Senate
25 September 1974

29th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 29th Parliament
  3. 1974

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Justin O’Byrne) took the chair at 3.20 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1373

PETITIONS

Baltic States

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 44 citizens of the Commonwealth:

To the Honourable President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth: whereas the Government of the United Kingdom, United States of America, Canada and many European countries have not recognised the unlawful annexation of the Baltic States- Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia by the Soviet Union, the Prime Minister of Australia has authorised the de jure recognition of this annexation.

According to the Charter of the United Nations, the Baltic States are entitled to independence and their people selfdetermination.

We beg that such de jure recognition be disallowed.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Baltic States

Senator BAUME:

– I present the following petition from 45 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:

The undersigned citizens of Australia of Baltic origin wish to express their concern at the announced intention of the Australian Government to recognise the annexation of the three Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania by the Soviet Union. We submit that these once free and independent States were occupied by force of arms and beg the Senate to disallow such recognition as a matter of principle.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Baltic States

Senator BAUME:

– I present the following petition from 88 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:

Whereas the Governments of the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Canada and many European countries have not recognized the unlawful annexation of the Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania by the Soviet Union, it has been announced from Moscow that the Australian Government is now recognizing them as part of the Soviet Union. We wish to point out that according to United Nations charter these States are entitled to independence and their people to self-determination and beg that such recognition be disallowed.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Baltic States

Senator BAUME:

– I present the following petition from 1 16 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:

Whilst the Australian Government is granting freedom and independence to Papua and New Guinea, the once free Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are occupied by the Soviet Union and their citizens are continuously and brutally deprived of personal, civil and religious freedoms. We humbly beg to draw the attention of the Senate to this fact and ask that the matter bc raised in the United Nations by the Australian Government. The annexation and incorporation of the Baltic States by the Soviet Union has not been recognized by any Western democracy, including Australia. We beg the Senate to continue such nonrecognition and to disallow any steps by Australian Government which would amount to recognition of aggression.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Baltic States

Senator BAUME:

– I present the following petition from 124 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:

Whereas the right of self-determination belongs to every nation, big or small, the Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have been deprived of it for 30 years by the Soviet Union. All Australian Governments for 30 years have refused to recognise the Soviet sovereignty over the Baltic States, but we now understand that such recognition has been granted. We the undersigned petitioners wish to express our concern and dismay and humbly ask that it be retracted.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Baltic States

Senator BAUME:

– I present the following petition from 1,175 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:

Whereas the Government of the United Kingdom, United States of America, Canada and many European countries have not recognised the unlawful annexation of the Baltic States- Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia by the Soviet Union, the Prime Minister of Australia has authorised the de jure recognition of this annexation.

According to the Charter of the United Nations, the Baltic States are entitled to independence and their people to self-determination.

We beg that such de jure recognition be disallowed.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Australian Economy

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 107 citizens of Australia:

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

That inflation in Australia, currently at a level of 20 per cent, is eroding the wages of every citizen and affecting especially those on lower and fixed incomes.

That the present number of strikes are crippling the economy of this country and jeopardising the jobs of many thousands.

That trade unions do not represent their members when the views of those members cannot be expressed without fear of retribution.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should:

Lower personal income tax giving the working man more money in his pocket and the trade unions less reason for high wage demands.

Abolish sales tax on those goods that are essential to the wellbeing and livelihood of the people of Australia.

Introduce secret ballots for trade unions so that each member can express his or her view honestly without the fear of retribution or victimisation.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Baltic States

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 62 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:

Whereas the Government of the United Kingdom, United States of America, Canada and many European countries have not recognised the unlawful annexation of the Baltic States- Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia- by the Soviet Union, the Prime Minister of Australia has authorised the de jure recognition of this annexation.

According to the Charter of the United Nations, the Baltic States are entitled to independence and their people to self-determination.

We beg that such de jure recognition be disallowed.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Australian Economy: Proposals by the Premier of Queensland

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 5 citizens of Victoria:

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

That whereas dangerously accelerating inflation is placing unbearable strain and hardship upon the people of Australia, with consequent serious escalation of industrial strikes, chaos and hostility,

And whereas neither government economists nor the Federal Government can offer any certain early solution, but continue to propose policies known to have failed in the past- including the claim for centralised control of all wages and prices which has also failed overseas and which the Australian public has rejected decisively by national referendum,

And whereas the Senate is not only an independent House of Review elected democratically by the people with its own mandate to protect their heritage and constitutional rights, but is the States’ House by which all Australians in their own sovereign states formed long before Federation can bring together ideas and plans and resources of their mutual benefit and advancement,

So accordingly the recent carefully-reasoned proposals of the Premier of Queensland seeking the freezing of taxation, the elimination of sales tax and the reimplementation of consumer subsidies, warrant the most urgent and thorough examination of the Senate.

Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, will take all essential steps without delay to-

Demonstrate to the Australian public that everything possible is genuinely being done to halt the grave damage being inflicted by inflation upon our economy, by immediately and openly debating the aforesaid proposals of the Premier of Queensland, and

Call for the widest possible publicity and discussion of these same proposals, especially in view of the surprising scarcity of reports about these in most of the mass media, having regard for the fact that the Premier of Queensland did certainly table such proposals at the official Premiers’ Conference lately, also that the practice of price or consumer subsidies worked most successfully and harmoniously between 1943 and 1948, and finally that such broad publicity is in complete accord with the present Federal Government’s stated claim of ‘Open Government’.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Senator Wood:

– I ask for leave to move a motion to refer the petition to a standing committee.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Motion (by Senator Wood) proposed:

That the petition presented by Senator Greenwood be referred to the Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations for inquiry and report.

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

– There is some little uncertainty. I did not clearly hear the motion. In order that it may be considered I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Motion (by Senator Withers) agreed to:

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

page 1374

QUESTION

TABLE OF PRECEDENCE

Senator WITHERS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is there any substance in the allegation, or rumour, to put it at that level, which is about the Senate that the Government is contemplating any change in the Table of Precedence affecting the longstanding tradition of the Parliament that the President of this chamber take precedence over the Speaker of the other place?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

- Mr President, I should be quite frank with the Senate. There has been some uncertainty, let me say, in this matter. I inform the Senate that there has been no change in the Table of Precedence. I inform the Senate that the present position is that the President takes precedence over the Speaker in accordance with longstanding tradition.

page 1375

QUESTION

TELEVISION SERVICES AT LEIGH CREEK

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for the Media. Can the Minister say whether any progress has been made in response to my representations earlier this year for the establishment of television services at Leigh Creek in South Australia? If progress has been made, when can the people of Leigh Creek expect to receive television services?

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

– I am very well aware of the constant representations that the honourable senator has made to me, with his colleague Senator Cameron, on the question of the prospective provision of television services to the Leigh Creek area of South Australia. At this stage I am not in a position to give the honourable senator any firm answer, except to say that the Australian Broadcasting Control Board and the officers of the Post Office will be discussing the question generally at a meeting in Melbourne next week. I understand that after that meeting officers of the Broadcasting Control Board will be conferring with other interested parties in Adelaide in an endeavour to reach some finality on the matter. However, I should place on record that, as I have mentioned from time to time privately in the past, there are substantial difficulties confronting my Department and the statutory bodies responsible to me for the provision of conventional television services to places like Leigh Creek. In other areas it has been possible, at some resonable cost, to provide microwave links to many remote areas in Australia, but an examination shows that the costs of such a proposal for Leigh Creek would be very substantial indeed and difficult to justify on economic grounds, having regard to the small population there. Nevertheless, as the honourable senator knows, in some areas of Australia it has been possible to provide television services by the use of low power transmitters which relay videotape program to a limited area. I understand that the costs involved even in an operation of this kind are still quite substantial. If means can be found of offsetting some of those costs from other sources it may well be that the solution to this problem will be found.

page 1375

QUESTION

CURRENCY VALUATION CHANGES

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate as Minister representing the Prime Minister. Is it a fact that decisions on currency valuation changes are usually announced at weekends to minimise the risk of speculation and to avoid instant overreaction? If so, will the Minister inform the Senate why the Government chose on this occasion to switch to a mid-week announcement? Can he say why the impending announcement was an open secret in Parliament House last night, especially in the Press gallery, shortly after the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Snedden, had demolished the Government’s Budget?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I am not sure that these things are invariably done at weekends and I am not sure what other countries do. I recall a number of such decisions being announced at the weekends. The Leader of the Country Party in this chamber says that an impending devaluation was an open secret last night. Has he forgotten the occasion three or four years ago when in all the newspapers it was reported that his Leader fought with the Liberals in the Cabinet? The newspapers were full of reports of impending devaluation for days and days before the event. Apparently the Leader of the Country Party in the Senate has some complaint that somehow something got out in the middle of the night.

Senator Drake-Brockman:

– At 10.30 p.m.

Senator MURPHY:

-He says it was at 10.30 p.m. He ought to be congratulating the Government for managing to keep its affairs at least a lot closer to itself than and he and his colleagues did when they were in government.

page 1375

QUESTION

AID FOR CYPRUS

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-On behalf of Senator Georges and myself I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate in his capacity as Minister representing the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs. In addition to what Australia has done already about Cypriot relief, what are the recent new decisions to accommodate the wishes of the Cypriot community in Australia as regards specific relief arrangements?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I have some notes on this matter which have been supplied to me and I shall tell the honourable senator the gist of them. Qantas Airways Ltd has agreed to assist and will carry supplies free of charge on a space available basis, probably to Athens. It is understood that onward movement to Cyprus would be a matter for the community leaders. Qantas requires as soon as possible full details of the proposal, including the quantity and nature of goods proposed to be sent. I think this has already been indicated by the Minister for Transport. Representatives of the Greek and Greek-Cypriot community will be informed today. Some members of the community may have collected frozen foodstuffs to send to Cyprus. Both the Cyprus Government and the United Nations agency concerned with this relief have indicated that after cash, which remains the first priority, the need on Cyprus is for non-perishable foods, such as tinned meat and fish, as well as blankets, towels and clothing, especially for children. I understand that the offer of fresh or frozen meat poses serious problems of storage and distribution in the outlying areas of Cyprus where supplies are needed. Qantas may well also have difficulty in transporting frozen meat on scheduled flights. Members of the Greek and Cypriot communities would help Qantas considerably if they first established contact with Cypriot community committees which have been established to co-ordinate collection of supplies. Such committees have been set up in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide.

page 1376

QUESTION

DEVALUATION OF AUSTRALIAN CURRENCY

Senator GREENWOOD:

-My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Is it a fact that knowledge of the impending devaluation was held only by certain Ministers in the Government, namely the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Treasurer? Was the release of the news of the devaluation of the Australian dollar, known to members of the Australian Press last night at a time when speculation could take place on the money markets of the Northern Hemisphere, a deliberate act? If so, why was the news prematurely released some 8 hours or more before the official announcement? Does the Leader of the Government in the Senate, as Attorney-General, condone premature release in those circumstances? Will the Attorney-General undertake an inquiry to ascertain the circumstances of that release and to assure the Australian public that the Government is not party to the dissemination of insider information by which people can profit?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– It is, of course, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition indicates, a serious matter if people can gain out of premature or insider knowledge of any activities, whether they be of public companies or especially of the Government. This problem must be faced with Budget decisions and decisions such as devaluation or planning decisions. Senator Greenwood asked me whether only 3 Ministers knew of the decision. My understanding is that that is correct as far as Ministers are concerned. Without knowing, I could quite readily assume that others must have known.

Senator Greenwood:

– There would be certain staff involved.

Senator MURPHY:

-Yes, there must be staff. There must be communication. I suppose there must have been cables. All sorts of things must have occurred in order to prepare for such an eventuality. The 3 persons mentioned by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition are of unimpeachable integrity and it is unthinkable that any of them would in any way gain or seek to gain. I do not understand Senator Greenwood to suggest that. Inevitably when such a decision is made obviously people must be informed about it so they will be prepared. I do not know how tight the arrangements are when one sends the information. I suppose that persons must be alerted that there may be a devaluation or how close it is to the actual decision. Obviously in this world communications of that kind must occur between staffs. I do not know how many people really would have known. I suppose from time to time some kind of intimation gets out. I repeat that at least the Government did not indulge in the kind of forewarning that occurred in the time of the previous Government when the impending devaluation or change in currency was discussed at large for days and days and become world news.

page 1376

QUESTION

DEVALUATION OF AUSTRALIAN CURRENCY

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– My question also is on the subject of devaluation and relates principally to its effects on primary industry. Can the Minister for Agriculture indicate whether the 12 per cent devaluation of the Australian dollar will be of any benefit to primary producers? Can he give any indication of the extent of the benefit which might flow from this significant move on the part of the present Labor Government?

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · TASMANIA · ALP

-The effect on rural industry of the devaluation will vary. It means essentially that in those industries which are particularly strong at present because of the strength of the market demand for the products the price position will not alter. But one can assume that the full benefit of the devaluation will come back to the exporters of those products. In areas such as meat and, to a lesser extent, wool, the effect is more likely to be reflected in an increased volume of export rather than increased prices, because of the relatively weak demand. There is also the question of the effect it will have on freight rates because the rates are normally expressed in U.S. dollars or pounds sterling. It will be expected that the shipping companies will increase those freight rates as a result of devaluation and one would have to expect also that there would be an increase in the cost of imported agricultural machinery. That is one side effect which should not be overlooked. Generally speaking the benefits to the rural sector could be in the vicinity of $250m to $300m, but with one or two of those side effects which must be taken into account when trying to assess a net benefit

page 1377

QUESTION

COLLUSION BETWEEN COMPANIES AND TRADE UNION OFFICIALS

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, follows upon the Prime Minister’s statement in which he alleged collusion between multi-national companies and trade union officials. Does the Minister know of any instances of such collusion? If so, will he state what were the types of collusion and the companies involved? What steps does the Government intend to take to prevent such occurrences in the future?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-I am asked whether I know of it and the answer is no. Therefore the second part of the question does not arise.

page 1377

QUESTION

OBTAINING OF DRIVING LICENCES BY MIGRANTS

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

-I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration whether he has seen newspaper reports that a large number of migrants have been charged with obtaining motor car licences by illegal means. As the migrants involved are all of Turkish and Lebanese origin, will the Minister take steps to ensure that the Department of Labor and Immigration advises migrants of these nationalities in publications in their languages of the requirements of Australian law in relation to motor car licences?

Senator BISHOP:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I have seen some publications and information on this situation. As the honourable senator will know, the matter is largely within the authority of the State governments. I have heard of no case in the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory but I will ask the Minister for Labor and Immigration to see to what extent he can inform these people of the need to observe Australian laws and assist them where required.

page 1377

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

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

– I omitted to mention at the commencement of question time that Senator Wheeldon, the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation, is absent today. In his absence Senator Bishop will answer those questions which are normally directed to Senator Wheeldon.

page 1377

QUESTION

FREQUENCY MODULATION RADIO BROADCASTING

Senator DAVIDSON:

– My question is directed to the Minister for the Media. I refer to his observations yesterday regarding the establishment of frequency modulation radio in Sydney and Melbourne. Are there any plans for the establishment of a frequency modulation station in Adelaide? If so, when will it be established? What is the situation of the AM radio station VL5UV operated by the University of Adelaide? Is it a fact that the Minister is keen to find a frequency for VL5UV which would put it in the broadcast band used by the Australian Broadcasting Commission and commercial stations? If so, when is this likely to take place?

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

-As I mentioned to the Senate yesterday, I will be making a ministerial statement on the matter later on in the day. The frequency modulation licences that are being issued are being issued on an experimental basis at this stage and will be restricted at this stage to Sydney and Melbourne. The second aspect of the honourable senator’s question will be touched on in my ministerial statement.

page 1377

QUESTION

INDONESIAN FISHERMEN

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Agriculture, concerns reports of unauthorised landings by Indonesian fishermen on the Western Australian coast. What action is the Government taking on this matter, particularly to prevent the risk of exotic livestock diseases being introduced into this country by fishermen who often land with livestock in their possession?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– A lot of concern has been expressed and questions have been asked on many occasions in the Parliament about this matter. The only information that I can add is that the Prime Minister discussed this matter with President Suharto when he was in Indonesia recently and pointed out the possibility of Indonesian fishermen coming ashore and importing exotic diseases if they brought livestock ashore with them. Apparently President Suharto appreciates the problem and as a result of those discussions it was agreed that talks would be held between officers of the 2 governments. Only yesterday, I think, it was announced that the Director of Fisheries in the Department of Agriculture and an officer of the Department of Foreign Affairs will be proceeding to Indonesia in the next few days for discussions with Indonesian officials.

page 1378

QUESTION

REPORTED STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. By way of brief preface I refer to the fact that on Monday evening the Prime Minister made accusations that people had peddled lies in relation to the seriousness of the unemployment situation in the Launceston area. I ask: As it is now demonstrably clear that the Prime Minister’s accusations were totally unfounded and inaccurate, will the Prime Minister apologise to those who fell within his sweeping accusations and in particular to the Tasmanian members of both the Liberal and Labor Parties, including in particular Mr Barnard and also the State Secretary of the Textile Workers Union, Mr Holden, and to the management of the Tasmanian textile companies, all of whom came within the accusations of the Prime Minister of being involved in lying and collusion?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– It is possible, but I doubt it.

page 1378

QUESTION

WESTERN AUSTRALIA: FUEL, ENERGY AND POWER RESOURCES LEGISLATION

Senator COLEMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. He has already been made aware by questions in this chamber of the iniquitous Fuel, Energy and Power Resources Act Amendment Bill at present before the Western Australian Parliament. Is he also aware that approximately 14,000 people demonstrated against this Bill in Perth on Thursday of last week? Will the Attorney-General advise, in view of those two statements, whether he and /or members of his Department have examined this Bill to ensure that the United Nations Charter on Human and Civilian Rights has not been contravened by any section of the Bill?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I am aware that a great deal of concern has been expressed about this legislation in Western Australia. I know that the bodies involved in the law have been concerned about it. I have received some correspondence from them. I know that ordinary citizens are concerned. It seems that some of those who contend that the common law will solve all problems and that no question of human rights or civil liberties can possibly arise in Australia will be shocked when they become conversant with the legislation to which the honourable senator refers. I will certainly have it examined from the viewpoint of its consistency with the United Nations conventions on political and civil rights.

page 1378

QUESTION

REPORTED STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER

Senator RAE:

– May I ask a supplementary question just to seek an answer to the question that I asked?

The PRESIDENT:

– You will be aware of my ruling the other day about seeking elucidation.

Senator RAE:

– I asked the question of the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I asked it of the Minister in that capacity. I seek an answer to be obtained from the Prime Minister, not an opinion from the Attorney-General.

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– The honourable senator is regurgitating a matter of what was said by the Prime Minister when he was speaking at a dinner function. If the honourable senator is critical of the Prime Minister one ought to be a little critical of him because when he purported to say what the Prime Minister had said he referred to those who are ‘peddling lies’. As I read the statement in the paper today, or certainly since question time yesterday, it appears that the Prime Minister had spoken of people who accepted -

Senator Rae:

– And peddled.

Senator MURPHY:

– And peddled, meaning thereby that the people had been told something, had accepted it and then, if you like, went on to spread the matters. The way that it has been put here all the time is that the Prime Minister was somehow accusing colleagues or others of inventions and making up lies. The Prime Minister did not say anything of that kind. His suggestion was that some people were manufacturing statements and exaggerating. I think he is entitled to his view and to express his view on that matter. He did not say that anyone in Parliament had actually invented or made up some lie. He especially said that they had accepted them. The most that one can say about peddling is that those people accepted the representations as being correct and then passed them on or acted on the basis that they were correct. The honourable senator is trying to make a lot out of this and to carry it on. I think that it would be much better to attend to the real issues of to-day rather than to try to make a fuss about a statement that is made by a very hard working Prime Minister who is dedicated to the interests of this country.

Senator Rae:

- Mr President, I ask you to ask the Leader of the Government to answer the question which I asked him. Will the Leader of the Government ask the Prime Minister to apologise? Is the answer no?

Senator MURPHY:

– The answer is no.

page 1379

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL HOUSING PANEL

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs aware that the Aboriginal Housing Panel is still operating on the same terms of reference as set out by the Liberal-Country Party Government in 1972? Is he also aware that Aborigines were not invited or allowed to join the Panel by our predecessors in government? Is he aware that when a recent appointment was made by the Panel, qualified personsAboriginal and white- were rejected in favour of a white applicant with no knowledge of Aboriginal housing needs and that one unsuccessful applicant of Aboriginal descent was offered a consolation prize of a newly thought up position of Assistant Director? If it is constitutionally possible, will the Minister dismiss the present Panel, excluding any Departmental appointee, and immediately set up a new Panel on which blacks constitute the majority of members?

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

-The Building Panel was set up by the previous Government. It comprises members of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects and is for the purpose of inquiring into and reporting on Aboriginal housing. It is doing this at the present time. To some extent, the Panel is financed by my Department. There is no constitutional obstruction to abandoning the Panel at the present time. It has just produced a program and the stage has been reached of making appointments to put an Aboriginal Housing Panel into operation. Some accusations have been made about the first appointment that was made. Of course, there was a protest by the applicant who was unsuccessful. It is not true to say that an applicant with less experience got the job. With some knowledge of the capabilities of the disgruntled applicant, I was prepared to make an appointment for that applicant so that he could get training in the particular element of operation in which he had some deficiency with a view to his taking a superior job at a future occasion. Apparently that is not acceptable. I would say that it would not be good practice to canvass the qualifications of the applicant and it would not support the case that Senator Keeffe is championing at the present time.

page 1379

QUESTION

DEVALUATION OF AUSTRALIAN CURRENCY

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Agriculture who represents the Treasurer in the Senate, so that we can get an answer on this business of the devaluation of the Australian currency. Is it a fact that the official news release concerning the devaluation of the Australian dollar was distributed to the parliamentary Press Gallery at 5.55 a.m. today? Has the Minister seen this morning’s issue of the Melbourne ‘Sun’ whose front page story forecasts precisely the decision that was later officially announced? Is it not a fact that for the Melbourne ‘Sun’ to publish this story on the front page of its edition which was available in Canberra early this morning, the news must have been sent by its writer, Mr Laurie Oakes, by at least 9.30 p.m. last night? Does this indicate that someone in Cabinet or an official leaked this important financial change of policy whilst overseas money markets were still operating? Is an inquiry into this serious breach of governmental and parliamentary tradition to be promised to this Parliament?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-Firstly, I understand that a Press release was issued this morning. I have seen a copy of it. I have not seen the report in the Melbourne ‘Sun’ to which reference has been made, nor have I seen any of the other Melbourne newspapers today. I am not in a position to answer the hypothetical questions which the honourable senator has asked or the assumptions that he has made. I do not know the machinery of what transpired in respect of the release of that information. As has already been indicated by Senator Murphy, I was not aware of the decision. As the Prime Minister himself has indicated, only 3 Ministers, including himself, were aware of the decision. Therefore, I am unable to make any further comment or to indicate whether or not the assumptions made by the honourable senator are correct.

page 1380

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT PRINTING AND PUBLISHING

Senator MILLINER:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct my question to the Minister for the Media. Yesterday the Minister informed the Senate that the level of publishing and printing handled by his Department for the Government in the past 12 months amounted to more than $20m. Can the Minister indicate the reasons for such a marked increase in the amount of printing and publishing handled by the Government? In view of my interest in printing, which is accurately described as the ‘Art, Preservative of All Arts’, when is it expected that an Australian Government bookshop and inquiry office will be established in Brisbane?

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

– I think that the major factor involved in the additional amount spent by the Government on printing- I think that yesterday I mentioned a figure of $20m- has been the increase in the actual printing that has been done by the Government as a result of the multiplicity of reports that have been published, having regard to our policy of open government. Of course, this is in line with the Government’s desire to ensure that Australians have at their disposal the greatest possible amount of information on government activities.

The honourable senator has referred to the proposed establishment of a government bookshop and information centre in Brisbane. We have now established such centres in all the other capital cities. I might mention that only this morning I was informed that the sales of government publications and revenue from those sales have increased tremendously. The sales figures for the government bookshop in Melbourne for the last two or three months were about 3 times greater than the figures for the corresponding months of last year. The Department of Services and Property has been looking for a satisfactory site for my Department to establish a bookshop and information centre in Brisbane. I understand that that site has now been found, and the latest information available to me on the subject- it was made available last week- was that a government bookshop and information centre will be established in Brisbane some time in November.

page 1380

QUESTION

DEVALUATION OF AUSTRALIAN CURRENCY

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

-Is the Minister representing the Treasurer able yet to anticipate what inflationary effect will follow the devaluation of the Australian dollar? In other words, what extra percentage of inflation, over and above the 20 per cent increase that we already anticipate, can we now expect following this move to devalue the Australian dollar?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– In answer to a question earlier today I indicated that one cannot make such calculations. One must assume that as a result of the devaluation there will be some slight upward movement in the prices of imported goods. Of course, it only serves to highlight and emphasise the wisdom of the Government’s decision of 18 months ago to revalue the dollar in order to arrest the inflationary trends which were already in the economy then.

Senator Webster:

– What a lot of rubbish.

Senator WRIEDT:

– If it is a lot of rot, I do not know why the government of which Senator Webster was a supporter did not accept the advice of the Reserve Bank of Australia, 12 months before his Government was defeated, to revalue the Australian dollar then. His Government would not have had the backbone to do what we have done now, any more than it had it then. I refer especially to the Australian Country Party. A slight upward movement in the prices of imported goods is a fact of life which we must accept as part of the decision to devalue. On the advice available to me I understand that the effect will be no more than marginal.

page 1380

QUESTION

ASSESSMENT OF ECONOMIC TRENDS

Senator MCAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Does the Department of the Treasury have in the States research officers who are responsible for assessing current economic trends, especially with regard to lead indicators? Does the Treasury avail itself of the experience of officers in the States from other departments, such as the Department of Labor and Immigration, the Department of Overseas Trade, and the Department of Housing and Construction, who are daily involved in research in current trends in their respective departmental areas? If the Treasury does not have permanently within the States research officers responsible for these functions of research and liaison, will the Treasurer immediately investigate the obvious need for such positions with a view to establishing them?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– It is my understanding that the Federal Treasury does not have officers in that category stationed in the States and that in fact it works in conjunction with the State departmental officials. I would think that the establishment of such positions would tend to create duplication in the States and therefore presumably the Treasurer would take the view that it is better to rely on the expertise within the State departments that is currently available to him. Nevertheless I will convey the suggestion to the Treasurer and ascertain whether there is anything further that he would like to add.

page 1381

QUESTION

TERRORIST INTERNATIONAL

Senator SIM:

– I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate who, I understand, is the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is the Government aware of the existence of an organisation called Terrorist International, which is the fraternity of national liberation movements around the world? Is the Government also aware that organisations such as the Black September Movement, the Japanese Red Army, the Irish Republican Army and liberation movements which have been granted financial assistance by the Commonwealth Government are members of Terrorist International? Is the Government concerned that its policy of granting financial aid to African liberation movements raises the possibility that Australia will become tainted by association with this terrorist group?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-I think I have some notes on this matter. Would it be convenient for the honourable senator if I were to look through them and answer the question later on in the afternoon?

Senator Sim:

– Yes, certainly.

page 1381

QUESTION

MARITIME INDUSTRY

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. Can he confirm that the first report on the inquiry into the maritime industry has been received by the Government? If it has been received, what action has the Government so far taken as a result of the recommendations in that report?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

-Yes, the report on the inquiry into the maritime industry was received and presented to the Governor-General on 6 May this year. The report covers the principles and broad proposals relating to training requirements for sea-going personnel. The report proposes that the central maritime college should be a part of the college of advanced education system. The Prime Minister has announced that the Government accepts in principle the conclusions in the report and will make an immediate examination of it in order to assess its recommendations and decide which ones could be put into operation. This report was considered on 25 July by an interdepartmental committee chaired by the Department of the Special Minister of State and included representatives from the Department of Transport. That committee has agreed to draft a submission to Cabinet requesting permission for action to be commenced to establish a central maritime college and to go ahead under the auspices of the Minister for Transport, the Minister for Education and the Minister for Agriculture. The commission of inquiry is now preparing a report on navigational aids and it is looking into the question of manning requirements for ships in general.

page 1381

QUESTION

TERRORIST INTERNATIONAL

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

-Mr President, I have found my notes dealing with the question asked earlier by Senator Sim. If I may be permitted, I am now able to answer substantially what Senator Sim asked. The notes which were provided for me by the Minister state that in an article by Denis Warner in this morning’s Sydney ‘Morning Herald’- it may have been yesterday- the decision to give assistance to African liberation movements was attacked on the grounds that it would lead to support of terrorist movements. The article stated that Australia would give $150m to these movements. The figure is actually $150,000. Mr Warner and the Sydney Morning Herald’ have constantly attacked Australia’s foreign policy in this regard.

The notes that I have state that successive Australian governments have supported the principle of self-determination for the peoples of Africa. There remain some parts of Africa where large populations are still subjected to minority rule which has denied them equitable political, social and economic opportunities. The struggle to rectify this has placed on the African nationalist movements a heavy burden in caring for thousands of people in the liberated areas of the minority dominated territories and for those who have fled as refugees to neighbouring countries such as Tanzania and Zambia. In meeting these social and economic needs in areas such as medical assistance, education, agricultural extension services and temporary housing, Australia would be joining Canada, the Netherlands, West Germany, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway and other countries, together with the specialised agencies of the United Nations such as the Food and Agriculture Organisation, the United Nations Childrens Fund, the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organisation and the World Health Organisation in giving humanitarian assistance to the African national liberation movements. Of course any contribution by Australia would be modest in relation to the actual need. It would be directed solely to humanitarian purposes.

I am aware that the honourable senator prefaced his question on this substantial matter with some other matters. If he will let me, I shall also endeavour to find the answers to those questions.

page 1382

QUESTION

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S YEAR

Senator GUILFOYLE:
VICTORIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, concerns International Women’s Year. The Government has announced a grant of $2m for relevant activities by both government departments and non-departmental organisations. A national advisory committee has been established to advise on the expenditure of the grant. I ask: Is the international seminar which the Minister for the Media announced a short time ago would be arranged as part of International Women’s Year a charge against the grant? Is this seminar to be arranged by the Status of Women Commission of the United Nations or by the National Advisory Committee or by the Department of the Media? As at least 2 members of the National Advisory Committee have stated that crisis referral and counselling centres for women are typical of urgent community needs, is it envisaged that the $2m will be spent in the establishment of these services? If recognition is given to this urgent need and if the initial grant is rapidly absorbed in the establishment of such centres, will the Government assist with further funds to enable the diversity of voluntary organisations to express their priorities to accent the needs and achievements of the women of Australia?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– The issues which the honourable senator raises are very important and involve financial considerations. In fairness to her, as well as to those who are concerned, I think I should endeavour to get a precise answer on the questions. I shall do that as soon as possible.

page 1382

QUESTION

DEVALUATION OF AUSTRALIAN CURRENCY

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Overseas Trade. It refers to the announced devaluation of the Australian currency and to its prospective effect upon the cost and volume of future imports. Is the Government aware that the volume of goods, including textiles, footwear and electronics, on firm order throughout the world by Australian importers, is of record size, capable of meeting at least 6 months of domestic demands? Is the Government aware, therefore, that devaluation will do little or nothing in the short term at least and, for many small industries in the long term, to re-create employment in Australia? Does the Government realise that it cannot turn industries on and off at will? Has the Government any measures in contemplation to ensure that the imported goods which were paid for overseas at pre-devaluation currency levels are not sold in Australia at post-devaluation mark-ups? If so, what are those measures?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-The second part of the question highlights much the same sort of problems that obtained when we revalued the dollar and many of the benefits which would normally have accrued to the Australian community were not passed on because of the very high demand situation. The Government sought those powers, of course, during the prices and incomes referendum, but the Government recognised that it was powerless to force importers to pass those benefits on to the consumer. Much the same situation obtains now. It is quite true, as Senator Carrick has pointed out, that similar abuses- I think that is a fair word to use- can occur again. I would assume that the only machinery that would be available would be the Prices Justification Tribunal. I would assume that would apply under those conditions.

Senator Carrick:

– What about your corporation power?

Senator WRIEDT:

-That may be too. In view of the second part of your question particularly, I think it would be as well if I were to refer it to the Treasurer for a detailed answer. So far as the earlier part of the question is concerned, it is quite wrong to suggest that the Government is simply turning things on and off. Naturally, we have always maintained after revaluation of the currency on 2 occasions that the Government would continue to look at the need for possible further variations in the Australian dollar. We have never closed our options; it would be foolish for any government to close its options.

page 1382

QUESTION

REDEVELOPMENT OF CANBERRA

Senator MILLINER:

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Urban and Regional Development. Is the Minister in a position to advise whether or not the study of the redevelopment of Canberra, announced some time ago by the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, is continuing? If the study is continuing, could the Minister inform the Senate what has so far been learned from such inquiry?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– The first stage of the study has been completed. The first phase of the study refers to the redevelopment of the residental commerical and industrial areas of Canberra. It went on to the existing areas and the need for change in those areas. The report outlines the major problems associated with change in the old areas of the Australian Capital Territory in particular, including social factors as well as issues requiring further study. The identifications of issues were based on discussion with community groups, business organisations and government agencies. The preparation of reports for public discussion is under way. These reports will contain both technical and low key data and will be widely distributed, and I hope they will be tabled in the House. Further stages of the study are to focus on the issues raised, including procedures to control intensification in residental development, site assembly, pricing policies and the housing requirements of socially disadvantaged groups such as the poor, the aged and the students in Canberra.

page 1383

QUESTION

DEVALUATION OF AUSTRALIAN CURRENCY

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is the Minister aware that the Treasurer has read 2 telegrams to the House of Representatives this afternoon? Can the Minister say whether the telegrams indicated that rumours of Australia devaluing its currency have been circulating in Britain for some months; also that rumours of an imminent devaluation caused a flurry of selling on the foreign exchange market today? Is it also a fact that the telegrams stated that the rumours spread rapidly through financial circles following a Melbourne newspaper report that the Government had decided on a 12 per cent devaluation? Is he also aware that this telegram stated that one Australian bank said that trading was normal until late this afternoon, when there was a sudden burst of selling activity? In view of the international implications of the leak described in a previous question put to the House by Senator Marriott, can the Minister indicate whether he will support a full inquiry into the source of the leak that caused this premature Press report?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– I have not seen the telegrams referred to and I am not aware that they were read to the House of Representatives by the Treasurer. For that reason, I have no intention of making any comment on what the Treasurer is alleged to have said.

page 1383

QUESTION

RELATIONS BETWEEN AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT AND WESTERN AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT

Senator DURACK:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-I refer the Leader of the Government in the Senate to the very extravagant allegations made yesterday in another place during question time by the Minister for Labor and Immigration, Mr Clyde Cameron, against the Premier of Western Australia, Sir Charles Court, which Sir Charles Court has vigorously denied. Are the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Government concerned that these attacks may have harmed or will harm relations between the Federal Government and the State Government? Will the Government accede to Sir Charles Court’s request for a senior officer to be sent to Western Australia to investigate the matter and to see whether there is any substance whatsoever in the allegations?

Senator MURPHY:
ALP

– I did see something in the newspapers about Mr Cameron expressing his views about the Premier of Western Australia. It is hard to believe that Mr Cameron would say anything extravagant. I will take into account what the honourable senator has said. No doubt consideration will be given to any reasonable request from the Premier of Western Australia.

page 1383

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Senator BAUME:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration. Is unemployment worsening in Australia at the rate of about 1,000 persons a day? Is this situation worsening in spite of all Government initiatives and efforts? Have Government ministers said that there is no way that all the 180,000 anticipated school leavers will be able to find employment in Australia at the end of the year? Is it a fact that the Government has no coherent plans to provide jobs for all Australians who want to work?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– The answer to the last part of the question is no. The honourable senator has seen the comments of the Minister for Labor and Immigration in the Press and I have stated them here. The Government has 4 programs to meet the situation. We are aware of it and we want to stay it. Only today, I think, a public statement has been made relating to proposals for regional employment assistance which were announced by Mr Cameron. Some projects in Mr Stewart’s area of tourism have been taken up. Projects ranging in cost from about $250,000 to $500,000 are in the list. In addition, and I think this has been published also, the Government has set up a committee to activate a new scheme which might provide some more positive aims in particular areas than the structural assitance payments being made to employees who are redundant because of tariff decisions. There are 2 schemes. Unemployment is growing but the Government has 4 proposals to combat it . I think that very quickly a scheme will be adopted, as outlined to Senator Bessell in recent days, which will fit a situation which has been concerning people employed in industries affected by the tariff decisions.

page 1384

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Senator BAUME:

– I ask a supplementary question. It was not clear from the Minister’s answer whether there will be jobs for school leavers at the end of the school year and I seek clarification.

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

-The Government will take whatever action it can in respect of the schemes I have outlined. Nobody in the Government can accurately forecast what the situation might be at the end of the year. The last figures available are those for August. We do not have the September figures yet. It is no good my looking into the future and saying what might happen. I am saying that the situation has received special attention by the Government. We not only recently set up a special committee of Cabinet to look at the prospects but also are collaborating with two of our Caucus committees to make sure that particular programs are applied to meet situations considered to be acute.

page 1384

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT IN TASMANIA

Senator BESSELL:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration. It relates to the unemployment position in the Launceston area of Tasmania. I ask: Does the Minister agree that the figures given last night by Senator Rae of between 1,300 and 1,400 as of last Friday more truly reflect the current situation than those quoted by the Prime Minister at yesterday afternoon’s news conference, namely, 340 people?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

-The question calls for a studied examination of the figures. I have heard 2 versions from groups which have analysed the figures. I think it would be better for me to be precise with regard to the honourable senator’s question. I will ask the Minister for Labor and Immigration to supply an answer to the honourable senator’s question.

page 1384

QUESTION

QUESTIONS

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

– I ask that further questions go on notice.

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– Do we not get an hour for questions any more?

Senator MURPHY:

– I understand that it is an hour and one minute.

Senator Carrick:

– That is from petitions.

Senator MURPHY:

– My understanding is that following the presentation of petitions and the commencement of question time one hour and one minute elapsed before I asked that further questions go on notice.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Lawrie and Senator Missen were seeking to ask a question. I had to allow supplementary questions at times, so I would appreciate it if the questions were asked.

Senator MURPHY:

-Of course.

Senator Georges:

– I seek leave to make a statement on what you, Mr President, have said. I had a question to ask. I refrained from asking it because I thought that the time for questions had elapsed and that this fact was about to be pointed out by the Leader of the Government. I feel that the decision that question time is at an end ought to stand.

Senator MURPHY:

-Mr President, may I explain the position to the Senate? It is always very difficult when, after the hour for questions has elapsed, somebody says: ‘May I ask a question?’ It makes it all the more difficult to go past the hour, and I have found from experience that however harsh it might seem it is easier and more dignified if we stick to the time limit rather than defer to any requests except yours, Mr President. You having asked that two further questions be permitted, I think it is appropriate and in conformity with the dignity of the Senate that your request be acceded to.

page 1384

QUESTION

DEVALUATION OF AUSTRALIAN CURRENCY

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– Does the Minister representing the Treasurer agree that any prior and unauthorised disclosure of government decisions on devaluation is a breach of ministerial responsibility or a breach for which ministerial responsibility should be accepted? Did such prior disclosure occur last evening? Has any inquiry been instituted to ascertain how such disclosure occurred, the result of such prior disclosure and whether anyone benefited from it?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-I think that Senator Murphy has adequately answered that question.

A very similar question was asked of him earlier. He pointed out that not just the Ministers themselves are involved, but other people who work both in Parliament House and in the various departments. I do not think any useful purpose is to be served in all this. In fact I am surprised that the Opposition pursues this question after it was pointed out earlier this afternoon in question time that on one occasion the previous Government argued for 3 days about the revaluation of the Australian dollar, and gave the world a lot of notice as to whether there might be a change. I do not think I can add anything to what was said previously by Senator Murphy.

page 1385

QUESTION

DEVALUATION OF AUSTRALIAN CURRENCY

Senator LAWRIE:
QUEENSLAND · CP; NCP from May 1975

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Will the belated devaluation of the Australian dollar help to reduce the alarming level of unemployment as distinct from checking the rate of increase in unemployment? How long will it take for the benefits of devaluation to spread to the industries most seriously affected by the flood of imports caused by tariff cuts?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– This is almost the same question as was asked by Senator Townley and is very similar to the one asked by Senator Carrick. The only point that seems to me to be new is the time factor. It is, I think, quite impossible for anyone to predict how long the effect will take. I think it is assumed generally that the effect of the cuts will take some time to work through the economy.

page 1385

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL AFFAIRS

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I seek leave to make a statement on a report which I presented yesterday.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator JAMES McCLELLANDHonourable senators will recall that yesterday in my capacity as Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs I tabled an interim report on the law and administration of divorce and related matters and the Family Law Bill 1974. I stressed that it was an interim report only. In this morning’s Melbourne Age’ on page 3 there appeared an article headed: ‘Cut grounds of divorce; Senate body’. The story contained, inter alia, these words:

Replacing the ‘fault’ concept for divorce by a no-fault system based on irretrievable breakdown of the marriage has been recomended by an all-Party Senate committee.

The article went on to state a little further down:

An irretrievable breakdown would be established by one year’s continuous separation.

The statement is a misrepresentation of what actually appeared in the interim report. The relevant section of the report, paragraph 10 on page 6, reads as follows:

From the submissions received and oral evidence taken by the Committee on the general reference, a remarkable consensus has emerged that the present grounds of divorce based as they are on the notion of matrimonial fault in one or other of the parties to the marriage are out of date and that a new ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage is desirable.

It must be perfectly clear that that paragraph is a comment on the evidence which had been received by the Committee and is not and cannot be read to be a firm recommendation by the Committee based on the evidence.

Even though it may be possible for a commentator to make some sort of prediction of the Committee’s frame of mind from a reading of the whole report I submit that the writer of the article went further than he was entitled in stating flat-footedly that the Committee had already made up its mind and had made a firm recommendation to replace the fault provisions in the present Act with one sole ground of irretrievable breakdown. I trust that the newspaper in question will correct this error.

page 1385

THE SENATE

Senator TOWNLEY:
Tasmania

-I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator TOWNLEY:

-This matter relates to a personal attack that Senator Everett made upon me in my absence last night, ostensibly whilst the Senate was discussing something which was of no importance to my State of Tasmania and so I was not in the chamber. I have told Senator Everett that I would be raising this matter today. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) in a celebrated speech said:

I’m a bit jack of people who blackguard us with lies. I have nothing but contempt for those that accept and peddle lies.’

The Prime Minister said that a couple of days ago. I also have nothing but contempt for those who peddle lies, as we saw done in the Senate last night. I do not care what Senator Everett says about me when it is truthful but when it is blatantly untrue and a deliberate attempt to smear I feel that I do have some right of reply.

Last night Senator Everett saw me in the corridors just before he came into the chamber. Yet he did not have the usual decency to let me know that he was going to launch a personal attack upon me. This is just what I would expect because that is the way of socialist propaganda smear campaigns.

Senator Georges:

– I rise to order. This is not a personal explanation in the true sense. Senator Townley has the right to answer Senator Everett.

Senator Webster:

– But you interrupted him.

Senator Georges:

– No, but in the proper way. He can do that during the debate on the adjournment motion but he cannot claim time at this stage to make a personal explanation and launch into an attack on Senator Everett. He can merely say that what has been said is untrue and that in due course he will take the matter up. But he should not at this stage open up a subject that needs to be debated not only by Senator Everett but also by others here.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Townley was graciously given leave to make a statement- to claim that he was misrepresented and to make a personal explanation. I hope that he will confine himself to that.

Senator TOWNLEY:

– I take heart from the fact that a few years ago the Labor socialists carried out an organised smear campaign upon another Townley when he joined the Liberal Party of Australia and, perhaps due to that attempted smearing, at the following election that Townley received a record vote. I invite Senator Everett to continue this smearing, particularly when it is done behind my back, and if he likes he can become the Labor Party’s smear leader. But I can assure him that I will not be too worried. I have lived all my life in Tasmania and 1 know how the electors will view-

Senator Murphy:

– I rise to order. What was put before by Senator Georges is correct. The occasion of making a personal explanation has always been treated as an extremely important one. It is only on an extremely rare occasion that the Senate has declined to allow a personal explanation.

Senator TOWNLEY:

– I did not ask for that.

Senator Murphy:

– The reason for this attitude is that it is an occasion for a person to clear, if one might put it this way, his own reputation. It has always been understood in this chamber that it is not to be used as a vehicle for making an attack upon someone else. There are other opportunities for doing this. It could be done in the adjournment debate. Mr President, I suggest and request that Senator Townley obey your injunction. If he wants to say something about some other member let him do it on some other occasion such as during the adjournment debate. He should not use this occasion to do anything other than to clear up matters concerning himself. He should not use the occasion for any kind of attack on someone else.

The PRESIDENT:

– I uphold the point of order and ask Senator Townley to confine himself to making a personal explanation.

Senator TOWNLEY:

-Perhaps I could finish by saying that I refuse to attack Senator Everett personally. I refuse to descend into the mire in which he grovelled last night. Suffice to say that his outburst was a distortion of the truth and his campaign was part of an organised campaign that I knew was to be wrought against me by the Labor Party.

page 1386

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

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

– Pursuant to section 33 (2 ) of the Australian National University Act 1946-73 I present for the information of honourable senators the report of the Council of the Australian National University for the calendar year 1973.

page 1386

POULTRY INDUSTRY

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– Pursuant to section 8 of the Poultry Industry Assistance Act 1965-66 I present for the information of honourable senators the ninth annual report on the operation of the Poultry Industry Assistance Act for the year 1 973-74.

page 1386

AUSTRALIAN APPLE AND PEAR BOARD

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– Pursuant to section 25 of the Apple and Pear Organisation Act 1938-71 I present for the information of honourable senators the 28th annual report of the Australian Apple and Pear Board for the year ended 30 June 1974.

page 1386

SNOWY MOUNTAINS HYDRO-ELECTRIC AUTHORITY

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– Pursuant to section 32 of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Power Act 1949-1973 I present for the information of honourable senators the 25th annual report of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority 1973-1974.

page 1387

SUPPLY 1974

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I present a report entitled ‘Supply 1974’.

page 1387

BAUXITE

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the text of the International Bauxite Association Agreement 1974.

page 1387

DEFENCE SERVICES TRUST FUNDS

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– Persuant to section 34 (2) of the Services Trust Fund Act 1947-73 I present for the information of honourable senators the following reports:

The Royal Australian Air Force Welfare Trust Fund

The Australian Military Forces Relief Trust Fund

The Royal Australian Navy Relief Trust Fund

Because these funds are in the process of changing to a calendar year accounting period these reports cover the period 1 July 1973 to 31 December 1973.

page 1387

QUESTION

VIP AIRCRAFT

Senator BISHOP:
PostmasterGeneral · South Australia · ALP

On 14 August 1974 Senator Marriott asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence a question without notice regarding the tabling of manifests for the Royal Australian Air Force VIP aircraft from the day details were last given until 31 July 1974. On 12 December 1973 1 tabled details of VIP flights for the period 5 September 1973 to 3 1 October 1973. The documents I now table embrace all details of VIP travel in Royal Australian Air Force VIP aircraft for the period 1 November 1 973 to 3 1 July 1 974.

page 1387

FREQUENCY MODULATION RADIO BROADCASTING

Ministerial Statement

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

– by leave- I have to announce to the Senate that Cabinet has approved a series of submissions that will lead to planning for a significant expansion of radio services by the Australian Broadcasting Commission, an experimental plan for the introduction of frequency modulation radio services in the very high frequency band, and the provision of significant opportunities for the development of public broadcasting in Australia.

In the past 50 years we have developed in this country a dual system of broadcasting involving the national service on the one hand and the commercial system on the other. The Australian Government has adopted the view that the major inadequacy of broadcasting in Australia is the absence of public stations for the broadcasting of information and entertainment for minority audiences who would not otherwise be catered for by either the Australian Broadcasting Commission or the commercial services. The ABC, of course, does have public responsibilities, but it has generally been accepted by successive Australian governments that the Commission has an over-riding responsibility in the first instance to provide a service catering for an audience throughout Australia.

The Senate will recall that the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) announced in his policy speech on 29 April 1974 that the Australian Broadcasting Commission would be authorised to develop plans for a second ABC network in rural areas. Cabinet has now decided that the ABC will be permitted to proceed with planning for the establishment of 14 additional amplitude modulation stations in metropolitan and regional areas and 14 new FM stations in metropolitan and regional areas- a total of 28 new ABC radio stations. In accordance with the Cabinet decision my Department will consult with other Government departments, including the Department of Urban and Regional Development, in the technical planning of this particular expansion of the national service. Details of funding will be determined when the authorised planning is complete. The nature of the ABC, however, is such that it just cannot be expected to provide all the information and entertainment that many communities and groups in Australian society feel they need. The ABC is essentially a professional broadcasting body with a national responsibility. In the new public broadcasting area we seek to develop, the emphasis is to be less on ‘professionalism ‘ in broadcasting and more on participation at a local or specialised level.

In May last year I stated that I had asked my Department to investigate means of allowing community groups and ordinary members of the public greater access to the use of radio and television. On the advice that had been tendered to previous Postmasters-General up to that time, it appeared that the frequencies available for new radio services in the conventional AM band were extremely limited. However, shortly after I made that speech I was able to convince my Party colleagues that there were real possibilities for the development of public broadcasting in Australia. The Labor Party Conference in 1973 adopted a policy statement which I recommended, referring to ‘the need to investigate the technical feasibility of establishing public stations, and for action to be taken in the light of such an investigation’.

Immediately following that Conference, I asked the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to conduct a careful review of its technical planning policies. Then, in August 1 973, the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts presented to the Senate an interim report which recommended the establishment of a new and independent inquiry into frequency modulation radio broadcasting in Australia. After studying that report, I recommended to Cabinet- and the Government agreed- that the Committee’s recommendation for a new inquiry should be adopted. While that Committee- now known as the McLean Committee- was still hearing evidence the Broadcasting Control Board reported to me that, with a reasonable modification of the existing technical policy in the medium frequency band, the number of AM stations throughout Australia could eventually be doubled. I made the contents of that report public on 20 February 1974, and the possibilities of this development were recognised by the McLean Committee in the recommendations it made to the Government on frequency modulation broadcasting a month or so later. Those recommendations of the McLean report, subsequently accepted in principle by Cabinet, now form the basis for Government policy in the planning of new radio services.

The implementation of the recommendations has been delayed by the double dissolution and the general election this year, but the complex planning required in determining priorities for the establishment of new radio stations is now under way. The Priorities Review Staff have prepared a report on the planning problems in this area for consideration by the Prime Minister. Both the Priorities Review Staff report and my recent submission to Cabinet have taken account of discussion papers originating from my Department and the results of a seminar on public broadcasting conducted by the Department of the Media. Cabinet has now approved my proposal that the Music Broadcasting Society of New South Wales and the Music Broadcasting Society of Victoria should be invited to set up experimental FM broadcasting stations in Sydney and Melbourne respectively.

As another part of this experimental program, the Australian Broadcasting Commission will also be invited to give consideration to the operation of 2 new AM radio stations- one in Sydney and one in Melbourne- using stand-by transmitters. The University of Adelaide also will be invited to extend its present limited broadcasting operations on the AM Band to include new forms of broadcasting. By way of comment I might add that these decisions of Cabinet are far reaching and most significant in the history of Australian radio development. Cabinet re-affirmed that broadcasting would continue to fall within the responsibility of the Minister for the Media, and I can assure the Senate that I will, as a matter of priority, seek to have these decisions put into practice to begin a new era in the advancement of radio development in Australia, which has been needed for more than 20 years.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Victoria

-The Opposition welcomes the opportunity to have parliamentary discussion on Government policy and programs for radio services throughout Australia. There has been a great deal of conflict and Press speculation with regard to Government objectives in this important area of community development and communication. I will seek leave to have an opportunity to continue my remarks in the very near future. This is an important stage of Government policy and future programming and it is fitting that this opportunity has been given to discuss the statement of the Minister. I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later stage.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 1388

AUSTRALIAN FILM COMMISSION BILL 1974

Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland) agreed to:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to establish an Australian Film Commission.

page 1388

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland) -by leave- agreed to:

That leave of absence be granted to Senator Willesee for one month on account of absence overseas attending the United Nations.

page 1388

SENATE COMMITTEES

The PRESIDENT:

– I have to announce that I have received letters from the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Murphy), the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Withers), the Leader of the Australian Country Party in the Senate (Senator Drake-Brockman) and Senator Townley, nominating senators to serve on the Legislative and General Purpose Standing Committees, as follows:

Education, Science and the Arts: Senator Carrick, Senator Georges, Senator James McClelland, Senator Martin, Senator Milliner, Senator Scott.

Finance and Government Operations:

Senator Devitt, Senator Gietzelt, Senator Laucke, Senator Lawrie, Senator Walsh, Senator Wood.

Foreign Affairs and Defence:

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack, Senator Drury, Senator Mcintosh, Senator Maunsell, Senator Primmer, Senator Sim.

Health and Welfare:

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson, Senator Brown, Senator Cameron, Senator Melzer, Senator Sheil, Senator Townley.

Industry and Trade:

Senator Bessell, Senator Coleman, Senator McLaren, Senator Walsh, Senator Webster, Senator Young.

Social Environment:

Senator Baume, Senator Bonner, Senator Davidson, Senator Keeffe, Senator Melzer, Senator Mulvihill.

page 1389

JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE SYSTEM

The PRESIDENT:

– I inform the Senate that I have received letters from the Leaders of the Parties in the Senate nominating Senators Sir Magnus Cormack, Drake-Brockman, Gietzelt, McAuliffe, Mulvihill and Rae to serve as members of the Joint Committee on the Parliamentary Committee System.

Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland) agreed to:

That that senators having been duly nominated in accordance with the terms of the resolution be appointed as members of the Joint Committee on the Parliamentary Committee System.

page 1389

SEWERAGE AGREEMENTS BILL 1974

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– I move:

Mr President, as this second reading speech is a repetition of the speech that was made in the other place and is contained in the House of Representatives Hansard, I seek leave to have a copy of the speech incorporated in the Senate Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

This Bill is designed to provide extra funds for sewerage backlog programs in Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia. Honourable senators will be familiar with the vast national sewerage program introduced by the Government to tackle the backlog in Australian sewerage programs. The Government regards the removal of the sewerage backlog and the ability of State and local authorities to keep pace with the demand for new services as a yardstick of social progress in Australia.

If we cannot provide the most basic of all services then quite clearly the structure of Government in this country has failed the people it purports to serve. We have no cause for pride in the quality of services when millions of gallons of raw sewage is pumped each week into the seas off our coast, bays and inlets, metropolitan rivers and creeks. A warning is sounded for future generations when we find that our rivers are recording a level of pollution from sewage which is alarmingly high.

The experience of other countries reinforces this message. We do not want to see our oceans and waterways converted into running cesspools in the way that the great rivers of Europe have been polluted. The tragic experience of the Mediterranean and the Rhine, Elbe and Danube Rivers is a reminder to us of what can happen to our own seas, streams and rivers which are still untainted. For these reasons we have stressed the importance of this scheme and our determination to remove the sewerage backlog over the next eight years. In particular, the national sewerage program gives expression to our concern that all new land subdivision should be given adequate sewerage treatment facilities. We also insist that these treatment facilities should meet standards which safeguard the environment. No house now being built should have to wait for long to be connected to a complete sewerage system.

Beating the sewerage backlog breaks down into 2 parts- connection to a reticulated sewerage system, and overcoming inadequate trunk sewers and treatment standards. About one sixth of the main urban areas of Australia were unsewered at December 1972, the last figures available. There are many examples of the inadequacy of urban trunk sewerage mains and treatment works. I do not want to list them here. I have touched on their existence to indicate the size of the problem and the level of capital spending that will be required to overcome them. They reinforce the point that these great problems will not be solved without heavy capital spending. Spending on sewerage works soaks up an enormous amount of captial, both for the expansion of services to meet growing populations and to chop out the backlog in services which now exist. It means that the States and local government cannot tackle the backlog and at the same time keep up with new services without strong support from the Australian Government.

Provision of sewerage is often made difficult because of the existence of hilly, rocky and swampy country in many of the new areas developed around our cities. Septic tanks can provide a substitute in sparsely settled and relatively flat areas but it is at best a poor substitute. In densely settled areas which have high water tables or are rocky or swampy the septic tank is no substitute for reticulated sewerage. We concede these difficulties but we are determined to overcome them and provide the strongest possible lead for State and local government authorities to give Australians proper sewerage.

It is appalling to have to record that the sewerage from 400,000 people in Brisbane is still discharged untreated into Moreton Bay at the mouth of the Brisbane River. The Melbourne Press in the past year has been studded with reports of high levels of pollution from sewage on the beaches and bays of Melbourne. Quite often in Melbourne, heavy rains force overflows of sewage into the city’s stormwater drainage systems. This noxious waste is then transmitted through the suburbs of Melbourne. Most metropolitan streams in Australia record levels of E.coli which are completely unacceptable to this Government. These are examples of the social evils the extra assistance given by this Bill is designed to remove from our cities and countryside.

The Sewage Agreement Act of 1973 appropriated $30m of loan funds at the long term bond rate to the States for sewerage backlog works for 1973-74. 1 stress that this is additional to the normal allocation of loan money each year to the States for sewerage works. This program was tailored to fit the ability of the State sewerage authorities to speed up their works programs after this allocation was made. With one exception, the initial allocations to the States have been spent. The total program for 1973-74 included 8 1 reticulation projects, 35 main, submain and carrier sewer projects, 6 pumping stations and 10 treatment plants. In the course of the 1973-74 financial year, it became clear that Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia needed further financial assistance. This was necessary to keep up the existing rate of progress of works throughout the whole of the year. It is important that the momentum built up by this program should be maintained so that the sewerage backlog in the main urban areas disappears in the shortest possible time. The Government’s advisers reviewed the programs and we decided on agreements with the three State Governments for extra works. These agreements will be effective once this Bill is passed; but for the double dissolution it would have been introduced in the Autumn session of Parliament.

Turning to the assistance sought by the States, Victoria asked for $3. 95m, Queensland $2m, and Western Australia $3m. We have agreed to these allocations except for Queensland where Sim will be made available. This means that the total allocation of financial assistance for sewerage backlog in 1973-74 will be $37.95m. It will be distributed between the States in this way: New South Wales, $ 11.2m; Victoria, $ 13.25m; Queensland, $4.1m; South Australia, $1.6m; Western Australia, $6. 8m; Tasmania, Sim. The extra money will be made available on the same terms and conditions as the Sewerage Agreements Act 1973. We have carefully assessed the impact of these programs on manpower and material resources. Most of the works have already been completed and therefore will involve no significant pressure on resources. Where works will not be completed for some months, we have ensured that our allocations will not impose a strain on resources.

I turn now to the programs for each of the States. The program in Victoria is important because good progress has already been made and the extra money will enable greater inroads into the sewerage backlog to be made. I am convinced that the additional funds will accelerate the strong drive the Melbourne authorities have started against pollution in metropolitan streams and along the bayside beaches. It is only in such a co-operative manner that we can solve the problem.

In Queensland the extra assistance will concentrate on projects designed to remove the backlog of poor sewerage services in Brisbane. It will include the start of the Luggage Point treatment plant which will treat sewage from the main sewerage area of Brisbane to comply with Water Quality Council standards. This will bring important benefits to the environment in Central Brisbane and in the outer suburbs of the city.

In Western Australia the extra assistance will mean that existing programs will be maintained at peak level. Without this assistance, the Perth Metropolitan Water Board would have to cut back its accelerated works program, and this would mean a reduction in contract staff. With regard to longer term programs in the Budget session, the Government will announce details of the form and level of finance to be provided. The level of financial assistance under this Bill now before the House has been taken into account in preparing the long term program. I ask honourable senators to note that the form and level of finance proposed under the long term program cannot be anticipated from the financial arrangements under this Bill.

In summary, this Bill provides extra amounts of up to $3m to Western Australia, $3.95m to Victoria and Sim to Queensland in the 1974-75 fiscal year as part of the program to cut out the sewerage backlog. The extra money will allow the level of activity reached under the existing accelerated program to be maintained. The funds will be provided under the same terms and conditions as in the Sewerage Agreements Act of 1973. This was the first real drive of an Australian Government to work together with the States and local authorities to cast out the backlog of sewerage and to protect the environment. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Carrick) adjourned,

page 1391

ELECTION CANDIDATES (PUBLIC SERVICE AND DEFENCE FORCE) BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 19 September (vide page 1245), on motion by Senator Murphy:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– The Opposition appreciates that there is an urgency attaching to this Bill and desires to co-operate with the Government in ensuring that it receives a speedy passage. In principle, no objection is taken to the Bill, although in the Committee stage the Opposition will offer an amendment which it trusts the Government will appreciate is offered as a matter of caution and protection in a situation about which we have not any clear information. The basic position which the Bill recognises is that members of the Commonwealth Public Service and members of the Northern Territory Public Service are not permitted to stand as candidates for the Legislative Assembly elections shortly to be held in the Northern Territory. Of course, that prohibition has always applied to membership of the Legislative Council of the Northern Territory which is about to be replaced by the new Legislative Assembly. The origin of the restriction is to be found in the Northern Territory Administration Act under which the Commonwealth Government exercises a plenary power over the Northern Territory as a Territory of the Commonwealth.

It does seem unreasonable that members of the Northern Territory Public Service and the Commonwealth Public Service should not be able to resign from their positions to contest an election and, if they are unsuccessful, to rejoin the Public Service and continue with the same rights as they had before. The ability on the part of Commonwealth public servants to do that with regard to elections for the Houses of the Commonwealth Parliament has always been recognised. At least, it has been recognised for the past 1 5 or so years. I understand that the position with regard to the members of the Northern Territory Public Service has been acknowledged by an amendment to the Northern Territory Ordinance establishing the Northern Territory Public Service some 10 years ago so that members of that service are entitled to resign, contest an election and, if they are unsuccessful, to come back into the Northern Territory Public Service with no loss of continuity or of rights.

This Bill tidies up the position. I think the expression ‘tidying up’ is a fair way to describe what will happen with regard to members of the Commonwealth Public Service who are interested in standing for election as candidates in the forthcoming Legislative Assembly elections in the Northern Territory. The Opposition recognises the validity of the point which is made and offers no objection to the principle contained in the Bill. But there is in the Bill a provision which raises some doubts and in respect of which the Opposition believes the Government would be wise to leave the contingency for which it is endeavouring to make some provision to await the circumstances when that contingency actually arises.

I will by way, I hope, of clear enunciation state the position with regard to the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth Territories. Members of the Commonwealth Public Service have to resign in order to stand for election to the Houses of this Commonwealth Parliament. They can, if they are unsuccessful at the election, rejoin the Public Service after the election. That situation is necessitated, of course, by the provisions of the Commonwealth Constitution. In regard to the Australian Capital Territory, according to the information which has come to me, there has never been any prohibition upon members of the Commonwealth Public Service standing as candidates for election as members of the Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council, and that there will not be any prohibition upon them standing as candidates for election as members of the proposed Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory. Indeed, I understand that some public servants are candidates in the election for the Legislative Assembly.

Even if a payment is made to them on a part time basis, as I understand is contemplated, or subsequently on a full time basis, there is still no prohibition upon them requiring them to resign from the Public Service or preventing them from holding a Public Service position if they should become members of the Legislative Assembly. If there were to be some change of that character, some bar placed upon Commonwealth public servants to prevent them from becoming members of the Legislative Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory, I would think and would hope that this sort of change would be brought in by legislation, or if by ordinance, certainly only with the greatest degree of publicity. It would be a significant change and it would have important consequences in the Australian Capital Territory.

In the Northern Territory the position is as I have indicated, and this Bill is seeking to rectify the situation. As regards the other Territories, I understand that the only Territory in which there is a relevant position is Norfolk Island and in that Territory there is no prohibition upon members of the Commonwealth Public Service from becoming members of the Advisory Council of Norfolk Island. Therefore, it is difficult to see where the type of provision which is being enacted by this Bill for the Northern Territory could have any application in the future unless the law in regard to either the Australian Capital Territory or Norfolk Island is changed. We believe that if the law with regard to the entitlement of members of the Commonwealth Public Service to be eligible to become members of the Legislative Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory or of the Advisory Council of Norfolk Island were changed, then when the change occurs the particular measures comprehended by this Bill could also be brought into the legislative change.

We regard the provision in this Bill which seeks to give a power, by regulation, to make the provisions of this Bill applicable to some undefined Territory in the future as being unwise, and we believe that it ought not to be done in this way. Senator Murphy, when he introduced this Bill, referred to this point in very short terms. He said:

Provision is also made to enable the sections to be applied by regulation to elections for legislative or advisory bodies of other Territories. This will be used as necessary in the future.

I have sought information from those to whom the Attorney-General’s office referred me, and it is very difficult to find any reason for these particular clauses, except that they may have to be used in the future. It is difficult to see when that situation will arise. To put it in another way, if the principle involved is a good principle- the Opposition believes that it is- it is a principle which ought to be changed only with the closest public scrutiny.

If the procedure envisaged in this Bill is to be adopted by regulation, then of course there may well be persons who would rely upon the rights which the regulation gives to them. Those persons would resign from the Public Service anticipating, under the provisions of the regulation, that they would have certain rights if they were unsuccessful. It may be that as a matter of policy this Senate or the House of Representatives might wish to disallow that regulation. But either House would be inhibited from doing so because it would be affecting adversely the rights which had accrued to individuals who had acted upon the faith of the regulation. That would be an inhibition upon the powers of either House of the Parliament, which it is undesirable to express. Likewise, an individual who was apprehensive that either House of the Parliament might disallow a regulation which was passed in order to give him a right might well consider that he should not risk his position by taking advantage of a regulation which could be disallowed.

Those considerations, I think, point to the undesirability of relying upon a provision which is inserted by way of regulation. I recognise that if there had been more time for consideration of the provisions of this Bill the matters which I have raised could have been urged upon the Government, and what I am now putting forward with some explanation could have been worked out in collaboration because it is not the sort of point which appears to me to be a barricades issue on which the Senate firmly and assertively says that a certain position must pertain.

As I understand it, nominations for the forthcoming election for the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly close on Friday, and it is desired that the Bill should pass through this chamber today, go through the House of Representatives and, if possible, receive royal assent on Thursday. Having regard to that knowledge, I can only invite the AttorneyGeneral to consider the matters which I have raised. I trust that at the Committee stage the amendments might be accepted.

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

– in reply- I thank the Opposition for its attitude to this Bill. It is a clear matter of principle that persons in the Public Service and in the defence force ought to be able to stand as candidates in elections. It is because we regard it as a matter of principle that the provision was made in this Bill to cover any change which might be made in future. Let us suppose that somebody were able to introduce a prohibition on these people standing as candidates in elections or that the law were not in the state that it is in now and they could not rejoin the Public Service or the defence force. We thought it proper to include this provision.

For the present purposes it is clearly not essential to have the provision in this Bill, but if the principle is clear we thought that the question ought to be dealt with now rather than perhaps to have a debate on it on some future occasion. Certainly there is no immediate requirement for this provision in either the Australian Capital Territory or Norfolk Island. May I put it back the other way to the learned Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Senator Greenwood)? Parliament, as far as it can, ought to set out the broad principles. If the principle is quite clear, as it seems to be, we ought to state it in the legislation in order to allow for its application if the occasion arises in regard to any other Territory. That is the purpose behind the Bill. Certainly no objection can be raised to the provision. We thought that it would be wiser to include the principle now in order to avoid a legislative discussion on some future occasion. We hope that the situation never arises. Senator Greenwood stated it might not arise, but in any event the principle should be clearly stated in respect of the Northern Territory and any other Territory that might be proscribed if the occasion arises. Whether the provision stays in the Bill or not, the general principle is one upon which we all are agreed. I do not think we need get terribly upset whether the provision extending it to other territories stays in or goes out of the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

– I seek leave to move the amendments which are set out on the sheet which has been circulated to honourable senators. All the amendments purport to achieve one objective, that is the deletion of words and in one case the substitution of words. They would all have the same motivation, the same purpose and the same effect, if they were carried. I should like if I may, to move them in globo.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Marriott:
TASMANIA

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

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I move:

  1. In clauses 4,5, 13, 14 and 15, omit the words: ‘or a prescribed legislative or advisory body for another Territory’.
  2. In clauses 7, 8, 9 and 10 omit the words: ‘or a legislative or advisory body for another Territory prescribed for the purposes of Section 47c of the Public Service Act 1922-1974’.
  3. In clause 12, omit the words: ‘certain other legislative or advisory Bodies’. Substitute the following: ‘the Legislative Assembly for the Northern Territory. ‘
  4. In clauses 1 7 and 1 8, omit the words: ‘or a legislative or advisory body for another Territory prescribed for the purposes of section 7 of the Defence (Parliamentary Candidates) Act 1969-1974’.

The Opposition looked at this closely in the time we had available. As I said, we would have liked to have the opportunity of talking about it but we have not had the time. We welcome the opportunity for the Committee to adopt these amendments. I accept, as the Attorney-General said, the principle with which the Bill is concerned. It is a good principle yet in the case of the Commonwealth Parliament it is something which is prohibited by the Constitution unless the principle is acknowledged. I mention that only to indicate that it is not an unimportant principle. We believe that if there is to be an application of this provision in the future it ought to be done by legislation and not left to be done by regulation. I mentioned earlier in the debate the situation in the Australian Capital Territory and on Norfolk Island simply because they are the only other relevant territories. This provision can have no application either to the Australian Capital Territory or Norfolk Island unless legislation or another ordinance is introduced. If another ordinance were to be introduced it would be a very significant policy matter which is covered by the ordinance. We believe that rather than leave the matter obscure to be dealt with by regulation at some stage in the future the whole question ought to be dealt with at one and the same time by legislation. They are the considerations that we advance. We think it is consistent with the view that the Senate has generally taken in the past to do it this way.

Senator MURPHY:
New South WalesAttorneyGeneral · ALP

– I do not want to delay the Committee. We cannot say that the proposal is an unreasonable one but on the other hand I can say that what we are proposing within the Bill is reasonable. The principle is stated in the Bill. We have made provision for an extension of the principle where necessary by regulation. That regulation would be subject to disallowance by the Parliament. There is also provision for supervising regulations. If I may, I will say something which may dissuade some of those who advocate the Opposition’s proposal. The regulation will not become necessary unless there is some change in the existing position. So there cannot be any fears about the use of the regulation because it is designed only to correct a departure from the principle with which we all agree. If adequate provision is not made it must be conceded that someone may, through inadvertence or by some change in attitude to these things, depart from the principle that we are accepting and by some kind of ordinance in a territory take away the right of public servants or those in the defence forces to stand for election and to be reinstated if they are unsuccessful. If this provision is taken out of the legislation it will mean there will be the possibility of departure from the principle. If it is left in, the only use it will have is to prevent a departure from the principle. On balance it seems to me that it is preferable to leave it in. We are talking about a completely hypothetical situation. No one is envisaging that this situation will arise. No one on this side of the chamber is going to lose any sleep, whatever happens. But we do think that on balance there is a slightly more persuasive argument in favour of leaving the provision in the Bill.

Question put:

That the amendments (Senator Greenwood’s) be agreed to.

The Committee divided. (The Temporary Chairman- Senator Marriott)

AYES: 26

NOES: 26

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 1394

WHEAT INDUSTRY STABILISATION BILL 1974

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 24 September (vide page 1 3 1 3 ), on motion by Senator Wriedt:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator SCOTT:
New South Wales

– It is my duty to speak on behalf of the Opposition to the Wheat Industry Stabilisation Bill, the Wheat Products Export Adjustment Bill and the Wheat Export Charge Bill which I believe are to be considered in a cognate debate. The Wheat Industry Stabilisation Bill is a measure to authorise the Australian Wheat Board to require the making of certain payments in respect of the export of wheat products. The other Bills impose a charge in respect of wheat and wheat products which are exported from Australia.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Davidson)- The suggestion has been made that the 3 Bills be made the subject of a cognate debate.

Senator Wriedt:

– That is acceptable to the Government.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT-Is it the wish of the Senate that we proceed along these lines? There being no objection, that course will be followed.

Senator SCOTT:

-I indicate on behalf of the Opposition that these 3 Bills receive our support without amendment. It is a matter of regret that a delay of some 3 months or more occurred in the presentation of these Bills. The delay could have played a prominent part in preventing the Australian Wheat Board making the August payment of 27c a bushel on the 1973-74 crop. The agreement for the industry is of very great significance. I believe that no industry, and perhaps least of all one of the major primary industries, can exist without some firm measure of stabilisation. This agreement and these Bills contribute to a situation of stabilisation or, perhaps more accurately, define a situation of equalisation covering the next 5 years. The agreements between the various industry bodies and the Government were arrived at after considerable effort. It would be unfair to suggest that they were welcomed with open arms by the industry. I believe that there was compromise from both sides. I find that these agreements and this proposition are certainly acceptable to the industry, the Government and the Opposition. Consequently the industry, the Government and the Opposition support this stabilisation scheme.

The alternative in the negotiations, which were protracted, would have been to return to a situation of virtual chaos in wheat marketing which would have taken us back 40 years. Nobody in this country would have wanted anything to do with that situation. It is pertinent that we consider a number of things concerning an industry as great and as important to the Australian economy as the wheat industry. From time to time the industry and its members come in for a considerable measure of criticism on the grounds that it is the recipient of handouts of public moneys. So I think it is worthwhile and necessary that we look at a few of the features of this most important industry. In terms of its capacity to earn overseas credits and in efficiency this is indeed a great industry. Universally it is considered that the Australian farmer certainly ranks amongst the most efficient farmers in the world, if he is not the most efficient. I think it is worthy of mention that, contrary often to the general conception, the contribution which the Australian wheat growing industry has made to the consumption of wheat and its products in the Australian economy has been significant.

Since the stabilisation scheme was initiated, in general terms the contribution of the wheat industry has been something in excess of $400m more than the amount that the Government has been required to put into the scheme. Under this new scheme the amount to be provided by the Government in keeping a measure of stabilisation will be limited to $80m over a 5-year period. This amount is to be a grant which is repayable, and that is a distinction, and perhaps a measure of disadvantage to the industry itself compared to the previous agreement which did not involve a repayable sum of money.

I believe we should be mindful of the fact that in the buoyant circumstances of the wheat market around the world today the Australian wheat industry will make a contribution to the Australian consumer in this year of something in the vicinity of $ 100m. I merely make these points in order to clarify the situation of this industry, to clarify the situation which suggests that it is an industry which contributes to a non-inflationary circumstance in a country which is involved in a very marked measure of inflation. The grower contribution in this particular 5-year scheme is limited to $30m in any one year and the contribution ceases to be made should the price of wheat fall below $1.50. In the context of these prices- the $1.50 and the first advance for wheat of $1.20-1 believe it is pertinent to make reference to the fact that these moneys are fairly small amounts in comparison with the prices available for wheat, the ultimate payment, even in comparison with the days when the first advance was $1.10. In that period the price of wheat ultimately received by the wheatgrower varied from, again in round figures, $1.25 to $1.35 and the first advance was a gross $1.10. Today at $1.20 first advance the overseas market, the world market price for wheat, is varying somewhere between $2.50 and $3.50. 1 make this reference to draw out or to strengthen the case that there must ultimately, and probably in the near future, be a significant increase in the first advance payable in this industry, a significant increase on 2 counts; because of the inflationary spiral which is affecting the costs in this industry, as in any other industry, and because in the foreseeable future there will be a significant increase in the world price for wheat which must of itself enable a better return to be made to the grower in the first instance.

It is highly important that the wheat industry in this country remain attractive because it is one of those industries in which our natural advantages are quite superb, in which our history as a producer ranks second to none. The price is to be arrived at from year to year by the implementation of a formula which is quite difficult in appearance but which I believe is a necessary and suitable vehicle because it gives a very specific measure for establishing the price for the following year. In reference to the formula to be used I mention that there is an ingredient which concerns the amount of payment to the groweroperator, and I am sure this is an unfair situation, a situation which should be investigated, and I am sure the Minister will indicate later that it will be. As things stand at the moment, the groweroperator is to be established as a cost factor equal to a standard of payment for a leading hand in the industry based on the 1 968 figures, which are now 70 per cent below the present level. Moreover, I believe it is probably unfair that this sort of cost should be related to his contribution for labour only because the significant thing, surely, is that he is far more than an element of labour in the wheat industry, he is an element of considerable management and scientific capacity. No wheat producer in this country, indeed in any country, can exist today unless he has a considerable measure of achievement in the managerial and scientific fields as well as in the capacity for sheer labour.

I referred very briefly to the delay that occurred in the payment of 20c in the August period. This was a particularly severe and sad blow to the industry and to all those people and industries that are dependent- and there are many across the countryside and in the metropolitan areas- on the relative affluence of the wheat industry. The failure to make this payment has been excused on many grounds. I have heard that some of those grounds refer to the extremely rough seas that occurred around the Australian coast, particularly the east coast, in the June- July period, making conditions difficult for shipping. I have heard the problem of fuel and bunkering for overseas wheat ships mentioned. It was an extremely sad blow to the industry that this payment should not be available at a time when the export prices of wheat were so buoyant. Provision could and should have been made for that payment within the capacity of the rural credit section of the Reserve Bank, a section which in the case of the wheat industry was not overstrained at all at that particular time.

I think it is important that not only the members of this Parliament but the people of Australia should understand something of the relative contribution to the cost of bread that the wheat product itself provides. It is fascinating to realise that in the period of less than two and a half years since April 1972 the price of a loaf of bread in Sydney has moved from 23c to 35c; it may move even higher. Of that enormous increase, 55 per cent has been absorbed in the labour content. It is interesting to note that the amount applicable to the wheat consumed in that loaf of bread would, roughly, pay for the slicing and packaging of that loaf. If the farming industry were able to donate all the wheat from which the flour came to bake that loaf, it would still cost the Australian consumer somewhere in the vicinity of 29c or 30c for the loaf. I think it pertinent that we should consider briefly the inroads of inflation on the wheat industry because these are not only significant in the negotiations that have passed but are going to be extremely significant in the negotiations which must come from time to time in the future.

The costs of labour and fuel in the industry have spiralled, as they have in every other industry. Indeed, the industry in recent years, certainly in the last 10 to 20 years, has become quite highly capital intensive and the cost of equipment, machinery, spare parts and maintenance has spiralled in an enormous manner. These things dictate that in any future consideration of this industry there must be a more realistic approach to the cost-price structure. I am sure that the inflation of the present cost structure in this industry makes it essential that a solution is found which will permit the industry to grow because it is an industry which has one of the greatest potentials in the Australian scene. We have an enormous area of country capable of producing wheat and we have the technique and background to produce it. In the longer term it could well be the most significant of our overseas credit earners. It is, perhaps, one of the most significant areas of balance in the rural economy. If Australia’s rural economy is balanced our history shows that there is balance over the entire economy.

The Opposition parties support these Bills in full. I do not want to take too much time of the Senate but in closing I want to refer very briefly once again to the significance of this industry in the Australian scene. It is of enormous significance over a wide area so far as employment is concerned. Its significance is apparent throughout country towns and throughout the organisations which produce the machinery, market the wheat and service the industry. I refer to the people who produce and spread fertilisers and the people in the chemical industry, the freight industry and our railways. All these people to a marked degree are dependent on a strong wheat industry- a wheat industry which is as affluent as the other industries in this country. I support this legislation because, as I said in the first place, it gives us after hard negotiation a real basis for the immediate future of this most important industry.

In closing, I would appreciate an assuranceone which I am sure the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) will be able to give- that there will be adequate security for the grower funds which are held aside from year to year. We do not want to talk of amendments designed to create trusts and so forth but we have a measure of concern about the grower funds contributed to this scheme. I am sure the Minister will be able to satisfy us that these funds will be looked after properly. Mr Acting Deputy President, on behalf of the Opposition I say that we support the 3 Bills now being discussed which refer to the wheat stabilisation scheme.

Senator YOUNG:
South Australia

– The wheat industry is one industry in this country which was prepared in the early post-war years to contribute during good times in order to cover wheat payments and to provide security for it in bad times. We have seen fluctuations in the industry both in regard to price and seasonally but grower contributions and stabilisation have made it one of the more secure industries. This is important because there have been peaks and troughs in the whole of the rural industry sector. It is important that the wheat industry be secure because it is one of our most important rural industries. The wheat industry is a great export earner but it involves a great amount of capital intensity and hence there is a flow-on factor covering many fields , such as the labour component, the manufacturing component and the commercial aspect, through to the export earnings affecting our overseas balance of trade.

Throughout the years there has been criticism that to some extent the ratepayer has heavily subsidised the wheat industry. I have refuted that statement for years. Only in the last couple of years did we reach a very critical situation when governments had to go in fairly heavily to assist the industry. However, I think we must look to the reasons why this was so. We cannot sell wheat if we do not have markets for it. Australia was faced with the peculiar situation of being one country which is very prominent in research. We assisted in carrying out research and we saw a green revolution throughout the world when countries which previously were solely dependent on wheat imports suddenly became nearly self-sufficient. Other countries very much dependent on wheat imports to meet home requirements suddenly became exporters of wheat. This situation, coupled with good seasons in both hemispheres, suddenly saw in Australia a great surplus of wheat. This situation applied to other big producing countries also, such as the United States of America and Canada.

The thing that concerns me at the present time is that there is very little surplus wheat- in fact surpluses are basically non-existent- and if there are more failures in some producing countries this year there could be problems in producing sufficient to meet consumption requirements throughout the world. But situations change very quickly and in two years’ time there again could be great surpluses in all the wheat exporting countries. Hence it has been imperative that we have another wheat stabilisation scheme.

I am particularly pleased that the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt), working in cooperation with the leaders of the wheat industry, has reached agreement on a stabilisation scheme very different to the previous one. It is not an open-ended scheme as was the previous one, but whilst concessions have been made on one side others have been made on the other side. The industry, although perhaps it wanted more out of this stabilisation scheme, has not criticised it. It is pleasing to see that we will be able to continue with a stablisation scheme in an industry which lends itself to peaks and troughs, both in regard to seasonal factors and price factors.

I want to refer to the membership of the Australian Wheat Board. The Minister spelled out very clearly in his second reading speech that membership of the Board will be the same as previously. Over the years the Board has been prepared to go out and find markets as well as to expand old and continuing markets. I think the Board is to be commended for the way it has conducted the affairs of the wheat industry. The Board is recognised and respected by the various consuming and trading countries and I am glad that the same structure will operate. I also hope that the Board will be able to continue its work without too much Government interference. I could refer to the concern last year over a sale of surplus wheat to Egypt but I feel that over the years the Wheat Board, basically acting independently, has been a good marketer of its product and I hope it continues on the same basis.

I want to make one other comment. I refer to a new aspect within the stabilisation scheme on this occasion- the fact that the Board is being given supplementary borrowing powers which will enable it to make earlier progressive payments than it has been able to do in the past. I think that this is a very important aspect. I hope that when this Bill is passed and becomes law the Wheat Board will have the ability to make early payments to the wheat industry. This facility will enable the Board, when it has the backing of credit and assets, to make earlier payments to the wheat industry. I wish to ask one or two questions of the Minister in the Committee stage. The legislation has my full support. I am very pleased that the Government has seen fit to work in cooperation with the industry to give the security of stabilisation to this very important industry of Australia.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– Before dealing with the substance of this legislation I wish to make a couple of brief comments on the previous speeches. I say to Senator Scott that I am extremely gratified, firstly, that the Opposition as a whole is accepting these Bills without amendment, and, secondly, that he recognised quite clearly the distinct advantages which accrue to the wheat industry as a whole through having an organised marketing system, not so much in Australia as for the purposes of selling wheat abroad. Senator Scott recognised implicitly the very dangerous situation into which the wheat industry would degenerate if we were to have 5 separate State marketing authorities competing with each other and cutting each other’s throats to secure markets abroad. It is gratifying to see that Senator Scott recognises this implicitly and that his colleagues in the Senate and the Parliament recognise it. Unfortunately it has not been recognised so clearly by a number of Liberal and Country Party politicians and ex-Country Party politicians in the State in which I live who, during the autumn period when this Bill was being delayed, campaigned quite vigorously and irresponsibly to establish a State wheat marketing athority

Senator Scott raised one other point; the question of the owner-operator’s allowance. I notice that the focus of his complaint centred on the fact that the allowance was fixed at far too low a level. Certainly that is a point upon which opinions could well vary, but it is interesting, and once again gratifying, to note that Senator Scott has at least confined his objections to the owneroperator’s allowance on the ground of the absolute level at which it is fixed and not to the fact that it is fixed per se. His colleague in the House of Representatives, Mr McVeigh, last week stated:

We object to the owner-operator’s allowance being constant.

My comment on that is that there is nothing new about the owner-operator’s allowance being constant. Such a provision was in fact included in the previous Wheat Stabilisation Act which was passed in 1968 by a government of Mr McVeigh’s persuasion.

The other comment which I wish to make on previous speeches concerns Senator Young’s passing reference to Government interference in the Australian Wheat Board’s affairs. I think Senator Young said that he hoped that Government interference would be confined to a minimum. He made an oblique reference to alleged Government interference in Wheat Board affairs last year. I am glad that Senator Young has raised this point because I have some personal knowledge of Government interference in Wheat Board affairs which pre-dates 1 973 and in fact pre-dates the election of the Whitlam Government. I refer in particular to a statement made on the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s program ‘Country Hour’ in Western Australia on 31 October 1973. October 1973 was the month when the alleged interference by the Whitlam Government occurred. Shortly following this, on 31 October 1973 Mr Wolf Boetcher who was at that time a vice-president of the wheat section of the Farmers Union of Western Australia and a member of the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation, when asked whether there was anything new about governments issuing directives to the Wheat Board as to where and under what conditions it would market wheat, ridiculed that suggestion. He stated that in fact quite early in 1 972 a directive had been issued to the Board by the then Liberal-Country Party Government not to trade with the Chilean Government following the election of the Marxist President Allende. I refer Senator Young also to the book by Ronald Anderson which was published in 1971 entitled ‘Crisis on the Land’, in which Anderson makes an admittedly oblique reference to directives handed down in 1969 by the then Deputy Prime Minister, Sir John McEwen, to the Wheat Board to terminate its aggressive marketing policies because they were producing an unfavourable reaction in Washington.

I wish to refer most of all to something of which I have direct personal knowledge. In 1967 a Wheat Board selling mission visited Hong Kong and there met representatives of the Chinese Government. Prior to leaving Australia this selling mission was instructed by the Government of the day to deliver to the Chinese officials a note in which it issued the ultimatum that unless the anti-British rioting, which was then in progress in Hong Kong ceased, the Australian Government would terminate the Australia-China wheat trade. I heard that story directly from a member of the Australian Wheat Board, Mr Horrie Smith at a meeting of the Farmers Union executive in Perth in 1 967, which was shortly after the event took place. In 1972 I made a statutory declaration setting out the events which I have just recounted to the Senate. A short time after making the statutory declaration I approached the ‘Farmers Weekly’, which is the official organ of the Western Australian Farmers Union, to insert a paid advertisementpaid for by me- which included the relevant extracts from that declaration. The ‘Farmers Weekly’ refused to accept the advertisement. I stress that it was an advertisement to be paid for at commercial rates. Although the newspaper was then losing about $25,000 a year, largely because of lost advertising revenue, it refused to accept the advertisement.

Those stories collectively tell us a good deal about government interference in Wheat Board affairs. They also tell us a good deal about the level of objectivity which prevails among Wheat Board members when they made such a hoo-ha, to coin a phrase, last year, because the Government had allegedly interfered in its marketing activities. The Wheat Board not only remained utterly silent when the previous Liberal-Country Party Government had interfered in 1 967 and on previous occasions, but also endorsed implicitly a deception by remaining silent after the events had been exposed and by refusing to accept an advertisement which would make the information available to all wheat growers who were interested.

Senator Young:

- Senator, could you say who were in that mission at that time? Was Mr Smith a member of it?

Senator WALSH:

– I am not sure whether Mr Smith was a member but he was reporting on a Wheat Board meeting which had been held shortly before in Melbourne. I hope that there will be no more hypocrisy about the alleged evils of government interference in the affairs of the Australian Wheat Board, or at least no more hypocrisy from the members of the previous government which practised it.

I have a couple of other comments to make. I wish to deflate a couple of popular myths concerning the balance sheet, if I may call it that, between the Australian wheat industry and the Australian consumer. It is often claimed that the Australian consumer owes an enormous debt to the Australian wheat industry because in the late 1940s and early 1950s wheat was sold on the domestic market at prices considerably below export parity. Because in the last 12 months or so we have been back in that sort of marketing situation, this story has had a revival.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Debate (on motion by Senator Wriedt) ad journed.

page 1399

BUDGET 1974-75

Debate resumed from 17 September (vide page 1 153), on motion by Senator Wriedt:

That the Senate take note of the following papers:

Expenditure-

Particulars of Proposed Expenditure for the Service of the year ending 30 June 1975 Particulars of Proposed Provision for certain Expenditure in respect of the year ending 30 June 1975

Estimates of Receipts and Summary of Estimated Expenditure for the year ending 30 June 1975

Civil Works Program 1974-75

Government Securities on Issue at 30 June 1974

Payments to or for the States and Local Government Authorities 1974-75

Urban and Regional Development 1974-75

Australia’s External Aid 1974-75

National Income and Expenditure 1973-74

National Accounting Estimates of Receipts and Expenditure of Australian Government Authorities

Income Tax Statistics

Taxation Review Committee, Preliminary Report 1 June 1974

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– I speak to the motion moved by Senator Wriedt last Tuesday night that the Senate take note of the Budget Papers. Before I conclude my speech I will be moving an amendment to that motion. This Budget has been labelled by some commentators as a Robin Hood Budget. I am sure Robin Hood would turn in his grave if he was aware that his name had been attached to the Australian Labor Party’s Budget for 1974. This document that we are discussing is not a plan for taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor. It is a document which envisages fleecing both the rich and the poor to enhance this Labor Government’s treasury coffers. The rich will probably be able to weather the assault, but for the poor and the industrious middle income earners the outcome will be very different. It will make a mockery of their savings and erect an almost impenetrable barrier between them and their hard earned comfort and independence.

This 1974 Labor Government Budget is a double-dealing, dishonest, thoroughly disreputable document which, far from trying to face and overcome the two major problems of inflation and unemployment, uses an inflation rate of 20 per cent on which to base its program and dismisses the problems of unemployment by announcing that the unemployed will be used on useful community projects. The Government is deliberately feeding inflation because its Budget depends on it. Without a high inflation rate the Government would not be able to finance its expansive and expensive programs. This Government is prepared to bring the country to its knees merely so it can boast that in 1974 it started this program or that scheme. It does not give a jot for the welfare of the people. Its only concern is how its first Prime Minister in 23 years will be reported in the history books.

Just over 12 months ago this Government brought in its first Budget for 23 years. It was a Budget which precipitated this country’s present financial problems, which set the scene for spiralling inflation and sowed the now rapidly growing seeds of unemployment. This, the Government’s second Budget, ensures that we cannot easily get out of the Labor created financial mire. Tragically, this Budget follows policies that have depressed Australia’s economic confidence, increased inflation and stimulated unemployment. It presents the private sector, of which it is so scornful, with a bill for a vast 32.4 per cent increase in government spending. It expects this tremendous increase in government spending to be financed by a depressed private sector base in which, according to the Treasurer (Mr Crean), there will be little or no productivity increase in the coming year, along with an unemployment level rising at a faster rate than the normal growth of the work force.

This Budget is not a calculation of our economic course in the coming fiscal year, carrying with it a reasoned program based on that calculation. It is a statement of political socialist action which has proudly harnessed inflation itself and which hopes that unemployment will go away if it keeps its head in the sand long enough. The Treasurer has based his Budget on the assumption that inflation can be expected to continue at 20 per cent or a fraction over, that incomes will rise by 22.5 per cent in the year, and gross nonfarm domestic product by around 2 per cent. To base a Budget such as the 1974 Budget on these forecasts is frightening enough, but when one considers how inaccurate Mr Crean ‘s forecasts have been in the past it is quite horrifying. A similar calculation in Mr Crean ‘s 1973 Budget assumed an inflation rate of 10 per cent, but this turned out to be closer to 15 per cent. On this basis the fear of inflation rising to 25 per cent or even more is not beyond the realms of possibility. Mr Crean also underestimated wage rises for 1973-74. With this history of underestimating such important factors it is very difficult to summon any confidence in other estimates and predictions in this Dr Jekyl and My Hyde Budget. I think that is its name, though I thought it might have been Dr Cairns and Mr Crean. However I prefer the literary allusion.

It is equally difficult to believe that Mr Crean ‘s attempt to buy wage restraint from the unions with a few illusory and dishonest so-called tax cuts will be successful. These tax cuts, so the Government would have us and the unions believe, are a major aspect of this Budget. They will, the Government hopes, buy it out of trouble. In fact these tax cuts are a figment of Labor’s distorted imaginings. They are based on a fraud. On Mr Crean ‘s own estimates of the increase in earnings, average wage earners will be paying more in tax than before the Treasurer so righteously reduced taxation. Yet he then has the gall to say that his tax cuts will dampen the roaring demand for higher wages. On one hand he announces moves he claims will dampen claims for wage increases and appeals for wage restraint, while on the other hand he frames a Budget which assumes a 22.5 per cent wage hike. So much for restraint.

It is quite obvious from this Budget that the Government believes that all sectors, excepting the Federal Government, should exercise restraint in all areas of activity. The Federal Government has called on the union for restraint, on the private business sector for restraint, and on the State Premiers and their Governments for restraint; but what has it done in this Budget? It, the Federal Labor Government, has thrown restraint to the 4 winds; it has decided on one last great and glorious spend-up. It is going to go on an inflation spending spree. And while it is out spending its inflationary gains and storing up disaster for the national economy, it moralises to the fictional man earning $70 a week, who has a non-working wife and 2 dependent children, that he will no longer have to pay any tax. A search for this typical worker proved him to be atypical. According to union and employer spokesmen he would have to be under 1 7 years of age, an invalid pensioner, have a job not covered by any award in Australia or work only part time. As one spokesman is reported as saying, if he has a wife and 2 children at 16, he has enough to worry about without tax as well. However, let us take a worker who does exist and let us examine how the Government’s much heralded tax cuts for low income earners will enable personal income tax collection to jump by 46 per cent. At present a man earning $100 a week pays about $ 1 7.35 a week in tax. Under the new scale his tax will fall to $16.15 or 16.2 per cent of his wage. However, if wages rise as the Treasurer expects they will, this same man will be earning $ 120 a week by the end of this financial year. His new tax will be $22.65 a week or 18.9 per cent of his income. So the typical man will see the percentage of his wages going in tax rising from 1 7.35 per cent to 1 8.9 per cent.

That is a simple illustration of how phoney are these so-called tax cuts. Although the Government has granted this man lower taxes, by the end of the financial year he will be paying onesixth of his income in taxation. Will this man believe that the Government’s actions oblige him to exercise wage restraint? Will the Government’s action in imposing a tax on property income, thus reducing the income to be earned from rent, encourage home owners to show restraint when deciding on rental figures? The only area in which restraint can be assured is in investments for the imposition of a capital gains tax which will further reduce the attractiveness of any investment proposal. This is the only measure in the Budget that will achieve restraint, but it will achieve restraint in an area which does not need it. The economic welfare of Australia depends on the health and vitality of the private sector, yet it is this sector which the Government is so determined to undermine and weaken. Having partly succeeded in this project by ensuring business pessimism and a decrease in investment, the Treasurer proclaims proudly:

The expansion in the public sector contained in this Budget is designed to take up the slack emerging in the private sector.

The Government has done all it can to manufacture this slack and is now expecting accolades for taking it up. In its ‘soak the rich to pay for the poor’ dogma which the Australian Labor Party is still hoping will win it back some of the union support it has lost during its 21 months of government, the Government is returning to the premises of the 1 930s. The Party which forms the Government has failed to move with the times. It has failed to realise that the majority of Australian investors are ‘ small ‘ investors.

The books of finance companies alone list up to one million individual holders of debentures and unsecured notes, most of them holding only a few hundred or a few thousand dollars worth. Does the ALP claim that there are one million rich people in this country? The ALP also overlooks the fact that the majority of investors in Australian companies are people with only a few hundred shares- people who are in great need of income, who have bought shares purely because they have offered high dividend yields. The Government has failed to admit that there is a calculated risk in any investment. Even government bonds have declined in capital value by up to 40 per cent in ‘government guaranteed’ investments over the past few years. There is no way for most people to claim losses as a tax deduction if their investment fails. They not only have this risk to worry about but a penalty tax as well. The Government’s attack on so-called ‘unearned income’ will hit many more rank and file union members than wealthy capitalists. It will adversely affect many more pensioners and elderly people on fixed incomes who have saved their earned income during their working life to ensure for themselves a reasonable standard of living during retirement. It will affect them more than it will adversely affect the industrial barons and capitalists in our community.

Now let us take a look at the Budget proposals on estate duty. Mr Crean announced that ‘along lines indicated in the Policy Speech’ interest up to $35,000 in a principal matrimonial home that passes to a surviving spouse will be excluded from the value of the estate. That appears to be a noble gesture. But what Mr Crean failed to spell out is that, on death, assets will be deemed to have been realised before death so that capital gains tax will be added to estate duties. The capital gains tax will be paid not by the surviving spouse, according to Mr Crean, but by the person who is deemed to have died. It will not make much difference to the widow, struggling to make ends meet, who is deemed responsible for the payment of the capital gains tax because, no matter how one looks at it, she will be minus that amount of money. Is this the way the Government looks after women’s interests? Surely it is not to sanction this sort of action that this Government has appointed a special adviser on women’s affairs, or does this Government believe that by donating $2m to International Women’s Year it will silence vocal women’s organisations? I do not think that it will.

Let us take a look at another one of the Budget’s so-called ‘soak the rich’ provisions- the reduction in the educational tax allowance from $400 to $150. The Labor Party may believe that the decision to reduce the taxable education allowance struck a blow at privilege, but the decision hit not only private schooling which the Party hates so much; it also affected the parents of all children who have to wear school uniforms. This Government- the champion of free educationis making it difficult for children to dress decently while they are learning. This Government is so devoted to its cloth capped bare footed boyhood that it wants all children to experience the same type of childhood. The Government’s claim that the average cost of fitting out a school child is $120, like Mr Crean ‘s worker on $70 a week with 3 dependants, defies ordinary imagination. It is quite obvious that Mr Crean has not shopped around for school clothes for an awfully long time.

The cost of fitting out a high school student attending a state high school in New South Wales with a basic summer and winter uniform is, to the nearest dollar, $1 13 for a girl and $173 for a boy. Add to this two extra shirts or blouses, a second summer tunic for a girl, an additional pair of shoes, some extra socks and sports uniforms, and the total goes up to about $191 for a girl and $265 for a boy. Even under our free schools system there are still school fees to cover text books, school materials and other items which vary considerably from school to school. There are school excursions and there are contributions to the parents and citizens associations. I believe that the average parent with a child at a state school would be very lucky to keep his costs for educating his child below a grand total of $30 1 for a girl and $375 for a boy.

What will the Government give them- a $150 deduction. So by its intended attack on the minority of parents with children at private schools this Government has slugged the majority of parents with children at state schools. This Government is making it more and more difficult to keep children at school for their full secondary education. It is making it more and more difficult for students to take advantage of the improvements in education being made possible by the Govenment’s massive injection of funds into education. What is the use of having wonderful new schools, with the latest equipment and a teacher for every 5 pupils if the pupils are not able to continue with their education because of financial problems on the domestic scene?

Another about-face embedded in the Budget concerns the Public Service. The Government has now seen fit to limit the growth of the Federal Public Service full-time staff to a growth of 2.6 per cent in 1974-75. We all remember what the Prime Minister said in May of this year of the Liberal Party’s intention to limit the growth of the Public Service to 3 per cent. The Prime Minister said then:

Yet for the sake of paltry short-term savings, as the price of losing the time and talent of men and women who have agreed to serve their country, judges, academics, State public servants and businessmen our opponents propose to throttle these new activities; they intend to cut off the source of expert and public advice so essential to any planning for the effective, efficient, most humane and least expensive ways of dealing with Australia’s accumulated social and economic problems for the rest of this century.

Apparently, Mr Whitlam has now decided to let the ‘rest of this century’ look after itself and deal with the Public Service situation now. He has decided himself, apparently, to ‘throttle’ new activities and ‘cut off the source of expert and public advice’. Now the Prime Minister has decided himself to make those ‘paltry short-term savings ‘, something he said that we would do.

The Budget also provides for some short-term savings with long-term consequences in the area of defence. We all know the slight regard the Australian Labor Party has for our defence forces. So it was not really a great surprise to find that the smallest increase among the Federal Government’s major commitments went to defence. Although defence expenditure will increase by $ 164.6m, the total allocation is somewhat less than 2.5 per cent in real terms of the gross domestic product and well below the 3.2 to 3.5 per cent of gross national product promised by Mr Whitlam in 1972.

What are some of the other double deals of which this Government is guilty?

Of course there is the onagainoffagainonagain child care program. According to the Budget it is on again. This time the full scale program is to be financed during the first year with an amount of $75m. Originally in the May policy speech, that is before it was off-again in the minibudget, the child care program was to cost $130m in the first year. Of course, that May policy speech provides a wonderful source of contradictions and impossible boasts. It is almost unfair to keep on repeating them, but I cannot resist. Do honourable senators remember Mr Whitlam on inflation? He said:

And these policies are beginning to work- inflation has slowed . . .

Not according to the September Budget. Do honourable senators remember the boast on tariffs:

Administratively we cut tariffs by 25 per cent to reduce the price of imports without damaging Australian industries.

Now Mr Whitlam, his Cabinet, his Caucus and his union supporters are in a bitter in-fight on this matter over who is lying about what.

Then we had the position in relation to the Australian dollar. Mr Whitlam said:

We have twice revalued the Australian dollar reflecting its true status as one of the world ‘s strongest currencies.

Today some 4 months later, Mr Whitlam has devalued that currency by 12 per cent. Further on in his famous speech Mr Whitlam, to the applause of his minions boasted:

We promised to restore full employment. We have restored it.

How does Mr Whitlam feel today? His deliberate credit squeeze has created unemployment. It has created the words unemployment in the decade. Some measure of Mr Whitlam ‘s feelings on the issue can be gauged by the fact that he is leaving the country on Friday to get away from his real problems for a while in order to assume the mantle of the world leader and elder statesman. He is going to let the mess at home muddle on without him.

I pose this thought and suggestion: Perhaps Mr Whitlam, who is serious and avid student of history should delve into the historical knowledge to recall what happened to President Nkrumah and Prime Minister Obote during their trips overseas. Whilst treading the stage of international politics, these 2 leaders lost their governments to their deputies. If Mr Whitlam is not concerned or interested in the plight of his country, one would think he was at least interested in his preservation. I ask him: Is your journey really necessary?

Do honourable senators remember Mr Whitlam ‘s comments in May on leadership? I am sure we will all remember them. Talking about difficult decisions Mr Whitlam propounded:

Such decisions can be taken only by a united government, a united leadership, a united party, a united nation. And our government alone offers such unity, such leadership.

I wonder does anyone in the Labor Party really believe that statement today as its top echelon publicly squabbles over who has lied and about what. Is that the united leadership, the united government, the united party Mr Whitlam was talking about? Mr Whitlam cannot even agree with the Budget papers. He claims the Budget will ‘stimulate employment opportunities and reverse the unemployment trend’. Interestingly enough, those who have the courage and time to read the Budget papers will have noted that statement No. 2 which is attached to the Budget and which deals with the economic context of the Budget says in part:

Over much of the year aggregate demand is expected to be relatively weak and the level of unemployment is expected to increase.

I repeat that statement No. 2 attached to the Budget states:

The level of unemployment is expected to increase.

This Budget, which is based on inflation, which forecasts expected unemployment, the taxation reforms in which are nothing but political fraud deserves condemnation. How a Government can act so irresponsibly after the ‘new deals’ it promised Australians only 4 months ago is inconceivable. The central crisis for Australia today is not with schools, new trains or urban development. The crisis for Australia today is with rising inflation and rising unemployment. On these problems the Budget is at best almost irrelevant, at the worst, if its gamble to woo the unions with its phoney concessions fails, it could be a national disaster. I move:

I commend the amendment to the Senate.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

- Mr Deputy President, we have just heard a rehash of statements which Senator Withers has been making in this chamber ever since I became a member of it. I can well recall the same threats about what the people would do to this Government that he threw out in April of this year when he brought about the double dissolution. But what did the people do? They returned us to office. Tonight Senator Withers levelled most of his criticism at this Government and he referred to 2 facets. I see that he is leaving the chamber because he does not want to hear the answer. Firstly, he referred to inflation and, secondly, he referred to education. What were the words he used just before he concluded his speech? He said: ‘The crisis we are facing today is not education’. Of course it is not education -he admits it- because of the actions of this Government.

Since it came to power in 1972 we have done everything we can to rectify the anomalies which existed and which were compounded over 23 years of Liberal-Country Party government. I will deal with the problem concerning education, as Senator Withers sees it, later in my remarks. But it is worth recounting how Senator Withers contradicted himself. He began his remarks by saying that under this Government education was in trouble, and he referred to what we were doing to the people who had children going to school. Then he concluded his remarks by saying that education was not one of the crisis matters.

He conveniently forgets, as do those honourable senators who sit behind him, that this Government has sought to do something about controlling inflation. When we had a referendum on 8 December of last year and asked the Australian electors to give the Government some jurisdiction over inflation, what did the Opposition do? It mounted a very expensive campaign and influenced the Australian people to vote against the referendum which was designed to give us the power to control prices and wages. I remind the people who are listening to this debate tonight that the Australian Government has power to control prices only in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, but in both of those Territories we do not have any manufacturing industries. So there is no way in which we can control prices.

When we wanted the power to control prices in the States, what did the Opposition do? As I have said, it mounted a campaign to oppose the referendum. If we were to go to the people again now we might get a different result. But I daresay that if we were to seek the power by referendum again we would find that we were faced with the same situation: The Liberal and Country Parties would go out onto the hustings and advocate a no vote again. So what they are saying is pure hypocrisy. They do not mean it; it is just a political ploy.

There is another thing that I want to take Senator Withers up on. In his speech tonight he criticised the Government’s attitude to the Public Service. But he is on record as saying in this chamber not so many months ago that the Canberra public servants were bludgers. That is what he and his Party think, because none of the honourable senators who sit beside him was prepared to stand up and repudiate his statement. That might have been one of the reasons why the Australian Labor Party secured the large vote that it did in the Australian Capital Territory on 1 8 May last. We won the 2 seats in the Australian Capital Territory. Human beings, particularly intelligent people like the public servants in Canberra on whom Senator Withers’ Government had to rely for help for so many years, do not like being ridiculed like that. I think that Senator Withers is stooping pretty low to turn around and call the public servants bludgers.

Senator Withers said that the unemployment position now was the worst it had been in a decade. He has a very short memory because I can remember that in the early 1970s the unemployment numbers were much larger than they are at the present time. I come from a country area, and I can remember the rural recession when Senator Withers’ Government made money available in order to employ farmers cutting weeds and gathering litter on the roads. They have not had to do that under this Government. Why did they have to do it under the previous Government? It was because the previous Government would not go out and seek world markets for our primary produce. We have been criticised because we went out and sought markets. What have we done while we have been in government? We have a good wheat market now. A farmer can grow as much wheat as he wishes. No restriction is placed upon him, requiring him to grow only so much wheat. Such a restriction was placed upon him in the past because the previous Government was not prepared to trade with the people who were in the market for wheat.

When we made the decision to recognise China and to open up that market, what did the members of the Liberal and Country Parties do? They came along and said: ‘Yes, if we are returned to government we will continue to recognise China’. In this Parliament we have heard much criticism of this Government and of its policy of trading with China and Russia. As soon as we became the Government and some overseas trips were arranged, some members of the Liberal and Country Parties were the first in the queue to visit those countries, although they had been so critical of them in the past. If one is invited to functions at the embassies in Australia of both of those countries one sees members of the Liberal and Country Parties there. They are quite happy to go along and accept the hospitality, yet they get up in this chamber day after day and criticise those countries. Because of the number of people in those countries, they are our best potential market for primary products.

This is the second annual Budget of the Whitlam Government and, in keeping with its electoral promises of 1972 and again of May of this year, the Government can be clearly seen to be concerning itself with the problems that require urgent attention. I want to mention some of them with reference to Budget expenditure. Senator Withers has criticised this Government because of the expenditure that has been forecast for this financial year. I refer back to the Budget Speech of Mr Snedden in 1972-73. Under the heading ‘Expenditure ‘ he said:

In total, expenditures are estimated to increase this year by $1,045m or 11.6 per cent to$10,078m.

If we look at the first Budget Speech made by Mr Crean last year we see that he said:

Total Budget outlays are estimated at $12, 168m in 1973-74. This is an increase of $l,938m or 18.9 per cent on actual outlays in 1972-73.

Where was most of that money expended? It was expended in the areas of great need in Australiaeducation, social services, hospitals, roads and so on. Those are areas that had been neglected for a long time. When we look at the Budget Speech for this year we find the following:

Total Budget outlays in 1974-75 are estimated at $ 1 6,274m, an increase over actual outlays in 1973-74 of $3,980m or 32.4 per cent.

We are being criticised by honourable senators opposite because of the massive increase in our Budget expenditure. But they have not been prepared to tell the Australian people where, if they were to become the government, they would cut down on expenditure. Of course, if one looks at their advertisements prior to the last elections one sees that they termed themselves the antisocialist Party. So it is quite natural where they would cut down on expenditure.

The first thing that they would cut down on would be pensions. This would affect the underprivileged in this country. They would bring expenditure on education back to where it was when they were in government. They would not make as much money as we are making available for roads and, goodness knows, that money is needed. This is apparent to anyone who drives around the countryside and sees the deterioration in the roads, particularly in the State of New South Wales which is under the administration of a Liberal Government. One has almost to leave one’s motor car and drive along in a horse and dray in order to get from here to the New South Wales-Victoria border. This is where honourable senators opposite will cut down on expenditure. But they are not prepared to get up and tell the people where they will cut down on expenditure. All that they are prepared to do is to get up and say that we are an extravagant Government. I am happy to stand here tonight and say that I am prepared to go along with our being called an extravagant Government because I know that the money is being channelled into the areas where it is urgently needed. The previous Government grossly neglected these areas in previous years. As I have said, those areas were education, health, social security, housing, and urban and regional development.

I refer now to the amounts of money which were spent on education by the previous Government. In his 1972-73 Budget Speech, Mr Snedden as Treasurer said:

The education of all Australians continues to be a particular concern of the Commonwealth. Direct expenditure by the Commonwealth, including payments to the States for education, is expected to reach $426- up $72m.

That does not say much for what the previous Government was spending on education. If we look at the reference to education in the Budget Speech in 1973-74, which was the first year of the Australian Labor Government, we find that Mr Crean said:

For this Government, education is a top priority- it constitutes the fastest growing component of the Budget. We will provide $843m for education in 1973-74, an increase of $404m or 92 per cent on last year. There will be a further substantial rise in 1974-75 as the programs commencing in 1 974 come fully into effect.

It can be seen that in last year’s Budget we increased expenditure by the exact amount that the previous Government had spent overall on education. Yet Senator Withers had the hide to stand in this place tonight and say that we are penalising the people. The only people he is concerned about are the sons and daughters of the silvertails. I have no compunction in saying that if they can afford to send their children to high class private schools they ought to be prepared to pay. What I am concerned about is to ensure that the children of the underprivileged and the working class in this country get an opportunity to obtain a decent education so that they can compete with the sons and daughters of the silvertails who could not give a damn about the working class.

Let us have a look at the proposed expenditure on education this year as announced last week in the Budget. The Treasurer said:

Education remains one of the Government’s highest priorities.

And so it does. He said:

Last year, Australian Government expenditure on education almost doubled. For 1974-75, total outlays on education are estimated at $ 1,535m, an increase of 78 per cent on 1973-74.

This year there is an increase of over $ 1 , 1 00m on education. Yet we have the Leader of the Opposition standing in this place and criticising this Government because it is to spend this amount of money on education. Why do we have to spend this amount of money? We have to spend it to overcome the neglect in education over the previous 23 years before Labor came into office. The previous administrations allowed schools to run down. They overcrowded class rooms. The country was short of teachers. We have had to catch up this leeway. We have to spend this massive amount of money and we are prepared to do it despite the criticism. Of the amount of money which was allocated last year for education in Victoria, which is run by a Liberal government, a sum of $9m remained unexpended. Yet we are criticised because we are taking something away from the silvertails. As I said, money which we allocated to the Liberal Government in Victoria for expenditure on education could not be spent. But the Opposition has the hide to criticise our education program. I think I have illustrated quite clearly tonight that we are concerned about expenditure on education. The Opposition may quibble because we have cut down the taxation allowance in respect of education expenses from $400 to $ 1 50. It says that this will create hardship for some individuals- the doctors, the dentists and people who live on the North Shore in Sydney, in Toorak and in Burnside in Adelaide. But I have no regrets about this at all. It is something that previous administrations should have been prepared to do many years ago.

Senator Baume:

– What about hardship in Murray Bridge?

Senator McLAREN:

– Hardship in Murray Bridge? There will not be any hardship there because Murray Bridge is a farming community. There are not too many Murray Bridge children who go to private schools. The people there have not been able to send their children to those schools over the years because of the previous Government’s policies affecting primary producers. The previous Government had primary producers down on their knees. I hear that Mr Anthony is going around the countryside today trying to whip up the primary producers to march in the streets in order to demonstrate that they are against the policies of this Government. But he has conveniently forgotten the past. I was an active primary producer when the farmers took to the streets a few years ago. Ten thousand farmers marched in Melbourne. There was a big march in Adelaide and a massive demonstration in front of this Parliament because of the policies of the previous Governments. But honourable senators opposite want to kick those things under the rug and forget about them. Farmers do not forget.

Another field in which we have made massive strides is social services. We have granted increases to pensioners- the forgotten people under the previous Government. The latest increase of $5 in the standard rate pension and $6 in the married rate pension represents a 55 per cent increase in social service payments since this Government came into office less than 2 years ago. I have with me a table which I obtained from the Planning and Research Section of the Department of Social Security. It is very interesting to see in that table the increases which previous governments over the years saw fit to grant to the under-privileged. In 1951 the then Government gave the pensioners an increase of 75c. These figures refer to the month of June each year. In 1952 there was an increase of $1. In 1953 the increase was 75c. In 1954 it was 25c. There was no increase in 1955. There could not have been an election in that year. In 1956 the increase was $1. There was nothing given in 1957. In 1958 the increase was 75c. There was no increase in 1959. In 1960 there was an increase of 75c. In 1961 it was 50c. In 1962 it was 50c. In 1963 there was no increase. In 1964 the increase was $1. In 1965 it was 50c. There was no increase given in 1966. In 1967 it was $1. There was no increase in 1968. In 1969 there was an increase of $1. And in 1970 it was $1 and in 1971 it was also $1. When the Labor Party came into office the first thing we did was to increase the pension by $2.25. The following year we gave pensioners another $3.25. In April this year we gave them $4.50. In July this year we gave them another $5 because we believe these are the pioneers of this country. They are the underprivileged people. They did not have the opportunity to go to private schools about which the Opposition is so concerned. These people, because of the low wage standard and the conditions under which they had to work in pioneering this country, never had the opportunity to salt anything away. These are the people we are concerned about.

I have read out the miserable pittance which the previous governments over the years have given to pensioners. I have already showed you, Mr Deputy President, this table and I now seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard because it contains so much more detail that I would not have time to read in this debate tonight.

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

Senator McLAREN:

– I thank the Senate. There is another matter to which I want to refer. It also concerns something that Senator Withers had to say. He said there is no crisis in urban and regional development. As I said earlier, there is, of course, no crisis today because we have set about rectifying the problems. We are doing something about decentralisation which the Country Party has always been opposed to and for a very simple reason. It is a political reason. The Country Party does not want Labor voters to go out into the country areas because Country Party seats would then become very vulnerable. That is why when the Monarto complex was discussed at a Country Party conference in Murray

Bridge a couple of years ago a resolution was passed stating that it was opposed to the construction of the Monarto complex. The Democratic Labor Party also passed a similar motion at its State conference. The State Leader of the Opposition, Dr Eastick, is on record as having said in his policy speech at Murray Bridge in 1973 that money going into Monarto would be money down an economic sink.

I might be breaching the Standing Orders by mentioning this matter but I will try it. We aU know of the activities that are going on at the present time in South Australia to try to ridicule the State Labor Government over the establishment of the Monarto centre and so much so that some very strong accusations have been made. The State Premier now has a royal commission investigating the charges which have been made by the Assistant Secretary of the DLP in South Australia and backed up, of course, by the Leader of the Liberal Party in South Australia, Dr Eastick. They now have to bring forward and prove the accusations that have been made so that they will stand up before the royal commission. I am quite confident that they will not stand up.

In relation to the Monarto complex a document headed ‘Urban and Regional Development 1974-75’ was tabled with the Budget papers and it was circulated by the Minister for Urban and Regional Development, Mr Tom Uren. In that document he said:

The Australian Government has agreed to assist the initiatives of the South Australian Government in the development of the Monarto growth centre which is located near the town of Murray Bridge, 80 kilometres east of Adelaide.

Some time ago the South Australian Government enacted legislation for the establishment of the Monarto Development Commission and for the acquisition of 15,400 hectares of land within the designated site of the growth centre.

The Australian Government gave a commitment of financial assistance to the South Australian Government for land in the growth centre amounting to $8.5m. Part of this assistance was made available in 1 973-74 together with funds for planning studies, tree planting and the establishment of the Development Commission.

In 1974-75 the Australian Government will provide financial assistance for the growth centre, for the balance of the land acquisition program, the first stage of the design program, and other works.

Clearly it can be seen that despite the criticism and some rumours that Monarto is not a goer the Budget papers prove that it is a goer and that before many years we will see the establishment of Monarto. I am happy to say that in the very near future we may see a similar expo take place in Kings Hall as was seen last week in respect of the Albury-Wodonga display. I have approached the Minister for Urban and Regional Development with a view to putting on a similar expo in respect of Monarto in Kings Hall. I am sure when people have a look at that display they will see that Monarto under the State Labor Government is far more advanced than some of the other growth centres in Australia. I hope that I live to see the day when other governments catch up to us. But we are a long way in front at the present time. I shall now mention something which is of very great concern to me. Over recent months- I mentioned this a little time ago- the Leader of the Australian Country Party (Mr Anthony) has been stomping about the country trying to whip up mass hysteria among primary producers. He has been backed up by certain journalists. I refer particularly to an article which appears in the ‘Australian Wine, Brewing and Spirit Review’ of 19 August. Some weeks ago I sent to the Loxton ‘News’ a copy of a speech which I made in Murray Bridge.

Senator Sim:

– The honourable senator has a cheek.

Senator McLAREN:

– Well, I might have a cheek, but at least I pointed out a few facts about what this Government has been doing to help primary producers. Some very proud person sent me anonymously through the mail a cutting from this journal, but he was not game to sign his name. If I make a statement or write a letter, at least I sign my name. But some person- he must come from Loxton- stated on this article:

See next page ( ref. your Loxton ‘ News ‘ statement).

I shall read from the article because it is not a truthful statement. It is headed:

Grapegrower President’s Views.

In South Australia, the grapegrowers’ president is Mr Allan Preece. He is also the federal president. The article from which I propose to quote is typical of the type of stuff which some journalists and some politicians are peddling about this country today. Mr Preece, when making his speech on some of the problems being faced in the brandy industry at the present time, is reported to have stated:

It reminds me of a remark made by a Government officer who said at a conference in Canberra several months ago: ‘If the fruit and grapegrowers along the Murray can’t make a living, let them go to Adelaide and get on unemployment relief ‘

That report disturbed me for 2 reasons. Firstly, I did not think that Mr Preece, whom I know reasonably well, would make a statement like that. If the report was true, I was very concerned that an officer of any department of any government should make the statement that if any primary producer, whether he be a grapegrower or any other producer, could not make a living he ought to go to Adelaide or to some other capital city and get unemployment relief. So I contacted Mr Preece. He denied that he had made this statement. He was most upset. I finally tracked down the author of the article. It was a Mr Jack Ludbrook of 12 Sprod Avenue, Toorak Gardens, Adelaide. I phoned Mr Ludbrook and asked him for verification of the article. He told me that Mr Preece had made that statement.

So I telephoned Mr Preece again, and told him that Mr Ludbrook had told me that Mr Preece had made this statement. Mr Preece was most upset. He said : ‘Well, I did not make it. But I am very disturbed because this journo has been trying to get this article into some of the daily newspapers. ‘ Apparently the journalist gave it to them, but before they printed it they telephoned Mr Preece for verification of whether he had made the statement. He denied having said that. I believe Mr Preece because, as he said to me, if he has an axe to grind with the Government he will take it straight to the Government. He will not run around peddling something which was supposed to have been said. I was able to track down where this statement was supposed to have been made. It was supposed to have been made at a meeting in Canberra on 23 February this year. Certain officers of various departments were present with the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt), the Deputy Prime Minister, the Premier of South Australia and one of his advisers, together with leading representatives of the wine and grape growing industry. I shall not mention their names, but I have spoken to some of them. None of them can recall having heard that statement. They have all said to me that it could not have been made as far as they were concerned because if it had been made at that meeting they would have heard it as they were there together. The reason I mention this matter tonight is because of the anonymity of the person who sent me the article. Perhaps if that person hears me tonight he may well write to me and we can have a discussion. I might be able to enlighten him on some matters.

Secondly, it disturbs me because a Government officer is now under the suspicion of having said these things. When the Minister for Agriculture reads what I have said and when he reads the article I would like him to make some inquiries to find out whether this statement is true. If it is not true I think that Mr Ludbrook, in all fairness both to the officer and to Mr Preece, ought to have the guts to get up and say that he was mistaken. But this is an example of one of the journalists who puts this stuff around the country. Of course, it is all done for a purpose- to try to discredit this Government.

Senator Missen:

– Is this about the Budget?

Senator McLAREN:

– Of course, Senator Missen, you are only new to this place. I think you would realise that during a Budget debate one can refer to anything at all. I have confined most of my remarks to the Budget. If I had to link this matter with the Budget I could do that because tonight we have been criticised in this chamber -

Senator Poyser:

- Mr Deputy President, I rise to take a point of order. I ask you to advise these new boys of the rules under which speeches in Budget debates are made. Obviously they know nothing about it and yet they interject and pretend to know all. So, Mr Deputy President, I ask you to give them your advice, gained over many years, and tell them that only fools walk in where angels fear to tread.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Webster)- My advice to the Senate is that there is no substance in the point of order.

Senator McLAREN:

-That little break did me good. If I had to do so, I could quite easily de in to the Budget debate the remarks I have made about this article by that journalist. We have been criticised in this chamber tonight and we were criticised in the other place last night because of the policies of this Government and because of what we are supposed to be doing to primary producers. People talk about some of the terrible things we are supposed to do. But none of them ever mention the good things. I will not mention them here tonight because other Bills associated with the Budget will be coming in. We will be able to speak to those Bills, elaborate on these things and point out to the public at large that this Government is not against primary industry. In my State of South Australia we have only to look at the situation of honourable senators from South Australia. Only 2 Federal members from South Australia have an office in the country and, in fact, reside in the country. The only other honourable senator who resides in the country is Senator Laucke. Mr Wallis, who is the honourable member for Grey, has an office in Grey and he lives there. I have an office in Murray Bridge and I live there. But, apart from Senator Laucke, where do all opposition members of this Parliament live? They live in the metropolitan area of Adelaide. They have their offices in King William Street. Yet they have the hide to get up and say that they represent country people. If they represent country people they ought to live with them as I do. I am proud to live in the country. As I have said, when other legislation to deal with the Budget is introduced I shall have more to say. I shall convince honourable senators opposite that in fact this Government is not against primary industry or the country but is very much for them.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Webster)- Order! I call Senator Martin. I advise honourable senators that Senator Martin will be making her maiden speech.

Senator MARTIN:
Queensland

– Thank you, Mr Deputy President. As I rise to speak for the first time in the Senate, I preface my remarks by thanking the President of the Senate and my Senate colleagues for the warm assistance I have received in my short period in the Senate. Also I congratulate other new honourable senators who have already made their maiden speeches. Those who are yet to come, my warmest felicitations and fellow feelings, particularly at this moment.

We are debating a very important document, the Budget, which sets the economic and social climate of this country, certainly for the next year and probably for a much longer time to come. I open my speech by quoting, lamentably, from a speech made by the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) last weekend in which he commented on the Budget. He stated:

I have long held the view that the Budget is not just an economic document but a declaration of the Government ‘s view of the kind of society we want and the kind of people we are. That is what our Budget was about. Nothing we have done has so clearly demonstrated, so clearly symbolised, this Government’s philosophy and concerns, its priorities and aspirations.

I suggest to you, Mr Deputy President and fellow senators, that this Budget is condemned in the words of the Prime Minister.

Three very important reflections can be made on this Budget. It will regulate the life style of Australians in the foreseeable future. It shows the Government’s assessment of the nature of our society. It is a reflection of the political philosophy of this Government. I suggest that, for all the fine words we have heard from the other side, the truth of the Budget lies under its surface. My leader tonight and my leader in the other place last night revealed some of these truths. It is important that these truths be emphasised and brought forward to the Australian people because in the last 20 months we have had many instances of the Australian Labor Party going to the people and claiming many grand and fine things, but underneath it all the truth lurks. This is not what they talk about.

We live in a young country, a country with a very young average age; and we live in a unique country. This Budget will affect Australia’s expectations for some time to come, as it affects them almost immediately. Never in my recollection and never during my participation in politics in Australia- and it has spread over some years now- can I recall such anticipation of a Budget. For weeks beforehand, indeed months beforehand, there was a very keen public debate on what might or might not be in the Budget. Not with any great sense of glee or looking forward but with a sense of foreboding, because Australians sensed that their way of life was threatened, that their expectations were at risk.

We have always prided ourselves in this country, regardless of our actual economic standards as we have progressed, on an independence of spirit within the national and economic framework. In the postwar years we have seen in this country great economic growth in which all citizens have participated. At the same time, the Australian has been a tolerant person who has wanted to see social justice. He has a good strong social conscience, and as our economy has grown, as our nation has grown, so we have been able to give greater effect to our social conscience. We have several standards supposed in the Budget. We have several new aspirations, I believe, in this country now.

In recent times we have seen the enormous growth of our large cities at the expense of the country areas. We have seen the enormous growth of ratio of population in our cities to ratio of population in the country. This has been to some extent inevitable, but I think Australians now aspire to a way of life with a realisation of the benefits of the smaller community. I would like to refer to a section in the Appropriation Bill (No. 1). On page 1338 of Hansard for the House of Representatives of 17 September this statement appears:

The assistance to be provided in 1974-75 carries forward in a very substantial way the Government’s major initiatives to redirect over the longer term the distribution of employment opportunities and hence of population. The growth centres program aims to raise the amenity of urban life by encouraging the rapid development of a small number of regional growth centres to provide viable alternatives to the existing metropolitan centres . . .

This issue of decentralisation and diversion of resources for the purpose of building up these smaller metropolitan centres is one that is very important to me as a senator from Queensland. Queensland has long prided itself on being the most decentralised State of all the States of Australia. We have long prided ourselves on the fact that the proportion of our total population which resides in our capital city is the smallest as compared with capital city population against total State population in all the other States of Australia. But we have learnt some very strong and some very important lessons along the way, and it appears that the people of Queensland and the people of Australia are about to suffer in the same way while this Government learns the same lessons.

It is only 3 years since the drought broke in Queensland. Before that we had a 16-year drought in which our primary industries suffered.

Many struggled on valiantly with government assistance, or without it in some instances. But it is not the issue of the actual primary producer to which I wish to refer. The fact is that when the primary producer suffered, as he did over an extensive period during that extraordinary drought in Queensland, the people in our provincial cities learnt the cost of a depressed rural sector. They learnt that the welfare of those provincial cities, the welfare of the individual, the welfare of the whole State and ultimately, because we are part of the Australian nation, the collective welfare of the Australian nation, are inextricably bound up with the welfare of the rural sector. We are seeing a significant decline throughout the provincial cities in Queensland today in terms of rising umemployment and the expectations of life in those cities.

I note in a Press release put out by the Minister for Labor and Immigration today that a large number of Queensland’s provincial cities are among those listed for special assistance because of their high rates of unemployment. The only notable provincial cities which were not listed were Mount Isa, Rockhampton and Gladstone. All the other provincial cities from Cairns down to the Gold Coast and inland too were listed. There is a lesson in this for the Australian Government, and it would do well to take heed. It would do well to back off from its policy of victimising the rural producer, of trying to stir feeling in the urban centres against those who live in the country. It is totally unjust, and it is a disastrous policy.

I referred earlier to the fact that I believe that Australians believe in social fairness and social justice, that they are basically a tolerant nation, but over the last 20 months, and particularly latterly, we have seen an alarming divisiveness grow in our society. All of us, of all political shades represented in this Parliament, must be alarmed at the growth of militancy throughout the Australian community. We must all deplore it and we must all fear the consequences if it is allowed to get out of hand. But it is not surprising, because this Government has chosen to ignore the fact that we have sections which are interdependent. With our highest ever standard of education in this country, the Government has chosen to play on what it believes to be a great mass ignorance and to play on lower elements in human nature. In talking blithely about the Bentleys and the Mercedes that are owned by some rural producers- a bland smear with no attempt to show the real truth of the income and the standard of living of all rural producers- it has taken the outstanding few and tried to extend the generalisation to all. It has done so in other areas. I would suggest that if the Labor Party would like to introduce a national health scheme it could do it in more palatable ways than by smearing the medical profession and the private enterprise sections of our medical system. Why has it been necessary for doctors to feel that their backs are against the wall? Why has it been necessary to point to the few individuals deserving of criticism who are inevitable in the medical profession and try to tar all within that profession with the same brush? If the Government’s policy on national health is a good one, let it state its merits and let it stand up to public criticism and public debate. Why has it been necessary to use the tag ‘multinationals’ as a way of invoking national fear in the matter of development of certain parts of our industry? Why is it necessary to try to play on this great xenophobia which apparently the Government believes exists in our society to try to turn the tide of public opinion by this version of our economic development and expansion? Why has it been necessary- and I speak very strongly as a Queenslander on this one- to slur the nursing homes? I can think of no area where it is more important that people be motivated to work. If the motivation be one of profit then that is quite an acceptable motive in my book, if the standards of the nursing home are good and if the costs are reasonable. I cannot think of anybody who needs the care of motivated people more than the elderly; I can think of no group for which it is more important that people should wish to work than in that area. I think it would be lamentable if our old people were to be institutionalisedand there is a real threat there. In Queensland at the moment our private nursing homes are virtually under siege from the Federal Government. It refuses to give adequate subsidies; it refuses to give adequate support to the patients. Each week more and more nursing homes are closing down. We have already lost a couple of hundred beds and there are a large number of elderly people wanting access to nursing homes who cannot get it, and it is no wonder. Nobody is going to risk their money in that area when the Government will not allow the sort of financial support which makes it even within the realms of possibility for these homes to exist.

I would like to refer briefly to a statement made in this context by Senator McLaren. In the whole education debate there probably is no section which has been more unjustifiably slurred than that of independent schools. Senator McLaren referred to ‘silvertails’ whom, he said, the Opposition claimed to defend. I reject entirely that claim. He took just a few schools, just a few people, and hoped that would prove something to the public at large. Our independent school system has contributed many great things to the educational system of this country and I hope it continues to do so. The Government apparently lives under the delusion that there is a very large number of very wealthy people in this country and they are the ones who use private facilities. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many parents work very hard and in many cases mothers go to work, so that their children can experience the benefits of the independent school system, not out of any sense of snobbishness or aloofness but because in some cases independent schools can offer something, in terms of their own enterprise that the State systems cannot offer because it does not choose to offer. This is in tune with the statements of the Prime Minister. I quote again from his speech last Saturday:

We have heard the expected outcry from the Opposition, the predictable condemnation from the wealthy, the privileged, the richest private schools, the stockbrokers, the speculators, the vested interests.

Whatever those vested interests may be, I do not know. It is an intriguing phrase but I do not want to dwell on it. I want to draw attention to terms and words like ‘wealthy’, ‘privileged’, ‘richest private schools’ and so on- those terms which are used so blithely and easily and pitted against any criticism of the Government. The facts, of course, are otherwise.

Briefly I must say, as a Queenslander, that while I welcome assistance to Aborigines I cannot think of anything more frightening or more lamentable than the events of the last few days in relation to statements by the Federal Government as to its intentions towards the Queensland Government on the issue of Aborigines. If the Government is sincere, if these great funds that it is providing in the Budget are well intentioned, it should proceed with a little more caution in what is a very vexed area. Perhaps the Government is badly advised. Perhaps the information it receives in this area is insubstantial. But certainly we cannot tolerate the pitting of white against white and black against white in this society. This is a time bomb for this society which we all must dread. Sincere advances we would all welcome.

The Government talks much about its ideals of social justice. Again this was a term that Senator McLaren used a little while ago. There appears to be some difference between socialism and social justice at the moment. The Prime Minister- I again quote from last Saturday’s speech- forecast that the alternatives to the sort of Budget brought in last week were:

  1. . massive unemployment, bankrupt businesses, idle factories, indiscriminate monetary restrictions.

That is a fair description of the economic policies under which this country is currently suffering and will continue to suffer in the near future.

How are the fine words about social justice justified by the imposition of the capital gains tax? We did not hear any details from the Australian Labor Party in the 1972 and 1974 election campaigns about the imposition of its capital gains tax. I believe the Government has struck at a group at which it can ill afford to strike. While it talks about the ‘wealthy’ and the ‘silvertails’ it forgets that many people in Australia, as part of the Australian way of life, aim and hope to hold assets, basic assets. As part of their independent Australian nature they hope to provide for themselves. Few people, if they have control over it, have an ambition to retire on the old age pension. We welcome that the old age pension is there for those who are disadvantaged but most people would prefer to fend for themselves. Yet those who would attempt to do so through the acquisition of assets, those who would attempt to set their goals- the young are very noticeable in this respect- have had a setback. It becomes even more difficult for all individuals in the society to plan and to decide how they will direct their individual destinies- to decide what their destinies may be or could be- and it is even harder for the young, because they are the ones who are subject to such things as moving around the countryside and having to sell assets because of unforeseeable circumstances. These are the individuals who will really suffer under that capital gains tax.

When the Australian Labor Party entered the 1972 and 1974 Federal elections and talked about social justice it did not reveal the hidden realities that the Australian people would have to contribute. It did not say that the Australian people would have to contribute a 95 per cent increase in income tax over the first 2 Budgets introduced by an ALP Government. It did not say that because it knew very well that if it went into an election campaign espousing that sort of policy it would lose. The prospect of vastly increased income tax was one factor which held Labor out of government for so long, yet it has blithely reaped in the extra income tax with no beg-your-pardons to anybody, and certainly with no advance explanation.

Where does this ‘super tax’, this ‘unearned incomes’ tax, fit into the Government’s notion of social justice? How will it apply to those who have tried to provide for themselves, to provide for their independence in their old age, and those who are contributing through the buying of shares to the buying back of the Australian farm? How does it apply to those people? What of those of us- this applies to most Australian people- who have savings bank accounts and building society accounts? Was the Government so badly advised, was it so hooked on its own propaganda, that it believed that the only people earning income from these sources were the silvertails? Where is that massive group of silvertails which holds all those savings bank accounts and building society accounts, that massive group of silvertails which provides rental accommodation for residents in Australia?

Where in the ALP’s speeches was there a proud statement that the Government was going to take its first possible opportunity to transfer resources from the private sector to the public sector? We did not hear a statement like that in the election campaigns. Now we have a bland and blithe statement in the Budget.

There is one resource that this Government is being extremely wasteful of with all its talk about resources strategies and that is the human resource of this country- the individual resources of enterprise, drive, initiative and a wish for independence.

The private enterprise system has served this country well. Do not let it be said or thought for one moment, Mr Deputy President, that I would lay myself open to the easy charge which comes back, on the subject of private enterprise, of laissez faire economics. That went from Australia a long time ago. Those of us who want to see the preservation of the private enterprise system want to see it prosper but prosper in a way which is acceptable to society. We want to see the best of the private enterprise system prosper. It is not in my interest or the interest of my colleagues or of my Party, that the worst individuals that can emerge in the private enterprise system should prosper. But the worst aspects are not just germane to private enterprise. They are human nature aspects and they emerge just as readily through the public sector.

The basis of the drive of our economy in this country- the real drive- is the small businessman, the small entrepreneur, and, of course, the farmer and the professional man. Who are these small businessmen who are going bankrupt in ever increasing numbers at an ever increasing rate- these bankrupt businesses to which the Prime Minister referred? Are they silvertails? Of course not. In most cases the small businessman is a real entrepreneur. Very few of them start in life with any natural advantages in terms of money. Many of them have been tradesmen who have worked hard, and have taken the risk of going into their own business in order to give themselves and their families the opportunity of greater security in the future, and greater opportunity to express their individual talents in thenown way as self-employed people. What is it that is so despicable about being a self-employed person in this society that they have to go to the wall in ever-increasing numbers as is happening at the moment? The strong economic dose that we have in this Budget, as we had in the last Budget, must militate far more strongly against those individuals than it does against the very large enterprises.

What of the farmer, the man who has struggled, the person who has been prepared to battle all sorts of natural odds in his attempt to prosper and to contribute in his own way? I mentioned earlier the particular disabilities that the Queensland farmer suffered until a very few years ago. It appears that the spirit of the farmer is not easily dampened because so many of them hold on. But there is abroad today, affecting the morale of the small businessman and the primary producer, a sense of despondency- a despondency that began well before the Budget and certainly has followed from it. There is a feeling of ‘What have we done? Why is it that we who want to earn an honest living, who are prepared to work very hard for very long hours, must be discriminated against and picked for special economic penalties?’

Finally, we heard a philosophy of the Government in the Budget Speech. There has been much discussion in recent years about public attitude towards government and whether the democratic system is working. Much attention has focused on the attitudes of the vocal sections of youth and their attitudes towards government and, some would claim, their disillusionment with it. I believe that the Australian relishes easy access to government when he feels that he needs it. Certainly the young people of this country must hope for a government system which is made to work better. In our federal system, with our Federal, State and local governments, there is that potential. The imposition of a centralised system of government will not enhance that potential.

Since I have been a member of the Senate I have heard it said many times- I have not attempted to count them- on the other side that we on this side should be reminded that we did not win the 1972 and 1974 Federal elections. I never doubted that we lost the 1972 and 1974 Federal elections. But I think the Federal Labor Government needs to be reminded that the Australian Labor Party did not win the State Government election in Queensland in May 1972. However it attempts to manipulate the figures, it did not get a majority of votes in that State. It did not win the Victorian State election in May 1973. It did not win the New South Wales State election in November 1973. Indeed neither did it win the Western Australian state election in March 1974. A Federal government does have certain rights under the Constitution. It does have the right to take certain initiatives and to operate in certain areas. But it does not have the right through the back door, through the top door or whatever it may be, of usurping the responsibilities and the powers of the governments in those States in which it has not succeeded in gaining power. There has been all manner of intrusion into State responsibilities.

This country which has been proud of the highest rate of home ownership in the world has achieved that through the stimulus of policies at both Federal and State levels. But those States in which home ownership is considered still to be a high priority- the States which I have mentionedare finding, because of their philosophies, that to get Federal funds to carry out their normal programs they are having to consent to a higher and higher proportion of that money being used for rental homes. Recently there was the spectacle in relation to roads grants. The Federal Minister for Transport (Mr Charles Jones) wanted to control every little detail of the rights of every little local authority in what it was attempting to do for its roads. We have heard much talk about increased expenditure to the States- and much double talk with it. We have had a concealment of the division of those funds compared with the previous division. When the State Governments have said that they will not implement Australian Labor Party policies via the instruments of the State Governments, the Federal Government turns and points the finger of scorn and says: ‘That is a State Government which does not care’. I say to those people who are active at all levels of government and are attempting to diversify power and to keep power closer to the individuals of this country: ‘All power’.

Therefore, I have much pleasure in recommending to the Senate the amendment moved by Senator Withers.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

– I begin by congratulating Senator Martin on her maiden speech. For nine or ten weeks she has adorned this chamber- I hope she will understand what I am trying to say- like the Mona Lisa, smiling at everybody and saying little. Tonight she said something. Like the Mona Lisa, if one looks at that picture, it has been a pretty interesting and intellectual contribution to the debate. I congratulate heron that.

It is 8 days since the Treasurer (Mr Crean) introduced the Budget in another place. Since then there has been much speculation about the effects of that Budget. Last night the Leader of the Opposition in the other place (Mr Snedden) and tonight the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Withers) delivered speeches in voices of prophetic gloom which were meant, one suspects, to sound like the statements of statesmen with grave responsibility. They attacked the Budget on many of its smaller points. But no alternative to the strategy adopted by the Budget was really produced. In fact the speech delivered last night by the Leader of the Opposition in the other place could have been delivered by the Leader of the Opposition in any Western democracy which is subject to the same sort of problems as this country’s. It would not matter whether the government of that country was a conservative government or a government of radical change, because what has been attacked in the Australian situation is symptomatic only of a general malaise in the whole world economy.

I am reminded of a story which I was told only last night. A president of an unnamed republic was congratulated on the exchange rate of the currency which the republic had maintained. He was told that his currency had maintained its standard and gone up against the yen, the lire and the dollar. He replied: ‘Yes, but it has gone down against the tomato’. That is symptomatic of the sort of problem which every country with a comparable economy to that of Australia faces. All have incurred problems with inflation, and most of those countries are incurring problems with unemployment. Those 2 problems are the ones which are being most talked about in Western democracies and throughout the world at the moment.

The Budget which was presented last week is an historic budget if only for one reason. It is the first budget which specifically rejects the notion of created unemployment as an instrument of economic policy. I remind the Senate of our history, which people frequently are too ready to forget. For 23 years we lived in a country which was constantly described as a country with a stop-go economy- a country which had recessions in 1961 and 1972, and in both cases unemployment was used deliberately as an economic weapon. In December 1972 this Government inherited an inflationary situation and unemployment. That unemployment was largely created by the Budget which was brought down in 1972 by the present Leader of the Opposition. There can be no doubt about the Labor Government ‘s priorities in relation to unemployment. Politicians sometimes talk about unemployment with a sickening degree of hypocrisy and scarcely concealed glee. Tonight in the Senate one heard the Leader of the Opposition talking about unemployment in much the same way as Walter Bagehot once referred to statisticians’ use of figures. He said that statisticians use figures like a drunkard uses a lamp-post- for support rather than illumination. That is what the Opposition is doing in this Budget debate and has been doing for a number of weeks in talking about unemployment figures. The figures are not only threats, but also are designed to produce a sense of gloom in the community.

I was talking about the 23 years of previous conservative government in this country. Following the end of those 23 years in December 1972 the present Government took 2 steps in relation to economic policy which were universally applauded as being courageous measures which the Liberal-Country Party coalition would not have taken. Firstly, we reduced tariffs and, secondly, we revalued the currency. There are two effects of those policies which could not have been foreseen at that time by any economist or any politician. Those effects briefly were thesefirst that some selective unemployment might have flowed from those decisions, and it can now be seen that it has flowed in part from those decisions. Secondly, the tariff cuts designed to produce price reductions in Australia had little effect on the reduction of prices and the countering of inflation because of the greed of certain retailers and importers in this community who failed to pass on the reduced prices of imported goods to the Australian community.

That illustrates a point which we all have to face up to in considering the Australian economy in 1974, that is, that there are interests in Australian society which have a very great effect on the level of inflation and which have a responsibility, just as the Australian Government is constantly said by the Opposition to have a responsibility. Many of those interests are in the private sector of the economy.

Following those actions of the Government in 1973 in relation to tariffs and revaluation, we had in 1974 the May election which was brought about by the refusal of supply to the elected government. I make only one comment about that and simply refer to the scenario, if I may use that expression, leading up to the present Budget. By using the refusal of” supply as an expedient political instrument, the Opposition in this Senate for the first time in Australia’s history did more to undermine confidence in Australian democratic institutions than the present level of inflation or unemployment in. this community could possibly do because it is impossible for a government, with an Opposition prepared to stoop to those methods in the Senate, to carry out long term policies and at the same time consider its own electoral interest as any political Party in office has to do. So that is the situation leading up to the present Budget debate.

What is the Opposition’s role in the Budget debate? In this morning’s Melbourne ‘Age’ the economics writer, Mr Davidson, made this comment: . . even though Mr Snedden has been constantly talking about the economy since the May election, he so far has displayed little evidence that he has the intellectual and political toughness to take the decisions which the deteriorating situation demands.

If one studies the comments of economic commentators generally the consensus of opinion about the Opposition’s role in the Budget debate is that there is a massive verdict of ‘no answer from the Opposition’ to the problems which beset Australia at this time. When one hears of proposals for cuts in Government expenditure but no suggestion as to where those cuts might be made, and when one hears nit picking criticisms of certain measures the Government has taken in the Budget, it can be seen that all these criticisms amount to nothing more than that.

There is no production of an alternative solution to the present problems of inflation and unemployment. There has been a continual call by the Opposition for some sort of package to deal with the entire economic ills of Australia at this time- a package which no other country has discovered and which, if the Labor Government were to produce it, would be opened by the Opposition with a gleeful innocence of children delving into a show bag searching for something to criticise. As the distinguished Melbourne political commentator, Mr John Curtain, said, packaging is in in terms of discussing the economy and discussing any matters which are the concern of government. But the Budget is not a universal package or a panacea for the economic ills which beset any country, particularly this country at the moment.

The Budget is concerned with the Government’s expenditure and with the Government’s priorities. Our priorities as a government are quite clear. There are a large number of steps which can be taken to deal with inflation and with unemployment but they are not necessarily matters for inclusion in the Budget. As I said earlier our priorities arise from 23 years of neglect of a large section of the community by a laissez-faire government. Our priorities are in areas such as education where we are concerned with the long term needs of the majority of Australian children. Nobody seriously suggests that there is anything wrong with that. Sometimes it is suggested that in being concerned with the needs of a majority of Australian children we determine this nation’s capacity and wealth in the generations to come and how we keep up with the technological changes which are taking place in the world.

In considering the needs of a majority of children it is sometimes suggested that we neglect the private schools. True it is that we consider that children in government schools have a greater educational priority than children in private schools, but since this Government came to office it has made $23i4m available to private schools for building programs. The Government program now provides for a further $30m for non-government schools from January 1974 to 31 December 1975 for building programs. We have not ignored the interests of private schools; we have emphasised our priority, which is to the public sector of education. Our other priorities have been clearly spelled out. They include child care, our concern to protect the interests of pensioners in the community, and the development of cities and facilities and better conditions in cities. All these matters have to go ahead in our community if people in 10 years time are to be able to look back and say: ‘Well, because of its activity in the last decade Australia has kept up with the rest of the world’. All these activities have to go ahead in the interests of the bulk of the Australian community and of the future of this nation.

When the Opposition talks about a package in the Budget it must be remembered that the Budget cannot be seen in isolation from other economic policies designed to cope with inflation and unemployment. As Mr A. C. Goode, a distinguished Melbourne sharebroker, said to the Melbourne Chamber of Commerce on Monday of this week, devaluation is the quickest and most effective way of combating inflation and easing unemployment. The devaluation decision of the Government was not announced in the

Budget; it was announced last night. In giving that address to the Melbourne Chamber of Commerce, Mr Goode also referred to a number of strategies which the Government might adopt in the foreseeable future. He referred to the curtailment of imports, the adjustment of exchange rates which I have referred to, releases from statutory reserve deposits and further cuts in personal tax as the year progresses. These are not necessarily matters to be included in a much vaunted package. These are options which are open to the Government and all within the realms of possibility in the Government’s future economic strategy.

What we must be concerned to do it to encourage an atmosphere of confidence in the community, an atmosphere which perhaps has been engendered a little already in the last 24 hours by the devaluation decision. It is of no good joining the gloomy prophets who talk with concealed glee about unemployment levels and industrial unrest but who in this chamber yesterday voted against a Bill of the Government which might have substatially reduced industrial unrest in this community and who indulge in what one might, I think, quite honestly describe as stimulated gloom. Obviously what we have to do is try to encourage the private sector particularly away from that atmosphere of stimulated gloom.

In the ‘National Times’ of last weekend Mr Fred Miller, who is described as a director of the largest number of companies in Australia, is reported to have said that the Government’s attitude could be expressed in terms of: ‘We’re in, whacko. Let’s look after our people’. Of course, that may be so. That may be a valid comment to make. It may be a good criticism. But, as I said earlier, for 23 years we were not in and the needs of our people- and their economic needs in particularwere not looked after. Those 23 years were marked by an utter lack of liaison between the private sector of the economy, the business community, and both the Liberal Party of the time and the Labor Party, particularly in the latter years before this present Government assumed office. I say quite frankly, as a member of the Goverment Party, that I think it is important that the Government encourage greater dialogue with the private sector of the economy. But I do not think we can be blamed entirely for the lack of dialogue which has been apparent. Sir Peter Abeles, the Managing Director of Thomas Nationwide Transport Ltd, is reported in the National Times’ of last weekend as saying: ‘the initiative for a dialogue between men of good faith has to come from our side, from the employers’ side. Without elaborating on it, that is a responsible view of a responsible businessman. He recognises that our economic problems at the moment cannot be cured merely by pointing a gloomy finger in the direction of the Government. They must be cured by an approach of men of goodwill in all sections of industry, in the unions, in the Government and, one would hope, in the Opposition. But from the Opposition we hear only a myopic political view.

The Opposition refuses to analyse seriously the overall economic strategy of the Government, and instead concentrates on relatively minor matters which the Opposition would like to think are part of the package which the Budget is supposed to be. In dealing with the question of inflation I think it is obvious to every serious commentator that there must be restraint by all sections of the community in Australia- the sort of restraint to which Sir Peter Abeles refers in that article, the sort of restraint which was not displayed by retailers and importers who took advantage of the tariff cuts of 1972 to say, in the terms that I quoted before: ‘Whacko, let’s look after ourselves’. There must be restraint, of course, in the industrial relations scene in Australia also. I notice that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Snedden) suggested again that this could be achieved by some sort of national conference. For many years this has been the Liberals’ universal panacea for any problem for which they have no real answer. They say: ‘Let us appoint a committee of inquiry and, when we get a report, put it away’.

Senator Durack:

– How many commissions have you set up?

Senator BUTTON:

-Every report of a commission established under this Labor Government has been published and discussed. You cannot say that seriously of the Vernon report or the report on constitutional review, which were pigeonholed in your term of office and on which dust was allowed to settle. It is true that many reports that were commissioned by the previous Government were put away and never acted upon. Nothing has happened as a result of the various inquiries that have taken place. Once again the Leader of the Opposition suggests a conference between employers and unions as a solution to all national economic problems. I do not know whether he still seriously thinks that he is capable of indulging in a more rational dialogue with the unions than anybody else, and particularly the present Government.

Senator Baume:

– He could not do worse.

Senator BUTTON:

-I do not know whether he seriously believes that. I think that he probably could do worse. I think that he could do a lot worse. Indeed, the conference which took place yesterday in Sydney seems to indicate that Mr Snedden could do a lot worse and that the Government has done quite well. Time alone will tell.

Senator Jessop:

– The record does not show that.

Senator BUTTON:

– If you are talking about the number of industrial disputes which have taken place in Australia this year, it is true that there have been a large number.

Senator Jessop:

– A record. You hold the record. You are the greatest.

Senator BUTTON:

- Senator Jessop makes these gleeful comments. He is gleeful about industrial unrest. He is gleeful about unemployment because he thinks he can make some little nit-picking political point out of it. The fact is that industrial unrest in this country might have been considerably lessened if yesterday Senator Jessop had been prepared to get out of his stone age mentality on industrial relations and realise that a lot of industrial unrest is due to demarcation disputes and that there is a need for amalgamation of unions, as every serious commentator on industrial relations says. It is that sort of glee about these things in our community, coupled with the sort of criticism which is made and this action by so-called responsible senators when a serious debate takes place, as it did yesterday, that leads to the present malaise in which we find ourselves. That is not the sort of attitude I am talking about when I quote from people like Sir Peter Abeles and Mr Goode, who are responsible business leaders in this country, about the needs in this community for restraint and cooperation on all sides. We might be able to get it in the community but we certainly do not get it in the Senate.

I said that the suggestion of a conference on industrial relations was something which was regarded by Mr Snedden as a universal panacea. But it is not a very new suggestion, it is not a very sound suggestion in the circumstances and it is typical of the sort of suggestion which was present throughout the speech of the Leader of the Opposition and which was subject to much criticism in the Press. In conclusion, in making the point about a need for dialogue in our community, about the need for restraint in all sections of the community and about the need for encouragement of confidence rather than prophesies of gloom, may I quote again from Mr Good speaking in his address to the Melbourne Chamber of Commerce. He said:

I am fundamentally an optimist and I believe in the political awareness and good sense of the Australian Goverment.

He said that the Budget alone did not fulfil all his desires in relation to the economy but that the Budget accompanied by devaluation would be a package which would go a long way to solving the economic management difficulties which we have incurred. As a member of the Government I share the view of Mr Goode about the fundamental political awareness and good sense of the Australian Government. That awareness and good sense can perhaps be facilitated in its effectiveness by constructive comments from Opposition senators, but not by the sort of criticism of isolated issues in the Budget which we have heard in the debate so far.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator McAuliffe)- Before calling Senator Chaney, who will be making his maiden speech, I appeal to honourable senators to extend to him the usual courtesies that are extended to a senator when he is delivering his maiden speech.

Senator CHANEY:
Western Australia

– I rise with some trepidation to clamber over the hurdle that was effortlessly soared by Senator Martin less than half an hour ago. I join with Senator Button in paying tribute to her contribution but I differ from him in not being surprised. I had on an earlier occasion heard the tongue behind the pretty face. That was in Queensland. I expected that her contribution to this debate would be the sort of contribution that it was. I know that it is but the first of many such contributions.

For me, this is a long awaited opportunity. For many years as a schoolboy and as a student I came to this place with my father who was the member for Perth from 1955 to 1969. During those years I developed a respect and an affection for the institution of Parliament. I also developed an affection and respect for the practice of politics. For that, I thank my father and his colleagues at that time who taught me that politics could be an honourable profession, something that I think is not known to the general populace. At the time I was more conscious of the virtues of the other place than of this chamber, although I remember the late Sir Shane Paltridge proselytising me about the virtues of the Senate. I would say in thanking honourable senators, the President of the Senate and the officers of the Senate who have taught me a great deal in the last few months, that they have demonstrated to me the validity of the late Sir Shane Paltridge ‘s arguments.

I would say also to honourable senators that at the same time as I developed a respect and affection for Parliament, I developed the same feeling for the principles of liberalism. In particular I came to believe that good communities are based on the strivings of free individuals and not just on good programs.

In my view, it is not a particularly easy time to enter Parliament. I recall the 1950s and 1960s as being decades of relative certainty about our national direction and future. Critics, of whom there were many, including me from time to time, complained that we moved too slowly on matters of real community concern. But there was seemingly boundless optimism about Australia’s future. The present pessimism and gloom are very different. The bright promise of Labor in 1972 is dead, and it died very early. It was briefly revived under the campaign conditions in May 1974. I regret to say that it has died again. Labor benefited in 1972 and again in 1974 from what we Liberals had become by the end of our 23 years when it seemed we had no ability to transmit our ideals to the public. We have still to learn to use the right rhetoric for the 70s, the words that will inspire people. Perhaps we will not ever learn to use that rhetoric. I hope that the people of Australia are becoming suspicious of rhetoric and clever debating, and that in the next election there will be a more realistic assessment of what is being offered to the Australian people.

Mr Acting Deputy President, in a number of respects I am disturbed at the direction this country is taking. The Budget represents a firm step in a direction about which I am concerned and so I am pleased to open my parliamentary innings with an opportunity to speak on it.

In one particular respect, I approve of the Budget. It represents what the Government promised the people of Australia and what the people of Australia narrowly voted for. At election time, we, the Opposition, campaigned on the need for Government restraint. We made it clear that we would not expand Government spending in the way the present Budget does expand Government spending. The Government promised a vastly expanded program of expenditure on what might be called the areas of social concern- health, education and so on. In this Budget it has met its commitments. The narrow majority of electors who voted for Labor can now see what they voted for.

Unfortunately, the Budget must result in inflation and, in the ultimate, the dishonouring of Labor’s promises. This is so for a number of reasons, not the least because the Government has not made it clear to the people that the increases in social expenditure the Government wants are increases that go beyond merely utilising growth in productivity and hence real wealth in the community. They go beyond merely using up unused resources of labour and material. The Government is, in fact, diverting resources into these fields of social concern. There are statements by Government Ministers and by supporters of the Government which make it clear that a diversion of resources is contemplated. But I suggest that the implications of this are not understood or accepted by the people, nor are they understood by that section of the people we call the trade union movement.

Everyone in Australia from the worker to the chairman of the board has to understand that what the Government really intends is that the individual is to have less freedom of choice on how he or she spends his or her income. The choice is being made more and more by the Government. More of that income will be taken and devoted to spending on education, health, Aborigines and so on. It is a corollary that less of the income can be available for expenditure on other items of personal consumption. The steady improvements that individuals have come to expect in their living standards have to be looked for in such things as better schools and hospitals rather than more cash in the pocket. Unless the community accepts those facts it will be living in a world of make-believe. In that make-believe world the individuals will try to keep up their standards of personal consumption and the unions will continue to chase the higher wages that will succeed in giving to their members the standard of living to which they aspire. If people think they can get increased Government services without forgoing other consumption, rampant inflation is a certainty.

The Government has shown the courage of only half of its convictions. It has put forward the social policy in which it believes. It has not had the courage to admit that its program requires more taxation- not less. Its token tax cuts have been made in the knowledge that inflation will cause higher rates of tax to prevail. The Budget depends on continued inflation to cover its imbalance. Under this Budget, more taxation will be paid- not less. Of course, it does contain a soak-the-rich element with its capital gains tax and property income tax surcharge. These new taxes represent a more honest approach than what has been done by the Government in its use of inflation.

But there are 2 preliminary points to be noted with respect to these taxes. Firstly, one cannot finance big government merely by taking from the rich. In this country, the great bulk of income earners have a taxable income of less than $6,000 a year. If honourable senators look at the figures for the last financial year, they will see that approximately 85 per cent of the population earned $6,000 or less. When we get up into the league of the Ministers who sit opposite- the $20,000 a year and up men- we are dealing with a category that contains less than half of 1 per cent of the population. So there are simply too few rich to pay for the many. Secondly, if we remove the incentives to invest and profit, we will destroy the foundation of the growing economy that can finance the sort of social program the electorate so clearly wants. These higher taxation aspects of the Budget are self defeating and will give rise to great problems for the Government. The greatest of these problems will be growing unemployment which is chiefly the result of a complete lack of confidence in the private sector. The recently reported figures showing unemployment growing at 1,000 a day are a tragic reminder to the Government of the direction in which it is pushing the economy. I remind the Senate of Bill Snedden ‘s caution before the May election and his refusal to promise increases in social programs until inflation was brought under control. That caution was not the caution of a mean mind or spirit. It was the caution of a realist.

There will be many speakers on the specific proposals that are contained in the Budget. What I would like to refer to is a particular problem which I see as having serious implications for the country in the long term, just as serious as the inflation about which everybody is so concerned at the moment. I refer to the acceleration of the Commonwealth takeover of State functions, to the growing power of central bureaucracy and to the destruction of local initiative in so many fields. The process of growth of central power is well known. It was documented by Sir Robert Menzies in his lectures at the University of Virginia and published as ‘Central Power in the Australian Commonwealth’. But what was a drift has become a flood. The acceleration of the process is most simply demonstrated by an analysis of the changes in payments to the States over the 3 financial years up to the present.

I refer honourable senators to Budget paper No. 7, page 5, table 1. It sets out the payments to or for the States and State Government Loan Council programs from 1972-73 to 1974-75. 1 direct the attention of honourable senators to the fact that in the area of general revenue assistance and in the area of general purpose capital funds there is a pattern of slow increase in the payments made to the States. But in the area of the section 96 grants, the area in which the Commonwealth basically controls what the States do with the money, we find that there is a massive increase in the payments made to the States. I refer to just a few of the figures given in that table. In the field of general revenue assistance, there has been an increase in funds provided from $ 1,700.9m to $2,375.9m over the 3-year period. When we turn to the specific purpose payments, the section 96 payments, we see an increase from $389m to $ 1,078m, an increase in the first instance of about 30 per cent and in the second instance of more than 250 per cent. The anomaly is even greater in the field of loans or capital funds. We find there an increase of only 5 per cent in the amount going to the States where the States have control of what is done with the money. In the funds made available under section 96 we find an increase of more like 300 per cent. This pattern has serious implications for Australia.

I am opposed to the drift which is occurring, and I believe that most Western Australians are opposed to it. It is not fashionable at the moment to come out as a defender of the Federal system. People who regard themselves as politically progressive tend to label those who seek to defend the continued existence of the States and their independent power and authority as conservatives trying to turn back to the nineteenth century. In fact, I think history will show that those who are seeking to maintain the Federal system and the decentralised power structure that we have are the progressives. In the long term the threat to freedom in Australia is much greater if a centralised bureaucracy is established having control of all facets of government than if the principle is followed- it was the principle to which Senator Martin referred in her speechthat power should rest as nearly as possible with the people who are directly affected by the decisions that are being made by government.

There have been many examples in the short life of this Parliament of legislation which is based on the premise that the central government knows best and that because rather similar problems occur all round Australia these problems can best be dealt with at a national level. The urban roads Bill and the rest of the roads legislation are classic examples of taking to the centre decisions which could just as easily be left to people who have to live with the decisions.

There is of course a philosophic difference dividing us from the Government in this area. I recall Senator Button, in his maiden speech, referring to the difference between us. He referred to his puzzlement at the argument put forward by people that the Constitution provided a framework for government which was a bulwark for the freedom of the individual. I think the question raised by Senator Button, which is reported at page 50 of the Senate Hansard of 10 July last, points up the fundamental difference between Opposition senators and Government senators. It is one of those areas where attitudes seem to count for more than argument.

In my view, it is self evident that the centralised bureaucracy must, if not initially, in time become unresponsive to the grass roots desires of the people. It ought to be a fundamental principle of administration- to repeat myself- that as far as possible the persons making the decisions have to face the people affected by the decisions. It is perhaps worth noting that 2 members of the Public Service here in Canberra who have had the fortunate experience of working in some of the more far-flung colonies of the Canberra complex drew to my attention the personal difference there was for them when they were out and had to face the people who were affected by their decision making. I believe that this is a simple fact and one of which we ought to be conscious at all times.

Honourable senators opposite who cannot see the dangers inherent in centralised government in a country as large as Australia might usefully study the conclusions of their British counterparts which were published last week in a White Paper entitled ‘Democracy and Devolution Proposals for Scotland and Wales’. In that small island of Great Britain we find the Labour Government proposing regional legislaturesnot just administrative bodies, but legislatures that will ‘foster democratic control over the increasingly complex processes of modern government’. I do not have time to quote extensively from the report, but I commend it to honourable senators. I refer only to the conclusion. In paragraph 37, on page 10, it states:

In its approach to devolution the Government is concerned to foster democratic control over the increasingly complex processes of modem government and to bring government closer to the people. The people and their representatives must have a full share in the decision-making process. This is the main objective- to make a reality of the principle of democratic accountability. The Government has now decided in principle the way in which this should be accomplished in Scotland and Wales.

The first part of paragraph 38 states:

The Government intends to legislate for the establishment of Scottish and Welsh assemblies as soon as possible.

So England moves to decentralise legislative and administrative power as this inexperienced if idealistic Government tries to pull everything to the centre.

An interesting example will be the Government’s program on child care to which reference has already been made in this debate this evening- the child care program that appears, disappears and appears again. The Social Welfare Commission, at the direction of this Government, produced a report which basically recommended a program which is consistent with the principles that I have put forward. That program envisaged the child care scheme being run by local authorities as bodies which were closest to the people and hence capable of meeting the diversity of needs that exist in that area. But we find that very quickly the Government’s Priorities Review Staff steps in and says: ‘Caution hold’. The Priorities Review Staff argues against local control- another example, in my view, of not trusting those stupid people out there with their own destinies. It will be interesting to see who wins that little argument when the child care program is introduced shortly.

I have said that there are philosophic differences between the Government and the Opposition on this point. But it is not just philosophy to me. As one who has recently come to Canberra from the very edge of the continent, I am continually depressed by the remoteness of this place. It seems to be quite unrepresentative of Australia. People are more affluent here than in the rest of Australia. Canberra does not have the problems that are suffered by the rest of Australia. It obtains its affluence and freedom from problems on the back of the rest of Australia. I regard it as a most unfortunate environment for our Public Service. It is too late now to undo what has been done, but I think that the only solution lies in making Canberra a more representative city by making it a city of industry as well as a city of government. The public servant of Canberra should live with the problems that are invariably brought to a city by those industries which produce the physical needs of the community.

I return to the problem of who has the right answers for Australia. The fact of the matter is that if you want quality of life you have to start at the ground and work up; you do not start up in the clouds and work down. That, I think, is the tendency of the present Government. I believe that this bureaucracy in Canberra, which is so remote from the rest of Australia in its daily experience, and this inexperienced Government complement each other in devising schemes which are composed of dreams at the top and very little acceptance at the bottom. From the complaints I have heard about the administration of the Australian assistance plan in Western Australia it may well be our next great example of an apparently good idea suffocating in a bureaucratic noose.

In making a plea for decentralised government I would not want to put across the idea that Western Australians are bad Australians, but the fact of the matter is that there is a vast physical distance between Western Australia and the rest of the States of Australia which it lumps together under the title ‘the eastern States’. This physical barrier is matched by a psychological barrier and a strong belief in Western Australia that the people of the eastern States do not fully understand our problems. It is matched by an economy which differs from that of the eastern States. It is in this context that the people in my Party who selected me and the people who elected me in Western Australia would expect me to make judgments on matters which affect Western Australia and to exercise the power which has been vested in me as a member of the Senate. In saying this I am in no way suggesting that one can look at issues other than in an Australian context. It cannot, however, be in the interests of Australia that the western third should feel neglected and uncared for. I draw to the attention of the Senate the fact that in the recent Senate election there were secession candidates in Western Australia. I was grateful that they received only about 1.1 per cent of the vote, but I would caution the Senate against accepting that vote as a measure of the feeling in Western Australia about the desirability of the State managing its own affairs.

A great deal of legislation which comes before this chamber significantly reduces the freedom of action of the States. The roads legislation which we recently dealt with is a good example, and the amendments which were put forward by the Opposition and ultimately accepted by the Government were amendments which were consistent with the principles that I have already mentioned. The Opposition is not always as successful, and indeed there is a great deal that the Opposition cannot do to protect the States. The States also have a responsiblity in preserving their own position, and perhaps their responsibility is the greatest. It is not possible for the Senate to do much about a Bill like the States Grants (Urban Public Transport) Bill when the agreement approved by the Bill is signed by each of the State Premiers. Too often the history of CommonwealthState relations shows the States retreating without a fight, the retreat often sweetened by a few extra million dollars from the Commonwealth. The strong stand by the States on the road Bills made our action in the Senate practicable. The States are to be commended for the recognition of their own interests in that instance. They are also to be commended for their attempt on 10 July last to work out a common approach to the Commonwealth both with respect to inflation and financial relations. Unless State governments realise that whatever their political colours they have common interests and unless they make common cause I doubt whether they can survive. July 10 was in that sense historic. It will have been pointless if it turns out to be a unique occasion. In addition to the responsibilities of this chamber and the States, the Australian Government has great responsibility in this area.

I remind the Senate of an answer which was given to me some time ago in reply to a question about the transfer of responsibility for State railways to the Commonwealth. I wanted to know what adjustments would be made to general purpose and specific purpose grants to any State which transferred responsibility for its railway system to the Australian Government. The reply from the Prime Minister was that the matter was under active consideration. I refer honourable senators to the Budget papers because whether or not there is to be active consideration the answer is, in fact, contained in Budget Paper No. 7 at page 13 under the heading ‘Adjustments to General Purpose Funds to Offset Financial Effects of Shifts in Responsibilities Between Australian and State Governments’. In his speech at the June 1973 Premiers Conference the Prime Minister said:

Where the national government undertakes new or additional commitments which relieve the States or their authorities of the need to allocate funds for expenditures at present being carried by them, there should be adjustments in the financial arrangements between us to take account of the shift of new financial responsibilities.

I draw the attention of honourable senators to the rest of that quotation. It makes it quite clear that in this takeover of State responsibilities we may well see a continuing squeeze on the financial resources of the States, not an easing of them as might have been expected. I believe that the Government has made it clear to the States that it will squeeze them until they are squeezed out of existence.

The answer also is instructive in another sense because it referred to a letter written by the Prime Minister to the Premier of Western Australia in response to a request from that Premier for assistance to build a railroad from Eneabba to Geraldton. I will paraphrase the answer given by the Prime Minister. The answer simply says that until the State was prepared to re-open negotiations for the transfer of responsibility for State railways to the Commonwealth the Commonwealth was not prepared to talk about the possibility of providing any financial assistance for that railroad. In my view that is an odious way for the Government of the Commonwealth to behave. It is certainly a long way from the sort of co-operative federalism that I and my Party believe in. This sort of government will and ought to be resisted by this Senate. I shall certainly exercise my vote to resist it.

Even if the Government had governed well over the last 2 years its commitment to expansion of Canberra control would have caused strong reaction, particularly in Western Australia and Queensland for reasons which I hope by now are apparent. When that expansion of government control is coupled with gross mismanagement of the economy the reaction had to be even greater. What these 2 factors coming together have done is to hold out the promise to the few extremists of the Left and of the Right in Australia that they might foresake the great system of responsible democratic government in favour of some extremist solution. I am sure that all honourable senators reject non constitutional solutions to our problems. But I remind honourable senators that on 9 July last Professor Downing, whom I had always looked on as a supporter of this Government, said in an address:

The ultimate outcome of accelerating inflation is likely to be political revolution. I think democracy in Australia is at stake.

It is in this context that the lunatic fringes of politics in this country are becoming respectable. At least they are prepared publicly to state their commitment to the destruction of the economy on the one hand and constitutional government on the other hand. If the Government permits the present instability to last it will carry a heavy responsibility. If Ministers hide from their responsibility by blaming the system they abet those who are preaching that the system should be destroyed.

I conclude by saying that I realise that the silence that has greeted my words does not indicate assent by Government supporters. I think that the Government is beyond conversion and indeed, the next elections will show, beyond redemption. But I say to my electors that what we have to retain and perhaps in some cases regain in Australia is a sense that the individual is responsible for his own life, its quality, its level of achievement and the sort of country he lives in. We have got to get away from the ridiculous fiction that social welfare and education are obtained at no cost to the individual. There is a cost for every government program. We have to learn to relate our payment of taxes or charges to the services we actually receive. There is a fiction abroad that government revenues expand mightily each year without taking anything from the people and that, of course, is nonsense. It is the central nonsense of a bad Budget.

Senator MELZER:
Victoria

– I take the opportunity, I suppose with some presumption, of congratulating the 2 new senators who have spoken tonight. It can only do good for the Senate to have speakers who show such thought and who are so fluent. I am sure my male colleagues on this side of the chamber are very pleased to have yet another civilised woman in this place who can raise the standard of debate in this place.

I take some issue with what Senator Chaney said about social welfare and taxation. I think I have a greater respect for the ordinary people of this country and their belief as to where the money comes from. I believe they know very well that they cannot have the services they want without paying for them. I am sure they are prepared to pay for them. I believe that more and more the community is becoming aware of its responsibility in social welfare and realises that it is no longer confined to flower hatted ladies and calf’s foot jelly but also concerns the life of everybody from birth until death. One has only to look at local government which in a sense is the government that is the closest to the people to realise the situation. It is the government that the people understand most. Ordinary people are demanding more and more of local government. Local government is no longer a place which only provides people to sweep gutters and collect garbage. People want all sorts of social services. They want services for the aged people, services for young people and a whole range of community services.

The people know very well that they will not get these services unless they pay for them. To hear that people are said to be stupid and they do not want these sorts of social welfare benefits or that in some way the people believe that these benefits are handouts by the Government takes us back to the days before the age pensions came in when we were told that if pensions came in we would have a lot of layabouts who would not work and we would be forced to pay them out of our own taxes. In respect of child endowment payments it was alleged that this would bring about all sorts of promiscuity and women would have babies just for the sake of being paid this benefit. But of course this did not happen. And of course the Opposition no longer believes this, neither do the people of the community. Any government which took away these benefits would learn its lesson very quickly. People want proper care and they are prepared to pay for it. I think that under the previous Government although the people paid for services they got very little in return.

I would like to take the opportunity in this debate to draw the attention of honourable senators to that section of child care which at the moment raises sniggers from people who do not think about it very much. I draw attention to the plight of children and parents in Australia who suffered for 23 years when seemingly nobody cared very much about child care. In that time the Government viewed the children of Australia either as pampered darlings, destined to fill the positions of privilege and status, or as some sort of factory fodder to be used to fill the needs and desires of big business and the children were educated to that end and that end alone. The mothers of those children were useful in that they bred the citizens who were needed to keep the system going. But then came the time when industry was desperate for manpower. It needed more bodies than the baby stakes were providing and therefore management started to tempt women back into the work force. When their roles as mothers and home makers had been lauded- in fact at some stage ‘Hearts and Flowers’ was played on request- a complete about-face was accomplished so that on the one hand there would be a bigger work force available to manufacture the goods that more and more families were convinced were essential to life. With the morals appropriate to that action, industry wooed the women back to the work force without a care or thought for the fate of the children. The Government then in power encouraged them. I do not maintain that because mothers go to work their children are necessarily at risk. But what I say is that when mothers are not at home 24 hours a day playing their traditional role the children are at risk if society does not take steps to provide substitutes for all the roles a woman fills in the home at that time. If those roles are filled by satisfactory substitutes

I am sure that the children will mature to satisfactory adulthood. It is in this area that this Government- after years of neglect and ignorance by the previous Government and by State Liberal Party governments- has shown its vision, its concern and its common sense.

If mothers are to work- they will, because there is. no turning the clock back now- child care is of the utmost importance. I am not speaking of the traditional educational role of the kindergartens which are open from 9 a.m. to 12 noon 4 days a week, which most fortunate children in the Australian Capital Territory and some children outside it enjoy, but the sort of care that is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for all children from the babe in arms to the teenager about to launch into the world. This Government, despite propaganda to the contrary, is prepared to provide that care. After a period when there was a deal of discussion on what child care meant and when there was a deal of work to be done to move people from the thought that child care was not just kindergartens but really child care, this Government within the next few weeks will establish a children ‘s commission. After 23 years of neglect we found it difficult to ascertain just how much had been done to provide the sort of care our children needed. We set a budget of $ 130m. We found we could not spend that amount because the facilities were not there on which to spend it. It is difficult to set up child care centres for pre-school children if there are not sufficient trained people to staff them. It is difficult to get sufficient people to staff the centres if there are no facilities to train those people. That is what 23 years of neglect and ignorance in this area had given us.

We need care for the children of working parents between the time when the parents go to work and the children commence school. We need care for children between the time they get out of school and the time the parents arrive home from work. We need care for children in school holiday time or when mum or dad are ill and are unable to care for the children. There are nowhere near enough play leaders and supervisory people to cover the need. The reason for this situation is that nobody had thought of this concept for 23 years.

All over the country at the moment there is a desperate need being filled by desperate people. Children are left in unofficial minding centres, or with the lady next door, or locked up in a room for the day. When we came to the problem of child care- we came to it cold; it was a field where very little had been done- we had to start from scratch. We did things like putting advertisements in daily newspapers to ask people for their ideas. A number of organisations and individuals were asked to make submissions because of their particular known concern in the area of child care. Submissions were subsequently received ranging from single-page letterssome just a few heartfelt lines- to elaborately prepared documents indicating detailed knowledge of an area and often enclosing specific proposals for a service or range of services. This had never been asked for before. Such proposals were frequently supported by statistical details of the particular community and by survey material. Some proposals related to a small community or area in which the writers were involved. Other proposals were concerned with proposals relevant across a wide range and sometimes for the whole of Australia. Some proposals came from professionals in the field of child care and child health, particularly psychiatrists and teachers. Specific proposals were received from some local and State governments explaining moves planned for the near future. A surprising and encouraging element was the number of private individuals, mostly mothers, who wrote. In the submissions as a whole there was overwhelming evidence of interest and involvement in the care of children, mostly preschool age children.

Many opinions were expressed about who needed child care services. Some came from the parents themselves who saw their own families in need of services. Some of these parents and organisations too said that they had been expressing their need for services for years. They wrote hoping that we might be the body able to make provision for them. Some wrote about their concern for the children of working mothers. Others expressed concern for the children whose mothers were based at home. Some focused on the need for assistance to families so that mothers need not work, while others highlighted the problems of isolation, loneliness, lack of stimulation and assistance experienced by mothers at home with their children. Some were concerned about the out-of-school care of school-aged children and about care during school holidays.

So honourable senators can see that a whole range of people and ideas suddenly came to the fore. There were people concerned about handicapped children and their families. Others were concerned about migrant children and their problems. It was as though we opened a box- I was going to say Pandora’s Box, but we hope it has a better effect than that. All these areas had been waiting for years for somebody to show that they understood that there was a problem and that they would do something about the problem. I have 2 examples from my own Liberal Party governed State of Victoria. In that State when a woman finds she is deserted- her husband has gone because of all sorts of pressuresshe has nowhere to turn. For many women in that area the rent is not paid and the furniture is not paid for. Such women find that all sorts of debts have accumulated. They find themselves in court because of eviction notices. They find themselves on the street with the furniture repossessed and nowhere to go. No State Government agency is available to give them any sort of counselling or care. Presumably nobody does care because, under existing legislation, if that woman cannot prove to the satisfaction of the police- they check- that she has somewhere that night to keep her children they are taken from her and put in a State institution. The only body which seemingly does anything in that area at all is an entirely voluntary body which is set up specifically to aid deserted children. It raises all the money itself. It gets no help from the State Government and, up to this stage, it has received no help from the Federal Government. It is the body which finds the motel room in which to put the woman and the child or children so that they are not broken up, so that the children do not suffer the traumatic experience of being taken away and put in a home. This is the body which pays the bills, which puts up the bond for the house which the woman eventually finds and which looks after the family.

In another area there is a residential kindergarten which was set up by kindergarten teachers because some 35 years ago they could see a need for city children to have holidays in the country. That area is no longer country; with the suburban sprawl it is outer suburbia. Those same teachers 25 years ago realised that they had to set priorities. They realised that rather than children having holidays in the country there were children in desperate need of being looked after and there was no where for them to go, except into government institutions. Their reputation 25 years ago was no better than it is today.

So these teachers turned from providing holidays for city children to providing emergency care for them. This is one of the very few places where pre-school children and now some older children can be sent when their families are in urgent need of this sort of residential care. This group gets no assistance from the State Government. It is only now that we have this Australian Government that it gets any assistance from the

Federal Government. It provides assistance with kindergarten projects. We hope that now more assistance will be provided under child care legislation. These are 2 very small instances from one State of the sort of need which has been there for so long but about which nobody has done anything. It took this Government to see the vital necessity of assisting in this area. It took this Government to assist handicapped children. To our discredit, handicapped children in this community have been hidden away in much the same way as they were in the 1 9th Century. If we did not see them they might go away; if we did not look we might not have to say that they were there. We treated children as second-class citizens. We conveniently forgot that all children are entitled to proper education, proper care, and have a place to fill in this society.

Proper care and proper education are as much concerned with what children do from the time they leave home and go into the schoolroom and what they do in their school holidays as they are about them passing exams and going to the university. We know that $73m will not in the twinkling of an eye solve all the problems of child care in Australia. We know very well that it is a mammoth problem and the further we go into it the bigger it appears. It is obvious that what we know about it now is just the tip of the iceberg, but where we are willing to spend $73m the previous Government was not willing to spend 73c. So when Opposition senators talk about a child care problem that arrives and disappears and arrives and disappears I think they should examine their own consciences about the fact that under their Government it did not even appear, let alone have $73m spent on it as a start.

We know we are not going to stop there; we know we are going to go further when it comes to caring for children . We want to open up a whole world of assistance lor children and parents by way of support, counselling, stimulation. Fathers and mothers are important, but so too are responsible caring people. People are important, but in this instance money will help too. We have started; we are determined to go on. Government supporters will be ever pressing for a larger share of the Budget for this very important field of child care. We do not anticipate any sort of resistance from the community when we say we want a larger share of the Budget for child care. The Opposition would do well to show its belated interest in this matter by assisting us in this place and by bringing pressure to bear on their State members, their State governments, which at the moment act like dogs in the manger instead of making sure that every available effort is put into this vital field.

Debate (on motion by Senator Wriedt) adjourned.

page 1426

WOOL MARKETING (LOAN) BILL 1974

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I move-

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr Deputy President, as this second reading speech is identical to the one which was read in the House of Representatives, I seek leave to have the speech incorporated.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Marriott)- Is leave granted? There being no objection, it is so ordered. (The speech read as follows)-

Honourable senators will recall that, in the Budget Speech, the Treasurer (Mr Crean) indicated that he would shortly introduce legislation to appropriate funds to enable the Government to make loans to the Australian Wool Corporation in addition to the $ 13m provided for in the Budget. The purpose of this Bill is to enable the Treasurer, on behalf of the Australian Government, to make loans of up to $150m to the Corporation. Proceeds of such loans would be available for financing purchases of wool at auction (including tender) and for the making of advances to growers whose wool is withheld from the market by the Corporation. As honourable senators are aware, I announced on 27 August that the Corporation would operate a minimum (floor) price equivalent to 250c per kilo clean for 21 micron wool during the 1974-75 season, and that the Government would guarantee sufficient funds for this purpose.

The Treasurer and I agreed that, in the first instance, the Corporation should explore the possibility of the consortium of trading banks augmenting their current line of credit of $34m. In the event, however, it has become clear that the trading banks are not well placed at this time to commit funds of the order necessary to put beyond doubt the Corporation’s capacity to sustain the floor price. Honourable senators will appreciate that, from the standpoint of maintaining confidence in the wool market, it is of the utmost importance to ensure that the Corporation’s capacity to do this is beyond question. The Government has also recognised that the provision of large amounts of bank finance to the Corporation would have meant a substantial reduction in the amount of such finance available to meet other essential needs in the rural and other sectors of the economy.

These considerations led the Government to the view that the only really practicable way to provide the Corporation with the finance required is by means of a special appropriation of funds by the Parliament. Honourable senators will be aware that, in addition to purchases at prices equivalent to the floor price, the Corporation may at times acquire wool at prices above the floor price, under its flexible reserve price scheme. Also, as indicated earlier, the Corporation’s operations in 1974-75 may entail not only substantial purchases of wool but also arrangements for the withholding of wool from market at times when demand is weak. It will be apparent to honourable senators that, should the Corporation withhold wool from sale for a time pending an improvement in the market outlook, some growers would be temporarily disadvantaged and, indeed, could be faced with considerable financial difficulties, if the banking system and other traditional sources of finance for wool growers were unable or unwilling to carry grower for the additional time involved. The Government has therefore decided to provide the Corporation with sufficient funds to enable it also to make advances of a proportion of the floor price of growers experiencing such difficulties. The total amount of funds likely to be required for the Corporation’s purposes is difficult to establish, depending as it does on the extent to which the trade supports the market. It is considered that the amount available to the Corporation should be sufficiently large to cover its requirements for a reasonable period ahead. Insofar as it is possible to predict at this stage, we judge that an amount of $ 150m should be fully adequate for this purpose, and the Bill seeks an appropriation of that amount. We shall, however, keep the position under close review.

Having regard to the difficulty of forecasting with any precision either the timing or amount of the Corporation’s requirements, the Bill proposes that the Treasurer be empowered to make advances up to the amount indicated in such amounts, and on such terms and conditions, as he approves. The Treasurer will, of course, exercise these powers in full consultation with me.

The Bill provides that the advances to the Corporation to be made either from the Consolidated Revenue Fund or the Loan Fund, and authorises the Treasurer to borrow the moneys concerned if he considers that desirable. I am sure that honourable senators will appreciate the need for expeditious action in this matter, to put the Wool Corporation in funds and demonstrate beyond all possible doubt the Corporation’s capacity to sustain its floor price operations. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Young) adjourned.

page 1427

WOOL TAX LEGISLATION

Suspension of Standing Orders

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

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of all or several of the Wool Tax Bills (Nos 1 to 5) being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of all or several of such Bills together in Committee of the Whole and as would prevent the reading of the short titles only on every order for the reading of the Bills.

WOOL TAX BILLS (Nos 1 to 5) 1974

Bills received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

Bills (on motion by Senator Wriedt) read a first time.

Second Readings

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I move:

Mr Deputy President, the second reading speech embracing all five Bills is identical to the one read in the House of Representatives. I seek leave to have the speech incorporated.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT-Is leave granted? There being no objection, it is so ordered. (The speech read as follows)-

These Bills will amend the Wool Tax Acts (Nos 1 to 5) 1964-1973 to provide for an increased rate of wool tax. They are a consequence of arrangements for the marketing of the 1974-75 wool clip that have been approved by the Government and agreed to by the Australian Wool Industry Conference. Our intention to introduce them was announced in a Press statement I made on 29 August.

Wool tax is currently levied at the rate of 2.75 per cent. At this level, it represents wool growers ‘ contributions towards the financing of programmes of wool research and promotion and the administration of the marketing functions of the Australian Wool Corporation.

The additional tax proposed by these Bills will be imposed at the rate of 5 per cent thus bringing the total levy up to 7.75 per cent. The 5 per cent increase will apply from 2 September 1 974 to 30 June 1975 and the revenue from it will be appropriated for use by the Australian Wool Corporation to meet any losses it may incur as a result of the maintenance of a firm floor price of 250 cents per kilogram clean for 21 micron wool in the wool market.

The date from which the increased rate of tax will apply coincides with the date of the resumption of auction sales for the 1974-75 wool selling season. Tax will, therefore, be collected at a common rate for all wool sold since the introduction of the minimum floor price. The Wool Tax Act (No. 1 ) imposes a tax on shorn wool produced in Australia and sold by a wool broker. The other Acts ensure that where shorn wool is not sold by a broker it is subject to tax at some other point. The need for five separate Acts arises from a constitutional requirement that laws imposing taxes should deal with one subject of taxation only.

I commend the Bills to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Maunsell) adjourned.

page 1427

WOOL INDUSTRY BILL 1974

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Standing Orders suspended.

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

Second Reading

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I move:

Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated as it is in effect the same as the speech made in the House of Representatives.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT-Is leave granted? There being no objection, it is so ordered. (The speech read as follows)-

This Bill was originally introduced into the last Parliament but had not completed passage through the Senate when the double dissolution took place. The background and provisions of the Bill were explained to the Senate in detail last April. The Bill is designed primarily to amend the Wool Industry Act 1972-73 so as to provide for the financing of the projected wool research and promotion programmes and of the marketing administrative expenses of the Australian Wool Corporation over the three-year period from July 1974 to June 1977.

As at present, wool research and promotion will be financed jointly by woolgrowers and the Government while marketing administration will be funded entirely by the industry. However, in future the major share of funds for wool promotion will be provided by growers while the greater part of finance for research will come from the Government.

The Bill provides for the allocation of the proceeds of the wool tax to the Austraiian Wool Corporation and to the Wool Research Trust Fund and for the payment of a Government grant to the Corporation and to the Trust Fund. The basis of distribution of the tax and the grant is as determined by the Minister for Agriculture.

The financial arrangements provided by the existing legislation terminated on the 30th June and, until the Wool Industry Bill is enacted, no authority exists for the continued payment of either wool tax proceeds or Government grant to the Corporation and to the Trust Fund.

Interim arrangements to finance continuing research have been made by drawing on the reserves to the Wool Research Trust Fund. In the case of wool promotion and marketing administrative expenses, it is necessary for the Corporation to draw on commercial sources of credit to finance these activities until the funds from the wool tax and the Government grant become available. Opportunity is being taken to remove from the Principal Act provisions for an interim chairman which have become redundant following the appointment of a permanent chairman. Amendments have been included in recognition of relevant provisions of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973 which relate to the remuneration of statutory office holders. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Maunsell) adjourned.

Senate adjourned at 10.39 p.m.

page 1429

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Tariffs: Reductions (Question No. 12)

Senator Greenwood:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did the Prime Minister state on 1 8 July 1973 that the Government was confident that losses which might affect individuals as a result of the 25 per cent reduction in tariffs would be adequately offset by readily available assistance.
  2. Is the Government aware of any losses suffered by individuals as a result of the reduction in tariffs.
  3. What readily available assistance may offset such losses.
  4. Have any individuals availed themselves of such assistance; if so, how many, and what has been the assistance.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The statement issued by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Overseas Trade on 18 July 1973 outlined the Government’s decision to reduce tariffs by 25 per cent, the context of that decision and the assistance that would be available to workers who lose their jobs as a result of the tariff reductions and to firms who are seriously affected by imports.
  2. Yes. Some workers have lost their jobs. Strenuous efforts are made by the Commonwealth Employment Service to ensure that they are helped to find other employment and that where appropriate, they are advised of the special readjustment assistance available to them.

  3. ) The main forms of assistance provided have been:

    1. special readjustment assistance, a weekly amount equal to the person’s average weekly wage in the previous 6 months, until he or she is offered suitable alternative employment, up to a maximum period of 6 months. Proprietors of small enterprises affected may be treated as employees, if they wish; and
    2. b) retraining for those suited by age, health, etc.
  4. Yes. As at 2 August 1974, the latest date for which comprehensive statistics are available, 4,252 retrenched persons had submitted applications for Income Maintenance and of this number 8 were proprietors of small enterprises who had elected to be treated as employees.

Hawker, Australian Capital Territory: Proposed Primary School (Question no. 58)

Senator Withers:

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

  1. 1 ) Is a primary school to be constructed at Hawker, in the Australian Capital Territory.
  2. When is construction to commence.
  3. When is construction to be completed.
  4. Can the planned program be met.
  5. If the school is not constructed by the anticipated date, what arrangements are to be made to provide education facilities for the children in the Hawker area.
Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. ) The contract is to be let in October 1 974.
  3. November 1975.
  4. The planned program can be met provided the contractor is not unduly hampered by shortage of materials and labour, or other problems in the building industry.
  5. If the Hawker school is not available at the beginning of 1976, the children already enrolled at Weetangera will probably remain at that school until the Hawker school is available. However, other contingency action may be necessary involving transporting children by bus to other schools.

Hawker, Australian Capital Territory: Primary School Facilities (Question No. 59)

Senator Withers:

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

  1. 1) Why was no primary school constructed at Hawker, in the Australian Capital Territory.
  2. What were the factors considered in reaching the decision not to construct a primary school in Hawker.
  3. Why were the people to live in the suburb of Hawker not expected to exhibit the same social patterns that led to the construction of schools in other suburbs.
Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: ( 1 ), (2) and (3) The initial planning of Hawker and the projected rate of growth of the suburb, with a predominance of private enterprise housing, suggested, on the basis of demographic studies of similar areas, that primary school enrolments would grow slowly and for some time would be accommodated in the neighbouring suburb of Weetangera. The number of children in Hawker of primary school age in 1973 and a decision to increase the ultimate size of that suburb led to a re-examination of the situation and a decision to build a primary school in Hawker.

Australian Capital Territory: Primary Schools (Question No. 60)

Senator Withers:

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

What suburbs, developed and planned in the Australian Capital Territory from 1968 to 1974 inclusive, have not had provision made for the construction of a primary school.

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

– The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s Question:

Stirling, O’Malley and Belconnen 27 are the only suburbs planned and developed, or in the process of development, in the Australian Capital Territory from 1968 to 1974 where the need for a primary school has not yet been established. Both Stirling and O’Malley have primary school sites identified for future use if necessary. Studies of primary school needs in these areas are under way through the Australian Capital Territory Education Planning Committee.

Australian Capital Territory: Weetangera Primary School (Question No. 61)

Senator Withers:

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

  1. 1 ) What is the anticipated enrolment at the Weetangera Primary School, in the Australian Capital Territory, in the first term of 1975.
  2. What number of places will be available at the beginning of Term 1 in 1975.
Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) In the first term of 1 975 the anticipated enrolment at the Weetangera Primary School is 700.
  2. About 850 places will be available at the beginning of Term 1 in 1975.

Australian Capital Territory: Weetangera Primary School (Question No. 62)

Senator Withers:

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

  1. 1 ) What immediate steps have been taken to overcome the crowding that exists in the Weetangera Primary School, in the Australian Capital Territory.
  2. For how long will the proposed solution alleviate the problem.
Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Open learning accommodation has been erected and became available on 2 1 March 1974.
  2. In addition to the open learning accommodation which was occupied in March 1974, further additional accommodation was supplied in June and July 1974. Four permanent classrooms are due for completion by the beginning of 1975. It is believed that the school has the capacity to cope with enrolments until the proposed primary school for Hawker becomes available in 1976.

Australian Capital Territory: Weetangera Primary School (Question No. 63)

Senator Withers:

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

  1. 1 ) How many places are there in the Weetangera Primary School, in the Australian Capital Territory.
  2. How many students are presently enrolled at the school.
  3. When did the number of students at the school first exceed the number of places available.
  4. When did it become known that population projections concerning the number of pupils who would attend the school exceeded the estimates on which the numbers of places available in the school were made.
  5. When was action taken to provide additional classroom facilities at the school to provide for the additional students.
Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. There are 736 places in the Weetangera Primary School; 480 in the main building and 256 in transportable units.
  2. In August 1974, there were 601 enrolments at the school. In February 1974 there were 561 enrolments.
  3. The number of students at the school first exceeded the number of places available at the commencement of the 1974 school year at which time additional accommodation due for availability at the beginning of the 1974 school year had not been completed.
  4. and (5) In June 1973 it was established that the population of Weetangera/Hawker was growing at a rate in excess of planned provision. Immediate steps were taken to increase the accommodation and a contract was let on 1 1 October 1973, for occupation at the beginning of the 1974 school year.

Australian Capital Territory: Weetangera Primary School (Question No. 64)

Senator Withers:

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

For what area is the Weetangera Primary School, in the Australian Capital Territory, meant to provide primary school education facilities.

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

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

The Weetangera Primary School is meant to provide primary school facilities for the suburb of Weetangera. In addition it will meet the needs of the suburb of Hawker until primary school facilities become available there in 1 976.

Australian Capital Territory: Pre-school Education (Question No. 65)

Senator Withers:

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

  1. 1 ) Has the Government undertaken to give all children in the Australian Capital Territory at least one year’s preschool education before they attend primary school.
  2. Will all children living in the Hawker-Weetangera area of the Australian Capital Territory, and due to attend primary school next year, be able to receive at least one year’s pre-school education at the Weetangera pre-school.
Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. The Government’s aim is to give all children in the Australian Capital Territory one year’s pre-school education before they attend primary school. This would normally be at a pre-school in their own suburb but some children in newly developing areas may have to attend a pre-school in another suburb.
  2. Most children living in the Hawker- Weetangera area and due to attend primary school in 197S will be able to receive one year’s pre-school education at the Weetangera preschool. Weetangera pre-school is linked with Lyneham preschool, and not all the vacancies available for HawkerWeetangera children at Lyneham pre-school have been filled.

Hawker, Australian Capital Territory: Proposed Pre-school (Question No. 66)

Senator Withers:

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

Is a pre-school to be built in Hawker, in the Australian Capital Territory; if so, when is construction due to commence, and when is it expected to be completed.

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

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

Yes. The contract is to.be let in October 1974. Construction is to be completed by November 1 975.

Australian Capital Territory: Weetangera Pre-school (Question No. 67)

Senator Withers:

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

Is the Weetangera pre-school, in the Australian Capital Territory, to be enlarged; if so, when is construction to be commenced and when is it expected to be completed.

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

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

The Weetangera pre-school is being enlarged. A contract was let in March 1 974 for the provision of a second unit to be occupied at the commencement of the 1975 school year. In addition to the existing permanent pre-school a transportable unit was occupied at the beginning of second term 1974. There are now 120 pre-school places at Weetangera, and this will be increased to 1 80 places at the beginning of 1 975.

Australian Regular Army: Officer Strength (Question No. 94)

Senator Withers:

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

  1. 1 ) On what establishment strength is the officer strength of the Australian Regular Army based?
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) As announced by the Minister for Defence in the Parliament on 30 May 1 973, the Army ‘s organisation and career structure is based on an Army planning strength of 36,000.

Australian Capital Territory: Pre-schools (Question No. 95)

Senator Withers:

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

What suburbs planned and developed in the Australian Capital Territory from 1968 to 1974 have not included provision for a pre-school.

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

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

Stirling, O ‘Malley and Belconnen 27 are the only suburbs planned and developed or in the process of development, in the Australian Capital Territory from 1968 to 1974 where the need for a pre-school has not yet been established. All suburbs planned in this period except Belconnen 27 have areas identified for construction of educational facilities, including pre-schools. A decision to construct facilities is dependent upon the rate of development and occupation of the suburb. Studies of pre-school needs in these areas are under way through the A.C.T. Education Planning Committee.

Australian Capital Territory Weetangera Pre-school (Question No. 96)

Senator Withers:

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

For what area is the Weetangera pre-school, in the Australian Capital Territory, meant to provide pre-school education facilities.

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

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

The Weetangera pre-school is meant to provide preschool education facilities for Weetangera. It will also meet Hawker pre-school needs until the Hawker pre-school is occupied at the beginning of the 1976 school year.

Australian Capital Territory Weetangera Pre-school (Question No. 97)

Senator Withers:

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

  1. 1 ) How many places are available in the Weetangera pre-school, in the Australian Capital Territory.
  2. 2 ) How many children are enrolled in the pre-school.
Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) There are 120 places available in the Weetangera preschool.
  2. In August, 115 children were enrolled in the preschool.

Australian Capital Territory: Weetangera Pre-School (Question No. 98)

Senator Withers:

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

  1. . How many children are expected to enrol in the Weetangera pre-school, in the Australian Capital Territory, in 1975.
  2. What steps are being taken to meet a short-fall, if it will exist, in the number of places available in the pre-school.
Senator Douglas McClelland:
Minister for the Media · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. About 180 children are expected to enrol in the Weetangera pre-school in 1975. 180 places will be available at that time.
  2. A contract has been let for additional accommodation. A transportable unit has also been provided. There are places available in other pre-schools in other suburbs (see alsoQ65(2)).

Laura, Queensland: Houses for Aboriginals (Question No. 191)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Is the design of seven houses built for Aboriginal families at Laura, Queensland, totally unsuitable for the tropics.
  2. Were the houses built on a site other than that chosen by the Aboriginals; if so, why.
  3. Were the houses on sand, with the probable consequence that they will subside in the first wet season.
  4. Will the Minister institute an immediate inquiry into the matters outlined and inform the Senate if Australian Government Funds were misused by the Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Island Affairs in building the houses.
Senator Cavanagh:
ALP

– The answers to the honourable senator’s questions are as follows:

The seven houses referred to by the honourable senator were constructed from funds provided by my Department to the Queensland State Government. I have confirmed that the substance of the allegations made is correct.

. The houses are of an inappropriate design.

The Aboriginal people were not consulted as to their location and do not wish to live where the houses are built.

There is a severe sand problem which will cause difficulties in the wet season. I might also add that the houses are nearing completion and difficulties have been experienced with the provision of an adequate water supply. It is expected the houses will be ready for occupancy soon.

1 can assure the senator that action is being taken to prevent Australian Government funds being misused in this way. It is unfortunate that the stage of completion of the houses is such as to prevent us doing anything in this case.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 25 September 1974, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1974/19740925_senate_29_s61/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant