Senate
29 November 1973

28th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 28th Parliament
  3. 1973

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Magnus Cormack) took the chair at 10.14 a.m., and read prayers.

page 2267

DEATH OF MR JUSTICE WALSH

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

– I regret that I have to inform the Senate of the death this morning of Mr Justice Walsh of the High Court of Australia.

page 2267

NATIONAL HEALTH SCHEME

Petitions

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 19 Citizens of the Commonwealth:

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

1 ) That Australian citizens place great value on their freedom to choose their own doctor in all aspects of medical care.

That we believe in a doctor’s freedom to provide a personal service based on personal responsibility within a system based on quality rather than quantity, as opposed to an impersonal service in which doctor and patient lose their identity.

3 ) That proposals to change the existing health scheme are unacceptable to the people of Australia.

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

Petition received and read.

A petition in identical terms was presented by Senator Jessop.

Petition received.

page 2267

QUESTION

QANTAS AIRWAYS LTD: APPLICATION FOR INCREASE IN AIR FARES

Senator WITHERS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Minister for Civil Aviation whether the Government has received an application from Qantas Airways Ltd for a 6 per cent increase in air fares. If so, has the Government yet made a decision on that application?

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

-I have no knowledge of any application that may have been made. I will take this matter up with the Minister today to see whether I can get an answer for the honourable senator.

page 2267

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

-Will the Minister for the Media ascertain why the Australian

Broadcasting Commission news this morning gave only the Government and Mr Whitlam ‘s side of the current controversy over the States Grants (Schools) Bill 1973. Will the Minister ascertain why the many statements made yesterday and last night by Mr Snedden and Senator Rae, who are the Opposition spokesmen on education, were ignored in the information which the news program gave about this current affair. Will the Minister also indicate to the ABC Commissioners that the ABC charter of freedom and independence requires that it display balance and objectivity in its news reports?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I assume from the question directed to me that Senator Greenwood is implying that political prejudice exists within the Australian Broadcasting Commission. If he implies that, I emphatically deny it. The Australian Broadcasting Commission under this Government has been told that it has complete political and programming independence. This Government has insisted that it carry out its political and programming independence. If the honourable senator looked at a record which has been supplied to the Leader of the Opposition by the General Manager of the ABC as to the number of times that members of all political parties have appeared on ABC programs, he will see that members of the Opposition are being more than fairly treated.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I seek leave to ask another question in view of the fact that the question I asked has not been answered.

The PRESIDENT:

– The basis for supplementary questions is to elucidate answers. In the circumstances I will allow you to ask a supplementary question.

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I again ask the Minister for the Media: Will he ascertain why the ABC news service this morning gave only one side of the issue to which I referred in my original question- the current controversy on the States Grants (Schools) Bill? Will he report to the Senate the result of his inquiry?

Senator McCLELLAND:

-The answer to the honourable senator’s question is yes.

page 2267

QUESTION

PRICES AND INCOMES REFERENDA

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask a question of the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is he aware that the Prime Minister yesterday refused to say what action he would take if the prices and incomes referenda on 8 December were carried? Did the Prime Minister say that he would not make firm commitments until after the industrial peace conference on 1 1 and 12 December? Does this not indicate that the Prime Minister is deliberately asking the people to vote yes on the referenda issues without knowing what is involved? Why does the Prime Minister choose to keep the electors in ignorance on 2 issues which are extremely important to the people and the nation?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I assume that the answer to the first 2 questions is yes because I accept that the Leader of the Country Party in the Senate is probably quoting the Prime Minister correctly. As to the other questions, why should the Prime Minister commit himself to exactly what legislation is going to be introduced? That is a question of policy, it is a matter for legislation, and it is liable to confuse the issue. The Leader of the Opposition is laughing. Yes, I repeat that it is liable to confuse the issue. The people of Australia are being asked to make a permanent alteration to the Constitution of Australia to enable laws to be made by this Parliament in respect of those subject matters. Those laws may be made over the years by the various governments representing the various shades of political opinion and responding to what the Australian people want them to do over presumably a very lengthy period of time. The issues should in no way be obscured by putting considerations to the people as if this constitutional alteration depended upon specific legislative measures. We do not know, of course, whether they would get through Parliament, but when the constitutional power is available to the national Parliament it ought to be given proper consideration.

page 2268

QUESTION

WINE INDUSTRY

Senator DONALD CAMERON:
Minister for Labour · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Has the Minister discussed with the Treasurer the possible effect on the wine industry, particularly locally owned or proprietary wineries, of the abolition of section 3 1a applying to trading valuations? Will the Minister ask the Treasurer for an assurance that should any wineries be adversely affected, each case will be reviewed to ensure that the financial viability of the industry is maintained?

Senator WILLESEE:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

-I fancy that I have some papers on this matter, but I do not think I have them with me at the moment. If I do have them here I will answer the honourable senator’s question at the end of question time.

page 2268

QUESTION

NATIONAL HEALTH SCHEME

Senator LITTLE:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Social

Security. To assist honourable senators to carry out the advice of the Minister for Social Security to do research themselves to find the comparable expense of the present health benefit scheme and that suggested by the Government, is the Minister yet able to inform honourable senators whether the compulsory payment of 1.35 per cent of taxable income will attract in total or in any part a reduction in current or any future taxable income assessment?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am not in a position to provide the honourable senator with any information additional to that which I provided to him last night. I tried in the hour before question time this morning to contact my colleague, the Minister for Social Security, on this matter but I was unable to do so. I am therefore not in a position to provide the honourable senator with any further information at this stage. I hope, when the Bill comes before the Senate, I will be in a position to do so.

page 2268

QUESTION

WOOL PRICES

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Primary Industry whether he has noticed an article in today’s ‘Australian Financial Review’ reporting a leading wool textile manufacturer in Italy as claiming that if Australian wool prices showed greater stability he would buy more. Does the Minister agree that stable wool prices would boost demand?

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Primary Industry · TASMANIA · ALP

-I did see the report in the Australian Financial Review’. It was a report of an interview with a representative of the Lanrossi organisation in Italy with whom I had discussions a fortnight ago in Rome. The article only restates the position which was indicated to me, that that very big organisation is convinced that it could sell more woollen textile products in Italy if stable wool prices could be maintained. The organisation indicated that the proportion of woollen fibre being used by it has declined since 1 968 from 50 per cent of its total fibre production to 37 per cent projected for next year. This is confirmation of the comments which I have made since I returned from my overseas trip and is an indicator of the decline in the use of wool as a part of the total textile market. I hope that this is the sort of problem that we can overcome in the near future. It is a typical case of a large woollen textile manufacturer wanting to get back into the usage of wool as a textile in the same proportions as in the past. Our efforts will be directed towards ensuring that organisations such as Lanrossi and other manufacturers and textile processors can increase their consumption of woollen fibre.

page 2269

QUESTION

PARLIAMENT HOUSE: IMPRINT ON NEWS SHEETS

Senator COTTON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

- Mr President, my question is directed to you. You will be aware, I am sure, that there are a number of printed gossip sheets circulating out of Canberra purporting to inform people of what is happening in the Federal Parliament. There is one such sheet which bears at the end the inscription: ‘Printed and published by’, and I shall leave out the name. It then shows an address in Canberra with the addition of the words ‘and Parliament House, Canberra’. Do you feel that this is proper? Do you feel that those people are entitled to do that? Will you look into this general practice in terms of the privilege extended by this House to the Parliamentary Press Gallery and those who work in it?

The PRESIDENT:

– I undertake to discuss this matter with Senator Cotton, so that I can get more information from him, some time during the course of the day. I undertake also as a result of my examination of this matter to inform honourable senators next week of the conclusion I have reached.

page 2269

QUESTION

SYDNEY HARBOUR: RELEASE OF LAND

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Urban and Regional Development. In view of the protocol deadlock between the Prime Minister and the New South Wales Premier in regard to the release of land on the Sydney Harbour foreshore can the Minister remind the Premier of his obligation to write to the Prime Minister and so avoid falling into what is known as Jagoism? Would it be possible to do a package deal in regard to Bantry Bay as distinct from the rest of that land?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

-Yes, I am prepared to put this matter before the Minister. Whether he is prepared to write to the Premier of New South Wales asking him to send a letter to the Prime Minister I do not know. There is some procedure by which almost all letters to State Premiers are written by the Prime Minister himself. But if there is any question that there is a responsibility on the Premier of New South Wales to write a letter and he should be reminded of it, I will take it up with the Minister to see if we can get some reply.

page 2269

QUESTION

AMALGAMATION OF DEPARTMENTS

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

-Does the Minister for Repatriation recall his answer to a question asked by me on 28 August in which he said that both he and the Minister for Defence would resist any proposal to amalgamate the Repatriation Department and the Department of Social Security? In view of continuing rumours in Returned Services League circles, will the Minister inform the Senate whether there has been any change in the position since August?

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

– I am not aware of what Senator Maunsell refers to as rumours within Returned Services League. I know that the RSL has been active in stating that it is against such a proposal. I think it is a rumour about which people have been speculating. I can only reiterate the assurance that I gave before and what Mr Barnard, my colleague the Minister for Defence has said- that as far as we personally are concerned we would resist such moves. There are no moves presently under consideration by the Government. I can say only what is the current position officially as far as I and my colleague, Mr Barnard, are concerned.

page 2269

QUESTION

NEW SOUTH WALES STATE ELECTION

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– Would the Minister for the Media have an investigation made into the reasons why radio and television stations, including those of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, gave wide publicity on the night of the New South Wales election to reports that according to their computer calculations there was a 10 per cent to 11 per cent swing against the Australian Labor Party and that it would lose up to 9 seats? Has the Minister seen the latest results which show that the Australian Labor Party will be returned with the same number of seats as it held prior to the elections despite the cynical gerrymander of New South Wales electorates by the Askin Government? Would the Minister have a check made to ascertain whether Australian Broadcasting Commission and other political commentators could be more realistic in their estimates of swings?

Senator DOUGLAS McCLELLANDFirstly, I am aware that the Labor Party in New South Wales will be returned, as I understand it, with the same number of seats in the new Parliament as it had in the previous Parliament as a result of Mr Don Day being returned as the State member for Casino at the election that was held on 1 7 November. I think that anyone who saw the results as they came through on that evening- I saw them on the Australian Broadcasting Commission program- will agree that commentators had some difficulty in estimating with reasonable accuracy the type of swing that was in evidence. I know that early in the piece someone was saying that there was likely to be a swing of 10 per cent against the Labor Party and that as the night progressed the evidence of the swing diminished considerably. I have had some inquiries made into this and I am given to understand that one of the reasons for this was the slowness with which the figures came into the central tally room. Apparently the reason for the slowness of the receipt of the figures by comparison with the rate of receipt at Federal elections is that for Federal elections full-time electoral officers are engaged in counting the votes whereas for the New South Wales State elections part-time electoral officers are engaged. Therefore I do not suppose that they could be considered to be nearly as efficient as are full-time electoral officers. That is as much as I can tell the honourable senator. I understand that, in the main, that is the reason for the slow counting of the returns as they came in.

page 2270

QUESTION

REPEAT TV PROGRAMS

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-In addressing a question to the Minister for the Media, I refer to claims made in Adelaide at the weekend that commercial television stations are using a large number of repeat programs. Has the Minister received any information on these claims? Do similar circumstances exist in other capital cities? If the claims are correct, is this a procedure that is usual at this time of the year? Is it related to the absence of procedures for the obtaining of ratings on audience demand? How does this procedure measure up to the Government’s points system for programming?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am aware of the number of repeat programs at present being shown on commercial television stations, particularly in Adelaide. As the honourable senator has mentioned the points system, he will appreciate that recently the Australian Broadcasting Control Board introduced a new points system which operates over a series of 28-day periods in a 48-week year. The 48-week year is taken on the basis that workers in the industry are entitled to annual leave and there has to be a period for repair of station equipment. Fewer points are given in the points system for repeat programs than for original productions. If a station has too few points in one 28-day period it has to catch up in another 28-day period over the 48-week year. Stations are now required to indicate in their publicity schedules whether a program is a repeat program. Obviously it is because this is being insisted upon that the facts cited by the honourable senator are now obtainable. It was in this connection that I sought the co-operation of the commercial stations and the newspapers to have these details published for the benefit of the public, and that co-operation was forthcoming.

Whilst it is fair to say that a number of repeat programs are replayed because of popular public request or because a number of people did not see the programs initially, none the less it does appear to me that the number of repeats instanced by the honourable senator is excessive. This is something which the Control Board might have to look at in February when it revises the existing points system. So far as the ratings are concerned, I think I answered a question on this subject the other day by saying that I understood that at least one commercial station was engaged in a system of taking its own ratings during the lay-off period.

page 2270

QUESTION

FERTILISER BOUNTY

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware that over the last 3 years, in South Australia alone, primary producers have expended some $32m on the use of superphosphate which, without the bounty, would have cost them an extra $ 1 8m? Is the Minister aware and is it a fact that the price of sulphur could rise by as much as 50 per cent next year and the price of phosphate rock by between 30 per cent and 40 per cent? In view of already increased costs in the phosphate industry, such as for labour and the effects of the removal of the investment allowance, coupled with the expectation of other increased costs, will the Minister give consideration to increasing the superphosphate bounty and so assist the primary producer to counter increased costs in this very important item of his production?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– I have stated on numerous occasions on behalf of the Government that the question of fertiliser subsidies is subject to review. The 2 Acts which currently, apply to fertiliser bounties do not expire until the end of next year. The Government has indicated that it will examine the effect of subsidies during 1974. 1 appreciate the point made by Senator Young. It is true that these costs are increasing. These are factors which the Government will take into account when it makes its review of the bounty payments.

page 2270

QUESTION

DAYLIGHT SAVING

Senator KANE:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister representig the Minister for Minerals and Energy aware that the American House of Representatives this week legislated for 2 years’ daylight saving in order to conserve oil? Is the Minister able to give the Senate some idea of what fuels are conserved in Australia at the moment as a result of a majority of the Australian States having introduced daylight saving? If the Minister cannot give the Senate this information now will he consider having an investigation made into the matter in order to ascertain the position? If the inquiries reveal a considerable saving in fuels Will the Minister consider urging the States to maintain daylight saving throughout the year?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– I am not in a position to give a detailed answer to that question but I can give some indication of what happened in Tasmania, my own State, when daylight saving was first introduced. I am talking about the hydroelectric system in that State but I think that the same principles would apply to other systems. From memory, the Hydro-Electric Commission then estimated that there would be only a 1 per cent saving on the total load on the system as a result of the introduction of daylight saving. I do not know whether this would apply to other forms of electricity generation but I shall refer the question to the Minister concerned and obtain an answer for the honourable senator.

page 2271

QUESTION

QANTAS AIRWAYS LTD: AIR FARES

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

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation. It relates to the air fares charged by Qantas Airways Ltd. There has not been a satisfactory explanation of why the effect of the 25 per cent revaluation of the Australian dollar should not be passed on to the public. Does the Minister agree that Qantas is defrauding the public? There is no other word for it, even though the Minister said that that word is too strong. What is it that Qantas is doing if it is not defrauding the public? Why should the Australian public subsidise all the other foreign airlines that come into Australia by again giving them the value of that 25 per cent? We are paying Pan-American World Airways, American Airlines lnc, and KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, etc., this 25 per cent. If the Government feels that a subsidy is required, will the Minister ask for a subsidy for Qantas in order to allow the Australian travelling public- there are thousands of Australians travelling- to gain the benefits of revaluation which the Government promised would be passed on to the consumers? Finally I ask the Minister that he insist that Qantas stop using the power that it has of requiring of all air travel agencies that the fares of Australians must be paid in Australian currency whereas any other national can get a fare $173 cheaper than an Australian?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– I find it difficult to sort out from that speech the parts which are questions seeking information.

The PRESIDENT:

– I was following it carefully. It may have been wrapped in a cocoon of words but 3 basic questions were asked.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– On every occasion that the honourable senator has raised this matter I have taken it up with the Minister for Civil Aviation. The honourable senator asked what Qantas is doing if it is not defrauding the public. The answer obviously is that it is running a profitable airline, which is its purpose. The question could well be answered by reference to the question asked today by the Leader of the Opposition who mentioned that an application is being made for an increase in air fares. I suggest to the honourable senator that if he places his question on notice he will be sure of getting a written reply to every point that can be deciphered from his question.

page 2271

QUESTION

CONSERVATION OF KANGAROOS

Senator DURACK:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Customs and Excise who might also be called the minister for kangaroos. I refer to the report of the ministerial working party on kangaroo conservation which he tabled recently, I think at my request, and to the accompanying statement by the Minister for the Environment and Conservation, Dr Cass, which was also tabled. I refer to the following section of it which stated:

The Department of Fisheries and Fauna of Western Australia has submitted management programs for the species of kangaroos which are commercially harvested in that State. These programs are, in my view, deficient in terms of the requirement set out in the report.

In what respect are the Western Australian management programs deficient, as mentioned in the terms of the report? Has the Western Australian Department of Fisheries and Fauna been advised of the nature of the deficiencies?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– For a start, I understand that in Western Australia kangaroos are still classed as vermin. In everybody’s interest there should be precision about this matter. I will get a precise answer for the honourable senator. This is a topic not without some interest. I understand that there has been a good deal of discussion between the various Australian governmental officials and officials of Western Australia. I will obtain for the honourable senator the exact details of the way in which it is suggested that there has not been complete conformity in the arrangements proposed by Western Australia.

page 2272

QUESTION

INTEREST RATES

Senator WRIGHT:
TASMANIA

-Does the Minister representing the Treasurer acknowledge that the fixation of bank rate interest and interest on Commonwealth stock is entirely within the authority of the Reserve Bank, which is under the control of this Government? Are those interest rates an all time record? Are other interest rates also an all time record? Can the Minister tell the Senate whether the Government’s fixation of interest rates at an all time record would be followed by a similar fixation of other prices if the Government had power to fix other prices?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-I will refer the question to the Treasurer.

page 2272

QUESTION

PROFESSIONAL LOBBYISTS

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Leader of the Government in the Senate aware that a considerable number of professional lobbyists have descended upon parliamentarians in recent years suggesting, persuading and influencing decisions of the Parliament? Has the Government given any consideration to the compilation of a register of all professional lobbyists and making public the names of such lobbyists, which action would be similar to the action which the United States Congress had to take to publicise the work of all full time lobbyists?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-I think that a good deal of consideration has been given to this question by all political parties. Certainly overseas, in more places than the United States, it has been felt that in the public interest something should be done about the registration of lobbyists, in their own interests as well as the interests of the nation. The lobbying extends across not only what might be thought to be some kind of illegitimate lobbying but also to what might be the proper representation of the interests of some group. I think it is becoming more and more apparent that all this ought to be put on a regular basis so that persons know with whom they are dealing and that there is proper regulation in this field. This has been found necessary in area after area. Firstly, in not so modern times, it was done with attorneys, then with real estate agents and then all sorts of other persons. These categories have moved into areas in which the public has an interest in knowing what happens.

Senator Wright:

– What is improper about that?

Senator MURPHY:

-Senator Wright suggests, I think, that there might be something improper in the approach that has been taken by the United States in regard to lobbyists I do not. I shall take into consideration the suggestion made by Senator Gietzelt.

page 2272

QUESTION

ADOPTION OF PART-ABORIGINAL CHILD

Senator LAUCKE:

– I ask a question of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I refer to the very sad and unsatisfactory circumstances surrounding the frustration of the desire of Mr and Mrs Bob King of Rivett to adopt their partAboriginal foster child Kelly. As the happiness of the child, the foster parents and the mother should be paramount in this matter and achievable if red tape can be cut, I ask the Minister whether he has made any progress in his efforts to facilitate the adoption.

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

-The answer to the honourable senator’s question is no. I have received no reply from Mr Waddy, to whom a letter was sent on behalf of the Kings. According to last night’s issue of the Canberra ‘Advertiser’ I believe it was suggested that Mrs Kinsella was coming to Canberra for the purpose, among other things, of seeing me and, eventually, of finalising the’ adoption if it is granted by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. As has been pointed out to the Kings, there is always the risk in relation to an application for adoption that the court will not give the child to the adoptive parents chosen by the mother. It would appear from a recent newspaper article that the arrangement was not so much that Mrs King apply for adoption but rather that she obtain the consent of the mother to allow the child to remain with her. I believe that the mother and Mrs Kinsella will be coming to Canberra for the purpose of seeing the authorities and me in relation to this matter.

page 2272

QUESTION

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

Senator LILLICO:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate: Is it not a fair proposition that a reply to a question on notice forwarded through a Minister in this place from a Minister in another place should be a properly couched reply and not merely a reference to Hansard of another place, which reference may or may not be relevant to the question asked? I am not blaming the Minister for the reply I have received in that manner, but should not consideration be given to ruling such replies out of order for the reasons that they constitute an indignity to this chamber?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I am conscious of the fact that that happened recently. I must say that I have a good deal of sympathy with what the honourable senator is putting. When in Opposition I felt the same way myself when I sometimes asked a question and the reply referred to a Hansard, especially a Hansard of the other House. Some better arrangement than that ought to be made. Even if it means some repetition, I think it would be more satisfactory if a definitive reply were to be given rather than simply a reference to some other document. I will pass that message to those who prepare the replies.

page 2273

QUESTION

PETROL RATIONING

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Minerals and Energy. I refer to an answer to a question on notice which I received yesterday from the Minister for Minerals and Energy through Senator Wriedt which stated that there was no need for petrol rationing in Australia. How is this statement reconciled with a statement made by the Minister for Minerals and Energy and reported in this morning’s Press appealing to Australians to go easy on fuel and energy consumption?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– I am not able to answer the question asked by Senator Lawrie. I shall refer that additional question to the Minister to see what he says.

page 2273

QUESTION

PRIME MINISTER: FOREIGN KNIGHTHOOD

Senator HANNAN:
VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister’s statement in answer to a question on notice asked by Senator Gair that in August 1969 he was appointed a Knight Grand Cross of Grace in the Roll of Merit of the Military Order of the Collar of Saint Agatha of Paterno. Can the Minister explain why the Prime Minister accepts this foreign knighthood while at the same time he rejects knighthoods being conferred upon Australian citizens by the Queen of Australia? Can the Minister say whether Mr Whitlam ‘s knighthood comes from Chile or from Malta? Finally, does this mean that in polite circles the Prime Minister should now be referred to as Sir Gough Whitlam?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I always endeavour to answer the honourable senator’s questions if I can, but I think that it would be more prudent to pass this question along to the Prime Minister for his personal answer.

page 2273

ESTABLISHMENT OF VEGETABLE PROCESSING CO-OPERATIVE

Senator WRIGHT:

-The Minister for Primary Industry will recall that considerable publicity was given a few months ago to the proposal to establish a vegetable processing co-operative on the north west coast. Inducements were held out that it would receive Federal Government underwriting.

Senator Wheeldon:

– North west coast of what?

Senator WRIGHT:

-Of that lovely island, Tasmania. Has the Government considered the proposal? Has the Government or the Australian Industry Development Corporation underwritten any finance?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– My colleague the Minister for Overseas Trade has been dealing with this matter. I shall refer the question to him and obtain what information I can.

page 2273

QUESTION

CRITICISM OF PUBLIC SERVICE

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Labour. Does the Minister have any reservations in regard to the constant criticism of members of the Public Service, particularly those in high office who hold significant responsibility and who are constantly denigrated by the Minister for Labour as being fat cats? Does the Minister consider, now that simple backbench members of the Australian Labor Party have been projected into positions of responsibility which return a salary of at least three times that of a simple member of the House of Representatives or senator, that he and they may also be considered to be among that class of person which the Minister for Labour seeks to denigrate? Did the Minister for Labour state yesterday: ‘They are getting all sorts of fancy conditions and the taxpayers are paying for it. I think the taxpayer is just about fed up with mollycoddling.’? Does the Minister believe himself to be in this class?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– I doubt that this so-called question is in fact a question. It seems to me that it is not a question but an argument between the honourable senator and the Minister for Labour about statements that Mr Clyde Cameron has made. I suggest that if the honourable senator can make his remarks relevant to a question he should place it on the notice paper for reply.

Senator WEBSTER:

-Mr President, I seek to prompt the Minister. The Minister’s reply was that if I sought to make it relevant I could place the question on the notice paper. I am seeking to have the Minister’s comment as to whether this is fair criticism of the Australian Public Service.

Senator Murphy:

- Mr President, I submit that this is not a proper question asking for information. The honourable senator now says that he wants the Minister’s comment on something. He is clearly asking for an opinion. This is an aggravation of his previous question.

page 2274

QUESTION

INCIDENCE OF RED RUST IN WHEAT CROP

Senator LAUCKE:

– I direct a question to the Minister for Primary Industry. As the incidence of red rust in many of the wheat belts in Australia has had a really adverse impact on yields of wheat, I would like to know whether the Minister has had a recent re-estimation of this season’s wheat crop in Australia.

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– It is true that there has been a considerable incidence of rust in the wheat crop. However, the loss of wheat as a result of rust will not be so great as was originally expected. My understanding on information given to me yesterday is that the latest estimated figure for the total crop is 440 million bushels.

page 2274

QUESTION

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister: Is it not a fact that at the Constitutional Convention held in Sydney in the first week of September this year the Commonwealth Government agreed that numerous topics suggested as involving constitutional amendment should be referred to standing committees of the Convention for detailed consideration and report? Is it not also a fact that at least four of those topics so referred with the agreement of the Commonwealth Government have now been the subject of unilateral proposals in this Parliament for amendment of the Constitution? What future, therefore, does the Commonwealth Government see in constitutional conventions?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– If I am not not mistaken the Australian Government made the position clear that by taking part in the Constitutional Convention it was not to be taken as entering on a course which would inhibit it from proposing constitutional changes or legislative measures of any kind. I am quite sure that the Australian Government has made this clear. I recollect that I have made it clear at some of the executive meetings that I have attended as well as in a number of the other areas such as standing committees of Attorneys-General, and so on. We have made very clear that our participation in discussions and so on cannot inhibit the Australian Parliament or the Australian Government from taking action. If the Australian Parliament wishes to use its present constitutional power to propose matters for the consideration of the people by way of referendum it is entitled to do so. If the price of going to a constitutional convention is that the Australian Government and the Australian Parliament are to be paralysed, the honourable senator would see that it would be very difficult for any government to agree to participate in such a convention.

page 2274

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address my question to the Minister for the Media and ask: Is the Australian Broadcasting Commission an independent statutory authority? Is independence in that sense a virtue only if the Commission achieves objectivity and balance in its reporting and programming? Is not the best assurance of objectivity and balance achieved by the encouragement of the widest .possible constructive criticism of the ABC both by the public and within this Parliament? If the Minister agrees with these principles, which are freely used by the Government in regard to commercial stations, will he- and I say this without offence- accept criticisms as constructive and helpful and not react defensively or in a protective fashion? Has the Government given thought to a suggestion made earlier this year by me that a complaints commission similar to that set up by the United Kingdom in regard to the BBC might be instituted in Australia?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The answer to the first part of the honourable senator’s question is yes. It is true that the Australian Broadcasting Commission is by Act of Parliament an independent statutory body. This is certainly the case so far as I am concerned and, I understand, so far as the Commission is concerned. I have had discussions with the Chairman and all members of the Commission and I am satisfied that the Commission does encourage, as does this Government, fair and constructive criticism of the Commission’s programs. However, I lay emphasis on my use of the words fair and constructive criticism’. The suggestion made by Senator Carrick about the establishment of a complaints commission has received my consideration and it is certainly being discussed with members of the Commission. I understand that Senator Carrick raised his suggestion at a meeting of the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts which is inquiring into all aspects of radio and broadcasting. Perhaps this matter might be looked at when the Committee finally presents its report to the Senate. Whilst I am answering this question I would like to give Senator Greenwood some further information in reply to the question which he asked this morning about ABC news programming. I have since been able to have inquiries made of the ABC and an answer has been provided to me by the Assistant General Manager of the ABC. I have been informed that this morning’s news broadcast was a matter of overall balance between last night’s news bulletins and the bulletins this morning. The situation is that in the main bulletin at 7 p.m. last night the comments made by Mr Snedden on the education issue were featured and in the 9 p.m. bulletin last night the comments of Senator Rae, the Liberal Party spokesman on education, also were featured. Therefore in this morning’s 7.45 bulletin the comments on the education Bill were mainly those of the Prime Minister, with a shorter reference to comments by Mr Snedden. Therefore over a space of 12 hours the news division of the ABC balanced its approach to this subject.

page 2275

QUESTION

LOCUST PLAGUE

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– I am not aware that locusts are actually ravaging the crops. I have not had a report on the position since my return from overseas, but prior to my leaving some 3 weeks ago the position was not as bad as it had been expected to be. As to steps that have been taken, the Australian Agricultural Council discussed this matter at its last meeting. The Australian Government has allocated $500,000 to assist in the eradication campaign and has also made available aircraft and facilities of the armed Services. The States are conducting their normal campaign, as they do every year, assisting farmers on the farm to eliminate the beds before the locusts actually form to take wing and fly away. I think that every reasonable step has been taken and I understand that the position is not as serious as was originally anticipated. Probably for the reason that the State governments and the Australian Government tackled the problem quickly, the menace has not proved as serious as it was expected to be.

page 2275

QUESTION

CHANNEL 9 TELEVISION STATIONS

Senator MILLINER:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Minister for the Media. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to a recent report indicating that the profit of Channel 9 television stations in Sydney and Melbourne was considerably lower in the first half of the current year than for the same period last year? Can the Minister indicate whether the report is correct, and has he ascertained the reasons for this reduction in profits?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I did see the report appearing in yesterday’s newspapers. The latest financial figures of the Channel 9 network are not available to me; the last figures that I saw were based on the 1970-71 financial year. I assure the honourable senator that the figures then provided to me indicated that the network was then in a very healthy financial position. However, I am given to understand that the network has embarked upon, or is embarking upon, a quite extensive Australian production program in order that it may comply with the new points system. If the latest report is correct, I suppose that this embarking upon new Australian programming could account for the network’s additional expenditure and would eat into the profits of shareholders.

page 2275

QUESTION

POSTAL CHARGES TO PAPUA NEW GUINEA

Senator YOUNG:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the PostmasterGeneral. Is it a fact that postal rates to Papua New Guinea have been increased from 7c to 10c a letter due to the fact that the PostmasterGeneral has now classified Papua New Guinea as a foreign country? Why has such a decision been taken at this time? Is it correct also that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs in Papua New Guinea has announced similar increases on mail addressed to Australia to stay in line with the Australian policy?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I did read a report that the postal rate on letters from Australia to Papua New Guinea and from Papua New Guinea to Australia has been increased from 7c to 10c. I am unaware of why such a decision was taken. I assume it was taken after consultation between the Australian PostmasterGeneral and the Postmaster-General of Papua New Guinea. I will have inquiries made and a reply furnished to the honourable senator.

page 2275

QUESTION

WINE INDUSTRY

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– Earlier in the day in answer to a question from Senator Donald

Cameron I said that I did not have the information he sought. I can now inform him that on 22 November the Minister assisting the Treasurer made a statement on behalf of the Treasurer which was relevant to this question. I think I can best answer the question by noting that the statement included, amongst other things, the following points:

  1. 1) In bringing equity into the industry’s taxation affairs, the Government does not want to change the form and character of the industry.
  2. Representations on the matter appear to have been based on fears of the industry that the deferred tax to be collected over the phasing-in period would be well over double the $15m estimated by the Coombs task force. The Treasurer understands that those worries have now been removed, or at least reduced immeasurably.
  3. In administering the phasing-in, the usual sympathy afforded by the administration will apply, and no arbitrary or over-theoretical standards of valuation will be imposed. While no serious problems are expected, if any unforeseen circumstances arise which result in the position being different from those outlined, the wine making industry may be assured that the situation will be reviewed sympathetically.

page 2276

QUESTION

SOUTH VIETNAMESE WAR COLLEGE DELEGATION

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– I have an answer also to a question asked by Senator Durack. I had this answer for him yesterday but it was in the form of a letter. A complaint was made last week that evidently he does not like receiving letters in reply to his questions and would rather have answers given in the Senate.

Senator Durack:

– Will I receive a letter?

Senator WILLESEE:

-No. A complaint was made last week, so I had the letter stopped. Otherwise the honourable senator would have received the letter yesterday. On 22 November Senator Durack asked me a question without notice about the South Vietnamese War College delegation. The following information is provided in reply to the honourable senator’s question: In July of this year the Commandant of the War College raised with our Embassy in Saigon a proposal which he had put to the South Vietnam Defence Ministry that he and IS members of the College should visit Australia as part of a tour including Indonesia and New Zealand. The South Vietnamese Ambassador followed up the inquiry during a call at the Department of

Foreign Affairs on 2 August. It was suggested to him on a personal basis that his Government might give further consideration to the request before putting it formally. Our civil involvement in assistance to South Vietnam would continue to run at a high level, but our military disengagement was both recent and definite and a formal request would risk a negative answer. The Ambassador replied that he would recommend that the idea of a visit should not be formally pressed as the timing would seem inopportune. No more has been heard of the matter.

The last South Vietnamese War College visit to Australia was in 1970. As for the proposed 1973 tour, we have no knowledge of any South Vietnamese approach to the Indonesians. I understand that the New Zealand Government’s position was similar to our own. I have no information about movements to Japan or Israel.

page 2276

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

States Grants Bill 1973.

States Grants (Capital Assistance) Bill 1973.

Social Welfare Commission Bill 1 973.

States Grants (Housing Assistance) Bill (No. 2) 1973.

Wheat Tax Bill 1973.

Mental Health and Related Services Assistance Bill 1 973. Student Assistance Bill 1973.

page 2276

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

The PRESIDENT:

– Honourable senators will recollect that on Tuesday of this week I read to the Senate a letter that I received from the Speaker of the Parliament of Queensland and that I explained my reasons for doing so as being that the Senate had a constitutional responsibility to the States. I now inform the Senate that I have received an urgent telegram from the Speaker of the House of Assembly of South Australia. It is addressed to the Hon. the President of the Senate, Parliament House, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory. The telegram reads as follows:

I have to inform you that the following resolution was passed by the House of Assembly of South Australia yesterday, namely that this House is of the opinion that in seeking to amend the Australian Industry Development Corporation Act 1970 and to pass the National Investment Fund Bill 1973 the Australian Government is acting to ensure a proper level of Australian equity and the maintenance of a high proportion of Australian participation in major Australian industrial development without resort by the Australian IDC to overseas borrowing that the successful passing of these Bills is essential for the proper development of the Redcliffs project in this State and that this House desires that this State’s representatives in the Australian Senate should be speedily informed of the opinion. Respectfully request attention of the Senate be drawn to this.

R. Ryan, Speaker of the House of Assembly of South Australia, Adelaide.

I now table the telegram.

page 2277

RIVER MURRAY WATERS

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

– For the information of honourable senators I present the summary of discussions of the meeting on problems associated with the use of River Murray waters between the Premiers of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia, and the Prime Minister held in Canberra on Friday, 2 March 1 973.

page 2277

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY ELECTRICITY AUTHORITY

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaSpecial Minister of State and Minister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– Pursuant to section 33 of the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Supply Act 1962-1966, 1 present the tenth annual report of the Australian Capital Territory Electricity Authority for the year ended 30 June 1973 together with financial statements and the report of the Auditor-General on those statements.

page 2277

THIRD PARTY INSURANCE PREMIUMS

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaSpecial Minister of State and Minister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the report by the Third Party Insurance Premiums Advisory Committee on the level of premium rates recommended for the Australian Capital Territory. I make it clear that it is a recommendation and that it has not been adopted as yet.

page 2277

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Senator MILLINER:
Queensland

– I bring up the report from the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory on the fifty-fifth series of proposals for variation of the plan of layout of the city of Canberra and its environs.

Ordered that the report be printed.

Senator MILLINER:

– I ask for leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator MILLINER:

– The report that I have just tabled deals with 13 proposals for modifications and variations to the plan of layout of the city of Canberra. It is the fifty-fifth series of such variations to be considered by the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory since the Committee was first appointed in 1957. My purpose in seeking the leave of the Senate to make this short statement is not to discuss the substance of these proposals, which honourable senators will find fully covered in our report. However, I felt that I should not allow this occasion to pass without paying tribute to the officers of the National Capital Development Commission who assist the Committee when it is considering these proposals and, in particular, to Mr Hans Westerman of the Commission. For many years now Mr Westerman has been appearing before the Committee in the capacity of First Assistant Commissioner of Town Planning to explain the proposed variations. Many honourable senators who have been members of the Committee at various times will recall Mr Westerman ‘s lucid and at times forceful presentation. He has since been appointed as Associate Commissioner and will no longer be appearing before us in his former capacity. On behalf of the Committee I thank Mr Westerman for the courtesies extended to the Committee in the past and wish him every success in the responsible and demanding position that he now occupies. Mr Amis Siksna, who replaces Mr Westerman as First Assistant Secretary, Town Planning, has already appeared before the Committee and we look forward to a happy and fruitful association with him. I commend the report to the Senate.

page 2277

PLACING OF BUSINESS

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

– I move:

Order of the day No. 28 is the Parliament Bill introduced by Senator Wright. What the Government would like to happen and what it invites the Senate to do is to proceed down the notice paper with the orders of the day. There are 2 Appropriation Bills, the Wheat Industry Stabilisation Bill and the Wheat Export Charge Bill. It is necessary for Treasury and financial reasons that these Bills be passed today.

Senator Byrne:

– Is that the Appropriation Bills?

Senator MURPHY:

-The 2 Appropriation Bills and the 2 Wheat Bills. Unless approval is obtained today there will be grave disruption affecting the fixation of the price of wheat. That is my information.

Senator Byrne:

– The honourable senator wants the 4 Bills passed today?

Senator MURPHY:

-Yes, the 4 Bills should be passed today. I suggest, with respect, that we aim to have these Bills passed by 4.30 p.m. I also suggest that it would be a convenient division of time if the Appropriation Bills could be passed by 3 o’clock and the 2 other Bills by 4.30. We could then proceed to the Parliament Bill under general business and deal with it. When that debate is finished there are certain Bills to be introduced. Perhaps the motion to adjourn the Senate might be moved at the conclusion of that business. That is what the Government is aiming at. I have previously indicated to the Leaders of the Parties that we need those 4 Bills today. I have just spoken with the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Withers). If this course is followed it seems to us to be a convenient division of time. I know that there is not much time but I think it would be in everyone’s interest if we did not spend our time arguing about the issue of time, rather we should leave as much time as we can to deal with the Bills.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition in the Senate

– I realise that the Government needs these Bills passed today. Of course the Opposition will co-operate to the fullest in an attempt to achieve that target. I have only one slight criticism, without wishing to be abrasive in any way. One would have hoped that the Government would have brought on the Appropriation Bills on Tuesday so that there would have been reasonable opportunity to debate them. But, as we have said before, it is the Government’s business to arrange the notice paper as it best suits the Government. There may be some feeling that perhaps the Bills have been brought on only today in an attempt not to allow the fullest examination of them, but be that as it may. We realise that the Bills have to be passed today for certain financial reasons. We will endeavour to cooperate with the Government as we always do.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

– I wish to speak only because this matter has been raised. I regard it as the utmost imposition on the Senate for the debate to be opened on the Appropriation Bills at 1 1.30 a.m. and for the Senate to be told that the Government requires the Bills to be passed today. I make the most serious protest that I can because the Opposition is greatly concerned about these Bills. That concern will be unfolded during the course of the debate. I will not be constricted.

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

– in reply- The course proposed was indicated to the leaders of the parties earlier in the week. For the whole of this week we have gone straight down the notice paper. I am not criticising the honourable senator who brought on an urgency motion yesterday or referring to what happened in the course of debate on various other measures. However, what happened has meant that the Appropriation Bills did not come on until today when they might otherwise have come on earlier. The Government indicated the order of business. The Estimates Committees have looked at the Estimates over the last few weeks. They went over the appropriations pretty thoroughly.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2278

SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON CIVIL RIGHTS OF MIGRANT AUSTRALIANS

Senator DURACK:
Western Australia

-by leave- On behalf of the Senate Select Committee on the Civil Rights of Migrant Australians and in the absence of the Chairman, Senator Townley, who is ill and who has appointed me Acting Chairman of the Committee in accordance with the powers under the terms of reference, I wish to seek an extension of time for the presentation of the Committee’s report. The Senate has ordered the report to be presented by the first sitting day in December, namely Tuesday next, 4 December. The Committee has made some progress in the preparation of its report and in fact a first draft has been prepared. However, quite properly, members desire to give close attention to the evidence which nas been received. Members propose to make this examination during the forthcoming recess period and to meet during February to finalise aspects still outstanding. At this stage it is not expected that further witnesses will be called but we cannot be certain of this until we have had the opportunity of carefully examining all the evidence now available to us. I therefore ask for leave to move a motion requesting a further extension of time for the Committee to complete its task.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator DURACK:

-I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 2278

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1973-74

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 22 November (vide page 2054), on motion by Senator Willesee:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is it the wish of the Senate that these 2 matters be dealt with in a cognate debate? There being no objection, that course will be followed.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

- Mr President, we are now dealing with what is perhaps the most important matter in the parliamentary year on the last day before the money runs out. I remember what happened when we were in Government and supporters of the present Government were in Opposition. I remember listening to a series of lectures, homilies, instructions and condemnations about running the country, about how financial responsibility should be exercised and the way one should go about these things. When I look at the performance of the Australian Labor Party now that it is in government I can say that it demonstrates that it learnt nothing about this subject when it was in Opposition and has learnt nothing while in Government. To have 2 Bills as important as these brought on for debate in the Senate on the last day of sitting before the money runs out is, I suppose, the total height of economic and financial irresponsibility.

These Bills were introduced into the House of Representatives on 21 August and were introduced into the Senate on 22 October- a lapse in time of 2 months. I am quite conscious of the great wish of the Government, because the time has almost run out, to have these Bills passed today. One might well say that that is the Government’s problem, not ours. We did not make this problem, the Government made it all by its own little self. As Senator Withers, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, very properly said, we have been a much more responsible Opposition than the previous Opposition was, and we have facilitated the process of government whenever we could possibly do so, by trying to be co-operative. In this matter we will try to be co-operative. Therefore, against my normal inclination to debate these Bills at length because I have a great interest in them, I shall be extraordinarily brief.

There are 2 quotations of recent times which are worth noting. Australia’s inflationary pressure is building up to crisis proportions. This is the consensus of 3 separate economic forecasts released by business consultants. They say that the Federal Government will squeeze credit ruthlessly between now and next June, even to the point of producing a rush of business bankruptcies; that the Government will have to choose between a rise in personal income tax or another round of interest rate rises; that inflation, already running at more than 10 per cent, is almost certain to speed up in coming months because of excess demand pressures and buoyant economic conditions. When one looks at those quotations, which come from responsible people, one is reminded that the Government has added substantially to its already large problems. In the Budget there was a 20 per cent rise in Government expenditure. There was an all-time high in Government extravagance. The Government has, without any doubt, in my view, already got itself into a difficulty, and it has substantial economic and monetary problems ahead. I am trying to deal broadly with this matter, I am not trying to deal with particular matters because many of my colleagues have matters of particular interest to raise.

The Government has, without doubt, relied too much on monetary policy imposed on other people, and too little upon its own responsibility and fiscal responsibility in its own house. There can be no question about that, whether the Government likes it or not. That is the situation. If it wants to get hold of economic problems and if it wants to master them, it has to act firstly in its own house. The Government is trying not to do so. It is trying to pass the blame on to somebody else and is trying to pass all the remedies on to somebody else. This will prove to be very difficult, before it is all over, but for nobody more so than for the Government. The 2 Bills should be debated together, as was properly said. Appropriation Bill (No. 1) provides for operating expenditure of about $3, 808m. Appropriation Bill (No. 2) provides for capital expenditure of about $ 1,261m. In effect, there is a total of about $5,069m.

When Senator McManus spoke on this subject he raised a particularly important matter on which I have done some work. I would like to see the Senate as a whole, do a great deal more work on it. He said that as far as he could determine the Senate was not examining in detail anything more than about 4 1 per cent of the total expenditure of the Government. I think that figure is about right. It is very hard to be precise about this figure. One would need more time to be precise about it. At this point of time I think that what he said is substantially correct. We are dealing with a total program of about $ 12,000m, and the expenditure appropriated in these Bills is about $5,000m. That is of the order of 4 1 per cent. One must remember that there will be additional Appropriation Bills later in the year. I want to find out, either now or later- it will have to be later, I think- the total scrutiny by the Senate of the Government’s total expenditure program. It is well below 100 per cent. I am not sure of the figure. It is above the McManus figure. We need to ascertain that figure.

Senator Wright:

– It is about 43 per cent.

Senator COTTON:

– I would want this figure proven to my satisfaction.

I have long held the view that a House such as the Senate, a House of review and deliberation and a House of necessary adjustment, is particularly well placed, because of its long-term characteristic, to identify monetary and economic problems. I believe that it is necessary to look at the total quantum of Government expenditure, not part of it, and to look at the economic and monetary policies. I think the Senate could do this. It is well placed to do it, and it would in no way set to one side the responsibility of the House of Representatives to originate the Budget. I am talking about scrutiny and not policy. I think that we must expand our scrutiny in this field. I think it is very necessary that we do so. There is always a need in the community for economic responsibility, economic understanding and economic management. Those 3 areas are noticeably lacking in the present Government in Canberra which is in charge of the country.

There is to be a referendum of the Australian people on 8 December which is designed to give this Government more power. That would be the last thing I would give the Government. It has not demonstrated any capacity to handle the power that it has now. The great thing it ought to be doing now is examining what it has done with what it has. Do not give it any more until it demonstrates at least some understanding, some capacity and some skill, because those things have not been demonstrated by the Government. If the Australian people fall for the 3-card trick they have nobody else to blame but themselves.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

-The Appropriation Bills have been brought forward for debate this day. I hope the Government in expecting that the Senate will pass them this afternoon, will recognise that it has the responsibility for the program that it has laid down and that it has this day brought forward for debate particularly important financial Bills. It is curtailing debate on them by saying: ‘We are in such a position that the Bills must be passed this day’.

It is completely unfair that lie after lie is put forward by the Government when it suggests that the Senate is holding up the Government’s legislation. Let the fact be made quite clear that Senator Murphy this day for the first time said that he requires these important financial Bills and important wheat Bills to be passed this day. The proposition is an unfair one. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Withers) that the move is intended to curtail criticism of the Government’s financial policy.

Over past years the Senate has developed a system whereby the Estimates are referred to Senate Estimates committees. While the former Government was in office and for the nine or ten months that this Government has been in office, this system has worked. There is great benefit in making available to the public a scrutiny of the direct financial matters which affect this Government. Prior to the introduction of the Senate Estimates committees system, the Senate adopted a system similar to that which applies now in the House of Representatives. In my opinion, important Government financial matters do not receive critical analysis in that House, but rather the political side effects of those matters receive the attention of that House. That was the situation in the Senate. Today the situation has changed because of the establishment of the Senate Estimates committees system. The committees meet in a room. The public and the Press can attend. A Minister sits at the head of the table. He is backed by senior departmental officers who are there to answer questions asked by honourable senators if the Minister should feel that it is appropriate that the officers answer them. There has been a most wonderful change in the way in which the Senate has been able to scrutinise expenditure and obtain from the officers who probably drew up the estimates for the various departments the reasons for the expenditure and the particular policy provisions. I think that the system has been most successful. It has been a great advancement. I sincerely hope that the system will continue no matter what Party holds the reins of office in Canberra.

I served on Senate Estimates Committee F. The discussions that took place during that Committee ‘s hearings can be seen in the Hansard record of the proceedings. There was prolonged questioning by members of the Committee. The officers from the various departments with which the Committee dealt and the Ministers responsible for those departments who attended the Committee hearings gave direct and efficient answers to the questions. The Committee showed the greatest interest, I believe, in the estimates for the Department of Minerals and Energy. That Department was established when Labor first came into office. The philosophy adopted by that Department is most important in these days because the energy crisis which is said to prevail throughout the world may have a great effect on the Australian community.

It would appear that Australia is one of the most fortunate countries in the world as regards the energy resources available to it. We need to give sufficient attention to investigating the use of both solar energy and, more particularly, tidal energy. These 2 sources of energy have not received sufficient attention in the past. In the future we may be prompted to look at these matters more closely. It appears to me that the philosophy of a socialist government in relation to minerals and energy is perhaps more apparent than its philosophy in relation to any other field. The attention of our Committee was directed to the immensely important matter of the development of the gas fields in South Australia and the proposal to carry gas to the metropolitan areas of Sydney. We learnt of this proposal early this year. Indeed, there was provision in the Advance to the Treasurer for an expenditure of some $7m or $8m in relation to that particular venture.

Those of us who see great benefit in the retention of private enterprise in this community- this is something which is being challenged by the

E resent Government- take the view that it would e much better to allow the Australian Gas Light Co., to cope with the enormous problem of carrying the gas to Sydney, a project which will require the borrowing of something like $150m. We take the view that that private enterprise company should shoulder the burden of meeting its obligation to the consumers in the Sydney metropolitan area. Previously this problem was not thrust on the Australian people. It was to be undertaken by private enterprise. This Government saw fit in the early stages of the establishment of the Department of Minerals and Energy to take over this obligation and to put the burden on the Australian taxpayer. The Government cannot say that the Labor Party is doing certain great things because it is the taxpayer’s money which is at the heart of all of these ventures. So today we have a proposal- indeed, it is a positive example of inaction- that the Commonwealth Government will be taking over the supplying of the pipes and the laying of the gas pipeline from South Australia to Sydney.

I heard on a news broadcast this morning that the first section of the South Australia to Sydney gas pipeline contract had been let. I took the opportunity to try to get the detailed information from Government sources this morning. I am afraid that as recently as 10 minutes ago I was unable to get any information from the Department of Minerals and Energy, which is regrettable. This is a most important matter as far as the Senate is concerned. Indeed, I would have preferred to have learnt by way of an announcement in the Senate this morning that the Australian Government had achieved the first part of its objective and was in the process of laying this gas pipeline. This is a most important matter. But we did not hear in the Senate today anything related to this matter. However, I was able to learn from a news broadcast from the Australian Broadcasting Commission this morning that a contract has been let. Of course, this makes obvious to those honourable senators who have debated this matter over the past year or so a very important facet of the project.

One must congratulate the Labor Government on its philosophy in this regard, because if this report is true- I take it that it is, although I repeat that we were unable to learn in this place today the facts from the Department- it would be my understanding that the Australian Government has an agreement with the East Australia Pipeline Corporation Ltd, which is a totally owned subsidiary of the Australian Gas Light Co., in relation to the various undertakings which had been given by those private enterprise companies to the South Australian producers. From answers received to questions asked at the Estimates Committee hearings, where answers to questions on particular matters were not forthcoming, I believe that agreement must have been reached. So the assurances that had been given to the South Australian producers in relation to the contractual supply of gas must have been met by the Pipeline Authority. However, there is a challenge at the present time as to the legal capacity of the Pipeline Authority to enter into valid contracts. In spite of this, undoubtedly agreement has been reached, and this agreement involves the Australian Government as part of the contracting authority.

I am aware from the announcement that was made in the news broadcast this morning that the first part of the contract for the laying of the pipe apparently has been granted to the Italian Government corporation, namely, Ente Nazionale Idrocarburi. To me this is a particularly important matter. I was most anxious that a statement in this regard be made in this chamber on behalf of the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor). If a tender which is submitted is far cheaper than that of any competitor, one must be encouraged to accept that tender. I take it that that is the basis on which the tender of the Italian Government corporation, ENI, was accepted in relation to this particularly important and valuable work. If the Australian Government was involved in the decision to grant this contract to the Italian Government, it is a pity that it did not allow some Australian contractor to gain this prize. We know that the Minister for Minerals and Energy, Mr Connor, envisages a network of pipelines throughout Australia. How this will be achieved, I am afraid I do not know. We have seen maps which show the pipe going from one side of Australia to the other- from Perth to Brisbane and from Perth across to South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales. It is a most wonderful vision but a most expensive vision for the people of Australia.

Senator Lillico:

– Could not private enterprise have done the job just as efficiently?

Senator WEBSTER:

-There is some degree of doubt as to whether the grid initially envisaged is necessary. For instance, there is very little necessity to take gas to Melbourne from other States. Melbourne has a most wonderful future so far as the supply of gas is concerned. Right on its doorstep it has the Barracouta field and other fields in the Gippsland region. But the maps show that it is envisaged that a grid will be built throughout Australia, for which the Australian people will be encouraged to provide the finance. In many years to come it may be shown that there is some wisdom in this proposal. Perhaps it is a project that envisages the position 50 or 100 years ahead. The point I make is that it is surprising to me that a Labor Government which, to the great disgrace of the Australian community, has criticised nearly every international corporation finds itself involved in a contract, as I understand it now, for many millions of dollars, for the initial laying of a pipeline from South Australia across the New South Wales border.

Of course, Ente Nazionale Idrocarburi, as I understand it, is substantially owned by the Italian Government. It is a complete socialist corporation. Perhaps the position now is that Australia does not criticise international corporations if they are socialist controlled. It is interesting to me that in the initial stages of this very important work apparently this is the policy of the Australian Government. I would congratulate it if, in actual fact, vast savings can be made in the provision of this pipeline. Undoubtedly, the position is that ENI has been able to tender for the job, calculating the enormous cash involved. Perhaps it has seen the enormous future that lies ahead if a pipeline grid is to be built across Australia such as is likely under this Government. That Corporation should be able to remain in operation in Australia for many years. Once a company has the equipment and has undertaken some work it can generally quote for the ensuing stages of a project at a price which is lower than that of any competitor who has to come into the field.

Members of Senate Estimates Committee F received excellent advice so far as it was possible from the Ministers and the departmental officers who appeared before them. I thank them very much for the evidence they gave to the Committee. Of course, this legislation, when passed, will make available to the Government the moneys required for purposes mainly outlined in a Labor Government’s first Budget to be presented to the Australian people for approximately 20 years. The general attitude of the Opposition is that when a government has been elected to office and presents its Budget, the Opposition will not oppose or vary areas of expenditure contained in it. The Senate very seldom seeks to repudiate expenditures that are proposed by the government of the day. It is interesting to note that one of the first variations to the financial proposals contained in the Budget apparently was made by the Caucus of the Labor Party which suggested that there must be at least some variation in the allocation of funds as proposed. That having been done, if the Government is willing to accept some variations to its Budget and if it accepts that its proposals do not have all wisdom, it really gives the Opposition an opening, whereby in the future it should be able to vary Government budgetary proposals

There has been much discussion of Labor’s proposals in relation to these 2 Appropriation Bills. It is my view that expenditure in many areas will not serve this country well. There are many areas of new expenditure. Undoubtedly, the extra people employed by the Australian Government will place a burden on the producers of goods. The Labor Government has taken into the Public Service over the last year a large proportion of those people who previously were said to be unemployed. One of the points placed before the public prior to Labor’s coming into office was that there was a large and unacceptable level of unemployment in the Australian community. In actual fact, at that time the former Government had one of the best records in regard to unemployment in the world. So from a situation prior to the present Government coming to office, when the unemployment rate was running in excess of 120,000 people, we now have a situation with which the Labor Party is particularly satisfied and the Minister for Labour (Mr Clyde Cameron) saying that there is virtually no unemployment in Australia. However, the latest figures show that 67,000 people are unemployed.

It is interesting that the fact that 67,000 unemployed people is of no concern to the Labor Government. It is my view that the main body of those people would be individuals who are transferring from one job to another or who are, in actual fact unemployable. They would be unemployed not only through their own endeavours but also because they have some disability which makes it impractical or impossible for them to be employed permanently. But there is still a very big impact on the Australian community by the subsidy that is required to support those individuals. This is particularly so at a time when supposedly there are more jobs available than there are people looking for them. The position for the last 10 years has been that if good labour is available, there are hundreds of thousands of vacancies in industry. I agree with the Labor Party that at present the level of unemployment standing at 67,000 represents, as Mr Cameron says, virtual unemployment. This situation has been brought about to a great extent by the Labor Government putting the unemployed on the Australian Government payroll.

The criticisms made previously by the Labor Party about the high incidence of unemployment in the community were totally unfair. In my opinion, this action has had a great impact on the inflationary trend. Senator Cotton, who spoke previously in the debate, mentioned that this inflationary rate was disastrous for Australia. There would be few people of repute, people whose word can be accepted or who can point to some experience in the business community, who would not give as their view that the greatest strain placed on all sectors of the community is that Labor has managed to run the inflationary rate to as high as it is today. It is useless for members of the Labor Party to say that this is something they inherited. It is useless for them to point to what is happening overseas and to say: Look, some overseas countries are as bad off as we are’. The fact is that prior to Labor’s coming to office there was a very high rate of inflation in some overseas countries. But the management of this country by an anti-socialist government produced a record second to none. Prior to Labor’s coming to office Australia had the lowest rate of inflation of almost any country. Now, our rate of inflation is linked with the highest rates of inflation. This is a situation for which the

Government can be criticised. Perhaps it is a situation which the socialist Labor Government intends should continue. I do not know whether the philosophy of the Government is that harm should be wrought on the people of Australia by encouraging this high inflationary rate. But members of the Labor Party must accept that it has been brought about through their philosophy. The policies which they laid down during their first months of office have induced this situation.

The situation to which I referred whereby people were encouraged to be unemployed was created immediately after the Labor Government came into office. What is its philosophy if there are more vacancies to be filled than persons offering for employment in all sectors of the community, from the labouring section to the professional section? At the moment, vast numbers of jobs are unfilled. Why is it that there are 67,000 people who apparently the Australian people have to support on a fairly high level of unemployment benefits? The Labor Government saw to it that there was encouragement in various areas of the community for people to live very happily on the unemployment benefit that is provided by this Government. Let me instance one thing which I believe greatly disadvantages the community and that is that 18-year olds now can obtain full unemployment benefit. I have a son who is now approaching that age. I will be most disappointed if when he turns 18 years of age he is handed money and there is no inducement for him to get out and work for it. This unemployment benefit is at present and in future will be a disincentive for a young man to get out and get into the hurly burly of life.

Senator Primmer:

– Hogwash.

Senator WEBSTER:

– If the honourable senator who interjects does not believe me he should look at the other side of the argument. The honourable senator knows that what the Government is doing is providing groups of young men with a comfortable living without having to work. We in the Opposition believe that certain standards should be preserved in the community. In my opinion this move has not been made in the best interests of the Australian community and it will tend to create economic problems in the Australian community.

The Government has allocated money to many areas. Australian Government expenditure has been increased by some 20 per cent. The Government has flushed money for housing into the community. It has expressed a great philosophy that everyone should be housed, and

I believe that this is a correct philosophy. But the volume of money that is required today and will be required in the future to provide housing for everyone who may feel that he would like a new house will create a burden which will be beyond the resources of the Australian producer to provide. The activities of the Australian Government in this field have produced one of the worst encouragements for inflation.

The policies of the Government in the housing field have completely changed the level of demand for materials in the building industry. Prior to Labor’s coming to office a genuine situation had been created in which goods were being supplied for the volume of homes and industrial buildings that were required. In this situation the consumer was able to argue for a discounted proposition if he had the ability to buy. There was the opportunity for the builder to go to the supplier and demand a discount and receive a lower price for the goods. If he was an efficient builder and was able to supply the cash at the time he was given that discount. At that time the escalation of costs was controlled.

I was the only member in either House of this Parliament who spoke against and criticised the former Government’s resale price maintenance proposition. Of course, some honourable senators may have a philosophy that one cannot oppose the fact that agreements should not be made which some people say add greatly to costs. However, let me tell honourable senators from practical experience in the building industry that resale price maintenance agreements allowed a producer of a particular item to say that, for example, no more than a 15 per cent margin would be placed on an item that would be required in building a house. At least the margins of profit were known and demonstrated to the public by a price list which was generally maintained throughout the community. This certainly was not a price list which contained high profits. But this practice has been abolished by the Government under its prices justification proposal.

We find that today there are no price lists. Today when one attempts to buy goods which are now in short supply one finds that nearly all of these channels of business are bypassed. There is no indication to the community at what price a product was sold to the middle man. At all stages, the price is the best that can be gained. I believe that this is greatly to the disadvantage of those in the community who wish to acquire houses. I believe that measures which have prohibited resale price maintenance in favour of the prices justification proposals of this Government have absolutely harmed the consuming public.

Senator Cavanagh:

– It is time that we got control of prices.

Senator WEBSTER:

-The stupid philosophies that you have followed all your life, Mr Minister, no doubt will bring this country to disaster. The Minister has a socialist philosophy which leads him to believe that the Labor Party has all the brains to determine how to run this community. But the Labor Government has demonstrated very aptly in the first 12 months of office that it is ruining the economy of this country. Just about every other socialist country has done the same thing. We are in this position because of the ignorance of individuals who have never been associated with business in their lives. This is one of the problems that we have with the Cabinet today. It is made up of either legal people or people who have come from unions and who have never had to deal with the problem of running a hard working business in their lives. They do not know what it is all about. This attitude is proving disastrous to the community.

The Government’s attitude to resale price maintenance and its advocacy of its prices justification proposals have serious implications to the community because they are resulting in a great escalation in cost. We argued in this chamber before the Prices Justification Bill was passed that there would be enormous problems in the bureaucracy that would be needed to control the prices of companies which had a turnover of more than $20m a year. What has the Labor Party done? It has exempted those companies which would have the most significant impact on prices. I have attempted to get a list of the companies that have been exempted from having to put their price increases to the Prices Justification Tribunal. But you can bet your life - and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh) is now looking up over his paperthat some of the big retail stores are exempted. What a horror it is for the community that this type of thing is allowed to go on. What the Government proposes is a complete fiasco. On the one hand there are companies which supposedly have a turnover of $20m a year and which have to go before the Tribunal if they want to increase their prices; on the other hand there are some other companies with a turnover of $ 10m a year- still a sum of substantial concern to the community- and they are free to do what they like. It is just plain stupidity for the Government to introduce measures which have led to the inflationary situation that we have in Australia today.

Senator Primmer:

– Do not be so stupid.

Senator WEBSTER:

-Whoever said that I guess is a brilliant senator. Was it the senator from Tasmania?

Senator Poke:

– Yes, the same place as you were born.

Senator WEBSTER:

-That is correct. One does get the view that it is a stupid attitude and undoubtedly socialists think that way. But honourable senators opposite cannot argue against the facts. Why did the Government exempt big retail stores?

Senator Gair:

– Because Mr Myer supported it at the last election.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I did not say that and I would hate to think that that was the reason. I would rather think that these stores were exempted because of the ineptness of this Government when it presented legislation in the Senate which proposed that those enormous stores that had a turnover of more than $20m would have to put before the Tribunal perhaps 1,300 invoices a day for examination. The whole proposition was impractical. But it is interesting to ask again why the Government has exempted certain business concerns. The point raised by Senator Gair is one that leaves a query. Such a measure affects not only the business community but also those people who Labor says it supports. On 2 occasions I attempted to ask a question in this place in regard to this matter but Senator Murphy and all other honourable senators opposite attempted to intervene so that I would not get a clear answer.

Labor’s policies have also affected those people who are in receipt of a basic pension, and in particular the age pension. I have asked the Minister for the Media (Senator Douglas McClelland) to supply facts to prove that my information is incorrect, but the information I have shows that the basic pension when the Liberal-Country Party was in power last December was 20.7 per cent of average weekly earnings. The Government has said that the basic pension will be lifted to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings.

What does the philosophy of a socialist government do? It aggravates the situation in which inflation eats up all the benefits that were once available to the public. Not only that, it prompts everybody who has a few dollars in the bank and who sees what is happening under the Labor Government to channel their money into fixed assests. The entire population has been attempting to acquire fixed assets, thus increasing the inflationary rate, but it was Labor’s philosophy that started the trend.

Senator Wright:

– The honourable senator does not mean fixed assets; he means the assets of real estate.

Senator WEBSTER:

-No, it can be beyond those. The demand is coming not necessarily for real estate but also for those particular assets the demand for which I have suggested is causing this escalation of costs in other areas. In December 1972 the basic pension rate was 20.7 per cent of average weekly earnings. The Labor Party was critical of this and said that this ratio was too low. It promised pensioners that it would lift their pensions. When Labor attained office it increased pensions by $1.50 a week on 2 occasions. It attempted to show that it was doing something for pensioners, but the proportion of the basic pension to average weekly earnings has now fallen to 19.5 per cent. So instead of an increase for the poor pensioners, there has been a depreciation. This is happening under a socialist philosophy.

The Government must be aware of this; I do not doubt that the Minister for Social Security (Mr Hayden) and the Treasurer (Mr Crean) are well aware of this situation. What is being done about it? The only action that has been taken in this House is for the Leader of the Government and a couple of his colleagues to try to suppress the question; they would not like it to be repeated over the air at question time. These are the facts. Labor policy is causing grave harm to people who are said to be supporters of Labor. They will wake up shortly that the philosophies of the socialist Government are total anathema to them. In actual fact the pensioners are now getting a decreased benefit. The basic pension has depreciated by 1.2 per cent, from 20.7 per cent of average weekly earnings to 1 9.5 per cent.

I do not know how a Labor Government can argue against this. Of course, the only thing it can do is to find more money from the Treasury to try to keep its promise. However, I think it will be many years before pensions catch up with the promised 25 per cent of average earnings. That objective will never be achieved, even by the proposal to increase pensions by $1.50 a week twice a year, when the inflationary rate in this community is over 6 per cent per annum. The only thing that can happen is that the value of pensions will depreciate. As the Opposition sees it, the financial policies of the Government are causing a rate of inflation that is harming every section of the community. This Government has a policy of increasing Government control over all aspects of industry. As the main spender of money, it is bringing about an increased rate of inflation. By putting on labour it is creating a labour shortage in the community. Whilst the Opposition in the Senate does not agree with the Government’s policies, it does not oppose the passing of Appropriation Bills (No. 1) and (No. 2). However, we are genuinely of the opinion and can offer evidence to show that Labor policies are disastrous for the Australian community.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I shall speak briefly on these Appropriation Bills. As has already been mentioned, in the past 12 months the rate of inflation has greatly increased. In that time there has been such a shortage of everyday goods in Australia as to be unprecedented in peace time. I am not sure what has caused this, but it would seem to be a shortage of labour. In the past few months cotton textiles have been in extremely short supply and there has been a shortage also of many items of wearing apparel and household goods. For some reason there has been a scarcity of paper products for various purposes, including printing. Paper products have been in such short supply that we could not get out application forms for postal votes for the referendum until 2 or 3 days after the writs had been issued. The forms were just not available, the excuse being that the electoral officer did not have the paper to print them. Building materials such as nails and roofing iron are also in short supply. We are told that the Government has sent substantial quantities of nails and roofing iron to Vietnam, with the result that there is not enough to go around for local use. This sort of thing tends to send prices up. I can mention shortages in various steel products such as motor car parts, tractor parts and agricultural machinery parts, and particularly fencing wire, which it would seem is no longer available. I know of one man in the rural sector who, wanting his farm machinery overhauled in preparation for the sowing of his crop, was told by the people who had been doing this work for him every year that it was of no use their overhauling his machinery as they could not get replacements for faulty parts.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Will you name the firm for the information of the Senate?

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I will find out afterwards. A couple of other things in that area are in short supply also. There is a scarcity of manpower in this country. The Government has cut back on our immigration program at a time when it should have been maintained. Australia is a fast developing country, but manpower is one of the things in short supply. During the past 12 months transport costs and many other costs have increased greatly. One of the things that is adversely affecting business is the record rates of interest, to which reference has been made in the Senate in recent weeks. The present rates of interest are probably the highest ever in peace time in this country.

Senator Wright:

– Not probably; without doubt.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

-As my friend Senator Wright says, without doubt. When money is plentiful interest rates should come down, but the situation at present is the opposite. Apparently money is plentiful for many forms of investment, but instead of interest rates coming down in accordance with the law of supply and demand, they have gone up to record high levels. Despite assurances to the contrary, I believe that Australia is in for trouble with its oil and power supplies. I was told in answer to a question yesterday that Australia is nearly 70 per cent selfsufficient in oil but that supplies are not expected to last for more than 7 or 8 years. The previous Government, which introduced an oil search subsidy for a 15 -year period, was largely responsible for oil development in our continent, which was once thought to be devoid of oil deposits. After the discovery of oil at Barrow Island in Western Australia and Moonie in Queensland there was a great rush to find new oil deposits and a period of great development followed. The Australian oil industry has developed from that point, assisted by the oil search subsidy, but now that has ceased. The Labor Government, instead of attempting to maintain oil parity, is content saying that only a limited period is in sight for oil wells and oil production in Australia. This is a time when Australia should be extending its oil search program in an attempt to become selfsufficient in oil. These are just a few of the things that I wanted to bring before the Senate when speaking on these Appropriation Bills. I was not here to speak when the Budget was introduced but, as has been mentioned, we do not propose to refuse the passage of these Appropriation Bills. Although we are not very happy with many aspects of them. We will be able to discuss the question of taxation as it relates to the rural sector when the Taxation Bills come up for debate soon. I think that the record inflation rate, the high interest rate and the shortage of goods and supplies concern Australians much more than many members of this Parliament realise. I have tried to find out what the Government proposes to do about this situation but cannot get any answer. They are the only comments I would make on these Bills.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– I use the opportunity of the debate on the Appropriation Bills to emphasise the importance to Australia of our future energy supplies. Senator Lawrie mentioned in his speech that we would be in serious trouble if we did not take a long term look at this question. The Minister for Minerals and Energy, Mr Connor, recently suggested that it looks as though Australia will be out of fossil fuels, except for coal, in less than 1 5 years. I notice that he made some statement yesterday in the Parliament to the effect that coal will be used as a bridging energy source between the fuels we are using now and the use of uranium and solar energy. However hard we try, when using coal as an energy source and for the extraction of fuel, it will be extremely difficult to completely clean the gases that emanate from the use of coal. It is quite apparent to world scientists that the silent pollutant, carbon dioxide, is increasing in the atmosphere and will cause us great concern in the future. Other pollutants from conventional fuels are proliferating other gases in the atmosphere, not the least of these being the sulphurous gases which will be causing emphysema and other such health problems if we persist with this type of energy source.

Of course, I am putting a case for solar energy. Australia is a country that can well look forward to a very prosperous future if it concentrates on solar energy right now. Scientists say that it will take about 20 years to perfect this source of energy but I am convinced, and there is scientific backing for my belief, that the development of solar energy can be accelerated and that probably within 10 years solar energy could be a definite proposition for Australia. Professor Bockriss, head of the Department of Physical Sciences at the Flinders University, has taken a very active interest in this subject. He has requested that Federal funds be made available to that University to provide added research facilities in an attempt to make solar energy economically possible in a shorter time. I realise that this development will cost a lot of money but I think that Australia needs to be forward looking in this area.

We should realise that 59 per cent of our continent is desert. I would say that per unit of area more sun falls on this continent than on any other country. For example, Alice Springs has 9.7 hours of sunshine a day. This is a source of energy without pollution; it is probably the only source of energy that ecologists would welcome because it is a non pollutant in every respect. Of course, it is possible, having established a solar energy farm, to pipe charged hydrogen to any capital city or any concentration of population wishing to use it. It can be converted and used to generate the power we require in Australia. It is interesting to note that by the year 2000 the energy requirements of the world will be three to five times what they are today. In addition to the conversion of charged hydrogen for capital cities and other areas requiring power, it is quite possible that the charged hydrogen could be liquefied and transported to other countries which require this source of power. Probably it could be argued that we should sell all our coal overseas and use the money that accrues from such sales to accelerate our efforts towards developing solar energy. I think Australia could certainly become the world’s source of solar energy, a source upon which countries could well rely.

Senator LILLICO:
Tasmania

– I rise to refer briefly to a statement in the Press this morning to the effect that the search for oil in this country has practically ceased. I am prompted to raise this matter by the address that nas just been given by Senator Jessop. The statement reported in the Press this morning was made by a man who should know something about it, a former Minister for National Development and, if what he says is so, it is a serious business at a time when the Arab world has cornered and proposes to use its production of oil as an international weapon. If it is true that the present Australian situation has developed because of the bullheaded attitude of the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor), who believes that this searching should be done by Government enterprise- God help us- instead of private enterprise, it is something at which the present Government should take a good hard long look. I would have no faith, and I do not think that the majority of people in Australia would have any faith, in the Government itself finding and exploiting this energy source in this country.

I was a member of Senate Estimates Committee F and was worried when I found that we were dealing with items costing more than $100m for the inauguration of a pipeline from South Australia to Sydney under the auspices of the Government through its corporation or whatever name it gives the body established for this purpose. I could not help but think what a terrible thing it would be if it were true that private enterprise was willing and able to do the job instead of the Government. I go along absolutely with the dictum laid down by Sir Robert Menzies when he was Prime Minister: If private enterprise can do the job the Government should keep out.

Senator McLaren:

– He used to say also that SO unemployed waiting at the gate of the factory was what was needed.

Senator Wright:

– That is a lie- a malicious he.

Senator McAuliffe:

– You are not always right. You might be by name but that is all.

Senator LILLICO:

– I did not hear what Senator McLaren said but it would not have been anything worth while. Senator Webster had something to say about inflation. I call to mind that the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) not long ago said that it had been imported. I notice that one of the newspapers supported him and said that it had been imported- and it even went so far as to say that there had been some importation of stagflation. Just how you do that- how you import inflation- I do not know. It is completely beyond me. But I place a lot of reliance on what was said by Mr Galbraith, a prominent economist, who visited this country some time ago. He was asked whether a country can import inflation and he ridiculed the idea; he said: ‘No. You create it’. Of course, even to a humble layman like myself that should be perfectly obvious. You do not import inflation into this country. You create it. I believe that it is being created in Australia by lavish, prodigal Government expenditure which has increased by about 20 per cent through this last Budget and that it is being helped along the road by inordinate wage demands. I do not think that there is any doubt about that at all. They are the 2 prime factors affecting inflation.

I call to mind that when I was a member of the State Parliament I used to be amused- and it pertains in this Parliament- that all Labor members have a fetish that all these things can go as high as they like. They have a childish faith that the imposition of price control will rectify the whole position. Of course, it does not and it never has. In over 2,000 years it never has done so and it never will. It has been said that we have a 14 per cent inflation rate. I have heard people say that this Government inherited an inflation rate from the previous Government of about 4 per cent which it soon trebled. If an inflation rate of 14 per cent continues, does it not mean that in 7 years time the currency will not be worth anything at all- that it will be valueless?

I am a private enterprise man. I do not apologise for it. But some time ago the Prime Minister said, in short: ‘Under a Labor Government the Industry Development Corporation will be used for the democratic socialist purposes I outlined in my policy speech. ‘ So he is committed to what he calls ‘democratic socialism’ which has dawned in the United Kingdom and has brought Great Britain to her knees. A strange thing about it is that the trouble in Britain, and a lot of our trouble in this country, no longer centres on the bloated capitalist. A lot of the trouble hinges, in the main, on industries that are run and operated by the Government or by a government commission. That is where the trouble arises and the futher they go, I believe, the worse the position will be. I do not think for a moment that any benefit is incurred by anybody- the worker or the people of Australia as a whole- by this humbug that the Australian people should own their own industries. I have heard it for as long as I can remember and I understand it to mean that the Australian Government should operate the industries and own them and that in that way the people own them. I cannot conceive of any advantage accruing to the worker or to the Australian citizen generally if an industry is owned and operated by the government of the day.

What possible benefit can it confer upon the Australian people if their industries are owned, operated and run by the Government? The situation will be quite the reverse because governments are seldom efficient. They do not have to be profitable. They do not have to go along the road that private enterprise has to take. Yet we hear a lot of this sort of thing from a government which is reputed to have hired a multi-national public relations business situated in New York to conduct the advertising for its last election campaign. I rose to draw attention to some of these factors. I say that if the Government does the spending instead of the private individual then it does not help cure inflation. I say that if the Government imposes price control, as was done previously, then that merely becomes a means of indexing price rises and does not get down to the root cause of the trouble. Until this Government realises that the remedy lies in production and until it can prevent wages chasing prices, the position will not improve. In fact, it will get worse.

We hear some strange contentions in this country from politicians and others. I have never been enamoured of the concept of ownership of Australian industry by the Australian peopleand I am not speaking about the Australian Government. I say that if the contentions of a lot of people were put into operation worldwide and if every country had to spend its capital in its backyard half the world would be stagnant and under-developed. I believe that this country needs overseas capital. I believe that it is in the same condition as was the United States when it was first settled and had to get capital from the United Kingdom and western Europe until its industrial generation was such and its population had grown to such an extent that the capital flowed the other way. If the Government stagnates the importation of capital into this country, where there is not enough of our own for necessary development, it will hinder development and we will not progress very far at all.

Having said that, I return to this contention which I believe needs an answer- a convincing answer- that if at this stage oil search in Australia has been brought practically to a halt by the application of socialist principles and by the application of a system which means there can be no winners even if they do find oil- by this nonsense- then surely it is time, because of the crisis through which the whole world is passing, that some remedial action was taken regarding it.

Senator WOOD:
Queensland

-Not having had an opportunity to speak in the debate on the Budget, which has not yet been finalised, I though I should take the opportunity to speak on a few aspects of these Appropriation Bills. As I said at the time the Budget was delivered, I think it is a very colourless production. It is something which did not stir the nation as the new Government thought it would. I think that as we are drawing away from it more people are realising that it is a colourless Budget. The very difficult and serious problem which we have before us is inflation. The Government has failed to face up to it and to tackle it. I know that all sorts of ideas are put forward for tackling inflation, but as far as this Government is concerned the 3 simple things which should be kept in mind are: Cutting down on spending in areas where it is not necessary, not encouraging overspending in certain areas and, more particularly, encouraging production. Unless there is sufficient production there will be more forces working towards inflation. It is only commonsense to realise that if goods are short there is bidding for them. As a consequence the price goes up. Honourable senators will find that it does not matter what the article is, the price will go up. Today we are finding, as has been mentioned by other speakers, a serious shortage of goods in various areas. Even over the counter people cannot get ordinary commodities. I think it was Senator Webster who mentioned serious shortages in the building industry. I ask honourable senators to think how this filters through to the community.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Would not the employer be better with more apprentices?

Senator WOOD:

– No. It is a matter of shortage of materials. My own state of Queensland is an example. I noticed where people were paying $6 when bidding for a bag of cement. Therefore encouragment should be given for greater production. I have not heard one appeal from this Government for greater production. There has been no encouragement. The Government has taken away the taxation incentive on industrial equipment. That was granted as an encouragement for production. We find the situation is developing in more serious ways as each week goes by. I feel that as long as this situation remains inflation will tend to increase. This is a problem which the Government has failed to tackle in its Budget. In my opinion this should have been foremost in its thinking and in its action. The Budget presented to us completely failed to cope with that situation. As a matter of fact many of the Budget items caused an increase in the cost of goods. That is quite apparent to many honourable members and honourable senators. Many honourable senators know the particular aspects to which I am referring where a specific tax was imposed, causing an increase in the cost of goods.

Senator Lillico:

– Cigarettes and beer.

Senator WOOD:

– Yes. They are outside my line because I am a teetotaller and a non-smoker, but the honourable senator knows as well as I do that those things and other things went up in price.

Senator Cavanagh:

– If the honourable senator drank and smoked we would not have bad -it the tax up.

Senator WOOD:

– Well, the Government nas affected even the teetotal line. I remember that just after the Budget came on a storekeeper told me that a man walked in and he was furious. He said: ‘I have always voted Labor, but never again. It has even put on a tax increasing the cost of the kids ‘ lolly water. ‘ That is what he called it.

Senator McAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

– The honourable senator is a good Queenslander and he does not take any sugar in his tea.

Senator WOOD:

– I take a lot of sugar. I take a lot of sugar in different ways because, belonging to a sweet State like the honourable senator, I like sweet things. But I think it is very important to tackle inflation. In this regard the Government has failed to face up to the situation. I know that sometimes it can be unpopular to do the right thing, but it is the Government’s job to do the right thing and to do what is best for the country. As an indication of some of the things the

Government has done I instance the air navigation charges. I tackled my own Government on this subject. I have been consistent. I think it is ludicrous the way governments- not only this Government but also previous governmentshave continually piled on air navigation charges. Of course, the story is: We are spending so much money, we have to get so much back. But by increasing these charges they in turn filter through again. It means higher costs of travel and higher air freight charges. Today a lot of goods go by air freight. But the thing which strikes me about the shortsightedness of the Government in regard to this aspect of transport is that a great deal of the civil aviation expenditure is in the major capital cities. In Victoria at Tullamarine is an overseas airport which cost a terrific lot of money. In Sydney, at the international terminal, in addition to the domestic terminal, a terrific lot of money has been spent.

Senator Gair:

– There is no over-extravagance in Brisbane, though.

Senator WOOD:

-No. In Brisbane we find the most out of date concept as far as civil aviation is concerned. But those of us from Queensland, the Northern Territory and the other distant States are expected to pay higher air fares in order to give luxury outfits for overseas terminals in those major capital cities. This is one of those aspects where we cannot get back everything we spend. It is all right saying, as I have heard one of the ex-Ministers on my side say, that people who use the air services should pay for them. That sounds all right but it is a case of getting down to a practical basis. If we carry this exercise right through we could ask: What about the motorist? Of course, the motorist pays tax on fuel but what does he pay for the upkeep of the bitumen roads which the municipalities and the developers provide and which the municipalities keep in order? Does the motorist pay for everything he gets as far as road usage is concerned? Of course he does not. But civil aviation is a good old packhorse, as we might term it, of a fast character. It is quite easy to pass these costs on. But the ridiculous thing is that we have the highest charges in the world for civil aviation.

What we have to think of when we pile these charges on is that we are piling them on to a transportation system which not only takes our people around this country but also people who are coming to this country on business and on holidays. The development of the international travel trade is one of the things we should be encouraging very strongly. I have been associated with the development of the Great Barrier Reef for over 40 years. I have been in travel business during that time. The trend is for more Australians to go out of Australia than possibly ever before. I notice that the Government has made some small approach to try to develop the domestic tourist trade. But we have these cheap fares for people leaving Australia. What are we doing? We are piling all the costs on in order to make it more difficult for people to come into this country. We in Australia have to recognise that we are possibly further removed from the great supply of people for the tourist industry than any other country. We in this region are not surrounded by any other country. We are an island on our own. Therefore it should be our aim to make it as attractive as possible to bring people here. But it is not just a matter of people on holidays. We have to ask what it means to this country.

At the present time we know that the accommodation industry is facing a fairly difficult period. We want more people to fill the accommodation. We are continually asking for people to build more and better accommodation. But what is the good of that if we do not have tourists to fill it. For some little time now the accommodation industry has been having a difficult time. I think that the aim of governments should be to make tourism as cheap as possible. They should make transportation cheap for people to get here and also do everything possible to encourage them to come here. Why should international travellers, and particularly Australians travelling around our own country be saddled more and more with the debts which to a very large extent are caused by expenditure on people in the capital city areas?

I think that the Government provides only about $2m to encourage the tourist industry on an international basis. Only a small amount has been set aside to encourage further development of the domestic industry. Because of the situation that has developed, because there are so many influences causing people to leave our country, we should be spending much more than that today to try to encourage people to this country. We have put up barriers not only in the form of these increased air navigation charges, which naturally are passed on. I refer to revaluation as a result of which we have made it more costly for people to come to this country. Because of the revaluation of the Australian dollar it is much more costly for people in the United States of America to come to Australia than before. I am not talking about whether or not the Australian dollar should have been revalued; I am simply indicating that because of these difficulties we should be spending more and more money to help bring people to this country.

I do not know of a cleaner industry than the tourist industry. There is no pollution associated with it. I do not know of a better industry and I do not know of one which gives a country more and which results in people taking away nothing. The tourist industry is one of that type. People come to our country to enjoy the scenery and local things and they leave their money behind. They take nothing from the country but the pleasure and happiness of a holiday here. Australia is a country of different aspects and I believe that it has an appeal for overseas people. The basis of the tourist industry and of holidays is that people can see different things, different places, different people and different customs. I have talked about this subject for years and I think that we do not encourage the tourist industry nearly as much as we should. All governments have failed in this regard and I think that this is a subject that we should press more strongly. I think that Senator McAuliffe would agree with me that our State of Queensland, with its Great Barrier Reef, its beautiful tropical vegetation and other features which people have the opportunity of enjoying, could gain to a very great extent from an increase in the tourist industry on an international basis.

Senator Byrne:

– When you think that we are exporting tremendous amounts of capital as a result of the outflow of our tourists, we should try to get an inflow as well.

Senator WOOD:

– That is one of the unfortunate things. Great quantities of minerals such as coal and iron ore are going out of this country and as a result we are getting overseas credits but the matter of earning credits in this country has been lost sight of.

Senator Byrne:

– Also, our tourists are going overseas.

Senator Gair:

– People should see Australia first.

Senator WOOD:

– Yes. Senator Byrne has reminded me that in the tourist industry we are losing because more money goes out of this country as a result of our people going elsewhere than is earned from people coming in. We should be working to reverse that situation so that we earn more money in this country from overseas tourists than our people spend through leaving Australia.

I want to refer to another subject, the mining industry which has been mentioned by other honourable senators who have spoken. I think it is a matter of great regret that there has not been sufficient encouragement given to the mining industry. It is very regrettable to me that the Minister for Minerals and Energy (Mr Connor) has adopted such an attitude to the mining people. It has caused strong ill feeling. In addition, because of his statements and attitudes, people have been discouraged from looking for minerals. It takes a lot of money to find minerals and many of our smaller companies are going broke because they cannot get money. People today will not subscribe to such ventures. I know that Senator Lillico very ably pointed out the necessity for overseas capital to help in major efforts.

Senator Gair:

– We would not have had the mine at Mount Isa if it had not been for overseas capital.

Senator WOOD:

-Senator Gair, a former Premier of Queensland, reminds me of Mount Isa Mines Ltd. It is an excellent illustration. Mount Isa is a wonderful mining area. I remember that the Premier before Senator Gair mentioned Mount Isa and said that it was very hard for him, as a Labor Premier, to go to Mount Isa preaching against capitalism when the Mount Isa people -

Senator Mulvihill:

– It has to be controlled though. They cannot just do as they like.

Senator Gair:

– It is controlled by Australians today.

Senator WOOD:

– I am sure that Senator Gair would agree that the Mount Isa Mines people have been a wonderful example not only because of the development of the area but because of the way that they have built amenities and have treated their employees and staff.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Not always.

Senator Gair:

– Always, yes.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Cant)-Order!

Senator WOOD:

-Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. Mount Isa Mines has been a striking example of a wonderfully successful operation. It also has given first class conditions to its employees and staff. An overseas company, in the main, put its money into Mount Isa and waited for more than 20 years before it showed a profit. If honourable senators can tell me the name of an Australian who will put his money into a proposition and wait for over 20 years for a return I will be pleased to meet him. The average Australian would not put his money into a venture for that long. The average Australian wants a quick return. An overseas company puts its money into Mount Isa and waited for over 20 years for a profit. Now we have a wonderfully successful operation there. Senator Gair, a former Premier of Queensland, would know as much about it as most other honourable senators in this chamber, if not more than anybody else. That company has done a wonderful job, not only for Queensland, in providing employment in that north western part of the country. Over the years it has also done a very good job for Australia from a national point of view by selling those minerals overseas and bringing overseas money to this country.

Senator Gair:

– It has had a general effect on Townsville and other cities.

Senator Byrne:

– It created a city in the far north west of Queensland.

Senator WOOD:

– That is right. It created a city in the north west of Queensland. As Senator Gair said, the effect of that development has filtered through to other places such as Townsville which has received very direct benefits from the development of Mount Isa. Everyone who is an Australian and has the Australian spirit wants to see Australians own as much of Australia as possible but we have to be practical about these things and consider what Australians will put their money into and how long they will wait for a return. If they will not do this we just have to get somebody else to put in the money. Somebody was telling me about one of the mining shows in Western Australia. I think it was Sir Charles Court who said at the dme that he wanted 1 5 per cent Australian equity. But what happened when he tried to get that? No Australians wanted to participate. I think it is most unfortunate that this depressing feeling has been created about our mining operations. The head of Mount Isa Mines Ltd stated only a few months ago that to get any sort of mining industry of reasonable size under way takes about $20m. It takes money to do these things.

A very definite effort was made in the Budget to affect the gold industry. This would have affected the State of Western Australia about which you, Mr Acting Deputy President, would be particularly concerned. It was recognised, particularly by people in the Kalgoorlie area and others, that the attitude of the Government towards the gold industry in wiping out all concessions that had previously been given to it could have a very detrimental effect. It is to the credit of the Labor Party Caucus that it stood up to its Ministers and said that some of this policy had to be altered. I am not one of those people who say that Caucus should not do this. I always have taken the view that Ministers are not supreme gods. I believe that the great bulk of the people in a party should have a say. It is to the credit of Caucus that it did this. The ‘Australian’, which is a Whitlam supporter, always attacks Caucus for doing this sort of thing. I applaud the Caucus and say that that was the right attitude. It is nice to see that at least the Government has now become sensible in this regard. Although it has not gone all the way, I hope that what has been done will help the gold industry more than would have been the case if that policy had not been altered. As far as price control is concerned, we have different ideas expressed about this matter. We know that a referendum is to be held later.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2 p.m.

Senator WOOD:

– Prior to the suspension of the sitting I was pointing out several matters relating to the Budget which we had before us a little while ago. I had moved on to the matter of prices control and the referendum which is about to be held. I know that the case for the referendum is presented in such a way that it appears to be the answer to everybody’s troubles. Over a period price control has not been proved to be the answer. Back in previous days, in war time, the then Government had power to control prices and so on. Those of us who can remember back that far remember just what happened. It is easy to recall the shortages of goods and how those who had the most money were able to buy from under the counter. The ordinary person was on the outside. He was like the label on the bottle; he was on the outside, and he missed out.

Price control does not encourage production. One of the main causes of inflation is a lack of production. Senator Lillico, who sits alongside me, gave me a statement from the Hobart Chamber of Commerce which indicates how price control acts in reverse to the encouragement of production. With the control of milk and dairy products, the dairy herds in Tasmania fell by 26,000 head, and in Australia by 300,000 head. The fixation of fat lamb prices wiped out the fat lamb export industry in Tasmania. That indicates just how effective these things can be.

Senator Wilkinson:

– Price control did not do that.

Senator WOOD:

– It was under control.

Senator Wilkinson:

– There was price control, but it did not do that.

Senator WOOD:

– There was price control, and people could not get the goods. There were shortages and so on. The people who had the most money could get the goods, and others could not. The honourable senator knows that as well as I do. It was a headache for the Government of the day and for everybody who had to try to work with the prices department. I can remember that the difficulty in ordering a suit to be made was that the tailor from whom a person was buying the suit had to wait for a price from the price control office.

Senator Primmer:

– Where I was we were issued with our suits. We did not have any shortages.

Senator WOOD:

-Perhaps so. The climate of the city in which I live is such that a suit is a great advantage. Senator Wilkinson knows as well as I do that when the dead hand of government gets on to these things it certainly kills production and incentive. There is no question about it, there has to be an incentive for people to produce. If there is price control and all this sort of nonsense things will be worse. Already there is a shortage of goods, and the whole problem will be accentuated. I know that a lot of airy fairy things are said to try to dazzle people that certain things will be the cure-all for everything, but in the long run price control is no advantage but a disadvantage.

Honourable senators will remember that it was a Labor government, as far as I can recall, which tried to get price control unto the Federal Government. They will remember the referendum which was held in, I think, 1944. At that time Queensland had a Premier who was looked upon as one of the great men of the Labor Party of that time. Sir William Forgan Smith was the Premier. He represented the city from which I come- Mackay. He had a strong personality. In Proserpine, which is 19 miles or so north of Mackay, there were recently some celebrations of so many years of the town’s existence. One of the legal men in Mackay went to Proserpine, and in a display depicting the history of the area, saw on show an edition of the Proserpine ‘Guardian ‘ of an earlier era. Apparently it carried quite a big spread, in the form of an advertisement or statement, which said: ‘Don ‘t give any more power to Canberra, Forgan Smith, the Premier of Queensland, said so’. That advice might well be taken to heart by true Labor men today. Forgan Smith was a strong Labor personality. His view was: “No more power to Canberra’. I believe that the people of Australia should say that to this Government on 8 December.

We hear a lot of nonsense about what won the election for the Labor Party, how it was swept in and so on. Actually, there was no sweeping into office. The result was very close.

Senator McAuliffe:

– Oh!

Senator WOOD:

– The honourable senator should analyse the figures. It would not have taken very many votes for the result to have been the other way.

Senator McAuliffe:

– The number is in the frame; you know that.

Senator WOOD:

-I know that.

Senator Keeffe:

– You are living in the past.

Senator WOOD:

– Other people say that I am a futurist. I do not know. Senator Keeffe said that I am living in the past. I hope that I will always retain a youthful and fertile mind and will look to the future, not look backwards. One never gains anything by looking backwards. One can be a futurist and gain a lot by it. A lot of people claim that the ALP was elected on the policy which it presented to the people. My experience has been that very often -

Senator McAuliffe:

– Yesterday Senator Maunsell, one of your colleagues, criticised us for implementing our policy. Now you have gone the other way.

Senator WOOD:

– I am not responsible for what other people say. I paddle my own canoe, and I speak accordingly. My experience has been that if I talk to the general run of people after a policy speech has been delivered and if I ask them what points of policy they remember- it may surprise honourable senators opposite to know this- a number of people begin to think about it and say: ‘I cannot tell you any points’. Arrogant Gough made so many points in his policy speech last time that I do not think even members of the Labor Party could recite half of what he said on that occasion. I know that it is a very easy thing to say: ‘This is the platform, this was approved’. My experience is that very few people can remember what was said in a policy speech. As a matter of fact, most campaigns are generally won or lost on some general feeling which the people have about a government.

If the Senate feels that some change should be made to a Bill there is no reason why it cannot make the change. It has been said previously by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Murphy), in reply to a question, that the Senate is elected on the same basis as members of the House of Representatives are elected- by the people of the States. The structure of the Senate is such that there is always a carryover from the previous 3 years. I know that newspapers and other people take great delight in trying to denigrate the Senate. They say: ‘The Senate should not do this, and the Senate should not do that’. We know that a lot of these newspapers are slanted in their approach. They do not have a genuine outlook, often it is a very immature outlook. Take as an example the ‘Australian’ which belongs to the multi-millionaire Rupert Murdoch. What does that paper do? It is a Whitlam supporter. Apparently it is not a Labor supporter. When Caucus, in a truly democratic manner, changes something, what does that paper do? It takes members of the Labor Party to task and says that they should not have challenged Mr Whitlam and his ministry. I have always maintained- I have always stood for this in Parliament, in my Party and elsewhere- that if I felt strongly about a thing I had the right to vote accordingly. I will not sell out. I have always taken the view that all members of Parliament have equal rights. A leader or a Minister does not have the right to act like God, although he might think that he is God. Every member of Parliament has an equal right in deciding ultimately what the legislation of this country shall be. As I have said, I believe in being fair. I think the Labor Party has demonstrated that it is democratic in relation to this matter because Caucus is not prepared to make a decision if it thinks its Ministry is not correct. I will always say that.

During the last days of the administration of the previous Government a great deal was said about our Government being an unemployment Government and so on. It was rather interesting to see in a newspaper cutting from the Sydney Sun’ of 19 September 1972 an article which referred to the Labor Party in opposition making a great old song and dance about the number of unemployed. Of course, the figures released gave the impression that there were more unemployed than apparently was the case. We know that today a number of people do not want to work; they draw social service benefits, dodge work and so on. I think I read about some chap in my own area who registered as a lion tamer. There would not be too many positions of that nature offering. If a lion was brought to him to tame one probably would not see his heels for dust. But I remember during the last days of the previous Government when a great hullabaloo was being made about the unemployment situation the New South Wales Employers’ Federation said that many industries could not find labour. This statement by the Federation was confirmed by a report in the ‘Sydney Morning Herald ‘ that more positions were being advertised as vacant than was the case in the previous 12 months, so much so that various industries could not get the people they needed. In fact, one industry had to close down because it could not get employees. One concern said that it wanted some hundreds of men and it could not get them. But at the time it was being said that unemployment was so great that our Government was a government of unemployment. This, of course, was utter nonsense.

A large amount of money has been budgeted for education. A great hullabaloo is going on at the moment about a double dissolution that may take place if certain things are not done. If both Houses of the Parliament went to an election I think it could be a very interesting election campaign, because under the education policies of this Government certain schools are not being provided with assistance. I want to make it quite clear that I have never been in favour of subsidising private schools. I believe it is the Government’s job to provide schools. As a consequence, if other people want to run schools it is their business. But if one is to adopt a certain principle in this regard it has to be a fair principle. I voted against the proposal when it was initiated. I fought against it. But once a proposal is adopted, everybody must be treated fairly.

What is the result of the Government’s education scheme? Contrary to what the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) said and contrary to what the Minister for Education, Mr Beazley, said, the Government has deprived a number of schools of a subsidy. What schools are involved? They are mainly protestant schools. What is behind it that they should all be protestant schools? Is it suggested that only protestant people are affluent? That is nonsense. Of course, originally there were Jewish schools and I think probably two or three Roman Catholic schools which were to be deprived of a subsidy. It is to their credit that a number of bishops of the Roman Catholic church rebelled about this situation. They said it was not fair that this distinction should be made. If the Labor Party would like a double dissolution on this issue I think a very interesting election campaign would ensue in relation to the discrimination between one church school as opposed to others. If it is necessary to vote on this issue I will have no hesitation in voting according to what I think is right.

I have run through these points because I did not have the opportunity of taking part in the Budget debate. I thought that something should be said about them. I believe that probably some consideration might be given to what I have said because I feel that each and every one of us should be aiming at building Australia into a better country. I trunk some of the suggestions have merit in them and we might look at them to try to do more for Australia. The most important problem facing us at the moment is inflation. As I said before, this colourless Budget has failed to face up to the problem of inflation. In fact, if anything, it has increased it.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I rise to say a few words in this debate mainly because of the claims made by Senator Wright this morning that the Government had not allowed enough time in which to debate the Appropriation Bills. I have taken the trouble to go to the Legislative Reference Service of the Parliamentary Library which has been good enough to give to me some tables setting out the sitting hours of the Estimates Committees since their inception. If we look at these tables we find that this year more time than ever before was devoted to the examination of the Estimates by the Estimates Commissions. Senator Wright is quite wrong when he says that not enough time has been allowed for the Opposition to examine these Bills.

I want to detail to the Senate the hours of sitting of the Estimates Committees since their inception in 1970. In 1970, 74 hours were devoted to the examination of the Estimates. In 1971, approximately 41 hours were devoted to examining the Estimates, including those of the autumn session and those of the Budget session. During the Budget session 30 hours and 1 minute were allocated and during the autumn session 1 1 hours and 2 minutes were allocated, making a total of 41 hours and 3 minutes. In 1972 approximately 63 hours were allocated, being made up of 9 hours and 4 minutes during the autumn session and 53 hours and 54 minutes during the Budget session. When we look at the figures for this year we find that during the autumn session 26 hours and 32 minutes were allocated and 68 hours and 6 minutes were provided during the Budget session, making a total of 94 hours and 38 minutes. So we find that more time has been allocated to the examination of the Estimates this year than in any other year since the inception of the Estimates Committee system. The next largest number of hours allocated was in 1970.

Prior to the luncheon suspension of the sitting I had discussed with the Acting Deputy President, Senator Cant, the incorporation of certain tables. I showed him the tables that I proposed to incorporate and I discussed the matter with the Hansard officer sitting at the table at that time. The Hansard officer assured me that there would not be any trouble in incorporating these tables in Hansard. I did say to him that if he found any trouble in incorporating them all I would be quite happy to incorporate the first two or three pages. Therefore, I seek leave to have these tables incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The tables read as follows)-

Estimates Committees- Hours of meeting- Estimates Committee A, 3.2 1 ; Estimates Committee B, 4.47; Estimates Committee C, 5.28; Estimates Committee D, 5.06; and Estimates Committee E, 4.10: Total, 22.52. ESTIMATES COMMITTEES- -Estimates Committee A, 11.33; Estimates Committee B, 15.25; Estimates Committee C, 21.50; Estimates Committee D, 15.25; Estimates Committee E, 7.50: Total, 74. {: .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLAREN: -- I thank the Senate. I will not take up too much of the time of the Senate but I want to say something further on the statements made by **Senator Wright.** I would implore all honourable senators to examine the Hansard record of the Estimates Committees' hearings, particularly that of Estimates Committee A. It will be seen from the Hansard record that **Senator Wright** took up most of the time that was available to the members of that Committee and **Senator Greenwood** would have been next in relation to the time taken by members. Neither of those honourable senators can say that we did not have ample time to examine the Estimates. As the Leader of the Government in the Senate **(Senator Murphy)** has said that it is most important that these Appropriation Bills be passed today I will conclude my remarks on that note and speak again during the Committee stage. {: #subdebate-41-0-s8 .speaker-JTT} ##### Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia -- In addressing oneself to these Appropriation Bills today, I record my own dissent and disappointment at the fact that we are faced with a situation of having to conclude the debate on these Bills today. I am not impressed by the recital of a series of hours which the Estimates Committees sat. They met and they examined the Estimates in detail, line by line. The point is that the Bills before us are of tremendous significance and importance. I think it is not only an unfair process but also an unwise process that the Leader of the Government in the Senate **(Senator Murphy)** should put before us the proposition that these measures be passed by a certain hour. Indeed, I draw attention to this process which I would regard as unwise on the part of a Government which is seeking on 8 December more management of the nation's affairs, more power and more control. I assert here and now that the people of Australia should be well aware that there is certainly no need to give more power to this Government or any other government in Canberra, because the Government has adequate economic powers. These powers have worked with previous governments so far as the nation's economic conditions are concerned, and particularly with relation to inflation. Indeed it should be listed that prior to the last election the now Prime Minister asserted that within the existing Constitution his government could govern effectively and with completeness. The indication that has been given today to conclude the debate on important measures like these by a certain time does not impress me in regard to the management of the Senate. I wish to refer to the inflationary situation which, of course, is the key problem facing Australia today. During the last 12 months under this Government the rate of inflation has increased considerably. It has trebled from 4.5 per cent per annum to approximately 14 per cent per annum today. This means that today money buys very much less than it bought a year ago when the present Government came into office. In the meantime, the Government continues to boost its expenditure and expand its bureaucracy. This is a waste of resources and manpower. While this situation continues, inflation will continue. We could have a considerable debate on a wide range of issues which affect this situation. I want to refer to only one of the issues. I make a call for the restoration of the migrant intake so that the labour and other personnel shortages in Australia may be relieved from the distressing situation in which they are placed today. The increasing incidence of all kinds of shortagesmanpower and labour shortages- in so many Australian establishments and industries today is a very serious problem. In times past Government members have talked about the clear economic and social advantages of an immigration program. I suggest that they are contradicting their own statements when they contribute towards a winding down of Australia's immigration program. I call for a reactivation of the program of overseas recruitment so that we can have a proper relationship between immigration- the intake of personnel- and the level of economic activity and development within Australia. Many production difficulties are caused by labour shortages. They are caused in the short term and, at the rate the difficulties are being created, they are an increasing pressure point on the inflationary situation in Australia by contributing dramatically and substantially to production costs. Increasing production costs are associated with commodity shortages. I cannot recall a time other than during wartime when we were faced with such a wide range of commodity shortages as we are faced with today. They range through the whole social, economic, building and industrial fields. Industries of all kinds are facing extreme problems in the recruitment of suitable personnel. The Government should undertake an active and positive program to improve the situation and to take up the position adopted by the former Government in regard to the intake of people. All honourable senators have admitted that the history of migration in Australia over the last 25 years has shown how vital it is to the total development of the nation industrially, economically, socially and of course, culturally. On coming into office the Government reduced the intake of new settlers. This contributed greatly to the current downturn not only in economic production but also in the general standard of production and development within Australia. I charge the Government that it made no serious examination of Australia's immigration requirements before it set out on a program for the intake of new settlers which was unrealistic and quite unfair to Australia. The necessity to encourage significantly more people to come to Australia is now urgent. The Minister for Immigration **(Mr Grassby)** has stated on a number of occasions that he does not want an immigration program which is simply identified with a labour program. We need not only unskilled workers; we also need skilled workers, workers in the executive and management fields and in the professions. The Government, more than at any other time, is surrounded by advisory bodies of a wide variety. Surely some of them must be undertaking some kind of research into the needs of this country and of the availability of new settlers from source countries. I know as well as any other honourable senator how the situation in regard to source countries has changed. But it is the responsibility of the Government in an age when we need new settlers and when they are available to go out and find them. It should implement programs of search and examination to bring people to Australia so that the workforce can be strengthened at all levels to provide greater opportunities for the development of industry and for the greater development of all phases of our community living and the standard of our Australian life. The Minister, quite rightly has been very concerned in recent times about the departure rate of migrants from this country. He is not the first Minister to be concerned about that. If we want to maintain a large, active and useful citizen force, we have to be concerned with people staying in this country. So many steps have been taken both by the previous administration and by this administration to retain the number of people who are here. But I am not at all satisfied that enough is being done for the recruitment of migrants to become citizens in Australia for the development of Australian industry and life. Since the present administration has come into office this matter of mobility, which was a factor under consideration by the previous administration, has increased in its importance and significance. There is now, more than ever before, a greater degree of international mobility for people. Every country that needs the kind of development that we need is faced with this situation. I agree that it is a problem, but it is not a problem which cannot be overcome. It is a problem in regard to which steps can be taken to take advantage of employment so that our production may increase, our labour shortages may disappear and the general standards and productivity may be much better than they are. In relation to the measures before the Senate this afternoon, this is the only area which I wish to discuss. There are many others to which I could devote a great amount of time and develop a considerable number of arguments. In conclusion, I call for a greater intake of migrants and a re-examination of the Government's recruitment policy because the country needs new citizens more now than it ever has before. {: #subdebate-41-0-s9 .speaker-K69} ##### Senator SIM:
Western Australia -- I wish to refer briefly to a matter that I referred to yesterday. It is the rather weird attitude of this Government to foreign investment and the damaging effect that it is having upon the development of Australia, and particularly on the lesser developed States and the northern remote areas. I do not know what this attitude is based upon. I do not know whether it is based upon some odd view of extreme economic nationalism or upon some ideological slant. It is being administered in an arbitrary and reckless manner by the Government and by the Minister for Minerals and Energy **(Mr Connor)** on behalf of the Government. Yesterday I cited the arbitrary decision by the Minister not to allow a big refinery to be built in the north-west of Western Australia by the Woodside-Burmah-Kanamatsu-Goshu consortium. The Western Australian Government was keen to develop it. I also quoted yesterday the statements by the Labor Premier of Western Australia, **Mr Tonkin,** in reply to some reckless allegations made by **Mr Connor.** Today I am provoked into raising this matter again by a headline in today's issue of the 'West Australian' which reads: 'WA Minister: Canberra mad'. The Minister referred to is the Minister for the Northwest, **Mr Bickerton,** who is the member for the electorate of Pilbara in the Western Australian Parliament. He has lived in Port Hedland for many years. I think that **Mr Bickerton** 's statement demonstrates even more clearly the complete disregard by the Federal Government for States such as Western Australia and for the development of the States. The article states: > **Mr Bickerton** . . . described as mad the Federal Government's policies limiting foreign investment in developing remote areas. > >He said: 'I can say unequivocally that without foreign capital our remote areas will not be developed. He cannot be accused of supporting the capitalists or of supporting foreign ownership and control. These are his views. He then went on to say: >We did not have anything in the North- West till we got foreign capital . . . That is true. **Sir Charles** Court has been attacked by certain people for what he did to introduce foreign capital to Western Australia to develop our greatest iron ore resources and it has been suggested that he was selling Australian assets. But **Mr Bickerton** throws that allegation straight back in their faces. **Mr Bickerton** said: >It is not a matter of knocking back local capital, it is a question of getting capital- foreign or local. > >The Australian content has not been available. He then went on to say that the Federal Government had adequate powers to ensure that the Australian people were protected against foreign control without banning or limiting foreign investment in particular projects. He said that the Commonwealth had not studied the benefits of overseas investment and that all it had done was to look at its possible wickedness. How true that is. **Mr Bickerton** has hit the nail right on the head because all that the Commonwealth Government can see is the wickedness of foreign investors who want to exploit Australia and Australian resources. The Government never looks at the benefits of such investment. {: .speaker-RG4} ##### Senator Gietzelt: -- We are left with a hole in the ground. {: .speaker-K69} ##### Senator SIM: -- That is one of the most ignorant and ridiculous statements I have ever heard. Look at what Australia has earned in digging those holes. If it had not been for those holes in the ground in Western Australia we could well have faced an economic crisis when the rural industries were in such a state of depression. Do not forget that it was foreign investment in Western Australian and the north of Australia that saved the Australian economy. {: .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator Durack: -- They have never even heard of processing. {: .speaker-K69} ##### Senator SIM: -- No, but that is another story. **Mr Bickerton** went on to say that foreign capital was apparently accepted when it was invested in hotels and other things. He said: >But as soon as you get it in the development of natural resouces in remote areas the Commonwealth wants to tell you how much you can have. This is the arbitrary centralised control that we have been talking about. He went on to say: >It is all very nice for a person in a developed area to tell a person in an underdeveloped area how to run their country. > >They have already got their schools and halls . . . > >It would not hurt them to have a look round to see how foreign capital, even in their own areas, has given them the facilities they require. **Mr Bickerton** referred to the fact that a few years ago one could not get a haircut in Port Hedland. Today, of course, Port Hedland is a modern town with all facilities that have only been available because of the influence of foreign investment. Finally **Mr Bickerton** referred to the fact that he had issued invitations to the next meeting of the Northern Development Council to be held in the Pilbara next March. He said that if he had issued an invitation some years ago it would not have been possible to hold a meeting there. He said: >If foreign capital has done that for us, all I can say is that we need bloody more of it. These are the views of a Labor Minister of Western Australia who lives in the north west of Western Australia and has lived there all his life. If the Federal Government does not heed the advice and the words of its own State Labor governments whose responsibility it is to develop their States, the Federal Government will deserve to go down as a government responsible for damaging the development of Australia and particularly as a government whose policies would be disastrous to the development of our more remote areas. {: #subdebate-41-0-s10 .speaker-KBY} ##### Senator YOUNG:
South Australia -I rise to make some comments on telegrams that were sent to South Australian senators by **Mr Des** Corcoran, the Acting Premier of South Australia. The telegram was quoted yesterday afternoon by a South Australian Government senator and this morning by you, **Mr President.** I refer to this because the telegram levels criticism at Opposition senators, particularly those from South Australia. The claim has been made by **Mr Corcoran** that action taken by Opposition senators in this chamber is placing the development of the Redcliffs petrochemical industry in jeopardy. I refute that statement and I think that had **Mr Corcoran** done his homework he would realise the facts. Quite frankly, I am of the opinion that he has done nothing other than to try to involve and incriminate South Australian members of the Opposition, purely as a cheap political trick. He has done this because the State of South Australia has been deeply concerned for a long time that this complex may not be built at Redcliffs because of the actions of the Minister for Minerals and Energy, **Mr Connor.** The statment can be backed by the action that was taken in the South Australian House of Assembly on 1 6 October this year when the following motion was moved: {: type="i" start="1"} 0. . that this House express deep concern at the actions of the Commonwealth Minister for Minerals and Energy **(Mr Connor)** in relation to the proposed Redcliffs petrochemical development, and urge the Government to take all possible steps to resolve the present threat to its establishment. Only twice in the history of South Australia has such a resolution been carried by all members in the South Australian House of Assembly. They voted unanimously against the Federal Government. I emphasise that this motion was voted for by members of the Labor Party Government of South Australia in the House of Assembly and that they virtually expressed a vote of censure upon the actions of **Mr Connor.** I can understand why the telegrams were sent to honourable senators and why criticism has been levelled at us. The telegrams were sent to cover up and take the heat off South Australian Government senators because of the many things that have taken place in South Australia recently. The Redcliffs proposal, which I could talk about in far greater detail, is one such matter which concerns senators from both sides of the House and all people in the State of South Australia. Dartmouth Dam, to which I referred yesterday, is another issue. The Prime Minister **(Mr Whitlam)** on behalf of the Government wrote to the Premier of South Australia requesting that the construction of Dartmouth Dam be deferred so that the Commonwealth involvement in the project at a cost amounting to $l.lm could be saved. Yet at the same time we find that the Government negotiated the purchase of the Blue Poles' painting which will cost probably $2m before it arrives in Australia. One involves paint and canvas and the other involves water and the dire needs of the people of South Australia. Labor senators from South Australia were heavily criticised by all sections of the South Australian community over the action to defer construction of the dam. But this was action taken by the Prime Minister- not by them. Nevertheless, the Labor Party senators received the blame. Another issue is the tax on brandy which has created great embarrassment for Labor senators from South Australia. I can see the reason why this unjust, illfounded and completely incorrect criticism has been levelled upon Opposition senators from South Australia. The latest report of the Australian Industry Development Corporation shows that the total capital and reserves of the Corporation amount to $52.5m. The AIDC has the ability to borrow up to S times this amount less what is already gone in borrowings. So one can assume that there are sufficient funds and an ability to raise the funds within the AIDC so that this body can maintain its interest in the proposed petrochemistry industry at Redcliffs. The stated figure of the involvement of the AIDC- and I am quoting now from figures given in South Australia- stands at some $45 m. As I have said, 5 times that amount could be raised if necessary. We find that last week on 23 November **Dr J.** F. Cairns made a statement to a reporter from the 'Australian Financial Review'. The article which appeared in that publication stated: >In an interview with "The Australian Financial Review' **Dr Cairns** said that the AIDC would not be allowed to go short of funds for necessary projects simply because of Senate failure to pass its new, expanded charter, and legislation establishing a national investment fund. > > **Dr Cairns** said he believed the AIDC would be permitted to borrow abroad without having to meet the 33.3 per cent deposit requirements- And I emphasise this part of it: and would be given access in the Australian capital market- in order to continue with projects the Government thought necessary. Again, I should like to quote from House of Representatives Hansard of 28 November, at page 3993, where **Dr J.** F. Cairns, referring to the AIDC, said: >It has scope to draw money from the Treasury for ordinary lending operations. It has kept that scope fairly distinct and we wanted to do this in the legislation. We wanted to say, in effect, that if we are going to use Treasury money we want to put the matter specifically to the House to get the agreement of the House. In other words, **Dr Cairns** is saying that there is another source of finance if necessary. Again, with regard to the deferment of this legislation and its reference to a committee, **Dr Cairns** said: >I say to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that I am prepared to agree to the Senate referring this matter to the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. He had no criticism; he accepted the idea that it be referred. He did not disagree with the suggestion that it be referred to a Senate select committee. There are 3 reasons why criticism is completely ill-founded. Firstly, the AIDC has the ability to borrow more funds; secondly, **Dr Cairns** has said that further sources of supply can be obtained with the permission of both Houses of Parliament; and, thirdly, **Dr Cairns** has agreed to the referral of this proposed legislation to a Senate committee. I say again very critically that I am concerned and disappointed at the scurrilous attack that **Mr Corcoran** and members of his Party in South Australia have levelled at Opposition members of this Senate, particularly those from South Australia. What he has said is completely untrue and unfounded, and is being used for cheap political gain. {: #subdebate-41-0-s11 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- The debate has been wide ranging in its spectrum. It will be interesting to honourable senators to note that despite the earlier criticism levelled at the Government for the allegedly inadequate time it has made available for debate on these Appropriation Bills, some seven or eight members of the Opposition have spoken today as compared with one supporter of the Government. I am winding up this debate for **Senator Willesee,** the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who represents the Treasurer in this chamber. **Senator Willesee** has had to handle other important Government business and has asked me to reply on behalf of the Government. The matters that have been raised by honourable senators opposite naturally will be referred to the relevant Ministers and their departments for consideration. I merely want to reply shortly at this stage to some of the criticism that has been levelled at the Government about the timetable involved in the presentation of this legislation. Already I have said that some seven or eight members of the Opposition have spoken today at length and on a diverse number of subjects, as compared with a very short speech on behalf of the Government by **Senator McLaren.** **Senator Cotton,** in leading for the Opposition, said that the Bills were brought down in the House of Representatives on 2 1 August and were introduced into the Senate on 22 October, a period of 2 months having elapsed. He went on to say that this is a House of review and that the Senate should give close scrutiny to the total government program that is involved. I do not think anyone who believes in parliamentary democracy would disagree with him in that regard. However, **Senator McLaren** has already pointed out that there was considerable discussion of the appropriations by the various Estimates Committees. In this Budget session alone, some 68 hours and 6 minutes - {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- Why waste time over those matters? Why not use the time to answer challenges to your appropriations? **Senator DOUGLAS** McCLELLANDSenator Wright has been whingeing at great length this morning about the supposedly inadequate time that has been made available by the Government to the Opposition for discussion on these measures. I am merely reiterating **Senator McLaren's** statement that of a total number of 90 hours devoted this year to a consideration by the Senate Estimates Committees, in this session alone, 68 hours and 6 minutes have been devoted to consideration of the various estimates, practically every one of which has been discussed line by line by members of the Senate. There has been close scrutiny of the Estimates. Only this morning **Senator Webster** in the course of his remarks commended the Ministers and departmental officers for the informative details given to the particular committee of which he was a member. **Senator Wood** referred to the prices and incomes policy of this Government and the referendum to be held on 8 December. Earlier this session the Senate had a long debate on this matter. I am sure the Australian public will understand that if inflation is to be effectively tackled by the Australian Government, the Australian Parliament must have proper and effective powers. I was also pleased to hear **Senator Wood** refer to that august body of the Parliamentary Labor Party known as Caucus as a truly democratic organisation. I think it fair to say that the great majority of commentators in the media and elsewhere have recognised the Budget as a responsible economic document. Indeed, to some it came as a pleasant surprise. In answer to the criticism levelled by the Opposition that public spending will be too high, let me make a few short points. Figures that have been provided to me by the Treasury are illuminating. In real terms, total public spending on goods and services, as shown in the national accounts, rose by 2.7 per cent in 1969-70, 2.5 per cent in 1970-71, 3.6 per cent in 197 1-72 and a bare 2.0 per cent in 1972-73. These are feeble rates of growth, even by comparison with the stunted growth of the whole economy over the period. With a marginal exception in 1971-72, public spending fell as a proportion of domestic growth productivity in each of the past four years. All this is but another aspect of a fact to which my colleague the Treasurer **(Mr Crean)** drew attention in the Budget Speech. He said: >In Australia today we are much better at selling cars than providing decent public transport services; much better at building houses than providing sewerage services for them. . . . These priorities are all wrong. However, as the Prime Minister said in his election policy speech: 'We cannot expect to clear away that backlog in three months or even three years. ' But we are now embarking on the task. This Government makes no apology for the fact that it is embarking on the task. To do so is at the very core of all that the Labor Government stands for. Those who advocate that we should drastically prune public spending are in fact advocating that we should turn our back both on our principles and on our commitments. Certainly it is a novel experience to be castigated for keeping our promises. It has been suggested that we would reap great political rewards by saying to the people that we are unable to fulfil the mandate that we were given last December. Perhaps so, though I cannot help but believe that the Institute's political analysis is no more accurate and no more relevant than its economic analysis. I suggest that this matter be now determined by the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. In Committee {: #subdebate-41-0-s12 .speaker-KB9} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Wilkinson:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA -- Is it the wish of the Committee that the Bills be taken as a whole? {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- No, department by department. Motion (by **Senator Douglas** McClelland) proposed: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) That clauses 1 to 6 and the First Schedule be postponed until after the consideration of the Second Schedule; (2) that, unless otherwise ordered, the votes in the Second Schedule be considered in the same groupings and order as in the Estimates Committee. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- I would like clarification of that. I asked that at the Committee stage the Bills be dealt with department by department. That would not be inconsistent with the groupings referred to by the Minister. I would like the Minister to clarify whether his understanding of the motion is to the contrary. {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- I am deputising for **Senator Willesee** but I believe that it was understood that the departments would be dealt with in those groupings. If **Senator Wright** wants them on a departmental basis, I am prepared to agree to it. Question resolved in the affirmative. Second Schedule. Attorney-General's Department Proposed expenditure, $37,85 1,000. {: #subdebate-41-0-s13 .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania -There is an item in the estimates of this Department which somebody might be good enough to explain in order to save time and so that discussion on it will not be halted until we get to it. It was the subject of reference in Estimates Committee A discussions where it was disclosed that last year a payment was made to the former Chief Judge of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission of an extraordinary sum, that is to say, $62,900, on his retirement. In Estimates Committee A we examined this item and the Attorney-General **(Senator Murphy)** was good enough to produce documents which revealed a somewhat unusual state of affairs which should be referred to in the Committee of the Whole because, I would suggest, it is a matter of urgent need of attention. It was revealed that an Executive Council minute in 1967 recorded that leave would be granted to federal judges of one year's duration every 10 years and, if the death occurred of a judge with accrued leave or if a judge retired and that leave was not taken, an amount not exceeding 1 year's salary would be paid. The Constitution of this country provides that judges are to be paid such amount as the Parliament shall fix and that their emoluments shall not be reduced during their term of office. {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator Murphy: -- Are you referring to a judge? I was not here earlier. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT: -Yes, Chief Judge Kirby. {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator Murphy: -- He was not a judge; he was President of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Abitration Commission. As you well know, it is not a judicial position. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT: -- Of course he was. He is the last remaining judge of the old Industrial Court and he had life tenure by virtue of that. I do not know what his age was on retirement but I believe that he exercised the last years of his office by reason of his judicial tenure. I do not want to be corrected falsely in these matters. I am trying to assist the Government in an inexcusable situation where we are being asked to compress our criticism of this Budget into a mere day's debate. Let me do nothing more to excite acrimony. I am putting forward the proposition that this judge had the benefit of an Executive Council minute. I think that that Executive Council minute was wholly irregular and that it is most unfortunate that the practice has grown, according to the list of payments that the Attorney-General provided, of showing that that is regarded as one of the ordinary emoluments or advantages of judicial office. I suggest that it is a matter in need of urgent attention and that if that benefit is to be granted it should be granted by Parliament. This case illustrates the danger of that insecure base. One year's leave was the subject matter of that minute but as a special case, not Cabinet, not Caucus, not Parliament but the Prime Minister, **Mr Whitlam,** authorised 2 years leave; in other words, a payment of $62,900 to an outgoing judicial person who combined the duties of Chief Justice of a judicial office and Chief Commissioner of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, positions which for this purpose I would not distinguish between. In this case a double advantage was given because the Prime Minister considered it a special case. If our judiciary is to be rewarded or prejudiced according to the decision of the Ministry or one member of the Ministry it is a dangerous position into which we have fallen. I ask that the AttorneyGeneral give us an undertaking that the position will be put on a parliamentary basis. After it has gone through both Houses of Parliament we will see whether this additional advantage is approved. There is doubt even about that. I would think that there is considerable doubt whether either House of Parliament would, in respect of a judge on $3 1,450 a year immediately on retirement and going on to a pension of $18,500 the next day- a non-contributory pension for life- authorise an Act to give additional payment of the order of 1 year's salary for the transformation between a judge and a retired judge. I content myself with having said that on a most important principle for the sake of brevity. I hope that will put the matter into proper form. {: #subdebate-41-0-s14 .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY:
General · New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate and Attorney · ALP -- The honourable senator has referred to this matter a number of times. It ought to be put into some perspective. The fact is that this practice was established under the Government of which he was a member. On an earlier occasion he said that he was not aware of it- that there was some committee of the Cabinet. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- It was not established when I was a member of the Government. {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY: -Well, then, it was established before the honourable senator was a member. The honourable senator said that he was not aware of it. It is no use his coming in here and thundering about the matter, saying that it is terrible and asking for all sorts of assurances. If there ought to be an alteration, then let it be made. But let it be clear that this was established under the previous Government- probably for sensible reasons. {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster: -- Who benefited from it previously? {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY: -There was a list of other persons. I do not have it with me now. It was given to the Estimates Committee. This procedure was established under the previous Government. If there is to be a change in the procedures and it is to be done by an Act of Parliament, then let it be done by an Act of Parliament, that is to say, by special provision. But here it has been brought into the appropriations. There are some errors of fact in what has been put by **Senator Wright.** I ought to explain that he is in error in saying that it was **Mr Whitlam** 's decision. As a matter of strictness, it was a decision of the Executive Council. The Governor-General in Council decided that the payment should be made. That is my recollection of the matter. {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator Greenwood: -- The correspondence says it was 3 Ministers only. {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY: -- I understand that it went to the Executive Council. Whoever the 3 Ministers were, it was formalised. In any event, it is brought into a Bill and put before Parliament for its endorsement. As to the person concerned, whether it affects the principle or not, at least we ought to be clear that he was occupying a nonjudicial office. If ever anyone ought to know, the honourable senator should know that the office of a judge of the Court of Conciliation and Arbitration is a non-judicial office. It was declared in the great boilermakers case to be an administrative office. The other office- the President of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission- also is a non-judicial office. That may not affect the matter significantly but at least the facts ought to be clear instead of the honourable senator constantly asserting that it is a judicial office. It is not a judicial office. It may be that the principle he asserts should apply to non-judicial offices. I am not questioning that. But let us be clear that both offices held were non-judicial offices. The payments were made and the reason for the payments has been dealt with in the Estimates Committee. The President of the Commission said that during his time as President he was unable to take his long service leave because of the requests made by the Government to spend his leave in settling industrial disputes. Thereby he was deprived of his leave at the request of the Government. The amount to which he was entitled was somewhat in excess of 2 years and a payment was made which was the equivalent of 2 years' salary. {: .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator Durack: -- Would it be taxable? {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY: -I imagine that it would be taxable in the same way as any other such amount. The same principle would apply. Maybe only portion of it was taxable. But whatever it was, the President of the Commission would be under the same rule that applied to anyone else. Here was an appointment made by the previous Government. Records were kept, a request was made by the previous Government and a principle was established that payments could be made in respect of accrued long service leave. There was some extension of this principle by this Government because of the request made, the reasons for which were advanced. I take it that the honourable senator does not dispute the facts of the matter. He is not going so far as to assert that the President did not accrue a period in excess of 2 years long service leave. The Government considered that in those circumstances he should be paid the amounts. That is how the matter arose. I would think that it ought to be covered by legislation. This would be the reasonable course. But to me there seems to be no basis for making an enormous fuss about a practice which was in substance instituted by the Government of which the honourable senator was a member. {: .speaker-K3R} ##### Senator Byrne: -- Would you think of commending to the Government the introduction of legislative procedures to cover this sort of practice? {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY: -- Yes. I have already said that. I said at a meeting of the Estimates Committee that I think it ought not be left to decision in this way. All these matters ought to be covered by legislation. I am on record as taking the view that this ought to be covered by legislation. **Senator Wright** has wanted to achieve that approach on both sides of the chamber and I accept that. Let us clear some things out of the way. This is not an undermining of the independence of the judiciary because, in strictness, he was not a judicial officer, he was a non-judicial officer. But I think the procedures ought to apply to such an officer as well as to judicial officers and that it ought to be covered by legislation. Ought not that to be the end of it instead of its being carried on week after week? {: #subdebate-41-0-s15 .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania -The latter remarks of **Senator Murphy** provide a sound foundation for future consideration of this matter when he said that it does not matter whether it is a judicial or a non-judicial officethe principle should apply to this officer whether he is strictly judicial or not. I need not therefore take time in arguing the technical question of whether his office was judicial. Of course, we all know the boilermakers case. I rise only to put the record straight, I am not satisfied as to the amount of leave untaken and I ask the AttorneyGeneral **(Senator Murphy)** to provide me with the periods of leave which the judge did take over the last 10 years. In response to the question whether the amount is taxable, the Attorney-General would know as well as anybody in the chamber that of this retiring allowance only 5 per cent is included in the recipient's taxation return. That is to say, that only $3,000 of this $62,900 would be required to be included in the return. It is therefore a capital payment of $60,000 by way of retirement allowance and it is so anomalous as to be double what was purported to be authorised by the Executive Minute. I shall be purposefully brief and conclude on that matter by putting my remarks firmly on the record. {: #subdebate-41-0-s16 .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria -- I rise to echo and support what **Senator Wright** has said. I think this payment ought to be exposed because when I heard of it I was literally astounded. I do not think that the AttorneyGeneral **(Senator Murphy)** serves himself or his office well by the defence of it which he has raised today. He said that there were outstanding administrative arrangements under which judges were to be paid 12 months salary in lieu of leave which they had not taken and that those arrangements had been in existence for many years. That is quite correct. He then went on to say that, of course, **Mr Justice** Kirby was not a judge and therefore it did not apply to him as a matter of strict equity. {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator Murphy: -- I did not put it in that way. {: .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD: -- I hope I have not misunderstood the honourable senator. I notice that he indicates by gesture that that is not the position. But I refer to what were the administrative arrangements. These of course, were amongst the documents which he provided for the Estimates Committee. Those arrangements were made on 21 June 1967. They set down a rule which, on the face of it, was inflexible. They indicated what the entitlements were. I draw attention specifically to the introduction of these administrative arrangements which reads: {: .page-start } page 2305 {:#debate-42} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-42-0} #### LONG LEAVE FOR COMMONWEALTH JUDGES The following are the administrative arrangements approved for long leave for Commonwealth judges (including the President and Deputy Presidents of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission): {: type="a" start="i"} 0. that 12 months' long leave be available after 10 years' service as a judge, and that for each successive period of 10 years' completed service as a judge a further 12 months' long leave be available; provided that the maximum amount of leave to which the judge shall be entitled at any time shall not exceed 12 months and leave not availed of within 10 years of accrual shall lapse; That is the arrangement which was laid down. It is quite clear. I would have thought that any judge would have known what his entitlements were. It represented a basis upon which the Executive's granted emoluments to judges could be ascertained. I agree with **Senator Wright** that it is far better that these arrangements be put in statutory form. If they are not put in statutory form they should be put in a form of regulations so that they are known and clear. I think the exposure of what has now happened makes it abundantly clear that the Attorney-General should indicate that this should be the situation for the future. But until it is put on a statutory basis and until rights are made clear by statute there is always the risk that some arrangements will be made. It is quite clear that the amount which was paid to **Mr Justice** Kirby, as **Senator Wright** indicated, was contrary to the administrative arrangements and in excess of what he was entitled to receive by statute and by those arrangements. We are still not told why that amount was paid. In the documents which were provided for the Committee there was a statement, given by way of answer to **Senator Wright,** in which there was a short explanation of the circumstances. I read the last 2 paragraphs of that statement which was given to Senate Estimates Committee A. It appears at page 302 of the Hansard report of 22 October and it states: >Under the administrative arrangements referred to above, **Sir Richard** was entitled to payment, in lieu of untaken leave, in respect of a period of 12 months' leave. > >Having regard to the special circumstances that existed in **Sir Richard** Kirby 's case, the Government decided that it should be treated as a special case and it authorised payment to him on retirement of a sum equivalent to 2 years ' salary. We are not told what were the special circumstances which applied to **Sir Richard** Kirby. What appears is the grant of a most generous emolument by Executive discretion. If we are in this country ever to allow a situation to develop in which special favours may be made available to judges because there is some payment to them by the Executive, then the independent judiciary upon which we have prided ourselves for centuries will be in jeopardy. The regrettable feature about this is that it comes to light not as an appropriation sought for this year but as an indication- almost a footnote- of a payment which has already been made. I believe that when the occasion arises there is a need for us to make emphatic that the judiciary is independent. The Executive should always maintain a relationship with the judiciary which ensures that there can be no suspicion that favours can be given or that favours have been given for which payments or rewards are offered. That is the vice. That is where independence is in jeopardy. That is where it is under suspicion. I only regret that this particular payment has occurred so soon in the lifetime of a new government. I do not believe that those administrative arrangements should be set aside and some particular provision made. The administrative arrangements set out a fixed pattern. They had been in operation for many years before. Other judges had received the exact entitlement to which those administrative arrangements favoured them. I welcome what has been said by the Attorney-General and that is that he feels that the situation should be put on a statutory basis for the future. I simply hope that he will give an undertaking to the Senate that the administrative arrangements of 1967 will continue in the form in which they have been stated without exception, without special favours, and without extra amounts being given until the matter is put on a statutory basis. {: #subdebate-42-0-s0 .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · ALP -- Here we are noting that in the last financial year some $62,900 was paid to **Sir Richard** Kirby. He had been appointed a judge of the old Court of Conciliation and Arbitration many years ago. After the boilermakers case he was appointed as President of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission which is a non-judicial office. He continued as a judge of the Court of Conciliation and Arbitration which, in the boilermakers case, was declared to be a non-judicial court. So we are not dealing with the independence of the judiciary. That is the point I made. This was an administrative officer beyond any question whatever. I say this because of the red herring of the independence of the judiciary which has been dragged in. This is an officer who gave great service to this country. He performed that service during the period of the previous Government. I think that he was in office under this Government for only some 5 or 6 months. During a good period of that time he was rather ill. So it is absurd and, I think, very wrong to have these suggestions cast around this chamber that somewhere there might be something about special favours for services rendered or all this kind of nonsense. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- That is quite obviously abuse of the position by the Government. It is an obvious case of patronage. {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY: -- The honourable senator speaks of patronage and abuse. I heard him say worse things on television. Things were said before he spoke about the office. I am informed that in 28 years service **Sir Richard** Kirby was not able to take more than 3 months long service leave. That was because of requests by the Government that he not take his leave and that he attend to the industrial disputes which were occurring. I am also informed that this information was given by **Sir Richard** in his letter of 24 July 1972 to the Honourable Phillip Lynch and to **Senator Greenwood.** I think that **Mr Lynch** was then the Minister for Labour and National Service and that **Senator Greenwood** was the Attorney-General. Honourable senators will realise that **Sir Richard** Kirby informed these Ministers of the Crown what the position was. If they dispute what was said by him they have had ample opportunity to inquire into the matter. All I am able to tell the Senate now is that the Government accepts what was said by **Sir Richard** Kirby. Many people well versed in industrial affairs knew what **Sir Richard** had done over the years. They knew that he had not been able to take his long service leave and they accepted the proposition that he was unable to take leave to which he was entitled and which was in excess of 2 years. This was not because of his own volition but because of the requests of the Government. The principle had been established that where long service leave had not been taken the person- whether a judge, a nonjudicial or quasi-judicial officer but certainly a person in the position of the President- would be entitled to payment in lieu of that long service leave. In view of the statement that he had not taken the amount to which he was entitled because of the requests of the Government it was considered proper to accede to his request that he be paid a sum equal to 2 years long service leave. That has been included in the documents put before Parliament. As I recall the matter, it was covered by a decision of the Executive Council. Certainly the Prime Minister **(Mr Whitlam)** made the decision on the matter. I think others were consulted and I certainly was consulted. The Government thinks it was right and proper in the circumstances and that it ought not be used as a vehicle for another of the attacks aimed at endeavouring to undermine the judiciary or those occupying quasi-judicial or high administrative offices in this community. {: #subdebate-42-0-s1 .speaker-KMX} ##### Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria -- I rise to speak very briefly, having listened to what the Attorney-General **(Senator Murphy)** just said. Far from what he alleges to be an attack seeking to undermine the judiciary, the purpose of what I have said and what **Senator Wright** has said has been to establish, and to have maintained, the independence of the judiciary. In deference to what **Senator Murphy** last said, there is no doubt from a reading of the administrative order arrangements of 1967 that the provisions were meant to apply- in express terms they did apply- to the President and Deputy Presidents of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. To seek subsequently to make some distinction and to justify what has been done on the basis that those officers are different from judges is, I think, to ignore the point that is being made. In any event, as has been said, **Sir Richard** Kirby had a life tenure and so long as he lived he was entitled to remain a judge and to be paid his salary. He has resigned and did so on the conditions which have been stated and with the payments which have been made. However, that is one aspect only of the estimates of the Attorney-General's Department to which I desire to refer. It is to be noted that in the report of Estimates Committee A the Committee agreed to my statement of an objection to what had been an experience in the Committee. I simply want to read to this Committee that aspect of the report. It is paragraph 5 and reads as follows: > **Senator Greenwood,** as a member of Committee, wishes to record his objection to the refusal of the Attorney-General to answer questions relating to the employment duties and activities of persons for which an appropriation was contained in the Estimates. He records also his objection to the refusal to provide information to the Committee as to the nature and the reasons for the expenditure incurred by the Attorney-General 's Department in respect of the hearings of the Senate Committee inquiring into Civil Rights of Migrants. The basis of the objection is that the purpose of the Senate Estimates Committees is to examine the estimates of expenditure proposed for a department. Matters directly relating to the functions and employment of staff of the Department and persons for whom salary and other appropriations are sought are proper matters for inquiry. This is particularly so when the functions being performed are matters of general knowledge and an explanation of why those functions are being undertaken is the purpose of the inquiry. **Senator Murphy** well recalls that in Estimates Committee A certain questions were asked which he was reluctant to answer, and his reluctance to answer was sustained by the Chairman of the Committee. There were numerous occasions upon which I, as a member of the Committee, simply was ruled out of order and told that no questions were to be asked on the matter I raised. I indicated that one had to accept that that was the Chairman's right under the terms of reference of the Committee and there was nothing that a senator could do about it. But I indicated then that it was proper and right to raise the matter in the Senate, and I now raise it in this chamber. If the Senate estimates committees are to perform their functions, the pattern under which they were established and under which they operated under the previous Government ought to apply under this Government. There was no occasion that I can recall under the previous Government, and certainly no point was sought to be taken by any Opposition senator, of there being an inability to ask questions and to get the information or, if the information was not available, to be supplied with sufficient reasons. It is surprising that a Party which in 1972 made such a great plea and said that it would provide an openness of Government which it claimed was not evident in the then Government should adopt this tactic of refusing to answer questions when they were inconvenient. I raise this point, not because I believe the Attorney-General is any more likely to give the information here than he was in that Estimates Committee, but to indicate that far from there being openness of government there is a desire to make available what the Government wants to make available and to conceal what it wants to conceal. {: #subdebate-42-0-s2 .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral · ALP -- It is nice to be able to agree with **Senator Greenwood** for once. I think we would all have hoped that the estimates committees would have gone along during this Parliament in the same way as they have gone along previously. However, I agree with **Senator Greenwood** that the behaviour of those who attended Estimates Committee A was completely different from that which was displayed under the previous Government. I would also agree with him that if the estimates committees, particularly the one to which he referred, continue to be conducted as they were conducted there is no point in attempting to have rational discussion of the estimates by such committees. He may have his view as to who is at fault; others have their view as to who was guilty of abuse of the processes of the committees. I think the matter may be well left at the stage that we are in concord that, whatever the reason, the estimates committees, and particularly Estimates Committee A, were not functioning properly and that if they function in that way we might as well dispense with having them. {: #subdebate-42-0-s3 .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania **-Mr Chairman,** the Attorney-General **(Senator Murphy)** is becoming insolent even to this Committee now. He is imputing to members of Estimates Committee A some sort of behaviour that might indicate that it would be just as well to dispense with the estimates committees. This is the stout defender of the estimates committees. He would defend them so long as they are tame cat committees. He would defend them only so long as inquiries are not of him. I want to put on record that in the concluding stages of Estimates Committee A, **Senator James** McClelland, as Chairman, as the record shows purported to have the authority to terminate my questions. Anybody who examines the record could not possibly be so prejudiced as to say that those questions were prolonged or not proper. Having put that matter on the record against the chorus coming from the Government side, **Mr Chairman,** I want to ask the AttorneyGeneral, to take note quite dispassionately, of another loophole that I suggest he correct before it comes into a situation of abuse. I refer to company formation on the part of Government departments as a means of operating and managing governmental appropriations that always should be strictly under Treasury rules and departmental administration. For a long time we have had Commonwealth Hostels Ltd under the Department of Labour and National Service as it was. Now we have these proprietary companies dealing with Aboriginal affairs in Torres Strait. Yesterday, to my great surprise, I noted in the annual report of the Australian Industry Development Corporation that the financial position of AIDC Securities Ltd as at 30 June 1973 was that it had an issued capital of $1,000 and cash at the bank of $1,000. 1 do not at any stage suggest any impropriety with regard to that company; I simply cite it as an instance. I think that these companies are being resorted to in order to prevent Parliament having detailed knowledge of their expenditure and financial administration. I doubt whether, under the present legislation, departments or statutory authorities such as the AIDC are authorised to create their own subsidiaries in the form of a company which can escape parliamentary scrutiny. I ask the Attorney-General to give the matter urgent consideration and to provide Parliament with his view as to the propriety of that practice. If it is proper, what safeguards can be provided to ensure that these company transactions will be brought before the Estimates Committees and Parliament as fully as departmental expenditure? {: #subdebate-42-0-s4 .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLAREN:
South Australia -- As a member of Estimates Committee A I feel that I should comment on the remarks which **Senator Wright** has made about the Chairman of that Committee. **Senator Wright** just stated that the Chairman tried to use his authority to terminate the sittings of that Committee. I wish to place on record that on the last night of sitting of Estimates Committee A we waited 7 minutes after the scheduled starting time for **Senator Wright** to take his place. That meeting could have been aborted for want of a quorum. We did him the courtesy of waiting 7 minutes to allow him to question the witnesses who were present. {: #subdebate-42-0-s5 .speaker-KB9} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Wilkinson: -- Order! **Senator McLaren,** it seems to me that this matter could have been raised at the second reading stage if you had wished to raise it. At the moment we are dealing with the proposed expenditure for the AttorneyGeneral's Department. I do not consider that the matter which you are now raising can justifiably be raised under that heading. The matter relates to the operation of Estimates Committee A, and I think that it could be raised at another time. {: .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLAREN: -- I would not have raised the matter if **Senator Wright** had not raised it. **Mr Temporary Chairman,** you did not object to his abusing the Chairman of the Committee when he stated that the Chairman tried to terminate the meeting. {: #subdebate-42-0-s6 .speaker-10000} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: -- Order! I let **Senator Wright** go as far as he did because he was dealing with a matter that was pertinent to the estimates. He mentioned the Chairman inter alia. I could hardly stop him in the middle of a sentence. I let you go as far as you did to establish the point which you wanted to make. I think that this point ought to be closed now, unless you wish to query some part of the estimates. {: .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLAREN: -- I think that I have made my point. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: -- Are there any requests? There being no requests, I declare the vote passed. Proposed expenditure- Department of Customs and Excise, $43, 128,000- passed. Parliament Proposed expenditure, $6,741,000. {: #subdebate-42-0-s7 .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania -There is one matter to which I refer again, and that is the attempt to get statutory authority for the payment of allowances to parliamentary committees. I have mentioned this matter previously. It is imperative that proper rules be laid down, by regulation, for the emoluments of parliamentary committees. I am the last person in the Parliament who would wish to see parliamentary committees damaged in any way. I fear that they may be damaged by criticism of unequal and, in some cases, discriminatory emolument provisions. **Senator Willesee,** who was in charge of the debate on the Appropriation Bill in May, promised me that I could raise this matter the next time that a parliamentary Bill was debated and that in the meantime he would ask that attention be given to the matter. I raise it again because I believe that we ought to have fixed rules for the allowances which are made to parliamentary committees. {: #subdebate-42-0-s8 .speaker-10000} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: -- Are there any requests? There being no requests, I declare the vote passed. Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Proposed expenditure, $48,933,000, {: #subdebate-42-0-s9 .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania -There are 3 matters to which I wish to refer. The first relates to the Auditor-General's part in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. I wish to express my keen disappointment at noticing no reference in any Auditor-General's report to an item obviously deserving the attention of the Parliament- the payment to Chief Justice Kirby. I have referred to it previously. I wish to express my keen disappointment that the AuditorGeneral has not been able to furnish me with his opinion, in response to a letter which I addressed to him about 3 months ago, on the propriety of ministerial decisions which allow members of Parliament travel allowances additional to the parliamentary provision for electorate allowances. I consider that in those respects the Auditor-General is deserving of criticism. I think that we must ensure that the Auditor-General's report is complete and is based on proper principle. I make only passing reference to the fact that we have not yet had the report which **Senator Cavanagh** asked the AuditorGeneral to give about the turtle farms. I think that we should have had at least an interim report. It would be known that the Committee of the Whole would be considering the proposed expenditure for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs today. That report was requested, I think from memory, fully 6 weeks ago. At least an interim report, I think, from the parliamentary officer was due to this Committee. Another matter which I wish to mention under the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet relates to the appropriation for the Australian Council for the Arts. In the course of the examination of the estimates it was revealed that part of that appropriation was being used to pay pensions to writers. Through the good offices of one of the officers of the Department of the Prime Minister I was able to learn that generally those pensions are of the order of $60 a week. Some of them are $6 or $9 a week. There is no rule about the pensions. I do not know how long they endure, whether they are payable at discretion or otherwise. I do not think that it was ever intended that this appropriation be used to pay pensions. If that is the intention, I suggest that we must have a formula or some rule with regard to it so that all writers will know that they are entitled to a pension if they fill certain requirements. I think that the expenditure has to be subject to a more thorough parliamentary scutiny that the scrutiny which can be given to an appropriation of $12,000 or $15,000. 1 forget the amount, but it is a minimal amount in comparison with the total Budget. Therefore, if that is to be the position, we want rules so that we can exercise responsibility but, more importantly, so that we can ensure equity. I point out that the pension payable by this country to a totally and permanently incapacitated soldier at the age of perhaps 30 years is less than $60 a week or, if it has been adjusted upwards recently, it is not many dollars in excess of that figure. I am one who stands for comparability according to merit. The other matter that I wish to mention is the painting 'Blue Poles'. I do not wish to re-canvass what we discussed the other day. On that occasion I pointedly brought out that 2 questions were on the notice paper suggesting that a member of the Acquisitions Committee which advised the purchase of 'Blue Poles' had an interest in the agency gallery that got commission on the purchase. One question was answered in a devious way that avoided giving the information. The answer stated that the honourable senator who asked the question had given a wrong name to the Committee but it did not give any facts whatever as to whether a member of the Acquisitions Committee which authorised the purchase had a commercial or financial interest in the gallery agency that was paid $100,000, 1 think we were told, as commission. 1 believe that we should be assured that that position is without concern, that it is completely a matter of integrity, before this vote should be passed by a parliamentary committee. {: #subdebate-42-0-s10 .speaker-KQN} ##### Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia -- Further to the question directed to the AttorneyGeneral **(Senator Murphy)** by **Senator Wright** in relation to any association between the New York firm of Hutchinson and a firm of a similar name and, I understand, proprietorship in SydneyI refer to Gallery A Exhibitions Pty Ltd- I want to know whether in fact there is any association. I have asked this question time and again. Is there any connection between those 2 organisations and is a member of that organisation one who has something to say in relation to the paintings which may or may not be purchased by the Australian Visual and Plastic Arts Board? {: #subdebate-42-0-s11 .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · ALP -- I have just obtained some information which reads as follows: No member of the Acquisitions Committee who is responsible for the acquisition of works for the National Gallery has any commercial associations with Max Hutchinson or Gallery A Exhibitions Pty Ltd. {: .speaker-KQN} ##### Senator Laucke: -- You say that no member of the Acquisitions Committee has such an association. But has anyone who is authorised to purchase on the actual Board itself, as distinct from the National Gallery, any association with these organisations? {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- I would like to know whether anyone has an interest or an association. {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY: -- All I can say is that the indication given to me by the officers who are here from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet who are acquainted with these matters is that the answer is no. {: .speaker-KQN} ##### Senator Laucke: -- In both areas? {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY: -- I am being nodded to by one of the officers, and I take that to mean that there is no such interest or association in relation to both areas. If there is any variation on that information, I would expect the Senate to be informed of it. I have given the information which is supplied to me. If there is any variation, qualification or correction of it, I would expect that that information would be supplied. The information I have given to the honourable senator is the best that has been given to me. {: #subdebate-42-0-s12 .speaker-K3W} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Cant:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA -- Are there any requests? There being no requests, I declare the vote passed. Proposed expenditure - Department of Science, $ 1 00,42 1 ,000-passed. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: -- Is it the wish of the Committee that we consider all of the departments covered by group B together? There being no objection, that course will be followed. Department of the Special Minister of State Proposed expenditure, $ 1 4,370,000. Department of Foreign Affairs Proposed expenditure, $ 124,736,000. Department of the Treasury Proposed expenditure, $ 157,723,000. Department of Services and Property Proposed expenditure, $60,284,000. Department of the Capital Territory Proposed expenditure, $22,880,000. Department of External Territories Proposed expenditure, $ 1 93,932,000. {: #subdebate-42-0-s13 .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania -I wish to refer to a matter which falls within the responsibility of the Minister for Services and Property **(Mr Daly).** It is the same matter I referred to under the heading of the Auditor-General, namely, to show that the purported allowance given by the Minister to members and senators of the Parliament in relation to the use of private motor cars is additional to the statutory allowance, the electorate allowance. I ask the Minister in charge of the item when I might expect to receive a final reply as to the opinion of the Attorney-General **(Senator Murphy)** on the validity of this item. I would like to know whether it is within the authority of the Minister for Services and Property to purport to authorise travel expenses over and above the limit to which Parliament confined the electorate allowance and whether the Attorney-General can find that the electorate allowance does not cover members' travel expenses. I suggest that in the Salaries Act we quantified, the electorate allowance which includes the private car allowance, in most cases, to the extent of 80 per cent of the claim. I would dispute the authority of the Minister to allow that. I do not raise this matter in a cantankerous spirit; but I raise it because it is a matter of great discrimination between members if it is left to the decision of the Minister. The decision of the Minister should not be used to add to that which Parliament has provided. {: #subdebate-42-0-s14 .speaker-10000} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: -- The question is: 'That the votes related to the departments covered by group B be passed without request'. {: #subdebate-42-0-s15 .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania -I do not intend to be ignored in this way by the Attorney-General **(Senator Murphy).** I am doing nothing other than calling attention to this matter. I have risen to remind the Minister that I requested from him information as to when I could expect to be informed of the AttorneyGeneral 's opinion as to the validity of this item, and I expect an answer. I doubt that honourable senators on this side of the chamber would fail to support me if I moved for the adjournment of the item until I got that opinion. {: #subdebate-42-0-s16 .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral and Minister for Customs and Excise · ALP -- The **Senator in** charge of this matter, **Senator Willesee,** is not ignoring the honourable senator. In the course of affairs, as one knows, there are all sorts of matters, including high matters of state, to be attended to. **Senator Willesee** is not in the Senate chamber. That is the reason why a reply has not been given. I am given a note stating that a brief reply was forwarded to **Senator Wright** on 30 August 1973. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- Saying that a letter was received and I could expect an answer. {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY: -- The point that the honourable senator raises ought to be looked at. He is seeking an answer from **Senator Willesee.** He also mentioned receiving an opinion from the Attorney-General. Insofar as it concerns me, I will endeavour to expedite the matter for the honourable senator and see that he receives an answer. {: #subdebate-42-0-s17 .speaker-K3W} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Cant: -- The question now is that the votes in relation to the departments covered by group B be now passed. Are there any requests? There being no requests, I declare the votes passed. Is it the wish of the Committee that we should take the departments covered by group C together? There being no objection, it is so ordered. Department of the Media Proposed expenditure, $90,040,000. Department of Social Security Proposed expenditure, $86,084,000. Department of Education Proposed expenditure,$14S,3Sl,000. Department of Tourism and Recreation Proposed expenditure, $4,758,000. Department of Immigration Proposed expenditure, $63,079,000. Postmaster-General's Department Proposed expenditure, $ 1 8, 170,000. Department of Health Proposed expenditure, $65,797,000. {: #subdebate-42-0-s18 .speaker-KQN} ##### Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia -- I wish to take this opportunity to raise a matter which concerns the accessibility of the Minister for Tourism and Recreation **(Mr Stewart)** in matters pertaining to tourism as they have been sought to be discussed with him by a **Mr Marc** Stone who is the Director of Marc Stone Village Olympus Management Co. Pty Ltd. **Mr Stone** and his company plan to build and operate a number of specialised sports centres and tourist villages throughout Australia and the South Pacific. This gentleman claims that **Mr Stewart** has turned a blind eye to his plans for an Australian owned tourist plant development corporation. He sees the corporation as a travel industry group able to study successful overseas business methods and projects and obtain money from major overseas financial sources for tourist operators in Australia. It seems to me that this man 's efforts to discuss his attitude to what could well be very good promotion of tourism in Australia have been thwarted by a non-acceptance by the Minister of a request to discuss these matters with him. I raise this matter as one of concern expressed to me by this man. I ask that the matter be referred again to the Minister for his reconsideration. I trust that the Minister will display a preparedness to discuss matters such as this with the person who seeks these interviews. {: #subdebate-42-0-s19 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP **- Senator Laucke** has raised a matter in regard to which naturally it is completely beyond my ability at this stage to provide an answer. All I can say is that I know from my personal experience in the ministerial ambit in which I operate that I receive numerous requests for interviews from goodness knows how many people who are eager to make films and matters of that nature. It is humanly possible, especially while Parliament is sitting, to be able to see only a certain number of them. My attention has been drawn already to question No. 559 on the Senate notice paper standing in the name of **Senator Greenwood.** He is asking a question of the Minister for Tourism and Recreation **(Mr Stewart)** concerning plans by **Mr Marc** Stone, Village Olympus, to build and operate a number of specialised sports centres and tourist villages throughout Australia and the South Pacific. That question already has been drawn to the notice of my colleague. In the course of events an answer will be supplied. {: #subdebate-42-0-s20 .speaker-KQV} ##### Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975 -- I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to one item in group C involving the Department of Social Security. The members of the Estimates Committee were informed that a great deal of information on the Government's proposed national health scheme had been published, some had been circulated and some has been got ready to be circulated before the Bill was introduced into the Parliament. I think that, while this may not be absolutely wrong in some senses, to spend a lot of money on publicity leaflets and everything that goes with this scheme before the Bill is introduced into the Parliament is not quite right. {: #subdebate-42-0-s21 .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales -- I would like to make a comment in view of what **Senator Lawrie** has said. I think that there was considerable dialogue during the meeting of this Senate Estimates Committee under my chairmanship as to what might happen in relation to computers used in our national health scheme. I think that, in deference to the past, both the departmental officers and the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, **Mr Hayden,** were kind enough simply to fend off the questions. It is history now, as Opposition senators now know, that a contrary situation applied, namely, that quite a number of people appeared to have access, even if only to a minor degree, to records of the Department of Social Security. The moral of the story I put is that, when people talk about what might happen, they should remember that many things have happened in the past. There are always 2 sides to the story in regard to what information is elicited and what is not told or is not asked for. {: #subdebate-42-0-s22 .speaker-K3W} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Cant: -- The question now is that the votes in relation to the departments covered by group C be now passed. Are there any requests? There being no requests, I declare the votes passed. Is it the wish of the Committee that we take the Departments covered by Group D together? There being no objection, it is so ordered. Proposed expenditures- Repatriation Department, $507,387,000; Department of Defence, $36,837,000; Department of the Navy, $319,933,000; Department of the Army, $460,239,000; Department of Air, $352,284,000; Department of Supply, $129,457,000; and Department of Labour, $35,726,000-agreed to. {: #subdebate-42-0-s23 .speaker-10000} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: -- Is it the wish to the Committee that we take the departments covered by group E together? There being no objection, it is so ordered. Department of Works Proposed expenditure, $ 104,80 1 ,000. Department of Urban and Regional Development Proposed expenditure, $ 10,800,000. Department of Civil Aviation Proposed expenditure, $ 1 1 5,643,000. Department of Aboriginal Affairs Proposed expenditure, $89,326,000. Department of Housing Proposed expenditure, $9, 149,000. Department of the Environment and Conservation Proposed expenditure, $ 1 ,729,000. {: #subdebate-42-0-s24 .speaker-KQN} ##### Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia -- I wish to raise a matter in respect of the estimates submitted to Senate Estimates Committee E by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. In one line there is a proposed appropriation of $70,050,000 for Aboriginal advancement. The money is to be paid into the Aboriginal Advancement Trust Account. It is true that there are a number of pages of figures which give a breakdown of this huge amount. But the breakdown is not sufficiently detailed to answer the queries in the minds of honourable senators. For instance, I refer to the $1,500,000 which is provided for legal aid. I would like to know how this $ 1 ,500,000 is to be spent or has been allocated in the past. Are there legal men retained consistently to be on hand in the event of a request for legal assistance? Is the $1,500,000 provided to pay usual fees for legal advice as it may be sought. All the information we have is that $1,500,000 is being appropriated. I would like some explanation as to what constitutes legal aid and the system under which it is administered. Further, a seeming looseness overall in this Department was exemplified by the fact that 2 different sets of explanatory notes and figures were given prior to the examination of those estimates by the Committee. In the first issue it was shown that $340,000 would be provided for turtle farming projects. In the second edition which appeared a little while afterwards this amount was shown as $700,000. 1 would like to know how it came about that within a matter of days there was such a large variation in respect to an allocation. {: #subdebate-42-0-s25 .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania -Before the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs **(Senator Cavanagh)** replies I wish to intervene on the matter of turtle farming. A report was submitted a week or two ago by a Committee of the House of Representatives. I thought that it was quite a helpful report from the point of view of opening up matters which **Senator Georges** had disclosed to the Senate. I am conscious of the fact that **Senator Byrne** has motions on the notice paper to refer certain financial matters to a Senate committee to examine the financial operations of the turtle companies. But I did see a Press report to the effect that the Government is considering the discontinuance of these projects. I am of the impression that the appropriation we are now considering includes $1.16m for these projects. I would like the Minister to tell me whether or not a decision has been made to continue or discontinue the projects. I must say that on my present information I will not vote, even if I remain alone in a division, for 6c to go to this turtle farm unless the Minister can give the Senate an undertaking that it will have a report before Christmas before any more money is misspent on the project. I do not wish to excite any acrimony in this debate but in the briefest possible way I wish to indicate the intensity of my feeling about the squandering of public money not for the benefit of the Aborigines but to the enrichment of other people. From the point of view of Aboriginal welfare, conservation and true economics the whole program is misconceived. We would be recreant to our trust if we allowed another dollar to be spent on this outfit as it is set up at present. {: #subdebate-42-0-s26 .speaker-KKD} ##### Senator JESSOP:
South Australia -I would just like to add something to what has been said already about this matter. I ask the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs **(Senator Cavanagh)** whether I am correct in assuming that a suite of offices was or is being leased by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs in Woden at a cost of $155,000 a year for the use, as I understand it, of Applied Ecology Pty Ltd and as an office for the turtle farm project. I would like the Minister to inform me what is to be done with the suite of offices? Will the suite still be required for the Department's use in view of the uncertainty of the turtle farm project? Can the Minister tell me whether the expenditure of $155,000 a year for the leasing of the suite of offices was, in fact, unnecessary? {: #subdebate-42-0-s27 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP -- The points raised by **Senator Laucke** were discussed by Estimates Committee E. The Prime Minister **(Mr Whitlam)** said in his policy speech that his Government would make all Aborigines equal in law with white men. He said that to achieve this end Aborigines were entitled to legal counsel if they appeared in court. At the time the Government took office many solicitors and barristers in Sydney were giving their time free of cost to a voluntary legal aid service for Aborigines. The Government decided that the cheapest way of honouring the election promise of the Prime Minister was for it to work through such legal aid services. Voluntary Aboriginal legal aid services which are funded by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs have been established in all capital cities. Most of these organisations employ a solicitor on a full time basis who is able to give legal advice to Aborigines. In addition they employ girls to undertake office duties and many of them employ a field officer to ascertain the needs of Aborigines in a particular area. An amount of $1.5m is funded to such organisations. In addition to the payment which the Department makes to legal people employed permanently by these organisations it also pays for the services of private counsel who are required to assist in legal cases. A question was asked about 2 different sets of figures which appeared in the estimates for the Department. I think that the reason for the 2 sets of figures has been thoroughly explained. The amount which is appropriated to the trust fund operated by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs is set by way of agreement between the Minister and the Treasurer. In this case the former Minister for Aboriginal Affairs did not agree with the original estimate which had been submitted and printed and therefore the figure was altered. As a result a new set of figures had to be produced and pasted over the old ones. The Estimates Committee considered the figures which were pasted over the original ones. The fact that a new set of figures had been pasted over the previous ones created some suspicion among some honourable senators. The estimate for turtle farming, as honourable senators have been told, has been reduced this year to $700,000. The future of the turtle farms is now under consideration. **Senator Wright** was of the opinion that it would not be advisable to spend another dollar on turtle farming, but turtle farming is the only viable venture in those places where such projects have been established. We are faced with a position in which the only means of livelihood of a population of some 300 people of an island has been taken away because the oyster beds in that area have been worked out. We have to find something else for those people to do. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation produced a report recommending that turtle farming should be run as as conservation project on a cottage farm concept in which turtles would be farmed and then released into the sea as a means of maintaining and ensuring turtle stocks which are being depleted. This is one of the considerations which the Government will have to give to the report of that Committee. I think the Committee reported that the commercial farming of turtles should be phased out over a period. The Special Minister of State **(Senator Willesee)** engaged the services of **Dr Carr,** who teaches at an American university and who is a world expert on turtles, and **Mr Smart,** an accountant from Melbourne, to examine the viability of the project. Both of these men have produced separate reports which are receiving the consideration of the Government. Without disclosing what is in the reports I can say that the recommendations are not consistent with the recommendations in the report of the Parliamentary Committee which has been tabled in the Senate. The Government must decide whether to continue turtle farming as it is operating at the moment, to eliminate expenditure on turtle farming, to adopt the recommendation of the parliamentary committee and use turtle farming as a conservation project or to adopt the recommendations of **Dr Carr** or **Mr Smart** which would ensure a continuation of the project for some time. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- Did you say that the report from these gentlemen had been published? {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH: -No, I said that they had been received by the Minister. The Government will make a decision on the future of turtle farms next week. Immediately that decision is made the reports submitted by **Dr Carr** and **Mr Smart** *will* be tabled in this Parliament. Someone can then move that the reports be printed and a debate can follow. The form that the turtle farm will take in the future is uncertain. The appropriation shows the money that will be necessary to continue with it, if it is carried on as it has been conducted in the past. Of course, the $155,000 that was allegedly spent on an office block- on the renting of an office- is not a correct figure; the renting of the office cost somewhere in the vicinity of $25,000. Added to this there was some $38,000, 1 think, for some furnishings and shifting, which is not a recurring account, but that still does not make up anywhere near $155,000. It was thought incorrectly that this expenditure was solely for annual rental; it includes the shifting costs plus the payment made to farmers, and so on. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- What did it amount to? {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH: -Somewhere in the vicinity of $25,000 for the annual rental of the tower office at Woden. It is false to say that the rental of that office block was $155,000. It was not. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- Can you tell us where the figure came from? {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH: -- The figure was mentioned by **Senator Georges** in a debate in the Senate. {: #subdebate-42-0-s28 .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES:
Queensland -- I should like to give an indication of where the figure of $155,000 came from. As the Minister stated, it does include the rental, which he has indicated was $25,000. The figure of $155,000 was provided in the estimates for the Department to cover the cost of running that office for 1973-74. The cost of running that office includes rental, cleaning, services and the staff that runs that office. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- And salaries? {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -- Yes, the salaries of the office staff. The statement was made that the office cost would be $155,000. Without proving the Minister incorrect, the $155,000 as stated is the figure for the cost of running the office, including the rental and other matters. I make the point that this amount was estimated not only on the basis of running the turtle farms. Honourable senators must realise that $700,000 is the estimate or budgetary provision for running Applied Ecology, which is responsible not only for turtle farms in the Torres Strait but also for crocodile farms in the Cape York Peninsula area near Edward River, and also projects at Mornington Island, One Arm Point in Western Australia, and in the Territory. In order that the Senate may clearly understand the position, I point out that $700,000 is an allocation not only for turtle farming but also for other projects associated with Applied Ecology. The step taken by the Government was clearly to cut the estimate suggested by the Department from some $1.1 4m- the figure seems to varyfrom over $lm to $700,000. By its decisions to appoint people to Applied Ecology Pty Limited in particular, the Government was able to cut down on the heavy administrative cost that was anticipated. So that even the $ 1 55,000 estimate of the cost of running the Applied Ecology office at Woden is to be cut by two-thirds by reduction of staff that has occurred through resignation and by reduction in the area of space from 2,600 square feet to 800 square feet for the time being. I make it clear to the Senate that when it became obvious to the Government and the Minister that all was not in order these decisions were made to reduce heavy administrative costs to a reasonable level. I did not enter into the Estimates debate on this Department earlier because of a limit on time, though I had researched all the information that I needed. I have endeavoured to correct some inaccuracies in figures and material given to the Senate. I am now satisfied that the decisions that have been taken and will be taken in connection with Applied Ecology- I am not talking about the other associated companies which are in a state of suspension at the present time- will correct the situation and keep within the allocation of $700,000 the expenditure on all projects, including crocodile and turtle farming and other associated projects. {: .speaker-KRU} ##### Senator Little: -- Will that include the purchase of the turtles? {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -- Yes. This will be necessary because of some of the unsatisfactory projects at Mornington Island, Borgu Island, the Northern Territory and north-western Australia. {: .speaker-KRU} ##### Senator Little: -- What about the worm infestation? {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -That is a problem that is being solved. We should have been aware of it much earlier. We are now phasing out the unsatisfactory projects and considerably reducing expenditure. By doing this, we feel that while keeping within the allocation of $700,000 we can maintain the operations in the interests of the Islanders and Aborigines, who have been led to expect certain things. I think it is the responsibility of the Government to ensure that those who have been involved in the project, especially the indigenous people, should not be disadvantaged; and it is to this end that we are directing all our attention. Decisions that are being made will be influenced by the reports that the Government is receiving, especially the CarrMainSmart report and the Jenkins report. I assure the Senate that at this stage I feel confident that within the Budget allocation the necessary corrections will be made. {: #subdebate-42-0-s29 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP -- I can now give details of the office accommodation. The total space rented was 4,099 square feet; space sublet to Treasury, 1430 square feet; and the space occupied by Applied Ecology, 2669 square feet. The rate of rental, basic charge, was $6.15 a square foot; cleaning was 50c a square foot and electricity 1 8c a square foot, making a total of $6.83 a square foot. The rent payable per annum on 4,099 square feet was $27,996, less the rental received under subletting arrangements $9,767, leaving the net rental payable by Applied Ecology at $18,229 per annum. Once only expenses were: cost of partitions and laboratory, $20,425; cost of furniture, and so on, $6,833; cost of telex and telephone installations and advance rent $998, and removal expenses $ 120. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: **- Mr Temporary Chairman** - The, TEMPORARY **CHAIRMAN (Senator Wilkinson)-** The question is that the votes in group E be passed without requests. Those of that opinion say 'aye', those against 'no'; I think the ayes have it. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: **- Mr Temporary Chairman** - {: #subdebate-42-0-s30 .speaker-10000} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: -You rose very late, **Senator Wright.** {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- I rose very early but you did not see me. {: .speaker-KSY} ##### Senator McAuliffe: -- You are not going to challenge this Chair too, are you? {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- Do not disturb my patience and equanimity more than necessary. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: **- Senator Wright,** would you please address the Chair. {: #subdebate-42-0-s31 .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania -- I listened with interest to what the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs **(Senator Cavanagh)** said - {: .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator Murphy: -- There was an arrangement made today to suit you. Now you are prejudicing that arrangement. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT: -- I have made no arrangement to curtail the Budget debate. I told you this morning that I would not conscript it but, as is my habit, I have done everything to accommodate myself to it. I despise myself for the degree to which I have accommodated myself. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: -- Order! **Senator Wright,** you should address yourself to the item before the Chair. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT: -Thank you, **Mr Temporary Chairman.** I listened with interest and appreciation to what **Senator Cavanagh** gave by way of information to the Committee and I have listened also with great appreciation to the information which **Senator Georges** gave to the Committee. I must say that each of them has contributed greatly towards relieving the anxiety that I had when this item was approached. I would despise myself if, as a custodian of public money, I allowed this money to be squandered in the way in which it appears to have been squandered. I believe that up to date prima facie it has been squandered over the last year. I am not prepared, notwithstanding the information given to the Committee, to acquiesce in a vote for $700,000 not exclusively for Applied Ecology Pty Ltd and not exclusively for that part of its activities relating to turtle farming. Why? Because it is not yet justified. But there is a way out of the situation that can probably be considered. We have been told of 2 reports that we will have. I understand that one is a consultants report from an economic point of view- a feasibility study, in other words- and the other is a study as to the appropriateness of this whole project to the conservation purposes and the Aboriginal welfare purposes for which it was designed. That is the general purpose of those 2 reports. Furthermore, there should be available by the time those reports mature for consideration some report from the Auditor-General. My proposal is, and I do not know whether it will have any acceptance with those in charge of this part of the Government's business, that an undertaking be given that an opportunity will be provided for a debate upon those 2 reports- the first 2 reports together- and that a request be made to the Auditor-General on behalf of the Parliament that, if he can make it convenient, consistent with his duties, he supply some report on this project for our consideration then and that the Minister take into account the decision of the Senate on that occasion in making his decision on the continuance or discontinuance of this project. It will be noted that I have couched my proposal in terms most calculated to attract the acceptance of the Minister so that he will undertake to us that he will take into account the decision of the Senate, after particularly taking those 3 reports together, in making a decision on behalf of the Government on whether this project should be continued. Even on the present basis $700,000 seems to me to be a completely inordinate amount especially in relation to other amounts that I will be dealing with which come under the responsibility of **Senator Wriedt.** I think that the proposal I have put would provide a proper opportunity for consideration. I would like to know the Minister's reaction. {: #subdebate-42-0-s32 .speaker-KRU} ##### Senator LITTLE:
Victoria -I wish to make a few remarks in relation to this matter because of what has been said, and I particularly refer to the statement that the $700,000 that has been allocated will more or less round off the project. This project will carry on next year but I ask whether that amount includes the purchase of the turtles. As I understood from answers to question asked in Estimates Committee E, there are 15,000 turtles in various stages of growth which the Commonwealth is obliged to purchase from the Torres Strait islanders who have been encouraged to raise these turtles. The figure that has been mentioned as the probable purchase price was $80 a turtle on site, that is, on Torres Strait Islands. If that is the case and if there were 15,000 turtles, it means that at some stage we are obliged to purchase, whether it is from Applied Ecology Pty Ltd or the marketing company, 15,000 turtles at $80 each. That makes a total of $1.2m at the market place. In view of the remoteness of the area in which this product has been reared and the fact that the turtles will be reaching maturity at different stages I see an enormous problem in conveying them to the market, and nobody seems to have information as to where that is at present. I do not see how we can consider that this project will be rounded off with the $700,000 to be allocated for the rest of this year. We must look forward, with the responsibilities already established to the people who have been encouraged to embark on this enterprise, to the expenditure of considerably more money. I see it as my obligation to draw that matter to the attention of the Senate at this time. There will be required in the future for the purchase and disposal of the turtles a lot more money than $700,000. {: #subdebate-42-0-s33 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP -- In reply to **Senator Wright's** question, I inform him there was a feasibility study and a study in relation to conservation, turtles and other matters. Both reports will be tabled. It will be moved that the reports be noted and it is for those arranging the business of the House to determine when the opportunity will occur for discussion of the reports. The Auditor-General's report will not be tabled. The books of the enterprise were given to the Auditor-General by the Minister on the suggestion of a parliamentary committee. The AuditorGeneral, under the Audit Act, audits all government expenditure. However, government expenditure in relation to this project is the allocation from the trust account to Applied Ecology Pty Ltd, which is a private company and which has its own firm of auditors to audit its books. So despite the fact that he had the books, the Auditor-General has not audited the books of Applied Ecology. I shall endeavour to get the latest balance sheet tabled, if it is available, with the reports. On the other question, I inform the Senate that there is nothing in these estimates for the purchase of turtles. The turtles will be purchased and marketed by the marketing company which has $85,000 in kitty at the present time. We are making no provision - {: #subdebate-42-0-s34 .speaker-K3W} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Cant: -- Order! It being 4.30 p.m., pursuant to order, I leave the chair in order to report to the Senate. {: .page-start } page 2317 {:#debate-43} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-43-0} #### PLACING OF BUSINESS Motion (by **Senator Murphy)** proposed: >That consideration of general business order of the day No. 28 be postponed till a later hour of the day and that the question be now put. {: #subdebate-43-0-s0 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -Is leave granted? There being no objection leave is granted. **Senator** MURPHY (New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate)Earlier this week I informed all the leaders of parties in the Senate that the Government needed to have the Appropriation Bills and the 2 Wheat Bills passed by the end of today. Today I announced to the Senate that I would move a particular motion which would mean that general business order of the day No. 28 would be dealt with at 4.30 p.m. I also indicated that it was expected that the Appropriation Bills and the Wheat Bills would be through the Senate by 4.30 p.m. I think it was indicated to the Senate at that time that there was an understanding between the Leader of the Opposition and myself that we would complete both Appropriation Bills by 3 o'clock and the 2 Wheat Bills by 4.30 p.m. It is now 4.30 and neither the Appropriation Bills nor the Wheat Bills have been reached. In order that the program of the Government be not prejudiced and that the financial arrangements of the Commonwealth be not disrupted it is necessary for me now to move that these be declared urgent Bills. If that it is carried, I would propose that the Appropriation Bills be then dealt with so that both would be through by 5 p.m. and that the 2 Wheat Bills would be through by, say 5.45 p.m. I have been informed that they would take, perhaps, only a few minutes. It would then be possible to go back to general business order of the day No. 28. 1 am given to understand that, in the ordinary course, that would take only a few minutes. But it is incumbent on me to take the steps which are necessary to see to it that the Bills which must be passed today to avoid disruption are passed. I do not seek to guillotine the matters. I have had no choice. I have waited until 4.30 p.m., the time which I indicated today. Having reached that time I can wait no longer and I would ask the Senate to assist me by having these matters dealt with in this way. Then we could go back to general business order of the day No. 28. All I seek to do is to have the 4 measures which must be dealt with to avoid disruption of the financial arrangements dealt with. I think that honourable senators would concede that that is a reasonable course. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: **- Mr President** - {: #subdebate-43-0-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### Mr PRESIDENT: -- Order! **Senator Murphy** has moved that the question be now put. The Chair must put the motion. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: **- Mr President,** I ask leave to make a statement. After the motion was moved that the question be put you, **Mr President,** permitted **Senator Murphy** to make a statement. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: **- Senator Murphy** obtained leave to make a statement. **Senator Wright** now asks for leave to make a statement. Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. {: #subdebate-43-0-s2 .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania -The Leader of the Opposition **(Senator Withers)** indicated this morning that we had surrendered our right to general business after 4.30 p.m. today on the basis that the Parliament Bill would come on at 4.30 p.m. and that the remainder of general business would be foregone. The only thing remaining to be dealt with in that Bill is 2 clauses to which **Senator Murphy** took objection. As a result of consultations that I have had with him it has been indicated that I will move for the omission of those 2 clauses to facilitate the passage of that Bill. Having regard to the mood all round the chamber, that general business will take less time than we have just spent in discussion. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! The Chair has before it 2 motions, one consequent upon the other. They are that the question be now put and the subsequent motion to rearrange the business. At the appropriate stage of the subsequent motion you, **Senator Wright,** can address yourself to the rearrangement of business. Question put: >That the question be now put. The Senate divided. (The President- Senator Sir Magnus Cormack) AYES: 29 NOES: 22 Majority....... 7 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. {: .page-start } page 2318 {:#debate-44} ### APPROPRIATION AND WHEAT BILLS Declaration of Urgency {: #debate-44-s0 .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate · ALP -- I move: {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- I rise to a point of order. I submit that under Standing Orders it is not competent to deal with a plurality of Bills. I submit that it is quite clear from standing order 407b that it is a Bill that may be considered to be an urgent matter, because the standing order states: >That the Bill be considered an urgent Bill.' It is quoted. It is quite impossible to contrue this standing order as applying to a number of Bills. The subsequent stages of the Bill are to be divided up into the second reading of the Bill, the Committee stage of the Bill and the remaining stages of the Bill. The standing order further states: {: type="i" start="1"} 0. . and the order with regard to the time allotted to the Committee stage of the Bill may, out of the time allotted, apportion a certain time or times to a particular Clause or Clauses, or to any particular Part or Parts of the Bill. I submit that it is quite clear, because of the very purpose of a guillotine and the exceptional nature of it, that the only function of standing order 407b is the consideration of any particular Bill to be an urgent Bill. In the days when this procedure was adopted Parliament was presumed to use this as an extraordinary procedure. I submit that for the reasons to which I have briefly referred but which were debated in detail on a previous occasion it is quite clear under this standing order that if **Senator Murphy** wishes to apply this procedure he is entitled to apply it separately and individually with regard to each Bill and that he is not in order in attempting to apply it to a group of Bills. {: #debate-44-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! Honourable senators will recall that this matter arose on 6 June this year. It was debated at great length as any reference to Hansard of that period will show. During the placing of business this morning it became clear to me that a contingency of this order might arise. I therefore proceeded to reexamine the situation in the light of the eventuality which, as I have said, could arise. In relation to the point of order moved by **Senator Wright** I therefore rule that there is a precedent for the guillotining of a number of Bills. Unless the Chair is otherwise directed by the Senate I am bound to acknowledge the practice which was accepted on that occasion. I rule against the point of order. Question resolved in the affirmative. Allotment of Time {: #debate-44-s2 .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate · ALP -- I move: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) That the time allotted in connection with the Bills be as follows: For all stages of the Bills- Appropriation Bill (No. 1 ) 1 973-74 until 4.55 p.m. Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1973-74 until 5 p.m. Wheat Industry Stabilisation Bill 1 973 until 5.45 p.m. Wheat Export Charge Bill 1 973 until 5.45 p.m. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. That the question be now put. {: #debate-44-s3 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! I must put the second motion first. The question is that the question be now put. Those of that opinion say 'aye ', to the contrary 'no'. I think the ayes have it. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- No. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I only hear one 'no'. The ayes have it. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- The noes have it. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- One 'no' is all I hear. The question is agreed to. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- I rise to a point of order. Distinctly, there were 3 noes. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- You called for a division? {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- I certainly called for that very purpose. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- For a division? {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- Yes. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -Well, 2 must call for a division. I did not hear that so I declared the motion carried. {: .speaker-KBL} ##### Senator Wood: -- I called for a division. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- All right. **Senator Wood** claims that he called for a division so the Senate will divide, Ring the bells. Question put: >That the question be now put. The Senate divided. (The President- Senator Sir Magnus Cormack) AYES: 28 NOES: 23 Majority....... 5 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question resolved in the affirmative. {: .page-start } page 2319 {:#debate-45} ### APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 1) 1973-74 In Committee Consideration resumed. {: #debate-45-s0 .speaker-K3W} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Cant: -- The question is: 'That the votes for departments in group E be now passed without request'. {: #debate-45-s1 .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania -- Under the heading of environment and conservation I desire to know whether this appropriation includes any expenditure for the Cass committee's inquiry into Lake Pedder. I wish to know whether it includes any appropriation for the Australian Conservation Foundation which has been mischievously and irresponsibly supporting that inquiry. {: #debate-45-s2 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · Tasmania · ALP -- The adviser from the Department of the Environment and Conservation is not here. I was of the opinion that the inquiry into Lake Pedder was included in last year's Estimates. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- No. That was only a small preliminary amount. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH: -- All I can do is get the information and supply it to the honourable senator. {: #debate-45-s3 .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania -On the assumption that this appropriation may include expenditure for the Cass committee's inquiry into Lake Pedder, I wish to indicate in the most forthright manner that I think that the expenditure on that committee is probably unprecedented for the irresponsibility with which that inquiry was undertaken. It effected nothing of concern to the Federal Government, was a direct intrusion into State matters and involved propositions so absolutely absurd that it reflects ill upon those who authorised the expenditure. The State Government of Tasmania has replaced old Lake Pedder with a new lake, infinitely more beautiful. It covers 93,000 square miles as against the original 4,000 square miles and is some 40 feet to 50 feet deep as against 10 feet deep at the most in the case of old Lake Pedder. This new lake, apart from being the greatest water storage in the southern hemisphere- 27 times greater than Sydney Harbour- will be a mecca for water sports unequalled in Australia. So far from damaging the ecology and damaging conservation this lake is one of the most magnificant conservation projects ever undertaken. It will be enjoyed by thousands, probably millions, in a sporting sense and its product will be of great value to the welfare and comfort of the homes and industries of Tasmania without in the slightest degree damaging the ecology of that area. I wish to say that a government that spends money on propositions of that sort is mad. {: .speaker-K3W} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Cant: -- Order! The time for consideration of this Bill having expired, I put the question: 'That the votes for departments in group E be now passed without request'. Those of that opinion say aye. To the contrary, no. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- No. {: #debate-45-s4 .speaker-10000} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: -- There being only one voice saying no, I declare that the ayes have it. The question now is: 'That the remainder of the Bill be passed without request '. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -Is that open to debate? {: .speaker-10000} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: -- No. The time allotted has expired. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -What, the whole of group F has to be passed without any scrutiny or debate? {: .speaker-10000} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: -The Bill has to be passed by 4.55 p.m. under the guillotine resolution. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill reported without request. {: #debate-45-s5 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- The Chairman of Committees reports that the Committee has considered the Bill and has passed the same without request. The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill having expired, I put the question: 'That the remaining stages of the Bill be agreed to'. Those in favour say aye, to the contrary, no. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I declare the question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. {: .page-start } page 2320 {:#debate-46} ### APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1973-74 Second reading Consideration resumed from 22 November (vide page 2054), on motion by **Senator Willesee:** >That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. In Committee The Bill. {: #debate-46-s0 .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania -- I wish to direct the attention of the Committee to division 811, Other Services, item 02 relating to legal aid and special assistance to the States for which $2m is being appropriated. I note that this is being included in this Bill although it is not a capital item. We refer to it by using that expression as a matter of convenient caption. It is included in this Bill because it is the original vote for a special scheme. What arrangements have been made with the States and how is this sum to be distributed among the States? {: #debate-46-s1 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- Obviously this is a matter for my colleague the Attorney-General **(Senator Murphy)** who apparently has been called away on other matters. I am unaware of the answer to be provided to **Senator Wright.** All I can do is to undertake to refer the matter to my colleague the Attorney-General to see that the honourable senator is supplied with an answer. I am reminded, however, that recently **Senator Murphy** gave an answer to **Senator Greenwood.** I refer to question No. 490 on the notice paper. **Senator Greenwood** had asked: >What are the terms and conditions, fixed by the AttorneyGeneral and applicable to each State, on which the Government is providing a sum of$2m for legal aid. **Senator Murphy** replied: >The Australian Government approved a grant of $2m to be made to State governments on a per capita basis to supplement the legal aid services in the States and to be expended in a manner to be approved by the Attorney-General. > >In response to a request - {: #debate-46-s2 .speaker-K3W} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Cant: -- Order! The time allotted for the consideration of the Bill having expired, I put the question: >That the Bill stand as printed. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill reported without amendment. {: #debate-46-s3 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! The time allotted for the remaining stages of the Bill having expired, I put the question: >That the remaining stages be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. {: .page-start } page 2320 {:#debate-47} ### WHEAT INDUSTRY STABILIZATION BILL 1973 {:#subdebate-47-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 27 November (vide page 2 1 16), on motion by **Senator Wriedt:** >That the Bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-47-0-s0 .speaker-KQN} ##### Senator LAUCKE:
South Australia **- Mr President,** is it the intention of the Government that the Wheat Industry Stabilisation Bill and the Wheat Export Charge Bill be debated cognately? {: #subdebate-47-0-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- If the Senate is agreeable, they can be taken as cognate Bills and voted upon separately. There being no objection, that course will be followed. {: .speaker-KQN} ##### Senator LAUCKE: -- This is the first ocasion since the inception of the wheat stabilisation scheme in 1948-25 years ago- that the renewal of the scheme is sought for 1 year only. In the past it has always been a 5-year arrangement. On this occasion there has been a departure from the arrangement. The Minister for Primary Industry **(Senator Wriedt),** in his second reading speech, said that because of the Government's decision to have an in-depth review of the industry there is not before us this evening a scheme to cover the next 5 years. I very much regret the fact that a rural industry, particularly the wheat industry which has enjoyed for so long a system which has been of real benefit to it and which does not plan ahead from year to year, should be confronted with this situation at present. Today I pay a tribute to the very meritorious work of the Australian Wheat Board, which is the marketing authority for Australia's wheat production. It has been a most effective organisation. It has been run efficiently, as I know from personal experience through the years. It has been an effective sales promoter in many overseas markets. It has been instrumental in promoting and encouraging research in certain areas and in making recommendations as to which wheats could well be grown and their segregation in certain ways to meet markets. As a background to the industry the Wheat Board has done very well indeed. I hope that in a year's time when there will be, I trust, a 5-year plan before us, the past history and experience of the Board will not be overlooked and the wheat growing industry will be served as well in the future as it has been in the past. When the wheat stabilisation scheme was introduced the industry was in a chaotic condition. There has been an orderly aura about it since. The scheme has been a boon to the producer and to those who are associated with the industry and with financial institutions. It has enabled farmers to plan ahead with a degree of assurance that certain prices would be realised. Through the years the amounts required to meet the conditions of the scheme from general revenue have not been large. Up to 1968 the wheat growers had received $ 156m. Honourable senators should remember that the scheme started in 1948. In the last 5 years they have received about $95m. Because of the price structure on the local market, $400m has been subsidised to Australian consumers generally because of the lower prices obtained on the local market when compared with the prices which would have been obtained in overseas markets. The Wheat Industry Stabilization Bill provides for a guaranteed price on all exports, up to 200 million bushels or 5,443, 108 tonnes, of $ 1 .60 per bushel or $58.79 per tonne f.o.r. at outports. There will be a new home consumption price as from 1 December. That price will certainly be higher than the price obtained in past years because it is determined according to variations in costs, interest rates, rail freights, handling charges and so on. The 1973-74 season will be a quota season. I believe that quotas are a necessary base in times of over-production in the industry but have little relevance in times of extraordinarily heavy world demand for wheat and at high prices. The quota system has never appealed to me, particularly in the marginal rainfall areas. It does not seem to have impact on the old traditional farming community in these low rainfall areas. The farmers out in the dry country are a rugged race. I have in mind farmers in areas of South Australia such as the Murray Flats, parts of the Mallee lands and lands to the north of the Mallee. These farmers have great optimism and great courage and are hard working. I believe that they should be allowed to produce all the wheat that nature will allow them to produce because nature is so harsh upon them so often. This section of the wheat growing community produces some of the highest protein wheats that are produced in South Australia. Other farmers in low rainfall areas throughout Australia should also be allowed to produce all the wheat that nature will allow them to produce. The legislative arrangements for marketing wheat continue for 2 years beyond the end of th:period of the stabilisation scheme but exclude the guaranteed price and stabilisation arrangements after expiration of the period of the immediate stabilisation scheme. This fact has been explained in the Minister's second reading speech. The Liberal Party Opposition will not oppose the Wheat Industry Stabilisation Bill. The Wheat Export Charge Bill imposes on the growers a charge when the price exceeds by 5c a bushel the guaranteed price for the 200 million bushels of export wheat. With the guaranteed price at $1.60, for wheat sold at a price from $1.65 up to $1.80, 15c will be taken or retained by the Board and paid into a fund to meet demands which could be made upon the fund when the price does not equal the guaranteed price. I can see no possibility in the disposal of the current harvest of the growers having any call on the taxpayer. On the contrary the prices overseas are such that there will be, without doubt, greater returns than the guaranteed price. The system is that on delivery a first advance of $1.20 per bushel is paid and then the balance up to guaranteed price is paid when receipts come in for wheat sold in overseas markets and also in relation to what is consumed on the home market. The farmer certainly will not realise $ 1.60 by the dme the government of the day has worked out a new scheme of stabilisation. Looking at the background of the matter, I can see no reason why this Wheat Export Charge Bill is being proceeded with. It intrigues me that it is. It is estimated by the Minister himself that some $46m will ultimately be received for this pool by way of levy from the farmers before it is wound up. I would like the Minister to say what will happen to that money. Will it be the nucleus for a new scheme? Will it be used as a bait for acceptance of terms otherwise not very attractive to the farmers? I hope there will be a very responsible and a very receptive attitude to farmers' representations in relation to this matter when it comes to the actual disposal of this money. This year the farmer could receive very much larger returns than is the guaranteed amount. I wish to raise a further point in regard to realisations to growers. I should like to know how and when governments, through their own policies, determine that certain markets shall be supplied with wheat on conditions at some variance from the arrangements under which the Wheat Board could dispose of its wheat without having to resort to long term credits and so on. Such a situation applied in regard to the Egyptian sale recently in which long term credit has been provided to the purchaser. The man who pays for that long term credit arrangement is the wheat grower. This occurs when the Wheat Board, the marketing authority for wheat production, can dispose of wheat in markets for spot cash, but it is forced to take another market and wait for its money. I think in those circumstances the Government should advance to the Wheat Board the value of that wheat sold. Under the present arrangement a comparatively small number of wheat growers in Australia have to pay because of Government policy, and I regard that as being unfair. The Liberal Party Opposition will not oppose these Bills. {: #subdebate-47-0-s2 .speaker-JXR} ##### Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
Leader of the Australian Country Party in the Senate · Western Australia -- The purpose of the Wheat Industry Stabilisation Bill is to provide for an extension of the wheat industry stabilisation arrangements which are currently scheduled to expire with the disposal of the 1972-73 season's wheat crop and to cover the marketing of wheat of the 19/3-74 season. The expiration of the wheat stabilisation arrangements with the disposal of the 1972-73 season's wheat crop sees the end of the fifth 5-year wheat stabilisation plan. While the Labor Government may be able to lay claim to the introduction of the first 5-year plan which commenced in 1948, let me say quite strongly that the present plan which has just ended is a very different one from that introduced in 1948. {: .speaker-KB9} ##### Senator Wilkinson: -- You are telling me. {: .speaker-JXR} ##### Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN: -- I would expect it to be. I would hope that any future plan introduced in this Parliament would include even more changes. This is just what I believe the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation asked for when it saw the Minister for Primary Industry **(Senator Wriedt)** on 27 April last and again in September. The Minister has stated that the extension of the wheat industry stabilisation arrangements for one year has the support of the wheat industry. I do not quite see it that way. My understanding of the situation is that the Minister for Primary Industry issued a statement in Canberra on 16 May last stating that the Government would propose to the States and the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation that the current 5-year wheat industry stabilisation scheme, due to end in November 1973, be extended for a further year. Under the one year extension, it is proposed that 200 million export bushels would be protected by a guaranteed price of $1.60 a bushel. If the world price fell below the guarantee the government would make up the difference. On the other hand, if export prices during the 1973-74 season exceeded the guarantee plus 5c. a bushel, wheat growers would contribute to the stabilisation fund with a maximum contribution of 15c. a bushel. At the same time the Minister stated that he would discuss the Government's proposal to extend the current scheme with the States at the meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council in Canberra on Friday, 20 May and that he would meet representatives of the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation in Canberra on Monday, 23 May. I take it that those meetings with the Minister took place, because the Minister made another statement on 29 May in which he said that the President of the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation, **Mr Max** Ridd, advised him that the executive of the Wheatgrowers Federation had unanimously accepted a one-year extension of the current wheat stabilisation scheme. I would like to put the picture as I understand it. At the same time on 29 May the Minister said that following the August meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council he would confer with the Federation on its approach to a new stabilisation plan and that the Council would receive a progress report on the preparation of a new plan. The Minister then went further to tell us what was happening in his Department. He said that the Department of Primary Industry had established a wheat stabilisation review group and that that group had drawn up a work program. That was said on 29 May last. What has happened since? I know very well that there has been a lot of work going on behind the scenes which is not made public, but the point I want to make here is that there are also many knowledgeable men in the Department and in the Wheatgrowers Federation who know what they want. The Government knows what it wants to give them. So why has the new stabilisation plan not eventuated? Surely it will not take 2 years- this year and the next year- to draw up a work program. We will be dealing with the legislation for the next plan this time next year. From time to time in answer to questions the Minister has said that he wants time to look objectively at the wheat industry stabilisation Elan. No one would query that. He has said that e wants to draw up a plan in regard to long term credit to undeveloped countries as he did not believe that wheat growers should have to carry the full burden of sales to nations that needed wheat but could not afford to buy it without concessional terms. He went on to say that although normal humanitarian motives were involved, he thought that the entire community should perhaps share the burden. I could not agree more with the Minister. Neither could the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation agree more in these matters. When we look at the Federation's submission we see that in paragraph 13 under the heading 'Sales on credit terms' the Federation says: >Australia as one of the three major wheat exporting countries has an obligation to the world. By this we mean those countries which cannot immediately pay are precisely the ones which need the wheat most. Therefore the obligation to sell to developing countries is a national responsibility, and as such should be carried by the Australian community as a whole and not by the Australian wheat grower. > >The Australian Government should ensure that facilities are provided to the AWB consistent with those available in the other major exporting countries, with whom we must compete for our export wheat trade. > >The Federation therefore requests that the Australian Government underwrite the full credit risk associated with such export sales of wheat that are covered under national interest. This will bring Australia more in line with Canada and. the United States. In paragraph 14 the Federation says: >The Federation firmly recommends that rural credits section IV of the Reserve Bank Act be amended to enable repayments to be extended beyond 12 months, where statutory marketing authorities have negotiated Government-approved long-term credit sales. So on that matter the Minister's views are shared by the leaders of the wheat industry, as they are shared by honourable senators on this side of the Senate. I want to refer to a few other matters that have been said by the Minister for Primary Industry as spokesman for the Government. There have been suggestions or the Minister has talked about the Government not giving openended subsidies to the wheat industry or to any other industries. Let me remind the Minister that none of the previous 5-year stabilisation programs were open-ended. They always contained a limit. Let me remind him also that at no time did he or any other Labor spokesman on primary industry indicate in their election policies a hardening in policies in regard to wheat producers. Did the Minister or any other Labor Party member make any statement before 2 December such as that made by the Minister for Primary Industry at the international meeting of the Agricultural Ministers in Paris last April when he said: >Australia would need international co-operation if it was to reduce the level of assistance to farmers. I ask also: What does the Minister mean when he talks about his intention to rationalise the industry? Now that a new stabilisation plan is being looked at I think that all these things have to be spelt out in time. So on this occasion I take the opportunity of asking those questions. If subsidies are to be referred to the Australian Industries Commission to be set up by the Government, how does the statement made by the Minister for Primary Industry square up with that policy when he said that guarantees would be strictly limited? Does this mean that the Labor Government intends to stand over the Industries Commission to determine its policies? I read a speech that was delivered under the name of the Minister for Primary Industry- I am not quite sure on that- to the Western Australian Agricultural Industry Conference held in Perth on 20 July 1 973. It is alleged that the Minister said: >First let me state I do not regard my job as that of solely looking after the interests of farmers. Along with my Cabinet colleagues I have to keep in mind the interests of all Australians, whether they be farmers, town or city dwellers. It's true that my portfolio is concerned with developing an efficient and viable rural sector but programs geared towards agriculture must be fair and reasonable and not an undue burden on the rest of the nation. I believe very firmly that to suggest a reduction or abolition of assistance measures shows an abysmal lack of understanding of the importance of the export industries. The high standard of living in Australia and the economic strength which allows governments to carry on the kind of programs that the Labor Government wants to implement- I am not saying that in any derogatory fashion- have to come largely from the ability of Australian producers to export in competition with the world, encouraged and helped by governments. This is just what the previous Government endeavoured to do. Let me remind people that much of the export generated prosperity of this nation has been achieved for the Australian people by our primary producers, in particular by the wool and wheat producers who are often the same producers. To a very signicant degree this has happened because previous governments were prepared in the national interest to contribute funds to stabilise returns and thus provide incentives for production. {: .speaker-KB9} ##### Senator Wilkinson: -- But you were worrying about the operation of the stabilisation scheme during the last couple of years. {: .speaker-JXR} ##### Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN: -We were very worried. I think that we had good cause to be because it was beyond our means. I might say that it was in the hands of the gods. But from the time the Prime Minister **(Mr Whitlam)** slashed export returns by revaluing the currency, there has been nothing but a threat to the stability and the confidence of industry. There are threats against the industry's vital profitability by clumsy control of prices while wage rises are fostered by this Government. Inflation is allowed to run rampant. Now we have new threats involving export incentives and wheat stabilisation. The Country Party supports the extension of this stabilisation plan but regrets that it is only for one year. It is concerned that there is no guaranteed stabilisation arrangement to benefit the wheat grower. The crop is already coming off in some parts of Australia and it will be only a few months before the next crop will go in. But what will happen this time next year? We are hoping that something will be done. I am sure that the Minister and his Department are working on a new plan but we do not have such a plan in front of us at the moment The Country Party believes that discussions should be concluded as soon as possible between the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation, the State Ministers for Agriculture and the Government in order to introduce a long term stabilisation plan that will have some meaning for the industry. I repeat that farmers will have to make their plans now in regard to a stabilisation plan because the crops are coming off at present and it is only a matter of months before the new crops will go in. These farmers will want to know what is happening. Because the new stabilisation agreement is delayed the producers are forced to undertake their planning without the knowledge of what the new agreement will contain. This is confusing and annoying to growers. It is unhealthy for an industry which has worked within the security of the stabilisation scheme for many years. I regard the attendant Bill, the Wheat Export Charge Bill 1973, as totally unnecessary this year. The purpose of the Bill is to extend by 1 year- that is, until the new agreement is introduced- the growers' contribution of a proportion of their export sales to a stabilisation fund when prices exceed the predetermined level of 165c a bushel. Taking current overseas prices as a guide, it is very likely that growers will be contributing to the fund from returns from the current harvest. But no moneys will be collected under this Bill until the Australian Wheat Board receives payment for sales from the 1973-74 pool, and that will be at least a year from now. Therefore the growers are being forced to contribute to a stabilisation fund without knowing what part the fund will play in the new stabilisation scheme which is still 12 months away. Viewed in that context, the contribution plan is an unnecessary imposition on growers and the Bill should be deferred. I had intended to move an amendment to section 13 (3) of the Wheat Industry Stabilisation Act which states: >The Minister may give directions to the Board concerning the performance of its functions and the exercise of its powers, and the Board shall comply with those directions. The purpose of the proposed amendment was to tighten the provision to ensure that ministerial intervention would be confined to commercial considerations and therefore to the interests of wheat growers and the Australian taxpayers. But I do not propose to press the amendment. My reason is that the present stabilisation plan ends tomorrow and an amendment would mean that the continuing scheme would not be in operation on Saturday when its term is due to commence. The decision that I have made with my colleagues on both sides of me is in line with the undertaking that the Senate Opposition parties have expressed repeatedly. We will not hinder the passage of the legislation of which we approve or delay the introduction of a measure which has a particular timetable if no substantial changes are judged by the Opposition to be necessary. In this case we know that the Senate will be debating legislation for the proposed wheat stabilisation scheme in about 12 months from now, or even before that time. We propose to take the opportunity then to move the amendment what I have outlined. We hope that when the Government is considering the new scheme it will see the wisdom of the change that we seek. Consequently, we wish this Bill a speedy passage through the Senate. {: #subdebate-47-0-s3 .speaker-KRU} ##### Senator LITTLE:
Victoria -On behalf of the Australian Democratic Labor Party I indicate that we are prepared at this stage and under these circumstances to support the Wheat Industry Stabilisation Bill 1973 and the Wheat Export Charge Bill 1973. We may have had some criticism about the manner in which the Government has operated recently. If more time was available to us we would have liked to have put forward some suggestions. However, since what we have in mind is not sufficiently important to warrant impeding the passage of the Bills at this stage, we will support them. {: #subdebate-47-0-s4 .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Primary Industry · Tasmania · ALP -- It is unfortunate that we are restricted because of the time available to us. I want to make one or two quick observations in respect of some matters raised by honourable senators. I think it would be fair to say that the Australian wheat industry has had as sympathetic and favourable consideration from this Government as it has ever had from any other government. The two most important things that should not be forgotten are that this Government accepted the biggest quota for the wheat industry since the quota system was introduced some three or four years ago; further it increased the first advance payment- and the previous Government refused to do so- from $1.10 to $ 1.20c. The rural interests in the wheat industry had argued for many years that the first advance payment should be increased from $1.10 a bushel. It took the Labor Party's coming into office to meet that request. As a result the Australian Government through the Reserve Bank accepted the biggest financial commitment ever to the wheat industry. It was only proper that consideration should be given to the existing provisions of the wheat stabilisation scheme when the wheat stabilisation plan was due for renewal. It was for that reason that the Government decided to extend the sixth wheat stabilisation plan for an additional 12 months and that, of course, is the subject matter of the legislation before us today. I think it is worth pointing out also that the guaranteed export price for wheat was continued at $1.60 and it was also agreed that the domestic price for wheat would be indexed forward in accordance with the provisions which had applied under the previous scheme. So it is clear that the wheat industry has lost absolutely nothing by this extension. The need to extend the stabilisation plan has given the Government, the industries and the States an opportunity to completely rethink our whole approach towards the Australian wheat industry. On those grounds I believe that this legislation is completely justified. In view of the amount of time available to me I would now like to deal with just two of the points which have been raised, one by **Senator Laucke** and the other by **Senator Drake-Brockman.** It is a fact that it has been estimated that a surplus amount of $45m will be payable into the stabilisation fund by the growers as a result of the 1973-74 season. But as I have indicated in the Senate before, there is no intention on the part of the Government to do other than carry that amount of money forward into the new stabilisation arrangements. There was never any suggestion, except of course from, I think, some Country Party members in the House of Representatives, who were spreading rumours that the Government intended to do something else with that $45m. But in fact those moneys will be brought forward. **Senator Drake-Brockman** also made some comments about wheat being sold on credit terms at the instruction of the Government. The only case in which the Government issued a direction to the Wheat Board was in respect to the Egyptian arrangements, which had been entered into and agreed upon by the Wheat Board prior to that direction being issued. It would not be in the interests of the Australian wheat industry to dissociate itself suddenly from markets which in future we may be glad of. It is easy to look at the short term picture and to say: We can sell all our wheat for cash, let us do so', without giving any thought to what the position might be in two or three years time. This, I believe, would have been irresponsible. I am quite sure that in time we will live to be glad of the fact that we have met those obligations to our traditional customers. **Senator Drake-Brockman** also said that he regretted that the new wheat stabilisation plan is not yet ready. I point out to him that I will be attending a meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council on Friday week- tomorrow weekand discussing the new proposals of the Australian Government with the various State Ministers. I will also be meeting the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation on the following Monday night. The new proposal by the Government is ready and those discussions will take place within a week. So we can, I hope, look forward to finalisation of the new arrangements in the near future. One last point to which I shall have to limit myself in view of the time problem is the reference to alleged threats to the wheat industry by the present Government. We hear statements of taxation benefits being taken away and of the exports incentive scheme being altered by this present Adminstration. But that is not something that will have any long-term effect. The more important point is that markets have been opened up. The market for Australian wheat is being extended because this Government believes that we should maximise marketing opportunities for all our primary production, and this is the course that we are in fact following. I am grateful to **Senator Drake-Brockman** that he has seen fit not to move the amendment that was proposed. That can be dealt with the next time this matter comes before the Senate, and I have no doubt it will be. It is important that this legislation be passed- and be passed before 5.45 p.m. I believe the proper course now would be to put these Bills to the vote. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The ACTING **DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Durack)-** Order! The time allowed for the remaining stages of the Bill having expired, I now put the question, that the remaining stages be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. {: .page-start } page 2326 {:#debate-48} ### WHEAT EXPORT CHARGE BILL 1973 {:#subdebate-48-0} #### Second Reading Consideration resumed from 27 November (vide page 2 1 1 7), on motion by **Senator Wriedt:** >That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- The t ime allowed for debate of the Bill having expired I put the question that the remaining stages be agreed to. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. {: .page-start } page 2326 {:#debate-49} ### PARLIAMENT BILL 1973 In Committee Consideration resumed from 22 November (vide page 2088). Clause 5. The powers, privileges and authorities of the Parliament extend to, and apply within, the Parliamentary grounds. Upon which **Senator Wright** had moved by way of amendment: >After the word 'within' insert in parenthesis 'but are not restricted to'. {: #debate-49-s0 .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania -- Following the adjournment of the debate last week **Senator Murphy** was to consider a reformulation of this clause and the next clause. He indicated to me this morning that his view was that clauses 5 and 6 should be omitted. In deference to that opinion I move: I do so with some reluctance because this Parliament has never entered upon a real formulation of the area and extent of its privileges. It has been indicated that some honourable senators hold the view that a later occasion should be utilised for this purpose. The chief purpose of this Bill, of course, is to provide by ordinary parliamentary means a definition of the parliamentary grounds, of the parliamentary zone and in particular and primarily of the site of Parliament House. {: #debate-49-s1 .speaker-K3W} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Cant: -- It has been suggested that you withdraw your amendment to clause 5 because it would no longer be effective. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT: -Yes, I do that. May I have leave to deal with clauses 5 and 6 together? {: #debate-49-s2 .speaker-10000} ##### The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: -- Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT: -My motion now is: >That clauses5 and 6 be omitted. This is moved for the same reasons. {: #debate-49-s3 .speaker-K3R} ##### Senator BYRNE:
Queensland -I can see the prudence of the course of action taken by **Senator Wright,** who has exhibited his keen interest in the most formal way. By the passage of this Bill the site for the new Parliament House would be established, and established as quickly as possible. Just what should be the meets and bounds of the parliamentary area is a matter that might well provoke some disputation. It could well be that it we went into the technicalities as to what could be involved in the area and whether it would be prudent to have extended areas, the whole immediate purpose of the Bill might be lost and there could be further delay. This Parliament has seen sufficient delay over a number of years in getting to this position. Honourable senators are indebted to **Senator Wright** for finally formalising the matter by the presentation of the Bill, lt is in consonance with his attitude and the disposition of the Senate that the site for Parliament House should be determined and the meets and bounds of it, if it is decided later on that they should be more or less extensive, can be raised and suitably provided for in future in the proper way. Therefore I think **Senator Wright's** withdrawal of his amendments has a great deal to commend it and we support his action. Clauses negatived. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. {:#subdebate-49-0} #### Third Reading {: #subdebate-49-0-s0 .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania -- I move: >That the Bill be now read a third time. May I be permitted the observation, in view of the fact that we have not done anything to define the area of privileges or the law applicable, that if a bomb blast occurs somewhere in the edifice or if an assault on a member takes place in the Senate grounds we then may be moved to consider the importance of these matters. I hope the Bill will get a third reading. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. {: .page-start } page 2327 {:#debate-50} ### SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT OF THE AUDITOR-GENERAL {: #debate-50-s0 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I lay on the table the following paper: >Supplementary report of the Auditor-General upon Other Accounts for the year ended 30 June 1 973. {: .page-start } page 2327 {:#debate-51} ### STATES GRANTS (SCHOOLS) BILL 1973 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Standing Orders suspended. Bill (on motion by **Senator Douglas** McClelland) read a first time. {:#subdebate-51-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-51-0-s0 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- I move: >That the Bill be now read a second time. In view of the fact that the second reading speech which I intend making here is that which was made in the House of Representatives, I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- As I have reservations, will the Senate permit me leave to make 2 observations? {: #subdebate-51-0-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -Is leave granted? There being no objection leave is granted. {: .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator Wright: -- This morning the spokesman for the Liberal Party of Australia was in conversation with me. It was then my intention in view of the importance of this Bill to have the speech read to the whole chamber. There is a difference between that and leaving it to individual perusal. However, having regard to the surrender this afternoon of other business of a more important character and the availability of the evening for reading this second reading speech, I want it to be particularly noticed that I do not refuse leave. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -Is leave granted to incorporate the second reading speech? There being no objection leave is granted. (The speech read as follows)- Honourable senators will recognise that the measure now before them involves a marked increase in the expenditure of the Australian Government on primary and secondary education. This increase is immediately the result of the recommendations of the Interim Committee for the Schools Commission (1973). Less immediately it is the result of the views expressed by the Australian Education Council in its Nation Wide Survey of Educational Needs (1969). It is also an expression of the conviction of the Prime Minister **(Mr Whitlam)** of the need for a transformation of education, as contained in his policy speech of 1972. It is a response to the representations of a great many organisations and individuals. Outside of the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory, and with the exception of benefits to students, the Australian Government does not have direct responsibility for primary and secondary education. The States create and conduct state schools. The States register non-government schools, satisfy themselves that these schools are efficient and worthy of existence, and in some cases grant them financial assistance or grant some of their scholars financial assistance towards the payment of thenfees. The States themselves, however, have clearly indicated that after all their efforts towards their own government schools and all their actions in relation to non-government schools, serious deficiencies remain. Some years ago, after a needs survey, the States sought action by the national Government to fill the gaps which perturbed State Ministers for Education. The Background There were disadvantaged schools, especially in inner areas of great cities. Teacher education left much to be desired. The education of handicapped children was characterised by omissions to meet need which bordered upon the callous. Migrant education was profoundly unsatisfactory. Some States had no schemes for the assistance of isolated children worthy of the name of assistance. Primary school libraries were characterised by general neglect. Buildings, playground space, physical education facilities and the capacity to employ teachers were generally defective. Clerical and ancillary assistance in schools were woefully inadequate. A scheme existed through the Australian Department of Social Security to assist the education of handicapped children by private charities, but not in State schools. Knowledge of the medical, psychological and physical characteristics of young children, and their home environments, was a closed book to the first teachers enrolling them at school. Disadvantaged children and handicapped children suffered greatly in this situation. This is the background against which the Interim Committee for the Australian Schools Commission took up its task. The crisis in Australian education- though the expression 'crisis' is not used by the Interim Committee- is perhaps summed up in a few words of the Interim Committee's report in paragraph 5 : 1 on page 48 of Schools in Australia', where it points out that in too many schools the level of resources employed: . . is below that required to implement modern educational methods, and to prepare all children, irrespective of their rate and style of learning, for full participation in a complex society. In both government and non-government sectors there are schools where the quality of personnel, buildings and equipment reflects an attitude towards children which, whether it arises from public indifference or ignorance, is incompatible with the manifest values pf our society. Many of these schools are attended by children of relatively poor families, a significant proportion of them 'migrant or Aboriginal, whose schooling should offer a measure of redress for the economic and political disadvantages of their background rather than a compounding of them. The report does not suffer from materialist delusions. It draws attention, on the same page 48, to 2 points which express ideas which must govern every decision. These are: >Human and physical resources do not of themselves ensure a high quality education. Many essential ingredients of good schoolings, notably attitudinal and organisational ones, cannot be bought with dollars. > >The quality of relationships between and among pupils and teachers may have more lasting significance than the acquisition of any specific skills. The Interim Committee asks for action which will attempt, both within the schools and beyond them, to supplement the opportunities open to children whose general conditions of life are least conducive to the development of scholastic ability. The Bill The States Grants (Schools) Bill, 1973 will give effect to the recommendations of the Interim Committee. Honourable senators will note that the Bill carries a comprehensive index, a format which provides a ready reference to the seven programs devised by the Interim Committee for the years 1974 and 1975. Each part of the Bill, and its associated schedules, sets out the purposes for which the funds appropriated for a program may be applied and the conditions to be attached to the grants for government and nongovernment schools. The general approach in the Bill is that the Minister may authorise grants up to the limits of the appropriation, with the Schools Commission carrying a delegation from him to approve individual projects for nongovernment schools. Recipients of grants through the State Treasuries must account to the Minister for their use and provide him with information on which he can report annually to the Parliament on progress under the program. The Schools Commission is empowered to obtain statistical and other information on which it can judge the improvement in quality resulting from these grants. Explanatory Statement A detailed description of each program and its treatment in the-Bill would require a lengthy address from me and I have circulated for the information of honourable senators an explanatory statement covering such matters. I shall direct my remarks briefly to each program, and in doing so will deal in greater detail with three of them- disadvantaged schools, special schools for the handicapped "and grants for recurrent expenditure. Funds to be Appropriated With the concurrence of honourable senators I shall have incorporated in Hansard tables listing the various grants appropriated under this Bill, together with figures covering those present programs which will continue side by side with the new measures. These tables speak for themselves. They show that in 1974 and 1975 a total of $694m will be available to all schools in the States and that of that amount $466m will be for the States' own schools and $198m for the non-government school sector. A further $30m will be available for joint programs in both government and nongovernment schools. The net cost of the Interim Committee's recommendations is $468. 5m which honourable senators will agree constitutes a dramatic increase, the expenditure of which will be of great significance in improving the quality of education in schools. I must emphasie here that the 'Karmel funds,' as they are generally now referred to, are additional to the amounts which the States will spend from their own resources. No 'set offs' are involved against other grants to the States as the result of the funds which this Bill seeks to appropriate. General Building Grants General building grants are to be provided under Part II for both government and nongovernment schools as an addition to the sums already appropriated under the 1972 Act. As contemplated in chapter 7'of the Interim Committee report the additional grants for government schools will be for replacing and upgrading to improve the quality of existing school buildings. Housing may be provided, for teachers in government schools in country, areas. The grants for non-government schools may also be used for replacing and upgrading of buildings, but it is also intended that up to 50 per cent of the total for these schools may be applied to new pupil places. The non-government. schools will be expected to make some contribution of their own towards the capital costs of buildings. A total of $1 17.7m is to ' be ' appropriated as general building grants under 'the Bill, made up of $ 100m for government schools, $-1 6m for nongovernment schools and a supplementary sum of $1.7m to complete the present program for science laboratories in non-government schools. Grants for Primary and Secondary Schools Libraries Grants are to be made available for the first time for the provision of library buildings and library facilities in both government and nongovernment primary schools. In addition, extra funds for secondary school libraries will be provided over and above the $30m now available in the 3 year period ending on 31 December 1974. The provision of library facilities are, as the Karmel report expressed it, one of the most effective means of assisting the development of changed patterns of teaching and learning in schools. They improve the quality of education by encouraging an individual approach to learning. Unlike the existing secondary school libraries program, grants will be based on the concept of needs. That is to say, once a physical need for library facilities is established, the individual non-government school to receive a grant will be expected in the light of its financial circumstances, to make a realistic contribution to the total cost of the new facilities. Similarly, the States will be expected to take account of this concept in the distribution of funds available to them under these programs. For secondary school libraries, $ 17.3m will be appropriated for government schools and $2. 7m for non-government schools, plus a further $1.3m to meet commitments to non-government schools under the existing program. The Bill will appropriate $16m for the primary libraries in government schools and $4m for similar facilities in the non-government primary school area. Teacher-Librarian Training As well as providing funds for physical facilities, assistance will also be given for the training of teacher-librarians in both government and non-government schools and for the replacement of teachers while training is being undertaken. A sum of $lm will be appropriated under the Bill for training courses plus $2.8m for replacing the teachers concerned. Teacher Development Chapter 1 1 of the report 'Schools in Australia' stressed the crucial importance of opportunities being constantly available for 'teachers and administrators to upgrade their competence'. Consequently grants . will be provided for the inservice education of teachers in 1974 and 1975. These courses will be 'planned in each State as a joint approach by State, Catholic, and nonsystemic non-government school education authorities. They will be open to.teachers from all school sectors. Assistance will also be provided for inservice education initiated by the teachers themselves rather than by their employers. These funds will be for the establishment and for the operation of education centres where teachers would meet their fellows. The centres will serve to stimulate initiatives from the teaching profession. They will be run by a management committee in each case. Funds for pilot projects in each State will be appropriated under this Bill. The funds to be appropriated for in-service training total $7.6m. To establish education centres about $2m is to be appropriated under the Bill and a further $600,000 will be made available for the operating expenses of the centres concerned. Innovation- Special Projects Change in education is essential. Innovation can only be encouraged by 'fostering opportunities, providing stimulation and rewarding initiative on the part of those in and of the schools themselves- teachers, parents, pupils and the local community', as stated in the Interim Committee report, paragraph 12.6. To give the necessary encouragement, funds will be made available to support special projects of an innovatory kind at the school level. At the system level, support will be given for innovations aimed at the general improvement of the quality and welfare of the schools within the system. At the national level, projects of sufficient magnitude and national importance will be supported from funds to be appropriated under the Bill. In order to 'raise the quality of schooling by fostering change and diversity', the Bill will appropriate $6m in 1974 and 1975 to establish a special projects fund from which the Schools Commission can support projects designed to promote change at the 3 levels referred to. Disadvantaged Schools Chapter 9 of the report 'Schools in Australia' explains the concept of disadvantaged schools. The chapter establishes beyond doubt the appalling variations in opportunities available to Australian children, the cruel and senseless waste of potential skill, and the callousness with which this situation has been allowed to drift through the years. Children in disadvantaged areas are constricted in a vicious circle. On page 92 the Committee expresses this in superb prose: >Involvement of parents in school affairs, and hence their power in the school, is minimal; indeed in many cases no organised parent body exists. The schools are often old and dilapidated, the urgent need for upgrading and rebuilding having been bypassed constantly in the struggle to keep up with population growth in the developing areas. I interpose the comment that the articulate sections of the population active in the interests of their children are very much to be commended, not to be condemned. But the children who have no perceptive, intelligent and active advocates are not to be neglected. As the report comments at page 92: >Low income parents, being generally ill educated themselves, do not establish habits associated with a high level of literacy as examples which their children might follow. Education in a formal sense thus becomes entirely the business of the school, parents being unable to provide assistance and reinforcement, even if willing to do so. Parents are often ignorant of the implications of educational choice and of the range of the alternatives which exist. Children and young people in disadvantaged schools are likely to be the early leavers. They are most likely to need education in arts, crafts, mechanics, technical skills, most likely to need to be given the most intelligent, informed and precise advice on the choice of careers and courses of study leading to such careers. They are the scholars and young people most likely to stand in need of personal tuition to make good the gaps in their schooling which might have been caused by illness, broken homes, shifting places of residence and some other maladjustment at some stage of their career. They are the scholars and students most likely to be in need of speech therapy or special assistance in oral and written expression. The scholars and students of disadvantaged schools are the ones most likely to be in need of financial assistance for the purchase of books and educational equipment if they come from underprivileged homes. Funds for Disadvantaged Schools On the recommendation of the Interim Committee we propose to set aside $50m for disadvantaged schools- $43. 8m for government schools and $6.2m for Catholic systemic disadvantaged schools. These sums are in addition to grants which may be allocated to this class of school by the recipients out of other more general programs. The Government believes that this program is only the beginning of a great deal that needs to be done to create the highest quality in Australian education.' There will assuredly be no high quality in Australian education as long as there continues 'to be public indifference and official complacency about the fate of children in disadvantaged circumstances. Special Education The years 1974 and 1975 will see the beginning of an effort to solve the very formidable problems in special education for handicapped children. The Interim Committee has recommended expenditure of $34.2m for capital and recurrent purposes and in addition, a sum of $9.4m for training and replacement courses for teachers of the handicapped. We will continue with the grants under our predecessors' Handicapped Children (Assistance) Act and also with grants for training teachers for special education under our teacher education programs in colleges of advanced education. It is imperative, however, that these should not constitute a series of operations unguided by an overall strategy and philosophy, and I propose to outline such a philosophy now. Local communities and local government should become much more actively involved in supporting action for the families of handicapped children and for the handicapped children themselves. The role of voluntary organisations will remain a role of vital and essential importance. Our Department of Education, enlightened and guided by the Pre-School Commission and the Schools Commission-or in the event of the destruction of the Schools Commission by the Senate, the Interim Committee of the Schools Commission- should consider itself as having a special obligation to children and young people up to the age of 1 8 who have these special needs. Special Education- Aims of the Government The principal aims of the Government in the area of special education for the handicapped are as follows: First, the development of each handicapped child to the fullness of his potential as an effective, integrated, self-respecting and independent person. Second, recognition that the ability to work and to be self-supporting is absolutely crucial to adult independence, to happiness, and to self-respect, and to gaining the respect of others. Handicapped education must always aim at this independence and at this capacity for self support. Third, the condition the child must surmount is not the only objective of remedial action. The focus should be on the child as a total person, living in a. family and a community. Efforts to assist him ought not to be concentrated solely on his handicap. Fourth, we need a comprehensive screening .system for the early indentification of handicaps- in child care centres, in pre-school, in primary school and in secondary school. As an aside let me say we need a system which can also identify talent and foster skills well above the ordinary levels. This is especially necessary at the secondary level when the life style and the life aims of the young person are being determined. To implement the report of the Interim Committee for the Schools Commission on the subject of handicapped children we must develop a system of administration which actually expresses compassion. If we are to detect need in children we must face the fact that families most at risk are least likely to go voluntarily to infant welfare clinics, least likely to use child care centres, least likely to have the services of competent medical practitioners, social workers or psychological advisers. Research is needed to identify what characteristics of children are most predictive of subsequent education and social difficulty. We just do not have enough trained people capable of physical, intellectual, emotional and social assessment of any child. This is why the Government is giving high priority to accelerating the training of social workers and medical practitioners. General Recurrent Grants For the first time in Australia the national Parliament is now being asked to make direct grants towards the recurrent expenditure of government schools in the States. Our predecessors did this for non-government schools. We intend to do it for all schools, with grants determined on the basis of relative need. The Bill appropriates $ 1 75.9m for government schools and $64.8m for Catholic systemic schools over the 2 years 1974 and 1975. It also provides the mechanism for the payment of grants to other non-government schools estimated to cost $70m over the 2 years. There has been a great deal of public comment on the Interim Committee's approach in this area. Criticism has been directed at the allocation of categories of relative need to some nongovernment schools, including some Catholic schools, in substitution for across-the-board per capita grants to all non-government schools. The Interim Committee, of course, worked within a *Government directive that it* should make its recommendations on the basis of relative needs and priorities, without any pre-determined basic level of support to all these schools. The non-systemic schools, after the determination of appeals, recently accounted for 734 schools and some 308,500 students in 1972. Among them, category A schools, which are to receive no recurrent grants because of their very high present use of recurrent resources, account for 50 schools and 33,300 students. By contrast the Catholic systemic schools- which are predominately the parish primary schools- account for some 1400 schools and 290,000 students. They educate 78 per cent of all nongovernment primary students and 16 per cent of all primary students. The Interim Committee found that Catholic systemic schools were operating in 1972 at an average standard of some 80 per cent of the average of government schools. This year they have received grants from the Australian Government at $62 per primary pupil. In 1974 under this Bill, they will receive average grants of $90 per pupil and in 1975 the figure will rise to $135 per pupil. I invite the Senate to consider what might have happened in 1974 and 1975 if the previous Government had remained in office and its States Grants (Schools) Act of 1972 had continued. For the purpose of comparison let us assume that the cost of operating the goverment schools, on which the 20 per cent calculation is based, would rise by 10 per cent in each year, with the projected student numbers spread between systemic and non-systemic schools as in 1972. In tabular form we see- This estimate reveals that on these assumptions, in 1974 the total contribution from the present Government would be $3m greater than under the previous arrangement and the Catholic systemic schools will receive $5.6m more. When we look at the second year, 1975, our program will provide an additional $20m for all non- government schools, of which the Catholic systemic schools will receive $ 1 5.2m. Change in basis of Allocation of Recurrent Grants In accordance with our policy of making grants to schools in the States on the basis of relative need, we have provided in the Bill, at clause 66, for the termination at the end of 1973 of the across-the-board per capita grants approach of our predecessors in assisting non-government schools with recurrent expenditure. Clearly the Catholic systemic schools will benefit greatly under our approach. Continuing Efforts by the States There are 2 respects in which we wish to have a particular understanding about the new arrangements. First, the grants to be made available under the various programs I have mentioned are intended to be additional to continuing efforts by both the States in respect of their own government schools and by the nongovernment school authorities. We look to the States to maintain the percentage of their total capital expenditure they have allocated to schools in recent years and to continue to devote to the operation of their primary and secondary schools the percentage of net budget expenditure which applied in 1971-72. Second, as recommended by the Interim Committee, the State education departments and the Catholic systemic school authorities will have wide discretion in the use and distribution among schools of both the general recurrent grants and the additional grants for disadvantaged schools. We expect them to adopt the relative needs principle in their allocations and to follow the guidelines of the Interim Committee and the Schools Commission. Local Initiative In the administration of the programs emphasis will be placed on the devolution of responsibility and local initiative. The Schools commission will have 2 way consultation with an advisory board in each State and will establish specialist committees to assist it. In addition to the work of the Catholic Systemic Boards in each State to which I have referred, there will be a single priority committee for all non-government schools in each State, with most members nominated by the schools themselves. These committees will initiate recommendations for grants for general school buildings and libraries for all these schools. The Education Department in each State will determine its own projects under each program. The Future I am sure all honourable senators will agree that this legislation marks a turning point in Australian education. We are commencing a new deal for Australian schools and Australian school students. There can be no room for complacency about what can be achieved under this major initiative by the Australian Government. Nevertheless, as the schools program gathers momentum during 1974 and 1975, preparations will be made by the Schools Commission for a researched and planned policy for the following triennium to carry forward the development of our schools. In commending this Bill to the senate I place on record the Government's and the nation's appreciation to Professor Karmel and the members of his Interim Committee. When the Prime Minister appointed the Karmel Committee it was expected to do for schools in the seventies what the Murray Committee did for Universities in the fifties and the sixties. I am confident that they have done a good deal more because of the magnificent foundation they have set for the achievement of acceptable standards of a high order for all Australian schools. Debate (on motion by **Senator Laucke)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 2334 {:#debate-52} ### SEAS AND SUBMERGED LANDS BILL 1973 Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendment made by the Senate to this Bill. {: .page-start } page 2334 {:#debate-53} ### STATES GRANTS (ABORIGINAL ADVANCEMENT) BILL (No. 2) 1973 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Standing Orders suspended. Bill (on motion by **Senator Cavanagh)** read a first time. {:#subdebate-53-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-53-0-s0 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP -- I move: As this is the same second reading speech as was made in the other House I ask for leave to have it incorporated in Hansard. {: #subdebate-53-0-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The speech read as follows)- This Bill provides for a total of $32,250,000 to be paid to the States in 1973-74. That compares with $22m in 1972-73. In reality the comparative increase is much greater because the 1972-73 figure included $3.5m for special work projects which I now propose to fund by direct grants to the employing authorities which are almost entirely local government bodies. It is only 6 months since this Government legislated to give the States an additional $7. 5m and in introducing that legislation I made some comments about the disgraceful situation in which the Aboriginal people of Australia find themselves. To the extent that money and resources are required to change this situation this Government is determined to provide them. Total expenditure by the Australian Government in 1973-74 is estimated to be $ 117.4m of which about $95 m is being spent through my Department. The balance is expended by the Department of Education for study grants and secondary grants, the Department of Health in the Northern Territory, the Department of Labour under its employment training scheme and the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. This $ 117.4m compares with an actual outlay of $6 1.4m in 1 972-73.I think these figures speak for themselves. I now refer to matters of major importance covered in these proposed payments to the State. The most obvious area of need is in housing and the Bill proposes that the States receive $14,422,000 for this purpose. This ought to be sufficient for over 1,100 houses, which would roughly equal what we believe to be the annual rate of family formation. I believe that the housing needs in some areas are so close to being overcome that we should make a major effort this financial year to clear the needs up. Thus, I am consulting my Victorian colleague with a view to our providing sufficient funds this year to meet that State's major capital needs for Aboriginal housing, and I am contemplating a similar approach in Tasmania. In addition however the Government will continue the provision of funds for housing through Aboriginal housing associations which operate mostly in remote areas and rely heavily for their construction programs on Aboriginal labour and the maximum use of local resources such as timber and bricks. Depending on the progress of such associations it ought to be possible for them to build at least an additional 500 houses in 1973-74. A further approach which I am initiating is the construction of houses by local government authorities on the basis of direct grants. The total attack on the problem is thus much greater than is reflected in the level of the grants to the States, and we are starting to make inroads into the huge backlog of housing needs. The increase in housing payments to the States is roughly 35 per cent. A greater increase could have been provided but I have not wished to make such an allocation until I am satisfied that the funds can be expended. Already one State has indicated that it is unable to use additional funds and I believe that another major State is also having difficulties in its Aboriginal housing program. I intend to keep this matter under close review and if satisfied that further funds can be utilised by the States, will seek to provide additional funds to them. I should also say that I believe it is high time that the abysmally low rate of home ownership amongst Aboriginals is improved. The present procedures provide that houses acquired by the States are available for sale under the same terms and conditions as apply to other housing provided through Australian Government grants to the States. This has proved to be of little effect and I am with my Department exploring ways in which funds can be provided or guaranteed to enable Aboriginals to have either a sufficiently large deposit or have sufficiently low repayments to enable Aboriginals to acquire their own home. Funds for health services and community amenities, especially water and sewerage supplies, provided for in this Bill total $ 10.3m compared with $3.7m in 1972-73. These funds will enable a big expansion of effort in providing community health services in rural and remote areas. This Government established a special study group of Commonwealth and States health authorities which recommended a co-ordinated program covering establishment of local health committees, delivery of health care- including much wider deployment of doctors and community health nurses- administrative reorganisation, education, family planning, research and other special programs. The funds now being provided are in keeping with the study group's recommendations. I do not pretend that even this effort will rapidly improve things since in areas where traditional practices are still strong the concepts of nutrition, health care, public health and sanitation which the nonAboriginal community take for granted have still to find a place in the thinking of the Aboriginal people. Programs to educate such people will take time to implement, but they have been started. Honourable senators will recall that this Government extended the Aboriginal secondary grants scheme to cover all children at secondary schools. It is still a fact however that only a relative handful are undergoing tertiary education. Programs to overcome this situation have been approved by me and include support of teachers colleges carrying out courses in Aboriginal education; compensatory teaching programs for children in primary schools; support of a special college of Aboriginal education at Torrens in South Australia where a range of basic skills is taught, leading to further education or improved employment. In New South Wales a supportive and remedial service is proposed to be operated by four teams operating from different centres to provide a link between the school and the home. Each team will consist of a social worker, an Aboriginal liaison officer and a full time guidance officer. This Government is following a policy of selfdetermination by the Aboriginal people. The Government's aim is increasingly to act as a supportive and resource centre for communities so that they will be able to develop their own community life at the pace and under the conditions which they themselves choose. The Bill provides for payments totalling $708,000 for employment training programs, in such fields as forestry, fisheries, and heavy equipment handling. As I said earlier special work projects are now proposed to be funded direct by my Department and a sum of $5.4m has been set aside for this purpose. These projects provide a wide range of employment and training mostly through local Government bodies. Road making, kerbing and guttering, forestry, conservation of such areas as foreshores, maintainence, dust abatement, re-afforestation, flood mitigation and other social or environmentally useful projects are carried out under this item. For the information of honourable senators I have had prepared several tables setting out past and proposed Australian Government expenditure on Aboriginal affairs and now seek leave for these to be incorporated in Hansard. The first table is a summary of the more important components in the payments to the States proposed in this Bill. The second table sets out the increases in the 1973-74 payments to the States as compared with the 1972-73 program. The third table sets out the manner of expenditure of the $22m paid to the States in 1972-73. The fourth table sets out those payments made direct by the Australian Government to a wide range of non-governmental bodies in 1972-73. The next table sets out the grants to the States over the 5-year period 1969-70 to 1973-74. The final table is a statement showing how the $ 117.4m being spent this year by the Australian Government is to be allocated. Honourable senators will know that an important program we have embarked upon is the creation of nationally elected Aboriginal Consultative Committee. The enrolment of voters is going on right now across the nation and in November, in each of 41 electoral areas, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people will vote to elect one representative to come to Canberra to consult with and advise the Minister. The electoral system has been designed by the Aboriginal people themselves and I believe that the body they are creating is essential to give them an effective voice in the things that affect them so that they may achieve the respected and more satisfying place in the community which is their right. I commend the Bill to honourable senators. Debate (on motion by **Senator Laucke)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 2354 {:#debate-54} ### AIRLINES AGREEMENTS BILL 1973 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Standing Orders suspended. Bill (on motion by **Senator Cavanagh)** read a first dme. {:#subdebate-54-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-54-0-s0 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP -- I move: As this is the same second reading speech as was delivered in the other place I ask for leave to have it incorporated in Hansard. {: #subdebate-54-0-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -Is leave granted? There being no objection leave is granted. (The speech read as follows)- When the previous Government introduced the Airlines Agreements Bill 1972 towards the end of the previous Parliament, we who were then in Opposition expressed the view that it was inappropriate to enter into a further important agreement between the Government and Ansett Transport Industries Ltd and the Australian National Airlines Commission at that particular time. Nevertheless, the Parliament passed the legislation approving the 1972 Airlines Agreement. One of the provisions of the 1961 Airlines Agreement broadly states that the Commonwealth, while implementing its policy of full recovery of the cost of facilities properly attributable to civil air transport, will not increase air navigation charges by more than 10 per cent in any one year. The 1972 Airlines Agreement reaffirmed this provision, but added a further clause in which the airlines agreed that the Commonwealth is entitled to fully recover from the air transport industry the costs properly attributable to the provision of facilities for civil air transport and that they would facilitate the implementation of measures taken by the Commonwealth for the purpose of achieving that objective. Despite the clear reference to a policy of full cost recovery in the 1961 Airlines Agreement, the previous Government took very little positive action to achieve full recovery. In fact the recovery rate never reached 50 per cent. Also, notwithstanding the undertakings of the airlines in the 1972 Agreement to facilitate the implementation of Government measures to achieve full recovery, that Government did not increase air navigation charges last year by the full amount allowable under the agreements and in 1971-72 made no increase at all. Consequently, the deficiency of recovery of operating costs has continued to increase each year as is demonstrated by Table A, which I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard. This deficiency represents a subsidy, in varying degree, for each user of the civil aviation system. For instance, if considered from a view point of airline passengers and regarding each passenger carried as a separate individual, each of the 8 million passengers who travelled by air last year was subsidised by an average of $8.60 per journey. While this amount should be reduced to some extent to take account of other users of the facilities, it illustrates quite dramatically the extent of the burden borne by the taxpayers who do not participate in the aviation industry or avail themselves of the facilities provided. Although the previous Government did not take the opportunity to increase air navigation charges to the fullest possible extent in the last 2 years, the limitation of any increase of the charges to Trans-Australia Airlines and ATI to 10 per cent in any year, as provided in the Airlines Agreements Act, did not permit the policy of full recovery to be effectively implemented. The Government believes that the taxpayers who receive no benefit from the aviation facilities are entitled to seek relief from the burden of meeting the deficiency and that the Government would be remiss if it allowed the situation to continue unchecked. Therefore the Treasurer **(Mr Crean)** announced in his Budget speech the Government's conclusion that the cost recovery program should be expedited and that a positive target recovery rate of 80 per cent within 5 years had been set. It was clear to the Government that, to implement this policy, the maximum increase in any one year to TAA and ATI of 10 per cent, as provided in the Airlines Agreements Act, would have to be increased. Accordingly these 2 airlines were advised of the Department of Civil Aviation forecasts of growth in the revenues and expenditure attributable to the operation and maintenance of airports and airway facilities and, to their credit, they readily agreed that an increase of more than 10 per cent was necessary. Calculations show that, if charges were increased by 1 5 per cent each year, there would be distinct prospects of achieving the target, provided reasonable growth of aircraft operation continued. Amounts paid on aviation fuel tax have been included administratively as an item of revenue to offset the cost of operating and maintaining the aviation facilities. Here the aviation industry is in a favoured position when compared with road transport, because more than the amount received from aviation fuel tax is provided in aviation capital works whereas the fuel tax collected from road users is over 1.5 times the Australian Government's capital expenditure on roads. This is illustrated by Table B, which I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard. Also this Government has decided to spend $32.09m on upgrading urban transport. In 1972-73 capital expenditure on civil aviation works was $24.57m. In 1973-74 it is estimated it will reach $25. 22m. I make the observation that an average of about 23 million people use urban transport each week, whereas air travellers are a very much smaller cross section of the community, there being only about 160,000 airline passengers per week. Trans-Australia Airlines and ATI have now entered into a further agreement with the Government under which it will be possible for the Government, if it considers it necessary, to increase air navigation charges by up to 15 per cent in any one year, including the year 1973-74. This agreement is attached to the Bill and is now submitted to the Parliament for approval. Other provisions of the new agreement are to the effect that {: type="a" start="a"} 0. any increase in air navigation charges will be considered in relation to submissions by the airlines for increases in air fares and freight rates; 1. the agreement itself will be reviewed in the second half of 1975 to have regard for the progress being made towards the desired cost recovery level; 2. international aircraft operators will be treated in the same way as the domestic airlines insofar as increases in air navigation charges are concerned; and 3. revenue from aviation fuel tax will be taken into account in assessing the level of cost recovery. This provision merely formalises the practice that has been followed for some time. The new agreement does not mean that charges to TAA and ATI, who provide the bulk of the air navigation charges revenue from domestic airline operations, will automatically be increased by 15 per cent each year, nor does it depart from the principle contained in the 1961 Airlines Agreement that, in implementing the policy of full recovery, the Government will take into account the level of air fares, the rate of growth of the industry and the requirement of the airlines to provide a reasonable return on capital. It may be of interest to honourable senators to know that the recent fare and freight rate increases granted to the airlines increased their tariffs by an average of 1 1.5 per cent, 8 per cent of which was a direct result of* increases in wages and salaries while 3 per cent resulted from increased fuel tax and half of 1 per cent from increased air navigation charges announced in the 1972-73 Budget. In view of the substantial deficit in 1972-73, and the expectation that this deficit would increase in 1973-74 unless corrective action were taken, the Government has decided to raise charges from 1 December 1973 by 15 per cent, with additional increases related to the general aviation industry. These increases are embodied in the Bill to amend the Air Navigation (Charges) Act 1952-1972, which I will shortly present to the Senate for approval. The Government is conscious that there is an obligation on it to ensure that expenditure on aviation facilities is kept to a minimum, consistent with safe and efficient operations. It has therefore instituted a very close scrutiny of the program of development of these facilities, with significant results. For example, capital works of the order of $3m which were included in the works program for the current year, will be deferred, and proposals for later years are being carefully examined. The Government believes also that it would be beneficial to consult with TAA and ATI on civil aviation works proposals each year to assist in minimising the costs which have to be recovered. The agreement provides accordingly. The Government acknowledges the cooperation of the 2 major domestic airlines in entering into this new agreement, and recognises the need to administer its part of the contract in a responsible manner. However, it must have the option to increase air navigation charges by up to 1 5 per cent if it is to have a reasonable chance of moving towards the 80 per cent recovery objective during the next 5 years. The alternative is for the general taxpayer to continue to meet a substantial part of the rising costs of operating and maintaining the facilities used by those who travel by air. This new agreement will provide for a more even handed approach to the question of meeting the costs attributable to civil aviation, with proper regard for the interests of the community as a whole as well as those of the airlines and the users of their services. I commend the Bill. Debate (on motion by **Senator Laucke)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 2356 {:#debate-55} ### AIR NAVIGATION (CHARGES) BILL 1973 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Standing Orders suspended. Bill (on motion by **Senator Cavanagh)** read a first time. {:#subdebate-55-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-55-0-s0 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP -- I move: I ask leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. {: #subdebate-55-0-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The speech read as follows)- In his speech on the 1973-74 Budget, the Treasurer **(Mr Crean)** referred to the difference between the annual cost of providing and operating airport and airway facilities and the revenues derived from their use. He indicated certain steps which the Government proposed to take to narrow this gap between revenue and expenditure, and this Bill is designed to implement one of these measures, namely, to increase the rates of air navigation charges payable by aircraft operators. The report of the working group appointed by a previous Minister for Civil Aviation to study the costs and revenues of the Department of Civil Aviation was recently tabled in the Senate. Using the basis of calculation proposed by the working group, the costs attributable to the maintenance and operation of civil aviation airports and airways facilities in Australia and Papua New Guinea during 1972-73 exceeded the relevant revenues by some $69m. As I mentioned when presenting the Airlines Agreements Bill 1973 to the Senate, this deficit has to be looked at against the background that it represents a subsidy for each user of the air transport system, and this burden is borne by the general taxpayers, many of whom do not avail themselves of the civil aviation facilities provided at their expense; the deficit is calculated by including aviation fuel tax as a revenue item, and this places the aviation industry in a favoured position compared with road transport; and only about 160,000 people use domestic airline services each week, whereas some 23 million people use urban transport services in the same period. The shortfall of recovery of the operating costs has, in absolute terms, increased each year. The limitation of any increase of the charges to Trans-Australia Airlines and Ansett Transport Industries Ltd to 10 per cent in any year as provided in the Airlines Agreements Act did not permit the policy of full recovery to be effectively implemented and the position only got worse as time went by. This was compounded by the action of the previous Government in not increasing the rates in 1971-72 and by raising them by only 5 per cent last year. Clearly this situation cannot be allowed to continue and the aviation industry must face up to the fact that it must contribute more to the cost of operating the facilities upon which its existence depends. The Government has decided therefore to raise the limit on the rate of increase in charges to 15 per cent and the Parliament currently is being asked to approve an agreement between the Government, ATI and TAA which enables this to be done. Further the Government has set the target of 80 per cent recovery of costs over five years. The Bill provides for the 1 5 per cent increase in respect of the airline services from 1 December 1973 and the resultant additional revenue during the current financial year is estimated to be $2.25m. This increase of 15 per cent in air navigation charges represents only about one half of 1 per cent out of the recent 1 1.5 per cent increase in air fares and freight rates granted to the airlines, the major part- some 8 per cent- being the direct result of increases in wages and salaries and the remaining 3 per cent being due to the higher fuel taxes included in the Budget. The revenue received from the operators of general aviation aircraft is far below the costs of operating and maintaining the special aerodromes provided for their use. General aviation aircraft are those in the private, aerial work and charter categories, and last year it cost the Government about $8.25m to operate the six special general aviation aerodromes at Moorabbin, Parafield, Bankstown, Archerfield, Cambridge and Jandakot. However, the total revenue including fuel tax received from the general aviation industry was only some $3.6m. There are also disguised costs at other aerodromes which are incurred largely because of the activities of general aviation aircraft. The Department of Civil Aviation has to upgrade its air traffic control, flight service and fire service units as the numbers of aircraft movements at particular aerodromes increase, regardless of whether the additional movements consist of light or heavy aircraft. As an example of the type of problem which can be attributed to the general aviation industry, the Department has to decide whether to provide a flight service unit at Dampier in Western Australia because the number of aircraft movements at the airport has exceeded the normal criterion of 12,000 per annum. However, only about 3,000 of these movements are airline aircraft, the balance being general aviation movements. The capital cost of the additional facilities would be some $400,000 while annual operating costs would be $150,000. There would be no compensating increase in air navigation charges because charges for general aviation aircraft are paid on an annual basis. Again corrective action is required. The Bill therefore increases the rates of charges for general aviation aircraft by 15 per cent while the weekly charge payable for private and aerial work aircraft will be doubled and that for charter aircraft will rise by two-thirds. However, a rebate of one-third of the higher charges payable from 1 December 1 973 will be made in respect of such aircraft as are not normally based at a Government aerodrome or at an aerodrome which is subject to Government financial assistance under the aerodrome local ownership scheme. Some heavy general aviation aircraft load the civil aviation and airway facilities almost to the same extent as airline aircraft, and it is proposed that these aircraft, namely those weighing more than 9,000 kilograms, will be subject to double the normal rates of charge. These measures affecting general aviation are expected to yield approximately an additional $300,000 in the current financial year. The Bill contains other provisions which are designed to clarify the liability of aircraft operators for charges when they operate aircraft on demonstration flights, ferry flights and positioning flights, and it also makes it clear that all flights operated by the holders of an international airline licence are to be subject to charges under the First Schedule rather than the Third Schedule. These are provisions designed to improve the administration of the Act and they have no significant effect on revenue. I commend the Bill. Debate (on motion by **Senator Laucke)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 2358 {:#debate-56} ### STATES GRANTS (RURAL RECONSTRUCTION) BILL 1973 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Standing Orders suspended. Bill (on motion by **Senator Wriedt)** read a first time. {:#subdebate-56-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-56-0-s0 .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Primary Industry · Tasmania · ALP -- I move: I ask leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. {: #subdebate-56-0-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The speech read as follows)- The purpose of this short Bill is to secure parliamentary approval of a new agreement between the Australian and State Governments on rural reconstruction measures. The new agreement is supplementary to the Rural Reconstruction Agreement 1 97 1 which was authorised by the State Grants (Rural Reconstruction) Act 1971. Although the 1971 Agreement provided for a scheme which would operate until 30 June 1975, the demand for rural reconstruction assistance in the first year was so great that the previous government agreed that the funds, originally intended to cover 4 years, could be fully committed during the first 2 years of the scheme, that is by 30 June 1973. As a consequence, new arrangements were necessary if the scheme was to be carried on. The Scheme as before, will offer three kinds of assistance: Debt reconstruction to assist the farmer whose long term prospects are sound but whose present debt load is threatening the viability of his undertaking; farm build-up to assist a farmer, whose property is too small to be economic, to purchase additional land to build his farm up to at least an economic size; and rehabilitation assistance to farmers who are obliged to leave the industry. In the early stages of the scheme the major demand was for debt reconstruction assistance which accounted for over 85 per cent of applications in the first year of operation. By 1973, however, farm build-up assistance had become the more sought after form of aid. In the last quarter of 1 972-73 about 66 per cent of applications were for farm build-up, and the trend is continuing. This development had been expected and indicates that rural reconstruction is beginning to achieve its long term objective in that it is moving away from the palliative measures of debt reconstruction to the more permanent restructuring which should result from farm build-up. The 1971 Agreement provided for annual reviews of the operation of the scheme. In accordance with this provision the scheme has been reviewed twice by those Ministers of the Australian and State Governments with responsibilities for rural reconstruction. At the first review in early 1972, it became apparent that the very great demand for assistance warranted compressing what had been planned as a 4-year proram into 2 years. As a result, the whole of the 100m initially provided for the 4-year scheme, as well as $ 15m additional funds provided at the review, were fully committed by 30 June 1 973. At the second review meeting held in March 1973, it was agreed that the scheme had provided invaluable assistance to the rural sector. Although the outlook for primary industries had improved, there was still a real need for continued rural reconstruction assistance, albeit with a different emphasis. It was therefore decided to continue the scheme for a further 3 years until 30 June 1976. However, instead of determining a lump sum to finance reconstruction assistance for the full 3-year period, it was decided that the Australian Government would determine funds annually after consultation with the States and consideration of each State's needs for the forthcoming year. For 1973-74, the Australian Government offered to make available $36m, of which $24m would be funded in 1973-74 and the remaining $ 12m in 1974-75 to finance assistance approved during the closing months of 1973-74. In addition, a supplementary payment of 10 per cent of its base allocation would be made available to any State prepared to match such supplementary funds on a dollar-for-dollar basis from its own resources. The 1973 review meeting also agreed that the Australian Government should determine, after consultation with the States, the allocation of rural reconstruction funds to each State and the proportion in which funds should be divided between debt reconstruction assistance and farm build-up assistance. For 1973-74 it was agreed that the allocations to the States should be New South Wales, $11.5m; Victoria, $7.9m; Queensland, $5.8m; South Australia, $4.3m; Western Australia, $5. 3m; Tasmania, $ 1.2m. It was also agreed that no more than half of a State's allocation would be devoted to debt reconstruction assistance, unless the prior approval of the Australian Government were obtained to exceed this proportion; and that the States would adopt as an objective the allocation of at least 70 per cent of total approvals to farm build-up. In order to avoid the situation which has occasionally occurred in the past, of a State committing its full annual allocation before the end of the year for which the money was intended, the States will now program their funds so as to achieve as even a spread as possible over the full 12-month period. The measures contained in this Bill are real evidence of the Government's recognition that some sectors of the farm community still need assistance to achieve the stability and well-being now being enjoyed by the larger proportion of rural producers. I commend the Bill. Debate (on motion by **Senator Laucke)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 2359 {:#debate-57} ### HONEY EXPORT CHARGE BILL 1973 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Standing Orders suspended. {:#subdebate-57-0} #### First Reading {: #subdebate-57-0-s0 .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Primary Industry · Tasmania · ALP -I move: {: #subdebate-57-0-s1 .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania Noticing that this is a money Bill and that the time limit on my speech is an hour, I might now take the advantage denied to me by the guillotine earlier in the day. I propose to refer to a few of the items in the Appropriation Bill, which has been passed, not just to criticise those items, but to use them as a sort of an index upon which to peg a debate. I begin by saying that the Department of Primary Industry has escaped any scrutiny whatsoever. Of course, there are some people in this place who pride themselves rather jealously upon the interest that they take in primary industry and the resentment they have of the damage that has been done since this Government came into power. I shall be asking the Minister for Primary Industry **(Senator Wriedt)** before this sessional period finishes to give me an actual instance to illustrate the basis of revaluation compensation. Having indicated that possibility, I just want to draw to the attention of the Senate that for the evil honourable senators opposite do, I can return a little gracefulness. It has been indicated that they might miss their party if I kept on speaking for the full hour. Then if I occupied them on the adjournment with a few quorums, their party might be somewhat interrupted. I deplore the disgraceful proceedings of the whole day and I express my complete contempt for them by now indicating what I might have *uttered by* way *of* criticism but forbear to do in the spirit that I have mentioned to the honourable senators upon whom I now look down. Debate (on motion by **Senator Gietzelt)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 2359 {:#debate-58} ### HONEY EXPORT CHARGE COLLECTION BILL 1973 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Standing Orders suspended. Bill (on motion by **Senator Wriedt)** read a first time. {:#subdebate-58-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-58-0-s0 .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Primary Industry · Tasmania · ALP -- I move: I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. {: #subdebate-58-0-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -Is there any objection? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The speech read as follows)- The purpose of this Bill, which is complementary to the Honey Export Charge Bill 1973, is to provide the machinery necessary for the collection of the export charge imposed by the Honey Export Charge Bill 1973. The Bill provides for the charge to be payable by the exporter of the honey within 28 days after the end of the month in which the honey is exported. The remaining provisions of the Bill are principally related to the administrative procedures necessary to collect the charge. I commend the Bill. Debate (on motion by **Senator Laucke)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 2359 {:#debate-59} ### HONEY INDUSTRY BILL 1973 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Standing Orders suspended. Bill (on motion by **Senator Wriedt)** read a first time. {:#subdebate-59-0} #### Second Reading {: #subdebate-59-0-s0 .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Primary Industry · Tasmania · ALP -- I move: I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. {: #subdebate-59-0-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -Is there any objection? There being no objection, leave is granted. (The speech read as follows)- The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Honey Industry Act 1962-1972 to provide that amounts equivalent to the amounts of charge received under the Honey Export Charge Collection Bill 1973 shall be paid to the Australian Honey Board out of Consolidated Revenue. This amendment is consequential to the Honey Export Charge Bill 1973, the purpose of which is to provide additional revenue for the Australian Honey Board. I commend the Bill. Debate (on motion by **Senator Laucke)** adjourned. {: .page-start } page 2360 {:#debate-60} ### ADJOURNMENT {:#subdebate-60-0} #### The Senate Motion (by **Senator Douglas** McClelland) proposed: >That the Senate do now adjourn. {: #subdebate-60-0-s0 .speaker-KBW} ##### Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania Speaking to the adjournment, **Mr President,** would it be appropriate, do you think, that one should ask what is the haste to secure the adjournment tonight? Or would it be more appropriate to wish honourable senators opposite well as they go and get- what was it we had in the other place last week- a little liquor to their souls? Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 6.10 p.m. {: .page-start } page 2361 {:#debate-61} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS The following answers to questions were circulated: {:#subdebate-61-0} #### Qantas Airways: Group Bookings (Question No. 523) {: #subdebate-61-0-s0 .speaker-K8R} ##### Senator Townley:
TASMANIA asked the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Is the Minister aware that Qantas Airways Ltd makes available special fares to members of student groups, such as the Australian Union of Students. 1. Is the Minister aware that relatives of some students are also being granted such fares. 2. Is the Minister aware that in the coming Christmas holidays, many persons prepared to pay normal prices are having difficulty in obtaining seats due to heavy bookings by such groups. 3. Will the Minister restrict such cheap fares to non-peak periods. {: #subdebate-61-0-s1 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh:
ALP -- The Minister for Civil Aviation has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Qantas Airways Ltd is not making available 'special' fares to members of student groups such as the Australian Union of Students. Qantas will be arranging a program of international travel for the Australian Union of Students over the coming summer holiday period. The students will be travelling on affinity group charter flights at the minimum fare prescribed by the Australian Government for this kind of charter travel, that is SO per cent of the normal economy class fare for the equivalent journey on scheduled services. The Australian Union of Students meets all of the eligibility rules laid down by the Government for affinity group charter travel, except that its total membership exceeds the ceiling limit of 50,000 which the normal affinity group charter rules prescribe. In keeping with the usual practice which has prevailed over the last six years or so, the Government has waived this upper membership limit, to enable the student organisation to avail itself of the charter travel benefits for which it is otherwise completely eligible. 1. The affinity charter rules provide that a member of an eligible organisation may be accompanied on charter flights by spouse, dependent children or parents living in the same household as the member. No other relatives are permitted to accompany the member, unless of course they are members in their own right. 2. The students concerned will travel on special Qantas charter flights quite separate and distinct from Qantas' normal scheduled services. Their carriage will not reduce the number of seats available for sale on Qantas' normal scheduled services in the coming Christmas holidays. 3. The minimum fare which the Government has prescribed for affinity group charter flights of the kind Qantas will be operating on behalf of the Australian Union of Students is applicable in peak and non-peak traffic periods. It is a matter for the airline that has been approached to operate such charter flights to decide whether it has the necessary capacity to perform them having regard to other traffic demands at the time. With regard to scheduled international air services, some cheap concession fares are unavailable in peak periods. It would not be feasible or appropriate to restrict all such fares to off-peak services although certain concessional fares do carry a higher fare level in peak seasons according to the direction of travel. {:#subdebate-61-1} #### Housing Finance: Interest Rates (Question No. 478) {: #subdebate-61-1-s0 .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Housing, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What is the latest interest rate applicable for loans to home builders. 1. What was the previous interest rate. 2. By what percentage has the interest rate been increased. {: #subdebate-61-1-s1 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh:
ALP -- The Minister for Housing has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. ) and (2) There is no single interest rate charged by the various lenders of housing finance. An idea of the range and diversity of these rates can be obtained from the publication 'Housing Finance, Lending Terms and Conditions' issued by the Australian Department of Housing. The following rates of interest currently charged by certain lending institutions offer a guide to recent movements in interest rates on housing loans. {: type="1" start="3"} 0. From the above it can be seen that the increase has ranged from one-half of one per cent to one and three-quarters per cent, one per cent being the most common increase. {:#subdebate-61-2} #### Proposed Health Insurance Program (Question No. 483) {: #subdebate-61-2-s0 .speaker-KRG} ##### Senator Lillico: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What are the minimum weekly earnings that will attract compulsory national health insurance under the Government's proposed scheme. 1. What is the lowest weekly income which will attract the maximum rate to be charged for compulsory health insurance. 2. What will be the scale of weekly charges for (a) a single person; (b) a family; and(c) widows' providers after the death of the spouse who have been paying under the scheme. 3. Will the proposed scheme permit people to pay for private wards, or do the charges set out allow for this; if not, how will the person who wants private hospitalisation or treatment by his own doctor, be able to achieve this. 4. Does the Government know that the former British Prime Minister, theRt. Hon. Harold Wilson, wanted to establish the same scheme as Australia has at present, because of (a) the cost of the nationalised scheme, and (b) the loss of doctors in that country. {: #subdebate-61-2-s1 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. ) Details of the health insurance levy were clarified in the white paper on the Universal Health Insurance Program that was tabled on 8 November, 1973. It explained that the health insurance levy will be based on taxable incomes and initially, the following groups of people will be exempted from payment of the levy: {: type="a" start="i"} 0. people whose taxable incomes are$ 1040 or less; {: type="i" start="ii"} 0. aged persons entitled to the recently introduced income tax rebate, whose taxable incomes are $ 1 920 or less; 1. families whose taxable incomes are $2210 or less and who claim $100 or more in deductions for dependants. (This is in the context that a family consisting of a man, wife and one child and earning the minimum wage (currently $60.10 a week) should not be liable to pay the levy; 2. people with Pensioner Medical Service entitlement; 3. certain Repatriation beneficiaries. In addition, in cases (i) to (iii) above, concessional rates of levy will apply to incomes marginally above the exemption limits. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The ceiling of $150 a year for the health insurance levy will be reached at a taxable annual income of $ 1 1,1 12. For a man with a wife and two children, this would represent on average a gross income of around $ 1 3,500 a year. 1. The levy will be charged on taxable incomes and accordingly it will be the level of this income, rather than one 's marital or family status that will determine the level of contribution. 2. As detailed in the white paper, it is proposed that patients may elect to be treated in private wards and that private hospital insurance will be available to provide cover for the cost of this accommodation above the bed day subsidy of $16. The Australian Health Insurance Program will provide fee for service benefits in respect of charges made by private doctors who treat private ward patients. 3. I am not aware of any such proposal by the former British Prime Minister. Australian Capital Territory: Medical Staff at New Health Centres (Question No. 513) {: #subdebate-61-2-s2 .speaker-K1R} ##### Senator Prowse:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA asked the Minister represent ing the Minister for Health, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What are the terms of employment of senior medical staff employed at the new health centres located at Melba and Scullin in the Australian Capital Territory, with regard to (a) salary; (b) holiday leave; (c) study leave; (d) long service leave; (e) any other benefits. 1. What is the case load per doctor employed. 2. Is Saturday work undertaken. 3. What is the call time. {: #subdebate-61-2-s3 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answers to the honourable senator's question: >Scullin Centre is staffed by fee-for-service medical practitioners who lease their premises at the Centre and are therefore completely independent. Melba Centre is staffed by salaried practitioners and, in respect of these, the answer to the honourable senator's question is: > >(1)- > >$17,000, $18,500 or $20,000 depending on qualifications and experience; > >b ) five weeks ' recreation leave per annum; > >full salary is payable to medical staff attending approved seminars and refresher courses. In addition, medical staff who are permanent officers of the Australian Public Service would be entitled to leave on full salary while attending approved courses of study; > >4.5 months after completion of 15 years' service. After that, leave accumulates at 0.3 months per year of service; > >superannuation benefits are available to appointees, who are not already permanent officers, under the usual terms relating to temporary/exempt employees; removal expenses and fares for practitioners recruited outside the A.C.T. and their families; assistance with housing; provision of a car for official use; assistance with telephone; allowances similar to those received by other Government employees (for example, travelling allowance); $500 p.a. administrative allowance payable to one practitioner who undertakes administrative duties connected with the Centre. > >) Twenty-five to forty patients a day. > >Yes, on an out-of-hours roster basis so that one practitioner is always available. > >The practitioners divide the roster between them so that there is always one practitioner on call at night and on weekends as in a group practice. {:#subdebate-61-3} #### Proposed National Health Scheme (Question No. 553) {: #subdebate-61-3-s0 .speaker-KRU} ##### Senator Little: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Does the Minister's statement, which appeared on page 3219 of the House of Representatives Hansard of 13 November 1973, that three out of four families, including those in which there is a working wife, would find the Government's proposed national health scheme cheaper than at present, take into account the extra taxation to be paid if the proposed rate of 1.35 percent is itself not deductible from personal income. 1. Will the Minister table, for the information of Senators, the documents upon which his statement was. based and the statistical information supplied to him by his advisers that prompted the conclusions referred to above. {: #subdebate-61-3-s1 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) The Minister for Social Security refers the honourable senator to his reply to a very similar question by a Member of the House of Representatives, **Mr Tom** McVeigh, Member for Darling Downs, which was asked in the House on 22 November 1973- **"Mr McVeigh-** Will the Minister for Social Security table in the House all the information contained in the documents and calculations on which he bases his assertion that health insurance under his proposals will be cheaper for three out of four families and seven out often single persons? **Mr Hayden;** Basically the information used for the purposes of that exercise comes from the Bureau of Census and Statistics publication 'Income Distribution 1968-69' which was published quite recently. It is a simple exercise to update those calculations. When I was in Opposition I received no help from the Government and did the hard work myself. I suggest that members of the Opposition ought to start doing a bit of work too." {:#subdebate-61-4} #### Australia: Liquid Fuel Reserves (Question No. 535) {: #subdebate-61-4-s0 .speaker-KQV} ##### Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Minerals and Energy, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Will the Minister make available to the Senate a statement showing the amount of liquid-fuel reserves held in Australia. 1. What is the length of time that these reserves are expected to last during an emergency. 2. How long would it take to introduce a plan to share the available fuel amongst essential services. {: #subdebate-61-4-s1 .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator Wriedt:
ALP -- The Minister for Minerals and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) Australia's proven indigenous oil reserves total about 8 years' production at current rates and supply about 70 per cent of our total needs. We are almost self-sufficient in motor spirit and our reliance on imports is principally for heavy fuel oil, lubricating oil and bitumen. There is some flexibility in refinery processes so that more of one product can be made at the cost of less of another. 1. No need for a motor spirit rationing scheme is foreseen. Sharing of heavy fuel oil amongst essential services could be introduced at short notice. Superphosphate {: #subdebate-61-4-s2 .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator Wriedt:
ALP -On 26 September 1973, **Senator Young** addressed the following question, without notice, to the Minister for Primary Industry. Will the cost of the application of superphosphate on developmental land still be 100 per cent deductible in the year of application as in the case of other costs of production. The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >There is no proposal to change the income tax law in relation to the allowance of deductions for the costs of applying superphosphate or other fertilizers to land used in a business of primary production. Such costs will qualify in the same way as they formerly did as outright deductions in the year the expenditure is incurred. Doctors' Fees {: #subdebate-61-4-s3 .speaker-KBC} ##### Senator Willesee:
ALP -- On 6 November 1973, **Senator Sir Kenneth** Anderson asked the Minister representing the Treasurer a question without notice, dealing with the current inquiry by the Medical Fees Tribunal into specialist fees- in particular those relating to anaesthetists. The honourable senator sought qualifications to Press reports which had suggested that, in obtaining evidence for presentation to the Tribunal, there was access to the income tax returns of private individuals. The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >An investigation of medical fees received by anaesthetists was not made in the Australian Taxation Office. However, in 1971 the Taxation Office conducted a statistical survey of the incomes and deductions of medical practitioners, and the results of that survey included information on medical practitioners who fell into several specialty groups including the group anaesthetists. > >A summary of the results of the medical practitioners survey was made available to the Medical Fees Tribunal, but these survey figures of course did not include details of individual taxpayers' incomes and deductions. The Commissioner of Taxation, with whom I have discussed the question, expressed grave concern at the manner in which the matter had been reported by some sections of the press. He wished it to be understood that there had been no access by persons outside the Australian Taxation Office to income tax returns and that - details of individual taxpayers' affairs were not included in the survey results that were supplied to the Medical Fees Tribunal. Qantas Airways Ltd: Price Increase {: #subdebate-61-4-s4 .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator Murphy:
ALP -- On Tuesday, 20 November, **Senator Withers** asked me whether Qantas Airways Limited would be required to justify the proposed 6 per cent increase in air fares which is being recommended by the International Air Transport Association. The Prime Minister has now furnished me with the following information: >The answer is yes. Under regulation 106a of the Air Navigation Regulations, international air service operators must submit to the Director-General of Civil Aviation their tariff of charges for the carriage of persons and cargo. The DirectorGeneral may approve, approve subject to such variations as he directs, or reject the tariff and direct the adoption instead of such tariff as he considers fair and reasonable for the service provided. **Senator Withers** also referred to the Prices Justification Tribunal in his question. Qantas Airways Limited did apply to the Tribunal for exemption from the notification provisions of the Prices Justification Act. I am advised that, in view of the position under the Air Navigation Regulations, the Tribunal granted the desired exemption on 8 October. {:#subdebate-61-5} #### Lactones (Question No. 529) {: #subdebate-61-5-s0 .speaker-KUD} ##### Senator McManus:
VICTORIA asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Why are lactones, imported from Japan and used to intensify the flavour of table margarine, not permissible for use in cooking oils. 1. Will the Minister order an inquiry to ascertain whether lactones should be used in cooking oils. {: #subdebate-61-5-s1 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh:
ALP -- The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) Generally, the use of additives and flavourings in food for domestic consumption is a matter for State rather than Australian Government legislation. If the honourable senator could identify the background to his enquiry, I would be happy to direct him to the appropriate authorities. Overthrow of Chilean Government {: #subdebate-61-5-s2 .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator Murphy:
ALP -- On 16 October, **Senator Carrick** asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs the following question, without notice: >I refer to the recent overthrow of the Allende Marxist Government in Chile, the assumption of power by a military junta, the confusion as to the events prior to and surrounding the military coup and the pressure from some quarters in Australia that Australia should offer to accept Chilean refugees, including political refugees, either permanently or in the short term. I ask: In view of the importance of ascertaining and publishing the true facts for proper assessment by the Parliament and by the Australian people, will the Federal Government produce as a matter of some urgency a White Paper or a considered statement in particular, clarifying the repeated allegations that the Allende Government in the latter part of its period of office had abandoned democratic processes, the basis of its election, and was imposing dictatorial and totalitarian methods upon the Chilean people. In answer to the honourable senator's question the information supplied to me is as follows: >It is not usual for the Government of one country to publish White Papers about the affairs of another. So far as the Australian Government is concerned, it adheres to the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries. It believes that interested members will have received information on the background to the military overthrow of President Allende 's Government from the extensive coverage in the media and in publications of the Department of Foreign Affairs. Chile {: #subdebate-61-5-s3 .speaker-1L5} ##### Senator MURPHY:
ALP -On 16 October, **Senator Greenwood** asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate, without notice: >Was the basis upon which the Australian Government recognised the new government in Chile following the overthrow of the Allende Government the fact that the new government is in effective control of the country? Does that recognition accord with generally accepted diplomatic practice? If so, will the Government assure the Senate that, notwithstanding that members of the Australian Labor Party Caucus are objecting to the manner and the fact of the overthrow of a Marxist president, these ideological considerations will not change the Government's attitude to recognition. In answer to the honourable senator's questions the information supplied to me is as follows: >The main criterion applied by most states in determining recognition of a government is whether it is in effective control of the national territory. The new military regime is in effective control in Chile. More than forty governments have recognised or maintained relations with the new Chilean regime, including all Latin American states (except Cuba), the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Japan, Canada, New Zealand, West Germany, Sweden, and China. The Australian decision to recognise the new regime was made only after close consultation with friendly countries including, in particular, Mexico, Canada and New Zealand. The Government's recognition of the military regime in Chile does not imply approval of the policies or actions of that regime. The Government expressed its disapproval of the coup, both in the Prime Minister's statement of 13 September and by recalling the Australian Ambassador. {:#subdebate-61-6} #### Mr S. Rover: Passport (Question No. 119) {: #subdebate-61-6-s0 .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator Mulvihill: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, upon notice: >Was the passport of **Mr Screcko** Rover cancelled by the Liberal Country Party; if so, was the decision to cancel the passport just. {: #subdebate-61-6-s1 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- The Minister for Immigration has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >Yes; Yes. Information regarding this matter has been given to the Senate Select Committee on Civil Rights of Migrant Australians.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 29 November 1973, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1973/19731129_senate_28_s58/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant