciliation and arbitration amendment Bill that has not been subject to the gag. Of course, the number of Bills that will be subject to the gag will depend greatly upon how much time is wasted between now and the end of the session. Therefore, in answer to the honourable senator’s question, I will attempt to have this legislation brought on some time next week. We want it to be debated as fully as possible. If it is brought on next week there will be no attempt to apply the gag. As I have said, we consider the matter to be urgent.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1101

MEAT EXPORT CHARGE BILL 1973

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 25 September (vide page 820), on motion by Senator Wriedt:

That the Bil] be now read a second time.

Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia

– The Senate is now considering the Meat Export Charge Bill 1973 and the Meat Export Charge Collection Bill 1973. The purpose of the first Bill is to impose a charge on meat exported from Australia so that the Government may recoup the cost of export meat inspection and its outlay on the national brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign. The second Bill is complementary to the Meat Export Charge Bill and provides the machinery necessary for the collection of the charge. As these Bills are complementary may I suggest that they be debated cognately.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Prowse)- Is it the wish of the Senate that the 2 Bills be debated cognately? There being no objection, I will allow this course to be followed.

Senator LAUCKE:

– Thank you. The charge on meat exports is proposed at a rate of 1.6c per lb on exports of meat and edible offals derived from cattle and calves. As is pointed out in the second reading speech, this charge includes 0.6c per lb to recoup expenditure on the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign.

The charge on the export of meat and edible offals derived from sheep, lambs, goats and pigs will be lc per lb. I am impelled to say at once that this Government in its Budget has shown no sympathy for rural interests. There is no evidence at all to indicate that there is an appreciation of the fact that rural industry, through a series of years of adverse climatic conditions and low prices, has had a time of difficulty which no other sector of the economy has experienced.

The rural debt is still exceedingly high. It is in excess of $3,000m. The rural producers have barely emerged from the bad times as far as prices and conditions are concerned. Most certainly there has not been sufficient time to recover financially. Yet the Government seems to have the idea that the man on the land is just rolling in wealth. It is now proposing that a service which has been given to the producer through many years by governments- that is, the inspection of export meat and the eradication of the 2 diseases to which I have referred- is to cease and a charge is to be imposed on the producer to meet the costs of these inspection and eradication programs.

When one refers to the expectations of meat production, based on the rate of 1.6c per pound which is suggested in this legislation, it appears to me that the amount is greater than that required for the stated purposes of the legislation. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics made submissions to the Prices Justification Tribunal recently estimating meat production over the next 3 years. It is for a period of 33 months from now that this charge is proposed to be levied. On the basis of the estimates of the Bureau production for the remaining part of this year would be 961,400 tons. The inspection charge levied at the rate of lc per lb would return $16,1 50,000. For the year from 1 July 1 974 to 30 June 1975 the estimated production of 1,105,000 tons would return, at lc per lb levy, $24,760,000. The estimate for the year 1 July 1975 to 30 June 1976 is 1,271,400 tons and, again at lc per lb, this would return $28,480,000. Therefore for the next 33 months, which is the period used for working out the proposed levy, the Government says that it requires 1.6c per lb. On the Bureau of Agricultural Economics production estimates the total collections at lc per lb would amount to $69,390,000. At the proposed charge of 1.6c the collections would amount in this period to approximately $85m.

Last year the cost of meat inspection was $ 11.4m. Allowing for a 25 per cent annual growth factor in production, the cost of inspection and other services this year would be about $ 14.5m. In 1974-75 it will cost $ 17.9m and in 1975-76 $22.4m. So for this year and the 2 succeeding years a total of $54.8m will be required to meet the costs. But in that period at 1 .6c per lb the income will be $69,395,000. As I have said this is an excess of some $ 1 5.95m. I can see no reason for this. I deplore the impact of the levy and, in the first place, the incidence of it. Seemingly this excess amount will go into revenue. I understand that Senator Drake-Brockman has an amendment in relation to the handling of the funds once they are collected. It is my intention in the Committee stage to move an amendment. I propose a reduction in the proposed levy from 1 ,6c to 1 c per lb. At this stage I do not oppose the second reading of the Bill.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Leader of the Australian Country Party in the Senate · Western Australia

– I support Senator Laucke in making some remarks in relation to the Meat Export Charge Bill and the Meat Export Charge Collection Bill. As the honourable senator has said the purpose of the Meat Export Charge Bill is to impose a levy on meat exported so that the Government may recoup the cost of the inspection of the export meat and its expenditure on a national brucellosis eradication campaign. The Meat Export Charge Collection Bill is complementary to the Meat Export Charge Bill. It provides the machinery necessary for the collection of the export charge. The Australian Country Party believes that the debate on these Bills has not one objective but 3 objectives. The first objective is to impose on the meat industry a levy for meat inspection and disease eradication. The second objective is to divert meat to the domestic market in the hope that the price may be lowered. The third objective is to impose a supplementary tax on profitability in an affluent industry. The rural industries have been slugged and slugged again ever since Labor came to power. This is just one more instance of the Government’s determination to squeeze every dollar it can from primary producers so that its welfare policies can be implemented.

No government in Australia ‘s history has been so anti-rural in its philosophy. We are told by the Minister for Primary Industry (Senator Wriedt) that the major part of the cost of the export meat inspection has been met from Consolidated Revenue since 1927 and that it has become a large item in the expenditure of the Budget. The Minister said that the measure was originally introduced to offset low export prices and that it has been maintained ever since. He said that this is in contrast to the present situation in which world demand for meat is particularly strong and prices are at high levels. We are informed that the cost of the export meat inspection has grown rapidly in recent years, rising from an estimated $5. 3m in 1968-69 to an estimated $11.4m in 1972-73. We were told that a significant part of this increase could be attributed to the need to expand the inspection staff to meet the requirements of overseas countries. In this regard it is to be noted, the Minister points out, that from December 1969 to June 1973 the number of veterinarians and meat inspectors in export establishments has increased from 1,128 to 1,729. The Minister has given a little bit of background to the Senate on this matter.

It is interesting to look at the report of the Task Force appointed by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam ). One notes in the early pages of this report that the Prime Minister wrote to Dr H. C. Coombs, who is now a consultant to the Prime Minister, on 28 March this year and informed him of the Government’s decision to set up a task force. Dr Coombs wrote to the Prime Minister on 24 June this year tendering the report of the Task Force. So the Task Force had a period only from 28 March to 24 June in which to investigate the many matters which it had to investigate. But in the report we noted an item ‘Export Inspection Services- Meat’. This service was introduced in November 1927 and the Government bears the cost of export meat inspection under normal budgetary provisions. I want to say a little more about that later. The purpose of the program, according to the Task Force, was defined thus:

The Australian Government originally agreed to accept responsibility for inspection charges to assist producers in competing overseas and generally to assist and encourage exports. Overseas countries require certification of meat by the national Government.

That is a rather interesting comment. Under ‘Operation of the Program’ we see that the Task Force points out:

The Australian Government provides inspection services at meatworks registered to prepare meat for export, and certifies the export of meat in accordance with the requirements laid down by importing countries. Cost of the services consists almost entirely of salaries, allowances, etc., of veterinarians, meat inspectors, etc.

I am well aware of the contribution that the Government is making to this inspection service. Information that I have obtained shows that the Department of Primary Industry estimates that the cost over 3 years from 1 July 1973 to 30 June 1976 will be $57m, an average of $ 19m a year. The estimates for Inspection of Commodities, under Division 422.1.01 and 02 and 422.2.01 to 08 provide for a cost of $15,867,000 of which, I understand, 85 per cent is attributable to meat inspection. This means that $13,130,000 is the cost of meat inspection. Therefore all the other inspection services named in the Coombs report -and let me remind the Senate that they cover dairying, eggs, honey, fruit and so on- are costed out of that particular item. So I readily admit that meat inspection takes a very big swag out of that expenditure. But I take the Senate back to the Task Force report which states, that ‘the Australian Government originally agreed to accept responsibility for inspection charges to assist producers in competing overseas’. That is the point I make.

Surely despite the fact that our meat exports have grown very considerably we, as meat producers, must have assistance to compete on markets overseas. I readily agree that because of the tremendous increase in exports we must have a increase in staff. I agree that as a result of the tighter controls wanted by importing countries or by buyer countries we must have sufficient staff to see that there are no holdups in the meatworks. I have already drawn the attention of the Senate to the staff problem. The inspectors have just had a 12.5 per cent rise in wages and overtime is to be paid to these men. Meat inspectors are now making representations to have their hours of work limited to the period from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. but it must be recognised that the meat industry just cannot work properly to those hours. If those hours are worked a much heavier cost will apply because of overtime.

The Government says that by introducing these levies it will recoup some of its expenses. I would say that from the meat industry point of view the Government has already recouped a considerable amount of the charges through increased producer taxation. I believe that had it not been for the meat industry during the recession that we went through some 2 years ago the Government would have had to pay more into the wool industry to keep it going. So I believe there was a saving there.

Having made those points I want to refer to some other matters that come to mind in this case. I have heard a rumour that the Government proposes to establish laboratories in all export meatworks to conduct on-the-spot research. I do not know the background of this rumour but I would hope that the Minister would give us some explanation for it because I believe it needs a great deal of clarification. I want to know whether the cost of installing these laboratories will be a charge which is eventually to be put back on the grower or whether it is to be a charge to public works. I would like some details as to how these laboratories will be staffed and by how many men; where these men are to come from, where they will be housed and who is to bear all these charges. I think something should be said about that. I want to make the point that the meat industry is already paying a number of charges. My colleague from Queensland, Senator Lawrie, who is sitting behind me, has drawn my attention to the slaughter tax which the meat industry already has to pay. Those producers who send beasts to the abattoirs receive a deduction from the slaughter tax, of course.

I want to draw the attention of the Senate to another matter which I think is not so readily recognised. Since July 1 97 1 imports of veal and beef in the United Kingdom have been subject to the application of levies. These levies are determined by the relationship of the United Kingdom market price for fat cattle with the target indicated price- the TIP as it is called. This works in this way: If in any week the United Kingdom market price is below the target indicated price levies are to be put into operation the next week. Therefore if Australia is sending meat to that market and the market price falls below the target indicated price, levies are imposed the following week and Australian beef and veal producers will be up for those levies. The levies are determined by the coefficient applied to the difference between the market price and the target indicated price. While recognising that during the time that these levies have been in force they have not been applied, the Minister did say, I think in answer to a question yesterday, that there has been a considerable fall in beef prices around the world. Some people have said that prices have fallen in some parts of the world by up to 30c a lb. Once that fall occurs in the United Kingdom, Australian beef and veal going to that country could be subject to that levy. That is a further cost which growers may have to meet.

I want to say something now about brucellosis. I remind the Senate that brucellosis has been the subject of negotiations between the Commonwealth and the States. The States commenced an eradication campaign in January 1970 and Commonwealth assistance was provided to accelerate the States’ programs. Payments to the States were made by the Commonwealth from 1 January 1970 to 30 June 1972. Over $4m was provided. Then there were amendments to the meat inspection regulations in the United States of America relating to the disposition of tuberculosis affected cattle and carcasses. These regulations were published in the United States of America on 4 February 1972. Alterations to the inspection procedures in Australian meatworks were required to be completed by 1 June 1972 and these alterations were carried out. The United States requires that all meat from TB affected carcasses or animals which react to a TB test is to be used only in cooked products or is to be removed from abattoirs under conditions of security.

After consultation by the Department of Primary Industry and by agreement with the representatives of the meat works, the meat exporters and the public abattoir authorities, it was decided to do a number of things. Firstly, it was decided to prohibit from export in any form and to any destination meat from affected carcasses or from animals which reacted to tests. The Australian Meat Board supported all the sections of the meat industry and recommended an acceleration of the TB and brucellosis eradication campaign. It also recommended implementation of a national compensation scheme, that finance be provided by the Commonwealth and that it be payable on all affected cattle and carcasses.

I have given the Senate the background. The Commonwealth was assisting the industry. But, going further, we find that brucellosis can have a very detrimental effect on the public health of the community. We find that brucellosis can lead to undulent fever in humans. It can be contracted by handling after-birth or by drinking affected milk. What I am trying to say is that the national eradication campaign was being carried out not only to protect the meat industry but to protect the health of Australia. I am saying also that I do not see why the meat producers in this country should be called upon to pay for the prevention of ill health in the general Australian public. I believe that that matter is a responsibility of the Australian Government.

Under the old system the Commonwealth was to bear all the costs in Tasmania in excess of the first $50,000. That was for 1972-73 and 1974-75. It is my understanding that Tasmania is practically free of this disease. Should any meat be exported from Tasmania the Tasmanian producers will be called upon to contribute to the eradication of this disease which, I understand, in the main has been eradicated from that State. I would like the Minister for Primary Industry to consider those points.

Having dealt with the background and having pointed out that the Commonwealth and the States had an agreement, we find in this Bill that an amount of 0.6c is to be a brucellosis levy. I would like to know how that money is to be disbursed. Will the Commonwealth contribute that money to the States or will it carry out the campaign itself and bypass the States? I would like some information from the Minister on how he expects that work to be carried out. I have said already that I do not believe that the meat and livestock producers of Australia should be called upon to assist financially disease eradication in Australia. What this will finally boil down to is that the export section will be paying for disease eradication.

There are 2 other points on which I would like some clarification. Why is it intended to levy a charge on cereals and other ingredients of canned and other forms of part meat export products? This seems extraordinary to me. Also, I find great difficulty in ascertaining why it is intended to disregard for the purpose of the levy whether a product is boned-in or boned-out. It seems very strange that these boned-in and boneless meats should attract the same levy. What one is doing really is paying a levy on the bone itself.

Senator Young:

– They are gradually cleaning the country out to the bone. That is what it is all about.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

-I thought this was a meat levy. I too want to give notice- I have already given the Minister a copy of the amendments- that when these Bills come to the Committee stages I shall be moving 3 amendments. I now make copies of my amendments available to the Senate.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I rise to make a small contribution to this debate. I do so mainly because of statements made by previous speakers, Senator Laucke and Senator Drake-Brockman. They said that this Government had done nothing to help the primary industries of Australia. That is a very strong statement to make. If they had read the Budget they would have seen that that statement did not hold water. I want to refer first to the second reading speech because when it was delivered in this chamber the proceedings were not being broadcast and, therefore, the general public would not know what it was about. Neither of the previous speakers has quoted any portion of the second reading speech to indicate the purposes of this Bill. The first paragraph of the second reading speech states:

The purpose of this Bill is to impose a charge on meat exported from Australia so that the Government may recoup the cost of export meat inspection and its expenditure on the national brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign.

Honourable senators opposite who come from rural areas and who have spoken in this debate should be in favour of any campaign to eradicate both of these diseases from the cattle industry. They would not like to see this disease become rampant and, in effect, cripple the beef industry. Later in his second reading speech the Minister for Primary Industry (Senator Wriedt) said:

The legislation provides for regulations to be made permitting total or partial exemption from the charge.

I am sure that if the Minister felt in his wisdom that this was needed he would carry out what he stated in his second reading speech. He continued:

The major part of the cost of export meat inspection has been met from Consolidated Revenue since 1927 and it has become a large item of expenditure in the Budget. The measure was originally introduced to offset low export prices and has been maintained ever since. This is in contrast to the present situation in which world demand for meat is particularly strong and prices are at high levels. The cost of export meat inspection has grown rapidly in recent years, rising from an estimated S5.3m in 1968-69 to an estimated $11.4m in 1972-73. A significant part of this increase can be attributed to the need to expand the inspection staff to meet requirements of overseas countries.

I am sure that no honourable senator opposite would quibble at that because, as we all know, we have had to go out and seek overseas markets for our surplus beef production in order to put the industry on a stable footing. We all recall that those countries which were buying our meat were most insistent on the very strict health regulations which have been imposed on our abattoirs. At that time I thought they were trying to curb some of the flow of Australian meat onto the American market at the behest of the American producers who did not want to see our product going onto that market. I thought that was the reason for imposing these strict health regulations. In retrospect, these regulations have been of great benefit to the Australian industry and producer as well as to consumers as a whole because we now have in this country abattoirs of which we can be justly proud and in which the health regulations are very strict, which is as they should be in respect of the handling of foodstuffs. The Minister continued:

In this regard it is to be noted that over the period December 1969 to June 1973 the number of veterinarians and meat inspectors in export establishments has increased from 1 , 1 28 to 1,726.

From that we can see that there has been an increase of 600 meat inspectors. Somebody has to pay for them. Previous speakers have insinuated that the man in the street should have to pay for the 600 extra inspectors who are employed for the benefit of the industry. The Minister continued:

It should also be noted that, in effect, overseas consumers have been subsidised from Consolidated Revenue. Furthermore, local consumers bear the inspection cost of meat for local consumption as State authorities impose inspection fees on wholesalers in respect of meat destined for the local market.

I heard Senator Drake-Brockman say a few moments ago that we were going to impose a tax on the industry for the benefit of the Australian consumer, yet it was pointed out in the second reading speech that this was not so. Also we heard Senator Drake-Brockman quoting from the report of the Coombs task force. As I said in a recent debate, this Government ought to be given credit for making public the findings of that task force and its recommendations to the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam). Recently I cited the number of reports which the previous government called for over the years but did not make public so that we, then in Opposition, were in no position to criticise those reports. At least we have been honest with the Opposition and the people of Australia. We have made that report public and have been prepared to stand up to criticism. As I pointed out on a previous occasion, we have not accepted all the recommendations in that report. Likewise, the Joint Committee on Prices, which was set up to look into the meat export market and how we can put more meat on the market for the Australian consumer at a lesser price, made some recommendations. The Government was severely criticised because the Committee recommended the imposition of an export tax, but the Government did not accept that recommendation. When one goes about the community and talks to farmers one finds that they believe, because of what Opposition members have been telling them, that the tax is already on. I have had to go to great pains to explain to them that even if we wanted to impose the tax we would have to introduce legislation to do it. But the Government did not want to impose the tax.

It has been said at times that the Government does not have in its ranks people who have a rural background or who have the interests of primary producers at heart. Only recently I had published a reply to a letter written in one of the country newspapers by a certain member of Parliament who seems to take a great delight in saying these things. In that reply I pointed out how many members of the Government’s rural committee were very interested in rural affairs and how many of us had been primary producers or closely engaged in primary production. I think great credit is due to the rural rump as we are sometimes described within the Labor Party. We do worry about that. We have a job to do and we look after the people in rural areas. Great credit should go to us because we were able to explain to the Government that there was no need to impose an export tax. It was announced by the Prime Minister yesterday that there would be no export tax on meat and much of the credit for this should go to the Government’s rural committee for its strong representations. At least the Government rural committee can put its case and have it listened to. We did not come in here and say that although we were opposed to the export tax, because the Government was imposing it we would vote for it. In relation to the wine excise we saw honourable senators opposite in this chamber and in public saying they opposed the tax, but on every opportunity they had to vote it out of existence they voted for it.

I want to refer again to the 2 comments made by Senator Laucke and Senator DrakeBrockman that the Government has neglected the rural sector. Had they read the Budget speech properly they would have seen the Government ‘s approach to the rural sector revealed by the assistance given to the agricultural and pastoral industries. Under the Budget the assistance is to increase from $238. 8m in 1972-73, the last year of the previous Government, to an estimated $295.2m in 1973-74 tinder a Labor Government. The proportion of all industry assistance going to rural industry will increase from 53.9 per cent in 1972-73 to 57.3 per cent in 1973-74 under a Labor Government. Those figures appear in the Budget papers.

Senator Laucke:

– Out of more than $2,000m extra.

Senator McLAREN:

- Senator Laucke is giving the overall Budget figures. I am pointing out that we have provided by way of assistance to the rural sector an amount which represents 4 per cent more than was provided by the previous Government. The honourable senator cannot quibble about that. That is shown in the facts and figures.

Senator Webster:

– What benefits have you granted?

Senator McLAREN:

– Every time I rise to speak on rural matters I get a barrage of interjections from Senator Webster. He claims to have a wonderful insight into rural industries. His knowledge of rural industries, and of stock in particular, is such that he would not know the difference between a one-eyed stag and a maiden wether. If the honourable senator likes, one of these days I will take him out and show him the difference.

The Government has been criticised because it intends to impose this 1.6c per lb levy on the export of beef to offset the cost of export meat inspection. Opposition senators have not referred to some of the other services provided, without profit, to rural industry and paid for from moneys allocated from public funds. Such services include livestock quarantine, quarantine officers’ control of overseas passengers and freight, production of vaccines, research projects, rural education projects, beef roads, brigalow schemes and so on. The community should not have to subsidise meat consumers and producers. Any industry should be able to stand on its own 2 feet. This was the position in the poultry industry in which I was engaged before I came into this Parliament. Even though we suffered some very severe setbacks we never went to the Government to ask for a subsidy. AH we asked the Government to do was to set up a form of controlled production so that we could finance our own arrangements through good, efficient management.

The proposed tax is not a penalty but represents a fair price for services rendered. This, in my view, is the foundation of the Labor Government’s policy. I do not think that public opinion can support the suggestion made by the Opposition that the public purse should continue to finance an industry which, in its present situation, is quite capable of paying its own meat export charges. If the industry gets into trouble this Government will certainly come to its assistance. I am in favour of the legislation. Many people engaged in the industry have told me that they too are in favour of it because they believe that if we tackle health control in this industry in a penny pinching fashion we will find that we will have a disease problem here with which we cannot cope. This, of course, will be detrimental not only to the beef producers but also to the community of Australia as a whole. If this disease is established here we will not be able to eradicate it overnight, and its eradication will require enormous public expenditure. I am quite sure that most sensible thinking people will be in favour of this legislation and I give it my full support.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I support the Leader of the Australian Country Party in the Senate (Senator Drake-Brockman) in the remarks he made on this piece of legislation. I think the previous speaker, Senator McLaren, did not know what he was talking about when he referred to the beef industry. This Government has adopted a vicious anti-rural industry policy. I support the remarks of the previous speakers in this debate from this side of the chamber. This tax, as I understand it, is being imposed for 2 reasons. The first is to cover the cost of export meat inspection fees; the second is to provide funds so that the Government does not have to subsidise the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaigns. Senator McLaren said that when we were in government we did nothing in those areas.

Senator McLaren:

– I did not say that.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– The honourable senator did say that at the beginning of his remarks. The cattle industry of Australia has been working towards the eradication of brucellosis and tuberculosis for a long time now. Previous governments have said to the industry: ‘You put up so much money and we will provide a subsidy to cover the research into these problems’. The industry already provides this money which is collected in the form of a slaughter tax which Senator Drake-Brockman mentioned. The campaign to eradicate tuberculosis and brucellosis has made considerable progress in many parts of Australia. Bovine tuberculosis has been eradicated completely in many areas and considerable progress has been made in the eradication of brucellosis. Now the Government says: Although we have given so many millions of dollars by way of subsidy for this research to be carried out we will not provide that subsidy an) longer. We intend to impose a tax of 1.6c per lb on the export of meat so that we will not have to pay this subsidy towards brucellosis and tuberculosis research’. In effect, the Government is putting right back on the industry the responsibility to contribute the whole of the money required for research into these 2 diseases in the cattle industry.

This situation does not apply in other industries. Many industries in Australia- both primary and secondary- have entered into similar arrangements with the Government, and those arrangements still apply. Many of those arrangements have not been altered by the Government. The understanding has been that the industry should set up a fund for research of various kinds to be carried out, whether by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation or anyone else, and the Government has subsidised that research. The Government has picked out one industry and said: ‘You are prosperous now. We will not subsidise you any longer. You have to pay your own contribution towards the slaughter tax and you are to pay this from an export levy’. I think that this is being pretty vicious to an industry which is providing so much of Australia ‘s export income. It is a very vulnerable industry in many ways because the detection of certain diseases in our livestock can stop our exports overnight. We must watch that situation. We must ensure absolute cleanliness in our stock. We must have health controls in this industry which are 100 per cent effective. Over the years the industry has worked up to this standard. The standard of the meat packing plants today is a credit to the industry. I have inspected facilities of this type in other countries and I believe that ours are far superior in cleanliness and hygiene.

I suggest that it is pretty unfair to single out one industry and ask it to contribute towards the cost of these inspections. We have been told that over a 33-month period the proposed levy of 0.6c, which is part of the total levy, will bring in $80m. As I say, this levy is to remove the necessity for the Government to subsidise the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaigns. It is expected that during the 9 months to June 1974 the levy will be paid on 1 , 105,000 tons of meat, and this will bring in $24m. This is far in excess of the amount required to cover the inspection costs over that period. So we wonder where the surplus money will go. One would assume that it will go into Consolidated Revenue. But the industry, in addition to contributing to this type of research, must contribute to research funds which most States have set up.

The cattle industry pays money into a research fund of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. The statement that the industry is not doing anything, is not doing much or is not doing everything that it possibly can to bring about an absolutely disease free industry is wrong. The Australian Meat Board is running this research, on behalf of the Government, through the CSIRO. Some of the things which are being researched are weight gains, heat tolerances, dentition, early maturity and many other things in the industry. Then the industry is being slugged with an export charge to pay for inspections. According to the figures which the industry has been given, the export charge will pay not only the anticipated cost of inspections of export meat but more. The export price is a variable one; it can rise or fall. The inspection fee will still be there, we presume. The meat inspectors will still be there. Many other costs will be added from time to time. I believe that this proposal is part of the Government’s attack on the rural industries. It picks out a particular industry which is apparently prosperous at present. If there is a setback, if meat prices fall considerably, there will be no suggestion of removing any of the charges. Once they are on, they will stay on. I think that we should have a very good look at all the proposals in the Bill before we agree to it.

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

Senator Lawrie has repeated the cry, which is attempted to be spread throughout the community, that our Government has an anti-rural policy. The facts are that the rural industries at present are sailing along on a better level, on a more even keel, with more confidence in the future and with higher morale than they were in the last 25 to 30 years. There was a brief boom in the wool industry in the early 1950s when there was a world shortage of wool, and wool sold at one pound for lib. There is an accepted cycle- a boom and depression psychology- and that price soon went downhill. With bad seasons and low wool prices, the wool industry became very depressed. The elastoplast or sticking plaster technique of the previous Government in trying to cover up the cancer with sticking plaster so that it could not be noticed by the public continued and rural industries quite rightly received subsidisation. Over the years they have been the backbone of our economy. They have only recently been matched by the development of our magnificent natural resources- minerals and the like. Figures show that the value of the mining industry is approaching the level of the value of our primary industries. This is good. It is excellent to think that we have industries infusing prosperity into our nation and substance into our economy other than the traditional rural industries.

I wish to put the record straight because Opposition members have tried to create the impression that this charge on meat export is a heavy tax. The charge to be made is 1.6c per lb. Of that amount, 0.6c is to be devoted to the very important matter of eradication of brucellosis and tuberculosis. The other lc is to go towards the everincreasing cost of meat inspection. Most people who have been associated with the meat industry during the past 10 years have realised that the traditional treatment of beef in our abattoirs has been on a level that was unacceptable to overseas buyers. Many municipal bodies, city councils and other instrumentalities have been involved in complete reorganisation and reconstruction of their abattoirs to meet the very rigid demands which have been made, particularly by the American importers. This reconstruction has involved the organisations in great expense.

Indirectly, this has been of great assistance to beef producers because it has meant that a greater proportion of Australia’s abattoirs was able to handle meat for export. I shall quote the figures. In the last 3 or 4 years the amount of beef exported has risen from about 54 per cent of the total production to the present figure of 66 per cent or 67 per cent of the total production. This meat is going through our abattoirs, after careful meat inspection and with improvements in our abattoir facilities.

I deal now with the eradication of bovine tuberculosis. At one time the disease was a scourge. In my day infected beasts were called lumpies. Beasts had various stages of bovine tuberculosisfrom beasts with a little lump underneath the chin to beasts which were riddled with tuberculosis. The prevalence of this disease meant that our cattle had to be carefully inspected. Over a period of years all governments have been committed to the attack on this scourge of the cattle industry. As Senator Lawrie has informed the Senate- I can confirm it particularly in relation to my State of Tasmania- the campaign has been eminently successful. The incidence of bovine tuberculosis today has been reduced to practically negligible proportions.

The beef industry still has a problem, and that is the problem of contagious abortionbrucellosis. It is a serious disease among stock and can cause heavy stock losses unless it is very carefully policed. An expensive campaign has been going on. The eradication of the disease necessitates very close inspection out in the field by the various authorities- the State Departments of Agriculture and other people who are engaged in inspection and receiving reports. The herds which are known to be infected have to be identified, isolated and quarantined. In many cases whole herds have to be purchased and slaughtered not only because of the contagious nature of brucellosis but because the destruction of infected herds is the only way that an outbreak in an area can be clamped down on.

The eradication program and the meat inspection program have become costly. The meat inspection is necessary to assure our overseas purchasers who are taking 66 per cent of our total beef production that our export meat is disease free and slaughtered under the most hygienic conditions that man can devise. Overseas our beef has a wonderful reputation. It is expensive, as everything is these days, to maintain that reputation. One honourable senator mentioned the position of the beef producers 2 or 3 years ago. There were dry seasons. Many hundreds of thousands of square miles of Australia were in the grip of a drought. Much of it was cattle country. The cattle were in poor condition. The prices were low. The outlook was pretty grim for many of the farmers. At that time there was no thought of taking away any subsidies or of not continuing assistance to the primary producer or the beef producer.

We must admit that today we have an overseas market that is practically insatiable. We received evidence recently that there will be a growing demand for beef in Europe, Japan, the Asian countries and the United States of America and that the future of the beef industry is very bright. Is not what is proposed in this Bill fair enough after years in which the taxpayers of this country have co-operated very generously through the parliaments, through both Liberal and Labor governments in the State and Commonwealth spheres? Prosperity has come to the industry and circumstances are such that the producer can get a very good price for his product. A comparison of prices is staggering. Beasts coming on to the market today are bringing $350 to $400 a head. Only a few years ago, a producer would be lucky if similar sized beasts brought $30 or $40 a head. This is the contrast prevailing at the present time. I do not think that if the position were presented to the farmer in a fair way he would begrudge these charges that are to be imposed.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– Prices for beef have increased by 50 per cent while wages have increased by 75 per cent.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– These are academic arguments. The point is this: If a man has an area of land on which he can grow beef and he could exist on it when he was receiving $30 or $40 a head for his cattle and is now receiving $200 a head for his cattle, he is able to pay his bills. He is able to catch up on the payments on his overdraft, he is able to replace his old jalopy Holden with a much more exotic and sophisticated motor car. So his standard of living has improved considerably with the good fortune of good seasons which, to say the least, are very widespread throughout Australia. Not only is he receiving a high price for his cattle but also he has an almost guaranteed market in the future. I could quote the forecasts that have been made by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics and by the Australian Meat Board. It is stated in the report of the Australian Meat Board:

Under the stimulus of forecasts of increasing world-wide demand for meat Australian beef and veal production is expected to increase from 1,41 1,000 tons in 1972-73 to 2 million tons by 1980.

This report goes on to say that the European, United States and Japanese markets are very buoyant. So what we are now asking the farmer to do, in all equity, is to lift the load from the back of the taxpayers for a little while. I can assure honourable senators opposite that if the occasion arose when the industry was in such a condition that these charges had to be transferred back to the taxpayer this would be the case. Do not let the farmer be mistaken about the position. We are just as sympathetic about his welfare and his expanding standard of living and for him to be able to do his job on the land with confidence, high morale and dignity as is any member of the Opposition. We want to give that assurance.

But, of course, today we have abroad the greatest bunch of knockers that this country has ever known. They are stimulated by vested interests, the Press and by overseas hawks hovering around and wondering what will happen to the goods of which they thought they had a monopoly. But now the position has changed. Honourable senators have been frustrated by the events of 2 December 1972. They cannot get it into their heads that the Australian public changed the Government. They think that they have a God-given right to be the Government forever but they must realise that there is a new skipper in charge of the ship of state and that the ship is making great progress. Of course, the ship has many barnacles on its bottom. Those barnacles are the members of the Opposition. They could be called mental gymnasts but the trouble is that they are mentally musclebound and the only exercise they get is jumping to conclusions. They do a lot of that. I am telling honourable senators opposite that we believe the members of the farming community and particularly the beef producers will accept the proposition that .6c per lb is to be diverted and directed towards the continuation of a highly effective and efficient eradication scheme for the suppression of bovine tuberculosis and also the hunting down, isolating, quarantining and eradication of contagious abortion- brucellosis.

I do not think that this proposition should scare anyone or stimulate any great amount of debate. It is a simple business proposition to protect the industry and to assist all sections of it including the farmer, the slaughterman, the exporter, all the way along the line to the consumer. The consumers know that they are receiving a first class product that has been produced by first class farmers in a great country. That is the reputation we want to have throughout the world. The legislation before us will assist us in that task.

Senator LITTLE:
Victoria

-The Australian Democratic Labor Party, like everybody else, will support the second reading of the Meat Export Charge Bill. But that does not mean that the Bill is without weaknesses and that we do not have criticism, as other Parties do, of the general policies in relation to the primary industries of this country at the moment. They have been discussed rather extensively during the debate on this Bill. I want to take up the cudgels with Senator O ‘Byrne who has just resumed his seat. He painted a glorious picture for the people engaged in primary industry. I give him one concession and that is in relation to his honesty. When depicting the position of the meat producer he did not forget that the fellow did not have just the land. Like most other people, and particularly like most people in these types of industry in which a considerable amount of land is involved, he has a very extensive overdraft. It is ridiculous for Government supporters to say that they are acting in the interests of such people when they have suddenly upped the interest rates on overdrafts by 2 per cent. This will add an enormous cost to their other production costs. This has happened quite apart from the 1.6c per lb levy on beef that is exported. So it is a very inopportune time for the Government to suggest that it is all for the primary producer.

Of course, I have pointed out on other occasions that this decision of the Government has affected not only primary producers. I have received many examples of other areas that have been affected. I was speaking only the other day to representatives of the fruit industry in Victoria. Those who have been producing fruits for canning for export are financially in a parlous condition. Again I take up the cudgels with Senator O’Byrne in relation to his remark that there is a guaranteed market. I remember when this was said about pears but only 1 2 months ago we were telling the producers to pull out their trees because the market suddenly disappeared. Any politician not engaged in primary industry would be very reckless in his statements if he accepted expert opinions about continued world markets for any particular primary product without taking into account the facts of history. The facts show that repeatedly these very optimistic anticipations do not come to pass. It is true that the export meat industry of this country appears to be in a very strong position at this point of time. One of my criticisms of the Bill is that the Government accepts that the meat industry is in a strong position. This charge is to be levied at 1 .6c per lb. No consideration is given to the price that will be paid for a pound of meat. I can recall my own experiences in the early days of my married life when I used to do some of the shopping, because at that time my wife also was working. I worked in a boot factory and I finished work before my wife finished work. I used to buy prime steak at 1 /- per lb, as it then was, or 10c per lb in today’s currency. Of course, a levy of 1.6c on prime steak costing 10c per lb would be quite a considerable charge. Today prime steak costs- I am only guessing here- approximately $ 1 per lb in the local butcher shop.

Senator O’Byrne:

-It is $ 1 .20.

Senator LITTLE:

– I thank the interjector for the expert information. So in a short period of time, comparatively speaking, the price has gone up 10 times. What if it goes up another 10 times or goes down 10 times in the next 10 or 1 5 years? If it has gone up 10 times in the last 10 or 15 years, surely it can come down again or it can go up another 10 times. Is it impossible for beef to reach the price of $10 per lb? With this Government in office you could make such a prediction. My goodness, the way in which inflation is going it will not take 1 5 years for beef to reach a price of $10 per lb; it might reach that price in 15 months. This could happen when we consider the history of the inflations that have occurred in various parts of the world; when reckless governments are not prepared to face the problems of inflation with sufficient responsibility to do something to overcome the problems. I could criticise the imposition of the levy of 1.6c per lb as being excessive at the present time, but of course it will not be excessive if the inflation rages on and if, in another 10 years, the price of meat is what we expect it to be.

Another aspect of the matter is the way in which this Government has looked after primary producers. It has looked after them all right. Primary producers are staggering under the burden of being looked after by this Government. There have been 2 revaluations of the Australian dollar- one of 12 per cent and another of 5 per cent. I do not know how these revaluations affect the meat industry- I have yet to get around to that matter- but last week I was talking to people engaged in the fruit industry, and I come back to what I said earlier. The increased interest rates will cost the canned fruit growers in the Murray Valley $500,000 out of the profits that they are not making. These growers have to contribute to the co-operative canneries which can their fruit for export and so on, and they have huge overdrafts. The growers have to find an extra $500,000 in interest which this Labor Government, that is allegedly looking after their interests, has imposed as a result of increasing interest rates. Of course, at the same time the 2 revaluations have placed these growers’ main competitors, America and South Africa- I have gained the impression that this Government does not like either of those nations very much- in a tremendously advantageous position on the markets of Europe because they can now sell their fruit virtually 25 per cent cheaper than the cost at which the Australian fruit hits the market. That is not assisting the fruit industry in this country. The way the Government is going it will wipe the industry out of existence. Surely nobody wants to be assisted to this degree by this Government.

The revaluations of the Australian currency have had another effect on the fruit industry. Growers’ returns have been depreciated by 30 per cent although their fruit is selling at a 25 per cent higher price on the British market. Their returns have come down in terms of Australian currency. But out of those reduced returns they have to meet an extra $500,000 in increased interest rates. Interest rates were increased as a result of the most stupid decision that a government of any country which is seeking to prevent inflation has ever made. The increased interest rates have crippled primary industries and impoverished working people who are struggling to buy homes. The Government has done this to its own people, but it turns around and says that it is in the interests of the people.

Senator Wright:

– Interest rates were never higher in the history of this country.

Senator LITTLE:

– There is no longer such a thing as interest rates. In this country today there is usury; there is no longer interest. You cannot describe 10 per cent on a home loan as interest; it is usury. In the past moneylenders were executed for charging rates of interest which this Government not only approves of but also inflicts upon the working people whom it is supposed to represent. My voice will always be raised in this chamber in this regard. But of course the hypocrisy of the situation is that 12 months ago when I made similar speeches members of the Labor Party who now are sitting silent got up, applauded me and said: ‘Stop this interest going up to the extravagant rates of 7 per cent and 8 per cent’. But as soon as honourable senators opposite became the Government, in order to help the workers they increased interest rates to 10 per cent. They go around masquerading as people who have the interests of the workers at heart.

There is a great deal more involved in this than those of us who are not experts in primary industry or beef production would know. The levy of 1.6c per lb seems to be a miserly charge, but the figures I have indicate that over a period of 3 years the levy will raise $85m. That is $85m which the meat producers who export from this country have not been paying up to the present time. This is the way in which you destroy the basic industries in Australia. In 1975-76 approximately 1,271,400 tons of meat will be exported from Australia. When one multiplies that figure by 2,240 to bring it down to pounds one begins to realise the huge sums and the huge poundage that are involved. Let us face it: We do not know at what price meat will be exported over the next 3 years. We know that internally the price of meat will be a lot higher if this Government remains in office much longer, because of the inflation that it is promoting every day of the week. We do not know what the export price will be or what the price abroad will be, but we will still impose a levy of 1 .6c per lb.

I agree that the industry should be preparedand I understand that it is prepared- to accept the responsibility of meeting certain of the meat inspection costs. After all, this happens with chicken meat and many of the other things that we export. We have asked industries to contribute towards inspection services. In regard to these meat inspection costs, I fail to see the logic in fixing the price per lb at which meat is exported and not taking into consideration at all the price at which meat is actually exported. This charge could become so excessive as to completely break the industry if the price falls dramatically. Of course, it could become an insignificant charge. We could estimate now the cost of inspection of this meat for the next 3 years.

But if the Government behaves in a certain way towards the 2 Bills that were passed in this Senate with our support only a week ago and suddenly goes soft, at the behest of the left wing unions, and suggests that incomes have nothing whatsoever to do with wages, nobody could estimate what the costs of meat inspections will be in 3 years. They could be double what they are estimated to be on today’s wage rates. If this Government’s idea of attacking inflation is to go to the people with a referendum containing 2 logical propositions that must be tied together if there is any hope of success at all, even on a temporary basis, in controlling inflation- and the Government will gerrymander the referendum before it is held because half of the Government will campaign against one proposition so that there will be no interference with the untrammelled expansion of wage rates- the estimation if costs of meat inspections made at this time might be completely unreal. I think that legislation such as we are discussing in the 2 Bills before us which concern primary industries should be given careful consideration by the Parliament of the nation. After all, the Parliament is supposed to lead the people, and not be led by them. We should see the problems that I have outlined and make allowances before the people feel the weight of them.

I believe, of course, that a fixed charge would be a much more equitable way of allowing for fluctuations than what is being done at present where charges are based on weight which has nothing to do with prices or costs because both of these factors can fluctuate dramatically without having anything to do with the tonnage of a product the country may export. However, it seems that the industry is prepared to accept a charge to assist itself in this manner. We will be discussing in the Committee stage a series of amendments that will make some improvements in the Bill. I will leave my remarks on these matters until then. With the reservations that I have outlined about the effect that this legislation will have on primary industry generally in this country today, the Democratic Labor Party will, like all other Parties, support the second reading of the Bill.

Senator LILLICO:
Tasmania

– I have been provoked to reply very briefly to a statement made by Senator O’Byrne about brucellosis. However, before commenting on what he said 1 would like to say something about the remarks made by Senator Little about the plight of primary producers over recent years. It is true that only a year or two ago we heard in this place speech after speech about the plight of the primary producers in Australia. Only a few days ago Senator Wright said that official figures showed that one-third of farmers during the 1 960s earned under $2,000 a year. He went on to say that their indebtedness during that time rose from $130m to $ 1,261m in the decade of 1960-70. Surely it is reasonable to say that because the position has improved and the wheel has turned almost full circle in regard to some commodities the producer should be given a chance to make up the awful leeway. It has to be remembered that in addition to having to pay the tax set out in this legislation he has lost, according to what Senator Guilfoyle said the other night, $30m a year because of revaluation.

I have risen to say that the burden of the brucellosis campaign, in spite of what Senator O’Byrne has said, was borne by the primary producer himself. It makes a big difference when one has had practical experience of these things. I was a dairy man for 30 years and a member of a State parliamentary committee which investigated brucellosis and tricomoniosis in Tasmania. Without any doubt whatsoever the compensation that was paid for the slaughter of animalsand that State used a test and slaughter method which is proposed to be used on the mainland after brucellosis has been reduced to certain proportions- was totally inadequate to compensate the producer for the loss that he endured. I know of one case in which a producer had to slaughter 70 cows in one day. Although the producer was partly compensated for his loss he had lost his living. Loss of production, the awful cost of having to devote a farm to some other purpose and the inconvenience involved are factors which had to be borne by the primary producer himself. I say without any hesitation that he bore the lions share of the burden. I have been to public meetings in Tasmania to discuss this proposition.

I hope that the people of Tasmania were listening and heard Senator O’Byrne say that it is time the producer did something to contribute towards the cost of the brucellosis eradication campaign after all of the generous assistance that has been given to him over the years. I am sure that this statement would make him cough if he looked back and remembered the awful tribulations through which producers in Tasmania passed to bring the dairy and beef industries in that State into a condition more or less free from this scourge. A former Minister for Agriculture said that the meat export industry would pay for export inspection and disease eradiction charges, but no other export industry pays for such charges. If what he said is correct- and he should know- apparently the beef industry is to stand alone so far as the payment for the export inspection is concerned.

One other quaint argument was put forward. The Minister for Immigration (Mr Grassby) who introduced this Bill in another place- and I suppose that what he had to say was said here- said that if the Australian taxpayer pays for these inspections it is tantamount to that taxpayer subsidising the consumption of Australian meat overseas. So the Government proposes to shift that burden from the Australian taxpayer, alone of all other commodities apparently, to the beef producer himself and the beef producer will be subsidising the consumption of Australian meat overseas. I say with first hand practical experience of the times through which the primary producers in this country have passed and which can come again, because I remind honourable senators -

Senator O’Byrne:

– We will all be ruined.

Senator LILLICO:

– Oh no, I am not a knocker. I am merely stating the facts. I say to Senator O’Byrne that I cut my teeth on the brucellosis question. I was irritated into getting out and stating the facts.

Senator O’Byrne:

– A tasty diet.

Senator LILLICO:

– Yes, and they are not bad either. I was irritated into getting up and saying that the primary producers in Tasmania paid the bulk of the cost of brucellosis eradication. Certainly the compensation helped the primary producers. But do not forget that the main burden of the cost was borne by the producer himself. Although things have changed fairly rapidly we should not forget that they can change the other way just as rapidly. No industry in this country can fluctuate so quickly and so violently as primary industry. I believe that this tax is illadvised. I do not believe that the beef industry should be singled out by the Government which has said: ‘Here is a special tax we are going to put on the industry’. I believe that the way to overcome part of the trouble which has agitated the Government so far as the shortage of meat in this country is concerned is to encourage an increase in the production of beef. That is the way to do it.

But the socialist-minded person like Mr Connor who in relation to oil has set about to introduce such conditions as would discourage people from searching for oil at all -

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Brown)- Order! Senator Lillico, I do not think that is associated with the Bill before the House.

Senator LILLICO:

– Very well, I will return to meat. The concept in regard to meat is that if a tax is put on it- I repeat that a $30m revaluation tax has been put on it because it has lost that amount of money and there is talk of another tax again- then in some strange way one encourages production, the article is made less scarce and the price is brought down to a reasonable proportion. I could say much more about this matter but I do not want to take up any more time. I repeat that Senator O ‘Byrne may be a good Whip but when he talked about the dairying industry this afternoon he was well and truly astray.

Senator O’Byrne:

– I was talking about the beef industry.

Senator LILLICO:

-Well, the beef industry. They are all interwoven. The industry in Tasmania, in the main, bore the cost of the brucellosis eradication campaign.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

-The Senate is debating the Meat Export Charge Bill. This is one of the Bills about which the Opposition has considerable difficulty in deciding how it should approach the matter. Here we have an elected Government which, certainly in the view of the Opposition, has taken financial action against the interests of various sections of the community. It is imposing various restrictions on industries and individuals in the community. The Senate is charged with the responsibility of reviewing the legislation. In instances where a charge is levied and where the Government is seeking extra income the Senate is faced with the problem as to how it should treat such a Bill. Where the Government is demanding income from a particular sector of the community generally the view of the Opposition is that while we express opposition to some aspects we feel that the proposals j ust cannot be opposed as there is a need in some instances for the legislation to flow through the Senate so that the Government can perform in the way it sees best.

The Meat Export Charge Bill is such a Bill. It is totally abhorrent to those who have some rural background. I do not doubt that the Bill is as abhorrent to those members of the Australian Labor Party who profess a knowledge of rural industry as it is to those within my own Party, the Australian Country Party, and the Liberal Party, our coalition partner. Originally the proposition in the Meat Export Charge Bill was envisaged in the Budget. I make this point: Part of this charge is mentioned in the Budget Speech where the Treasurer (Mr Crean) stated:

The Government has also decided to recoup from the beef industry the expenditure incurred in the campaign to eradicate bovine brucellosis and tuberculosis. The amount to be recouped in 1973-74 will be approximately $6m. Details will be announced by the Minister for Primary Industry in due course.

Of course what that indicated at that stage to those involved in that sector of primary industry was that this Government would seek to recoup $6m from the beef industry. That statement indicates that an impost of some $6m was to be put on beef producers so that the cost of the bovine brucellosis and tuberculosis campaigns could, perhaps in a time of comparative affluence in the meat industry, be recouped to the Government. One could readily say that the eradication of the disease, while being a requirement of importers of meat from Australia, is a matter of great public importance within Australia and one in which, we imagine, the Government would take an interest. In the interests of seeing that we are free of disease in any particular area perhaps the whole community could have some share from a national point of view. I believe that the national point of view is emphasised, and was probably emphasised by the previous Government, more so by encouraging those industries in Australia which could become important export industries.

Over the past 9 months there has been a peculiar attitude by the Labor Party while in Government in that it has appeared, at least, to scoff at the importance of our export industries. This is instanced by the fact that whether it be in manufacturing or in primary production the Government has sought to indicate that the reserves which have been built up in Australia by previous governments are far too excessive. The Government has said that this is not in the interests of Australia and that action should be taken to discourage exporters. This is not a rash statement because the Government has moved to withdraw the export benefits which manufacturers” and primary producers had. It certainly has withdrawn benefits by seeking accelerated depreciation on new equipment although this was one advantage that efficient industries in Australia enjoyed in that it enabled such industries to achieve a comparatively sound position so far as world export markets are concerned. Many of the areas have been canvassed in the debate this afternoon. Senator Drake-Brockman, my own leader canvassed all the appropriate and in-depth problems which the cattle and beef industries face in relation to this new imposition. The point I make is that the Treasurer indicated in his Budget Speech that there would be an impost of some $6m. I know that this was varied by the Minister for Primary Industry (Senator Wriedt) in his statement.

If my recollection serves me aright his statement was varied so that we have the situation as it stands today. From the envisaged $6m impost on the industry we now have an enormous burden placed on this industry. Senator Little indicated the extent of the millions of dollars that would be collected. But taking this impost in its 2 parts one finds that the costs of the provision of inspection of beef for export are to be recouped from a percentage of the 1.6c which is now to be collected by the Federal Government. The meat inspection section is one part and the brucellosis and tuberculosis campaign is to be supported by the other part. Of the 1.6c, lc is to go towards meat inspection costs. The public should be made aware that it is estimated that last year meat inspection cost some $1 1.4m. In the next 9 months of office of this Labor Government, perhaps not through anything it has done but through the demands for greater export control and inspection, the cost will be about $16. 15m. That is the figure for the 9 months left in this financial year, but this lc levy will bring into Commonwealth coffers approximately $24.7 m.

The Minister is well aware of this position. At the hearing of Estimates Committee F yesterday questions posed to him underscored the fact that the excess collected by the Government would be greater than the charges it reckons to recoup from the industry. I hope that when the Minister replies in this debate he will indicate quite clearly and concisely to those who are to pay this tax what is to happen to that excess money. I do not think he will doubt that excess revenue will be collected from the primary producers of this country. Of the 1.6c that is to be collected and made an impost on the industry, as was stated, the .6c portion will produce between $80m and $85m over the next 2 years. That is an enormous amount to be collected in excess of the demands fo.r the brucellosis campaign and the requirements of the meat export inspection services. Speakers for the Government have indicated that this is quite appropriate.

I heard an interjection by one Labor senator a few minutes ago which meant that he was obviously supporting the argument that this impost should go on. It is a decision by Labor in line with the many decisions it has made which are adverse to the rural sector. We heard Senator McLaren say a little while ago that anybody who read the Budget would see the many benefits that had been granted to the rural industry by this Labor Government. I think that anybody who took up the Budget and read the whole jolly thing would find hardly one such benefit in it. I asked Senator McLaren to name one thing that the Labor Government has done for the rural industry or country people and he immediately changed the subject and got on to something else.

In fact, what the Budget did- and this is only consistent with what is now taking place- is react entirely against rural people by its excessive charges such as those for the Commonwealth communications system to rural areas, increased costs in telephone communications, increased costs for the delivery of newspapers and the very high excise duty which will be applied on petrol. The last mentioned will certainly harm people living in the metropolitan area, but the person in the country who is dependent on transport of his goods for the input to his production and for the transport of his goods away from his farm will really feel the effect of this extra impost. One notes the removal of so many concessions such as those related to the dairy industry, the initial depreciation concession for rural people, the tax depreciation and tax allowance concessions that had existed for water improvements on rural properties and the concession for construction of hay sheds and fodder conservation.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Brown)- Senator Webster, the Bill deals with specific matters and I think it would be fair enough to say that you have ranged far and wide beyond the question of the meat tax and the collection of the charges. I think it would be appropriate to come back to the substance of the Bill.

Senator WEBSTER:

-Mr Acting Deputy President, I appreciate the point you are making. However, I feel that what I am saying is appropriate since you permitted one of the Government senators to mention the great benefits that have been brought about by the Budget. You allowed Senator McLaren to emphasise the great benefits that had been brought about by the Budget. I am just emphasising my points in the context that here is an impost on rural people, an enormous impost which will return a greater sum than the amounts needed by the Federal Government to cover the charges for meat inspection costs and the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaigns. An extra impost is being laid on the beef industry and I think it is connected with the fact that these great charges have been wrought by the Labor Party, by this Government, against rural people. This is another charge added to those many others. I think it is important that I bring it to the attention of the Minister. I am incensed that so many charges have been imposed on rural people. Another one has been added under this Bill. It is an intolerable burden.

I was mentioning them only to draw them to the attention of the Minister who as Minister for Primary Industry would be most concerned when such things are mentioned as the withdrawal of these concessions. The development of new land affects the development of the beef industry and that should be emphasised. This Government has decided that it will withdraw taxation concessions to farmers for the development of new land. If there was one thing that any sensible man could see it would be that the Government should not put an impost on an industry in which the costs are high. The Government should be encouraging greater production. But as Senator Lillico mentioned a moment ago, a socialist philosophy means that the Government will control, will not encourage export, will not encourage production but will tie the industry and will tie the individual by the reduction of many of these benefits. Examples are the disapproval of this Government of the development of new land illustrated by failing to grant taxation concessions for it, and the proposal that pest eradication will not be a normal deduction for a primary producer in his taxation return as a cost of production. The carrying forward of losses in previous years is to be discontinued. The beef industry and very nearly every primary producer, as you know, Mr Acting Deputy President, have suffered great fluctuations in their fortunes so far as returns are concerned. We have not been proud to say that in particular areas of industry the net return to a farmer may have been only very few dollars. Why is it that we are to be faced with another impost such as this? It is not an impost only to meet the cost of a particular proposition but apparently one which is going to return millions of dollars to the Commonwealth, yet we have not heard a word from the Minister. At least we did not hear a word at the meeting of the Estimates Committee yesterdayand that was the latest possible comment that I could have had- as to what will take place with this money. He must have worked out at some stage what this 1.6c will return.

What are we going to do with the excess? If my memory serves me correctly, I think the Minister was kind enough to say at the meeting of the Estimates Committee yesterday: ‘Rely on me, it will not go into Consolidated Revenue’. That is a good contribution and I congratulate him for it. I hope it does not go into Consolidated Revenue because this money should either be returned to the industry or be used to give greater benefits to those who are providing the tax. The industry is at risk because of the import policies of those who are interested in buying our products. One could well envisage that in years ahead meat producers in Australia will be in a healthy position. But nobody in this country, as was brought out in an Estimates Committee hearing yesterday, not even in the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, is willing to predict the long term future of any primary industry in Australia. It is impossible to predict.

The previous Government had built up benefits which assisted in hard times and when the corner was turned and prices were good producers were able to discharge the great overdrafts they had incurred. The question of overdrafts is a good one to mention. Every primary producer operates under an overdraft which he hopes to discharge in good times. But what happened under this Government? It imposed an extra 2 per cent on the interest rate at which the primary producer is borrowing money. The previous Government, with a more lenient attitude, at least ensured that some concession applied to those individuals in the community, those battlers, who had to borrow money in order to exist as they wished to exist, to have control of their own affairs and to live the rural life if they wished to do so. This Labor Government is seeing to it that that way of living is being rapidly eradicated so that there will be Commonwealth control, in the words of Labor’s philosophy, over production, distribution and exchange within this country. The Bill we are debating certainly adds to that control.

I doubt whether members of the Labor Party speak with a united voice on this Bill. It troubles me to think that the Labor Party would speak with a total voice in opposition to the rural community. However I hear no comment from Government supporters who at the moment are listening intently to this debate and who are taking an interest in matters of rural concern. I want to refer to a statement by Dr Rex Patterson, one of the Ministers who we thought took a great interest in primary producers. He made a statement on 12 January after becoming Minister for Northern Development in which he said:

It is in the national interest to achieve the highest export standards for meat.

Without going into the detail of this statement, Mr Acting Deputy President, you and I would both support the view that Dr Patterson would be one person seeking to support primary industries, particularly the beef industry which is of such great importance to the Northern Territory. Dr Patterson said:

It is both necessary and urgent to eliminate any impediments to this trade and I am concerned to expand existing programs for the eradication of brucellosis and tuberculosis in cattle.

Dr Patterson went on in his statement to say that he had asked for a comprehensive review of the situation in northern Australia with the objective of posing more positive and constructive measures for dealing with the problem, including the payment of compensation to producers who suffered loss of income as a result of the disposal of TB reactor cattle. Dr Patterson said that this problem had been tackled on a national scale by the Australian Agricultural Council and that it was essential for all governments and industry to support and intensify the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication measures already in operation. Therefore one Labor man has said that it is essential that the Government continue this operation. I ask the Minister for Primary Industry whether the Government is going to continue its activities in this operation or are the beef producers to stand the whole cost? That is what this Government is bringing about.

There is a greater aspect to be considered which I want to put to the Minister. I hope that he will prove that I am incorrect in what I say. Dr Coombs stated in the report of his task force that in April this year the Labor Government gave an assurance that it would continue its support for the brucellosis campaign until 1975. I ask the Minister whether his Government did give that assurance. I want to refer the Senate to a speech by my Leader, Mr Doug Anthony, in another place, who referred to a statement made on 27 July this year-a statement I have been unable to lay my hands on- in which the Minister for Northern Development, Dr Rex Patterson, called for cattle men to give their full support to ridding herds of tuberculosis and brucellosis. Dr Patterson said that the Australian Government recently approved increased finance over the next 2 years to eradicate brucellosis and tuberculosis. I ask the Minister for Primary Industry whether the Labor Government has now withdrawn from that stance of assisting this particular rural industry, ls the Government, by imposing this levy on beef producers, going to make them fully support the export meat inspection program which it has set up?

I agree that this program is of national importance and that it is something which cannot be organised on a State basis but must be organised on a national basis. Likewise the brucellosis eradication campaign needs to be a totally national campaign and must be directed in that way. But if producers are to be forced to provide the money to do both these things the Government must give them a say about whether the money is being spent efficiently on behalf of their industry. I believe that the cattle men in this country will demand some say from now on, not only in regard to the standards aimed at but the methods to be used, the type of scheme to be followed and the scientific approach to the elimination of brucellosis and tuberculosis. I believe that in Canberra at present many millions of dollars are being spent on the brucellosis testing laboratory. I believe that is the case but I am not positive at the moment. However the fact is- the Minister should have got this point yesterday during the Estimates Committee hearing- that if the Commonwealth Government is going to recoup the costs of all these various campaigns from the producers, the producers may feel that they can add something to the efficient expenditure of their money and will demand some say. The Opposition will be moving a number of amendments during the Committee stage which may improve this Bill in some way. I certainly will support those amendments during the Committee stage but I had no pleasure in seeing this Bill brought into the Senate.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I rise to refer briefly to some of the facts which appear to have been overlooked by one or two speakers on the Government side. We hear talk about the wonderfully buoyant state of the export meat market. We hear talk about how the market continues to be such that it could be described by them as a bonanza. I think this shows the ignorance of Government supporters about what is happening in fact. Perhaps that is the basis upon which this misconceived levy is to be imposed. In fact the export market is not as buoyant as it has been and it does not show the same sort of enthusiastic trends that it showed a short time ago. Our most important export market is the USA and boneless manufacturing meat is the major type of meat sold on that market. I checked to make sure that my understanding of what has been happening in regard to prices was correct. I found that for the week ended 10 August 1973 the price free on board ship was 70c per lb. By 28 September it had fallen to 57c per lb. In the same approximate period the United States domestic price had dropped by nearly 30 per cent. These are hardly factors which would induce people to say that the market is buoyant and wonderful or to use all the other terms that Senator O ‘Byrne and others might have used. In fact there has been a steady decline on the United States market in the last month or 6 weeks. This is a period of great uncertainty. A levy of 1 .6c per lb when the price is now less than 60c per lb represents nearly 3 per cent of the gross income from meat sales. One can imagine that that will have a very significant effect on the return after taxation when one bears in mind the very considerable increase in costs to which producers and processors have been subjected in the past few months.

We find that this industry, as has been pointed out by a number of speakers- I will not take time to go into detail- as a result of revaluation, as a result of inflation and as a result of increased costs generally is one in which the growers and the exporters certainly should be looking to a steady increase in prices to be able to maintain parity with the return they received earlier this year. But far from . that, we have had every indication of a falling market in the United States.

Senator Laucke:

– That is a reality in local markets also.

Senator RAE:

– It is the reality in local markets, as Senator Laucke has said. So far from this wonderful picture painted by Senator O ‘Byrne in what might have been a mistaken burst of enthusiasm -

Senator O’Byrne:

– Fact.

Senator RAE:

-Senator O’Byrne says that it was fact. I am quoting facts now. I got them a quarter of an hour ago from the Australian Meat Board and I think perhaps my details are right. But if Senator O’Byrne can show that the Meat Board is wrong -

Senator O’Byrne:

-If the Meat Board is as good in its information as it was before the Prices Committee it is all bunk.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Brown)- Order! I ask Senator O’Byrne to cease interjecting and Senator Rae to address his remarks to the Chair.

Senator RAE:

– Yes, Mr Acting Deputy President. Senator O’Byrne said that the evidence given by the Meat Board to the Joint Committee on Prices was all bunk or bunkum. I do not know which word he used but I think they both have the same meaning. I do not detect any deep variation between them. If what the honourable senator suggests did happen, and I do not for a moment subscribe to the view that it did, it may be that some members of the Joint Committee on Prices were lacking in understanding. That might be the reason for the Alice in Wonderland approach which was so evident in the Committee ‘s report.

Senator Young:

– I notice that Caucus did not accept the report.

Senator RAE:

– Caucus had more sense than the fairylanders. In general terms the facts are that the meat industry cannot necessarily look to an ever-increasing bonanza. With prices at their present average level it is an imposition to increase by 3 per cent the amount taken from the total income of growers and exporters for Government purposes when account is taken of what has happened in various other ways through revaluation, inflation and increased costs. I certainly have a great deal more enthusiasm in supporting the amendment foreshadowed by Senator Laucke to reduce this levy from 1.6c to lc than in accepting any of the nonsense that came from Senator O ‘Byrne.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Primary Industry · Tasmania · ALP

– in reply- This debate is on 2 Bills which, essentially, provide for a levy to be charged on meat exporters- not meat producers -in order to recover the cost of Commonwealth meat inspection services and the cost of operating the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaigns. That, essentially, is the matter to which I shall be addressing myself and to which I thought during the course of this debate honourable senators opposite would have addressed themselves also. Instead they chose to use these pieces of legislation to attack the Government generally and the Government’s rural policies. So I will reply very quickly to one or two of those comments, and particularly to those made by Senator Webster in what was an irrational attack which could not be substantiated to any degree. He, as do other Opposition senators, claims that the present Government is prejudiced against the primary producer. Yet it was this Government which within weeks of coming to power gave the Australian wheat industry what it had been asking over the past 1 3 years from a Liberal-Country Party Government, namely, an increase in the first advance payment. The previous Government had consistently refused to give this to the wheat industry. At the same time we accepted the biggest wheat quota ever asked for in Australia and on our own initiative provided for an additional 20 million bushels of wheat. Our judgment at that time has been proven correct. We foresaw the need to maximise the Australian wheat crop and we cooperated with the Australian wheat industry, its leaders and the wheat growers. As a result of that, in all probability we will be producing this year the biggest wheat crop Australia has ever seen and one that will bring to the wheat grower the greatest return in the history of this country.

We also reopened opportunities in China, a market which had been cut off to Australian primary producers through sheer political expediency on the part of the previous Government. What did the previous Government do to arrest the drift of population from rural areas to the urban areas of Australia? From 1 960 to 1 970 the rural population declined by 50 per cent from 3 1 per cent to 14 per cent of the Australian population. What did the previous Government do to arrest that drift? Precisely nothing. We have come into office and in the very first Budget have sought an appropriation of $36m to commence a program of building regional growth centres in the non-urban areas for the purpose of creating opportunities in rural areas for the younger people. It is obvious that the continuing decline in rural population will not be arrested simply by trying to keep people down on the farm. We have to create other opportunities for them and that is one of the most important initiatives that has been taken for many years on behalf of primary producers and people living in rural areas in this country.

Another dramatic step taken by this Governmnt was the cutting of tariffs. Primary producer organisations for years have maintained that the protection afforded to secondary industry by Liberal-Country Party governments was too much. They were quite right and they had a legitimate argument. But despite the fact that they argued for a reduction of those tariffs, it took the Labor Party to come along before anything was done about it. We reduced the tariffs by 25 per cent. In his report on the formation of the Australian Industries Commission, which is another achievement I could mention, Sir John Crawford calculated that $3,000m worth of protection was being afforded to secondary industry in Australia. If that figure is correct, and it has been claimed by primary industry groups to be correct, we have taken away possibly $600m or $700m worth of protection from secondary industry. If we allow only one-sixth of that benefit to flow to rural industries in Australia, this Government in one stroke has given them something which they had sought for years from the Liberal-Country Party government but which they were never granted. This is one of the most legitimate requests they could have made.

We are not going to perpetuate policies of sec.tionalising the Australian community and playing the rural people off against the urban people. We are not going to pull money in from the taxpayer, whether he is a primary producer or an urban dweller, simply to buttress some industries that cannot stand on their own feet. By the very action we have taken in tariffs we are encouraging secondary industries to be more efficient so that they in turn can provide better products at cheaper prices to primary producers. The same applies to rural production. These are steps that should have been taken years ago. We will not follow the practice of playing one section of the Australian community off against the other and that is why we have done so much and taken great initiatives in the areas of health, education and social security in this Budget, steps which will be of benefit to all Australians.

Senator Wilkinson:

– Including the primary producers.

Senator WRIEDT:

– Including the primary producers.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Brown)- Order! Mr Minister, I think I should intrude just briefly. A tremendous amount of latitude is provided in the Senate during the course of a debate- quite frankly, I think it is more than is reasonable- to both sides of the chamber. I concede, Mr Minister, that you had some right to answer the broad sweep of the points raised by the Opposition but I do request you to concentrate on the subject matter of the Bills.

Senator WRIEDT:

-Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I will now devote my attention to the specific subject matter of the Bills. The purpose of the legislation is to recoup the costs of the Commonwealth meat inspection service and the tuberculosis and brucellosis eradication campaign. For many years the Commonwealth has in fact been standing the cost of the Commonwealth meat inspection service. The point was made earlier, I think by Senator O’Byrne, that no doubt there was a time when this was fully justifiedwe know that primary producers go through their ups and downs- and it was necessary not to make that impost on the industry. But I think it is reasonable to say now that because of the buoyancy of this industry it should meet these costs. We do not have the intention of imposing something on the industry which it cannot bear. If it could not bear this cost we would not be imposing it. I should emphasise the point that we are making the charge on the exporter, not on the producer. The charge has been calculated in such a fashion as to ensure that there will be a proper recovery of all these charges which presently are being carried by the Australian Government. It is quite wrong to suggest, as several Opposition senators have done, that there is some intent on the part of the Government to deceive the industry and that more money will actually be collected than expended. It would be impossible to make a precise calculation as to what those costs will be to the industry. We can make an approximate calculation. We believe we have done that. It may be that at the end of 12 months we will find that some excess amount has been collected through the levy. The opposite may be the case.

Senator Webster:

– What are the calculations which you have made?

Senator WRIEDT:

– The calculations have been made, I think, quite accurately. Reference has been made to the Coombs report and what it contained. But I point out to honourable senatorsI think it was pointed out before- that in fact the Coombs report did not cover all the costs involved. I dealt only with a period of one year. The projections which have been made in this legislation cover a period of 3 years and they allow for the escalations which we can assume will take place both in the normal costs of operating the scheme and in the volume of exports. All indications are that the volume of exports will increase quite markedly because the market is so sound that we can look forward to years of buoyancy in the meat export industry. So let me assure honourable senators- Senator Webster invited me to comment on this point- that the moneys collected by the imposition of this levy will not be paid into Consolidated Revenue. If there is an excess involved it will be ploughed back into this very important activity to ensure the maximum standards of hygiene in the Australian meat industry and the eradication of these 2 diseases.

It is absolutely vital if we want a future for the industry, especially in the American market, that we make the maximum effort. I think my own State of Tasmania is an example, as was mentioned earlier, of a case in which a responsible approach was taken over the years in the eradication of these 2 diseases by the Department of Agriculture in that State and by a very enlightened approach by the primary producers of Tasmania. As a result Tasmania now is virtually free of these diseases. If the mainland States were to achieve that result I am sure that nobody would disagree with our efforts in trying to achieve that end.

A comment was made about the future of Commonwealth and State meat inspection services. I should say that this is a matter which will come up for discussion at the forthcoming meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council. At that meeting we will be looking at the possibility of changes being effected in the present system because at the present time there are problems of overlapping of work between the Commonwealth and the States in this area. We hope that we can work out some scheme which will be more efficient and which will be more effective so far as the industry is concerned. But I want to come back to the point made by Senator McLaren, who I think made the pertinent point in this debate when he said that the industry is not opposed to the imposition of a charge on export meat inspections. I have received an avalanche of telegrams- about 800- expressing thoughts about the proposition of an export tax imposed on meat interfering with the normal flow of meat from Australia. But I have not received one telegram or one communication from the industry complaining about the imposition of this export levy, the purpose of which is to cover the cost of meat inspection, because the industry knows that this levy will have no effect whatsoever on putting meat back on to the Australian market.

It is futile to suggest, as was suggested by one Opposition senator, that the purpose of the tax was to bring meat back on to the Australian market. Because of the amounts involved, it could not possibly have that effect. What the industry and, I am sure, primary producers in Australia are looking for is a lead in this direction. As one honourable senator said- I think it was Senator Little- the Parliament is here to lead, not to be led, and the people want initiatives to be shown to them. We are taking this initiative because we know, as the primary producers know and the whole meat industry knows, that we have to overcome this problem of brucellosis and tuberculosis. I am sure that the industry will give the maximum co-operation in relation to this levy. If our attentions are directed correctly, we could see a stage in perhaps 5 or 10 years time when at least one of these diseases will be eradicated altogether.

I wish to make a brief comment now about compensation, to which Senator Lillico referred. This is another area in which this Government took an initiative. Prior to our advent to power the previous Administration had refused to take part in a compensation plan to be applied to cattle which had been slaughtered as a result of contracting these diseases. When I was first made aware of this problem it was quite evident that a compensation plan was essential if the scheme was to be successful. As a result the Australian Government has appropriated $ 1 m this year for that purpose. We will be compensating the owners of cattle on a flat rate of $50 a head for cattle destroyed through having contracted tuberculosis or brucellosis.

Senator Lillico:

– Fifty dollars is not half their value.

Senator WRIEDT:

– That is much more than the Government of which the honourable senator was a supporter was prepared to give them, anyway. I come now to some comments that were made about the recent drop in meat prices in the United States. It is true that prices in the United States have fallen, but this has been due to a specific factor, namely, the fact that after the 12 September freeze had finished in the United States the primary producers of that country resumed their normal flow of meat on to the American market. That, of course, has had an impact which has caused an aberration from the normal market price. That fact ought to be recognised. The result in fact has been that prices on the American market have settled down to a more normal level, and this is probably a good indication of where the level of prices will lie, we hope, for some considerable period in the future.

I understand that during the Committee stage amendments will be moved. One suggested amendment concerns the method by which the calculation is being made. I think Senator Little expressed some concern about this matter. This way is the most reliable way by which these moneys can be collected. If we are to enter into an Australia wide campaign, a stepped up campaign and one which will embrace all States, it is necessary to have a fairly accurate projection of how much money will be available. This is a more effective and more reliable way of ensuring that that finance will be available. For that reason the Government has decided that it should use the method referred to in the Bill.

The only other point to which I wish to refer once again is the concern about the level of incomes of primary producers. I emphasise that this tax or levy is not on the primary producers, it is on the meat exporters. I do not think that anyone would say that meat exporters are having such a bad time at present. The future of the industry looks extremely good, provided that we can ensure that the diseases are eradicated or kept under control and that the standards of hygiene can be maintained. I commend the Bills to the Senate. I think that they will be of great benefit to the meat industry. I am sure that, if they are given effect, in the years ahead Australia will have a much more efficient and a much more buoyant meat industry than it has had in the past.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 5- by leave- taken together.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I have a query in relation to clause 5, which states:

  1. Charge is not payable on-

    1. meat consisting or food of a kind that is declared by the regulations to be exempt from charge, being food prepared wholly or partly from, or containing, the flesh or other edible portions of cattle, sheep, goats or pigs; or
    2. meat included in a class of meat declared by the regulations to be a class of meat that is exempt from charge.

The operation of that clause will mean that, by regulation, a type of food or a class of meat can be exempted from the charge. I ask the Minister for Primary Industry (Senator Wriedt) to indicate the kinds of food and the classes of meat which are contemplated as possibly being made the subject of regulations for exemption. It is quite obvious that the ambit of a charge such as this and its importance can be reduced or removed by a wholesale exemption. I would appreciate the Minister’s indication of what is envisaged.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Primary Industry · Tasmania · ALP

– Clause 5 allows sufficient flexibility in case a particular instance arises in which it would not be appropriate to make the charge. The only example that I could nominate at the moment would be ships stores. The clause would refer more to that type of food than to actual types of meat. The exemption possibly would arise on other occasions when it would not be appropriate for this charge to be levied. That is the reason why the clause is inserted.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I dispute the instance given by the Minister as being food of a kind ‘ or ‘ a class of meat ‘. It is simple to say that ships stores would possibly be one kind of export, but they may include all classes of meat and all kinds of food. I am sure that there must be contemplated ‘food of a kind’ or ‘a class of meat’ if this clause is inserted because it will have the effect of exempting the ‘food of a kind’ or ‘a class of meat’ from the charge. The clause has a definite purpose. If it is intended that there shall be exempt goods that are subject to disease or something of that sort, I would not think that this clause is an appropriate type of clause. I am not sure whether the meat subject to the charge may be kangaroo meat or something of this sort. Surely we could have an indication of what is contemplated as the possible subject of regulations for exemption.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Primary Industry · Tasmania · ALP

– I am unable to give a specific answer to the question which Senator Wright raised. I think that as a matter of principle there ought to be some flexibility permitted in the Bill, otherwise the charge automatically would apply to any meat which is to be exported. I do not think the exemptions can be specified at this stage.

Clauses agreed to.

Clause 6.

  1. The rate of the charge is-

    1. in respect of meat to which this section applies, being meat included in a prescribed class of such meat- such rate, being less than 1.6c for each pound of meat exported, as is prescribed in respect of that class of meat; and
    2. in respect of any other meat to which this section applies- 1.6c for each pound of meat exported.
Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia

– I move:

The impost is not a light one. The impost on a lightweight carcass, a 500 lb beef carcass, at1c per lb is $5 or $8 at 1.6c per lb. On an 800 lb carcass, at 1 . 6c per lb it is an impost of $12.80. The impost is not a light one to the beef producers. In many instances it is greater than their transport charge from the place of raising the cattle to the point of sale. So I can see no reason why the charge should be higher than the amount which would cover the estimated expenditure for which these levy moneys are being provided. Before I proceed to cite some figures that I gave in my earlier remarks during the debate at the second reading stage, I state that I am intrigued with the Minister’s reference- he has said this a couple of times today- that the charge is on the exporter and not on the producer. He stated this very clearly during the second reading speech also. I do not agree with him. I refute this idea that the exporter will pay. It will most certainly be a debit to the producer. I read the following words in the second reading speech of the Minister:

Clearly there is every justification for charging for the export inspection service instead of perpetuating a position in which the overseas consumer is subsidised from Consolidated Revenue.

The overseas consumer is not being subsidised. The producer- the seller- receives so much less for his beast because of the requirement of the exporter to meet a given charge. Certainly, the charge will not subsidise the price to the consumer on the overseas market. I wish to cite some figures which have been taken from the estimates of the Bureau of AgriculturalEconomics. On the estimates of production of meats which will be subject to this charge of 1 . 6c per lb over the next 3-year period, $85m will be raised. I point out that I gave these figures earlier and they are in Hansard.

Senator Wright:

– Let us have them again.

Senator LAUCKE:

– Allowing for a 25 per cent annual growth factor in production, the cost of inspections this year would be about $ 14.5 m. In 1974- 75 the cost would be $ 17.9m, and in 1975- 76 it would be $22.4m. These figures add up to a total charge of $54.8m on meat production. I point out that these are the estimates of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. The income received from a levy of 1 . 6c per lb would give a balance of $30.2 m at that point before the deduction was made to meet the eradication cost of brucellosis and tuberculosis. On the basis of needing $5m a year for eradication purposes, and thus $ 15m for the 3-year period, at the 1.6c per lb levy rate we have $ 15m remaining.

Senator Little:

– That certainly will not go back to the producer.

Senator LAUCKE:

-That is the point. If the levy were lc per lb as I propose under this amendment the result would be to have pretty well a line ball. I see no reason why the producer’s money should be held by some other party or authority unnecessarily -

Senator Little:

– It would be tying up money which would help them to pay the interest on their overdrafts.

Senator LAUCKE:

– It is a very important amount of money that is involved. I feel that it is related very much to the cost to the producer. When the position is taken in this light: In many instances- perhaps in most- the cost of transport of the beast within Australia will be equated by the amount taken from the producer through this levy. The producer in the centre of Australia away from the distant markets markets heavy beasts. The cost to such a producer per head of cattle is very high and the incidence of the charge at 1.6c per lb would be possibly the same as the transport cost for the beast. So this represents a big impost on the producer.

Senator Little:

-Surely he would be entitled to an interest rate of 10 per cent if it is left laying idle in the Government ‘s coffers.

Senator LAUCKE:

-That is what it would cost him for his money. I have pleasure in moving this amendment. I feel that it is realistic. It is in the best interests of producers and it is a fair amendment. It is one to which I feel the Government should not object because the revenue collected under it should approximate the needs of the Government to meet the cost of both inspection and eradication for the period covered by the legislation

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

– I will ask the Minister for Primary Industry (Senator Wriedt) 2 questions and then resume my seat. Can he explain to me how he endorses his statement that this charge will be paid by exporters and will not fall back on to the producers? I ask him to explain to the Committee the method by which the collection will be made and how an exporter will be able to assess the cost. Undoubtedly, we would all agree that the amount of $85m will not be just plucked out of thin air. Somebody has to provide the money from somewhere. If it is to be provided from surpluses on trading, undoubtedly the charge will be applied to the beast when it is purchased. I ask the Minister to describe to honourable senators in actual fact how the calculations will be made for this collection.

The other point which I ask the Minister to explain to the Committee relates to the figures that he says will demonstrate the surpluses. What are the calculations that he or his Department have made to assess accurately the surpluses which will be available at the end of the 3-year period?

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Primary Industry · Tasmania · ALP

– As I indicated when I spoke earlier during the second reading debate on the Bill, it is not possible to say that there will be a precise return from collections or a precise figure for expenditure. What my Department has done has been to calculate a figure as near as it possibly could on projections of the export of meat and the escalations in the cost of inspections during the 3 years ahead. I do not think it is reasonable that the Government should be expected to be any more accurate than that. What we are concerned about is to have a program operating over 3 years whereby we know approximately at least what it will cost and to make the levy as near to that figure as we can. I now deal with the first part of Senator Webster’s question- I think the matter was raised also by Senator Laucke- about the cost being passed on to the producer. This is a matter which must be determined by market conditions operating at the time. If market conditions are very strong as they have been recently, it is almost certain that that cost, if it is to be passed on by the exporter to anyone, will be passed on to the buyer overseas. In the reverse situation, it is possible that it could be passed back to the producer. It would be quite futile to suggest that this could not be done. That would be unrealistic and I did not say that in the first place. I said that the charge, as far as the legislation is concerned, will be on the exporter.

Insofar as the general tenor of the amendment is concerned, I can make only this comment: The Government will oppose it because I believe that it is attempting to do the very thing which we should not do but which has been done for so long in respect to this matter, namely, to run away from the reality of the position. Certain States have not faced up to the problem of eradication in this country. We now face that legacy in trying to catch up. I say that if the Opposition feels that it is worth reducing this levy by the 0.6c suggested in the amendment instead of facing up to the reality of the situation, and if the campaign is not successful in the years ahead, it will be due to the Opposition demanding that this reduction be made. If ever there was a proper time to introduce legislation of this nature it is now while the market is good and looks like remaining good for the immediate years ahead. If we want to interfere now with the prospects that have been outlined in the legislation, then I suggest it is on the head of the Opposition for taking the action that it is proposing to take in this amendment.

Senator YOUNG:
South Australia

– Following the Minister’s remarks, I should like to ask him a question concerning the following statement in the second reading speech:

The charge … has been calculated by dividing the estimated expenditure on export meat insepection over the period 1 July 1973 to 30 June 1976, by the estimated quantity of meat that will be exported over the 33-month period . . .

We have a rather specific statement, with the exception that no figure is given. But the Minister, in reply to Senator Laucke and Senator Webster, stated quite emphatically that if this charge of 0.6c per lb were omitted, the Opposition would be responsible for what happened. Therefore, I assume from the Minister’s statement that he must have some idea, firstly, of what he expects the export meat inspection charge will be over this 3-year period and, secondly, of what will be expended on brucellosis. Last night during the sittings of the Estimates Committee certain figures were given for the eradication of both tuberculosis and brucellosis. I ask the Minister whether he could give the Committee what his estimate is, because an estimate must have been made. Otherwise, why did we arrive at this mystical figure of 1 .6c per lb? Why was it not 1.5c or 1.7c per lb? There is a reason for this figure of 1.6c per lb. I am asking the Minister to give us that reason. In other words, can he give us the estimate of expenditure for both export meat inspection and the eradication of brucellosis. The second question I ask is: How are the funds to be allocated for the eradication of brucellosis? Does the Commonwealth intend to do this alone through the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, or does it intend to do it by making an allocation to the States? How will this money be applied?

Senator LITTLE:
Victoria

– I will say a few words now because I wish to speak on the same matter and it will facilitate the debate if the Minister replies to both Senator Young and me. As the members of the Australian Democratic Labor Party have heard the debate on this amendment up to this point, we are prepared to support the amendment. Senator Laucke has quoted estimations based on what seem to be authentic figures. We have as yet had no response from the Minister to justify the figure that to some extent appears to have been plucked out of the air.

Senator Laucke ‘s figures seem to indicate that there could be a surplus of $ 15m at the end of 3 years, and I am very serious when I say that if $ 15m of growers’ money is to be tied up by the Government over a period of 3 years, the growers are entitled to receive interest on it. The money should not be placed in a trust fund and the growers should not be told, like the holders of savings bank accounts of less than $4,000 were told, that they can whistle for any increased rate of interest; that they are not going to get it but that the big men in the country will get it. For those reasons I should like the Minister to be very specific when he replies because at this point of time we feel disposed to vote for the amendment.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Primary Industry · Tasmania · ALP

– To answer Senator Little’s point first, reference was made to what the figures of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics had revealed before the Committee. The Bureau did not quote figures. The Opposition’s argument is based on a false premise. The only costs that honourable senators opposite can possibly talk about are those which were quoted in the Coombs report which referred, for example, to a 12-month projection. As I have said, this is a 3-year projection, and this is where the difference lies. A false picture is being painted and it is unfortunate that apparently up to now Senator Little has accepted that argument.

The charge of 1.6c per lb on exports of meat consists of 2 pans. One is related to meat inspection, which is lc per lb, and the other 0.6c per lb is related to the eradication campaign. For meat from sheep, lambs, goats and pigs the charge is lc per lb and it is to recoup the cost of export meat inspection alone. The charge of 1.6c per lb on exports of beef and veal was obtained by adding the estimated cost of export inspection for beef and veal to the eradication costs- that is a total of $65m over 3 years- and dividing that figure by the estimate of beef and veal exports over the 33-month period- that is 1.8 million tons shipped weight. The charge of lc per lb for other meats was obtained by dividing the inspection costs of $14m by the estimated volume of exports- that is 608,500 tons shipped weight of those meats.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Senator WRIEDT:

– Prior to the suspension of the sitting I was outlining the precise method whereby the Government had arrived at its figures and the expected cost over the 3-year period. I was making the point that this is a 3-year calculation and not a 1 -year calculation. It seems that there may be some confusion because I suspect that the figure that has been arrived at by some members of the Opposition suggests that the weights on which they have made their calculation are in fact carcass weights whereas in fact the calculation should be made on shipped weight. If that is the case I think this is where the confusion arises; this is the reason for the discrepancy between the figures quoted by the Opposition and the figures quoted by the Government.

I reiterate the point that I made earlier that representatives of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics who appeared before the Estimates Committee did not quote specific tonnages. They indicated an anticipated increase in beef tonnages for the year 1973-74 over the year 1972-73 of approximately 25 per cent- an increase in beef production and a decline in mutton production. But they did not quote the figures which have been claimed, as I understand some speakers on the Opposition side, as the actual tonnages of shipped weight. I would like clarification myself from the Opposition as to whether in fact this is what has happened. If what I have outlined is the case and confusion has occurred then this would account for the discrepancy which exists.

Senator YOUNG:
South Australia

– I would still like the Minister for Primary Industry (Senator Wriedt) to tell me what was the estimate for research into brucellosis over a 3-year period. Also could he give me an estimate of the cost of meat inspection for export purposes. I was not referring to tonnages when I spoke before the suspension of the sitting. I was requesting that we be provided with the figure of the estimate because it was spelt out very clearly in the Minister’s second reading speech that this estimate had been based on a 3-year term allowing for increases in exports and that a levy of 1.6c was placed against this estimate. My query was why was the figure specifically calculated at 1 .6c if the Minister did not have a specific estimate that he could put to this Committee?

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-To enable the Minister for Primary Industry (Senator Wriedt) to clarify this matter more clearly I rise to point out that Senator Laucke said during the debate on this legislation this afternoon that the yield of this tax at the rate of 1.6c per lb over a 3-year period, allowing for the increase in the export quantity, would amount to $85m. It was stated that the inspection cost over the same 3-year period, allowing for increasing costs of inspection, would amount to $54.8m, or near enough to $55m. That means that the levy of 1 .6c imposed by this Bill will in a 3-year period bring in $30m in excess of the actual inspection cost after allowing for the escalation of costs to which we have become experienced in the Commonwealth Public Service.

Now let me turn to the cost of the campaign for the eradication of tuberculosis and brucellosis in the beef industry. Dr Coombs in his report does not confine himself to next month or next year but to 3 years. He estimates the cost of eradication of bovine brucellosis and tuberculosis in the next 3 years at $ 16.5 m. This means that if we take the bovine brucellosis and tuberculosis cost out of the excess of $30m the Government is still making a profit of $15m. That is, $30m excess, less the cost of the brucellosis campaign of $ 16.5m, which leaves $ 1 3.5m; but taking the incidentals into account it would amount to $15m. That does not square with the statement which the Minister for Primary Industry made on the last intervention. On a matter of this sort that is a deplorable display on the part of the Department of Primary Industry. We have figures from the Bureau of Agricultural Economics which is a section of the Department of Primary Industry. The Minister, when asked to explain these matters, does not readily accept those figures and reconcile them with his calculation.

I rise briefly to state in simple terms that on the calculation of” 1.6c per lb the yield is $85m. The expectation of cost of inspection, allowing for escalation of cost according to all Commonwealth Public Service ambitions, is $5 5m. There is a surplus of $30m, only $16.5m of which is absorbed in the brucellosis campaign. That estimation cannot be accepted by a responsible Senate for the purpose of imposing taxation upon the people generally, much less for the purpose of imposing taxation upon a specific industry.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

-The Minister for Primary Industry (Senator Wriedt) will be aware that this is the third occasion on which I have put to him a request that he give us the figures which Senator Wright has requested of him. From 4 o’clock this afternoon until now we have been requesting the Minister, on behalf of the people who have returned us to this Senate, to describe to us the estimate of the surplus of the amount collected from this levy and the amount which will be applied to the 2 areas which the Bill is intended to cover. I do not think there is any particular reason why we should delay the Bill and point out the areas which it is intended to cover.

Senator Poyser:

– Why does not the honourable senator sit down. He just loves to talk.

Senator WEBSTER:

-Senator Wright has expressed the matter. Senator Poyser interjects with his usual brilliance. He obtains his knowledge from the back of a bus ticket. And we know that there is no information on the back of a bus ticket these days. Certainly the Minister, with his 2 advisers, should have this information readily in front of him. We want to know on behalf of the people who will be paying this levy what is the estimated excess. Is it, in fact, as the Bureau of Agricultural Economics would perhaps throw up in its figures, in the vicinity of $ 15m surplus within 3 years? If it is about $15m it is very important both to producers and exporters to know not only what is the amount but also what the Government intends to do with it. Does the Government intend to expand the bureaucracy so that it will be sapped up and lost, or will the Minister say as he indicated to a meeting of the Estimates Committee F last evening, that we can be assured that it will not go into Consolidated

Revenue but will be used to assist the industry? If that is the situation, we want to know what assistance this will be. Does the Minister intend to have laboratories built in all the killing centres? I do not know that the beef industry has any particular interest in financing such laboratories. I plead with the Minister, if he wishes to see this Bill put through fairly quickly, to answer not only myself but also Senator Wright, Senator Young and Senator Little who have progressively asked him this simple question.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Primary Industry · Tasmania · ALP

– I have endeavoured to explain this on 3 occasions to Senator Webster, who keeps coming back with his question because he does not seem to be able to comprehend what I have been saying. Before the suspension of the sitting I read out in clearest terms the exact reasons for the calculations.

Senator McAuliffe:

– He is thick in the head.

Senator WRIEDT:

– Yes, it probably takes time to get through but if need be I will read it again. I have invited the Opposition, and Senator Wright in particular, as he is again taking up this same argument, to tell me what is the 3.3 million tons to which Senator Laucke referred. Is it production tonnage or shipped weight? Now, can you tell me that? If we can get that answer from honourable senators opposite we can clarify the position. If it is production tonnage then I say with great respect to Senator Wright that he is wrong, because 100 lb of carcass weight is equivalent to only 66 lb of shipped weight. This is where the alleged surplus comes in. You must make the calculation on shipped weight, not carcass weight because 90 per cent of exports is boneless meat. I hope I do not have to go over it again. I sincerely hope that Senator Little is absorbing these figures because it is unfortunate that he has been misled by erroneous figures which have been given by the Opposition in the course of this debate.

Senator Little:

– Tell us about the surplus.

Senator WRIEDT:

– There will not be a surplus anything like the surplus suggested by the Opposition. As I have indicated it would be impossible to make a precise calculation because of the fact that we are making a 3-year projection which is necessary to conduct the campaign. The question was asked by Senator Young: What are the precise amounts over the 3-year period? That involves $21m on the brucellosis and tuberculosis campaign, $43m for inspection of beef and veal, and $14m is made up of inspection costs on other meats.

Senator Wright:

– Would you give those figures again? Was it $43m for beef and veal inspection.

Senator WRIEDT:

-Yes, and SI 4m on other meats. Those calculations have been made on a shipped weight basis. Senator Webster also asked about the allocation of the funds. The allocation procedure will remain the same as has obtained in the past; that is that the funds are allocated by the Australian Government through the Commonwealth and States Veterinary Committee which is a combined body of Commonwealth and State officers and a standing committee of the Agricultural Council. The States conduct the field campaign, the co-ordination of which is planned by the Commonwealth and States Veterinary Committee which consists, as I said, of representatives of the States and the Commonwealth. I would not envisage that the actual procedures whereby these moneys will be expended would change. This being the third time I have been through this exercise I hope that by this time members of the Opposition understand why they think a discrepancy exists.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

– I just want to say to the Minister for Primary Industry (Senator Wriedt): Thank you very much. The Hansard record will show that it was in the speech you have just made that you gave us for the first time the figures of $21m, $43m and $14m. On a quick calculation, that means that a total of $78m is expected to be expended from the moneys collected by the imposition of the proposed 1.6c per lb. I suggest that the figures mentioned previously, $80m to $85m, are a fair calculation of what is expected to be collected by this levy within 3 years. I accept the Minister’s assurance that the figures he submitted to the Senate are the figures which the Coombs report, the Bureau of Agricultural Economics and the Department he represents have submitted.

Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia

– I believe the situation is that the Minister for Primary Industry (Senator Wriedt) cannot give a firm indication- a watertight indication- of what the receipts will be. I understand that the figures given in the past have been based on the weight of shipped meat and that that is the basis on which the figures have been presented today. Therefore in that situation I think we should proceed to a vote on the amendment I proposed and I suggest that the matter be determined by the Committee.

Question put:

That the House of Representatives be requested to leave out the figures and words proposed to be left out (Senator Laucke’s amendment).

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Senator Prowse)

AYES: 26

NOES: 19

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Question put:

That the House of Representatives be requested to insert the figures and words proposed to be inserted (Senator Laucke’s amendment).

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Senator Prowse)

AYES: 26

NOES: 19

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Prowse:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Order! The question now is: ‘That the clause be agreed to subject to the request being complied with ‘.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Remainder of the Bill- by leave- taken as a whole.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I direct the attention of the Committee to clause 7 which reads:

  1. 1 ) This section applies to meat other than meat to which section 6 applies.

If we look back to clause 6, we find, as I interpret it, that the emphasis and the focus are on exported cattle meat. Clause 7 states that this section applies to other meats, which I interpret to mean meat other than cattle meat. Clause 7 then goes on:

  1. The rate of the charge is-

    1. in respect of meat to which this section applies, being meat included in a prescribed class of such meat- such rate, being less than 1 cent for each pound of meat exported, as is prescribed. . . .

I want the Minister for Primary Industry (Senator Wriedt) to give his interpretation of this clause. As I interpret it, it provides for an imposition for the first time of a lc levy on all exported meat other than cattle meat, that is, other than beef and veal. To me, that comes as a surprise. If that is the correct application of clause 7, the charge prescribed is confined to meat included in a prescribed class. I wish to know the intention in formulating regulations prescribing the class of meat and the possible classes of meat which are to be defined by the regulations as subject to this tax of lcper lb.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Primary Industry · Tasmania · ALP

-The Bill is intended to place an export inspection charge on all meats. Clause 6 which applies to cattle, imposes a charge which includes a cost of 0.6c per lb for the eradication of brucellosis and tuberculosis. That cost does not apply to the meat referred to in clause 7, but the lc per lb charge on export meat still applies in respect of the meat referred to in the clause-that is, sheep, lambs, goats and pigs.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I am obliged to the Minister for Primary Industry (Senator Wriedt) for his reply. Will he oblige me further by stating the intention in relation to the prescribing of a class of meat which is the subject matter of the charge referred to in clause 7? What class of meat is it intended to describe by regulation?

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Primary Industry · Tasmania · ALP

– The clause simply provides that a lower rate shall be struck by regulation if need be. The intention is not written into the Act. The application of a lower rate would be done by regulation. That is the only explanation I can give the honourable senator.

Remainder of the Bill agreed to.

Bill reported with a request; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Sentator Wriedt) read a third time.

page 1127

MEAT EXPORT CHARGE COLLECTION BILL 1973

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 25 September (vide page 820), on motion by Senator Wriedt:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3.

In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears - exporter’ includes a State and an authority of a State; meat’ means the flesh and other edible portions of cattle, sheep, goats and pigs, and includes food (other than lard, margarine or tallow) prepared wholly or partly from or containing the flesh or other edible portions of cattle, sheep, goats or pigs; month ‘ means a month of the year.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– Under this Bill and authorised person has many functions. The term ‘authorised person’ has a more extensive definition in this Bill than I am accustomed to seeing in legislation of this character. We are all aware that an authorised person may do various things and is appointed by the Minister for Primary Industry (Senator Wriedt). Of course, that provision is contained in subclause (a) but this Bill goes further. It is stated in subclause (6) that an authorised person is: a person included in a class of persons appointed by the Minister, in writing, to be authorised persons for the purpose of this Act;

The Minister could, in writing, appoint every officer of the Department to be an authorised person. That would be sufficient to enable a bureaucratic rampage of a character by which we would all be offended. I draw the attention of the Committee to that provision only because in subsequent provisions of this Bill it becomes highly significant.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Leader of the Australian Country Party in the Senate · Western Australia

– I have circulated an amendment in my name, and I move it as follows:

After the definition of ‘exporter’ insert the following definition: “export meat inspection costs “means all expenses incurred in qualifying meat for export through procedures for which Australia is financially responsible; ‘.

I take this procedure because I want to move a further amendment at a later stage whereby all the revenue from this levy would be paid into a trust account. I think a rather unusual practice is provided for in that meat inspection officials of the Department of Pimary Industry are being paid by the Department. That has happened before and it will happen in the future. However, in the conduct of this operation, the meat inspectors work at constantly differing times of the day. As a result they incur overtime. The overime is paid on behalf of the exporters by the Department of Primary Industry but the exporters pay the money to the Department to be paid to the inspectors. With the introduction of this levy the exporters are being slugged again because not only do they have to pay the overtime but also they have to pay the levy.

Senator Wilkinson:

– Where does it say that?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– I am just telling the honourable senator what happens in practice.

Senator Wilkinson:

– On this point of the overtime, that is paid by the exporter and not paid for by the Department.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– It is paid by the exporter to the Department to be paid to the inspector.

Senator Wilkinson:

– But only in relation to the levy; not as an extra.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– I am talking about overtime now. Senator Laucke previously was talking about excessive levies. I believe that it would be a good thing if, instead of charging this excessive levy, the Department paid the overtime for the meat inspectors. I believe it would be much better administratively if this could happen. When we look at this question of the meat levy I think most honourable senators think about the paying of wages of the inspection stall. This involves a lot more than paying the wages of the inspection staff. It involves also travelling expenses, subsistence allowance, compensation, clothing allowance, training courses and equipment. In my speech during the second reading debate I referred to the new laboratory that is being established. If producers are to be responsible for meeting the cost of setting up this laboratory, I want to know what return the producers will receive.

We also find that the levy is to be used for paying any other expenses related to the inspection. I have moved my amendment because I want all costs, including overtime, to be paid out of the levy. I have moved this amendment so that I can move another amendment which seeks to set up a trust account. That is the sole purpose in my moving the amendment in this form. All I am asking is that after the definition of ‘exporter’ in clause 3 a definition relating to export meat inspection costs should be inserted. I hope that the Committee will support my amendment so that later I will be able to move another amendment which seeks to set up a trust account.

Senator WILKINSON:
Western Australia

– This is rather peculiar. I am not the Minister, although the former Minister, Senator Drake-Brockman, continued to look at me while he was speaking to his amendment. I should like some explanation so that I am clear as to what he is doing. It has always been my impression that definitions explain a word or words which appear in an Act. Clause 3 states: ‘In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears’ such and such means so and so. I am just wondering whether the phrase ‘export meat inspection costs’ will occur in the Act. I do not think it will. If Senator Drake-Brockman wants a further provision included in the Bill, I cannot see that he can do it by moving this amendment. I should like some further explanation from him as to what is intended. Perhaps I am quite wrong in my interpretation, but it seems to me that Senator Drake-Brockman is attempting to insert into the Act a definition which will not refer to any word or words appearing in the Act.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-I suggest that Senator Wilkinson’s problem will be solved by referring to proposed new clause 4c ( 1 ) in the draft amendments which have been circulated by Senator Drake-Brockman. As

Senator Drake-Brockman himself adumbrated, the amendment, when moved, will seek to provide that moneys standing to the credit of the trust account may be expended with the approval of the Minister in payment of export meat inspection costs, the expression that is now being defined. That means that the amount in the trust account is limited to the costs as defined in this definition.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Primary Industry · Tasmania · ALP

– It is quite true, as Senator Drake-Brockman has indicated, that it has been the practice in the past for salaries of inspectors to be met by the Department and overtime charges then to be charged to the exporter, not to the producer. What should be mentioned is that there is a difference in many instances between overtime that is paid in respect of specific meat inspections- that is, on carcasses- and other matters related to the meat inspection service for which overtime may be paid. I think it would be a mistake if this was to be confused, which is what the amendment would do. For that reason I believe it is best that the Bill be left as it is without this clause being inserted. Otherwise confusion will arise in relation to overtime worked by people engaged specifically on the inspection of meat and those doing other overtime work.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Leader of the Australian Country Party in the Senate · Western Australia

– I am not satisfied with the answer given by the Minister for Primary Industry (Senator Wriedt) because in practice the exporter who will be levied this amount will then find himself up for overtime. I do not care what the Minister says, but the cost of overtime will be traced right back to the producer irrespective of who pays it because the exporter will recoup this amount by paying the producer a lesser price for his cattle. The Minister says that the importer can recoup this cost from the buyer overseas. But how will he do this if he sells his exports by forward selling? So to my mind the cost will fall on the producer. All I am trying to get on the statute book is a clear definition of who is responsible for the payment of these moneys because later when we set up the trust account we will want to know, as Senator Wright has already indicated, who will be responsible under proposed new clause 4C of the Bill.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Primary Industry · Tasmania · ALP

– I just want to make the point again that if we did what Senator Drake-Brockman suggests we would have confusion as to who would pay this levy. In other words, the honourable senator is suggesting that a levy be imposed on overtime which at this stage he cannot calculate. The amount of overtime will vary from one establishment to another. Yet, the honourable senator is asking for overtime to be paid in an establishment where in fact no overtime or very little overtime might be worked. That is the imposition that the amendment put forward by the honourable senator would place on certain establishments.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-That argument is completely erroneous. The proposition of Senator Drake-Brockman now before the Committee concerns the definition of export meat inspection costs. The honourable senator most fairly and all too generously from the point of view of revenue has submitted that export meat inspection costs means all expenses incurred in qualifying meat for export through procedures for which Australia is financially responsible. This would embrace the expenses incurred under every head of qualifying meat for export. I only wish that the Leader of the Australian Country Party in the Senate had confined meat inspection costs to the salaries of inspectors during the time they are actually inspecting export meat. However, to prevent confusion I will go along with his amendment as it stands. I only rise to refute the statement made by the Minister for Primary Industry (Senator Wriedt) and to point out the particularity of the language of the amendment which is simple, clear and generous to the Treasury that export meat inspection costs means all expenses in qualifying meat for export through procedures for which Australia is financially responsible.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be inserted (Senator DrakeBrockman’s amendment) be inserted.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Senator Prowse)

AYES: 27

NOES: 20

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Leader of the Australian Country Party in the Senate · Western Australia

– The second amendment to the Bill is on page 2, clause 3, line 9 and it has been circulated. I move:

If one turns to page 2 of the circulated amendments one will see in clause 4C (2) the words:

The amounts to be fixed from time to time for the purposes of sections 6 and 7 of the Charge Act shall be determined after consideration of the moneys then standing to the credit of the Meat Export Charge Trust Account.

This is a formal motion defining what I mean by the Charge Act.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Primary Industry · Tasmania · ALP

– I make the brief observation that I am not quite sure of the justification for Senator Drake-Brockman moving this amendment. As I understand it, clause 3 of the Meat Export Charge Bill states:

The Meat Export Charge Collection Act 1973 shall be read as one with this Act.

I should have thought that that was sufficient. I presume that those who drafted the Bill thought the same thing. However, it seems more of a technical matter.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– I believe that it is a procedural matter.

Senator WRIEDT:

– It may be.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– If any difficulty arises in the mind of the Minister for Primary Industry (Senator Wriedt) we might get over it if the Committee took amendments 2 and 3 together. Amendment No. 2 is the formal amendment moved by Senator DrakeBrockman. It will have significance only if amendment No. 3 is passed. Therefore, we could take them together. The amendments have been drafted by professional draftsmen, I would detect, by reading them. I do not know anything about who wielded the pen. Taking 2 and 3 together would eliminate any separate contention on amendment No. 2. 1 suggest that we take amendments 2 and 3 together.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Leader of the Australian Country Party in the Senate · Western Australia

– I am quite agreeable to that course. As I stated when I first rose to my feet in relation to these amendments, the first 2 amendments depend on the third amendment which seeks to set up a trust account. The whole exercise involved here is to set up a trust account for the moneys which come by way of levy. Tonight there has been a good deal of argument as to how much this amount will be. The money will be collected over a period of years. This afternoon I understand that the Minister for Primary Industry (Senator Wriedt) when replying to the debate on the second reading stated that these moneys would not be paid into Consolidated Revenue. That is what I am trying to avoid. If the Minister is of that opinion then I believe that these moneys should be paid into a trust account.

I know that there is within the Department of Primary Industry the idea that the Senate Estimates Committees have the opportunity of looking at these moneys, at the revenue which comes in and at the money which is paid out, and that if honourable senators are concerned with this section they can take the opportunity of asking questions of the Minister or the officials of the Department. But I do not believe that we should go through that exercise. I understand that there has been an investigation by the Parliamentary Joint Committee of Public Accounts. It made a recommendation, back in 1957 in its thirtyfourth report, on trust funds. The report stated:

When these accounts merely act as a reserve against unforseen expenditure (that rightly should have been anticipated), or otherwise to cushion the effects of bad estimating, we think them undersirable.

If the Government wants to do that it may do so but I believe those circumstances do not apply in this case. What I am suggesting in the 3 amendments I am moving is that the moneys which come in by way of levy should be paid into a special trust account.

It has been said that a trust account of this type would not be the same as other trust accounts which have been set up by the Department of Primary Industry. But I believe that in the fisheries section there is a trust account which is similar to the one which we propose to set up here. I suggest to the Minister that he consider this amendment. He indicated this afternoon when replying to the second reading debate that these moneys will not go into Consolidated Revenue. I suggest that a trust account is the place for them. What I am asking is that I be given leave by the Committee to take amendents Nos 2 and 3 together.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Prowse:

-Leave has not yet been sought.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– May I ask for leave now?

The CHAIRMAN:

– I would like to hear from Senator Wright who made the suggestion. We are dealing with clause 3, line 9 at the moment. The next amendment relates to clause 4. I suggest, Senator Drake-Brockman, that if you asked for leave for clauses 3 and 4 to be taken together, that would achieve your purpose.

Senator Wright- That is the same thing as asking for amendments 2 and 3 to be taken together. May I have the authority, Senator Drake-Brockman, to ask for leave that clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill or amendments 2 and 3 as circulated be taken together?

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
The CHAIRMAN:

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

Proposed new clauses 4a, 4b, 4c and 4d.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Leader of the Australian Country Party in the Senate · Western Australia

– I move:

Senator O’BYRNE:
Tasmania

– I would like to sound a note of warning to the Committee about these amendments. They may be promoted in all good faith to give an assurance to the producers, and the exporters in particular, because most of these activities will take place after the meat has passed from the farm, the saleyards and the abattoirs into the hands of the exporters. The exporters will be responsible for this levy on behalf of the people of Australia or the Government or whoever we like.

Senator Young:

– Only for the payment, not for the holding of it.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– Yes, for the payment of it.

Senator Young- Senator Drake-Brockman was talking about holding.

Senator O’BYRNE:

-I am talking about the payment of it at the moment. I shall go on to the matter of the holding of it later.

Senator Webster:

– It is not quite as simple. It will be the exporters.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– It will be the exporters. I mention to the honourable senator that the people who are making more money than the growers out of the beef industry today are the exporters. The exporter is sitting astride the meat industry as pretty as he has ever been because he has command of the world market- a scarce world market- and he can buy on our market at a relatively cheap level. People have said to me that Australians do not know how well off they are, how cheap their meat is. It has become too dear for us to buy on our wage level though internationally our beef is the cheapest in the world.

Senator Webster:

– It is good of you to say so.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I am just telling you a fact of life.

Senator Webster:

– Why did your Government try to restrict it if it is the cheapest in the world? Why did you try to do that?

Senator O’BYRNE:

-The exporter is getting the advantage of the great demand for our meat and he is being asked then to pay the minimum. Our advisers - (Honourable senators interjecting)

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Prowse:

-Order! The Senate will come to order. If other senators do not wish to hear the speaker the Chair certainly does.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– Before I was rudely interrupted I was making the point that the exporter has the opportunity to exploit any market in the world that he chooses. There are not many of these exporters. Exporting of our beef is a sort of traditional monopoly and the exporters can pick the eyes out of the world’s market because they have this splendid commodity for which there is a high demand throughout the world. So they are being asked now to get payment from the people overseas who want our beef, who enjoy eating it and who are forcing up the charges for the Australian consumer because of the great demand. Yet Senator Drake-Brockman on behalf of the farmers who are not getting very much of it- in fact, they are going to get nothing of this at all- wants to set up a trust account.

Senator Young:

– They are going to pay it.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– They are not going to pay it, the exporters are going to pay it. The farmer gets nothing from the exporter. The farmer is like the Broken Hill Pty Company Limited or the man in Tasmania who produces wood chips. Once the product gets out of his hands, it gets into the hands of the people who make all the money out of it. The exporter himself -

Senator Mulvihill:

– The exploiter.

Senator O’BYRNE:

-The exporter or the exploiter gets more out of beef than does the farmer. Honourable senators must understand that. The exporter is being asked to collect this levy and Senator Drake-Brockman is asking the Government to put it into a trust account. The people who know a bit about the technique of exports, inspection and payments by levy will have recommended to the Government the minimum amount necessary to finance and service these charges.

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– It has been cut down.

Senator O’BYRNE:

-It has been cut down. There is no one other than the taxpayer to fill the gap; and yet Senator Drake-Brockman wants the levy put into a trust account to pay the costs of inspection and of eradication of these diseases. But if the trust account runs out of funds as a result of inflation and other emergencies these services will not be financed. I mentioned earlier as a joke that members of the Opposition suffer from foot and mouth disease, that every time they open their mouth they put their foot in it. But there is a possibility of foot and mouth disease coming into Australia. It exists not far away in Bali, Indonesia. We must be careful. If such a disease came to Australia it could cost us tens of millions of dollars to try to eradicate it. Yet we have a suggestion for a trust account that could be fresh out of funds, with nothing in it. It would be supposed to fund these services which are so necessary for disease suppression and eradication and for inspections. How are we going to fund these services if the trust account runs out of credit? This has not been thought through, lt is a political gimmick.

Opposition senators are saying that the big hand of the Public Service is going to put the money into Consolidated Revenue. Consolidated Revenue has been generously financing this fund for many years and the primary producer in his own way has been very grateful for the assistance which the Commonwealth and the States have given to him. This levy is the minimum amount that has been calculated to service this operation and to supply it to the primary producer. Senator Drake-Brockman would put it into a trust account but a future government could claim that there was nothing in the trust account, nothing to pay out for the services. So I just want to sound this note of warning that Opposition senators might be creating a rod for their own backs.

Senator Young:

– Where do you suggest it should go?

Senator O’BYRNE:

– What has been happening over the years? There has not been any cost. Subsidies have been going out as fast as they could go out in every direction from Consolidated Revenue, out of the taxpayers’ pockets, to primary industries because they needed them. They needed an umbrella on a wet day and the governments provided it. Now we are providing for the industry in its prosperous days to meet the costs as it goes along. If it should run into rainy days again, the taxpayer will generously come forward and pay the cost. But when the industry can afford it, it should be prepared to pay its share of these costs. Honourable senators can be assured that no more is being levied under this Bill than is really necessary to finance the fund.

I can assure honourable senators from my knowledge of the way in which these things work that the Government is asking for only the barest minimum from the industry to pay for these services. If we form a trust fund, as a result of inflation and all the other things that go with it the fund could run out of finance and we could have a breakdown. Honourable senators opposite should think this through, as it may not be the thing to have this trust fund. It may be better for the farmer to rely on the wider vision of governments of the day to appropriate at the right time the help necessary to finance these essential services in the industry. But if we concentrate the levy in a trust fund and then run short of funds we will find that these services deteriorate and depreciate. I give that word of warning to the Senate.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Primary Industry · Tasmania · ALP

-I want to indicate very briefly that the point made by Senator

O’Byrne is quite correct. The Opposition, I think, would have been well advised to have left the matter as it was without moving the amendment. It is quite obvious that the amendment will be carried. It stems from the fact that there is an almost paranoic belief that in some way the Government intends to take money from the industry and the exporters which will not be returned to the industry but will be lost in Consolidated Revenue. This is not our intention and it is unfortunate that the whole plan that was originally put forward by the Government for a national approach, a concerted attack- for the eradication of brucellosis and tuberculosis, is being thwarted by these amendments of the Opposition. The reduction from 1.6c per lb to lc per lb is designed to do just that and I am sure that in time primary producers in Australia will regret what has been done here tonight in this effort allegedly to protect primary industry. In fact, the cost will not be borne by the primary producer. I know from comments made to me since we announced our intention to step up the campaign to eradicate brucellosis and tuberculosis that the industry has been glad that the Government has taken the lead to ensure that result. But all that has happened now as a result of these amendments being carried is that the plans we have set up are being thwarted by the Opposition. So far as this specific amendment is concerned, Mr Chairman, I indicate now that the Government will oppose it. We will not divide on it. It is quite obvious that the Opposition will carry the amendment but I want to indicate that it is unfortunate that this legislation has been altered in this way. The only point of merit in the amendment is that in proposed new clause 4d ( 1 ) which would require a report to be prepared. That is something which I personally would have accepted. However in view of all the other matters raised in this amendment the Government will oppose it.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Leader of the Australian Country Party in the Senate · Western Australia

– In view of the remarks which the Minister for Primary Industry (Senator Wriedt) has just made I want to quote to the Senate from a document that I have in my hand which was sent to me under a covering letter from the Farmers’ Union of Western Australia. It is headed ‘Submission on Meat Export Levies’. In the last paragraph on page 4 the Union states:

The Farmers’ Union objects to the trade and, therefore, the producer having to pay the 0.6c a lb levy on beef exports which has been imposed to recoup the Government the cost of the national tuberculosis and brucellosis campaign.

That is the campaign to which the Minister just referred. The submission continues:

Because of the situation with these diseases in Western Australia, this State has particular reason to object to the levy.

The Minister said that no one objected to it. This submission has been sent to most members of Parliament. I believe that some Government supporters from Western Australian would have it and probably it also was sent to the Minister. The submission went on to state:

This State has had a program of tuberculosis and brucellosis eradication for a number of years and it is advanced on other mainland States in this program. The Farmers’ Union would prefer that Western Australia be left out of the Commonwealth scheme and that growers contribute instead to the State scheme through the State Cattle Compensation Fund, at a higher level to compensate the State program for any loss of funds.

If this submission does not mean that growers object to this proposition I do not know what it means. The submission is signed by J. E. Gardiner, President of the Meat Section, Farmers’ Union of Western Australia. Yet the Minister stood here and said that the growers will suffer if they do not agree to his proposed program.

Senator YOUNG:
South Australia

– I rise in response to the last remarks made this evening by the Minister for Primary Industry (Senator Wriedt). He said that the Opposition would be held responsible if research into brucellosis did not continue. There is a discrepancy in the figures in 2 areas and I would like the Minister to give me some clarification if he can. This evening he gave us a break up- it took some time to get- of the total estimated expenditure of $78m. Of that sum I understood the Minister to say that over the 3-year period $21m would be for research into the eradication of brucellosis and tuberculosis. In the Estimates for this year we find that an amount of $4.9m is being appropriated for the eradication of brucellosis and tuberculosis. If one multiplies that sum by 3 the answer is near enough to $ 15m. One would anticipate an increase in the number of cattle throughout Australia and therefore there would be an increase in the amount allocated over a 3-year period. However, there is a difference between $15 m and $2 lm. I would like the Minister to answer that query.

Secondly, I cannot see why the Minister objects to having a trust fund. I think the industry is entitled to know that its money will be held in a responsible area. It is entitled to know exactly what money is available at any given time. That is not something that is peculiar to this industry. This would not be the only area where this practice applies. I suggest that the same should apply on this occasion.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

– Before the Committee concludes this debate I think it is necessary to remind honourable senators that the Opposition is asking that the money collected by means of the levy be paid into a trust account. The Government, through Senator O’Byrne and the Minister for Primary Industry (Senator Wriedt), who has not answered the question but has asserted that the Opposition will be responsible for the breakdown of any eradication campaign that may occur are attempting to throw a smokescreen over the situation. It should be pointed out that prior to this date the Commonwealth Government thought it fit, in the national interest, that it should provide from Commonwealth revenue the basic amount needed for the establishment of the brucellosis eradication campaign and, indeed, for extending the campaign to which the other part of the levy is to apply. It is ridiculous for the Minister to say that we will be responsible if there is some breakdown in the scheme simply because we have some objection- because we suggest that the money collected should go into a trust fund, that it should be paid out of it in a proper way, and that a report should be given to Parliament. That remark was unfair and completely erroneous. When the Hansard report of this debate is read the remark will be revealed as a cheap, political, publicity seeking type of remark.

The fact is that it took us all afternoon to get the Minister to tell us how many millions of dollars would be paid into the Commonwealth’s coffers, how it was going to be held and how it was going to be distributed. That was the question put to the Minister. We worked all afternoon to get an answer. It was not until 8.30 p.m. that the Minister finally gave us a fair run of figures which indicated his belief and the advice of his departmental heads who are with him. It was suggested in the House of Representatives, and not denied, and it was suggested here by three or four Opposition senators and not denied, that in the 3-year period between $80m and $85m would be collected. I am being fair with the Government when I say that the figure is unknown but it will be between $80m and $85m. Senator O’Byrne is trying to interject but it has taken him a little time to get the figures into his head. The Minister presented certain figures and said that it was estimated that $78m would be expended but on the figures made available the amount collected would be in the vicinity of $85m- $7m in excess of the figure the Minister quoted. Surely the Minister or his Department had some plan as to how these funds were to be utilised and how they were to be held. I ask the

Minister. Does it not occur to him that no particular account is being set up in which the money can be held? As presently proposed the money will go into consolidated revenue and, if the Minister’s figures are correct, $78m will be paid out of consolidated revenue.

The Senate wants to know what is going to happen to the other $7m. Do the Minister or his departmental officers have any comment to make as to what will happen with that money? We suggest that it should be put in a trust fund. The Commonwealth, having the benefit of the use of the money, should pay interest on it. If the interest on it does not total something in the vicinity of $500,000 a year my calculations are not correct. That is what it means in hard figures. There is a definite reason for setting up a trust fund. Again I shall quote from the record of Senate Estimates Committee F which met yesterday. In it we find that this question was put to Senator Wriedt then. This Government suggests that it wants to get this legislation through, but here we are at 25 past 9 tonight still asking the questions we were asking yesterday. The question asked of the Minister yesterday was:

Can you indicate, Mr Minister, what will happen to the surplus that is collected from private producers for the brucellosis eradication campaign?

The Minister replied:

Assuming that there is a surplus- I do not suppose it is possible to calculate this precisely- it will be used for the purpose for which it is collected, which I think is the point you are getting at.

I then commented:

Not quite. I think the figures will be interesting to look at.

Senator Young then said:

The surplus will be put away, not just left in cold storage, I presume. It will be put away and will bear interest.

The Minister’s reply was:

I think you can rest assured on (hat.

That happened in Estimates Committee F yesterday. We wish now to get an assurance in the Senate and into the Senate Hansard from the Minister that moneys which are collected- they are not the rightful funds of the Commonwealth; they are the rightful funds of the industry- will be put away and that the Commonwealth will at least pay interest on them. I advocate that such moneys be put aside in a trust fund. This matter was raised 3 hours ago and we still cannot get a reply from the Minister. Unless the Minister gives us some information we will keep this matter going later into the evening.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Primary Industry · Tasmania · ALP

- Senator Webster has a habit of leaving the chamber and then suddenly coming back in and making a lot of noise. It is quite obvious that he did not hear the assurance I gave this afternoon. I remind Senator Little also that I gave the assurance sought during the debate this afternoon, as I did last night. I do not see the purpose in Senator Webster restating this matter now simply for the sake of him getting to his feet and inviting the argument all over again. That is exactly what he is doing. I gave an assurance and prior to the suspension of the sitting for dinner I gave the figures that were requested. They were not given at half past 8. 1 would have given them earlier if I had had the opportunity in between the times that Senator Webster was speaking. Senator Young asked for specific details of the total of $21m that I gave earlier. For his information, the disease eradication costs for 1973-74, including all mainland States, Tasmania and the Northern Territory, will be $5.6m, for 1974-75 they will be $7.3m, and for 1975-76 the cost will be $9m. I think Senator Webster will find that that totals slightly over $21m. However, the figure of $21m I gave earlier did not include the amount for the Northern Territory which would create a slight difference of about $lm. It is unfortunate that this debate should end on the note it has, but there has been a definite move on the part of the Opposition to frustrate the intention of the Government in respect of this legislation. The Government’s intention has been to step up this campaign for the benefit of the meat industry. It is not the Government’s intention to let this matter lie just as a victory to the Opposition. It is something which the meat industry will have to look at more closely in terms of how it will continue the campaign because it is in the national interest that this campaign be continued.

Question put:

That the amendment to clause 3 and proposed new clauses 4a to 4d (Senator Drake-Brockman’s amendments) be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Chairman- Senator Prowse)

AYES: 27

NOES: 20

Majority……. 7

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clause 3, as amended, and clause 4 agreed to.

Reminder of Bill- by leave- taken as a whole.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I draw attention first to clause 6 of the Bill and note that it reads:

The following amounts may be recovered by Australia as debts due to Australia:

I raise the question: What is Australia other than a geographical area.

Senator O’Byrne:

– You and me.

Senator RAE:

– And Senator O’Byrne and I. Is it not a fact that legally under the Constitution and the Constitution Act we remain the Commonwealth of Australia? I raise the question of the drafting and the meaning to be given to this particular form of words.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Prowse:

-I put the question: ‘That the remainder of the Bill stand as printed ‘.

Senator RAE:

– If the Minister is not in a position to answer my point I have another matter I would like to raise.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · ALP

– If the Minister for Primary Industry (Senator Wriedt) will permit me to answer Senator Rae’s point, I understand that there has been an amendment to the Acts Interpretation Act to define the word ‘Australia’.

Senator Rae:

– I just wondered whether that had been done.

Senator MURPHY:

– And Australia is a good place in which to be living. I do not think that the honourable senator should cavil at expressions being used in an Act of this Parliament.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I certainly was not cavilling at its use. I was simply inquiring as to the legality of its use, because it was my understanding that we were still bound by the use of the words ‘Commonwealth of Australia’ from the point of view of legal forms. The other matter to which I draw attention relates to clause 9(2). I believe that probably the Government Printer has accidentally omitted the word ‘an’ at the end of the second line. It is only a very small point but I draw the Minister’s attention to it. Sub-clause (2) reads:

Where an authorised person has reason to believe that there are on any premises (including premises of, or occupied by, a State or authority of a State). . . .

It should read ‘an authority of a State’ in the same way as the words ‘an authority of a State’ are used in the definition of ‘exporter’ in clause 3.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Primary Industry · Tasmania · ALP

– I would imagine that what Senator Rae says is correct. There appears to have been a printing error. It is something which I think can be dealt with by the officers of the Senate.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · ALP

– I think the Standing Orders even cover that situation so that typographical errors can be fixed up in the ordinary course by the President or the officers of the Senate.

Senator Rae:

– I have drawn attention to the matter. It is your Bill.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Prowse:

-I think the procedures of the Senate provide for the correction of an error of that sort.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I draw attention to clause 7. I would like some indication as to how this clause is to operate in practice. I indicated at an earlier stage the curiosity which appears in clause 3 where the definition of ‘authorised person’ is extended to include any person included in a class of persons appointed by the Minister. That, of course, is a tremendously wide range of persons from whom the Minister may make an appointment. It is not limited, of course, to members of the Department. It can be extended to any member of the public irrespective of what his qualifications are, provided only that he can be included in a class of persons. One finds that clause 7 contains a provision which gave the Opposition quite an amount of concern. It provides for interest to be paid on any amounts which are due and which are not paid by the due date. It is not an unaccustomed thing for such a provision to be found in legislation of this character, but the clause goes on to state that where interest is payable- I refer now specifically to sub-clause (3) -

The Minister or, subject to sub-section (4), an authorised person may, in a particular case, for a reason that the Minister or the authorised person, as the case may be, in his discretion, thinks sufficient, remit the whole or a part of an amount payable under this section.

Sub-clause (4) reads:

A remission granted under sub-section (3) by an authorised person shall not exceed one hundred dollars.

In short, this is a provision under which an amount of interest which is payable and which is clearly to be levied under clause 7 may be remitted. It is an ameliorative provision which has precedent in other legislation which provides that an interest payment which is to be charged may be remitted. I personally have always felt that this is justice which is likely to be tempered by injustice. Some people, if they can appeal to the Minister and secure his approval, will avoid the payment of interest. Other persons, if they cannot see the Minister or for some reason the Minister does not like them, will not be able to secure a remission of interest payments. That type of vice which is always accountable pretty readily where a Minister is involved, because questions can be asked in the Parliament, becomes multiplied when a departmental official has power to grant a remission of interest payments. When there is provision for a range of people simply to be appointed by the Minister, which can be even more extensive than an official of the Department, it can lead to injustice. The Opposition does not propose to move an amendment in this area, although we are very concerned about it. The basic reason we are not moving an amendment is that it is an ameliorative provision. It does permit the dispensation of interest to be granted, and to seek to amend it would be to deny the power to have a remission of interest granted. But it is not a satisfactory position and I feel that the Minister ought to respond to what I have said.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Primary Industry · Tasmania · ALP

– I dare say that if one were to assume that the persons who may be authorised under this clause would be persons who could be described as irresponsible or persons who were not acting in good faith, there may be some substance in the point raised by Senator Greenwood. But in the day to day work of the Department it is necessary that these persons be authorised. I do not think we are introducing anything new, so far as departmental practice is concerned, in providing that a Minister has the power to make these authorisations to officers. I have no doubt that there would be individual cases in which there could be an abuse of that authority. But I suppose this is something with which we have to live in any circumstances. But it would be reasonable assessment that those persons who do have this authority would exercise a reasonable judgment. I can assure the honourable senator that if any cases were brought to my attention in which this was not done I would certainly take action.

Senator Greenwood:

– Was there any reason why the authorisation was extended to include any person in a class of persons?

Senator WRIEDT:

-No. It widens the discretion of the Minister. We are dealing with an industry in which the types of activity engaged in have very wide ramifications, and I do not think that it is an unreasonable provision to give the Minister that discretion.

Remainder of Bill agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Third reading

Bill (on motion by Senator Wriedt) read a third time.

page 1136

PAY-ROLL TAX (TERRITORIES) BILL 1973

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 25 September (vide page 819), on motion by Senator Murphy:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– This Bill is one of a large number of Budget proposals. It seeks to increase the rate of payroll tax payable in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. The present rate of 2.5 per cent is to be increased to 3.5 per cent from 1 September 1973, and to 4.5 per cent from 1 July 1974. Of course, 1 September 1973 has now passed and the Bill has not yet received royal assent. How the increased rate will be collected from 1 September 1 973 is a problem for the Government, not for me. The rate will rise to 4.5 per cent from 1 July 1974. Since the transfer to the States in September 1 97 1 of the right to collect payroll tax, in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory payroll tax has been payable in respect of salaries and wages at a rate of 2.5 per cent, which was the rate applicable in the States prior to 1 September 1971, although since that time the State rate has been 3.5 per cent. As honourable senators will recall, at the Premiers Conference last June the Premiers foreshadowed that they would have to increase their overall payroll tax rate to 4.5 per cent to increase their revenue because they believed that they would need that extra money to balance their accounts and because they believed that the Commonwealth, if I may say so, was in their view being a bit stingy. So legislation to increase the rate to 4.5 per cent as from 1 September 1973 has been passed by the State parliaments.

I think it is fair to comment, as the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Murphy) said in his second reading speech, that there is really no good reason why the Territories, which are controlled by the Commonwealth, should not adhere to the same rules which the States are called upon to adhere to. Therefore employers in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory should have to bear the same kind of imposts as employers who operate under State legislation. This Bill brings, in 2 steps, the situation which applies in the Territories into line with the situation which applies in the States. It provides an immediate increase to 3.5 per cent from 1 September 1973, and an increase to 4.5 per cent at a later point of time.

There is no opposition to this Bill in the Senate, as there was no opposition to it in the House of Representatives. All I need to do is make a couple of general observations as I debate the Bill. I do not think that there is any particularly good reason, although there are some reasons, why Territory employers should not be called upon to meet taxes and charges which are comparable with taxes and charges borne by employers in the States. That is a fair general principle in what I call economic and accounting equity in a financial system. But there are valid reasons why certain special provisions could be made or should be made in respect of Australian Territories. They have been made in the past.

It was, and I think it still is, the policy of the Australian Labor Party to initiate income tax free provisions to assist the pioneering industries of the Northern Territory and other parts of northern Australia. To that extent the present Government would appear to be flying in the face of its expressed policy. This Bill emphasises a further instance of alterations to the tax structure in general as against the promise that no alterations would take place.

Senator Murphy:

– That statement was in relation to the rate of income tax.

Senator COTTON:

– It is a question of who interprets the words, you or I. Your interpretation may be quite different from the interpretation which I place on them. Nonetheless, there is a financial responsibility to be borne by governments, and I acknowledge that fact. There is nothing like experience to make one eat one’s own words, as the present Government is finding out. This increase in payroll tax puts an additional burden on private companies operating in the Territories at a time when their overall taxation rate is rising and at a time when they are required to pay by instalments. I think that that factor ought to be thought about by the Government in due course.

The Bill is not opposed, but it represents the general position of a government which is obliged to collect, over a very wide spectrum of revenue, a large amount of money in small driblets and fairly small amounts to provide, in effect, the revenue which will support what I believe is an extravagant and irresponsible program. Nonetheless, we do not oppose the Bill. I just make some observations as I deal with it, in the general style that I have already made them. I think there is something to be said about some special consideration for the Territories, particularly the Northern Territory, but it may be better not to do it on a revenue style taxation-collecting Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1137

STATES GRANTS (PETROLEUM PRODUCTS) BILL 1973

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 25 September (vide page 8 16), on motion by Senator Murphy:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Leader of the Australian Country Party in the Senate · Western Australia

– I wish to say a few words about this Bill. Normally Senator Cotton would have led in this debate. Because I shall move an amendment later, he has asked me to speak on his behalf as well as on behalf of the Australian Country Party. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act 1965-1969. The Act provides the legal basis for the petroleum products subsidy scheme whereby a Commonwealth subsidy is paid in relation to the distribution and sale of certain petroleum products in country areas. The objective of the scheme is to reduce rural costs by effecting a significant degree of equalisation between city and country wholesale prices on such petroleum products. Back in 1965 Sir John McEwen promoted the idea of a national uniform petrol price. The then Government agreed to that as a first step towards this objective to introduce a minimum variation between petrol prices in city and non-metropolitan areas. Since that time the differential has been reduced and at the present time it is approximately 3.3c a gallon. The Budget raised this differential from 3.3c a gallon to 5c a gallon.

This is a restrictive Bill with a very restricted title. It amends section 6 of the States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act. Because it is confined to that, all we can do is repeal section 6. The Bill deals only with this clause. If I wanted to amend the Bill all I could do would be to move an amendment to leave out section 6 of the Act. All section 6 does is fix the subsidy rates on the basis of the 1969 costs and circumstances. Section 6 has to be repealed in this case to enable the subsidy rates to be updated in the light of current transport and distribution costs and the new subsidy margin. All that is very well. If we take section 6 out of the Act there is nothing to prevent the Minister at some future date, should he want to vary the subsidy rates as they now exist, just to gazette them. We in the Parliament would then have no control whatsoever over whether that should be allowed or disallowed. So after the completion of the second reading debate on the Bill I want to put into force the notice of motion I gave this morning. I will do this with the good graces of the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Murphy). He is allowing me to insert this extra clause to make it obligatory on the Minister to table in the Parliament any changes in the rate of subsidy which may be made at a future date, so that we can either allow or disallow the change according to how we see the position at that time.

Senator Murphy:

– That seems to be a fair enough amendment to us.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

-That is all that I am doing by this amendment. Therefore, as I cannot do anything further I would like the Senate to reach the stage in its proceedings where I could move the amendment.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– I just mention that Senator DrakeBrockman is quite correct in what he says. Normally speaking, this would be something that I would take up. But we decided that we would not oppose it. I think that there is some merit in the amendment to be moved by Senator DrakeBrockman. Accordingly, I state that it is his proposition and one which I support

Senator SIM:
Western Australia

– I support the amendment to be moved by Senator Drake-Brockman. I wish to speak only briefly to state that I think this is another example of the Government’s attitude to those who live away from urban areas. The provisions in the States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act relating to the price differential was introduced by the previous Government to try to assist those who live farthest away from the capital cities. This applies not only to those who live on the land but also affects those who wish to establish industries in the country. In my view, the Government’s action of reducing the subsidy is inexcusable. It is a further indication of the Government’s contempt for and hostility to those who live away from the established urban areas where the Government hopes to receive its support. I think that it should be noted by all who live away from the heavily populated areas that this action is another indication of the Government’s attack upon them. This subsidy has been valuable in many outback areas of Australia. I might add that it has been a very valuable measure in the far distant areas of Western Australia. I wish only to put on record my strong opposition to the Government’s move by which it will save a few measly million dollars. Yet the Government is prepared to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in the urban areas at the expense of country areas. I just wish to place on record my view about this. I only wish that we could throw the confounded thing out as an indication of our contempt for what this Government is doing to those who live in the country, and particularly those who live in the distant parts of Australia.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Leader of the Australian Country Party · Western Australia

– I ask for leave of the Senate to move that it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole to consider the insertion of a new section 7a in the principal Act. I gave notice of this this morning. Really, it should not come into operation until tomorrow, but the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Murphy) has given me his blessing to go ahead with it, if I may say that.

Senator Murphy:

-That is right.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

-Therefore, to carry out the procedure, I ask for leave to move a motion that relates to the notice of motion I gave this morning.

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

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:

– I move:

To save time on this matter I have circulated a copy of the amendment which I will formally move. I told the Senate why I was doing this when I spoke previously. So I leave the position at that.

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

- Mr Acting Deputy President, I suggest that Senator Drake-Brockman be treated as formally moving the instruction to the Committee of the Whole to consider the matter which is incorporated in what he has distributed.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Leader of the Australian Country Party · Western Australia

– I move:

  1. 1 ) After clause 3, add the following new clause:- “4. After section 7 of the StatesGrants (Petroleum Products) Act 1965-1969 the following section is inserted:- 7a. (1) In this section, “amendment”, in relation to the schedule to the scheme in relation to a State, includes the substitution of another schedule for that schedule. ‘(2) The provisions of section 48 and 49 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901-1973 (other than paragraphs (a) and (b) of sub-section (1), sub-section (2) and sub-section (6) of the first-mentioned section) apply, by force of this section, to amendments of the schedules to the schemes in relation to the States in like manner as those provisions apply in relation to regulations.
  2. Where an amendment of the schedule to the scheme in relation to a State is disallowed, or is to be deemed to be disallowed, under a provision of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901-1973 as applied by sub-section (2), the schedule has effect as if the amendment had been revoked with effect from and including the date of the disallowance. ‘. “.
  3. In the Title, leave out “repeal section 6 of”, substitute “amend”.
Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate · ALP

– I have no objection to the proposal that has been put forward by Senator DrakeBrockman. It seems to me to be a reasonable proposal that the legislation should be dealt with in this way. It is not without some doubts because this is really an administrative scheme. But on the whole, it seems a reasonable enough step and we will not oppose it.

Amendments agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Third Reading

Bill (on motion by Senator Murphy) read a third time.

page 1139

NATIONAL LIBRARY BILL 1973

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 29 August (vide page 274), on motion by Senator Willesee:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

– The National Library Bill is of a rather different character from those Bills which the Senate has debated today and this evening. Nevertheless, I put it to the Senate that it is a matter of some importance and significance because it opens up areas in which the country can embark upon ways and means of improving the quality of life and extending opportunities for its citizens. In short, the National Library Bill amends the National Library Act. It is a Bill in which we have considerable interest. Firstly, it concerns the National Library which is an institution which is assuming a great degree of importance in Australia. Secondly, it is designed to make the National Library within the Australian situation more important, more significant and more useful to more people and, above all, to gear the National Library to meet new needs and new situations and, I hope and assume, to produce exciting results.

It is my privilege and pleasure as a member of the Council of the National Library to speak in support of the Bill to amend the National Library Act. The National Library of Australia grew directly from the Library of the Parliament and since its establishment it has retained a special relationship with this Parliament. Honourable senators presently in the chamber are aware that the Parliament still participates directly in the determination of the policy of the National Library by electing its representatives from the Parliament. One representative is elected from the House of Representatives and one from the Senate. These 2 representatives serve on the Council of the National Library. The situation in a democracy today is such that people are becoming more and more aware that the citizen has a right of access to knowledge and information, and this right of access to knowledge and information is one which, if I may say so, should not be affected by political situations or political differences, or indeed compromised by political pressures. In a very real sense this philosophy is epitomised in the situation in which we find ourselves tonight.

The previous Government introduced the National Library Act, and this proposed amendment to the Act, which is designed to allow the National Library to keep pace with changing circumstances, is introduced by the present

Government. The Bill which was introduced by the Special Minister of State (Senator Willesee) has 3 particular features. The first is to provide for an increase in the size of the National Library Council by 2 appointed members. The second is to make the chief executive of the Library an executive member of the council with the designation of Director-General. Honourable senators will be aware that prior to the introduction of this measure the chief executive of the National Library was simply described as the National Librarian. Under this Bill it is proposed that he be described as the Director-General. The third main feature of the Bill is to extend the definition of library material to take account of modem methods of communication. As the Minister stated in his second reading speech, the purpose of the amendments is to strengthen the National Library’s capacity to meet rapidly changing circumstances in the area of its responsibility and to take particular account of recommendations for the accelerated development of library and information services in the fields of science and technology, and, as honourable senators are probably well aware, these are contained in the report of the Scientific and Technologcal Information Services Inquiry. The report of this Inquiry is familiarly known to most of us as the STISEC report.

I draw attention to the important features in the National Library Act. These, very generally stated, are that the functions of the National Library are, working on behalf of the Commonwealth, to maintain and develop a national collection of library material, including a comprehensive collection of library material relating to Australia and the Australian people; to make library material available and to provide for the advantageous use of any collections in the Library in the national interest; to make available such other services in relation to library matters and library material for the purposes of the Parliamentary Library, the departments and authorities of the Commonwealth and the Territories of the Commonwealth; and finally to cooperate in library matters, including the advancement of library science, with authorities or persons, whether in Australia or elsewhere. The point I make in looking at this section of the National Library Act is that it provides for functions relating not only to a collection but more importantly to services, and the emphasis is on services which the National Library does and can provide in the future.

During its first decade the development of the National Library was concentrated on the assembling of the necessary resources in library materials, in staff and in what I would call the physical plant to enable the Library to fulfil its proper role as a National Library. The creation of a strong collection of library material is only the first phase and basis for the development of information services to meet the national need. A significant step forward has now been taken with the introduction of selected dissemination of information services and the commencement of a research project concerned with the examination of problems in such services, particularly in the field of social science.

I want to look, very briefly, at the 3 main amendments to the Act to which the Minister has referred and to which I referred a little earlier this evening. I shall refer to them in the order in which the Minister mentioned them. First is the addition of 2 members to the Council of the National Library. This will strengthen the Council of the National Library and skills and expert knowledge of these additional people will enable the Library adequately to fulfil what will be required of it in what will undoubtedly be a demanding and creative period ahead. Secondly I refer to the changed title to that of DirectorGeneral. I want to refer in particular to the retiring National Librarian, Mr Allan Fleming. Members of this Senate, and indeed members of the Parliament, will very happily and warmly recall the work, personality and services of Mr Fleming who has just retired as National Librarian. Mr Fleming has given some years of service as a distinguished National Librarian and during his tour of duty has made the National Library well known nationally and indeed, if I may say so, very important internationally. My visits overseas in recent months have proved the point that Mr Fleming has made the Australian National Library an institution of some prestige, reputation and importance. Prior to serving as National Librarian, Mr Fleming served as Parliamentary Librarian and those of us who were privileged to be associated with him will recall his development of the Parliamentary Library Legislative Research Service and the wide range of other facilities and services for senators, members and indeed for Parliament.

He gave these services to this Parliament and then went on to give the same services to the National Library. Allan Fleming brought his great gifts of administration and knowledge of the requirements not only of parliamentarians but also of people and the nation. His skills in the fields of journalism and the intelligence part of his Army service together with a genuine concern for people and for the advancement of knowledge and dissemination of information for all people made him someone whose tour of duty in these 2 libraries will long be remembered. As his retirement has recently taken place I take the opportunity in this debate to wish him well.

Having said that I want to draw attention to the fact that advertisements have appeared inviting applications for his successor. The advertisement refers to the change of title to DirectorGeneral and quotes the existing salary of $20,502. 1 do not want to refer to the situation as far as that amount of money is concerned. But the point at issue is not that question but how this job is remunerated in comparison with others of less or similar responsibility. As a fairly new member of the National Library Council I can reflect the fact that the Council has been very concerned about the salary level which is afforded to this position. As it now stands in comparison with the biggest library institutions elsewhere in Australia, the National Library has, according to my inquiries, somewhere about treble the staff and treble the financial resources to administer. Because it has treble the staff and treble the financial resources the position of Director-General also carries a considerably increased degree of responsibility. In addition to its overall national function, which, if I may say so, no other organisation has, the National Library plays a significant international role. Yet, if honourable senators examine the position as I have they will find that the salary level for the Director-General of the National Library is roughly the same as that of a similar position at the library of New South Wales or the library of the Melbourne University.

Plans that have been evolved over the last few years for the Library to fulfil its overall service function to the nation mean that such things as policy, planning and operation make the National Library an institution of a major nature and certainly comparable with a great many government departments. If there has been any misconception in the past relating to this matter it is completely obvious now that the executive head of the National Library has a great deal more to do than to preside over the indexing and cataloguing of books. Indeed, he presides over an institution which has far reaching implications and a great national responsibility. I say no more about that situation except to register my appreciation that the Special Minister of State, who put this Bill down in the Senate, has a strong appreciation of the problems associated with this issue and the complexities involved. I know that he will take such steps as he can that will contribute towards any necessary adjustments that may be required.

The third and major amendment to which the Minister referred in his second reading speech provides for the extension of the definition of library material. This amendment, if carried- I presume that it will be- will equip the library to undertake its role as the centre of a national network of library and information services. This national system will provide the means whereby other resource centres and other information services may link together and create a network of centres through which each participant may gain access to resources and services. This is a modern concept and it provides for a shared national resource. It is the result of a great deal of progress and improved technology. Of course, it provides also for the widespread use of information.

I want to place on record my appreciation of the fact that its emergence and acceptance by the Government as a desirable objective is not only appreciated but it also results from the activities of the National Library Council which set up some time ago the Scientific and Technological Information Services Enquiry Committee. This Committee conducted its investigations, presented a report which was tabled in the Senate and is popularly known as the STISEC reporttrie report on the scientific and technological information services in Australia. The Committee was led in the first place by Sir Peter Crisp and later by Sir Samuel Jones. Sir Samuel headed a committee of very distinguished people and the report is one of the most significant documents tabled in this Senate. I take the liberty of referring very briefly to the report and draw the attention of honourable senators to one or two of the significant phrases in the preface to the report. The report states:

The evidence gathered and considered by the Committee leaves it in no doubt that there is immediate need in Australia for a greatly improved and more closely co-ordinated system to collect scientific and technological information and to disseminate it with a minimum of delay to those who need it. If this need is to be met, the Committee is convinced that a national authority must be established with the responsibility to complement and co-ordinate existing collections and services;

The report continues:

The national scientific and technological information system which the Committee recommends, therefore, should not be created in isolation, but as an integrated part of a total information system. This will allow Australia to develop most efficiently a range of information services which will be essential in sustaining its living standards and improving its growth rate and international standing in an increasingly complex and competitive world, and will allow due regard to be taken of all factors contributing to the quality of life of its people.

The Senate will recall that the Government has agreed that the National Library should be the organisation which will be the responsible body for the collection and dissemination of information according to the details outlined in the Minister’s speech. The very amendments to the measure which is before us will, of course, provide for the extension of these services.

It is this information explosion and the means required to deal with it and make it useful for our society which take up a substantial area in the Minister’s speech. I think I may claim that these are the most important facets in the measure which the Senate is looking at. The objective of the Bill is to develop, in co-operation with the appropriate organisations at both State and local levels, programs for library and information services which recognise the importance of a free and ready access to knowledge as a basic factor in material progress and in advancing the quality of our life. I draw attention again to the fact that the National Library will act as the chief source, indeed the chief channel, of advice to the Government on library and information services. We have to face up to the realities today of this information explosion to which I have just referred.

I say to the Senate that the amount of recorded information in the world is increasing at a rate beyond all past experience. Indeed, most conservative estimates suggest that the amount of information material and printed material which has accumulated over the centuries up to today will be doubled in the next 20 years. Major countries have begun to recognise important national and international implications and consequences of this quite unique phenomenon. It is clear to us in Australia that this will have a direct and early impact on our determination to improve the material and intellectual quality of our daily life. While we need fast and comprehensive access to information to deal with the problems and needs of our society, complexities are raised by the sudden flood of knowledge and by the changing needs of society. In themselves they are problems. Of course they will need to be met and I have no doubt that they will be adequately and amply handled. Industrialised societies are already overwhelmed by information. Certainly many decision makers are overwhelmed by information. It has been said that our societies pay insufficient attention to information; that is, that we take it too much for granted and we do not recognise it as being important and an essential commodity in its own right. I suggest that information is one of the major resources and is the key to the development of our future.

I have some enthusiasm for this1 because earlier this year I was privileged to participate in a seminar arranged by the National Library at which I had the opportunity of presiding over one of the groups involved. The seminar related to a national information policy, and took advantage of the presence in Australia.of Dr Tell from Sweden. The seminar, which was attended by a range of experts concerning government, industry, communications, computers and many related disciplines, was divided, into working groups. Each group concluded’ time after time that there was a need for a major national effort to strengthen, integrate and rationalise Australia’s information policy. The Information Policy Group of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development of which Australia is a member and upon which this distinguished Dr Tell serves recently published a study on the future of information services. Amongst other things it stated:

In 15 years rime, information activities and the industries within their orbit will have assumed an importance comparable with that of the automotive industry today. Information will have become one of the dominant factors of private and public life . . . The first duty of governments will be to see that information, as a fundamental resource, is made available as a service to society as a whole.

Our citizens will demand that information services will be their right in the same way that today they look upon matters relating to social welfare and environmental protection as their right. So that is what this Bill is all about. It is matters such as these which will demand from the National Library the capacity for leadership and the provision of services. There is no doubt at all in my mind that Australia must seek to organise in a better and advancing way its total information management. To achieve this will require co-operation not only from the National Library but also between the National Library and a very broad range of institutions right across the country. They consist of organisations and services. The two which come to my mind are the Australian Post Office and the Overseas Telecommunications Commission.

The capacity to handle and to use knowledge available to us today is one of the urgent needs for a dynamic and developing Australia. I refer to the example of the steam engine which made an impact on industrial technology at one period of history and I suggest to the Senate that the modern computer, communications and microform technologies will give society the means of handling information on a massive scale and of making it available when it is needed, not only by Governments, institutions and organisations but also by the citizens of this country. I am pleased to note that the Government recognises its responsibility to encourage the development of these emerging technologies. It is recognising the importance of information management techniques in Australia. It is recognising that information must be regarded as a national resource. Indeed, I go so far as to describe it as the master resource. Perhaps I take a risk in using that term because information as a resource is certainly less visible but certainly it is as significant to our national wealth, our national wellbeing and our international competitiveness as minerals or even wool. I believe that our national capacity to control and benefit from the world output of information will be a signficant element in our continued economic growth and the growth of our gross national product.

Because this Bill is woven around the framework of the National Library it brings into its family operation other libraries which may probably be better known in the future as resource centres or centres where information is collected and from which information is disseminated. I doubt whether there has ever been a true representation of any library until we come to describe it in this way. Times are changing and libraries are projecting themselves more aggressively, not only as collectors of documents but also as the providers of services. So the National Library Council saw its first duty to be the strengthening not only of the library’s collections but also the initiating of the provision of services and information services. Australia in this connection is somewhat behind the rest of the nations. Therefore the National Library looks upon the provision of information services as a matter of some considerable urgency and something into which it wishes to move quite quickly and in a widespread fashion.

The Library is concerned in assuming leadership in the national role to organise on a better basis Australia’s information services and, above all, to utilise, to handle and to manage the flood of information services which are now available. These must be established so that information services are available to the people when they want them and in the form in which they want them. The Bill, in its concluding phrases provides for the extension of these services. I suggest that the decade from 1 980 to 1 990 will be a period of revolutionary change because there will be a host of technological innovations which will make not only desirable but economically feasible the distribution of information services on a massive scale. It is difficult to evaluate all the consequences and benefits which might result from an upheaval such as this but the impact of these things will be felt strongly not only in the fields of education, culture, health, medicine and science in general but also, more importantly, the impact will be overwhelming in relation to organisation and management of the total society, particularly in our social welfare and our quality of life.

There is an urgent need to bring together all the factors which are involved and all of those to which I have referred so that the Australian people will have the benefit of the services which are now well established and widely distributed on the international level. I support the Bill. The Opposition supports the Bill. I see it as a turning point so far as our society is concerned. I see in this Bill the beginning of the emergence of this comparatively new discipline which will have a strong and happy influence on our society. The Bill also provides that the vehicle for this emergence is the National Library which has already rendered such considerable service to the Australian community and will continue to provide it in future. i support the Special Minister of State (Senator Willesee) in putting down this Bill and I recommend to the Senate that it have a speedy passage.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– We share the sentiments expressed by bc previous speaker, Senator Davidson. I am are that in the support I give the measure I have the endorsement of my colleagues on the National Library Council, Senator Milliner and Senator Wheeldon. Because of the experience we have had on the Senate Parliamentary Library Standing Committee and because of the Library’s links with the National Library we can appreciate the magnitude of the project embodied in this Bill. I have noticed the new title of Director-General. There was a time when one might have argued that the term ‘Librarian’ or Chief Librarian’ was sufficient; but I think that the ramifications which are involved in these times for the officer in charge indicate that DirectorGeneral is an apt title.

It is fitting that any speaker in this debate should pay tribute to Allan Fleming. He has left his mark on the National Library and I know that whoever becomes Director-General will have a high standard to maintain. Like the previous speaker and the Special Minister for State (Senator Willesee) when he introduced this legislation, I say that the amendments proposed in this Bill are indicative of the national maturity which our country has attained in recent years. We know that some priceless historical records have been allowed to fragment and to pass into the possession of wealthy people overseas who collect these historical trophies. In the 1 970s we have begun to realise that our history is our own and should not be farmed out. Of course, this depends on the ability of the National Library to forge links with the various State libraries. Most senators will at some time have visited small country towns where terms such as ‘Mechanics Institute’ and ‘School of Arts’ appear on buildings. It is amazing how one can stumble upon valuable records in such places. The third paragraph on the first page of this Bil) indicates that we are trying to collate these priceless documents.

I suppose it is a by-product of the present educational system that the younger citizens today are not satisfied with generalities. They like to be specific. It is obvious that unless we have a National Library which is able to co-ordinate all these repositories of knowledge we will not have something which will put Australia on a par with many of the old world countries. We know from our own observations here that in the broad sense the national capital has become a mecca. It is quite obvious. I think we all recommend to people that they ought to visit the National Library; it is not sufficient for it to exist and for us to say that the millenium has been achieved, because it has not. The very fact that sections of this Bill deal with the advance of technology and the need to be alert to all these new methods is welcome.

At the same time I think that when we consider librarians and people in kindred professions, it must boost their morale to know that we are endeavouring to maintain the National Library on a par with the great overseas libraries. Legislation of this nature will enable the National Library to play an effective role.

The only other observation I make is that when one talked to people before the Fleming era, and often some from our own Parliamentary Library who graduated to the top echelon of the National Library, it was remarkable how they adopted a bi-partisan attitude- and it has paid dividends. I think it can be said that the President of the Senate (Senator Sir Magnus Cormack) and his predecessor have played very strong roles in relation to the Library. I know that their roles have been coupled with the interest shown by the various Speakers of the House of Representatives to ensure that any reasonable request from the National Library had the backing of the Australian Parliament.

I think this is the type of legislation that ensures the retention of the vivid history of our country; it means that vital records will be in the hands of the correct custodians. It is not merely a question of seeking this information. All of this material must be presented in such a way that it is available to the numerous people who will seek it. AH of us have at times wanted to track down some facet of history and,, while paying all credit to the library staff, one gets tremendous satisfaction from feeding in clues to, secure such information. I endorse all that has. been said by the other speakers in this debate.’ This is a piece of legislation which will maintain the tempo of history and will keep our national capital on a par in this particular field with the- major overseas capitals.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– I thank the Opposition for supporting this Bill and I am grateful for Senator Davidson’s statement that he will give it a speedy passage through this chamber. I also thank Senator Mulvihill for his contribution to the second reading debate. I think it all shows support for the measure which stems from the honourable senators’ activities as members of the National Library Council and of the Senate Parliamentary .Library Standing Committee. They have shown by their activities that they are appreciative of the need for an efficient, up-to-date library service both for the nation and politicians, a service which must change from time to time as a result of the great increase in the storage, of communication which can be conveyed to members. I think Senator Davidson put it very well when he spoke of the new processes which the second reading speech describes as ‘the modern method of communication’. The second reading speech also refers to the need for additional members to meet the challenge which is coming on the question of storage and provision of information for members.

I join in the remarks that have been made about Mr Fleming as Librarian. I well remember joining in criticism of his appointment at the time he was appointed because of the suspicion which the then Labor Opposition had of a librarian who was coming from the Army- I believe from a security section of the Army. We accepted this man more as a spy than as a provider of information to us. But having a role at that time in which we badly needed the services of the Library, we found that Mr Fleming was always ready to help us. He increased facilities by which members could get available information from the Library. I think he has rendered a service and I endorse the remarks of Senator Davidson that he has established the National Library on a solid international foundation. One can make a mistake by acting on suspicion and not waiting to judge the performance of an individual. This Government was then in opposition and some honourable senators were critical of the appointment at that time. Senators who are critical and take an interest in this subject are generally those who need research facilities in the Library. Since that time they have found that a most valuable service has been built up, extended and maintained under Mr Fleming. I think we owe him a debt of gratitude. The President of the Senate, Sir Magnus Cormack, has been untiring in his efforts to improve the service of the Library to such an extent that Ministers cannot get sufficient office accommodation now because of the needs of the Library which seems to get first service, justifiably so, in regard to additional accommodation.

I do not think we should neglect the interest which Sir Alister McMullin took in this question. The Library seemed to be one of his pet subjects. He proudly boasted of how he had extended the Act and what he had done about the Library service for members of Parliament. I think it fitting on this occasion that we recognise that what has happened since then flowed from the early groundwork as a result of the establishment of the Library Committee and the activities of the previous President of the Senate.

Honourable senators know that I am handling this Bill on behalf of the Special Minister of State (Senator Willesee). What intrigues me is the question of the salary of about $20,500 which was mentioned by Senator Davidson. On a note that the Special Minister of State sent to the Department he questioned whether this salary would attract the type of individual who would give the greatest service in this position for which applicants are being called. Clause 10 of the Bill states:

Section 1 7 a of the Principal Act is amended by omitting subsection (3) and substituting the following sub-section:

The Director-General shall be paid salary at such rate as is fixed by the Parliament and such allowances (not including an annual allowance) as are prescribed ‘.

Therefore the Parliament from time to time will determine the salary and allowances. On an earlier occasion in this House I believe that we fixed the rate for heads of statutory authorities at about $20,500. It is in accordance with that legislation that the Director-General will receive his salary. That is why the advertisement calling for applications for the position included the rate that was fixed by previous legislation. I presume that if the people responsible for appointment of the Director-General are not satisfied that they have found a suitable applicant for the position, they can seek a variation of the earlier legislation to prescribe a different rate for the DirectorGeneral under the National Library Act. The Special Minister of State and his departmental advisers are satisfied that the advertisement will attract suitable people for the position. The amount for statutory officers automatically applies in the case of this Bill. Again I thank the Opposition for supporting this Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 1145

EXCISE TARIFF BILL (No. 3) 1973

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

First Reading

Motion (by Senator Cavanagh) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a first time.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– Under the procedures of the Senate the motion for the first reading of a Bill permits debate on matters which are not relevant to the subject matter of the Bill. I rise to speak on this occasion because of a question I asked this morning in the Senate and the response given by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Murphy) to whom I addressed the question. I raise this matter not because it represents the typical evasion which we are accustomed to receiving from the Leader of the Government in this place; I raise it not because of the invalidity of the response given to the question I asked; I raise it because of what the question and the answer to it reveal about the intentions of this Government in the receipts and incomes policy field. The question I asked this morning was as follows:

Is it a fact that the Prime Minister at the Federal Executive meeting of the Australian Labor Party held in Adelaide last weekend stated that the Government would not legislate for any form of wages freeze if the people granted the Commonwealth a power over incomes? If so, how does the Government justify the Prime Minister’s discriminating commitment given yesterday that incomes of persons other than wage earners would be regulated if the Commonwealth secured this power?

You will recall, Mr President, that I asked the question on 2 occasions. In replying to it Senator Murphy first objected to answering it because it was argumentative, a matter of debate, and generally of a political character and that questions like that should be not asked at question time. Secondly, he refused to answer the question because, as he said, what occurred in Adelaide occurred at a private meeting and it was not prudent for him to ask a question about it in the Senate. In my submission the answer revealed not only evasion but also the acute consciousness of the Government of the implication of the 2 statements which have been made in the past few days.

The Government is appealing for power to make laws with respect to incomes. It is well known throughout the country that the Government is in trouble with some sections of the union movement, and therefore with some sections of the Labor Party, over its proposals. Consequently it has been reported that a promise was given at the Federal Executive meeting of the Australian Labor Party last weekend- we know that this outside body determines all policy for the Australian Labor Party- that there will be no wages freeze. Yet yesterday in a Press conference the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) stated that the power will be used, if it is granted, to control the incomes of persons who are non-wage earners. In short and putting it bluntly, unions will not be subject to wage freezes.

Union members will not have their wages subject to any regulation which would limit the wages which could be received, but other persons will have a restraint placed upon them, persons who are self-employed, the doctors, dentists, accountants, academics, lawyers and architectsall persons who do not have a wage imposed upon them but who earn their own remuneration will be subject to some limitation on the remuneration they receive. Persons receiving rents, dividends and interest will be subject to a restraint, but wage earners will not. Persons in primary industry, farmers, orchardists, fishermen and primary producers generally who earn what they receive by the sweat of their brow and their own toil will be subject to regulation, but not the workers of this country. This is what is involved in the great confidence trick which this Government is seeking to impose upon the Australian people. What I am asking, and this is the point of the question this evening, is that if this natural interpretation of 2 very clear statements made by the Prime Minister is not a correct statement that the Government say so. However, if it is a correct interpretation, how does the Government justify it? How does it have the temerity to go before the people of Australia and say that this is how it is intended to determine the functions of government in this country?

Senator Devitt:

– Where is your Leader? It is the same in the other place. The Leader of the Opposition takes a back seat.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Let there be no doubt. Obviously from the noise there are other people in the Australian Labor Party who are equally acutely embarrassed by the discrimination which has now been made public. They recognise that they could not possibly persuade the people of Australia that theirs is a government which is designed to build up and not destroy, that theirs is a government which is designed to co-operate and bring together rather than to divide, in the language of the great policy speech of last year. Let there be no doubt as to what was said last week-end. I have the Press comments with me and pretty well every Press comment is below the name of a commentator who puts his own signature to what he is writing. The gentleman from the ‘Financial Review’, a Mr Toohey, who ought to be accepted because of his past associations, says in quoting the actual resolutioin of the Federal Executive meeting:

The Executive repudiates any idea that a Federal Labor Government would initiate a wage freeze or displace or diminish the commission’s role in fixing wages.

Then one comes to Mr Allan Barnes, also a reputable journalist in this country, who writes for the Melbourne ‘Age ‘. He said:

Mr Whitlam ‘s motion included a public declaration that a Labor Government would not initiate a wage freeze or interfere in any way with the wage-fixing role of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.

The editorial of the ‘Sydney Morning Herald’, based obviously on what it received, stated that the Executive explicitly repudiated any idea that a Federal Labour government would initiate a wage freeze or diminish the Arbitration Commission’s role in fixing wages. And there are others in the various cuttings that can be extracted from the newspapers. That was the decision publicly given last week-end and reached at the meeting of the Federal Executive of the Labor Party. However, in this Senate, Senator Murphy as Leader of the Government in the Senate says: ‘I am not going to say what happened at that Executive meeting’. He knows that if he gave the answer he would expose for debate here all the implications of a most discriminatory policy. I believe that this is the place where the opportunity is available and the opportunity shall be taken to point out what the Labor Party would like to conceal and not have exposed to public comment and criticism. This is why on this occasion I have chosen to speak in the short time available tonight on the first reading of this Bill. I will continue my remarks when the debate is resumed at a later hour.

page 1147

ADJOURNMENT

The Senate

The PRESIDENT:

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

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– In speaking to the adjournment of the debate let me state that Senator Greenwood has -

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Cavanagh, are you replying to Senator Greenwood?

Senator CAVANAGH:

-No, I am not. That would be out of order. I am trying just to ascertain for how long Senator Greenwood wants to continue and whether it would necessitate us staying here for a long period tonight.

The PRESIDENT:

– He is finished.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-He has finished for tonight but he seeks leave to continue.

The PRESIDENT:

– He does not seek leave.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– He seeks leave to continue his remarks.

Senator Withers:

– He has a right to continue.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-That is right, but what I am asking is that we be given some indication on the adjournment of the debate tonight of how long Senator Greenwood proposes to carry on this tirade. If it is only for a short period let us defeat the motion for the adjournment. If it is for 10 minutes it will be easily annihilated and we can try to get over this part of the debate tonight. If he wants to go on for a long time we will adjourn. However, if he wishes to speak for a short time let us get this distasteful propaganda over.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11.1 p.m.

page 1148

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Taxation (Question No. 434)

Senator Kane:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did the Prime Minister undertake not to increase taxation during the first year his Party was in office.
  2. Is the Prime Minister aware that, according to Government figures, there are 7.S million life insurance policies in force in Australia, and that, the average sum insured per policy is less than $4,000.
  3. Does the Prime Minister agree that the average sum insured of $4,000 per policy is evidence of the fact that the ownership of policies is wide-spread throughout the community.
  4. Is the Prime Minister further aware that by increasing tax charges on mutual life insurance companies, in some cases, double and in others almost treble the Government will in effect cause the bonuses paid to policy holders to be reduced by up to 20 per cent.
  5. Are these actions by the Government a way of increasing taxes on the ordinary working man who holds a life insurance policy.
Senator Murphy:
ALP

– The Prime Minister has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) In my election policy speech I stated that rates of taxation need not be increased at any level to implement a Labor Government ‘s program.
  2. The latest available figures of life insurance policies in force in Australia compiled by the Bureau of Census and Statistics are shown in the following table:
  1. The average sum insured is not necessarily a good measure of the spread of ownership of life insurance policies. The number of policies in force relative to the size of the population is a better measure, and this indicates that ownership of policies is wide-spread throughout the community.
  2. The changes relating to the taxation of life insurance companies announced in the Budget do no more than bring those companies more into line with other types of companies. The lower rates of taxation had no basis in taxation principle and, moreover, the concession represented an unjustified indirect subsidy to life insurance companies and their policyholders at the expense of taxpayers generally who have had to bear higher taxes than otherwise simply because the tax base has been so heavily eroded by this and similar concessions for sectional purposes. Policy-holders continue to enjoy substantial direct benefits from the concession relating to the deductibility of premiums on policies. There is no foundation for the view that policy-holders will be unjustly penalised if the effect of the taxation changes leads to reduced bonuses.
  3. See (4).

Canberra Telephone Directory (Question No. 459)

Senator Mulvihill:

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

  1. How many 1973 Canberra district telephone directories were produced without the names of subscribers commencing with the letters G and O.
  2. Which printing company was responsible for this indifferent production.
  3. What compensation was sought from the printing company to reimburse the Department for the costs of replacement directories.
  4. Why have subscribers not yet received replacement directories.
Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Except for the single copy made available to the Department by the honourable senator, no reports of pages having been omitted from the 1973 Canberra telephone directory have been received by the Department. The copy provided by the honourable senator is apparently an isolated instance where a section covering pages 8 1 to 144 was missed in the binding process.
  2. The printing contractor is William Brooks and Co. Ltd, Waterloo, New South Wales.
  3. None, in view of the apparently isolated nature of the failure.
  4. The Department has provided a replacement copy for the honourable senator. Any subscriber who may also have received a faulty directory should notify his local Postmaster or the District Telephone Manager Canberra so that a replacement may be issued.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 10 October 1973, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1973/19731010_senate_28_s57/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant