Senate
8 April 1975

29th Parliament · 1st Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Justin O’Byrne) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 761

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Government in the Senate · Tasmania · ALP

– I inform the Senate that His Excellency the Governor-General determined the appointment of Mr Enderby as Minister for Customs and Excise from 27 March 1975 and subsequently appointed him that day as Minister for Police and Customs. Senator J. R. McClelland will represent the Minister for Police and Customs in the Senate.

page 761

OPPOSITION WHIP

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– I seek leave to make a statement concerning the Opposition Whip.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator WITHERS:

-I wish to inform the Senate that the Liberal Party has elected Senator Chaney as Opposition Whip in the Senate. Senator Kathy Martin has been elected assistant Whip.

page 761

PETITION

The Clerk:

– The following petition has been lodged for presentation.

Hobart City Council: RED Scheme Grant

To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate assembled. The humble petition of residents and land owners of the area of Ridgeway- Hobart, Tasmania respectfully showeth whereas:

  1. Ridgeway was one of the early settled areas of the City of Hobart and is situated in close proximity to one of the Cities sources of water supply.
  2. That we have suffered bush fires and a lower standard of living due to no reticulated water supplybeing available.
  3. Inflationary increases in estimated costs of servicing our allotments with a reticulated supply.
  4. Stagnation of our land due to only rain water being available,

Your petitioners request that your honourable Parliament takes immediate action to:

Make available to the Hobart City Council a special grant under the ‘ Red ‘ scheme for urgent labour intensive works such as the laying of a water main to Ridgeway.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Wriedt.

Petition received.

page 761

HOURS OF MEETING OF THE SENATE

Notice of Motion

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

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

That for the remainder of this period of sittings, unless otherwise ordered, the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate and precedence of business be varied as follows:

1 ) That the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate have effect at half-past ten p.m. on Thursdays.

That general business take precedence of Government business after 8 p.m. on Thursdays.

page 761

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 761

QUESTION

INDO-CHINA

Senator WITHERS:

-I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs: Is it a fact that in January 1 973 the Prime Minister declared that the Paris Peace Accords heralded a new era of peace in IndoChina? Did the Foreign Minister share that view? Does he share it now?

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

-I do not remember whether Mr Whitlam made that statement. I am sure that it was the hope of the world at that time that the Paris Peace Accords did herald some peace in Vietnam. Whether I shared the view of the Prime Minister at the time is a matter of opinion. I certainly hoped at the time that the Accords would bring peace in Vietnam. Together with everybody else who has an interest in Vietnam I am bitterly disappointed. All I say now is that what ought to be done and what the Labor Party has been advocating for the last 10 years is, even at this late stage, to get the parties to the negotiating table.

page 761

QUESTION

INDO-CHINA

Senator McAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

-Is the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware of statements by Mr Fraser and Mr Peacock that the Government has deliberately denied the Opposition adequate information on the situation in Indo-China? Can the Minister tell the Senate whether Mr Peacock or Mr Fraser has made any request to him, to his office or to his Department for information regarding foreign affairs matters?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-I did see those statements while I was overseas. I was very surprised and slightly upset at the possibility that there was some truth in them. Of course there was not. I would have been upset because in a letter which was written in September 1973 by the former Minister for Foreign Affairs to Mr Snedden there was a direct instruction. I will quote the last sentence. He said:

I remain willing to arrange for briefings to be given either to you or to Mr Peacock by officers of my Department on specific subjects of interest to you.

Senator Withers:

– Will the Minister table the whole letter?

Senator WILLESEE:

-Yes. There is no problem about that; I can table the whole letter. The letter requested access to documents. The Minister could not agree to that request but he agreed to this course being followed. From time to time the Liberal Party has asked for briefings of its committees and as far as I know this has never been refused. There has never been a request by these gentlemen to me, to my office or to my Department, except that yesterday Mr Peacock for the first time- I reiterate for the first time- made a request to my Department.

If the Liberal Party does lack knowledge on foreign affairs it is not the fault of this Government or my Department. We stand ready to brief Liberal Party members up to certain levels. The only things that could be protected would be those things which obviously needed protecting, such as confidential information passing between governments or something of that sort. A background briefing, similar to that which is given to both Parties through their foreign affairs committees, can be given to these two gentlemen any time they request it. All I can say is that if these gentlemen made this statement they must have been mistaken in some way- or they have been misreported- because, as I read it, it was an untruthful statement.

Senator WITHERS:

-Are you going to table the letter?

Senator WILLESEE:

– Yes.

page 762

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator DRAKE-BROCKMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Why has the Government not expressed its disapproval of the outright open invasion by North Vietnamese forces now taking place in Vietnam? Does it still hold to the view of some of its leading members that the fighting in Vietnam is an uprising of oppressed people?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– I am sorry that my friend, Senator Drake-Brockman, started on a false premise by saying that we have never complained about this. For a long time, the Government has expressed its concern, at the failure of both the North Vietnamese and South Vietnamese governments to implement fully the provisions of the Paris Accords. In recent weeks the Government has expressed concern directly to the North Vietnamese and South Vietnamese governments. On 13 March the Prime Minister wrote to both President Thieu and the Foreign Minister of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, Mr Trinh, to express the Government’s concern at the continued fighting in South Vietnam. He expressed the Government’s hope that it would soon be possible for the parties to the conflict to resume working together within the framework of the Paris agreements or under new arrangements towards a peaceful and enduring settle.ment in Vietnam, and that the parties to the conflict would so act as to enable the violence that was causing so much suffering to be reduced and, as soon as possible, brought to an end. On 3 April the Prime Minister instructed our ambassadors in Saigon and Hanoi that these views be expressed again to appropriate senior officials of South Vietnam and North Vietnam.

There can be no denying that recently there have been serious violations of military provisions of the Paris agreements. There have been a number of violations in the past by both sides. This cannot be condoned, but there have also been serious breaches of the political provisions of the Paris agreements, notably with regard to the setting up of the National Council of National Reconciliation and Concord and the reunification of Vietnam. The violations and breaches of the military provisions cannot be considered in isolation from the violations and breaches of the political provisions; nor do onesided condemnations promote an end to the fighting and a permanent peace. The Australian Government believes that what is required is not just an end to the fighting, important though that is. What is also required- the 2 things go together in reality as well as in the Paris agreements- is a genuine commitment in Vietnam to implement the political provisions of the Paris agreements.

The only other thing I would say to Senator Drake-Brockman is that, as he knows, we have had aid programs for some time to both the North Vietnamese and South Vietnamese governments, but the aid to the South has outweighed by many times the aid to the North. Therefore, the suggestion that we have been anti-South Vietnam in this case, as well as in other cases,,is just not true.

page 763

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN TELEVISION PRODUCTIONS

Senator POYSER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for the Media. Is it true that the Minister recently completed a tour of Japan and other Asian countries? Did he see in those countries prospects for the use of Australian television productions? Has there been any positive move in this direction following the Minister ‘s, visit?

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

– It is true that in the recent parliamentary recess I visited Australian information officers working in the South East Asian region. At the outset I extend to those officers my congratulations on the very fine efforts that they are making in publicising Australia abroad. Additionally, I took the opportunity of meeting my counterparts in various governments and of discussing with them the possibility of the sale of Australian programs in the Asian region. I also paid a call on Mr Ono, the President of NHK Japan, and had discussions with him. I can inform the honourable senator that since my visit to Japan it has been reported to me that the Australian Broadcasting Commission has been able to complete a contract with NHK Japan for the sale to the Japanese national network of the series of films entitled ‘Seven Little Australians’, which I understand will be dubbed in the Japanese language and shown on NHK Japan, that coun try’s national network. I believe there are great film markets available to us in Asia.

page 763

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator GREENWOOD:
VICTORIA

-My question, which is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, follows his previous answer to Senator Drake-Brockman that the Government accepted that there were breaches of the Paris agreements by the North Vietnamese army. I ask: Over what period has the Government been aware of these breaches by North Vietman? Has it at any time used its supposed or claimed influential position with the Government of Russia and the Government of China to urge those governments to desist sending supplies and equipment to North Vietnam which enable it to mount the massive onslaught on South Vietnam in breach of the Paris Accords?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– I do not remember. I certainly have never claimed to have any great or undue influence with any government throughout the world. I think we play our part the best way we can. On several occasions in this chamber I have answered questions concerning the breaches, and on every occasion I have said that there have been breaches by both sides. Our attitude to Vietnam is perfectly well known both here and in the international community.

page 763

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator GREENWOOD:

-Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question to the question that I have just asked.

The PRESIDENT:

– I call Senator Greenwood to ask a supplementary question.

Senator GREENWOOD:

-The supplementary question that I ask is this: Has the Government urged either Russia or China at any time to desist giving supplies to North Vietnam?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-Senator Greenwood has been here long enough to know that discussions with other governments are always confidential.

page 763

QUESTION

TEACHER UNEMPLOYMENT

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Labor and Immigration. What action can be taken by the Minister for Labor and Immigration, in the interests of a national manpower policy, to curb the press gang policy of the New South Wales Education Minister which is compounding teacher redundancy by seeking to import additional teachers from overseas?

Senator BISHOP:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-I know that the matter has been considered by the Department of Labor and Immigration. It is a very complex question. It is known that there is a lack of mobility, particularly with married women, in the Sydney metropolitan area which means that teachers are not readily moving to where vacancies are located. The population projections and their implications revealed in the recent Borrie report on school populations have to be taken into account, and this is being done presently by the Department. I consider that the campaign being waged by the New South Wales Government against the New South Wales Teachers Federation and its members is likely to be detrimental to school children in that State, and this action follows the action by the New South Wales Government in recently refusing the inclusion of the preference clause in the latest teachers award. In view of the matter raised by Senator Mulvihill I have asked the Minister for Labor and Immigration to consider seriously that proposition. I shall give the honourable senator the reply when I have it.

page 763

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator GUILFOYLE:
VICTORIA

-Is the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware that the Singapore Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, has described the statement of the Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Cairns, welcoming the end of the South Vietnamese Government as a source of inspiration to the communist forces in South Vietnam? Does the Foreign Minister share this assessment, and did the Deputy Prime Minister state Australian Government policy in his comments?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– While I was overseas I saw that Dr Cairns had made a comment on the situation in Vietnam. In speaking on these matters Dr Cairns speaks only on his own behalf.

Senator Carrick:

– He is the Deputy Prime Minister. He must speak for the Government.

Senator WILLESEE:

-I have been asked a question and I have answered it. Some honourable senators do not seem to agree with the answer but I cannot help that. Dr Cairns speaks as a private individual on these matters. There is nothing I could say, as Foreign Minister, that would help the situation in Vietnam today. When I look at the efforts of the people who are now in Opposition and at what they achieved in Vietnam and what we are attempting to achieve today, I think they should go very quietly.

page 764

QUESTION

INFLATION IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the Minister representing the Treasurer seen a statement in the Western Australian Hansard of 18 March, in which the State Premier, Sir Charles Court, in reply to a question on notice claimed, among other things, that Western Australia had the lowest inflation rate of all the States during 1974? Is Sir Charles’s statement true? If not, can the Minister suggest any action by which antiLabor State Premiers can be discouraged from making false statements in their State parliaments?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– To answer the question it would be necessary to have in one’s head the precise inflation rates for the capital city in each of the States. Such information is published periodically. I understand that the latest figures available are those for the December 1974 quarter; the March 1975 figures are not yet available. I would have to check precisely the inflation rate in Perth, which would be the matter to which the honourable senator has referred. Even if the rate was shown to be marginally better than that of any other capital city, it would be drawing a long bow for the Western Australian Premier to suggest that that was through any virtue of the Western Australian State Government. These rates vary marginally between the capitals, but they are determined largely by the overall economic factors operating in Australia.

page 764

QUESTION

AID TO SOUTH VIETNAM

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to the Government’s announcement of a further $lm aid to Vietnam. Was the grant made at the request of the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees? Was the request tied in with $800,000 worth of supplies? Has the Minister received advice from the High Commissioner as to the destination of those supplies? What arrangements are being made for the freighting of goods and supplies collected by voluntary agencies, community groups and” schools? Finally, what future plans has the Government in hand to respond to any further disastrous circumstances?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-The honourable senator has asked several questions. Perhaps this is happening because he has been appointed to our aid advisory body. The United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees launched an appeal and we contributed firstly $ 1 m and then a second $lm of which a fair amount will be taken up in freight. Freight is a costly part of this business and is a problem.

Incidentally, after the first Sim was given the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees rang our office in Geneva to thank us for it. I missed him by a few minutes as he was leaving for Rome. As regards the lifting of the goods that have been given, they are being stored in Sydney free of charge and we are going to lift them as space is available. I think honourable senators know that an aircraft was to leave yesterday to take some aid and to collect some orphans but because of a decision by the South Vietnamese Government the flight was cancelled. Now we are trying to find out what exactly is the South Vietnamese Government’s position in regard to allowing orphans to leave that country. We are not yet sure of the position. We have seen a newspaper report on the situation but at the time of coming into this place we did not have confirmation of it. The Department and the aid agency have got in touch with the general body that handles aid. Senator Davidson would know it as well as I. This body handles the general crowd, gets agencies together and tries to organise these things.

Senator Davidson:

– ACFOA.

Senator WILLESEE:

– Yes, the Australian Council for Overseas Aid. The Department is combining with the several people that are under the wing of that organisation in order to try to get some order into the whole situation. Then, in collaboration with the people in Vietnam we will take from the goods the things most urgently needed, such as drugs and so on.

page 765

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN SOLDIERS FOR VIETNAM

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware that on today’s ‘AM’ program an ex-serviceman who served in Vietnam claimed that there were several small private armies operating in Australia, largely made up of Australian veterans from Vietnam? Is it a fact that it is proposed that personnel from these groups, who have been training privately, intend to go to Saigon by private charter plane and to offer their services to the discredited Thieu regime? Will the Minister give an assurance thai: no facilities, including passports and airfields, will be made available to these paramilitary groups so that they can interfere in the internal affairs of South Vietnam?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-No, I had not heard of that broadcast.

Senator Marriott:

– You don’t read fairy tales, that is why.

Senator WILLESEE:

– I thank Senator Marriott for his interjection. I hope it is a fairy tale. I hope there is nothing serious in it. Certainly nobody from Australia will get any aid from this Government to go to Vietnam to fight on either side.

page 765

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL POSTAGE STAMP

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– My question, addressed to the Postmaster-General, is in a number of parts. Who decided that the Aboriginal person known as Truganini, deceased, should be included in the women’s stamp series? Was the Prime Minister’s adviser on women’s affairs, Ms Elizabeth Reid, instrumental in drawing up the list of persons, including Truganini, without any reference to the Post Office Stamp Advisory Committee? Was the Aboriginal community consulted in any way through any of its acknowledged spokesmen or spokeswomen about the Aboriginal community’s probable attitude towards a Truganini stamp? If not, why not? Was the office of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs consulted? If not, why not? Has the Post Office or the Postmaster-General received any protest about the proposed stamp? If so, when and from what source? Finally, does the Post Office propose to withdraw the Truganini stamp from the women’s series?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– The honourable senator has asked me a lot of questions. I received the nomination of the person mentioned by Senator

Bonner from a number of Aboriginal organisations and individuals. When I received it I referred the matter in the first instance to the appropriate person, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, for his consideration. The Stamp Advisory Committee had submitted for my consideration the names of a number of people who should be included. When I received the first nomination I suggested that consideration might be given to the princess involved. Ms Reid was involved in the suggestions. I considered the matter and I determined who should be the persons depicted on the stamps. I was guided not only by the people who had made representations and the Stamp Advisory Committee but certainly by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs who suggested that the nomination was a good one and a correct one.

page 765

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL POSTAGE STAMP

Senator BONNER:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister name the Aboriginal organisations involved?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– I have not the names with me, but I shall give Senator Bonner the names of those organisations.

page 765

QUESTION

HOSPITALISATION OF VIETNAM REFUGEES

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

– Has the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation given any consideration to the plight of South Vietnamese refugees, particularly the orphans who are being flown to Australia? Will he make available the facilities of his Department to assist in this operation?

Senator WHEELDON:
Minister for Repatriation and Compensation · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Yes, I have given consideration to this matter. Officers of my Department have been working on it. It does not appear that the repatriation hospitals are particularly well suited to providing facilities for injured or sick children. I am informed that the Camperdown and Prince Henry hospitals in New South Wales and the Royal Children ‘s and Fairfield hospitals in Victoria are admirably suited for this purpose and are being used. If there is any call for the use of repatriation hospitals, they certainly will be made available.

However, other steps have been taken by my Department. Fifteen nursing sisters from the Repatriation General Hospital at Concord left Australia and looked after orphans on the first airlift from Saigon. Thirty sisters from the Repatriation General Hospital at Heidelberg, Victoria, were to board the second flight which was to pick up Vietnamese orphans, but that flight was cancelled yesterday. I understand that these nurses are at present on standby. If the bringing of orphans from Vietnam to Australia is resumed, these 30 Victorian nurses from my Department are available to travel to help in the passage of such orphans to Australia.

page 766

QUESTION

TRANSPORT STRIKE IN CANBERRA

Senator MARRIOTT:

– Can the Leader of the Government in the Senate inform the Senate whether any Minister or senior public servant is taking, has taken or will take any real action to end the continuing transport strike which, I understand, is an inter-union dispute that does not concern conditions of pay or work but which is causing great inconvenience, hardship and expense to the citizens of and visitors to Canberra?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-The only information which I can give the Senate is that the dispute, as I understand it, is between 2 unions as Senator Marriott has said. The only other information which I can give is that the Minister for the Capital Territory, Mr Bryant, has taken every possible step to mediate in the dispute with a view to getting the persons concerned to return to work. I frankly do not know the details of the dispute. Senator Bishop may be able to help the Senate. My understanding is that both sides at present are holding firm. Mr Bryant is doing all that he possibly can to resolve the position.

page 766

QUESTION

RADIO AUSTRALIA

Senator DRURY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Postmaster-General. It concerns the effect of cyclone Tracy upon the operation of Radio Australia from the Cox Peninsula near Darwin. Can the Minister give any further details on the action which the Government has taken to restore Radio Australia to its full operational strength?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

-My 2 colleagues, Senator Willesee and Senator Douglas McClelland, and I discussed this matter soon after the very serious damage occurred to the Radio Australia facility at Cox Peninsula. The advice which we received was that to repair the facility would entail a very large amount of money. There was also the consideration whether that situation was the right situation for the facility. In addition there was some damage to accommodation and to the sea transport that was necessary to take the staff to the station. Finally we recommended to the Cabinet that there ought to be established in Western Australia, at one of three places, a facility with a reduced capacity. We have ordered the 2 transmitters and the necessary aerial operations and facilities. We did so because it was necessary to get something going quickly. It is expected that the supporting transmitting facility will be operational by the end of 1975.

page 766

QUESTION

DEFENCE

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is the Government now reappraising its views on defence and foreign relations in Australia’s region as a result of current events in Indo-China? If so, when will the results of such a reappraisal of the Government’s foreign affairs and defence thinking be made known to this Parliament?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-There is a continual review. That is what the Department is for. Everything that ever happens is another ingredient, another input, into the situation. I have not ordered any special review because of current events with the idea of publishing a document or anything like that. There is a continuing review which never ceases.

page 766

QUESTION

CITRUS EXPORTS TO NEW ZEALAND

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Agriculture a question about Australian exports of citrus fruits to New Zealand. Why did this trade, which is important to South Australia, decline in 1974? What are the prospects for the coming 1975 export season?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– The principal reason, of course, was a lack of shipping services to New Zealand. It is true that we did almost lose a significant market for citrus fruits but we were able to maintain the trade because there was at the time a refrigerated shipping service. The ship, which was owned by the Union Steamship Co. of New Zealand Ltd was withdrawn and has not been replaced by another refrigerated vessel. Efforts were made during 1 974 to ship oranges as unrefrigerated cargo- presumably on deck- but this move was not successful. The Government and the exporters have been endeavouring to improve the present shipping facilities with the co-operation of the Australian National Line. I do not have any further information at this stage other than that those negotiations are still continuing.

page 766

QUESTION

STATEMENTS ON VIETNAM

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. How many protests has the Government received from Asian countries over statements reported to have been made by the Prime Minister at Terrigal and recently by the Deputy Prime Minister that the fall of the Thieu Government was the best thing that could happen in South Vietnam?

Will the Minister name the countries concerned and state the nature of the protests?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– The answer is, none.

page 767

QUESTION

COMPENSATION FOR DARWIN CYCLONE DAMAGE

Senator COLEMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation. Has the Department of Repatriation and Compensation commenced taking claims from people whose property was lost or damaged during cyclone Tracy? Will the Minister explain what arrangements will be made for the payment of claims and what checks will be made to ensure that payments do not exceed the real loss?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

– Advertisements were placed in newspapers throughout Australia on 22 March last asking people who claimed to have suffered damage as a result of the cyclone to make claims to the Department of Repatriation and Compensation. Since then an office of the Department has been established in Darwin with staff which was largely recruited locally. Some of the people appointed are public servants whose usual occupations had been rather abruptly disturbed by the cyclone and others are people who were not public servants but who were residents in Darwin. In all of the State branches of the Department special- to use a term used by Senator Drake-Brockman- crash courses of instruction have been given to some of the members of the staff on the principles that are involved in this scheme of compensation. All of the claims will be sent to the office in Darwin to be determined. As at yesterday 6530 household and 1044 business claim forms had been issued to applicants and that is about 60 per cent of the total number which is expected to be lodged. There had been 2488 interviews conducted by 30 March last which affected 2257 households and some 23 1 businesses.

I am informed by the officers of my Department that it was fairly clear in the early stages that a number pf people were overstating their claims. Where a claim does appear to be unreasonable, it is being examined and proof may be required before any payment is made. The property valuations are being made by the Taxation Office. Vehicle damage is being assessed by various motoring organisations which have given their assistance. The ownership of motor vehicles is checked against registration and local records. The same is being done with registration of land titles where there is a question of damage to property.

Funds have not yet been appropriated for the payment of the compensation, but it is planned to make available some $25m in Appropriation Bill (No. 5) and a further $33m in the Supply Bills to be introduced in the autumn sittings of the Parliament. There is a problem involved in this matter insofar as one has to treat these people with humanity while at the same time seeing that public moneys are not being handed out to those who are taking advantage of the peculiar circumstances in order to make a profit out of this disaster and out of the Government. I think that in all the circumstances the Government is taking every step that can be taken to fulfil both of these obligations.

page 767

QUESTION

VIETNAM

Senator CARRICK:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. It refers to the Minister’s answer to a recent question to the effect that the Government corresponded with North Vietnam and South Vietnam on 20 March concerning the breaches of the Paris agreements. In the 1 6 months between the signing of the Paris agreements in November 1973 and the correspondence of 20 March 1975 did the Commonwealth Government make any protest to North Vietnam about the flagrant breaches by that country? If so, when? Will the Government table the text of any such protest made in that period? If not, why did the Government wait until 20 March 1975, after the massive overrunning of South Vietnam by the communists, to make a protest? Finally, has the Government sought to have the Paris peace talks reconvened? If so, when?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-I am not aware that during the 16 months prior to the writing of these letters we made any written submissions to North Vietnam, but we have made very clear on many occasions- I have done so in this place, at international forums and in all sorts of placesthat what we wanted was to get the parties to the conference table. We hoped that the Paris agreements would have been the way to get them there. In all the years that the present Opposition was in Government it did the opposite. It never once tried to take the parties to the peace table. All it did was to blow the war up. We are asked what we have done about taking the matter to the United Nations. The Opposition had years in which to take it to the United Nations but it never showed any interest in doing so. Its efforts in Vietnam left 400 Australians dead and 2400 Australians wounded. That is something that we tried to stop.

page 768

QUESTION

VIETNAM

The PRESIDENT:

– I call Senator Carrick.

Senator CARRICK:

– I ask the Minister again: Has the Government sought in any way to have the Paris peace talks reconvened?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-No, it has not.

page 768

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN MEDIA DEVELOPMENT

Senator MILLINER:
QUEENSLAND

– Is the Minister for the Media aware of the unfair and unfounded criticism in some quarters of the lack of ready information about Australian media development? Is the Minister taking any steps to rectify this mischievous criticism? What are these steps, and is there evidence that they will prove successful?

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

– I have seen reports of this nature and, as the honourable senator has said, they are mischievous. The attitude of my Department is that it is essential that the public be as fully informed as possible on all developments of the nation’s media resources. One of the areas to which I have directed the efforts of my Department has been the production and dissemination of an entire series of programs on the historical development of various forms of the mass media in Australia. Those programs have been produced, or are being produced, in many modes, such as videotape, slide sound, film and means of that nature.

One program which has already been produced and shown at a number of seminars and to large audiences has been related to the history of communication in Australia. Another program has been made on the history of radio in Australia. Of course, there are other programs dealing with television, film and audio-visual techniques. I can tell the honourable senator that the programs that have been made to date have been very well received. Hopefully they will be made part of the audio-visual software that will be supplied to Australian information services abroad in the coming financial year. It is hoped also that many more of Australia’s media resources will be examined in depth in similar programs for public dissemination during the course of the next financial year.

page 768

QUESTION

POTATO IMPORTS

Senator BESSELL:
TASMANIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Agriculture, relates to the importation of processed potatoes. As the Minister would know, substantial imports can cause difficulties to Australian producers, particularly those in Tasmania, many of whom grow under contract to various processors and are experiencing extreme difficulty at the present moment in placing the current crop. I therefore ask: What is the level of imports at the present time? Is the Government taking any steps to control these imports at a level which will not adversely affect the Australian producer?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-I realise that the matter of potato imports is a hot potato in the potato growing areas of Australia at the present time. There has been a significant increase in potato imports but I am not aware of the precise figures. The industry has the facility to put a case to the Industries Assistance Commission, or if it can establish a prima facie case with me first a reference can be made to the Temporary Assistance Authority. If in fact the people in certain areas of the industry are being unduly adversely affected by imports, those options are available to them. The Government was aware some time ago of the need to monitor regularly the importation of potatoes, especially from New Zealand, and for that reason an industry panel has been formed.

The Government is seeking advice from that particular body which is representative of processors and of producers. I am not aware of any case which has been sent to me. If such a case has been sent to me it has not yet been drawn to my attention. I would suggest that the remedy is there if the industry can act as a body; it can put a case to me if it feels that there should be a reference to the Temporary Assistance Authority for protection from those imports.

page 768

QUESTION

ALLEGED TELEPHONE TAPPING IN QUEENSLAND

Senator MCAULIFFE:

– My question is addressed to the Postmaster-General. The Premier of Queensland, the honourable Joh BjelkePetersen, recently claimed that his telephone was being tapped, particularly when the Australian Government wanted to tune in on his conversations with the Japanese regarding the sale of Australian beef. I ask the Postmaster-General: Is there any truth in the claims made by the Queensland Premier? Is the Minister aware of approval having been granted for the tapping of anybody’s telephone in Queensland?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– I was in Brisbane the day after the Premier made the statement and I offered to meet him. I conveyed through the Post Office people the suggestion that I might talk to him to consider his claim because I had received a complaint from the union involved. From the information I had got from the Post Office it was clear that the claim was quite outrageous and incorrect. I spoke to the Under-Treasurer in Brisbane who said that he had seen the Premier, that the Premier had stated that his comments were simply made as a joke and that the PostmasterGeneral ‘s Department had at all times given him the best co-operation. He could see no good purpose in meeting me. I explained the position to the union concerned and it accepted the way in which the matter had been handled. I think the last part of the question is a matter for the Attorney-General. I discussed this matter with Mr Enderby at the time. I think that I am right in saying that since he has been the AttorneyGeneral no such action has been taken by him.

page 769

QUESTION

CHARTER OF SHIP AT DARWIN

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– I address a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. I refer to my previous question to the Minister on 18 February 1975 in which I challenged the decision of the Australian Government to charter the Chandris ship ‘Patris’ for temporary accommodation in Darwin at a cost of $2,750,000 instead of purchasing the vessel for approximately $lm. I ask the Minister: Firstly, why, despite his undertakings at that time, have no details of this transaction been supplied and when will an answer to my question be given? Secondly, is he aware of and will he reply to the following allegations which have since been made publicly: ( 1 ) That the contract, which has remained secret, provides for the Chandris Brothers to be guaranteed a clear $15,000 a day tax free over and above their costs; (2) that employees on the vessel are engaged at terms of pay and under living conditions greatly inferior to those enjoyed by equivalent Australian employees in Darwin itself; and (3) that the unions have complained to the Australian Government against the introduction of cheap imported labour under this contract?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– The question previously asked by the honourable senator was conveyed to the Minister for Transport. Of course the matter is also the responsibility of the Minister for the Northern Territory (Dr Patterson) who was involved with Mr Charles Jones in deciding to employ this ship. At the time, as all honourable senators know, there was a most urgent need to have some sort of accommodation established quickly for the purpose of housing persons who would be engaged in the rebuilding of Darwin. That is why the Ministers decided to have the Patris’ there. I can give only the information which I have, but I will again request the Ministers to answer the question more fully.

Since that time I have seen reports that both Mr Charles Jones and Dr Patterson have been involved in the discussions. For example, a request was made by the Seamen’s Union that the manning scale should apply to a vessel in port which is being used as what one might term hotel accommodation. All I can say is that the Ministers, in their wisdom, thought that it was urgent to have this accommodation available, as it was. I think the responsibility really was Dr Patterson’s. I will again refer the honourable senator’s question to the 2 Ministers and ask whether they will be good enough to speed up their replies.

page 769

QUESTION

HEARING AIDS FOR PENSIONERS

Senator POYSER:

-Has the attention of the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation been drawn to an advertisement which has appeared in Australian newspapers under the heading ‘Hearing Aids for Pensioners’? This advertisement has been placed by an organisation known as Angus and Coote. Does this advertisement include in bold type the words ‘Free Offer’? Does this so-called free offer refer only to testing and demonstrations? Is it a fact that pensioners are entitled to completely free hearing aids plus maintenance and replacement of batteries?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

-Yes, my attention has been drawn to the advertisement. In fact it was drawn to the matter by Senator Poyser himself. The advertisement does say that free testing is available from Angus and Coote for pensioners and that then one may purchase or hire a hearing aid. It is a fact that under the social services of this country pensioners are entitled to free hearing aids and to the servicing of the free hearing aids. Of course, there is nothing unlawful in what the Angus and Coote organisation is doing if it is suggesting that it is providing a hearing aid superior to those which are being provided by the National Acoustic Laboratories. I do not think we would agree that that is the case. There is certainly nothing unlawful about this. I repeat that we provide free hearing aids and that no pensioner need feel obliged to take advantage, if advantage it is, of the offer which is made in these advertisements. Pensioners can have all these facilities provided for them by the Australian Department of Health.

page 769

QUESTION

ORPHANS FROM VIETNAM

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs: Is it a fact that authorities at the North Head Quarantine Station removed identification marks on the orphans recently arrived from Vietnam? What action is the Government now taking to reidentify those orphans who were already committed to Australian families?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-I am not aware of the circumstances. I will find out and let the honourable senator know.

page 770

QUESTION

SYDNEY MAIL DISPUTE

Senator GIETZELT:

– My question is directed to the Postmaster General. I refer to the dispute at the Sydney Mail Exchange which is seriously affecting mail deliveries in New South Wales. Can the Postmaster General give any indication of what steps are being taken to settle the dispute?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

-This morning Don Hancock, my adviser on industrial relations, met the unions and the departmental officers. As a result, the bans have been lifted forthwith and mail deliveries are returning to normal. An arrangement has been made that a joint committee, with representatives from the unions and the Department, will consider what changes, if any, should take place at the Sydney Mail Exchange.

page 770

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT INSURANCE OFFICE

Senator WEBSTER:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation: Is it the intention of the Australian Government to establish an Australian Government insurance office? Will the Government introduce legislation for this purpose in this parliamentary session? Is it a fact that already there have been advertisements for staff? Has any staff yet been appointed? What is the anticipated work force of the proposed Australian Government insurance office? Can the Minister indicate the expected cost of setting up that office? Is it the Government’s long term plan to control the entire insurance industry and thus control the major flow of funding for all private industry in this country?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

– If I can answer first the last part of Senator Webster’s question with regard to the control of the insurance industry, that is already possessed by the Australian Government. In fact, it has been the practice under previous governments as well as this Government to have insurance commissioners and a life assurance commissioner who have the obligation to regulate very strictly the operation of both general insurance companies and life assurance companies.

Senator Webster:

– But they do not control them.

Senator WHEELDON:

– I suppose it depends on what Senator Webster means by ‘control ‘. I would regard it as control. If Senator Webster does not mean control by what the insurance commissioners and the life assurance commissioner do, I would ask him to give me another definition of control. The Australian Labor Party does have as part of its policy the establishment of an Australian Government insurance office. In fact, it was included in the policy speech which was presented by the Prime Minister before we successfully fought the last Federal election. We do intend to carry out that policy.

Senator Webster has asked whether legislation will be introduced in this session. If by ‘this session’ he means session in the correct meaning of the word, then certainly it will be introduced during this session. Whether or not it will be introduced during these sittings- this sessional period- has not yet been determined by the Cabinet. In due course it will be determined by the Cabinet. When it is determined by the Cabinet I shall see that Senator Webster is one of the first to learn about it. Staff has been recruited by the Department of Repatriation and Compensation to deal with the insurance activities of the Department, which is not the same thing as the Australian Government insurance office, in the same way as staff has been recruited to deal with the compensation activities of the Department. This is in no way pre-empting any action which Parliament may take. It may well decide to do something different from what the Government would like to do.

It clearly seems to be sensible that if one does intend to embark on some major new fields of activity, one should have inquired thoroughly into those matters before one attempts to do it. One needs to have the appropriate staff in order to make these inquiries- for example, to answer the questions which Senator Webster has put to us about what the cost and staff of the insurance office would be. That is the present position in which the Government comes to the Parliament. I would not expect that there would be any greatly undue delay in this matter. A number of representations have been made to me by various insurance companies. In fact one very prominent official of a general insurance company adopted a most threatening manner to me only a few days ago and told me that unless I gave him an undertaking that we would not proceed with the establishment of the Australian Government insurance office, he would see that everything was done to bring this Government down. I must say that my response to this gentleman’s approach has been to hasten the introduction of this legislation, because if people want to bring the Government down I might as well give them some reason for wishing to do so. I do not intend to give them any of the undertakings for which they are asking.

page 771

QUESTION

REQUESTS FOR ASYLUM IN AUSTRALIA

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs: Following the recent inclusion in the Australian Labor Party platform of a provision for ‘sympathetic consideration of people who for political and other reasons would face danger to life and liberty upon return to their country of origin’, what will the Government’s attitude be to the people of the South Vietnamese and Cambodian embassies requesting asylum in Australia if their present countries and governments should tragically fall?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-The question of permitting refugees from Vietnam or Cambodia to enter Australia temporarily on humanitarian grounds is being examined by the Government in the light of all the factors of the situations. The Senate will be aware that it is at present very difficult to obtain exit visas from Saigon. The Opposition is apparently seeking to stampede the Government into a hasty decision on this matter. The strong restrictions imposed by the Government of the Republic of Vietnam on the issuing of exit visas are still in full force. An announcement of the Government’s decision in this matter will be the result of the most thorough consideration of all the factors and options which are relevant. The Government has demonstrated its goodwill and its appreciation of the humanitarian considerations involved through its decision to permit Cambodian and Vietnamese students in Australia to remain here until peace is restored. That decision already covers 520 people. There is no immediate urgency in these cases. It is not just a simple matter. We will be studying the situation very carefully to see how best to handle it.

Senator Young:

– I asked the question regarding members of the staffs of the Cambodian and South Vietnamese embassies. What would their position be?

Senator WILLESEE:

– Where?

Senator YOUNG:

-In Australia.

Senator WILLESEE:

-That will certainly be part of the study.

page 771

QUESTION

SALES TAX ON MOTOR VEHICLES

Senator SCOTT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer: Is there any indication that General Motors-Holden’s Pty Ltd retrenchments, which were deferred for 90 days in January, will not take place? Does the Government propose to raise the sales tax on motor vehicles which was temporarily reduced 3 months ago? If so, will this be done progressively or at one stroke?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I think the question properly falls within my province as Minister for Manufacturing Industry. In the first place, with regard to retrenchments by General Motors-Holden’s Pty Ltd, the Government and the Department of Manufacturing Industry are in constant contact with all the major automobile companies. There is no indication that any retrenchments are contemplated by General Motors-Holden’s Pty Ltd or by any of the other automobile companies. As to the possible extension of sales tax cuts, the Government does not have under consideration any proposal to extend the period of reduction in sales tax on passenger and commercial vehicles. As announced on 28 January, the levels of sales tax will begin to move back to their former level on 1 May. The restoration will be in 5 equal monthly steps so that the rates will return to their original level on 1 September.

page 771

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE

Senator SHEIL:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. In view of the fact that Government spending in the first 9 months of this financial year- $12, 386m- has increased by almost 50 per cent on the figure for the same period last year, I ask: Does the Government believe that inflation can be checked while its own spending increases at such an alarming rate? Can the promised restructuring of the income tax scale be undertaken to the relief of taxpayers in the light of the present record Budget deficit?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-Of course, it is true that the domestic deficit at present is about $ 1,700m. However, the Government’s actions that have brought about this deficit are fully justified. Last year it was necessary for the Government to increase its spending greatly, mainly through additional payments to the States of very significant sums in the areas of housing and support for rural industries. The question that inevitably arises is: If these increases in expenditure were not made, what section of the economy would be disadvantaged? The Government must make an overall judgment regarding the need to maintain liquidity, especially in the private sector. The Government acted quickly in order to ensure that that liquidity was available.

On the other hand, the Government has taken steps that, to some degree, have reduced the rate of receipts to the Treasury, mainly by reducing company tax and personal income tax and also by reducing sales tax, especially that on motor vehicles. These steps have brought about a fairly significant deficit position at the moment. But this is not a matter for great concern. If we compare our position with that in the United States of America, on a population basis, we can see that that country is running a deficit that is double the deficit in this country. Regarding further taxation measures, the Treasurer will have to provide information on that matter. As I am not aware when the report of the Asprey Committee will be implemented, I shall have to refer that matter to the Treasurer to obtain an answer.

page 772

QUESTION

TUNA INDUSTRY

Senator LAUCKE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address my question to the Minister for Agriculture. I refer to the serious problems currently facing the tuna fishing industry in South Australia as a consequence of the collapse of the overseas tuna market and the extremely high level of fish imports, which are now running at $70m annually. Can the Minister say what measures the Government is taking to meet this crisis in the nationally important Australian fishing industry?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-The honourable senator’s figure of $70m worth of imports of fish products would be approximately correct, but it should not be overlooked that for many years this country has been a large importer of fish products. The previous Government implemented, and this Government has continued, a series of research and development programs whereby we finance the fishing industry with a view to increasing our own production of the types of fish that we have in Australian waters in order to overcome the need for these imports. As I am not aware of the particular point the honourable senator makes with regard to the problems of the tuna industry, I shall need to obtain some further information on the matter, and I will supply it to him. I can assure him that every effort is made to develop the fishing industry in this country. This is not an easy industry to develop, because Australia does not have- although some people believe it does- vast resources of fish around its coast. Before any capital investment is made in any of these programs, it is necessary for a proper developmental program to be carried out in order to ascertain that the quantities of fish suitable for commercial purposes are in .fact present.

page 772

QUESTION

ABORIGINES

Senator RAE:
TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Is it a fact that a sum of $4,000 was promised by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to assist in the cost of transporting and accommodating delegates who attended the meeting of the Federal Council for the Advancement of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders which was held in Canberra during Easter? Is it also a fact that although that amount of money was promised, no funds were made available prior to the conference being held, thereby preventing many delegates, particularly from some of the tribal communities, from attending the conference? Was this action deliberate on the part of the Department, or was it just negligence and inefficiency?

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

– From memory, a request for $8,000 was made to me for the conference in Canberra of the Federal Council for the Advancement of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders and, as a result, a fortnight ago I approved of the payment of $4,000. Whether the money was paid before the conference was held, I do not know, but it is true that an amount of $4,000 was approved for the conference. If the money was not paid before the conference was held it would have been only a matter of the organiser of the conference getting in touch with the Department or myself and it would have been paid. I do not think that that was a reason for the inability of delegates to attend the conference. The reduced amount of money approved for the conference was one of the reasons why the conference was not as representative as it would have been if the request of the organisation had been met in full.

page 772

QUESTION

ABORIGINES

Senator RAE:

- Mr President, may I ask a supplementary question about one further aspect of the question that I asked?

The PRESIDENT:

– Yes.

Senator RAE:

– Will the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs conduct an inquiry to ascertain the full facts in relation to this matter and report to the Senate?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– I think that I have given the full facts, but if there are any facts that were not covered by my reply I will inform the honourable senator.

page 773

PIPELINE AUTHORITY

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture and Leader of the Government in the Senate · Tasmania · ALP

– Pursuant to section 45 (2) of the Pipeline Authority Acts 1973 I present the financial statements of the Pipeline Authority for the year ended 30 June 1973 and the year ended 30 June 1974, together with the report of the AuditorGeneral on those statements. Due to the limited number available arrangements have been made to have reference copies of these statements placed in the Parliamentary Library.

page 773

WORLD FOOD CONFERENCE

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture and Leader of the Government in the Senate · Tasmania · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the report of the Australian delegation on the World Food Conference held in Rome from 15 to 16 November 1974.

page 773

AUSTRALIAN ENVIRONMENT COUNCIL

Senator WHEELDON (Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation)For the information of honourable senators I present the summary record of the fifth meeting of the Australian Environment Council.

page 773

NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Senator WHEELDON (Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation)For the information of honourable senators I present reports by the Australian Ionising Radiation Advisory Council and the Australian Radiation Laboratory entitled ‘Fallout over Australia from nuclear weapons tested by France in Polynesia during July and August 1 973 ‘.

page 773

RIVER MURRAY COMMISSION

Senator WHEELDON (Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation)Pursuant to section 21 of the River Murray Waters Act 1915-1 970 1 present the report of the River Murray Commission for the year ended 30 June 1974, together with the Commission’s financial statements, the report of the AuditorGeneral on those statements, and statements of gaugings and diversions during the year, furnished on behalf of the governments of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. Due to the limited number available at this time arrangements have been made to have a number of reference copies placed in the Parliamentary Library.

page 773

REMUNERATION TRIBUNAL

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– Pursuant to section 7(7) of the Remuneration Tribunals Act 1973-1974 I present the Remuneration Tribunal’s determination of 10 February 1975 dealing with the Interim Australian Science and Technology Council.

page 773

AUSTRALIAN LIBRARY BASED INFORMATION SERVICE

Senator WILLESEE:
Western AustraliaMinister for Foreign Affairs · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the interdepartmental report on Australian library based information service.

page 773

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY LEGAL AID COMMITTEE

Senator James McClelland:
Minister for Manufacturing Industry · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Pursuant to section 23 (3) of the Australian Capital Territory Legal Aid Ordinance 1972 I present the annual report of the Australian Capital Territory Legal Aid Committee for the year ended 30 June 1973, together with financial statements and the report of the AuditorGeneral on those statements.

page 773

INDO-CHINA

Ministerial Statement

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I seek leave to make a statement on Indo-China.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator WRIEDT:

-This speech is identical to that delivered by the Prime Minister in the House of Representatives. When the first person is used, it should be taken as meaning the Prime Minister.

Thirty years ago France attempted to reestablish her fallen empire in Indo-China. A war of independence became a war of massive foreign intervention. It engulfed a region. It challenged the might and will of the greatest power on earth. It made a wilderness of some of the fairest portions of the globe. The most tranquil city in Asia- Phnom Penh- has been made, in the words of the member for Kooyong, a mire of human misery. Centres of old civilisations have been made cities of death. The war unleashed on a peasant people the heaviest bombing in history and the greatest fire power used in history. Not less than two million have been killed. Countless more have been maimed. Yet the war continues.

It is 10 years this month since Sir Robert Menzies announced the commitment of the first Australian battalion to Vietnam. Since then it has been the duty of successive Prime Ministers to report to Parliament and people on Australian activities, on Australian actions, including activity by the armed Services, in Indo-China. I am now the fifth Australian Prime Minister to have to fulfil that duty- but with this difference: For the first time an Australian Prime Minister need report only on our humanitarian involvement, including the use of the armed Services, and our endeavours to end the war rather than escalate the war.

Senator Webster:

– It would greatly facilitate matters if Senators could have a copy of this speech. It should be in our hands.

The PRESIDENT:

– There has been a slight delay. I shall ask the Minister to continue with his speech and we will have the copies as soon as they are available.

Senator WRIEDT:

– I understand there may be some slight delay in the preparation of copies of the speech. I understand that printing problems are being experienced and that copies of the statement are not immediately available. However, they will be available later in the day.

The PRESIDENT:

– The Minister may continue.

Senator WRIEDT:

-After all these years, after all the blunders and bloodshed of 30 years, what tolerable or feasible objective can any foreign government set for itself except the ending of the war, except the ending of the killing as soon as possible? We outsiders never had the right to intervene. But even if there were such, a right, or even if it was right to intervene, would anyone now suggest that any foreign government should resume that intervention? If we have learnt nothing else in the last 30 years we have surely learnt this much, at a heavy cost to ourselves but at a terrible one to the people we claimed to be helping.

For a generation and more, Australia shared with her Pacific partners a great delusion about our rights, our interests, our obligations. Those who acted for Australia as a government mistook entirely the nature of Australia’s interests and obligations and her rights. They shared, and encouraged the Australian people to accept, a delusion about the nature of the conflict in IndoChina. All of us are still paying the price for those mistakes- in economic cost, in loss of confidence in Western civilisation itself. We can repair the losses, other than the lives destroyed. But to do so it is necessary not to repeat the mistakes of the past- not just the mistakes in action but the mistakes of attitude. It was a mistaken attitude after the revolution in China that led step by step to the mistaken view of Australian interests and American interests and mistaken actions in IndoChina. Surely we have learnt our lesson at last.

For 20 years there has been a kind of tragic inevitability about the events now taking place. The great chance, the great opportunity for a political settlement, for peace throughout IndoChina was given in 1954 by the Geneva Agreements. The chance was lost, the opportunity was thrown away. The Geneva Agreements provided the 2 basic ingredients for a political settlementreunification after free elections. If such elections had been held, they would almost certainly have resulted in the power over a unified Vietnam under Ho Chi Minh. Rather than face this prospect the regime in Saigon, urged on by the then United States Administration, refused to hold elections. The result has been that an outcome which might have been achieved by political means 20 years ago, an outcome certainly foreseen by the parties to the Geneva Agreements, whether they welcomed it or not, now seems likely to be achieved only after these 20 more years of bloodshed.

The next great effort to achieve a political solution resulted in the Paris Agreements of January 1973.° Once again those Agreements envisaged a government of one Vietnam with participation of all parties, not just the governments of Saigon and Hanoi but the Provisional Revolutionary Government- the Vietcong so called. Neither the Geneva Agreements nor the Paris Agreements ever allowed the idea that North and South Vietnam were 2 separate countries. As Article 15 of the Paris Agreements states:

The military demarcation line between the two zones at the seventeenth parallel is only provisional and not a political or territorial boundary, as provided for in Paragraph 6 of the final declaration of the 1 954 Geneva Conference.

In other words, from 1954 to the present day, from the fall of Dien Bien Phu 2 1 years ago to the fall of Hue 2 weeks ago, the war in Vietnam has retained its essential character. It is a civil war. The real character of the war has never changed. What has changed is the nature of the fighting and the level of violence. That change, with all the additional suffering and killing it has caused, is overwhelmingly due to one factorforeign intervention. The real result of foreign intervention, principally the United States on the side of Saigon and Russia on the side of Hanoi, has been to raise the level of violence, to raise the capacity for mutual destruction on both sides. That is, if the 2 sides insisted on a solution by military means, then foreign intervention made it certain that the end- whatever the outcomewould be as bloody as possible. What outsiders, including Australia, have done is to create two of the world ‘s largest armies. That is our real legacy to Vietnam. That is almost the sole military result of years of intervention. Let those who year after year encouraged a military solution, those who decried as weakness or even treason the calls for negotiations and the calls for political settlement, now, and at last, recognise the real consequences of their work. These strongmen, these realists, the men on horse-back, insisted upon a military solution. So a military solution it is now to be.

It should also be emphasised that both the Geneva Agreements and the Paris Agreements envisaged that all contending parties would share political responsibility in a re-united Vietnam. The Geneva Agreements envisaged free elections. The Paris Agreements provided for a National Reconciliation Council, to arrange for general elections in South Vietnam. Article 12 stated:

Immediately after the cease-fire, the South Vietnamese parties shall hold consultations in a spirit of national reconciliation and concord, mutual respect, and mutual nonelimination to set up a national council of national reconciliation and concord of three equal segments. . . . After the National Council of National Reconciliation and Concord has assumed its functions, the two South Vietnamese parties will consult about the formation of councils at lower levels. The two South Vietnamese parties shall sign an Agreement on the internal matters of South Vietnam as soon as possible and do their utmost to accomplish this within ninety days after the cease-fire comes into effect.

This was the crucial political article of the Paris Agreements. The Saigon Government has refused to act to implement this central provision. It has not been prepared to join with the Provisional Revolutionary Government. This breach is the key to the justification for military retaliation claimed by the opponents of the Saigon Government.

Because the political opportunities have been for a second time lost, a military solution became inevitable in the broader sense. This does not mean, however, that the actual and specific events of the past 3 weeks were themselves inevitable. The over-running of so much of South Vietnam is by no means a classic example of a blitzkreig. In very large measure the North Vietnamese forces have been moving into a military vacuum. The United States Defence Secretary, Mr Schlesinger, said on 31 March that it was Saigon’s withdrawal rather than a communist general offensive which was the primary cause of the Government of Vietnam ‘s present difficulties. President Ford said on 3 April: ‘A unilateral decision to withdraw created the chaotic situation that exists now. It was a unilateral decision by President Thieu ‘.

To state these facts is not to condone breaches of the Paris Agreements by North Vietnam. There have been gross breaches repeatedly by both sides. It is just a plain statement of fact that the immediate chaotic situation north of Saigon is due to the unilateral decision by President Thieu. In the words of the Australian journalist Denis Warner- close as he is to military councils in Saigon- ‘The shattering loss of central Vietnam, which has swung the balance of forces entirely in Hanoi’s favour, was not caused by enemy action but by hideous blunders in Saigon’. The decision to withdraw and, perhaps even more importantly, the way it was made, with no explanation, no consultation, no communication, had 2 immediate results. It destroyed the morale of the Army of the Republic of Vietnam and it spread panic to the population.

It is in this situation of unparallelled chaos and unexpected rapidity of events- unexpected in Hanoi itself- that the Australian Government has tried to apply its resources to save lives, to relieve suffering. It must be emphasised that the suddenness of the collapse in South Vietnam limited the scope and effectiveness of any aid given by the Australian Govenment or by any other government.

Members of the Opposition have chosen to belittle our efforts. For example, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Malcolm Fraser) particularised our participation in the attempted evacuation of Da Nang as a ‘futile and pathetic gesture- too little, too late’. The truth is that the Australian Government met, as soon as it was received through the American Embassy, a request from the Government of South Vietnam for assistance. The decision was taken to make available 7 Hercules transport aircraft together with other aircraft currently based at Butterworth in Malaysia. On 2 April I received the following message:

Please accept my warm appreciation and deep admiration for your help to evacuate the many desperate refugees from Da Nang. Australia can take great pride in the rapid decision to meet an absolutely essential humanitarian requirement. Warmest respect, (Signed) Admiral Noel Gayler, United States Commander in Chief Pacific.

The Australian Government last year contributed $1.15 to international organisations to be spent in Indo-China- on both sides- during the current financial year. On 28 March the Australian Government announced a further contribution of $200,000 to the Indo-China Operations Group of the International Red Cross, which operates throughout Indo-China. On 2 April I announced a further contribution of $lm to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees ‘ relief work among refugees in all parts of Indo-China, on both sides of the lines of military control. On 3 April I opened a public appeal for a $5m refugee aid fund, to be co-ordinated by the Disaster Emergency Committee of the Australian Council for Overseas Aid. Yesterday the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Willesee) announced a further grant of Sim to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. This brings the total Australian Government aid to international humanitarian organisations operating in Indo-China to $3.4m.

The action which has attracted most attention is of course the bringing of children to Australia. In this matter, the sole role of the Australian Government was to bring eligible children to suitable adoptive families as promptly and as safely as possible. Nobody has been helped by unfounded claims that vast numbers of orphans were waiting for evacuation from Saigon. At all times, the Australian Government has been bound to require 2 conditions: That orphans would be approved for exit from Saigon by the South Vietnamese Government for adoption in Australia, and that the States would guarantee that normal adoption procedures would be observed.

As soon as the Australian Government received advice that the first requirement had been met and that on the second the States had approved 246 adopting families, arrangements were made to bring the orphans by Hercules transport to Bangkok and by chartered Qantas jet to Sydney. Australian Government authorities found that many of the children evacuated from Saigon were the subject of uncompleted off-shore adoption procedures in South Vietnam by Australian nationals. Faced with this fact, my Government determined that it could do nothing in the matter of allocating children to families as this was clearly a State responsibility and therefore if there was to be any disagreement between adoptive families about the children then it was a matter for the States to determine.

The Government had arranged for an aircraft to depart Sydney yesterday afternoon for Bangkok to evacuate a second group of orphans. That aircraft did not take off, following advice from our Ambassador in Saigon that the South Vietnamese authorities decided not to release any more children as they wished to reconsider their policy on adoption by foreign nationals. Our Ambassador has been unable to confirm reports that this decision has since been reversed.

I should point out, however, that the decision itself amply demonstrates that there is no large pool of orphans awaiting urgent evacuation and, further, that the Saigon Government has properly insisted on the performance of its own policies and procedures.

The actions of the Government in the immediate emergency are part of the long standing program and policy we have adopted since achieving office. Our immediate objective has been to do what we can to stop the fighting, to bring the war to an end. Our long-term objective has been to help rebuild a devastated Vietnam and help rehabilitate its people. We have consistently pursued both objectives since December 1972. The most important step open to Australia to reduce the level of violence was always to stop contributing militarily to that violence. Within a week of taking office we ordered the end of Australia’s military involvement in Vietnam and Cambodia.

The second contribution open to Australia was to use diplomatic influence to end the fighting. In particular the Australian Government has tried to promote adherence to the Paris Agreements. We have lost no opportunity to encourage the Vietnamese parties to implement the Agreements to the full, and to deplore the breaches of the Agreements by both sides. And, of course, we have been able to do this only because we are diplomatically represented in both Saigon and Hanoi.

These attitudes have consistently been expressed over the past 15 months by me and by the Foreign Minister at the highest level, and by personal contact between Vietnamese ministers and officials and some of my colleagues, including the Deputy Prime Minister (Dr J. F. Cairns) and the Minister for Defence ( Mr Barnard ).

As recently as 13 March I wrote to both President Thieu and the North Vietnamese Foreign Minister stressing Australia’s support for the implementation of the Agreements, our concern at the continued lack of progress, the continued fighting and the continuing breaches of the Agreements by both sides.

The fact is that the Australian Government has been foremost among nations in seeking to end the war and relieve the suffering it has caused. In this immediate emergency, no government has been more active, more concerned and, reflecting the wishes of the Australian people, more generous. And it is worth noting the real reason why the Australian people expect their Government so to act. Why does Vietnam invoke a very special kind of emotion and concern and compassion in Australia? It is not just the scale and extent of the suffering which is not, unhappily, unique, not even unusual in this troubled world. The refugee, the homeless, the starving, the innocent victims of war number millions upon millions across 3 continents, but Vietnam has a power over the Australian conscience for one particular reason. The Australian people have accepted the truth, the bitter truth, that the intervention into which they were led was disastrously wrong, that it only increased and lengthened the agony of Vietnam. The Australian people have acknowledged the truth in the same way that the American people and the American Congress have acknowledged it, but is the truth of the disaster acknowledged by its authors and their abettors?

One of the most depressing aspects of this whole tragic episode has been the lamentable performance of the Opposition in the past 2 weeks. 1 have listened with increasing dismay and contempt to the statements by spokesmen for the Opposition. I pass over the humbug and hypocrisy- par for the course- but the truly depressing thing has been the mounting evidence that with the Opposition nothing has changed. Ten years of destruction have changed nothing. The present Leader of the Opposition has even revived the domino theory, smartly dismissed by the Prime Minister of Singapore as old hash’. The one great constant in the attitude of the parties opposite to the war in Vietnam, throughout the period of Australia’s involvement, was their determination to squeeze every drop of political advantage out of it. And even in the final throes, they are at it again. One could hear all the echoes from the past, right from that unforgettable night 10 years ago, 28 April 1965, when from this side of the House they bayed and brayed with a delight they did not bother to conceal as Sir Robert Menzies announced the first instalment of Australia ‘s mi.tary commitment. It was their finest hour. They laughed as they lied their way into this war. But throughout the subsequent years, in any debate which had to deal with any American initiatives to disengage or de-escalate the war, they were notable for their sullen silence. The only occasion their spirits revived was when, 5 years ago this month, President Nixon unleashed the South Vietnamese Army upon Cambodia, escalating the war to its most ferocious level and transforming a haven of fragile peace into a war-ravaged wilderness.

In the orchestrated outpourings of the past week there has been just one new note- muted as yet, but clearly designed to become a grand new theme- and that .is that the United States is an untrustworthy ally. The irony of it! We are witnessing the beginning of a new effort to sow the seeds of fear and suspicion and division in Australia. What else is the purpose of this attempt to blame the United States Congress and the American people for the debacle in which the Government of South Vietnam now finds itself? There could be only one other motive -to shame the United States back into Indo-China. Is this the wish of the Opposition? Is this its proposal for either the United States or Australia to get back into the war, to prolong it for yet another decade? If that is not its proposal, then what criticism of substance can it have against my Government’s attitudes or actions with regard to IndoChina now or at any time in the past 2 years and 4 months?

In the heady days when Vietnam was a popular war, when it was a political goldmine, before the people of Australia came to see its implications and consequences for Indo-China. for Australia and for the United States, the constant challenge made in this House, not least from the present Leader of the Opposition, was ‘stand up and be counted’. Indeed, the first time this challenge was raised in this House was against me by the then Minister for External Affairs, now Lord Casey, 21 years ago. It was in 1954 that in this House I first warned against Australian or American military involvement in Indo-China. Let the members of the Opposition now stand up and be counted and say that they believe it was wrong that we should have got completely out of the war or believe that the United States or Australia should go back into the war.

As to the United States, she has fulfilled any obligations she assumed to the Government of Saigon. Neither the honour nor the interests of a great people can be confided to any particular foreign regime. But the United States’ honour and interests do lie in helping rebuild a unified Vietnam, the unification of which misguided policies, mistaken policies of the past so long delayed; the United States’ honour and interest lie in helping to rebuild an Indo-China to the devastation of which those policies so greatly contributed. That is the way for the United States to regain her real place of leadership in our region. To helping in such a task, the Australian Government is already committed; indeed, it is already contributing. And in that task Australia, as far as this Government is concerned, will be a good partner with the United States.

We will have no truck with those who put out the line that the United States should resume her intervention in the war. We will have no truck with any suggestion that America’s honour or reputation requires resumed intervention. We will have no truck with those who seek to build a new philosophy of fear upon the unwarranted assertion of American dishonour in refusing to intervene with force on behalf of the Saigon Government.

While the security of Australia has never rested solely upon the American alliance, that alliance remains a key element in it. And whatever the outcome of the events now unfolding in Vietnam, the basic elements of Australia’s security remain untouched.

Who rules in Saigon is not, and never has been, an ingredient in Australia’s security. Our strength and our security rest on factors and relationships ultimately unchanged by these events. The really important factors and relations are those which have been developed by the Australian Government since December 1972- our relations with our closest and largest neighbour Indonesia, our relations with our greatest trading partner Japan, our relations with China, our active support for development of co-operation between ASEAN members, our efforts to ensure that the Indian Ocean does not become the next area of confrontation between the super-powers as Indo-China became, in a sense, the first. Above all, Australia’s security, as with the peace of the world, rests ultimately upon making the detente between the United States and the Soviet Union a success and with associating China in a wider detente. These are the great relationships and the great factors which determine the security of Australia. This Government has been unremitting in its efforts to strengthen those relationships. Those efforts have been rewarded with remarkable success.

It is not possible that the nightmare of Vietnam will ever pass from the memory or the conscience of any man or woman of our time. Nor should it. But the work we are now doing to build good, constructive relations with peoples and nations throughout the world will outlive even that bitter memory, will outlast even the bad and destructive things inflicted on the people of Vietnam during the past 30 years. I move:

That the Senate take note of the statement.

Debate (on motion by Senator Withers) adjourned.

page 778

QUESTION

PLACING OF BUSINESS

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

- Mr President, in view of the Senate having agreed to the Australian Film Commission Bill 1975, I ask for leave to move a motion for the discharge of the Committee for reasons for disagreeing to the amendments made by the House of Representatives to the Australian Film Commission Bill 1974.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator WITHERS:

-I move:

That the Committee for reasons, appointed by the Senate on 3 December 1974 to report on the reasons for the Senate disagreeing to the amendments made by the House of Representatives to the Australian Film Commission Bill 1974, be discharged.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 778

ASSENT TO BILLS

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received from His Excellency the Administrator messages notifying assent to the following Bills:

Australian Industry Development Corporation Bill 1 975

Book Bounty Bill 1975

Australian Film Commission Bill 1975

Appropriation (Development Bank) Bill 1975

Remuneration and Allowances Bill 1975

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 1974-75

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 1974-75

Australia Council Bill 1975

National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Bill 1 975

I have received a further message notifying that His Excellency the Administrator, under section 74 of the Constitution, had reserved the Privy Council (Appeals from the High Court) Bill 1975 for Her Majesty’s pleasure.

page 778

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS BILL 1975

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.

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

Second Reading

Senator BISHOP:
South AustraliaPostmasterGeneral · ALP

– I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The main purpose of this Bill is to amend certain provisions of the Commonwealth Railways Act 1917-1973 in order to create the Australian National Railways Commission thus providing for the increasingly wider functions and responsibilities of Commonwealth Railways including the transfer of State railways; to ensure that the powers, duties and functions of the proposed Commission are, where possible, consistent with other statutory authorities with a similar nature; to make amendments to the Act, which will bring it into line with current commercial practices of statutory authorities; and to overcome administrative problems raised by the Auditor-General. At the same time the opportunity will be taken to make several amendments of a machinery nature in relation to financial provisions of the Act and to effect some largely formal amendments. The proposed amendments are intended to update the Act, which has not received a major review since its enactment in 1917.

The amendments will also enable the proposed Commission effectively to perform its role as one of Australia’s major rail systems and provide it with the organisational structure and operational powers necessary for it to consolidate into a single system the State railways that may be transferred under the Government’s rail transfer program.

I would like to draw the attention of honourable senators to the development of the Commonwealth Railways and its significant achievements over its 63 years of history. Historically, the Trans-Australia Railway was one of the principal inducements for Western Australia to join the other Australian colonies in Federation. This railway was the first railway built by an Australian government and had as its prime purpose to link Australian States, whereas most State railways had been built with the object of either exploiting individual States’ resources or channelling trade to State capitals. The building of the Trans-Australia Railway of over 1 ,680 kilometres was a major achievement in itself. It was commenced in 1912 and despite the inhospitable nature of the terrain and wartime supply problems the line was finished in October 1917. A significant factor in this achievement which contributed to the speed of construction of the line was the use of track laying machines.

Innovation and preparedness to accept new technology has marked many Commonwealth Railways achievements. In 1951 it operated the first mainline diesel electric locomotive to be manufactured in Australia and within 6 years Commonwealth Railways were completely dieselised, at a time when some Australian railway systems were still placing steam engines in service. Today the Commonwealth Railways is a leader in railway operating practices, especially in the design of large freight wagons and operation of high horsepower diesel locomotives.

The importance of Commonwealth Railways to Australia’s total transport system has increased dramatically over the last decade and this trend is continuing for in 1973-74 traffic on the Trans-Australia Railway reached new records, although the freight carried on the Central and Northern Australian railways declined due to severe flooding. The reasons for the overall increase in traffic include growth in the Australian economy; the realisation by many shippers of the advantages of rail, especially forwarding agents, and their consequent diversion of freight from other modes to rail; and the increased operating efficiency of Australia’s railways resulting from improved rolling stock and rail standardisation. Passenger traffic on the Commonwealth Railways has also increased due to the high standard of comfort and service offered on trains of world class such as the Indian-Pacific and the Trans-Australian.

Commonwealth Railways has recently commenced a railway project of world stature- the Tarcoola-Alice Springs line. This line runs from Tarcoola on the Trans-Australia Railway to Alice Springs, 830 kilometres to the north. This railway presents a modern-day pioneering challenge. By any standard it is a mammoth undertaking; it is in fact the longest new railway built in Australia since the Trans-Australia Railway in 1917 and, when one considers that it will be only 70 kilometres shorter than the rail distance between Melbourne and Sydney, some idea of the size of the project can be gained. The average person has little comprehension of the complexity of a project such as this. It involves a meticulous survey by both air and land over hundreds of kilometres of featureless country; the opening of ballast quarries; the welding of miles of continuous rail; the laying of hundreds of thousands of sleepers; the building of a telecommunication system; and the feeding and quartering of men in some of the most inhospitable desert country in Australia. The decision to make Commonwealth Railways the constructing authority for this project is a recognition of the high standard of its engineering and organisational skills. It is estimated that the project will take 5 years to complete, but within 3 years a railhead will be established to enable the road-rail movement of goods. When completed, the new line will provide a vastly improved railway service for Central and northern Australia.

The Government has also recognised the chronic shortage of intersystem rail wagons which at present is over 3200 vehicles. This shortage has resulted in the diversion of freight to other modes with resultant economic and social costs to the community as a whole in the form of damage to highways and accidents. In addition, due to the inability of the railways to handle the freight offering, cargo has had to be carried on the Australian coast by unlicensed vessels. This led to hostility and ill feeling among maritime unions. This Government was quick to react to this problem and in the 1974 Budget the Government announced a continuing rolling stock purchasing program which over the next 2 years will provide some 1300 modern bogie wagons for intersystem use.

With the election of the present Government came a new approach to Australia’s railway problems. It was realised that a basic obstacle to the creation of a modern and efficient railway system for Australia was the division of responsiblity for railways between 6 States and one Australian authority which in the past had led to intersystem rivalries; duplication of facilities; misallocation of resources; and the lack of a national approach to railway policy. The Prime Minister (Mr Whitiam) recognised this in his 1972 policy speech when he offered to accept the transfer of the railways of any State that was prepared to offer them. Honourable senators will be aware South Australia has accepted the Prime Minister’s offer and agreed to transfer its non metropolitan railways to the Australian Government. I am also pleased to say that negotiations on the transfer of the Tasmanian railways are progressing very satisfactorily. Regrettably the Liberal and Country Party State governments have either refused to discuss the possibility of a transfer or have withdrawn from transfer discussions. However, I am convinced that good sense will prevail in the long run.

The rail transfer program, coupled with initiatives the Government has taken in relation to rolling stock, and major projects which the Government is undertaking such as the Tarcoola-Alice Springs railway and the standard gauge connection for Adelaide, usher in a new era for Australia’s railways in which the Australian National Railways Commission will have to play a major role. Consequently it is essential that the Commission be established now, and be given the necessary structure, powers and functions for it to operate as an efficient statutory authority charged with making a vital contribution to Australia’s national transport system.

Let me now speak separately to the main provisions of the Bill. I am having circulated an explanatory memorandum to assist honourable senators in their consideration of this Bill. Firstly, the name ‘Commonwealth Railways’ will be changed to the ‘Australian National Railways’.

The new name is more in keeping with the responsibilities of the new Commission which will have as its task the operation of a national railway, ultimately constituted as a result of the amalgamation of what were previously State railways. As I have indicated, Commonwealth Railways is undergoing a period of expansion and growth. This is placing an increasingly heavy burden on a single commissioner, as the Commonwealth Railways is presently constituted, and in the event of a transfer, this burden could become intolerable. It is therefore proposed to create a Commission which will be called the Australian National Railways Commission. It will consist of 7 commissioners of which one will be a full time chairman and the other six parttime commissioners. Appointments to the Commission will be in accordance with the usual practice, by the Governor-General, and will be fora 5-year period.

It is the intention of the Government to recommend to the Governor-General the appointment of a prominent trade unionist as one of the parttime commissioners. This will be in accordance with the practice the Government has followed in relation to other statutory authorities such as Qantas Airways Ltd, the Reserve Bank Board and the National Pipeline Authority. I should also point out that in relation to government transport undertakings this is not only the policy of the Australian Labor Government; the New South Wales Liberal Government appointed Mr Barry Unsworth, an organiser of the New South Wales Labor Council, as a commissioner of the New South Wales Public Transport Commission. Sections 5 to 1 5 of the proposed Act provide for the establishment of the new Commission and contain the normal provisions relating to appointment, salary determination, leave of absence, resignation, termination of appointment and meetings, appropriate to statutory authorities of this type. In my opening remarks I indicated that the proposed Act would make provision for the transfer of a State railway to the Australian Government. This provision can be seen in section 16a of the proposed Act which provides authority for State railway systems acquired by the Australian Government to become the property of the Commission.

As honourable senators will know, most State railways provide some form of non-rail services, particularly in relation to door-to-door delivery of goods and the provision of road passenger services. Consequently, if the Australian National Railways is to provide the same range of services as former State railways it is essential that it have the power to operate such services. Section 3 IB is intended to empower the Commission to provide these services. The section has been the subject of some misunderstanding particularly by road transport organisations which saw it as giving the Commission the power to enter into unfair competition with them. This was not the intention of the section. To put the matter beyond a shadow of doubt the Minister for Transport accepted, in another place, an amendment proposed by the Opposition which limited the road services the Commission could provide to those ‘incidental or supplementary to, or in association with, the transport of passengers or goods on the railways’. This amendment is incorporated in the Bill at present before the Senate. Similarly, some concern has been expressed in relation to section 31a which gives the Commission power to provide road and engineering services for Australian Government departments and Australian Government authorities. Much of this concern stems from a misreading of the word ‘Australia’ in section 3 1 a which has the same connotation as the word ‘Commonwealth’ has in the present Commonwealth Railways Act, that is, Commonwealth of Australia.

Section 3 lc enables the Commission to carry out arrangements with the Australian Shipping Commission and the Australian National Airlines Commission for the transport of goods and passengers. A similar provision is contained in the Australian National Airlines Commission Act. I am certain that honourable senators from Tasmania will recognise the importance this section could assume in the event of a transfer of the Tasmanian Government Railways and the benefits which would flow to that State from a co-ordinated transport service provided by the ANL and ANR. I also said in my opening remarks that one of the purposes of the proposed Bill is to ensure that the power, duties and functions of the proposed Commission are, where possible, consistent with other statutory authorities with a similar nature. This particularly relates to the new financial provisions contained in sections 55 to 57 of the proposed Act which replace sections 55, 56 and 57 in the principal Act. The purpose of the new financial provisions is also to provide the new Commission with a degree of financial autonomy including the power to open and maintain bank accounts- section 57b.’ The only major financial difference between the new Commission and similar statutory authorities, such as the Australian Shipping Commission and the Australian National Airlines Commission, is that it is proposed to continue the exemption of the railway from paying tax. This is provided by section 57h. The reasons for this decision are that no State railway is subject to taxation and the Government does not want to put the ANR at a disadvantage vis-a-vis State railways, and that the ANR will not be in competition with private organisations as are the ANL and Trans-Australia Airlines, lt is also the intention of the Bill to amend the principal Act so that it will be brought into line with current commercial practices in statutory authorities. The proposed amendments to section 2 1 of the principal Act will empower the Commission to lease railway property. Subject to section 23 which requires the approval of the Minister if the lease is to run over 1 0 years, this amendment will enable the Commission to gain revenue from land which is not immediately required for railway purposes without referring each individual case to the Minister for his approval. Section 23 of the principal Act will be replaced with a new section which increases the value of contracts the Commission may arrange without ministerial approval from $10,000 to $100,000. This is a realistic figure in relation to the responsibilities of the Commission and modern commercial practices. A comparative provision exists in the Australian Shipping Commission Act 1 974.

The amendments proposed for sections 27 and 28 are basically operational provisions relating to the carriage of dangerous and bulky goods respectively, so that persons are not permitted to carry or require the Commission to carry such goods. The amendments also extend the provisions of section 27 and 28 to road vehicles owned by the Commission. The replacement of section 33a with a new section will enable the Commission to sell, among other things, liquor to travellers and non-travellers without distinction. The wording of the present Act is such that the Commission cannot sell liquor to friends of travellers or to his staff in remote locations. The Auditor-General’s report of 1972-73 brought to light administrative difficulties in relation to sections 50 and 51 of the principal Act. The Auditor-General took the view that under section 50 the Commission should certify that positions were required before making appointments. Section 51, which was last amended over 21 years ago, provided that the creation of an office with a salary of more than $1,700 per annum was subject to approval by the GovernorGeneral.

The proposed amendments repeal sections 46, 50, 51 and 52 and replace them with new sections, 46, 46a, 50 and 51. The new section 46 A has been included, providing for the position of General Manager of the Commission. The net effect of the new section is to remove the administrative problems sections 50 and 5 1 presented by providing that the Commission may appoint such staff as it thinks necessary and that the Commission may determine terms and conditions of service subject to approval by the Public Service Board. The Commission may not determine a position at a salary rate exceeding $16,282 which is at present the salary of a Class 1 1 officer in the Public Service, without ministerial approval, unless a higher rate or method of determining the higher rate is provided by regulation. This in effect overcomes the necessity of continually amending the Act with each increase in salary for railway employees.

The new section 50 requires that the Commission furnish a report to the Minister annually of the number of permanent officers in the railway service; while the new section 5 1 is a standard section and provides that the Commission is an approved authority for the purpose of the Superannuation Act, and makes provision for superannuation for the Chairman and the General Manager of the Commission. Clauses 27, 28 and 29 of the amending Bill are transitional provisions enabling the Commission to take over from the Commissioner. There are also some formal amendments and these are detailed in the Schedule to the Bill. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Jessop) adjourned.

page 782

REFRIGERATION COMPRESSORS BOUNTY BILL 1975

Message received from the House of Representatives intimating that it had agreed to the amendment requested by the Senate to this Bill.

Third Reading

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

page 782

NATIONAL HEALTH BILL (No. 2) 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 5 March on motion by Senator Wheeldon:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Victoria

-I noticed that it was to be suggested that a cognate debate of the 2 National Health Bills be undertaken. I do not know whether the Minister had in mind taking that course.

Senator Wheeldon:

– If the Opposition is agreeable, the Government believes that this would be an appropriate way of dealing with the National Health Bill (No. 2) 1975 and the National Health Bill (No. 3) 1975.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Webster)- There being no objection, that course will be followed.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– The Opposition will vote in favour of the National Health Bill (No. 2) 1975. This Bill, which was introduced some time ago by the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation (Senator Wheeldon), provides for new benefits to 2 classes of contributors to health benefits funds. The classes of contributors are pregnant women and uninsured people who become recipients of unemployment, sickness or special benefits paid by the Department of Social Security. It is only timely to note that at present a woman who becomes a contributor to a medical or hospital benefits fund when pregnant is not entitled to benefits in respect of fees incurred in connection with the pregnancy. This results from the exclusion rules which were applied by private health fund organisations. This particular Bill now enables a health benefits organisation, which is already operating a special account, to transfer to that account a pregnant woman’s benefits after she becomes a contributor to the fund. This contributor will then be eligible for benefits after serving the normal 2 months waiting time required for new contributors. The use of the special account for this purpose does give a benefit and a cover to pregnant women who are contributors to a private health fund.

We now turn to the group of uninsured people who become recipients of unemployment, sickness or special benefits paid by the Department of Social Security. The National Health Act at present provides that these people must generally serve a waiting period of 2 weeks from the time that they become unemployed or incapacitated before they are eligible. The requirement to serve this waiting period means that in many cases people are deprived of benefits and extreme hardship can result. The Bill before the Senate provides for the abolition of this waiting period. We believe this is of considerable benefit to the class of persons who are so described. I indicate that the Opposition accepts the proposals within the National Health Bill (No. 2) 1975 and we wish it a speedy passage.

I turn now to the National Health Bill (No. 3) 1975 and indicate formally that the Opposition rejects this Bill. This is a Bill which has been rejected previously in another form by the Opposition in the Senate. We rejected these provisions by eliminating them from the former Bill which was introduced containing some other matters to which we did give our support. We now have presented to us this Bill which is styled National Health Bill (No. 3) 1975. It is the Bill which refers to the private health funds. The Minister, in introducing the Bill, has said that it provides for more effective supervision by the Australian Government of the operations of medical and hospital benefits organisations registered under the National Health Act. Within the Bill we find several provisions which give considerable powers to the Minister. The powers which are of importance are those which enable the Minister to request an organisation to show why it should not be investigated in relation to specified matters.

The Bill gives power for the appointment of an inspector to conduct an investigation. It gives power to the Minister, after the report of the inspector, to take such action consistent with the Act as he considers appropriate which may include making an application to the Australian Industrial Court for the appointment of a judicial manager to manage the affairs of the fund or for the fund itself to be wound up. There are very wide ranging provisions within this National Health Bill (No. 3) 1975. We have opposed them in the past and we continue to do so.

It is perhaps appropriate to mention that the Minister in his concluding remarks said that this Bill is not related to Medibank proposals. I consider that a somewhat interesting statement because it would be important to relate the operation of the private health funds to the proposed Medibank program inasmuch as there are considerable gaps in the Medibank program and private health funds will need to cover contributors who desire to insure themselves against those gaps. In particular, I refer to the need for the insurance by private insurance funds for private hospital cover. It seems to me that the very wide powers and perhaps the intention that these powers suggest for the winding up and management of the health funds do lead into an area where, if this Bill were given assent and were enacted, these gaps could not be covered for the Australian people.

Our basic objection to the Bill is, without any question at all, that it does give the Minister absolute and dictatorial powers over the operations in the future of the private health funds. Those powers could be used indiscriminately and for the ultimate or immediate destruction of the health funds. If it were the objective of the Minister to eliminate competition from the health funds after the introduction of the Government’s Medibank scheme, the power to do so would exist under this Bill. The Minister could force any fund out of business or he could so undermine public confidence or commercial activity in the fund to the degree that it would be destroyed. The appointment of a judicial manager or any other provisions in the Bill, irrespective of valid reasons, could have this effect on the confidence of those people who wish privately to insure themselves for the gaps, as I have called them, in the Government’s Medibank scheme.

There is a provision within this Bill which gives the Minister the power to manipulate the reserves of the health funds. For example, hospital reserves could be applied for medical use. In this way there could be an intrusion by government direction into what would be valid and prudent commercial decisions that needed to be taken by the funds themselves consistent with the way in which they operate under the Act. It would also make it extremely difficult for the health funds to provide a program for the future to cover whatever areas of health insurance may be required by the Australian people. If they are to operate commercially and profitably it will be necessary for them to pursue whatever areas of health insurance are required by the Australian people. The many provisions which are included in this Bill could give to the Minister so much overriding control of the funds’ activities that their future could be placed in jeopardy.

We consider that the power that the Minister has under the Bill to use the special account, the outcome of which would deprive the chronically ill of their freedom to use private or intermediate hospital accommodation with the accompanying freedom of choice of surgeon or physician, driving them into public ward accommodation, is also an undesirable feature. This would surely be against the Government’s professed desire to have health care reaching each individual Australian in the best possible manner. The provisions which talk about the special account are important but I think what we should draw attention to at this time, in the interests of Australian people, is the need for them to continue to undertake private health insurance for private hospital cover. Without the private health insurance funds operating and without people insuring themselves it will be extremely difficult on 1 July for hospital accommodation to be available as it is required by the Australian community. If there are no funds through which adequate private hospital insurance may be undertaken it is absurd to suggest that the private hospitals will be able to continue as a medical service in this country. The fact that the Government has provided an $ 1 8 a day subsidy to private hospitals will place them beyond the reach of any but the extremely wealthy people in the Australian community without some method of private hospital insurance. The private medical profession, which is heavily dependent also on a viable independent health insurance industry, will be deprived of the private hospitals which the profession uses for its patients. Again we believe that this will erode the quality of health care that could be available.

These are the reasons why we relate this Bill to the proposed Medibank scheme because we believe that without the operation of private health funds it will not be possible to cover many gaps from the introduction of the medical scheme. It would seem to us that there will be undoubtedly I am not being critical- a time when the introduction of the new proposed scheme will need to be tested. The application of the wide reaching ramifications of this Bill to the private health funds during this period of testing and introduction of the complex scheme which the Government proposes places unnecessary difficulties before the health funds at this time. We have stressed previously our opposition to the proposals of this Bill. I indicate on behalf of the Opposition that at this time we cannot see that it would be in the interests of the Australian public for such wide ranging powers to be asserted by the Minister over the operations of the private health funds. Accordingly we would seek to divide on this Bill and we will be voting against it.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

– I rise to speak very briefly in connection with these 2 Bills because, as I have indicated in earlier speeches, it has been a very long debate which has gone on for approximately six or seven years both in this chamber and in the House of Representatives. Both these Bills have been described by the Minister for Health (Dr Everingham) as not being related to Medibank. Certainly the first of these 2 Bills, the Health Insurance Bill (No. 2), is not related to Medibank in any way in that it is designed to cure 2 deficiencies in the long standing health insurance scheme in Australia. In the first place, pregnant women are excluded by the rules of private health funds from benefit if they are not members at the time that their pregnancy is incurred or during their pregnancy. Secondly, the Bill is designed to cover those people who are recipients of unemployment, sickness or special social security benefits who likewise are placed at grave social disadvantage and indeed in a position of some anxiety, one might anticipate, as a result of inability to obtain assistance with medical bills under the present legislation. Both these matters have been adverted to in the past by reports relating to the operation of the health insurance program. I welcome at this stage the Opposition’s acceptance of the National Health Bill (No. 2).

With regard to the National Health Bill (No. 3), at this stage I still fail to understand the Opposition’s emotional allegiance to the private health insurance funds. This matter has been debated for many years and the sensitivity which is still displayed over the future of those funds has at last, I must confess, been given a rationale in terms of the fears which some people in the community have about the role of private hospital insurance after Medibank comes into existence. I still say that as a matter of legislative structure and as a matter of fact this Bill has nothing to do with the Medibank scheme. With regard to unsubstantiated fears about private health insurance after Medibank is introduced, it may be said that it has a very tenuous connection in a negative way with the positive aspects of Medibank.

I wish to draw the attention of the Senate to one or two matters in relation to the private health insurance funds. For a long time a comment has been made in our society, which has never been answered, that many things are wrong with the administration of the private health insurance funds, that their management expenses are too high and that open funds have failed the community and the contributors to those funds by the lack of contributor representation in the management of the funds. It is disappointing that at this stage one still hears nothing from the Opposition about those matters. I say that it is disappointing because if one studies some of the documents which have been published since 1969 by various committees and inquiries relating to health insurance in Australia, one finds that these matters have been causes of concern. If one looks at the report of the Senate Select Committee on Medical and Hospital Costs published in June 1970 one finds a reference on page 46 to the departmental policy in relation to private health insurance funds of trying persuasion and co-operation with these funds rather than the sort of controls which are envisaged in the present Bill. In paragraph 162 the Committee commented on that policy of persuasion in this way:

The Committee considers that this policy has not been sufficient, and believes that it would be desirable, whenever necessary, to exercise the power of suspension and to withdraw from any suspended organisation the payment of Commonwealth benefits pursuant to section 28 of the National Health Act.

In the following paragraphs the Committee discussed the sort of powers which there should be over the funds. In paragraph 164 it came back to the question of contributors. The report stated:

Contributors to funds are not in the same basic situation as shareholders in a normal company, and the Committee was disturbed to learn how little, if any, contributor participation or representation exists in relation to funds. It is logical, therefore, that the Commonwealth Government, which in 1968-69 outlayed $13$. 6m of taxpayers’ money as medical and hospital insurance benefits . . . should act in a supervisory way, to ensure that contributors’ interests are protected.

The same matter was taken up in the Nimmo Report in its recommendations on page 13 of that report. At a later stage it was further dealt with in the Green Paper on health insurance in Australia- the report of the planning committee. Still, in April of 1975 we find some reluctance to accept these criticisms of the private health insurance funds and addiction to the position which was adopted in 1 969 by the present Opposition, the then Government, about which nothing was done in 3 years of government after that first report to which I referred was tabled.

We should consider at all times the social purpose of the health insurance funds. Their social purpose under the existing health insurance scheme has been to provide benefits for contributors who belong to those private funds. It may be said that after Medibank comes into operation on 1 July 1975 their social purpose will be to provide benefits for those who still contribute to them in relation to private hospital care. I concede that in both matters that is a significant and important social purpose. But we must remember that the funds which they have accumulated during many years have been built up largely on the basis, as the Committee in 1970 reported, of a Commonwealth Government contribution of approximately 60 per cent. In those circumstances it is put to the Senate, as it has been put in numerous other places, that it is sheer dereliction of duty and dereliction of the function of government for the Government not to have a greater say, as this Bill provides, in the control and financial involvement of those funds. It may be said that in some respects the powers given to the Minister should have been given in another way. However, I do not understand that to be the real point of the criticism made. I understand the point of criticism really to be that that sort of control should not be vested in the Minister at all, that the right of application to the Australian

Industrial Court should not be vested in the Minister in the way in which it is vested. We on this side put it quite simply that that is an abdication of responsibility of government, that it is inconsistent with previous positions adopted by the Liberal Party on this matter, that it is inconsistent with the findings of the Committee of the Senate, that it is inconsistent with the findings of the Nimmo report, and of course and not remarkably that it is inconsistent with the statement set out in the Green Paper on health insurance. I do not find that remarkable at all because that document, in a sense, expresses the Government’s political view on the health insurance situation in Australia.

Although we very much regret the attitude expressed by Senator Guilfoyle, we find it remarkable for its obscurantist consistency over many years in the face of facts found by Senate committees and by the Nimmo Committee, and in spite of all the debate that has raged in the community over these issues for all that length of time. Once again, we say that we cannot see either the logic of the position stated or what that will guarantee, after Medibank comes into existence, to people who wish to contribute for private hospital insurance to private funds. What will this position achieve in terms of the social purposes of health funds? What will it achieve in terms of the responsibilities of those funds? What will it achieve in terms of the administration of these funds, particularly having regard to the lack of contributor representation in their management? For all these reasons, which we regard as involving the fundamental principle in this matter, we say that the legislation should be supported by the Senate, and that the attitude expressed by Senator Guilfoyle of the Opposition is irresponsible.

Senator SHEIL:
Queensland

-I agree with the Opposition’s stance in respect of the National Health Bill (No. 2) and the National Health Bill (No. 3). We find National Health Bill (No. 2) agreeable because it extends benefits to 2 classes of patient that were not previously included. However, we find National Health Bill (No. 3) to be obnoxious primarily because of the huge powers that will be given to the Minister if it is enacted. Senator Button referred to several articles that showed defects in the previous administration of the medical insurance organisations. He then quoted reports of various committees in relation to those operations, and in all of those quotations, he referred to the supervision of the funds.

I am sure that the funds would not mind supervision. However, what this Bill proposes is the control of the funds. As the Minister’s second reading speech was incorporated without his reading it, perhaps some of the statements contained therein escaped the notice of Government senators. Right at its opening, the second reading speech stated that the main purpose of the Bill is for the more effective supervision by the Australian Government of the operations of medical and hospital benefits organisations that are registered. The Minister then went on to refer to taking control of those organisations. He said that the Government regarded the Senate’s rejection of the provisions of the Bill relating to the health insurance organisations as representing a severe setback of an attempt by the Government to establish provisions for the protection of contributors to health insurance funds.

The Minister then changed his reference to contributors’ to a reference to ‘consumers’, and said that consumers did not have representation on the bodies managing the. funds. We must remember that these are insurance funds, having nothing to do with shareholding funds. I do not know of any client representation on the boards of insurance companies, not that I would be against such representation. I should think that the obvious solution would be to recommend that contributors be represented on the boards of these funds rather than that the whole system should be up-ended, with the boards being put under the control of the Minister.

Senator Poyser:

– Would you give them a majority control?

Senator SHEIL:

– Whatever they neededwhatever was considered to be responsible. There is no need for the Minister to have control. Referring to the Government’s responsibility, the Minister’s explanation continues:

This responsibility is all the greater because of the Government’s financial involvement in the existing private health insurance scheme. The scheme is supported by extremely generous direct and indirect government subsidies. The health insurance organisations could not have grown to their present significance, nor could they continue to operate, except for the very generous support that comes from government sources.

I should like to point out to the Government that, in supplying medical benefits to people, it was really seeking to endear itself to the voters. In other words, it was buying votes in constructing these medical insurance organisations.

Senator Grimes:

– What about your Government?

Senator SHEIL:

– Yes, I agree, all governments are involved. They are buying votes and, if they are going to buy votes, I insist that they pay the right price for those votes. Now that the cost is hurting, the Government thinks that it should nationalise these organisations and all our problems will go away; but they will not go away. In the second reading speech, the Minister carefully spelt out the mechanism by which he can take over these funds, not that I think he is particularly concerned about the funds; but he is concerned about their reserves. He said:

The Bill includes provisions to enable the Minister, where he believes it to be in the contributors ‘ interests -

I should hope that the funds would normally act in the contributors’ interests- to request an organisation to show cause why it should not be investigated in relation to specified matters. Where the organisation fails to satisfy the Minister, and he believes it to be in the contributors ‘ interests, he may appoint an inspector to conduct an investigation into specified matters relating to the affairs of the organisation. The Bill further provides that after he has considered the report of the inspector, the Minister may take such action consistent with the Act as he considers appropriate. This may include making an application to the Australian Industrial Court for the appointment by the Court of a judicial manager to manage the affairs of the fund or for the fund to be wound up by the Court.

The Minister also stated:

The Bill further provides for the transfer of excess reserves between medical and hospital funds conducted by an organisation.

The decision as to whether the reserves are in fact excess reserves is left to the Minister. The Minister went on to refer to the estimated cost of special accounts. He said that the escalation in Government spending through the special account mechanism had occurred at a time when there were extremely large reserves accumulated by the funds. This is true. There were many problems with the private health funds but, as with many other matters, they could be regarded as teething problems. It would be better to son out and solve the problems of the funds, rather than to upturn the whole system. The Minister stated that the Bill provides for an independent tribunal to be established specifically for the purpose of reviewing directions by the Minister, and I am pleased that that is so.

Regarding the relationship of this Bill to Medibank, we consider that its provisions are intimately related and linked to the Medibank proposals. As legislation relating to Medibank has already been rejected, we believe it is consistent to reject the National Health Bill (No. 3 ).

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

-I wish to make a brief contribution to the debate on these 2 Bills. I am pleased that the Opposition is supporting the National Health Bill (No. 2), which removes the present anomally relating to the long waiting period for a pregnant woman to become eligible for fund benefits, and also removes the fortnight’s delay in which people who are incapacitated or unemployed are involved. I point out that people in this latter group are frequently in need of medical care during that first fortnight. A not uncommon reason for their lack of employment is their incapacity due to some medical condition. I am pleased that the Opposition does not oppose this provision. I only regret- I am sure that many people do- that this provision was not introduced many years ago. It has been obvious for a long time that this was an inadequacy in our health scheme, and at last it is to be corrected.

The National Health Bill (No. 3), as was the case previously when it was part of National Health Bill (No. 2) 1974, is opposed by the Opposition. Although Senator Button has some difficulty in working out the emotional allegiance of the Opposition to the voluntary health funds, I suggest to him and to others that perhaps this allegiance is not entirely emotional. I think we must never forget that during the election campaigns in 1972 and 1969 contributions towards the cost of printing and propaganda were made to the Opposition parties. In particular, during the 1972 election campaign one of the large voluntary health funds supplied free of charge a public relations officer from its staff to work for the Opposition parties. So perhaps this allegiance is not so much emotional as very practical.

However, as Senator Button has stated, one consistent part of the Opposition’s stand in opposing any change in our national health scheme has been the Opposition ‘s insistence on the preservation of the voluntary health funds as they are. One can recall the mystifying leak of the Opposition ‘s proposals on health before the last election. In the first draft of the proposals Mr Chipp and his committee proposed that there should be consumer representation on the boards of voluntary health funds. However in the second and final draft- it may have been the third or fourth and final draft- this proposition in fact was removed. I am afraid that I cannot understand this objection to the provision of consumer representation on the boards of voluntary health funds. We have been through, often enough, the mystical ways in which the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia elects its directors. We have been through, often enough, the way in which the Hospitals Contribution Fund of Australia gives token representation to consumers on its board of directors. In all the open funds- some of them are quite small- we find this quite mysterious way in which boards of directors are elected.

Voluntary health organisations pose as cooperatives to supply people with health insurance. Mr Chipp has said in debate in the other place that voluntary health organisations are like co-operatives, but they do not act at all like co-operatives. People put money into voluntary health funds- I am sure that most of us here do so- to obtain insurance in times of illness. Voluntary health funds frequently spend large amounts of money on activities which really have nothing to do with voluntary health insurance. As I have mentioned, they spend money on political activities, on printing propaganda and on other things. In no instance do these funds ever ask the permission of the consumersthey certainly do not ask the permission of any consumer on this side of the chamberwhether they can do this sort of thing.

The difficulty with the present set-up is that the only course of action available to the Government in a case where a fund does not comply with the present Act is for the Government to deregister that fund. This is an impossible penalty for any government to apply because it penalises the contributors. This is a fact that must be recognised. It was recognised by the Nimmo Committee and it was recognised by the Opposition when it was in government under Mr Gorton. This Bill seeks to allow the Minister to ask the voluntary health funds to show cause why they should not be investigated on why they are not acting correctly with their funds. If they cannot do that, there is a provision which allows an inspector to be appointed to investigate the funds. If there is reason the Minister can then apply to the Industrial Court to have a judicial manager appointed. As Senator Button said by way of interjection when Senator Sheil was speaking, surely there is nothing wrong with this principle. The Minister is responsible to the Parliament. In this case before he can appoint a manager the Minister has to go to the court and show cause why a manager should be appointed. If the court agrees and a manager is appointed, people can appeal. Once a manager has been put in to a fund people can again appeal claiming that the manager is not needed any longer, and he can be removed. Surely this cannot be termed the dictatorial powers of the Minister. I doubt very much whether it is any greater a power of the Minister than the power exercised in the case of insurance companies by insurance commissioners who were mentioned earlier today by Senator Wheeldon.

I was a little disappointed at the cynicism of Senator Sheil when he referred to the previous subsidisation and to the present subsidisation of the voluntary health system by the Government. The payment of this subsidy is a good reason why the Government should have some overriding supervisory powers over the voluntary health system. It is important that the Government should have these powers because under the present set-up this is the only way in which the contributors to the voluntary health funds, who are the voters of this country, can get any powers or exercise any supervision at all over these funds. After hearing Senator Baume and others say that this was a fine -

Senator Baume:

- Senator who?

Senator GRIMES:

– We have heard Senator Baume and others in previous debates say that the voluntary health scheme was a fine scheme and that because they believed it was a fine scheme they supported it and subsidised it. Senator Baume has said that on at least 2 occasions. Now Senator Sheil comes into this chamber and says: ‘Those were only vote-buying tactics by previous governments and by this Government and that the government subsidies were just at that level to buy votes’. That indicates a degree of cynicism and is most enlightening of the attitude of members of the Opposition, as was Senator Baume ‘s unfortunate reply to an interjection in a recent debate when he said that the doctors will co-operate with anyone but the Australian Labor Party. All that the National Health Bill (No. 3) seeks to do is to implement the provisions that were recommended by the Nimmo Committee and by previous Senate select committees. Surely the fact that the Minister is responsible to the Parliament and that he has to go through judicial procedures to put in a manager is as much a safeguard as you will get in any sort of ministerial powers.

I return to the point that either the Opposition has an emotional attachment or allegiance, as Senator Button puts it, to the voluntary health funds, or the Opposition is afraid of what will happen to the source of supply of propagandathe provision of people and printing- in future election campaigns. Surely this can be the only objection left. The introduction of the question of Medibank into this debate may help to stir up the emotions that honourable senators opposite have failed to stir up in the past to prevent the onset of Medibank. Even when Medibank is introduced and there is still a place for voluntary health funds to insure people for private hospital treatment and for treatment not provided by Medibank, surely then there should be some supervision of these funds by the representatives of the consumers- this Parliament and this Government- to see what the funds do with their money. This provision has been recommended for years. We again try, through a Bill of this Parliament, to give this supervisory power to the Government. In view of votes which have been taken in the past I daresay that we will fail again. I think the consumer in health insurance will be the loser. The voluntary health funds will not lose much. The Opposition certainly may gain something. But the consumer in health insurance, the ordinary patient in this community, will lose.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON (New South Wales) (5.10)- I am rather intrigued to. hear the proposition that is being put regarding the National Health Bill (No. 3). Senator Guilfoyle, who is leading for the Opposition in this debate, has said that we are supporting the National Health Bill (No. 2) but opposing the National Health Bill (No. 3). It has been stated with some force that Medibank should not be involved in this matter because in fact the matter has no application to Medibank. If we accept that, I suggest that there is no purpose in the Bill at all, because what has been done through the hospital and medical benefits funds has been to provide a service to people in the lower strata for hospital and medical benefits, with particular regard to special accounts. It seems to me that, with the advent of the Government’s proposals which are to apply after 1 July- and it is expected that undoubtedly they will do so- these voluntary funds will not be involved in the direct sense in governmental health, medical and hospital services. These are the voluntary funds which the Government has gone out of its way to keep reassuring everyone will be continued for those people who want to have supplementary medical or hospital benefits. The second reading speech of the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security gives a clear and definite indication of an attempt to subjugate these voluntary funds which the Minister has said may continue for the benefit of people who want supplementary hospital and medical insurance. There is a clear indication of an attempt to take over control of the funds. Such subjugation, takeover and manipulation undoubtedly would be damaging to them.

During the course of the debate we have heard the argument that the funds have no real subscriber representation. One of the Ministers who sit at this table was once, if I remember rightly, a representative on the Hospitals Contribution Fund of the St George District Hospital. I was a representative on the Fund of the Ryde District Soldiers Memorial Hospital.

Senator Baume:

– And Mr Connor, too.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

-Yes, and Mr Connor.

Senator Button:

– You can drag up all these people.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

Honourable senators opposite say these things, but when the test is put on them they go to water. The New South Wales Government, which at the time the Fund was created was a Labor Government, has, or at least until a short time ago had, a representative on the Hospitals Contribution Fund. Those people represent their subscribers in terms of people who contribute to and are associated with the hospitals giving service under the HCF. What upsets me is the suggestion that these funds are great big organisations. In New South Wales, trade union groups are involved in hospital contributions funds. They are not great big organisations. Anyone who goes into the Newcastle area can find out about these funds, which are supposed to be such terrible things.

I have been a Commonwealth Minister for Health and I know the problems of the organisations that arose from time to time in relation to the voluntary funds. We have heard reference to special account patients. That was an arrangement entered into with the funds by the Government to ensure that the funds could continue to make a real contribution to the pensioner medical service and to lower income group people in a voluntary hospital and medical concept. The agreement entered into inevitably covered an area of disputation in relation to government contributions. However, that is beside the point. It has been said that the provisions of this measure do not relate to Medibank. If we accept that, why should the Government now be attempting to do things for the funds and saying, as propaganda, in reply to criticism: ‘They will be able to continue, and if people want to stay in a hospital or medical fund they can do so by paying their premiums and the benefits will be supplementary to what they get from the Government’? Pray God they do that. But if some of the things in this Bill become law they will prejudice -

Senator Wheeldon:

– What in particular?

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

-First of all, taking money subscribed by contributors from one fund and giving it to another fund- all of that on a decision of a commissioner, or whatever his title is to be. This Bill was drafted in an atmosphere of a proposition for the creation of socialised medicine, nationalised medicine or Medibank- call it what we will. Perhaps at that time it was not certain what would happen. However, I think we can accept, without expanding too much on it, that inevitably we will have Medibank from 1 July. The National Health Bill (No. 3) is out of character with what is being proposed. The Minister has said publicly that the funds will be able to continue to help people who want additional hospital or medical benefits and who wish to contribute in a voluntary sense. However, this Bill will not ensure the continued security of the funds.

The Bill should be defeated and possibly redrafted. I would be the first to acknowledge that perhaps certain provisions in relation to the funds will not provide for their long term security. But certainly the position should not be as is spelt out in the Bill. However, I do not want to delay the Senate any longer by going through all these matters; Senator Guilfoyle dealt with some of the aspects of what is proposed. I am concerned about the transfer of funds, the ability to put them into the hands of a manager, and a whole series of things which I understand from the second reading speech. I do not believe these things are necessary for or will help the management of the funds and I think they will be detrimental to the continuation of the funds after Medibank becomes a fact.

Senator MELZER:
Victoria

-I rise to support the National Health Bill (No. 3). As has been said this afternoon, we have dealt with this Bill and the National Health Bill (No. 2) so often now that the situation is starting to become a little ridiculous. I am very glad that the Opposition is supporting the National Health Bill (No. 2) and am very sad that it still is not supporting the National Health Bill (No. 3) which is aimed at bringing some commonsense into the realms of the health insurance bodies. The Bill represents an attempt by this Government to establish provisions for the protection of the rights of people. It is aimed at ensuring protection for the ordinary consumers who do not have representation on the bodies managing the health insurance funds. The Government wants to protect the rights of the community in relation to the operation of these funds.

It is a matter of fact that ordinary contributors are not part of the governing bodies of these funds. For instance, the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia, which really was created by the Australian Medical Association, is not subject to any control by the mass of its contributors. The articles of association require that there shall be 12 medical members and 12 contributory members on the Council of the Medical Benefits

Fund. The medical members are the only members eligible to vote members on to the Council and in turn the medical members are selected by the Council. When we look at who the members of the Council of the Medical Benefits Fund are we find that they include 12 active Australian Medical Association members plus a consultant for Development Finance Corporation Ltd and a former deputy general manager of the Mutual Life and Citizens Assurance Co. Ltd; the national executive director of the Australian Institute of Building; a Country Party member of the Legislative Council of New South Wales and a director of country newspapers and television; another board member of Development Finance Corporation Ltd and director of light companies including Australian Fixed Trusts Queensland Division, Queensland Oil Refineries, the National Bank of Australasia, City Mutual Life Insurance Society Ltd and Mutual Acceptance Ltd; and a Tasmanian Liberal ex-member of the House of Assembly.

Senator Sheil:

– They are all contributors.

Senator MELZER:

– Their wives may be contributors but those companies certainly are not and they certainly do not represent the ordinary people who rely on this fund for health insurance. These health insurance funds came into being because people believed that it would be a great thing if they banded together in a cooperative way at a time of very great financial commitment when they are ill. The funds now have got out of the hands of ordinary people and are far removed from that co-operative field. Ordinary contributors have no control whatsoever and it is very proper for the Government to safeguard the small people. The provisions of the Bill are designed to enable health insurance organisations to be supervised in a manner that will ensure that they serve the needs of contributors in a most effective manner. That is a very proper role for government to play and I have much pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation and Compensation · ALP

– in reply- This has been one of a rather long series of debates on these 2 Bills and related bills in which the Senate has taken part for what seems like the last few centuries. Whatever else can be said about the Bills they do seem to have become the subject of very dispassionate debates. I do not know whether this is because we have a very objective membership in the Senate or whether everbody has become exhausted by the topic. Certainly I am thankful that no great heat has been engendered today by any of the matters before us. The Government is pleased that the Opposition is not only not opposing National Health Bill (No. 2), but, if I heard correctly, actually is supporting it. I take it that this will mean that that Bill will be carried by acclaim. It is a Bill which will clean up some of the anomalies which have existed for quite a long time now. I am sure that nobody could put forward any reason as to why it should be opposed although it took this Government to introduce a Bill to deal with these matters.

I am most distressed to find that the Opposition is opposing the National Health Bill (No. 3). It is a measure which we also find necessary. We are disappointed to find that the Opposition is opposing it, although I must say that we are not particularly surprised in view of the association which the Opposition has had with these funds. Senator Button, Senator Grimes and Senator Melzer dealt with most of the matters raised in the debate and I do not want to detain the Senate in taking a vote, the result of which I think we can all predict. I do want to comment on some of the remarks made by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson. He referred to the hospital and health insurance funds and various luminaries in the Australian Labor Party who had occupied certain positions.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– They were members.

Senator WHEELDON:

– I am not disputing that they were members. I accept that those people did hold offices within the funds. Nobody on this side of the chamber or in the Government is arguing that there is no membership representation or that there is no consumer representation. All we are saying is that there is underrepresentation. We do not dispute the fact that these eminent people from the Labor Party were elected to those positions in the funds. All we say, as Senator Melzer pointed out in some of the examples she cited, is that there is considerable under-representation. Again with regard to the point which Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson repeated, to the effect that this measure in some way is related to Medibank, I am not quite sure what point one is making if one says that it is or is not related to Medibank. All I say is that whether this is a good thing or a bad thing the Bill is not specifically related to Medibank. We believe that some of the ills within the existing health benefit funds will be corrected by this measure. Whether or not there is Medibank we believe that there are certain malpractices, for want of a better term- I do not want to imply by that anything of an unlawful nature in the conduct of the existing funds- which will be corrected by the legislation now before the Senate as National Health Bill (No. 3).

I think all honourable senators understand the issues clearly enough. I do not think anybody will thank me if I unduly prolong the proceedings of the Senate. I thank all honourable senators who have made contributions to the debate. I think that all of them have been reasonable contributions which one might agree with or disagree with. 1 do not think anybody could take offence at anything that has been said. The Government appreciates the Opposition’s support for National Health Bill (No. 2) and I make a last minute plea to the good sense and generosity of the Opposition not to continue in the dogmatic and obstructive way in which it has carried on in the past. I appeal to Opposition members at this last moment to change their minds and support the National Health Bill (No. 3) because I am sure they will find that it will benefit all Australians including themselves.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 791

NATIONAL HEALTH BILL (No. 3) 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 5 March, on motion by Senator Wheeldon:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Victoria

-This Bill has already been dealt with cognately in the debate on the National Health Bill (No. 2).

Question put:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The Senate divided.

The President (Senator the Hon. Justin O ‘Byrne)

AYES: 26

NOES: 30

Majority……. 4

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

page 791

AUSTRALIAN HOUSING CORPORATION BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 5 March on motion by Senator Cavanagh:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales

– The Australian Housing Corporation Bill 1975 comes to the Senate at a time of the greatest housing crisis in Australia since the immediate post-war years. That point should be stressed. Another point which should be stressed equally is that the whole cause of that crisis must lie at the doorstep of the Australian Labor Party- of the Whitlam Government itself. A year to 1 8 months ago the Whitlam Government let it be known publicly that it intended to destroy the housing construction and development industry as it existed in this country and set out the weapons for so doing.

Senator Button:

– That is not so.

Senator CARRICK:

-I understand that Senator Button is apparently acknowledging the fact. It is well documented. The Prime Minister and his Ministers made it abundantly clear that they proposed to use a massive and continuous credit squeeze to dry up any money from the housing industry and to ally to that the highest interest rates in the history of the Australian people- an interesting phenomenon from a Party whose platform contains a pledge to lower interest rates.

The result was that in Australia virtually no new land was serviced by private developers last year. The simple fact was that credit was denied to the developers. The rate of interest was so high for those few developers who could venture into the business of servicing land that they were driven out of it. As a result, the Labor Party can take to its eternal credit, particularly in the State from which Senator Button hails, the fact that we have now the worst and most chronic shortage of serviced land in the history of Australia since the immediate post-war years- a shortage which will continue for two or three years and which will have a devastating effect on young people who are seeking houses or seeking to buy a home. The result- I repeal it-is exactly what the Whitlam Government said it would do. For the time being the housing industry has been destroyed. Therefore, an enormous shortage has been created. It was said that this would deflate the value of land and houses and would result in cheaper land and cheaper houses. The reverse has happened. Not only has there been a massive and continuous shortage of land - something which will continue to exist particularly in Sydney and Melbournebut also the prices of existing homes and the cost of building homes have accelerated because of the creation of an artificial scarcity of houses and land. Senator Button can grin but it is well to remind him of something.

Senator Button Not in South Australia.

Senator CARRICK:

– We will talk about South Australia in a moment, lt is well to remind the honourable senator and the Australian people that when the Whitlam Government took office this country had the proudest housing record of any country on earth. Australia had by far the highest home ownership rate of any country. Almost 80 per cent of all the people in Australia owned or were purchasing their own home. It had almost reached saturation point. It was a proud claim - one which we could back- that any person on an average weekly wage could, if he so desired, buy his own home and therefore could become a liitle capitalist. He could acquire the one piece of effective capital that anyone can acquire in a lifetime. This record was achieved under Liberal Party governments over a period of some 2 decades and it was destroyed totally in a matter of 18 months by the wreckers themselvesnot Whelan the Wrecker but Whitlam the wrecker. This was a deliberate attempt to destroy development of the building construction industry in Australia That statement was made not by me but. by the relevant Ministers. The result will be the most chronic shortage of serviced land for 2 decades, a staggering rise in the price of existing homes and in the cost of homes to be constructed and an enormous debt and interest burden on those who build homes. There is an incredible situation in which the cost of houses in these times of hyper-inflation has risen as much as $200 a week on average.

Senator McAuliffe:

-Well, vote for this Bill and correct the position.

Senator CARRICK:

-Senator McAuliffe should contain his impatience. He has said that we should vote for this Bill and correct the position. Let us consider the Government’s performance in this field. By his interjection the honourable senator acknowledges that what I have said is right- that disaster has occurred. Let us look at the position. Together with the action taken by the Whitlam Government we have the emergence of this Bill. This is a very bad Bill indeed. Everything that this Bill sets out to do could be done by existing agencies at the State, local government and private levels. Every single thing that is in this Bill could be done without the necessity for this Bill. The Bill itself will not bring about the creation of one extra home dwelling in Australia. The effects of this Bill will in fact create enormous new inflation and enormous new competition for available resources, and will bring about a worse housing shortage. Just as the Whitlam Government’s policies of last year resulted in a housing disaster so too will this Bill. This Bill is very bad in its concept and will result in fewer houses at greater cost.

It is against that background that I want to look at this Bill, a Bill which in itself contains a very great evil, and that is discrimination. The Bill seeks not to provide houses for all Australians. This proud Government which says that it is for the people of Australia bypasses other authorities and brings in a Bill deliberately designed to provide housing for some Australians. The Government could provide housing for all Australians. In this Bill it seeks to provide housing for some Australians. It will claim, no doubt, that it is doing this under the specific powers that it has in the Constitution. By co-operation and consultation with the States it has all the powers necessary to bring in a Bill that will cover all Australians. Let the Minister in his reply answer one thing: Why does this Bill set out to provide houses for Commonwealth public servants but not for State public servants? Why does this Bill provide that Commonwealth public servants and people who work for the Commonwealth shall get houses but not people who work for local government authorities and not the threequarters of the Australian population who work for free enterprise? What is the reason for this discrimination when all the terms of this Bill could have been applied to all Australian people if there had been negotiation and consultation with the States and the ordinary construction authorities in Australia?

Siitting suspended at 5.45 to 8 p.m.

Senator CARRICK:

-I have said that this Bill is bitterly discriminatory. It creates 2 classes of Australian citizens- first class and second class. The first class comprises those who come within the ambit of this Bill. The second class comprises those whom this Government rejects. Let us make this clear: It is no argument to say that the Commonwealth Government cannot do these things directly because of lack of constitutional power. The simple fact is that it can legislate for adequate housing at low interest rates for all Australians by co-operative measures with the States. So the question that all Government supporters, including the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh) as Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction, must answer in speaking to this Bill is: Why is this Bill creating 2 classes of citizens? Why has the Government sought to discriminate? Why is a Commonwealth public servant entitled to the benefits of this Bill and a State public servant not? Why are local government employees denied? Why are the mass of persons who work in free enterprise denied the benefits of this Bill? Why should there be differential rates for these people? Why should we distinguish between people who work for the Australian Government and people who work for a State government, local government or free enterprise? This legislation is discriminatory to the nth degree. The Bill is very bad.

The Bill itself will not in its effect add one more net dwelling to the total. So that we can understand the magnitude of this problem, I point but that in the projections of past years the need for new housing in this country for this calendar year 1 975 was of the order of 1 80 000 new homes. All estimates, including the Statistician’s estimates and industry estimates, place the total number of new houses that will be completed this year at no more than 105 000, leaving a net deficit of some 75 000 new homes to be carried forward- a serious lag for the years ahead. That deficit need never have occurred. It was deliberately created by the deliberate creation of shortage by socialists who want to control.

I want to identify 10 main criticisms of this measure and then to speak to those criticisms. The first criticism is that all functions sought by the Bill exist now within the States or Territories which are fully equipped, at State, free enterprise and local government levels to undertake them.

Secondly, the Bill would create massive duplication, inefficiency and gross financial waste. Thirdly, the resultant competition between the Commonwealth, States and private sectors for scarce resources will be seriously inflationary, causing the overall construction of fewer houses at higher cost. Fourthly- this is of considerable importance- building societies, particularly terminating societies, will be threatened with extinction. Fifthly, State housing commissions will be seriously weakened and undoubtedly ultimately supplanted. Sixthly, the power sought for compulsory acquisition of any land, including the Crown land of a State, is destructive of the federal system of government and a threat to individual rights. Seventhly, the Bill would seek to impose uniform and inflexible housing conditions throughout Australia, overriding existing State and local government authorities. Eighthly, it is a socialist instrument with potential to force the restructuring of commercial, industrial and domestic building. Ninthly, it could threaten the current preferential benefits of existing and past members of the defence forces. Finally, at least some of the proposed powers are of very dubious constitutional validity.

These are quite major criticisms. Everything that this Bill seeks to do could be done and done better now. To set up a third housing construction and financing authority in competition with the States and with free enterprise must be to create massive duplication, massive inefficiency and massive waste in an industry where the competition for resources at this moment is thoroughly keen. What the Government is doing is bringing in a monopoly competitor, and that competitor under this Bill would be equipped with very special powers to override and to trample down the others. This country has been very proud of its building societies, both permanent and terminating. I have said that it was governments of Liberal faith in Australia, and specifically in my own State, which gave the great start and impetus to the building society movement in this country and gave to the ordinary working family the means of financing a home. There is no doubt in the world that the instrument created by this Bill will threaten those societies.

In another place the Government has said that this Corporation will not attempt to compete with or to supplant the State housing commissions and their work. I would like the Minister here in reply to give whatever direct reassurance he can or is willing to give in this respect.

Senator Cavanagh:

– You have it now.

Senator CARRICK:

-I accept the Minister’s acknowledgment now. I invite him in his reply to state specifically that the Government through this Bill has no intention of encroaching upon the existing functions and responsibilities of State housing commissions. I do not refer merely to those parts of the housing commissions’ task which relate to the sub-economic and the underprivileged. I refer to the functions of the State housing commissions in the broader general building of dwellings. There is quite clearly an inference that they could be driven into a corner, into a very narrow wedge, and ultimately done away with.

There could be quite a threat if the compulsory acquisition power in respect of State Crown land were to be effected because it would be possible and competent for the Commonwealth, not in some small way but in some massive way, to alter the whole of the urban and industrial structure of any State or Territory. The power to go in and compulsorily acquire land, Crown land in particular, means that the Commonwealth can dictate the future shape and pattern of urban communities. If it can do that, it can dictate the location of populations and, therefore, the location of industries. Does the Commonwealth seek to do this? If so, it is a massive weakening of the States and their authorities.

The Bill gives the Commonwealth power to override the existing State and local government laws and therefore puts it in a very preferential situation in which it must, of course, have an enormous influence on the whole of the housing industry. Why does the Commonwealth seek to have special preferences? Ought it not to do what the defence service homes organisation has done in the past, even though it may well have had the implied power to do otherwise, and have houses constructed by tender by builders who obey all the laws of the State and local governments? Why should a Commonwealth government be immune to the conditions of the State and local governments? If it is right for others to obey the law, why should a Commonwealth government put itself above the law? In an industry in which there is resource hunger, in which there is a pressure of competition, there certainly is a great danger indeed if one authority, which in itself is finance rich, should come in and try to dominate these things.

I have spelt out some 10 factors. I frankly confess that the Bill has been a source of major dilemma to the Opposition. The Opposition believes emphatically that everything possible should be done for the people of Australia to have adequate homes at adequate prices. Everything possible should be done to enable those who wish to own their homes to purchase them. We believe, for example, that the quartering principle- that is, the principle that a person should be able to buy a home by repayments amounting to no more than one-quarter of his average weekly wage- is a sound principle and that the economic system should be rectified so that it should be possible for it to be implemented. It is quite impossible today for it to be implemented. In my own State and in Victoria the average price of a new house today- this includes the house and the land- runs to something like $32,000 as a bare minimum. To service that amount today would require payments of approximately $240 a month, meaning in fact that a person would have to earn a average of $250 a week.

Senator Wright:

– Not a week.

Senator CARRICK:

– Yes, to service a loan of that magnitude. In other words, the quartering principle means that a person pays every 4 weeks an amount equivalent to his average weekly wage.

Senator Cotton:

– On a 25 per cent structure.

Senator CARRICK:

– On a 25 per cent structure, yes. The simple situation is that the average weekly wage today is in the order of less than $150 a week. Under the quartering principle a person would need some $250 a week. The Minister might explain how the Government got its finances and its home costs into such a deplorable state that that is the case. If this Bill is to give relief by way of differential interest rates, will the Minister give these assurances? Firstly, will he assure us that nothing contained in the Bill will do anything to alter the preference which has applied in the past in respect of interest rates charged to ex-service men and women for defence service homes? Will the Minister give an assurance that in fact interest rates which ran for years at, I think, some VA per cent shall be preserved? It was a Labor government- the Whitlam Government- which recently substantially increased the additional rates of interest on defence service homes by making the interest rate for extra borrowing in the defence service homes area much higher, much sharper. The Opposition and certainly the people of Australia are entitled to an assurance that the preferential rate of some 3% per cent for defence service homes will be preserved.

The problem of differential interest rates for others, who are not included in the Bill, is a most vexed one. Of course all of us would want to see the ordinary working person get some relief in terms of interest rates. The Opposition when in government brought in perhaps the most valuable help to home purchasers of any that has occurred in Australia, and I refer to the introduction of the homes savings grant. It is deplorable that the Whitlam Government should have decided to abolish that grant. It is deplorable that the Government as one of its first acts, decided to sweep it aside. It gave people a chance to get some money, if it was geared to the present inflationary situation, to enable them to put a deposit on a house or some land. But it has been swept aside. We as an Opposition need to know what are the philosophical proposals in the application of the differential interest rates. Are we going to have interest rates for those people who are specified in the Bill at a level which is, shall we say, below the bond rate? If we are- I do not object at all to money being provided by the Commonwealth at low interest rates- what possible justification is there for providing it for Commonwealth public servants and not for others? In other words, let us have a justification for differential interest rates, but tell us why some, the chosen few, should get them and others not get them. These are the kinds of assurances that we need in order to contemplate this Bill. 1 said that the Opposition has had considerable agonising regarding the Bill. It believes that the Bill is not only totally unnecessary but also utterly wrong-headed. The Opposition believes that all of the things to which I have made reference could have been done in a better way. Upon reflection the Opposition has decided that it will not reject the Bill at the second reading stage but it will propose a relatively small number of amendments which I shall amplify at the proper stage. They ought to be completely unobjectionable since they express the principle of equity. 1 repeat that when the Government attempts to justify the Bill it must recognise that it has itself created the worst housing shortage in the last 2 decades, that it has itself created the worst structure of costs that the housing industry has ever faced, and that it is now seeking to introduce a very discriminatory measure. We want to know why. We want to know what conditions will apply, firstly, to ex-service people and, secondly, to the others. How will the others compare with the people not covered by this Bill? How will the people in the community who do not work for the Commonwealth Government and others identified in this Bill get equal benefits? Will they get equal benefits?

Senator Cavanagh:

– Yes.

Senator CARRICK:

– Since you have said yes’, Mr Minister, will you in your reply to the second reading debate specify how they will? If they will, why was not this Bill part of an agreement between the Government and the States covering all people and not just a few people? If what the Minister has indicated is correct, why was the Bill not part of the whole of the CommonwealthState Housing Agreement instead of some specialised measure?

Senator Cavanagh:

– Because there are constitutional limitations.

Senator CARRICK:

– In rejection of that reply I make the point that of course there are constitutional limitations in relation to the direct intervention of the Commonwealth Government for those specific purposes. Indeed, my own view is that the Commonwealth has gone wider than its direct powers. But if there are constitutional limitations covering all of the Australian people, why is the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement not ultra vires the Constitution? How is it that on the one hand the Government can make an agreement to cover the whole of Australia and then on the other hand say that is must be discriminatory here?

Senator Cavanagh:

– That is State legislation.

Senator CARRICK:

– The Minister says-I thank him for his answer- that that is State legislation. It may well be, but what we needed here was mirror legislation. Why have we not got mirror legislation? What we are asking is a simple thing. Why are we not legislating for all Australians instead of for some?

Senator Cavanagh:

– Look at clause 6(3)(c) and see who it misses out.

Senator CARRICK:

– It misses out a very great number of people.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Who?

Senator CARRICK:

– The test for the Minister is this: If it does not miss them out, why did the Commonwealth Government have to spell them out in this Bill? Perhaps the Minister will answer this rhetorical question: Does it cover State public servants? The answer must be ‘ no ‘.

Senator Cavanagh:

– That is not so.

Senator CARRICK:

– Why are State public servants not named in this Bill?

Senator Cavanagh:

– Because we have no power to name them, but we do name familiesallowances to families.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honourable senator must be allowed to continue his speech in his own way without interjections.

Senator CARRICK:

– The constitutional powers concerning social welfare allowances to families are well known to me. As I understand it that power covers a certain range of social welfare benefits and a certain range of income groups but cannot possibly apply to the totality of Australians. There again the range applies to quite a relatively narrow group and not to a whole group. That explanation will not wash. We need something better than that. I ask for an answer. If the explanation is that the Government considers it has limited constitutional power in the direct sense could it not have done this by agreement with the States and if necessary by mirror legislation to cover all Australians? Why was this legislation not designed to cover all Australians? That has not been answered at all. The legislation is discriminatory and ambiguous.

Senator Cavanagh:

– How can you get agreement with your Queensland Premier?

Senator CARRICK:

– It is no good seeking alibis with that kind of interjection. The Minister has been driven step by step into a corner. Each time he has replied by way of interjection his interjection has been demolished and he has gone further into some new kind of alibi. I repeat: Why is the legislation not covering all Australians? How can the Government ensure that some Australians, excluding ex-service people, will not be discriminated against sharply? Let me make this quite clear: If there is to be discrimination in favour of Aborigines, in favour of under-privileged people and in favour of people for welfare purposes, nobody on the Opposition side of the House will object one iota. Indeed the legislation of this Parliament is full of examples of governments of Liberal faith having done these things. The answer needs to come to us.

The Bill itself is obnoxious. We propose to seek to remove a number of the more obnoxious qualities of the Bill. The Government will be delighted to know that it can have its Bill. It will then have no alibis at all; it must produce the goods. The Government said in its second reading speech in the other place that if this Bill is passed the Government can resolve the housing shortage for Australia, that it can give to Australians an adequacy of houses at reasonable prices. Let there be no qualification and no resiling from that at all. The Government will have this Bill passed and the Government will have no alibis at all for the housing muddle, which I predict will become worse and worse as the months go by.

Senator MCAULIFFE:
Queensland

– A great writer once said that if a London cab man introduced sixpenny fares he would make a fortune in a year, but the writer added that if the cab man had the sense to introduce sixpenny fares he would not be a London cab man. I think we can say of the honourable senators opposite that if they had the sense to stop their destructive policy, their frustration and their opposition to our measures just for the sake of oppositionthis has been going on ever since this Party came to power- and adopted a progressive social reform policy it is possible that they could come back into power in Canberra. But then again if they had the sense to do this they would not be Liberals. I read recently that the rhinoceros is a wicked animal because when it is attacked it defends itself. I find this Government in a somewhat similar position. For a long time now many honourable senators opposite have been carrying on a form of petty political persecution and, if they liked, they could put upon this Government at any time simply because they have the numbers in this place.

For a long time the Opposition has perverted, delayed and denied justice in regard to legislation that has been before this House. On occasions members of the Opposition have grudgingly agreed- I emphasise the word ‘grudgingly’ to legislation that they have found impossible to withhold any longer because of pressure in the electorate. Before I address myself directly to the Bill I crave the indulgence of the Senate for a moment to make this passing comment: We on this side of the House have been very patient in the past regarding the attitude and the strategy of honourable members opposite. But when in the last session one could see some Opposition senators cheerfully discussing how they were going to throw out Supply legislation and some others cheerfully discussing how they were going to throw out the Budget we, like the rhinoceros, decided that we had better start to defend ourselves. Directly we commenced to fight we found that we had won.

I take the minds of honourable senators opposite back to what has happened in the last 2 weeks when there was a change of government in their Party. Upon his election the new leader said that his policy would be against frustration of legislation in the Senate and that the Government would not be forced to an election by the withholding of Supply or the throwing out of the Budget. He was a very good judge of the political climate at the time because the gallup poll last weekend showed that if an election were held the Government would be returned. The electorate expressed in no uncertain terms that it did not want any part of the shenanigans of the Opposition. The electorate believed that when a government is elected it should be elected for a 3-year term, more particularly in the case of a government that has been elected twice in Vh years.

I feel that the people have spoken quite emphatically and have expressed their opinion. Sanity appears to have been restored to the Opposition by the statement of its new leader. We on this side of the House sincerely hope that the Opposition has learnt its lesson. As I have said, on 2 occasions the electors have shown that they trust us and trust our policies, So, I earnestly appeal to honourable senators opposite to cut out this tommyrot and in future to let the shape of their speeches be constructive and to give due consideration to measures that are before the House. Their speeches should not be made merely as a delaying tactic.

This brings me to the important measure that is before the chamber this evening, the Australian Housing Corporation Bill 1975. 1 believe it is an important measure on many scores. One of the important things is that it gives honourable senators an opportunity to voice any ideas that they may have on housing generally and to submit any views or suggestions that they may be able to make for the consideration of the Senate and which may be useful to the Government and the community at large. I was disappointed, to say the least, to hear Senator Carrick this evening express the attitude of the Opposition, with which no doubt other Opposition senators must associate themselves because Senator Carrick is their spokesman on housing. It has become abundantly clear to me, and it should be abundantly clear to honourable senators opposite who have read the legislation, that the main purpose of the Australian Housing Corporation will be to upgrade the process whereby assistance will be given to the lower income earner to purchase a modest home or a dwelling unit. It is designed to give assistance to the lower income earner or, alternatively, to allow the lower income earner to obtain adequate rented accommodation where home ownership is not readily attainable or desirable. Surely any initiative that has this as its main objective is worthy of the unanimous support of everybody in this chamber. No honourable senator worth his salt could decently oppose the principle contained in this measure. The proposed Corporation has other advantages. The Corporation will not, as Senator Carrick has said, be in opposition to or rival the State housing authorities. Rather, this

Corporation will be the Australian Government’s means of complementing the State housing authorities.

The Australian Government, through the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Les Johnson) and Senator Cavanagh, the Minister representing him in this place, has given an assurance that the Australian Government will continue to provide whatever finance State authorities can spend effectively on public housing for low income earners in 1974-75. It is important at this stage to reflect on that assurance and to see that it is supported by facts. In 1974-75 the Australian Government advances to the States for housing have been further increased to $345m, an increase of $ 124m over the 1973-74 allocation and almost double the amount made available to the States for welfare housing when the previous Government was in power for the financial year 1 972-73. The Corporation will also be the Australian Government agent to provide housing assistance to categories of persons who do not qualify now. It will be the agency to provide this assistance to people who do not qualify at the present time under the provisions laid down by the States own housing authorities. For example, a person who is earning more than $ 140 a week is ineligible for assistance from either the housing commissions or the home builders account. The same person is not in the category to qualify for home ownership with other lending authorities unless his weekly wage . approximates $200. So, there is a gap. The person is ineligible under the housing finance legislation because he earns more than $140 a week but he does not qualify at the savings bank or the building society because his wage is not in the $200 a week bracket. Who is going to look after that person earning between $140 and $200 a week?’ The Australian Housing Corporation is the body which will take care of that category of people. I claim that it is in this area that the major assistance by the Australian Housing Corporation will be given. It will encourage societies to be formed to meet this need besides becoming a lending authority itself. The Corporation will channel funds into terminating building societies which, in turn, can lend to individuals above the present cut-off limit at rates of interest above those presently charged by the terminating societies. It is true that in the Bill the rate of interest is not spelled out but the provision is made for this to happen.

Surely it must be obvious to all honourable senators that a straight-forward means by which the Australian Housing Corporation can make housing finance available to people wishing to build or purchase a home of their own is through, co-operative building or housing societies. Need I this evening remind honourable senators that the terminating building or co-operative housing society movement is widely recognised as a very; efficient way of getting money but to intending, home owners? They have a relatively low level of administrative expenses. Their efficiency has been proved over many years of operation under agreements between the Australian Government and the State governments. Since the introduction of the home builders account, which was first established in 1 956, until the present time the total amount of advances that have been made to the home builders account is $666m. This year alone the Labor Government has allocated a record $ 127m for this purpose. Let “it be clear that any moneys made available by the Australian Housing Corporation would be completely separate and distinct from advances being made to State governments for disbursement through their home builders account. That is a very important factor.

We in this chamber are all aware that traditionally terminating building and housing societies have obtained their finances from nongovernment sources such as savings banks, life assurance offices, superannuation funds and the like, as well as Australian Government and State housing agreement sources. However, in recent years due to the economic climate the supply of finance available from these non-government sources has tended to drop away. It is in this area also that the Australian Housing Corporation would be helping to supplement these loan rais:ings. I ask Opposition senators who profess to want everyone to be decently housed- we have heard them express profoundly in this chamber their belief in the Australian tradition that everyone should own a home of his own- how they benefit this cause by their opposition to this Bill or by their amendment to the Bill. that would make it unrecognisable. Has the Opposition examined the consequences of altering the main purposes of this legislation or, as it threatened to do when this legislation came before this chamber previously, of throwing it aside?

The Minister, in his second reading speech, I felt adequately dealt with all the questions that were asked by Senator Carrick. I thought the Minister adequately and informatively told us all the matters about which Senator Carrick was asking. The Minister told us the functions of the Corporation and how it would be constituted. He did this, as I have said, adequately and in a mostinformative manner. Yet Senator Carrick stands here this evening and asks a series of questions.

One of them was: Why on earth in this Bill is provision made only for the Commonwealth public servant and no provision is made for the State public servant? If Senator Carrick knew what is enshrined in the Constitution of Australia, had read it, studied, and understood it, he would not be asking that question. Sub-clause (3) of clause 6 df Part II of the Bill states:

The Corporation may perform its functions to the extent only that they relate to matters with respect to which the Parliament has power to make laws and, in particular, may perform its functions-

iri a Territory;

b) for the purpose of the provision of housing for mem- - bers and former members of the Defence Force and for other persons who have participated in the defence of Australia; . . .

Senator Carrick conveniently did not read to the Senate paragraph (c) of sub-clause (3) because that would have stymied his case. Clause 3 (c) reads:

By way of, or as incidental to, the provision of family allowances.

Clause 3 (e) states: . . For the purpose of the provision of housing for the aboriginal people of Australia, immigrants to Australia, persons employed in or by Departments or authorities of Australia and persons engaged in work for Australia or an authority of Australia.

There is none so blind as those who can see and do not want to see. That is the attitude that Senator Carrick adopted this evening. As a man trained and experienced in interpreting constitutions and studying regulations he knows as well as I and everybody else in this chamber knows that the reason that the Government could not specifically spell out the inclusion of the State public services is that the Constitution does not. provide for it, but it can be covered adequately by law or regulation under clause 3 (c) by way of, or as incidental to, the provision of family allowances’.

Senator Carrick said also that the Bill was obnoxious and that all that the Whitlam Government had ever done is to cripple the housing industry. He indicated that the previous Government had a proud record. However, it might be important to tell the Senate that the number of houses built since the Labor Party came to office is an all time record. That should be borne in mind. In the 7 quarters since December 1972, 262 000 dwellings have been built compared with 255 000 dwellings in the 7 quarters preceding the election of the Labor Government. Dwelling commencements in the same periods have been.287 000 compared with 260 000. So I do not know from where Senator Carrick got his claim. He stated also that one of the reasons the

Bill was obnoxious was that the Corporation would take over the housing responsibilities from the States. I have already reminded him of the assurance given by the Minister for Housing and Construction in the other place and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in his second reading speech that the finance that will be made available through the Australian Housing Corporation is completely separate and distinct from that which will be made available to the States for housing commission purposes through the home builders legislation. Again, I should like to point out to Senator Carrick that the Australian Government sees the work of the State housing authorities and terminating building societies as being of cardinal importance in the creation of good living conditions for the neediest income strata of the community. That is why the Australian Government has increased allocations to the States for their housing authorities from $1 13m in 1972-73 to $23Om in 1974-75, and has increased the allocation to the home builders account, that is, for the 5% per cent home loans, from $77m in 1972-73 to $145m in 1974-75. Surely that is not the record of a government that is trying to whittle down the activities of the State housing authorities. On the other hand, this Government has given more encouragement to the States to enter into building arrangements for home owners by doubling the advances that have been made available to them. So much for the poppycock and humbug that was stated here this evening by Senator Carrick. The figures do not lie. They have been cited and they are readily available for him to see and to compare with the claims that he has been making this evening.

I believe that this legislation is the most important in the housing area since the introduction of the home builders’ accounts in 1956. I cannot help but think that it is impossible to over-rate the importance of this legislation. I have said that I believe that it is the most important legislation regarding housing since the home builders’ accounts were introduced in 1956. It is certainly the first genuine attempt by any housing Minister to overcome the deposit gap, whether he be a State housing Minister or a Federal housing Minister. There has not been any previous attempt to overcome this deposit gap. For that reason I think this Bill is a credit to and a feather in the cap of the Federal Minister for Housing, Mr Les Johnson who, with his energy, his enterprise, his imagination and his industry, has seen fit to introduce this Bill which will cause him to be recognised as the best Minister for Housing that this Parliament has ever had, because he has genuinely attempted to overcome 2 grey areas in housing that no former Federal Minister nor any other State Minister has had the gumption to tackle.

One in every five persons who purchases a home today takes out a second mortgage. Interest rates are usually very high. Many people would buy a home if they could get a second mortgage or an equivalent form of assistance at an interest rate that they could afford. How does this Bill help these people? It helps them by providing second mortgage funds either at interest rates geared to the repayment ability of the borrower or on a deferred repayment basis with or without a subsidy element, as necessary. It will provide funds to approved lenders for onlending to eligible persons as part of a first mortgage so that first mortgages could go to, say, 95 per cent of valuation. It will provide other means of bridging the deposit gap by financing the purchase of land on favourable terms. Then the borrower will use either the Australian Housing Corporation or conventional finance to build a dwelling. Land purchase could be made at reduced prices from land commissions or by using reduced interest rates or a deferred payment procedure. I believe that this measure that has been introduced to get rid of the deposit gap is the most worthwhile thing that has been done for the home-seeker in the history of federation. All honourable senators understand how people who are desirous of purchasing a home feel when the last $4,000 or $5,000 is impossible to obtain. They have no means of obtaining it except by a second mortgage. More often than not the interest rates are so prohibitive that people are prevented from taking out a second mortgage and as a result the prospective home buyer is unable to purchase his home. The Australian Housing Corporation will fill that gap for this type of people. If he achieves nothing else while he is the Federal Minister for Housing, if he is able successfully to do this through the Australian Housing Corporation, the present Minister for Housing will go on the record as the best Minister for Housing that this Parliament has ever seen.

I think I have outlined a few of the examples of the uses to which the Australian Housing Corporation could be put. I believe the examples I have cited demonstrate that the Corporation will play a vital role in supplying essential finance for the well-being of the Australian population. I again compliment the Minister, Mr Les Johnson, for having introduced this measure. He has shown that he understands completely that everything that can be done must be done if we are to overcome the lag in the housing program. I submit, in conclusion, that it will be a sad day for home-seekers if the Opposition rejects this Bill or if its amendments remove important provisions of the Bill. I think it is the most progressive and worthwhile legislation in the housing area that has been introduced since 1 956 when the home builders’ accounts system was introduced. I strongly and enthusiastically commend it to the Senate.

Senator MARTIN:
Queensland

– I find it quite extraordinary that this Government should have introduced this Bill for the reasons that it has given. In Australia today we have the worst housing problem that we have had in the post-war era. I suggest that the problems faced by intending home buyers today- those who can afford to purchase homes- are problems that have been created by this Government, problems that at one stage it proudly claimed to have created quite deliberately. We can expect a fair amount of emotionalism to come from the Government side at the end of this debate, if we can take other housing debates as an example.

I think that we should look at some of the facts relating to the housing industry and at what the Government claims it is trying to do. I do not think anyone can deny that in Australia today we have a real need for housing that is available to the citizen. Young people want houses at reasonable rates of repayment. Those who build houses would like to sell them. In Queensland there is not currently a shortage of housing; houses are available for purchase if someone can be found who has a sufficiently large deposit to put down, as well as a sufficiently large income to meet the repayments necessary under the exorbitantly inflated interest structure from which this coun- s currently suffering. We have seen a decline e rate of home ownership amongst Aus- 1 ‘s- we were very proud of home ownership > lational characteristic- and on the other we have not seen a real encouragement of

  1. ownership. If the Government wanted to rease the rate of home ownership in Australia, it i ould do so. It does not need to take over and duplicate functions that can be carried out by nxirting authorities or State governments. It ould make money available far more cheaply m.i effectively.

One must question the Government’s motives for what it has done. Obviously it aims to set up a large housing corporation that will give to the Canberra bureaucracy powers that at present are dis’Lryified. It will spend much more money to enable it to build only the same number of homes as can be built through existing instrumentalities. There will be no increase in the number of homes available or in the choice of types of home available to Australians, particularly young Australians and those who may be economically disadvantaged and who do not own a home at all. I well remember the statements made by Senator Cavanagh last year at the end of the Glebe lands debate, when he spoke on the subject of attitudes towards home ownership. He claimed that the Opposition was not interested in housing the poor, that only the Government was interested in that. In fact, the whole thrust of the Government’s policies on housing has been to provide rental housing- not to increase the rate of home ownership but to make people more dependent on paying out money to government agencies, without in any way giving them the hope or prospect of real independence in this very basic security that I believe most Australians want. They want the right to know that when they retire or cease work they will at least own their own home and have that very basic security.

We also have had shown, through statements of the Minister- this is in direct contrast to the sort of comments Senator McAuliffe was making a few minutes ago- some abysmal ignorance of the actual status of the housing industry in Australia at any given time in the last 12 months. Senator McAuliffe said that he believed that the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Les Johnson) would be recognised as one of the greatest Housing Ministers- I think that was his statement- that Australia has had. Last September the housing agencies in Australia begged this Minister for a conference on the state of the housing industry. The conference extended over three or four days. At the beginning of that week the Minister said that there was no problem in the housing industry in Australia. By about the Thursday he was still saying that. However, at the end of the conference- the day after his optimistic statements- he made a statement in which he recognised that there was an urgent need for Government action in the housing area. Subsequently he made some additional grants to State housing commissions in an attempt to stimulate speedily the housing sector. On the basis of his past statements, this Minister’s statements on the housing industry cannot be relied on.

Of course, we have had much petty politics played by Federal Ministers with State governments on this very issue. Last year- Senator McAuliffe will be well aware of the details of this- some Federal Government Ministers saw fit to say in Queensland during the election campaign before the State election that the problems that the Queensland Government claimed it had in relation to housing were entirely its own, and that the State Government had not managed to spend the money that the Federal Government had given it. The reason they said this was that at the time the Government’s accounts showed that some money had not been spent, but in fact all the money had been committed. That was the position in the case of the State Housing Commission and the building societies; not one cent was unspent in the sense that it would not be used to buy homes. The money had been committed to housing that was under way, but it had not been paid over because that housing was not finished. That very simple principle of accounting applies not only to governments. Federal Ministers saw fit to go to Queensland and to claim that $9m or $ 10m of Federal money had not been spent in Queensland. Statements of other Federal Ministers on this subject are open to question.

What are the real reasons for the needs of the housing industry in Australia today? They are many, and the blame for all of these factors can be laid squarely at the feet of the Government. When this Government came into office a few words were said by its Ministers about shortages of supplies, inflation, and one thing and another. The Government made some very deliberate statements about its intentions in relation to the housing industry. During 1973 it claimed that our rate of inflation had to be slowed down by policies that were aimed at the building industry. It paid no attention to its own monetary policies in relation to public spending, the Public Service and other areas. Whatever the value of those policies, the Government chose to ignore what it must have known, namely, that it was not the housing industry that was causing inflation in Australia. There was a shortage of houses and enough money was available for prices to increase, but shortages are a basic factor in demand and increased prices, whether or not the demand is bottled up for a short period.

Effectively, what this Government has managed to do with regard to the price of housing in Australia and the availability of houses to those who do not have substantial means, is to take away the availability of funds for most and to make sure that the normal process that ordinary individuals go through when aiming to own their own home is just not available to young or slightly disadvantaged people. There has been no encouragement towards thrift. There is no real incentive to save or to try to put aside the amount of money necessary for a deposit on a home. There has been no attempt to stimulate real competition in the building industry. Every attempt has been made to put down land developers at every turn. We have a crucial land shortage in Australia today, not because State governments are not acting and spending the money available to them- they are spending the money available to them- but because the Federal Government has pursued a deliberate policy that is against the interests of land development by private enterprise. We will have a tremendous problem in housing, which this Bill certainly will not solve.

Senator Wood:

– And the credit squeeze, too.

Senator MARTIN:

– Then, of course, we have the problems of the credit squeeze, when people started to compete for the money that was available. Will someone tell me how that helped these people whom the Government now claims it wants to help? Will someone tell me how competition for funds helped the young people who had limited ability in terms of the deposit and the amount of repayment that they could afford? How would this help the disadvantaged in any way? Through the credit squeeze and its other inflationary policies in the area of building, the Government brought about and helped to accelerate a situation that already had problems. However, it was indeed this Government that said, when it set out in 1 973 on its creditsqueezetype policies, that one of its major objectives was, as it said, to take the heat out of the building industry. It certainly did that, and it has put much of the industry on ice as a result. It took the heat out quite deliberately; it quite explicitly said that it was setting out to do that. Now we find the Minister who represents the Minister for Housing and Construction in this chamber saying in his second reading speech:

Inflation and the down-turn in private housing activity have created special problems for which the Government needs additional and powerful administrative machinery to deal with.

I suggest that, although the Minister may say that historic hindsight is all very well, the problems were created by the Government. If it would look at these areas about which it is so determinedly blind, it might find better solutions than the one it has put forward. Also in its policy of providing a certain sum of money at selective interest rates, it chooses to ignore the fact that many interdependent factors lead to the solution or the compounding of the problems in the whole area of housing.

There is the problem of land development, upon which I have briefly touched. There are the problems of the construction industry and of the manufacturing industry, and there are the special problems of the finance industry and of the financial institutions. They are all separate factors. Those problems are not solved by the Government transferring a group of people into a new bureaucracy, nominating a sum of money and saying: ‘Now we will do it, and we will do it under some special powers’. The Government has shown such a poor understanding of the factors which have led to this situation that one can have little confidence in its ability or even in its goodwill. The Government which, as I have said, claimed to set out to slow down the housing industry now cannot be highly regarded when it makes these rather limited statements about solving the problem of the industry.

The Bill contains the proposition that the Government wants to have the power for compulsory acquisition of land. There is a real fear among State governments- governments which have been planning for some years ahead in this area of acquisition of land- that the Commonwealth Government may find it necessary to carry out its programs by acquiring that State land. That is a possibility. The Government has not said how it will make additional land available. It has not said how it is in such a position that it can overcome the problems of land development which land developers have not been able to solve for their own particular reasons. The Government has not given any indication of its intentions in this* area. It has merely said that it will use that power if it has to do so. The duplication and wastage that we can expect to see flowing from this are matters that should alarm us. The problem is the high price of housing. To spend more money wastefully in the areas of salaries and planning will not solve the problem of the high price of housing. Maybe the Government can nominate a price which is below the value of a house. If that is its intention it should say so.

The Bill in terms of special interest rates and other special conditions is very vague. The Minister has not been any more specific on this question, nor indeed have any Government supporters at any stage. In fact, all the functions of this Bill are currently catered for if the Government chooses to act that way. The Government has not said why this Bill is necessary. The Government does not need to tell us that there is a problem in the housing industry; that much we know. That much the Government could have taken for granted; I hope now that much it knows. The Government has not told us why this action on its part is necessary to meet that problem. The State housing commissions have said that they could take more money and that they could spend it. They have a shortage of funds.

Last year building societies applied for more money than they were granted. Presumably that meant that they thought they could handle more loans than they could provide in view of the shortage of funds. The duplications that will occur in the bureaucracy are not ones which we should welcome.

If the Government wants quickly to inject funds into the housing industry, and if it wants to do it through a government authority, the State housing commissions would appear to be the reasonable bodies to do it. They have the land, the plans and the facilities by which to increase their spending immediately if the Government is prepared to act in that way. Instead, we will have an increased factor in competition for housing resources. Where now we have some competition for resources for housing between the State housing commissions and the private sector of the housing industry, we will have a third and major factor if the Minister’s words are to be taken as he uttered them. The Minister should spell out just what is this Government’s attitude towards the private housing industry. He should also spell out his attitude towards the State housing commissions. Does he see what is proposed in this Bill as a growing function against the State housing commissions? If not, and as there is an urgent need for housing, why has not more money been put into the State housing commissions to meet the situation more quickly than is provided for in this Bill?

This Bill was introduced last December but it was not proceeded with. Now, some months later we look at this supposedly urgent problem which requires this rather drastic solution. Earlier Senator Carrick said that the Opposition will be moving some amendments at the Committee stage. Although Senator McAuliffe expressed great fear about these amendments, I suggest that they are pretty mild ones. Earlier in the session the Opposition had stated a particular course of action in relation to this Bill. The Opposition has now changed its mind.

Senator McLaren:

– Why? You change daily.

Senator McAuliffe:

– Another full moon.

Senator MARTIN:

– We hear no apology from Senator McAuliffe or from anybody else for the Government’s changing policies, its changing policies in relation to interest rates and selective interest rates which it now wishes to put up to us. The industry is in almost complete confusion. Significant sections of this industry are in bankrupty because of this Government’s policies. That is not an issue on which Senator

McAuliffe can claim any superiority. The Opposition has decided that it will amend the Bill rather than reject it. The Australian people can learn just what benefit is to be gained from a Commonwealth dollar spent in this industry as against the alternative methods. Therefore I will support the amendments that the Opposition will move. I strongly appeal to the Minister when he replies to give some real answers on some of these issues and not to accuse us of things which are just not true.

We were a Government which put a very high priority on home ownership. We ‘ were the Government which introduced the homes savings grant scheme for a particular reason, and it was a good solution to the problem at the time; it was welcomed by the Australian public at the time. Earlier in the debate Senator McAuliffe laughed about this scheme, but in fact it made a significant contribution towards providing young people with the ability to buy their first home. It was a real policy and one of which we were proud. This Government has not yet brought forward a policy which will match the record of the previous Government. We were in government for 23 years. We came through’ the post-war period of really critical shortages in housing. We have now had 2’/4 years of this Government and we are on the backward path again. Will the Minister give to the Senate and to the Australian people some indication of just what our rights and entitlements will be in the future in relation to this basic issue of where and how we live?

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– In rising to give my full support to this measure I join with my colleague from Queensland, Senator McAuliffe, in saying that the present Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Les Johnson) will go down in history as the best Housing Minister that Australia has ever had. I shall pass a few remarks about Senator Carrick who led for the Opposition in this debate. Senator Carrick, in his capacity as the shadow Minister for Federalism and Intergovernmental Relations, has stepped into a position in the shadow Ministry which the previous Leader of the Opposition, Mr Snedden, refused to accept. We find that he is quite at odds with the shadow Minister for Housing and Construction, Mr McLeay. Although Senator Martin made slight reference to what the Opposition’s policy on housing was previously, I shall quote what Mr McLeay said. At page 843 of the House of Representatives Hansard of 27 February 1975 he is reported to have said:

On behalf of the Opposition, I say that we will be opposing this legislation.

That was said by the shadow Minister for Housing and Construction in February, and he still occupies that position. Tonight Senator Carrick said that although this Bill is bad- he criticised it with every emphasis which he could place upon it- the Government will have its Bill. He said: We will not oppose the Bill but we will move minor amendments’. What a wonderful change of heart! How has that change of heart been brought about? Has it been brought about because of the change of leadership in the Liberal Party, or has it been brought about because of public opinion which has been expressed to members of the Opposition during the one month’s recess when the sharp knives were being flashed about in the Liberal Party? I tend to believe that the Opposition’s change of heart has been brought about because of public opinion which has been expressed since Mr McLeay said that the Opposition would oppose this legislation. I am happy that the Opposition has now seen the light; that it is prepared to support this Government measure and will move some minor amendments to it. Of course, time will tell whether those amendments are accepted or rejected.

Both speakers from the Opposition side have barely referred to the Minister’s second reading speech. They have made some caustic remarks about the legislation. If they had read the second reading speech of .the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh) who, in this place, represents the Minister for Housing and Construction they would have found that their remarks were countered. Unfortunately, because of a. limitation pf time before the one month’s recess, the second reading speech had to be incorporated in Hansard; it was not read. Had it been read perhaps some of it might have sunk into the minds of the 2 honourable senators opposite who have spoken in this debate. I shall quote some of the pertinent points in the speech delivered by Senator Cavanagh in his. capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction. He said:

The Australian Housing Corporation proposed in this Bill permits us to explore a fresh field of endeavour, that of direct relations between government and private enterprise, and between government and non-profit organisations, in the housing of the large number of ordinary Australian families. It-is an anomaly of policy in this country that although the Australian Government possesses a substantial reserve of power in the housing field, that power has never been fully gathered together, ‘ concentrated and mobilised for the benefit of the people. But that is exactly what is done in the Bill I now present to the House.

Senator Martin said that the present Australian Government had never done anything to assist State housing authorities, but she had not read the second reading speech. The second reading speech further states:

The Chifley Government’s negotiation of the CommonwealthState Housing Agreement of 1945 is almost certainly the outstanding event in our governmental housing history, enabling as it did the beginning of the great State housing authority movement which has resulted in the building of 280 000 houses.

That gives the lie to what Senator Martin said. She, probably like many others, had not read the second reading speech. When I am interested in legislation I read the second reading speech and take notice of what members opposite say. The speech continued:

The Australian Government does not have complete constitutional power to perform all housing functions, but it does have substantial powers.

That is one of the complaints Senator Carrick had about the Bill. He made great play of the fact that in this Bill we were giving assistance to Commonwealth Government employees but doing nothing to assist State Government employees. My colleague Senator McAuliffe touched on that, and I shall refer to it again. Section 51 of the Constitution provides, in paragraph (xxiiiA.), that the Parliament shall, subject to the Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to:

The provision of maternity allowances, widows’ pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorise any form of civil conscription), benefits to students and family allowances:

That is the pertinent point- family allowances. The Commonwealth has no power to legislate for State governmental authorities, but it can legislate for those under its own jurisdiction. That is what this Bill does but Senator Carrick, by saying these things, wanted to fool some people who might read his speech. If the people who are interested were to read that section of the Constitution, they would find that what he was saying was completely fictitious.

He said the Bill was intended to encroach on the activities of State housing commissions, but it is on record that this Government’s support for State housing commissions is shown by the fact that it has more than doubled the advances under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement from $163m in 1972-73-and half of that year was under a Liberal-Country Party Govern, ment- to $375m in 1974-75. His argument does not stand up in view of that. Senator Carrick said that the level of housing activity had declined under Labor, but that argument does not stand up either. In the last 2 years of the LiberalCountry Party Government, 287 000 houses were completed, while during the first 2 years of

Labor Government more than 302 000 houses were completed. That is the answer to some of the criticisms of this legislation made by front bench spokesmen for the Opposition.

The Minister further stated in his second reading speech:

Those powers have been used in this Bill to create machinery which will give this Government and its successors a powerful new vehicle, capable if properly directed of fulfilling our national housing aspirations. Honourable senators will find in this Bill a general vehicle which can be used in many directions to create housing policy for emerging needs. We shall have a range of options. Some of those that come to my mind are second mortgage loans to cover the deposit gap for young couples; direct loans to special hardship cases; loans for private enterprise building to assist in limiting rentals and loans to co-operative societies providing middle-income housing.

Elsewhere the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Les Johnson) has said that the new Corporation is intended not to duplicate or supplant, but to complement State housing authorities. Our Government sees the work of those authorities as of cardinal importance in the creation of good living conditions for the lowest income strata of the population.

We have but one major criticism of State housing: It is our view that it has tended to perpetuate a culture of the poor by concentrating too many people of low income together, in circumstances of inadequate social provision.

That can be seen in any State when one looks at the various State housing authorities and at the Housing Trust in South Australia, where all the workers are congregated into one area. That is what the Minister spoke about in his second reading speech. He added:

We want to diversify the social structure of housing estates by mixing in people of varying incomes and background. But I pledge the Australian Government to continue to support to the limit of our capacity State efforts to build for welfare housing.

He went on to say that we had already lifted expenditure on State housing from $169m in 1972-73 to $375m this year.

Another important point made by the Minister in the second reading speech was that the Corporation would be primarily a lending institution, but of a different kind. It would not be designed to lend as a competitor with the banks and the building societies. Rather it would complement their efforts. He continued:

I shall give, as an illustration only, one of the possibilities we have in mind. This scheme would provide a means of overcoming the deposit gap. One in five of Australian families purchasing their homes finds it necessary to take out a second mortgage. This is often done at high cost, employing, for example, the mechanism of the finance companies, which would be better to concentrate on consumer goods and automobiles than on long-term durables such as housing. A scheme like this could largely abolish the deposit gap for those income groups who can take advantage of it. For example, we could provide second mortgages up to say $5,000 to first time home buyers unable to bridge the deposit gap, to help cover the cost of their land.

Those points from the second reading speech are most important in considering the legislation before us.

I shall read into Hansard some of the figures which give due credit to the efforts of the Labor Government in the housing field. Senator McAuliffe quoted some sectional expenditures, but I shall quote total expenditures. Housing expenditure increased from $243. 8m in 1972-73 to $69 1.1m in 1974-75, and yet Senator Carrick and Senator Martin criticised this Government’s efforts in the housing field. Those figures show that we have more than trebled the amount of money made available to State authorities for housing. Increased advances to the States under the Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement for State housing purposes have increased from $1 13m in 1972-73 to $146m in 1973-74 and to $230m in 1974-75. For the home builders account- for 5% per cent home loans- advances increased from $56m in 1972-73 to $77m in 1973- 74 and to $145m in 1974-75. We have made housing interest payments tax deductible for more than 1 300 000 families, at a cost of $130m, and we have made a special appropriation of $ 150 m to savings banks for housing loans. That was on 12 November 1974. We have increased expenditure on aged persons’ housing from $30m in 1972-73 to $56m in 1974- 75. We have established the Housing Indicative Planning Council to provide a measure of stability to the building industry and to establish a proper balance between manpower, material, and financial resources. We have increased the maximum loan under the defence service homes scheme from $9,000 to $15,000. If I remember rightly, we had from Senator Carrick some criticism of the relevant Bill. He said it was not enough. Yet all his Government could provide by way of a loan for ex-servicemen’s homes was $9,000. This Government upped that amount by $6,000 and he said it was not enough.

This Government has established a task force to investigate industrialised and modular building techniques. It has established a task force to prepare a uniform building code throughout Australia, something to which I will refer shortly. It has announced the establishment of a housing information and advisory service, and it has established an Australian Housing Research Council to organise and supervise research into sociological, economic and technical aspects of housing. That is part of the record of this Government in housing yet Senator Carrick and Senator Martin say that the Whitlam Government’s record in Government is shameful. When people are made aware of what we have done they will not agree with those honourable senators opposite.

I want to refer again to the establishment of a task force to prepare a uniform building code for housing throughout Australia. This is a matter which has caused me very great concern for a long time. I have looked at a lot of the houses built in my own State of South Australia. I know that the South Australian Housing Trust has a great record in housing construction but I am not so happy about some of the houses built by certain sub-contractors for the Housing Trust. That is why I am emphatic in fully supporting the task force to prepare a uniform building code. It is sorely needed. That would be realised by any member of Parliament who has closely inspected some of the houses built by jerry builders. They are the people in the field under the previous Government when there was a shortage of homes and a shortage of tradesmen. Any man on the street who could call himself a builder got a sub-contract and went out and built houses. Some of those homes are scandalous. I had the unenviable task of approaching the Minister for Housing in South Australia and requesting that he make one of his architects or one of his inspectors available to go around with me and look at some of the houses. I was able to point out the shoddy work done by some of these subcontractors. I am thankful to say that that situation has been remedied now and that one of the sub-contractors who was performing this shoddy work and making plenty of money out of it is now out of the field. Now we have some very good and qualified sub-contractors building houses for the Housing Trust in the area in which I live, the Murray Bridge-Mannum area of South Australia. The poor devils who bought some of those houses have millstones around their necks for the rest of their lives. Some of them told me that where there are 4 doors opening into the main room they have to be opened in sequence because if you open the wrong door you cannot open the other three. That is the type of housing which was being built by some of these shoddy builders. I am hopeful that once this building code is in force, as it will be under this Australian Housing Corporation Bill, it will flow through to the States and that no longer will home owners be saddled with homes which are not fit to house a dog.

The other thing I want to refer to is housing planning and design. In this instance I want to cite the Australian Capital Territory and the government houses constructed here under 23 years of Liberal-Country Party Government. I have inspected a lot of the Government homes in the Australian Capital Territory. Every government home I have been into has a rear entrance through the laundry. You cannot enter the house through the rear door without going through the laundry which is a pokey little place. If mother has been unable to do the weekly washing she has to bring visitors arriving at the back door through the dirty laundry. Yet our friends sitting on the Opposition side tells us that they were experts in housing. In every government house built until the Australian Labor Party became the Government- I hope the policy has been altered since- if a person wants to have a shower he has to get into the bath because the shower is over the bath. The experts opposite who have been talking about housing never thought fit to consult the housewife when designing these houses to see that they were built in a way which would enable the housewife to work in comfort and so that she could go about her daily tasks as she ought to be able to just as the wealthy section of the community can do. I will bet that some of the former Ministers for Housing we have heard about did not design and live in houses such as I have referred to which exist in the Australian Capital Territory. Of course, most of those houses are occupied by employees of the Government, and some of them were employees of the previous Government for 23 years. Why did the previous Government not do something about these things? The proposed Housing Corporation will take these things into account and we will do something about them.

I think that what I have said adequately explains why the previous Government has nothing to brag about so far as its record on housing goes. The figures speak for themselves. Our record in regard to the construction of houses and money spent on housing leaves nothing to be desired. In the 2 years this Government has been in office we have done the job as it ought to have been done. I am confident that in the years to come during which we will remain in Government the Minister for Housing and Construction, Mr Johnson, will improve greatly on the previous Government’s record. It has been said by honourable senators opposite that the Minister has not been prepared to consult with housing authorities in the States or with the building societies. I remind them that no Minister for Housing in the previous Government consulted as much with the States as the present Minister has done. He has gone out of his way to consult with them and to try to reach a compromise on what ought to be done.

Senator Carrick said that the Government should not have brought in this Bill and that what is contained in it could be achieved by consultation with the States. He knows full well that a representative of the Australian Labor Government could not sit down in consultation with Mr Bjelke-Petersen because he does not want to do so. Until recent times the representative of this Government could not sit down in consultation with the Victorian Minister in charge of housing, Mr Dickie, because he did not want to consult. It is all very well to say that the Government should not have introduced this Bill and that it should have done these things by way of consultation. Governments of the type that we have in four of the States in this country will not consult with this Government in any shape or form because they do not want to give any credit to this Government for what it is doing. All they want to do is what Senator Carrick does whenever he stands to speak on any Bill and that is to trenchantly criticise the Government without there being any substance in his criticism. I think that what Senator McAuliffe and I have said tonight in reply completely gives the lie to some of the things that Senator Carrick said here tonight. I am most happy that Senator Carrick came into this place tonight and said the direct opposite to what was said by the shadow Minister for Housing and Construction in the other place who said that the Opposition was going to oppose this Bill. Senator Carrick said that although the Bill is bad the Government can have it and that he is going to move some minor amendments. He wound up by saying that when the Bill became operative it would not work and that it would be an embarrassment to the Government. I would like to say to Senator Carrick that in the years to come while he still sits opposite, if he is still on the front bench, I will be quite happy if he gets up and points out to me, a supporter of the Government, just where this Government has been embarrassed by what is being done for the people of this country through the implementation of what is contained in this Australian Housing Corporation Bill.

Senator JESSOP:
South Australia

– I listened with interest to Senator McLaren talking about back pedalling and accusing the Opposition in this regard. I found that quite incredible because since the Labor Party has been in Government in this country it has done nothing but back pedal. I think the recent Terrigal conference illustrated this point quite clearly. At that conference many of the measures suggested over a period of 18 months or so by the Liberal and Country Parties were adopted by the Labor

Party. We are showing some flexibility in our approach to this Australian Housing Corporation Bill. As far as I am concerned, the Bill is absolutely horrifying because it will provide the basis for the Government to expand centralised power in the area of housing. The Bill will duplicate housing trusts and housing commissions in the States and therefore, in my view, it represents an unnecessary and extravagant waste of public funds. It would be more acceptable to me if additional finance were provided for the housing trusts and housing commissions in the States to enable them to expand activities in the public sector, if that is the desire of this Government.

I am opposed to the centralisation of power and the socialist objectives in this Bill which will tend to stifle the private sector by restricting the provision of land, the construction of houses and, indeed, inhibit the private purchase of homes. It must be remembered that currently the private sector is responsible for no less than 92 per cent of the demand and the public sector is responsible for 8 per cent of the demand.

If this Bill truly encouraged building in all fields I would give it my wholehearted support, because anything that can be done to encourage the building industry in Australia would make a tremendous contribution to employment at a time when this country is faced with massive unemployment. As this industry is labour intensive, it would make a great contribution. The building industry is a massive user of materials. As such, when it is operating at a high level it stimulates other industries as well. We believe that the Government would be well advised to encourage home ownership, but the Labor Party has failed miserably in this field. It seems intent upon relegating Australians to being a race of flatdwellers and occupiers of rental homes. In spite of Senator McLaren’s statement, home building in Australia is at a very low level. Finance has been hard to get, and interest rates have never been higher. Statisticians suggest that this year 180 000 homes should be built in Australia, but we will be lucky to get 105 000 homes built. Next year the position will be compounded; the discrepancy will be even worse.

I believe that the building industry has a right to be concerned about this measure. In the absence of stated objectives for the Corporation, the concern of the industry must be considered in the context of other government initiatives, more particularly its actual performance in other critical areas of economic or policy management. I wish to mention a few. Firstly, the stated platform of the Australian Labor Party seeks, among other things, expressly the nationalisation of the housing industry. This Bill is a massive step in that direction. Secondly, the Government, although reputedly a low interest rate government, has presided over the highest interest rates that have obtained for housing in the history of this nation. Thirdly, the Government’s intention to achieve a moderate abatement of demand in the private sector of housing has reduced the levels of activity below a level considered desirable for the maintenance of a viable and economic industry. Fourthly, the Prices Justification Tribunal, in its initial operation, has had the effect, among other things, of retarding investment in capital works, plant or equipment, to the detriment of future capacity and employment. Fifthly, the Trade Practices Commission has created a whole new body of corporate law in which traditional practices which have been accepted by public works authorities over many years appear to be placed in jeopardy. The Department of Urban and Regional Development has publicly sponsored the cause of discouraging home ownership as one method of inducing a different approach to land usage. That Department has mounted attacks against land development operations to the extent that there will be a critical short-fall of serviced land towards the end of this year. Also, it has been able to place its expenditure program beyond the control of the Treasury.

I suggest that the proposed legislation goes much further than consolidating the present powers of the Commonwealth in that it assumes authority for areas of responsibility which previously were held to be the preserves of the States. It applies incidental powers under the Commonwealth Constitution in a comprehensive and exclusive manner. By complementary legislation amending the Financial Corporations Act or the savings bank regulations, it can institute controls in regard to financial institutions which serve the industry. It enlarges its role in housing from a limited area to total urban or regional development. It can be used directly to restructure the whole of the housing, commercial, industrial and civil engineering sectors of the industry. Indirectly, and together with the proposed land commissions it can erase effectively private enterprise and initiative in the industry. It assumes that technical, professional and managerial competence will be available for all these tasks when every arm of the Government, including those associated with land assembly and financial expertise in respect of housing, is directed against such competence. It affects urban land administration, housing construction and management. All of these are in short supply and under stress. The whole concept appears to be an expensive and expansive administrative exercise in an area in which both public and private initiative and competence have already been proven. It must be considered a major policy instrument to implement the restructuring of a society in which equal rights to housing, free choice or decisions are seriously endangered. I think that sums up pretty well the feeling of the building industry in Australia.

Senator Carrick quite properly said that the abolition of the home savings grant scheme was a retrograde action taken by this Government. That scheme was introduced by the LiberalCountry Party Government to provide some incentive for young married people to budget for home building. The young people of Australia would have been far better served if the present Government had pursued that course of action and provided further incentives in that direction. On the return of a future Liberal-Country Party government I would want to see that home savings program reintroduced. I believe that Senator Carrick and Senator Martin have represented our case very adequately. Although I am opposed in principle to this Bill, in the interests of not being considered obstructionist I will support the Opposition’s proposed amendments which attempt to tidy up the Bill to a certain extent. To amend it fully and to my complete satisfaction would mean the total emasculation of this Bill. I look forward to the return of ‘ a Liberal-Country Party government. I am one who would be urging a radical re-examination of this Corporation.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– in reply- I suppose that I should thank the Opposition because it does not intend to oppose the second reading of this Bill but will move some amendments at the Committee stage. That means that we will get to the Committee stage, contrary to what we would have expected’ if the expressions of intention of the shadow Minister for Housing, as stated in February, were carried out. I must express appreciation of the fact that we will get to the Committee stage. Whilst it has been stated that there is need for drastic alterations to the Bill, I do not think the proposed amendments will make any serious alterations to the Bill. I also commend the Opposition for its numbering of points. It seems to be a new tactic under the new system of leadership. The discipline in debate has meant that we get a numbering of points. I think Senator Carrick made 9 points and Senator Jessop made 5 points. But enumerating points and giving them numbers does not make them valid. If the material is not there, the debate is not enhanced and what the author or orator is stating to the chamber is not improved.

I am reminded that Senator Martin appealed to me to give some facts and to recognise what the previous Government had done in relation to home ownership. I am prepared to do that. The homes savings grant was one of the biggest mistakes that was ever imposed on the housing industry. I was a member of the Senate when the late Senator Sir William Spooner introduced this grant. There was never a greater critic of it than I was. This grant was introduced at a time when housing got beyond the reach of the average person. Builders were going bankrupt. Taxation was used in terms of supplementing building and land speculators. The Government of the day introduced a grant of $500 to a select few. The grant was made to those married people who were purchasing their first matrimonial home if one of the parties was under the age of 35. In every parliamentary session while I was a member of this place we amended the Act because it was never satisfactory. Only a few people obtained that grant. Then there was the argument over every application for a housing loan not as to how much people had saved but as to what were acceptable savings. Some people did not get $500 towards home ownership. Some people got £12 towards home ownership. This satisfied the builders because they could put up the price of houses. So the introduction of that grant was a gain for no one. It increased the number of people who could not qualify for a home savings grant.

It was an effort to obtain a high rate of home ownership, but previous governments never achieved the 80 per cent rate of home ownership which Senator Carrick said they did. The highest rate of home ownership in Australia was 71 per cent in 1966. Under the previous Government that figure had fallen to 69 per cent in 1971. When this Government came into power in 1 972 although there was a 69 per cent rate of home ownership there were 91 000 applications before the housing commissions throughout Australia from low income earners who could never own a home. The previous Government made no attempt to provide them with housing. Of course there was a higher rate of home ownership because most of the houses being built were for home ownership.

As one of its first enactments this Government provided the States with $5m for the sole purpose of utilising the manpower and building materials available to the State housing authorities before the new Budget in July 1973 so as to provide welfare housing for those who had received no help at all under the previous Government. Of course there was some neglect in home ownership. Provisions had been made for home ownership but there was complete neglect in respect of those people who were a credit risk and could not enter into home ownership. There was no provision at all for those people who could not acquire their own homes. 1 have stated the position of this Government. I think Senator McAuliffe and Senator McLaren have adequately replied to the questions that have been raised in this debate. Bearing in mind what the previous Government had done, while we admit that in 1973 we could not meet the housing requirements because of the shortage of skilled manpower and building materials which were being utilised in the construction of multistorey buildings, the necessity was there for some action to be taken through financiers for the purpose of curbing building activities and land speculation and to ensure that in future building booms there will not be a curtailment of welfare housing and also that there will not be land speculation which makes it prohibitive to buy a block of land on which to put a house. That is the reason why this legislation has been introduced. I would refer honourable senators to the imposing list of achievements of this Government which was incorporated in Hansard by Senator McLaren when he spoke this evening. In comparison this Government has done more for housing than any other government since the Chifley Government established the CommonwealthState Housing Agreement.

Senator Carrick invited me to explain why this Government proposes under this Bill to build houses for Federal public servants and not State public servants. I think Senator Carrick has done a disservice to himself by suggesting that he does not understand the reason. Perhaps he did not take the trouble to read clause 6(3) of the Bill which says:

The Corporation may perform its functions to the extent only that they relate to matters with respect to which the Parliament has power to make laws . . .

Therefore the Corporation is limited to act in respect of those areas in which the Parliament has power to make laws. It cannot encroachand there is no desire to do so- upon State legislation. It would be inviting challenge and defeat if it attempted to do something in respect of which the Parliament does not have power. The pertinent words are contained in the preamble which says that the Corporation will operate to the extent that the Parliament has power to make laws. The Bill sets out matters in respect of which we know we have power. Clause 6(3) goes on to say:

  1. . may perform its functions-

    1. in a Territory;

We have powers in the Australian Capital Territory and also in the Northern Territory-

  1. b) for the purpose of the provision of housing for members and former members of the Defence Force and for other persons who have participated in the defence of Australia;

That is one of the constitutional powers that we have. It continues:

  1. by way of, or as incidental to, the provision of family allowances;
  2. d ) by way of the provision of benefits to students;
  3. for the purpose of the provision of housing for the Aboriginal people of Australia, immigrants to Australia, persons employed in or by Departments or authorities of Australia-

And this is the part that Senator Carrick complains of because the Bill does not say ‘for persons employed in or by departments of the States’. Immediately we say that we are without constitutional power to carry out the provision. It opens up a challenge as to the legality of this proposed Act. We define the matters in respect of which we have power to make laws. The overriding feature of this clause is contained in the preamble which says that the Corporation may perform its functions relating to matters in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws. Honourable senators will remember that under the Homes Savings Grant Act the grant could not be paid to a person who intended to marry because the power of the Commonwealth was limited to the provision of family allowances; so the grant could be made only after the marriage. No one could get the grant before marriage because the Commonwealth’s power was limited in that respect. We are in the same position today in respect of our limited powers.

Senator Carrick wants some assurance from the Minister. I am the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Les Johnson) and the assurances I give may not be of benefit but every assurance which has been sought by Senator Carrick has already been given by the Minister himself and is contained in the second reading speech. On the question of supplanting State housing authorities we find in the second reading speech these words:

Elsewhere I have said that the new Corporation is intended not to duplicate or supplant, but to complement State housing authorities. Our Government sees the work of those authorities as of cardinal importance in the creation of good living conditions for the lowest income strata of the population.

There is plenty of work for the States and we have a Commonwealth and State Housing Agreement that goes on, I believe, till some time in 1978. We also have building societies. The question is asked: Why not utilise them? In my second reading speech I said:

The Corporation will be primarily a lending institution, but of a different kind, lt will not be designed to lend as a competitor with the banks and the building societies. Rather, it will complement their efforts. I shall give, as an illustration only, one of the possibilities we have in mind.

This scheme would provide a means of overcoming the deposit gap. One in five of Australian families purchasing their homes finds it necessary to take out a second mortgage.

There again is the assurance that the Corporation will complement the building societies. The subject of war service homes is dealt with further on in the second reading speech.

I come to the detailed provisions of the Bill. As I have said, the Corporation will be primarily a lending institution. It will take over the responsibilities of the Director of Defence Service Homes whose construction program will be continued without diminution. In my second reading speech I also said:

We want to open the way for the resources and initiatives of private enterprise to enter a productive partnership with Government. When I say that, we have in mind many overseas examples.

I went on to explain the situation in Canada. All in all this is only a means of the Commonwealth exercising a power it has to overcome the many problems we have experienced in housing construction, particularly under the previous Government which made necessary such things as the undesirable homes savings grants, to overcome speculation in building which puts the price of land beyond the reach of home owners, and to bring about a situation where we have some orderly organisation in these fields over which the Australian Government has constitutional power. I thank the Opposition for its support of the second reading of this Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales

– I refer to clause 10 and move:

Leave out all words after ‘shall’, insert, ‘except as otherwise provided by this Act, comply with all laws of the States and Territories in which it operates ‘.

The amendment is self explanatory. Clause 10 as it stands states:

In the performance of its functions and the exercise of its powers, the Corporation shall have regard to the relevant responsibilities of authorities of Australia, the States and

Territories, local governing bodies and other interested bodies and consult with them where those responsibilities make it appropriate to do so.

That in itself is an anaemic provision. It does not compel the Commonwealth to be subject to the laws of the States or Territories. Quite clearly the Commonwealth itself should not be put above the laws of the States or Territories. Our proposal is that the clause should be amended to provide that except as otherwise provided by this Act, the Commonwealth shall comply with all laws of the States and Territories in which it operates.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– The Government is not opposed to the intention of the amendment. It was never the intention to over-ride the laws of the States and Territories but in the Defence Service Homes Act the Commonwealth has a power which we think it is important to retain and which has operated successfully. The Commonwealth has had this power all along. I would ask Senator Carrick to consider amending the clause so that it reads:

In the performance of its functions and the exercise of its

Cowers, the Corporation shall, except as otherwise provided y this Act or the Defence Service Homes Act 1918-1975, comply with all laws of the States and Territories in which it operates.

The only difference between that and his amendment is the insertion of the words: or the Defence Services Homes Act 1 9 1 8- 1 97 5 .

Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales

– The Opposition accepts that further amendment but in so doing I refer the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Senator Cavanagh) to my speech at the second reading stage where I pointed out that the power existed under the Defence Service Homes Act and also mentioned that as far as I knew it was never used. Under the Defence Service Homes Act the Commonwealth has always respected the laws of the States and of local government. So it seemed to me that it was quite unnecessary for the power to lie. It was a power which, as far as I know, was never used. Nevertheless, the Opposition in a spirit of goodwill will go along with the Minister’s suggestion.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Wood:
QUEENSLAND

– The amendment to clause 10 now reads:

Leave out all words after ‘shall’, insert, ‘except as otherwise provided by this Act or the Defence Services Homes Act 1 9 1 8- 1 975, comply with all laws of the States and Territories in which it operates ‘.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales

– In respect of clause 49 1 move:

Leave out ‘including, with the approval of the Minister,’ insert ‘but may not acquire by compulsory process any’.

Clause 49(1) states:

Subject to this Act, the Corporation may acquire by agreement or by compulsory process any land for the purposes of the Corporation, including, with the approval of the Minister, land that is Crown land of a State.

The Opposition believes that the right by compulsory process to acquire Crown land from the States is wrong. The Opposition does not have any objection to the acquisition of State Crown land by agreement. That seems to be a completely reasonable situation. The effect of the amendment is to remove the ability to acquire by compulsory process.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · ALP

– Again the Government seeks to preserve the rights that it has under the Defence Service Homes Act 1918-1975, under which the Australian Government has this power. I am advised by my officers that the only time under the Defence Service Homes Act that this power has ever been used to take Crown land was in the case of acquisition at the request of the State for some technical conveyancing purpose involving some question of title. The Commonwealth used the power it had to get over difficulties in relation to transferring land. But as t he power is now in the Defence Service Homes Act it should be retained. The Corporation should not limit the power we have under the Defence Service Homes Act. I suggest to Senator Carrick that the clause be amended to read:

  1. ) Subject to this Act, the Corporation may acquire by agreement or by compulsory process any land for the purposes of the Corporation but may not acquire by compulsory process any land that is Crown land of a State. This section shall not affect the power of the Corporation to acquire land for the purposes of the Defence Service Homes Act 1 9 1 8- 1 975.
Senator CARRICK:
New South Wales

– For the reasons that I stated earlier, the Opposition will accept the Minister’s suggestion.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Wood:

– The question is: ‘That the amendment be agreed to’.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 811

PROPOSED EXPENDITURES

Senator DOUGLAS McCLELLAND (New

South Wales- Manager of Government Business in the Senate)- For the information of honourable senators I lay on the table the particulars of proposed additional expenditure for the service of the year ending 30 June 1975, and particulars of certain proposed additional expenditure in respect of the year ending 30 June 1975, and I ask for leave to move a motion to refer the papers to the Estimates Committees.

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

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

– I move:

  1. That the particulars of proposed additional expenditure for the service of the year ending 30 June 1975 and the particulars of certain proposed additional expenditure in respect of the year ending 30 June 1975 be referred herewith to Estimates Committees for examination and report.
  2. That unless otherwise ordered, Estimates Committees deal with departmental estimates as follows:

Estimates Committee A:

Department of Agriculture

Parliament

Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet

Department of the Treasury

Department of Minerals and Energy

Estimates Committee B:

Department of Foreign Affairs

Department of Overseas Trade

Department of Services and Property

Department of the Special Minister of State

Department of the Capital Territory

Estimates Committee C

Department of the Media

Department of Education

Department of Tourism and Recreation

Estimates Committee D:

Department of Repatriation and Compensation

Department of Social Security

Department of Health

Department of the Environment and Conservation

Estimates Committee E:

Postmaster-General’s Department

Department of Defence

Department of Labor and Immigration

Department of Transport

Estimates Committee E:

Department of Manufacturing Industry

Attorney-General’s Department

Department of Police and Customs

Department of Science

Estimates Committee G:

Department of Aboriginal Affairs

Department of Northern Development

Department of the Northern Territory

Department of Urban and Regional Development

Department of Housing and Construction

  1. That the Committees report to the Senate on or before Monday, 21 April 1975.
Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

-I seek leave to make a brief statement.

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

Senator COTTON:

-I draw to the attention of the Manager of Government Business in the Senate (Senator Douglas McClelland) the comments that were made in the Senate when Appropriation Bill (No. 3) and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) were passed and were not examined by the Senate Estimates Committees. The hope was then expressed that they would be the subject of examination at the time these particular matters came forward, which conclude the general figures for the year ending 30 June 1975.I cannot tell whether that is intended, but I would expect it to be so.

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

– At the time this matter was raised when Appropriation Bill (No. 3) and Appropriation Bill (No. 4) were before the Senate during the first period of this session, the Government undertook that when the Supply Bills were presented to the Parliament it would refer those Appropriation Bills to the Estimates Committees for examination in conjunction with the consideration of the Supply Bills, and that is the intention of the proposition now before the Senate.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

SALES TAX BILLS (Nos. 1 to 9) 1975 Second Reading

Debate resumed from 6 March on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland:

That the Bills be now read a second time.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– For the purposes of this discussion the Sales Tax Bills (Nos. 1 to 9) 1975 and the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Bill 1975 might just as well be dealt with in a cognate debate.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Davidson)- Are you seeking leave to have them treated in that way?

Senator COTTON:

-No, I am just suggesting that that may be an appropriate course of action which the Minister for Agriculture (Senator Wriedt) might like to follow.

Senator Wriedt:

– Yes, that is acceptable to the Government.

Senator COTTON:

– Very good explanatory memoranda have been supplied with these Bills. I have always found that to be the custom with

Treasury matters that come before the Parliament. Anybody who wants to spend until the small hours of the morning reading those explanatory memoranda will find them most illuminating. The general purpose of the measures before the Senate is to avoid retrenchments in the motor car industry. The magnitude of retrenchments was becoming very alarming late last year and early in this year. The Opposition does not oppose the measures. We think that they are both wise and necessary. However, we do have some concern about Australian manufacturing industry and the motor car industry in particular, and I can refer to that fairly briefly. The decision was based upon the need to avoid retrenchments in an industry which was showing itself to be remarkably slack. Stocks of manufactured motor cars were building up very heavily. Stocks of imported vehicles were at a very high level. One found it rather hard to understand how, other than by the process that the importers had particularly acute market intelligence, their stocks had got to such a high level. At the time these decisions were taken the stocks both of vehicles manufactured in Australia and vehicles imported into Australia were remarkably high. With the declining market, which was brought about by the depressed economy induced by this Government, people were not buying motor cars. The manufacturers were faced with closure. Indeed, some of them did close and lay-offs were taking place. The industry was in a state of some considerable distress. So on 28 January 1975 a package of measures was introduced to try at least to avoid the retrenchments then imminent. Some of them could not be avoided because some operators closed, but the decisions were taken to try to avoid those retrenchments and at least to induce some state of stability into the industry. I think they have had some useful effects. I doubt very much whether they are permanent effects. I have the feeling that they are really only delayed effects but the position can be illuminated only by time.

The decisions were announced on 28 January 1 975 and the legislation to give effect to those decisions comes to us some 1 1 weeks later, which seems to me to be fairly slack management in the governmental sense of getting legislation through to cover an emergent and immediate situation. The Government reduced the sales tax rate on passenger motor cars and on commercial motor vehicles. The figures set out in the second reading speech show a reduction from271/2 per cent to 15 per cent on passenger motor cars, and from 1 5 per cent to 5 per cent on motor vehicles of a kind ordinarily used for commercial purposes. These reduced rates became effective from 29 January and were to hold firm until 1 May 1975. On 1 May 1975 they were to be progressively brought back to their previous limits on the 5 per cent instalment basis which meant that on 1 September of the current year they would be at the position at which they were before the reductions were introduced. So, in effect, they will revert on that test from 15 per cent to 21lh per cent on passenger motor cars and from 5 per cent to 1 5 per cent on commercial motor vehicles. In answer to a question today the Minister for Manufacturing Industry made it clear that that is still the intention of the Government. It may well be that if the industry continues to be slack it will be the job of the Government to consider whether it needs to change that position or alter the basis of what it is doing in the sales tax area. All I can say at this stage is that, if that happens and it is tied up with the problem of retrenchment and continuing unemployment, the Opposition would want to have early notice so that it could give the matter fairly serious consideration. We were very concerned about the way the motor car industry was allowed to run down and to get itself into a state of fairly substantial chaos. We would not want that to continue in the Australian manufacturing scene.

As an Opposition, we are strong believers in the Australian manufacturing industry. We are strong believers in its being supported. We are strong believers in its employment capacity. We can see no virtue in having to put it at hazard and its employment capacity also put at hazard. It has been a factor of our industrial and commercial life for as long as we can remember. We can see nothing to be gained by the process of chop and change, alteration and uncertainty that has characterised a great part of the manufacturing industry over quite a long time. The reductions that are stated in the second reading speech and explained in the memoranda are part of a range of measures that were taken at the time. The purpose of the sales tax reduction was to induce a higher rate of sales, and that was achieved. Substantially the increased sales were made from previously accumulated stock. It has yet to be seen whether the reduction has generated any new demand for increased manufacture. It has yet to be seen whether it has done nothing more than pick up excess stock and transfer that excess stock into cash in the hands of the manufacturers. There is still some time ahead of us yet to see where all this will end.

The Government did another thing which was quite important. To accelerate the market demand for motor vehicles, it removed that iniquitous tax provision which penalised employees who had the use of motor cars from their companies. The provision penalised them on such a basis that in many areas it practically destroyed the companies’ general position of providing motor cars for employees to use in their work. The tax measure made the provision of such motor vehicles so uneconomic and so unwise that the market suffered remarkably in that area. The alteration of that rather iniquitous tax provision had a markedly useful effect on the industry of motor car manufacture. An arrangement for import quotas to operate on passenger and light commercial vehicles for a 12-month period also was brought in. That was part of a package at the time to try to overcome this very solid problem.

If we look at the motor car industry as a substantial pan of the manufacturing industry we can refer to one or two factors of the total manufacturing industry. I think honourable senators could quite well agree with some comments that were given to me to the effect that the actions taken by the Government in November and December of 1974 have not revived activity in the manufacturing industry; they have not really revived employment. The additional measures taken in January 1975 have helped the motor car manufacturing industry temporarily, but there is as yet no real evidence that it has done anything more than help it temporarily. I think one looks at the proposals as being necessary at the time. It is a pity they ever had to be taken but they were taken because of the previous mess-up, incompetence, decision-changing and uncertainty that made it necessary to take them. They look a little like what I call pot-holing; that is, filling in holes in a road. What I really think is being done in this job is just making larger pot holes further down the road. I say again that if that is what is going to happen I hope the intelligence of the Government is better and the intelligence of the Department of Manufacturing Industry is better and we, as an Opposition, will get ourselves in a situation of being able to look at these things more constructively and earlier, before people get into these states of distress and unemployment. Maybe this hope will not be realised, but the Opposition would want to be part of a constructive attempt to see these problems earlier and to examine them more critically, rather than be confronted with last minute measures taken in desperation.

There is a substantial need for the investment in manufacturing industry to be put in a better state than it is. Until we get a state of certainty in the economy where people know where they are going, until we get a growing economy and not a declining economy and until we get a state in which people are able to invest and generate enough profitability to pay the loans involved, it is unlikely that we will get much investment revival. Therefore it is unlikely that there will be much more certainty in the employment market in Australia for quite a long time yet. I think that is a fact of life the Government has to face. I think it will have to face, before it is a great deal older, some conscious attempts to get investment back up again if it wants to get employment back up again. I think it will have to look at the export market incentives a great deal more clear-eyed than it has. If it wants to have manufacturing and employment back where they ought to be, it will have to put some certainty and constancy into the Australian economic scene and the Australian manufacturing scene.

The Australian motor vehicle industry has to be regarded as a very critical, essential and large part of Australian manufacturing. Plenty of people in the Australian community- some of them in the Parliament and many of them in the academic shades- have very simplistic views on the manufacturing industry. They argue that all tariffs should be removed and that if that is done everything will come right in the end. If people sit down quietly and consider that the manufacturing industry employs 25 per cent or 26 per cent of the Australian work force and that it generates a third of the gross domestic product and adds substantially to exports, the proposition that all tariffs should be abolished and the manufacturing industry should be allowed to take its chance in the open is, if looked at quite cleareyed, a proposition that will lead to an unemployment rate in the manufacturing area alone in the order of 18 per cent. It is a quite unreal proposition. Australia is a country that has a balanced, mixed economy. Manufacturing is an essential part of it and for manufacturing to succeed, to prosper and to grow the country has to succeed, to prosper and to grow. As an essential part of the country employing a quarter of the work force, manufacturing industry has to be understood, supported and given some rational path ahead on which it can expand and develop. That ought to be a fact of life for all the Parliament, not just the Government or the Opposition.

I get very unhappy with people who come along to me with propositions for the abolition of tariffs or some such idea. Most of them are people who have never had to work in industry either as trade unionists or people involved in the administrative side or the capital side. They are unreal people who are putting at hazard other people’s lives and not their own. I would be a great deal happier if some of the people who give advice in these areas were out to take the risk taken by those people who live and work in the industry.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– They have never had to meet a payroll in their lives.

Senator COTTON:

– I quite agree. The motor car industry has been an essential fact of Australian life. It has been one of the great arms of our manufacturing and national expansion. It is an essential arm of our defence activities. It grew very much out of the industrial growth of Australia during the last war. I do not think that anybody whom I know and regard as having an opinion worth listening to would want to set the Australian industrial clock back. A few people have theories about this but they are not, in my view, people who have any real understanding of what Australian growth and development are all about. An expanding and developing manufacturing industry is what Australian growth and development are all about.

Local manufacturers in the motor vehicle industry hold about 50 per cent of the light passenger vehicle market. This share declined quite substantially following the 25 per cent tariff reduction in 1973. That decline continued markedly through 1974. The Government of Australia, in its 25 per cent tariff reduction, produced that decline in demand and in manufacturing and it led to the Government having to find that temporary short term solution about which we talked and which had to be found in January 1975. Because of a static economy the Australian passenger vehicle industry volume remained fairly constant from 1970 to 1972, at about 400 000 vehicles a year. The increasesthey were slight- were met practically totally by imports and the Australian manufacturing base remained practically constant. It has lately, if anything, begun to shrink a little. Tariff changes and the currency alterations favoured the imported vehicle. The combination of those things resulted in massive chaos in the local motor car manufacturing industry. We are all aware of the facts. Steps are being taken belatedly to try to overcome this position, to improve it and to see some degree of certainty ahead.

It may, I think, be fairly said that the Opposition has not in any way contributed to uncertainty or made a political scream about the difficulties of the manufacturing industry in the motor car field. The Opposition feels that it does not want to add any further to uncertainty. It wants to take what constructive steps it can to help an industry in a difficult position. The Opposition believes it knows where the blame lies. It believes it understands why the Government took these measures in the first place. When the Government recognised the defects and began to try to improve the situation the Opposition thought it ought to try to help and ought to examine these measures in the best way possible. The Opposition believes that Australia should have an Australian manufacturing industry. The motor car manufacturing industry is an essential part of that.

The Opposition believes that we need a reliable, viable and self-supporting motor car industry. We believe that manufacturers in that area need to get from the Government a clear indication of where the Government is going. The manufacturers need to have that understanding. I appreciate that there has been substantial discussion between manufacturers, importers, assemblers and the Government. I have taken part also in discussions. These discussions have been designed to examine a constructive, sensible solution for the Australian industry. The Opposition has tried to play a part in that solution. We believe that the reduction in sales tax has helped temporarily the demand position out of the accumulated stocks. We believe that by 1 May 1975 the solution will not have been found and the Government may wish to re-assess its position. If the Government wants to do that, the Opposition wants to have time to examine the Government’s reassessment proposals. The Opposition would not wish to be confronted with such proposals introduced as an emergency measure at the last minute.

One cannot foretell the future of this country because one cannot, for a start, be positive about the Australian economic growth, population expansion rate or the living standards of Australians. One can make all kinds of estimates but they are a little unreliable at the present time. There is a view that the Australian motor car market by the latter part of the 1980s could grow to 700 000 vehicles. If that is the case, within that growth factor there is scope for local manufacturers and some importers to have access to a good and sensible market that offers opportunities to people as long as they know where they are going and as long as they are not involved in a state of continual change of policy and uncertainty about their future. As far as I can tell- it is not easy to establish the figures- the motor car industry employs about 300 000 people, employed directly or employed by associated suppliers who work within the area of the motor car manufacturing industry. The motor car manufacturing industry is an essential part of Australian industrial life. It is an essential user of steel, steel products and all the associated items that make up a motor vehicle.

If one thinks about the Australian car manufacturing industry as an industry one realises that advances in technology in a great number of areas come from within it. One can develop advanced management skills and can develop good, safe labour working relationships. People can begin in quite humble positions on the factory floor and rise to levels of top management. The manufacturing industry in a country such as Australia not only expands the living standards and opportunities but also provides for many people the chance to progress from relatively low positions in industry to the top jobs. We have all seen in Australia men in the top levels of management who have come from the factory floor and the technical colleges and have worked their way up. Those people, by acquiring increased skills, knowledge and competence contribute a great deal to their country.

Therefore I believe that we should support these sales tax measures. They will help the motor car manufacturing industry which was placed in a dire position by the actions of this Government. We hope that the Government has now seen the light. We hope that the manufacturing industry in this country as such will be supported by the Government. We hope that the motor car industry in particular will be able to see where it is going. We hope that we will be able to understand the Government’s ultimate plan for Australia, for its economic growth and living standards; its plan within that for the manufacturing industry and its plan particularly for the motor vehicle industry. We would welcome that as soon as it could become available.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture and Leader of the Government in the Senate · Tasmania · ALP

– The Senate has been dealing with Bills which provide for certain sales tax exemptions pertaining to the motor vehicle industry. These measures were taken by the Government early this year for the purpose of stimulating the sales of motor cars in Australia. Senator Cotton spoke about a number of subjects, including tariffs and the Govenment’s attitude towards the manufacturing sector. This debate can either continue after 10.30 p.m. or we can continue it tomorrow. I do not personally want the latter to happen. 1 wonder whether

Senator Cotton is prepared to allow the debate to continue after 10.30 p.m. in order to complete it.

Senator Cotton:

– I would be perfectly happy to do so.

Senator WRIEDT:

– It is true that during last year the imports of motor vehicles into Australia increased quite dramatically. This was due to the increased number of motor vehicles being imported from Japan, primarily because the motor vehicle buyer wanted that type of vehicle. A large number of people could not get the vehicles they wanted from Australian manufacturers. It was not the intention of the Government to damage the motor car manufacturing industry. I am looking now for the term that was used by Senator Cotton. I can assure him that there was no desire to damage the local industry. Obviously that industry must remain buoyant but, at the same time, the person who wants a motor vehicle also has to be given some consideration. For that reason there was an increase in imports, particularly of Japanese cars. The Government acted when it was apparent that the number of vehicles being imported was beginning to damage the Australian industry. In December, if my memory serves me correctly, the imports reached a peak of 17 000 units of which about 12 000 were coming from Japan. As a result, the measures to which these Bills refer were taken in January and February to stimulate the sales of Australian manufactured vehicles. At the same time, a quota system was introduced to reduce the importation of so many overseas built vehicles.

The Government is not in any way wedded to a policy which will run down the Australian manufacturing industry. It may be, as Senator Cotton has said, that some people would advocate the abolition of all tariffs. That would be a rather absurd position to adopt A proper balance must be maintained between ensuring that the Australian public are able to obtain the goods which can be imported from overseas and at the same time protecting our local industries. There is no clear distinction as to where the line is drawn. It is a matter of judgment. It is necessary for any government at any time to make those adjustments as circumstances demand.

It should be remembered, of course, that in the latter part of last year motor vehicle registrations reached an all-time high. In October and November vehicle registrations reached record levels of about 630 000 units a year. This was evidence of the very great demand for motor vehicles which obtained until the end of the year. I shall quickly cite current figures I have on motor vehicle registrations to show that the steps which have been taken by the Government under this legislation are in fact having effect. In November last year the registration total- I will give the figures to the closest thousand- was 41 000. In December it had fallen to 34 000. In January of this year it was 30 000 but in February- the first month in which there was an opportunity for these measures to take effect- registrations rose quite dramatically to 44 000. They are the latest figures which are available to me. They show, contrary perhaps to the belief of some that these measures have not had effect.

Debate interrupted

page 816

ADJOURNMENT

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Davidson)- Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the negative.

SALES TAX BILLS (Nos. 1 to 9) 1975

Debate resumed.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I wish to place on record that new capital expenditure by private businesses in the December quarter, which again are the latest figures available to me, show an average increase in the manufacturing sector of industry of 20 per cent. That does not suggest that the manufacturing sector is being starved of liquid funds. In fact, if that level of investment is taking place obviously the manufacturing sector cannot be doing too badly at present. I would remind the Senate that that 20 per cent is over and above the preceeding quarter of 1973 when we were experiencing exceptional boom conditions in Australia. If the comparison had been made with a year of economic downturn there would not be the same validity in the argument. But we are comparing that 20 per cent increase with a period of very high economic activity. So it should be recognised that the Government is anxious to ensure the continued activity of the manufacturing sector and is prepared to take measures which will support it. Those are some remarks which I felt bound to make in view of the comments made earlier by Senator Cotton. The important thing is that the Senate will accept this legislation which I am sure has been appreciated very much by the motor vehicle manufacturers of this country.

Bills read a second time, and passed through their remaining stages without requests or debate.

page 817

SALES TAX (EXEMPTIONS AND CLASSIFICATIONS) BILL 1975

Second Reading

Consideration resumed from 6 March on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

Senate adjourned at 10.35 p.m.

page 818

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Bush Fire on Kangaroo Island

Senator Cavanagh:
ALP

– On 12 February, Senator Jessop asked the following question, without notice:

Is the Minister representing the Minister for the Northern Territory aware that S300 articles of new civilian clothing were available in Darwin immediately after the cyclone and that these articles were clearly marked with sizes? Has he been informed that these articles of clothing, which were surplus to the requirements of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and subsequently handed to the Department of the Northern Territory, were transported to Adelaide? Is it a fact that these articles of clothing were auctioned by the Department of Manufacturing Industry at Pennington in South Australia this morning? As many Darwin residents had their clothes torn off them during the cyclone and had to resort to wearing sheets for several days, I ask the Minister why this clothing was not offered to Darwin citizens immediately following the cyclone. Secondly, what will happen to the revenue collected from the sale of these articles? Will the Government put it into the Darwin disaster fund?

The answer to Senator Jessop ‘s question is as follows:

No clothing has been received by the Department of the Northern Territory in the Northern Territory since Cyclone Tracy on Christmas Day. No clothing has been transported from the Department of the Northern Territory to the Department of Manufacturing Industry for disposal or for any other purposes since March 1974.

All suitable clothing salvaged from the wrecked Department of the Northern Territory store houses were issued to needy citizens and also to the Salvation Army for issue to Darwin residents.

In March 1974 clothing which was then surplus to Department of the Northern Territory requirements was forwarded to the then Department of Supply for disposal action in accordance with the appropriate Treasury directions.

It is understood that some of the clothing was unsold in the August 1974 sale and it is possible that any clothing recently sold by the Department of Manufacturing Industry may have included the unsold lots.

Australian Oil Exploration

Price of Crude Oil

Minerals and Energy

Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (Question No. 24)

Senator Greenwood:

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

  1. 1 ) Why has the Government refused to table a telex message dated 28 March 1973 from the Director-General of Security to the staff of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and which was acknowledged by him on 20 August 1 973 to be in existence.
  2. Does the concept and promise of ‘open government’ require confirmation or denial of the authenticity of a widely publicised document.
  3. Does the Prime Minister still consider that the document is an ‘internal document’, as asserted by him on 8 November 1973, in reply to a question by Senator Greenwood.
Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The AttorneyGeneral has supplied the following answer to the honourable Senator ‘s question:

  1. 1) and (3). There is nothing to add to the answer given on 8 November 1973.
  2. No.

Social Welfare (Question No. 186)

Senator Baume:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What programs exist to enable assessment of social welfare initiatives in Australia.
  2. Which of these assessment programs are ‘client oriented ‘, in that assessments are made by the users, rather than the providers of the services.
  3. If any programs are ‘ client oriented’ what are they and how do they function.
Senator Wheeldon:
ALP

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

  1. l) (2) and (3) The Social Welfare Commission has been established to undertake a program of reviewing national social welfare initiatives with special reference, among other objectives, to decentralising programs and involving communities in decision-making, and to monitoring and assessing programs with respect to both goals and actual performance

The Commission itself reflects the concern for consumer participation in its own structure. One part-time Commissioner, Mr J. Comerford, is a representative of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and another, Mr George

Papadopoulos, represents migrant interests. A third parttime Commissioner, Mrs Sadie Canning, is an aboriginal who has detailed knowledge of health and welfare matters affecting the indigenous population.

The now disbanded Advisory Council on Social Security/ Welfare provided for a membership representing users as well as providers of social services.

The Social Welfare Commission has involved consumers in its information gathering and policy-formulating work. Resultant policy proposals are ‘client-oriented’ in that they provide for decentralised community-based programs. The Commission’s Committee of Enquiry into Aged Persons’ Housing for example received nearly 300 submissions of which approximately one hundred were from consumers. The Committee’s Report due to be tabled soon will recommend on acceptable levels of service provision to be reached co-operatively by participation of each level of government, voluntary associations and consumer groups.

In assessing the welfare needs of the handicapped, special account of clients ‘ views was taken.

In producing a report on Child Care services the Social Welfare Commission established a project team with several members representing user interests. The report recommended a community-based program of services.

The Commission has a continuing commitment to monitor the progress of these and all other social welfare programs with a view to stating priorities, co-ordinating activities and assessing performance.

One of the biggest initiatives in the welfare field is the action-research program entitled The Australian Assistance Plan which stimulates local participation in social service planning and execution and which encompasses a comprehensive assessment program.

This program is ‘client oriented’. It provides community based Councils known as Regional Councils for Social Development at the Regional level which encourages the involvement of organised client groups. These Regional Councils for Social Development provide client groups with a forum in which to state their views on consumer problems. They will be able to take action on these problems through access to funds to undertake research and to set up services. They will have the assistance of professional officers, social planners and Community Development Officers.

It will also be of interest to the honourable Senator to know that until the Australian Assistance Plan is defined by legislation it is an experimental, evolving program which is being tested in 35 selected regions. These 35 pilot programs are being monitored and evaluated by the Social Welfare Commission and the Department of Social Security.

The pilot projects have also been evaluated by an independent team from universities in each State. These evaluators have been monitoring the development of the program since February 1974 and reported to the Commission recently. I expect to receive copies of these reports soon.

In each State the evaluators have been attending meetings within the pilot projects to observe the processes of establishing regional councils and, to some extent, their operation. They assessed the nature of participation by individuals and groups in the projects, the viability of the regions and the extent to which the regional councils seem capable of achieving their stated objectives.

The Australian Assistance Plan provides funds for the establishment of Regional Councils for Social Development. The funds include an administrative grant for a social planning Secretariat, a capitation grant for community projects, and a grant for Community Development Officers. The purpose of the grants is to involve local people including client groups in assessing their needs and undertake social planning to meet those needs. The functions of the Regional Councils are set out in chapter 4 and chapter 2, paragraph 2, of the ‘Australian Assistance Plan: Discussion Paper No. 1 ‘ which document was tabled in the Senate on 30 August 1973.

Extradition (Question No. 230)

Senator Chaney:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

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

  1. 1 ) How many requests for extradition have been made by Australia to Commonwealth countries since the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Act 1 966 came into effect.
  2. To which Commonwealth countries were requests made.
  3. How many persons were returned to Australia as a result of these requests.
  4. From which countries were they extradited.
Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The AttorneyGeneral has provided the following answers to the honourable senator’s questions:

  1. 1 ) The Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Act 1966 came into operation on 1 May 1967. Between that day and 26 February 1975 there were 23 requests for extradition made by Australia to Commonwealth countries.
  2. The requests were made of the United Kingdom, Canada, Singapore and Hong Kong.
  3. As a result of the requests15 persons have been surrendered to Australia.
  4. Those persons were extradited from the following countries:

Extradition (Question No. 231)

Senator Chaney:

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

  1. 1 ) How many requests for extradition have been made by Australia to foreign states with which Australia has extradition treaties since the Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966 came into effect.
  2. To which foreign states were requests made.
  3. How many persons were returned to Australia as a result of those requests.
  4. From which countries were they extradited.
Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The AttorneyGeneral has provided the following answers to the honourable senator ‘s questions:

  1. and (2) The Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966 came into operation on 1 October 1967. Between that day and 26 February 1975 there were 6 requests for extradition made by Australia of the foreign states with which Australia has an extradition treaty. The requests were made of Paraguay, Spain, United States of America and Peru.

In addition requests have been made in Brazil in respect of 3 persons. There is no extradition treaty between Australia and Brazil. However, the law of Brazil provides for extradition without a treaty on a basis of reciprocity. The requests to Brazil were made following the amendment of the Extradition (Foreign States) Act No. 2 1 of 1974.

  1. As a result of the requests 2 persons have been surrendered to Australia. Proceedings are pending in a further 5 cases.
  2. The 2 persons referred to in (3) above were extradited from the following countries:

Extradition (Question No. 232)

Senator Chaney:

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

  1. 1 ) How many requests for extradition have been made to Australia by Commonwealth countries since the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Act 1966 came into effect.
  2. Which countries made those requests.
  3. How many persons have been surrendered to the requesting countries as a result of those requests.
  4. To which countries were those persons surrendered.
Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The AttorneyGeneral has provided the following answers to the honourable senator’s questions:

  1. 1 ) The Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Act 1 966 came into operation on 1 May 1967. Between that day and 26 February 1975 there were 28 requests for extradition made of Australia by Commonwealth countries.
  2. The requests were made by the United Kingdom, Canada, Singapore and Hong Kong.
  3. As a result of those requests 1 5 persons have been surrendered.
  4. Those persons were surrendered to the following countries:

Extradition (Question No. 233)

Senator Chaney:

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

  1. 1 ) How many requests for extradition have been made to Australia by foreign states with which Australia has extradition treaties since the Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966 came into effect.
  2. Which states made those requests.
  3. How many persons were surrendered to the requesting states as a result of those requests.
  4. To which states were those persons extradited.
  5. Have any requests been received from states with which Australia does not have an extradition treaty.
Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The AttorneyGeneral has provided the following answers to the honourable senator’s questions:

  1. The Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966 came into operation on 1 October 1967. Between that day and 26 February 1975 there were 15 requests for extradition made of Australia by foreign states with which Australia has an extradition treaty.
  2. The requests were made by Italy, Greece, France, Norway, Spain, Switzerland, United States of America and Yugoslavia.
  3. As a result of the requests 4 persons have been surrendered.
  4. Those persons were surrendered to the following countries:
  1. Since the Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966 came into operation Australia has received a request from Austria with which, at that stage it did not have an extradition treaty.

Law Reform Commission (Question No. 238)

Senator Greenwood:

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

  1. Did the Law Reform Commission Act 1973 receive the Royal Assent on 20 December 1973.
  2. Who are the members of the Law Reform Commission and when was each member appointed.
  3. Which of the members is Chairman of the Commission.
  4. What are the qualifications of the members appointed to the Commission.
  5. What are the terms and conditions of appointment of each of the members as specified in their instruments of appointment.
  6. What salaries, remuneration and allowances have been prescribed for the members of the Commission.
  7. What references to the Commission have been made by the Attorney-General.
  8. How many meetings of the Commission have been held.
  9. How many (a) employees of the Commission and (b) consultants to the Commission have been appointed.
  10. What are the terms and conditions of employment and engagement respectively of each employee and consultant.
Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. The Law Reform Commission Act was proclaimed to come into operation on 3 1 December 1974.
  2. and (3) The Honourable Mr Justice Kirby, Professor A. C. Castles, Professor G. J. Hawkins and Mr Gareth Evans were appointed as part-time members from 1 January 197S. Mr Justice Kirby was appointed as full-time member and Chairman of the Commission from 4 February 1975.
  3. (a) Mr Justice Kirby was appointed a Deputy President of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in 1 974. He holds the degrees of Bachelor of Laws ( Honours), Master of Laws ( First Class Honours), Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Economics. He was admitted as a Solicitor of the Supreme Court of New South wales in 1962 and as a Barrister of that court in 1967; (b) Professor Castles has been professor of Law at the University of Adelaide since 1 967 and holds the degrees of Bachelor of Laws and Doctor of Jurisprudence; (c) Professor Hawkins is an Associate Professor in Criminology at the University of Sydney. He holds the degree of Bachelor of Arts and is a well-known writer in the field of criminology; (d) Mr Evans is a Senior Lecturer in

Law at the University of Melbourne. He holds the degrees of Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Laws (First Class Honours) from that University and Bachelor of Arts (First Class Honours) from Oxford University. He is a Barrister and Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Victoria.

  1. Each member was appointed for a term of seven years. No other terms or conditions were specified.
  2. The Remuneration Tribunal has determined the following salaries and allowances for members of the Law Reform Commission:

The Tribunal has indicated that in its view the remuneration of part-time members should be fixed at $2,600 per annum plus $35 for each sitting day and a daily travelling allowance should be paid at the same rate as for full-time members.

  1. and (8) The Chairman is engaged in completing the arrangements necessary for the Commission to begin its operations. A list of references of matters to the Commission is in the course of preparation and will be submitted to the Commission in readiness for the Commission’s commencement of operations.
  2. and (10) No employees or consultants to the Commission have yet been appointed.

Professor H. Messel (Question No. 244)

Senator Greenwood:

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

  1. Has Professor Harry Messel been employed, or engaged by Mr Justice Murphy in his previous capacity as Attorney-General, or Minister for Customs and Excise, or by his Departments, in any, and if so what, capacity.
  2. If the answer to (1) is in the affirmative, over what period has he been so employed or engaged.
  3. 3 ) What remuneration has he been paid.
Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The AttorneyGeneral has supplied the following answer to Senator Greenwood ‘s questions:

  1. 1 ) Yes, as an adviser.
  2. From 9 January 1973.
  3. $7,500 annually.

Gun Laws (Question No. 245)

Senator Greenwood:

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

  1. I ) Did a meeting take place at the University of Sydney on 26 March 1974, at which discussions occurred between Professor Harry Messel and representatives of the Sporting Shooters’ Association, firearms traders and antique arms collectors’ organisations, or any of them.

    1. Was Professor Messel acting at such meeting in any, and if so what, way on behalf of the previous AttorneyGeneral, Mr Justice Murphy.
    2. For what purpose was the meeting held.
    3. Were any, and if so what, letters of invitation extended to the representatives of associations who participated; if so, who extended the invitation to participate.
    4. What were the discussions about.
    5. Who were the persons present.
Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes, as an adviser to the former Attorney-General, gathering the views of the representatives present in relation to gun laws.
  3. Given in (2).
  4. No letters of invitations were issued.
  5. Given in (2).
  6. Mr Robert Mitten, who described himself as Senior Vice-president of the Sporting Shooters Association plus three other persons accompanying him who were named as Mr Harry Scott, Mr Jeff Rabbidge and Mr Keith Wilman.

Gun Laws (Question No. 246)

Senator Greenwood:

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

  1. 1 ) Apart from the meeting on 26 March 1 974, about which Senator Greenwood has asked Question No. 245, have other meetings occurred between officers of the Attorney-General’s Department or officers of the Department of Customs and Excise and representatives of the Sporting Shooters’ Association, the Antique Arms Collectors’ Association and the Field and Game Association, or any of them, to discuss questions of and related to firearms registration.
  2. ) For what purposes were the meetings held.
  3. Were any, and if so what, letters of invitation extended to the representatives of associations who participated.
  4. Who extended the invitations to participate.
  5. What were the discussions about.
  6. Who were the persons present.
Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. Yes. A meeting was held on 1 November 1973 between officers of the Attorney-General’s Department and representatives of the Sporting Shooters ‘ Association and the Antique Arms Collectors’ Association.
  2. The meeting was held to discuss the whole field of firearms control.
  3. and (4) The former Attorney-General offered to make a Departmental Officer available for discussions.
  4. See answer to part (2).
  5. I am informed that the following persons were present at the meeting on 1 November 1973: Mr A. R. Watson and Mr C. B. Fernando of the Attorney-General’s Depanment, Mr I. Coombes, National President of the Sporting Shooters’ Association of Australia Mr R. Mitten, Senior Vice-President of the Sporting Shooters’ Association of Australia Mr J. S winfield of the Antique Arms Collectors ‘ Association.

Gun Laws (Question No. 247)

Senator Greenwood:

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

  1. 1 ) Did discussions take place at meetings of Commonwealth and State Ministers in which the previous AttorneyGeneral, Mr Justice Murphy, participated and at which efforts were made to obtain uniform laws with respect to firearms control and registration; if so, when did such meetings take place and which Ministers participated.
  2. What was the outcome of the discussions.
Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. No.
  2. Does not arise.

Gun Laws (Question No. 248)

Senator Greenwood:

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

  1. 1 ) Was any draft Bill for firearms legislation prepared by (a) the Office of Parliamentary Counsel or (b) the AttorneyGeneral’s Depanment in 1973 or early 1974.
  2. If the answer to (1) is in the affirmative on whose instructions was the Bill drawn.
  3. For what purposes was the Bill drawn.
  4. Was the Bill ever submitted to Cabinet for approval; if not, why not.
  5. Was the Bill, or a copy thereof, in the possession of Professor Harry Messel on or prior to 26 March 1 974.
  6. Did Professor Messel inform a meeting of representatives of the Sporting Shooters’ Association, firearms traders and antique arms collectors, or any of them on 26 March 1 974 that he had a copy of such a Bill.
Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The AttorneyGeneral has supplied the following answer to the honourable Senator’s question:

  1. No.
  2. , (3), (4) and (5) Do not arise.
  3. I understand that Professor Messel informed the former Attorney-General that he had not advised any of those present at the meeting on 26 March 1974 that he had a copy of such a Bill.

Gun Laws (Question No. 249)

Senator Greenwood:

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

  1. Is there any current proposal (a) accepted by the Government, or (b) being prepared for submission to the Government, for which the Attorney-General is responsible, for Commonwealth legislation to control firearms.
  2. If the answer to (1) is in the affirmative, what is the proposal.
  3. When will the proposal be introduced into Parliament as legislation.
Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The AttorneyGeneral has supplied the following answer to the honourable Senator’s question:

  1. No.
  2. and (3) Do noi arise.

Gun Laws (Question No. 250)

Senator Greenwood:

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

  1. 1 ) Is the Attorney-General aware of an advertisement published in numerous newspapers prior to 18 May 1974 containing a photograph of Mr Justice Murphy and alleging, inter alia, that he, when Attorney-General, proposed to introduce a costly system of licensing firearms, with control to be centralised in Canberra.
  2. If the answer to ( 1 ) is in the affirmative, did the previous Attorney-General, or persons acting on his behalf, bring the advertisement to the attention of officers of (a) the Attorney-General’s Department and (b) the Australian Electoral Office.
  3. If the answer to (2) is in the affirmative, for what purpose was the attention of such officers drawn to the advertisement.
  4. 4) What action was taken by such officers.
Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The AttorneyGeneral has supplied the following answer to the honourable Senator’s question:

  1. I am aware that advertisements as described were published in two newspapers.
  2. No.
  3. Does not arise.
  4. An officer of the Attorney-General’s Department who had seen the advertisements and knew from discussions with the former Attorney-General that the information was false, pointed this out to the person who purported to have authorised the publication of the advertisements.

Election Advertisement (Question No. 251)

Senator Greenwood:

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

  1. Did Commonwealth police visit a sports depot in Launceston during the week ending 18 May 1974, in the course of investigating an election advertisement.
  2. Was the advertisement one which depicted a photograph of Mr Justice Murphy, the previous Attorney-General.
  3. If the answer to (1) is in the affirmative what action was taken by the Commonwealth police.
  4. If the answer to (3) is in the negative, what action was threatened by the Commonwealth police.
  5. 5 ) Why was the action taken or threatened.
  6. Who initiated the action which was taken by the Commonwealth police.
  7. Were copies of the advertisement sought.
  8. Were copies of the advertisement seized, if so, why; if not, why not.
Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The AttorneyGeneral has supplied the following answer to the honourable Senator’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. 3 ) An officer of the Commonwealth Police Force spoke to the person in charge of the sports depot concerning the distribution of the pamphlet which might have amounted to an offence against the Commonwealth Electoral Act.
  4. Does not arise.
  5. The pamphlet that had been distributed was a photocopy of an advertisement that had appeared in a newspaper. It was stated to have been copied and distributed without the authority of the person who had inserted the advertisement in the newspaper.
  6. The action by the Commonwealth Police Force was taken at the instance of the person who had authorised the insertion of the advertisement in the newspaper and of which the pamphlet was a photocopy.
  7. and (8) All copies of the pamphlet had been destroyed by the person who had had them photocopied prior to the visit by the officer of the Commonwealth Police Force.

Gun Laws: Advertisement (Question No. 252)

Senator Greenwood:

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

  1. Is the Attorney-General aware of an advertisement headed ‘Withdrawal and containing a photograph of Mr Justice Murphy, the previous Attorney-General, and a statement by Mr K.. J. Loy which appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald on Friday, 10 May 1974.
  2. Did (a) the previous Attorney-General, (b) any member of his staff, (c) any officer of the Attorney-General’s Depanment, (d) any officer of the Australian Electoral Office, and (e) any person acting on the previous AttorneyGeneral’s behalf, request the insertion of the advertisement or insertion of an advertisement containing similar material.
  3. If the answer to any pan of (2) is in the affirmative, why.
  4. Was Professor Harry Messel asked prior to such request whether the substance of the matters withdrawn had been communicated by him to representatives of the Sporting Shooters’ Association and others in March 1974; if not, why not.
  5. Was any indication given as to what action would be taken if a withdrawal was not made.
  6. On whose authority and for whose benefit was such request made.
Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. (a) Yes.

    1. No.
    2. Yes.
    3. No.
    4. No.
  3. 3 ) An advertisement in the ‘ Sydney Morning Herald ‘ of 8 May 1974 to which the advertisement in the ‘Sydney Morning Herald ‘ of 1 0 May 1 974 was related, had contained false, misleading and inaccurate information.
  4. Yes.
  5. Yes.
  6. On the authority of the former Attorney-General and for the benefit of the Australian public.

Payment of Accounts in Printing Industry

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

– On 27

February Senator Guilfoyle asked me a question concerning payment of accounts in the printing industry. The Treasurer has now provided the following answer:

There is no policy, new or otherwise, to defer cash payments. If delays are occurring in the payment of accounts the specific reasons for the delays are at present unknown to the Treasury.

Treasury Direction 18/7B, which applies to all departments, states: ‘When a supplier lodges a claim it shall be dealt with expeditiously so that the Commonwealth’s financial obligation is discharged within a reasonable time. ‘

The Treasury is making inquiries in relation to complaints made by the Printing and Allied Trades Employers’ Federation and, where this is appropriate, it will take up the matter with relevant departments.

Gun Laws: Advertisement (Question No. 253)

Senator Greenwood:

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

  1. Is the Attorney-General aware of an advertisement which appeared in the West Australian newspaper on or about 18 May 1974 headed ‘Apology’ and authorised by Mr R. V. Howell of 12 Milne Street, Bicton, in which the statement appeared ‘ at the request of the Attorney-General ‘s Department we apologise to Senator Murphy’.
  2. Did any officer of the Attorney-General’s Department request any, and if so what, persons on behalf of the Western Australian Clay Target Association Sporting Shooters’ Association and Western Australian Field and Game Association to apologise to Mr Justice Murphy, the previous Attorney-General.
  3. If the answer to (2) is in the affirmative why and on whose instructions was such a request made.
  4. Prior to such request, was Professor Harry Messel asked whether the substance of the matters withdrawn had been communicated by him to representatives of the Sporting Shooters’ Association and others in March 1974; if not, why not.
  5. Was any indication given as to what action would be taken if a withdrawal was not made.
  6. On whose authority and for whose benefit was such request made.
Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. ) An officer of my Department spoke to Mr Howell who had authorised the advertisement and informed him that the advertisement contained inaccurate information.
  3. An officer of my Department at the request of the former Attorney-General pointed out the inaccuracies in the advertisement to Mr Howell.
  4. Yes.
  5. It was indicated to Mr Howell that the advertisement could be considered as being defamatory of the former Attorney-General.
  6. On the authority of the former Attorney-General and for the benefit of the Australian public.

Election Advertisement (Question No. 254)

Senator Greenwood:

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

  1. On what occasions and to what persons during the election campaign for the double dissolution election on 1 8 May 1974 did any member of (a) the Commonwealth Police Force and (b) the Attorney-General’s Department request the withdrawal of an election advertisement or the insertion of an apology or correction, in respect of that advertisement.
  2. If the answer to any part of ( 1 ) is in the affirmative, on whose instructions was each such request made.
  3. What action was taken pursuant to each such request.
  4. What was the outcome of each such request.
Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. (a) No occasion.

    1. I am informed that an officer of the AttorneyGeneral’s Department spoke to: Mr I. Coombes, National President of the Sporting Shooters ‘ Association on 7 May 1 974; Mr K. Loy of the Loy ‘s Arms Corporation, Sydney, on 8 May 1974; Mr J. Rabbidge of the Field and Game Association on 10 May 1974; Mr Linton, the advertising manager of the ‘Wagga Daily Advertiser’ on 1 3 May 1974; Mr R. V. Howell, Secretary of the Western Australian Clay Target Association on 16 May 1974.
  2. The officer of my Department who spoke to the persons mentioned persons part (l)(b) did so as the former Attorney-General had instructed him to inform the persons concerned of the inaccuracy of the advertisements.
  3. and (4) Mr Coombes wrote a letter to the editor to the Canberra Times’ which was published on 9 May 1 974.

Mr Loy spoke to the former Attorney General on 8 May 1974.

Mr Rabbidge asked that copies of certain press statements by the former Attorney-General be sent to him.

On 15 May 1974, the ‘Wagga Daily Advertiser’ published an apology to Mr Loy and to the former AttorneyGeneral.

Mr Howell authorised the publication of an apology in the West Australian ‘on 18 May 1974.

Question Upon Notice (Question No. 256)

Senator Greenwood:

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

  1. 1 ) Is the Attorney-General aware that Senate Question No. 24 on the Notice Paper asked on 1 1 July 1974 is the same as Question No. 548 asked on 13 November 1973 and Question No. 8 asked on 5 March 1974, which remained unanswered both at the prorogation and at the double dissolution of the Parliament.
  2. Does the Attorney-General propose to answer the Question.
  3. If the answer to (2) is in the affirmative, when.
  4. What is the reason for the delay in answering.
Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The AttorneyGeneral has provided the following answer:

  1. I ) to (4) See answer to Senate Question No. 24.

Gun Laws (Question No. 260)

Senator Bessell:

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

Have members of the Attorney-General’s Department, or officers acting on the Attorney-General ‘s behalf, held discussions with representatives of sporting shooters’ associations, firearms traders and others earlier this year with a view to developing proposals to reform the law with respect to firearms, if so, what has been the outcome of the discussions.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

Yes. No decision has yet been made on the course to be adopted. Reports of the rising trend in the use of firearms in crime in Australia give me cause for considerable concern.

Boards, Commissions and Statutory Authorities: Appointments (Question No. 308)

Senators Withers asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

1 ) Which persons appointed since December 1972 from outside the Australian Public Service to Boards, Commissions and Statutory Authorities under the Minister’s responsibilities are members of the Australian Labor Party or who, prior to the 1972 election, publicly advocated the return of the Labor Government.

What salary and allowances are paid to each such appointee.

What, if any, additional staff and facilities have been provided for each such appointee.

What was the cost of such staff and facilities in the years ending (a) 30 June 1973 and (b) 30 June 1974.

What is the estimated cost of such staff and facilities for the year ending 30 June 1 97S.

Senator Wriedt:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The following is a list of all persons appointed since December 1 972 from outside the Australian Public Service to Boards, Commissions and Statutory Authorities under the Treasurer’s responsibility:

page 825

COMMONWEALTH BANKING CORPORATION BOARD

page 825

OTHER COMMONWEALTH BANKING CORPORATION APPOINTMENTS

page 825

RESERVE BANK BOARD

Structural Adjustment Assistance (Question No. 330)

Senator Milliner:

asked the Minister for Manufacturing Industry, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What are the terms under which industries affected by the Government’s economic policies may apply for assistance.
  2. What amount of money was allocated for such assistance?
  3. Which industries, or individuals, have made application for assistance?
  4. What financial assistance has been provided to date and which industries or individuals have received such assistance?
Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. Assistance under the Government’s structural adjustment assistance scheme only becomes available after Cabinet has decided that a particular Government action or other event warrants it. Cases so prescribed by the Government to date are:

The 25 per cent Tariff Cut

The Consumer Electronic Equipment and Components Tariff Decision

The Domestic Appliances Tariff Decision

The Lifting of Tariff Quotas on Woven Shirts and Knitted Outerwear

The Reduction in Assistance to Shipbuilders

The Termination of the School Milk Scheme

Dairy Industry Adjustment.

Firms seeking assistance must also satisfy the following eligibility criteria:

That the structural change had adversely affected or was adversely affecting the firm to the extent of rendering a significant separate part of its assets incapable of economic production, or that the desired change was unlikely to occur at a reasonable speed and reasonable economic cost without assistance to the firm;

That the firm had taken reasonable steps for self help but that this was unlikely to enable complete adjustment by the firm (for example that the firm was unable to obtain finance on reasonable terms and conditions from normal commercial sources); and

That generally available measures had been utilised to the full but were inadequate.

  1. The Government allocated $ 11.8m for assistance to employees and $10m for assistance to firms in the 1974-75 Budget.
  2. As at 6 November 1974, 1 18 firms, from the following industries had made formal applications for assistance:

Unemployment (Question No. 417)

Senator Baume:

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

  1. 1 ) What was the number of registered unemployed in the Australian Capital Territory in each of the months of September, October and November 1974, as (a) a total number, (b) excluding school-leavers.
  2. Can these figures be compared month by month with similar figures for New South Wales and the whole of Australia.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

I am informed:

) The numbers of (a) total registered unemployed and (b) unemployed excluding school-leavers in the Canberra Employment Office area, which covers the Australian Capital Territory, the Municipality of Queanbeyan and the Shire of Yarrowlumla, for the period September 1974 to January 1 975 inclusive, were as follows:

  1. ) Figures for New South Wales and Australia over the same period were as follows:

Pakistani Crewmen: Accommodation (Question No. 437)

Senator Mulvihill:

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

  1. 1 ) Who paid the cost of accommodation at the Burlington Hotel, Sydney, of 23 Pakistani crewman of the vessel Theodore’ which contravened the provisions of the Commonwealth Navigation Act at Wollongong on 27 December 1974.
  2. What is the name of the shipping company involved and who is their Australian agent.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

  1. 1 have been informed that crew members from the vessel ‘Theodore’ were accommodated at the Burlington Hotel, Sydney, whilst awaiting repatriation to Pakistan. Cost of accommodation in such cases are normally met by the agents for the vessel and whilst I have no positive information 1 assume that this is what occurred in respect of the seamen from the ‘Theodore’.
  2. The owner of the vessel is recorded as Neptunia Incorporated, Liberia. Hetherington Kingsbury Pty Ltd were agent for the vessel at Sydney. At Port Kembla the agents were Union Bulkships.

Medical Research: Strokes (Question No. 443)

Senator Baume:

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

  1. 1 ) Does the Minister for Health accept as accurate, statements attributed to him in an article in the Sydney Daily Telegraph of 6 February 1975 by Trevor Kavanagh concerning the value of research into cerebrovascular accidents (strokes).
  2. Does the Minister accept as an accurate summary of his views the statement in the article that, because patients who get strokes are generally old, the disease should not enjoy high research priority and that present priorities in research have become distorted.
Senator Wheeldon:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) In general, my view on traditional research centred on laboratories and sophisticated equipment is that it is subject to the law of diminishing returns. Whereas it produced major strides in control of specific acute disease in the past quarter century, it is of marginal value in tackling the epidemics of affluence or degenerative diseases such as strokes. Such illnesses now kill most Australians. Epidemiology, clinical pharmacology, environmental and occupational medicine and other studies of the life-style factors of most importance for a long, healthy life are increasingly favoured for N.H. & M.R.C. funding. However, I have recommended to my advisers the early setting up of a centre of excellence for diagnosis, treatment and clinical research into strokes.

The report which was in the Daily Mirror, while reflecting my desire to shift the emphasis away from certain categories of disease of interest to the reporter, omitted my contrasting emphasis on the hazards to which I give greater importance because they deprive an increasing number of younger people of health and of productive years of life; alcohol, the road toll, cigarettes, misused drugs, poor diet, etc.

National Welfare Fund (Question No. 455)

Senator Baume:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What are the latest available figures of the amounts of money available in the National Welfare Fund.
  2. Are moneys in this Fund used for purposes of paying Commonwealth fund benefits or health insurance.
  3. What special appropriations of money other than those to the National Welfare Fund, have been made which could be used by a Government health insurance fund.
  4. What are the amounts of money available as a result of each of these special appropriations.
Senator Wriedt:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) At 30 June 1974 there was a balance of $462.3 million in the National Welfare Fund (NWF). The balance shown in the NWF do not represent ‘moneys’ available for financing Government spending for any purpose. The balances of the fund are invested in Internal Treasury Bills earning interest of one per cent per annum. The interest earned on the Bills, which is the sole source of the increase in balances of the NWF, is again reinvested in Internal Treasury Bills.

The transactions of the NWF are in essence no more than bookkeeping entries to satisfy the requirements of the Social Services and National Health Acts. These Acts specify that payments of pensions, allowances, endowments, benefits and other payments (including payments of medical, hospital and nursing home benefits) under the Acts should be made from the NWF. An amendment to the National Welfare Fund Act is 19S2 provided that expenditures from the NWF should be met in full by payments to the fund from Consolidated Revenue. In accordance with this provision, a special appropriation is used to reimburse the NWF each and every time payments are made from it. The result is that, apart from the interest on Treasury Bills already referred to, there can be no further growth in the balances of the NWF.

If it were proposed to use the balances of the NWF for any particular purpose, the Treasury Bills held by the fund would first have to be redeemed. The necessary finance for this purpose would have to be raised either from taxation revenues or from new borrowings. Funding any particular Government program in this way would be no different from funding it directly from these other sources.

  1. and (4) There are numerous special appropriations but each is made for the purpose set out in the legislation relating to that particular item of expenditure and cannot be used for any other purpose.

Haemophiliacs (Question No. 459)

Senator Baume:

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

  1. Is there available in Australia sufficient antihaemophilic factor or cryoprecipitate to meet the needs of the estimated 740 haemophiliacs, of whom 350 are thought to be severe cases.
  2. ) Is there sufficient of these two products to meet obligatory basic needs for surgery trauma and dentistry.
  3. Is there sufficient of these two products to meet in addition needs for day to day spontaneous bleeds.
  4. Are 1 5 million units of these factors required each year to cover the needs of patients for best possible treatment.
  5. Were only 6.6 million units of these products produced in 1973-74.
  6. Is the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories only capable of producing 1.5 million units of concentrate if it works maximum capacity at its present plant
Senator Wheeldon:
ALP

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

  1. There is sufficient anti-haemophilic factor or cryoprecipitate to meet the needs of all haemophiliacs requiring admission to hospital for treatment. There are not, however, amounts available at present to cater entirely for the home-care programs which constitute an expanding need in line with current trends in the treatment of haemophilia.
  2. Yes. The needs for surgery, trauma and dentistry are being met.
  3. Stocks are inadequate to cater for total care of all spontaneous bleeds. Those requiring treatment in hospital are covered, as indicated in (1) and (2) above, but there is a shortage for some programs involving care of individuals by parents or others in their homes.
  4. No. The estimated annual requirement is 13 million units.
  5. ) No. The actual production was 8.2 million units.
  6. The present production capacity of the plant at the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories is approximately 750 000 units of concentrate per annum. Plans are in hand to expand the plant capacity as a matter of priority in order to reduce the current shortfall which affects some home-care programs.

Papua New Guinea Elections (Question No. 461)

Senator Poyser:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to a reported decision of the Government of Papua New Guinea to postpone the scheduled 1976 election for one year, which in effect would postpone Independence Day?
  2. Does the Government of Papua New Guinea have the power to unilaterally change the year of an election, or would this require amending an Australian Act of Parliament?
Senator Willesee:
ALP

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

  1. My attention has been invited to the press reports to which the honourable senator refers. The motion moved and carried in the House of Assembly on 25 February was that the term of office of present members of the House be extended by one year to 1977. The Chief Minister, Mr Somare, spoke against the motion, which is not binding on the Government of Papua New Guinea. The motion will not affect the date of independence which will be decided by the House of Assembly in accordance with a resolution of the House of 9 July 1 974 which provided:

That Papua New Guinea do move to independent nation status as soon as practicable after a constitution has been enacted by this House and that any proposed date for independence is to be endorsed by this House.

  1. The current legislation governing the holding of elections in Papua New Guinea is the Papua New Guinea Act 1949-1974. This provides for the High Commissioner of Papua New Guinea to direct at any time the holding of a general election but that general elections shall be held at intervals not exceeding four years. The last general election was held in March/ April 1972.

Until independence, an extension of the period beyond four years would require the approval of the Australian Government and an amendment of the Australian Act.

After independence, the Papua New Guinea Act will not apply and elections will be held in accordance with the provisions of the Papua New Guinea Constitution, the terms of which are currently being debated by the House of Assembly.

Ministers’ Public Duty and Private Interests (Question No. 463)

Senator Webster:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Does the Prime Minister maintain a register of the private financial interests of Ministers in the present Government.
  2. On what date did the Prime Minister commence the register.
  3. ) Is a Minister required to declare his interests prior to or after he became a Minister.
  4. On what date was Senator James McClelland required to register his private financial interests.
  5. On what date did he do so.
Senator Wriedt:
ALP

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

  1. to (3) See my answers on 16 May 1973 and 12 November 1974 (House of Representatives Hansard pages 2 1 70 and 3389 respectively);
  2. and (5)1 wrote to Senator McClelland about this matter shortly after he was sworn as a Minister, although I believe Senator McClelland personally had not sighted the letter prior to 26 February 1 975 when he answered a Question Without Notice on this subject in the Senate (page 440). The senator spoke to me the following day.

Conciliation and Arbitration Act (Question No. 464)

Senator Mulvihill:

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

Has a report made in accordance with sub-section (8) of section 125 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act been tabled in the Parliament; if so, when.

Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

Yes, the report was tabled in the Senate on 1 1 December 1974 and in the House of Representatives on 1 1 February 1975.

Doctors’ Reform Society (Question No. 468)

Senator Baume:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did the Doctors’ Reform Society of New South Wales hold a special function at the Reception Hall, Sydney Opera House on Friday, 2 1 February 1 975, at 7.30 p.m.
  2. Was the cost of hire of the Hall some hundreds of dollars.
  3. Does the Department of Social Security, or the Department of Health, or any other Government Department, subsidise the Doctors ‘ Reform Society directly or indirectly.
Senator Wheeldon:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) I do not know.
  2. No.

Literature Board: Publishing Subsidies (Question No. 469)

Senator Gietzelt:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. Was a new publishing subsidy introduced in 1973 by the Australian Council for the Arts, through the Literature Board.
  2. Is this scheme assisting Australian-owned publishing firms who have limited financial resources.
  3. Does the scheme operate in such a way as to increase the employment possibilities of Australians in this industry.
  4. Will this new scheme promote the growth of the Australian publishing industry which is currently disadvantaged by overseas publishing houses.
Senator Wriedt:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) to (4) The Literature Board introduced a new program of publishing subsidies late in 1973. Its first aim was to enable publishers to reduce the retail price of Australian works of fiction and poetry as well as non-fiction titles of literary merit It also had the aim of allowing publishers to offer more generous terms to booksellers and to keep books in print for longer periods.

After the scheme had been in operation for twelve months, the Board produced a list of about ninety books which had been or were about to be published under the terms of the new program. The list included thirty-six works of fiction and thirty-six books of poetry.

These figures indicate a considerable increase in the publication of works of this kind in comparison with previous years.

The principal aim of the scheme is not to assist publishing houses directly but to aid the general promotion of Australian literature by making more works by Australian authors available to a wider readership. Nevertheless, it is obvious that the Australian publishing industry must benefit at least indirectly from such a scheme. Among the thirty-one publishing houses which received assistance in the first year of the program were a number of small firms with limited resources. They included, for example, Alpha Books, the Australasian Book Society, Contempa Publications, Cypress Books, Edwards and Shaw, Island Press, Outback Press, Wentworth Books, Whole Australian Catalogue Publications and Wild and Woolley.

Although the scheme is not specifically designed to increase employment possibilities within the Australian publishing industry it will be obvious by what has been said that one of its incidental effects must be to increase those possibilities.

The program is still in its infancy and is subject to constant assessment and revaluation by the Literature Board, in consultation with publishers, but the Government has good reason to be confident that it will reduce the disadvantages of the publishing industry.

Legal Costs (Question No. 19)

Senator Rae:

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

Is it a fact that the previous Attorney-General, Mr Justice Murphy, arranged for an in-depth study of the basis for the making and fixing of legal costs in Australia, or any part thereof; if so, what are the terms of reference of the study.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

No arrangements have yet been made.

Police Searches (Question No. 25)

Senator Greenwood:

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

  1. 1 ) What was the address of each of the two premises searched by Commonwealth and New South Wales police on 1 April 1 973 at the invitation of the occupants.
  2. What was the name of (a) the occupier of each of those premises and (b) the person who gave each such invitation.
  3. How many search warrants were obtained under section 19 of the Crimes Act.
  4. When were the sworn informations and warrants which had been obtained by the Commonwealth filed in the Court of Petty Sessions.
  5. When were the said sworn informations and warrants produced to the Senate Select Committee on the Civil Rights of Migrant Australians.
  6. By whom were such informations and warrants produced to the Committee.
  7. Were such informations and warrants produced in response to a summons from the Committee or in response to a simple request.
  8. Why did the previous Attorney-General, Mr Justice Murphy, refuse to table the warrants and affidavit material, or copies of them, on which the warrants were obtained on (a) 3 April 1973, (b) 11 April 1973 and (c) 31 May 1973 when asked for by Senator Greenwood.
  9. Why did the previous Attorney-General refuse to explain his refusal to table the documents requested by Senator Greenwood.
  10. 10) Why did the previous Attorney-General refuse to acknowledge or deny his acceptance of the fact that Senators and Members of the Commonwealth Parliament have a right to ascertain whether the Commonwealth Police Force is acting lawfully.
  11. Does the Attorney-General accept that Senators and Members of the Commonwealth Parliament have a right to ascertain whether the Commonwealth Police Force is acting lawfully.
  12. 12) In the light of the reply given already by the previous Attorney-General to Senator Greenwood in relation to this matter, will the Attorney-General now have tabled in the Senate the sworn information and warrants obtained by the Commonwealth: if not, why not.
Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The AttorneyGeneral has provided the following answer:

  1. 1 ) (a) 4/ 16 Tintern Road, Ashfield, N.S.W.; (b) 13 Dulwich Street. Dulwich Hill, N.S.W.
  2. (a) Vinko Kosac; (b) Ivan and Frank Padjan.
  3. 65 warrants were issued.
  4. 30 March 1973.
  5. Copies of the sworn information and warrants were produced on 1 8 July 1 973 to the Senate Select Committee on Civil Rights of Migrant Australians.
  6. The Commissioner of the Commonwealth Police Force, Mr J. M. Davis.
  7. Pursuant to a request from the Committee for the Commonwealth Police to provide general assistance in its inquiries.
  8. and (9) Already answered in the Senate.
  9. and ( 1 1 ) Do not arise.
  10. The sworn informations and warrants that had been obtained by the Commonwealth have already been produced to the Senate Select Committee on Civil Rights of Migrant Australians and are available to all Senators.

Police Searches: Return of Property (Question No. 26)

Senator Greenwood:

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

  1. 1 ) Is it still the fact that persons from whom property was seized as a result of searches made of premises in Sydney on 1 April 1973 have not had such property returned to them; if so, why has the property not been returned.
  2. When will it be returned; if not, when was the last property which was retained, restored to the persons from whom it was taken.
Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The AttorneyGeneral has provided the following answer:

  1. 1 ) and (2) Almost all of the property seized had been returned by 24 June 1974. Some documentary material has been retained in connection with continuing investigations by Federal and State law enforcement authorities.

Police Searches (Question No. 29)

Senator Greenwood:

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

  1. 1 ) What were the goods in respect of which a charge was laid against Jandrasec as a result of police searches of 58 premises in Sydney on 1 April 1973.
  2. ) What were the goods in respect of which a charge was laid against Lasic as a result of the same police searches.
  3. What were the goods in respect of which a charge was laid against Frank Padjan as a result of the same police searches.
  4. What were the goods in respect of which each charge was laid against Ivan Padjan as a result of the same police searches.
Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The AttorneyGeneral has provided the following answer:

A number of charges relating to possession of explosives were brought by the New South Wales Police as a result of the search of premises on 1 April 1973. Details of the particular searches referred to in the question are as follows:

1 ) A . 3 10 military rifle and a Konica camera.

Rolls of fabric material.

3 ) Transistor radio, tape recorder and typewriter.

Adding machine, dictation machine, typewriters, camera, light meters, stereo tape recorders, transistor radio, movie projector and movie camera.

Question Upon Notice (Question No. 257)

Senator Greenwood:

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

  1. Is the Attorney-General aware that Senate Question No. 25 on the Notice Paper asked on 11 July 1974 is the same as Question No. 567 asked on 22 November 1973, and Question No. 71 asked on 7 March 1974, which remained unanswered both at the prorogation and the double dissolution of the Parliament.
  2. Does the Attorney-General propose to answer the Question.
  3. If the answer to (2) is in the affirmative, when.
  4. What is the reason for the delay in answering.
Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The AttorneyGeneral has provided the following answer:

  1. 1 ) to (4) See answer to Senate Question No. 25.

Question Upon Notice (Question No. 258)

Senator Greenwood:

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

  1. Is the Attorney-General aware that Senate Question No. 26 on the Notice Paper asked on 1 1 July 1974 is the same as Question No. 560 asked on 22 November 1973, and Question No. 73 asked on 7 March 1974, which remained unanswered both at the prorogation and the double dissolution of the Parliament.
  2. Does the Attorney-General propose to answer the Question.
  3. If the answer to (2) is in the affirmative, when.
  4. What is the reason for the delay in answering.
Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The AttorneyGeneral has provided the following answer:

  1. 1 ) to (4) See answer to Senate Question No. 26.

Question Upon Notice (Question No. 259)

Senator Greenwood:

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

  1. 1 ) Is the Attorney-General aware that Senate Question No. 29 on the Notice Paper asked on 1 1 July 1974 is the same as Question No. 562 asked on 22 November 1973 and Question No. 70 asked on 7 March 1974, which remained unanswered both at the prorogation and the double dissolution of the Parliament.
  2. Does the Attorney-General propose to answer the Question.
  3. If the answer to (2) is in the affirmative, when.
  4. What is the reason for the delay in answering.
Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The AttorneyGeneral has provided the following answer:

  1. 1 ) to ( 4) See answer to Senate Question No. 29.

Complaint to Police about Publication (Question No. 351)

Senator Greenwood:

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

  1. 1 ) Did Constable Hibberd of the Australian Capital Territory Police on or about the fourth day of September 1974 receive a complaint from Father J. B. Gahan of East Maitland about the sale to school children of an article described as ‘ The Merry Monk with Fun-Raising Action ‘.
  2. Did Inspector Mills of the Australian Capital Territory Police, on or about the same day, receive the same complaint from Father Gahan.
  3. Was any, and if so what, action taken by Inspector Mills and Constable Hibberd in respect of the said complaint.
Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

According to the information supplied to me, the answers are. as follows:

1 ) Yes, on 3 September 1 974.

Yes.

Yes. Inspector Mills instructed Constable Hibberd to submit a report on the matter.

Complaint to Police about Publication (Question No. 352)

Senator Greenwood:

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

  1. 1 ) Did Inspector Broomby of the Australian Capital Territory Police, m or about the early part of September, receive a complaint from Father J. B. Gahan of East Maitland about the sale to school children of an article described as ‘The Merry Monk with Fun-Raising Action ‘.
  2. Did Father Gahan request that a prosecution be instituted about the matters he complained of.
  3. What did Inspector Broomby tell Father Gahan about the prospects of prosecution.
  4. Has any prosecution been instituted about the matters complained of; if not, why not.
  5. ls a prosecution proposed; if not, will the AttorneyGeneral table in the Senate all statements, reports, recommendations, letters, notes and memoranda under the control of the Australian Capital Territory Police and /or the Attorney-General or his Department.
Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

According to the information supplied to me, the answers are as follows:

1 ) Yes, on 4 September 1974.

Father Gahan said that he considered the article offensive and asked what could be done about it.

Inspector Broomby explained the provisions of the Objectionable Publications Ordinance to Father Gahan and expressed doubt about the success of any prosecution of the person who had sold the article in question.

No. The Commissioner of Police in the Australian Capital Territory, after a full consideration of the circumstances and the nature of the article, considered that it would be doubtful whether a prosecution would succeed.

No. No.

Complaint to Police about Publication (Question No. 353)

Senator Greenwood:

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

  1. 1 ) What is the relevant law in the Australian Capital Territory with respect to the sale of obscene articles and publications.
  2. Do the circumstances of the sale of an article to minors as complained of by Father J. B. Gahan to Inspector Mills, Inspector Broomby and Constable Hibberd constitute a prima facie case warranting action under such law.
  3. Did Inspector Broomby inform Father Gahan that the article purchased would be regarded as obscene and that he would obtain a full report from the Constable who first investigated the matter, prepare a report himself and submit both reports to the Commissioner of the Australian Capital Territory Police for action.
  4. What action did Inspector Broomby take after speaking with Father Gahan.
  5. 5 ) Why has no action been taken under the relevant law.
  6. Who decided that no action was to be taken.
Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

According to the information supplied to me, the answers are as follows:

The Objectionable Publications Ordinance, the Police Offences Ordinance, and the Common Law.

An answer to this question would require a legal opinion contrary to Order 99 of the Senate Standing Orders.

Inspector Broomby did not inform Father Gahan that he regarded the article as obscene. The Inspector said that he would obtain a report from the constable who first investigated the complaint and submit it to the Commissioner of the Australian Capital Territory Police.

Inspector Broomby obtained a report from Constable Hibberd and submitted it to the Commissioner.

The Commissioner of the Australian Capital Territory Police after discussion with senior officers of his Force concluded that the facts did not warrant a prosecution.

See answer to (5).

MrD. Ditchburn (Question No. 418)

Senator Baume:

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

  1. Did the previous Attorney-General, Mr Justice Murphy, state that Mr David Ditchburn had advised him in writing that he would not accept payment to be offered for services on the Films Board of Review.
  2. As the Papers tabled in the Senate on 10 December 1974 did not include such a letter would the AttorneyGeneral now have the letter tabled in the Senate.
Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. At all times Mr Ditchburn had advised that he would not accept fees for his services on the Cinematograph Films Board of Review. It is understood that his employment precluded him from receiving fees for other services.
  2. Yes.

Ethiopian Airways (Question No. 419)

Senator Greenwood:

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

  1. 1 ) Why did the previous Attorney-General, Mr Justice Murphy, decline to answer that part of a Question without Notice asked by Senator Greenwood on 1 1 December 1 974, which inquired if he would inform the Senate of any benefits received by him and his wife from Ethiopian Airways by way of free or concessional world travel, or in other ways.
  2. What overseas trips have been made by (a) Mr Justice Murphy and (b) Mrs L. K. Murphy on airline tickets issued free, or at concessional rates, at the request of Ethiopian Airways on the basis of Mrs Murphy’s employment, or engagement, with Ethiopian Airways during (i) 1969, (ii) 1970, (iii) 1971, (iv) 1972, (v) 1973 and (vi) 1974.
Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) These matters were dealt with in the Senate on 11 December 1974 (Hansard, page 3362) and it is not proposed to add to what was said on that occasion except to say that when he was Leader of the Opposition in the Senate the former Attorney-General was entitled to make overseas visits periodically at Government expense and that he did not at any time make any such visits at Government expense.

Ex-Attorney-General and Wife: Overseas Travel (Question No. 420)

Senator Greenwood:

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

  1. Did the previous Attorney-General, Mr Justice Murphy, and Mrs Murphy travel overseas during December 1973-January 1974; if so, where.
  2. Were the air tickets for such flight issued by Pan American Airways at the request of Ethiopian Airways for their employee, Mrs Murphy.
  3. Were such tickets issued at a concessional fare rate; if so, what was the concession.
  4. Was the overseas trip official or private.
Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The former Attorney-General and Mrs Murphy made a visit overseas in January 1974.
  2. , (3) and (4) The visit was a private one. See the answer given to the honourable Senator on 1 1 December 1974 (Hansard page 3362)

MrD. Ditchburn (Question No. 421)

Senator Greenwood:

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

  1. 1 ) Is the Attorney-General aware of the public interest in the appointment of Mr D. Ditchburn to the Films Board of Review.
  2. Are Mr Ditchburn ‘s qualifications, as well as the reasons for his appointment, legitimately a matter of public interest and properly to be made available as a matter of open government’.
  3. Why was Mr Ditchburn considered a proper appointment to the Films Board of Review.
  4. Does Mr Ditchburn hold any and, if so, what position with Ethiopian Airways.
  5. Is the position he holds with Ethiopian Airways a fulltime position.
  6. What, if any, background has Mr Ditchburn in the distribution or exhibition of films.
Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1) to (3) See the answers given in reply to a question by Senator Withers without notice on5 December 1974 (Hansard, pages 3163 and 3164). See also answer to question 446 which indicates the range of interests represented on the Board of Review.
  2. Yes. Regional Manager for Australasia.
  3. Yes.
  4. None, excepting in connection with films promoting travel by the airline by which he is employed. Except for the Chairman, none of the other members of the Board has a background in the distribution or exhibition of films.

Mrs Luz Dungca: Employment (Question No. 423)

Senator Greenwood:

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

  1. Did the previous Attorney-General, Mr Justice Murphy, employ a Mrs Luz Dungca in his household since her entry into Australia.
  2. ) Was any arrangement made for her employment before she left the Philippines; if so, what was the arrangement.
  3. On what grounds of admission under the Government ‘s immigration policy did she enter Australia.
  4. What representations did the previous AttorneyGeneral make to secure her admission to Australia.
Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) to (4) See the answer given by the Postmaster-General in the Senate on 1 1 December 1974 (Hansard, page 3369).

Marriage Celebrants (Question No. 425)

Senator Greenwood:

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

  1. 1 ) Who are the present civil celebrants of marriage, apart from religious celebrants and civil celebrants who are State Government officials.
  2. Which civil celebrants of marriage identified in the answer to the preceding part of this Question were appointed by the previous Attorney-General.
  3. ls it known what amount of fees each civil celebrant has received.
  4. Are such celebrants under any obligation to account for their fees, or to disclose the total amounts received.
Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. The civil marriage celebrants who are not registry office officials or nominees are as follows:
  2. All.
  3. No.
  4. The fees should be disclosed as income for taxation purposes provided the gross amount of all the celebrant’s income is such that a return is required.

Marriage Celebrants (Question No. 426)

Senator Greenwood:

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

  1. 1 ) Did Mr Justice Murphy, as Attorney-General, have the exclusive power to appoint civil celebrants of marriage.
  2. What is the source of that power.
  3. What criteria did the previous Attorney-General apply so as to determine who should be appointed as civil celebrants.
  4. Are persons wishing to become celebrants invited to apply for appointment; if so, to whom is the invitation extended and how is it extended.
  5. If not, how are the persons who are appointed celebrants selected.
Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. and (2) Section 39 (1) of the Marriage Act 1961-1973 directly confers authority to solemnise marriages on persons who under the law of a State or Territory have the function of registering marriages solemnised in the State or Territory. Under Section 39 (2) the Attorney-General may authorise other officers of a State or Territory or other suitable persons to solemnise marriages. This power has been delegated by the Attorney-General to the Secretary to the AttorneyGeneral’s Department pursuant to the Law Officers Act 1964-73.
  2. The criterion, in accordance with the Act, is that of suitability. This means that persons authorised as civil celebrants must be of good repute, that they are capable of understanding the provisions of the Marriage Act and are able to explain these provisions to couples contemplating marriage.
  3. and (5) Any person may apply to be authorised to solemnise marriages. Generally, applicants are asked to complete a questionnaire form and supply a recent photograph. They are also asked to provide a copy of the marriage ceremony they would use if authorised. The needs of the community are taken into account. Rejection of an application does not necessarily mean that the applicant is unsuitable. In some areas, for example, the number of celebrants is considered sufficient to meet present demands.

Marriage Celebrants (Question No. 427)

Senator Greenwood:

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

  1. 1 ) Is there an organisation of persons appointed as civil celebrants of marriage.
  2. Was the previous Attorney-General a patron of the organisation.
  3. 3 ) Who are the office-bearers of the organisation.
  4. When was the organisation formed and for what purpose was it formed.
  5. 5 ) Who are the present members of the organisation.
Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Yes. It is named ‘The Association of Civil Marriage Celebrants of Australia’.
  2. Yes.
  3. , (4) and (5) The Association is a private organisation. The information, if required, should be sought from the Association.

Mr L. J. Dragoja (Question No. 432)

Senator Mulvihill:

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

  1. 1 ) In view of the evidence given by Federal Law inquiry agencies before Senate Estimates Committee A that close surveillance was maintained on Creation extremists, was any examination made on the request for a passport from Ludwig Jubomir Dragoja, who suffered injuries in Frankfurt whilst making a bomb.
  2. Which Croatian extremist group do the Federal authorities consider he belongs to.
Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The AttorneyGeneral has provided the following answer:

  1. 1 ) Dragoja is not an Australian citizen and does not have an Australian passport. He applied for Australian citizenship in 1972 but a decision was made to defer the application until December 1974. He obtained a Yugoslav passport from the Yugoslav Embassy in Canberra in September 1 972 and left Australia in April 1974.
  2. While a member of the Croatian Democratic Committee (HDO) he was convicted and sentenced to 9 months’ imprisonment in the A.C.T. in 1970 for unlawful possession of explosives. The HDO operated in conjunction with the Creation Revolutionary Brotherhood and members of both of these organisations took part in the armed terrorist raid into Yugoslavia in 1972.

Trade Practices Act: Advertisements (Question No. 445)

Senator Chaney:

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

  1. 1 ) Since the passing of the Trade Practices Act 1 974 how many advertisements relating to that Act, which included a photograph or other representations of the previous Attorney-General, have been published by the AttorneyGeneral’s Department.
  2. In what publications did the advertisement appear.
Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) One such advertisement was published on a number of occasions.
  2. The advertisement appeared in metropolitan daily papers in each State and Territory, major provincial papers in each State or Terrtory, ethnic papers, weekend press, trade union press, and the Bulletin.

Films Board of Review (Question No. 446)

Senator Withers:

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

  1. 1 ) Who are the members of the Films Boards of Review.
  2. When was each member appointed and when does his/her term of office expire.
  3. What remuneration and allowance does each member of the Board receive.
  4. What is the occupation of each member of the Board.
Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The AttorneyGeneral has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s questions:

  1. 1 ) The members of the Films Board of Review are:

MrS. G. Hawes, M.B.E., Chairman

Miss Caroline Jones, Deputy Chairman

Mr R. W. Clarke, M.B.E., Member

Dr Margaret R. Middleton, Member

Professor A. G. Hammer, Member

MrD. Ditchburn, Member.

  1. Mr Hawes, Miss Jones and Mr Clarke were appointed to the Board on its establishment in January 1971 and their appointments expire on 31 December 1975. Dr Middleton and Professor Hammer were appointed on 27 November 1973 and 24 January 1974 respectively. Their appointments expire on 3 1 December 1 975. Mr Ditchburn was appointed on 22 November 1974 and his appointment expires on 31 December 1979.
  2. Remuneration:

Chairman- $2,300 per annum.

Deputy Chairman- $ 1 , 650 per annum.

Members (other than Mr Ditchburn, who receives no remuneration) $ 1,000 per annum.

Members are paid travelling allowance at the rate of $28 per day.

  1. Occupations of Board Members are: Mr Hawes is retired. He was formerly Producer-in-Chief, Commonwealth Film Unit 1946-1970. Miss Jones is a member of the ‘Four Corners’ team, the ABC current affairs program. Mr Clarke is a company secretary. Dr Middleton, Senior lecturer in psychology, Australian National University. Professor Hammer, Professor of Psychology, Macquarie University. Mr Ditchburn, Australasian Regional Manager for Ethiopian Airlines.

Film Censorship Board (Question No. 447)

Senator Withers:

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

  1. 1 ) Who are the members of the Film Censorship Board.
  2. When was each member appointed and when does his/her term of office expire.
  3. What remuneration and allowance docs each member of the Board receive.
  4. What is the occupation of each member of the Board.
Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The AttorneyGeneral has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s questions:

  1. 1 ) The members of the Film Censorship Board are as follows:

Mr R. J. Prowse, M.B.E., Chief Censor

Mrs J. Strickland, Deputy Chief Censor

Mr K. F. Barton, member

Mrs E. Clifford, member

Mr J. R. Ginswick, member

Mrs G. R. Gamble, member

Dr B. Ward Powers, member.

  1. Periods of appointment:
  1. Remuneration:

The Chief Censor is paid $ 1 7,766 per annum.

Deputy Chief Censor is paid $ 1 4,229- 1 4,733 per annum

Members are paid $ 1 1 , 736- 1 2,480 per annum.

  1. The members of the Film Censorship Board are employed on a full time basis.

National Literature Board of Review (Question No. 448)

Senator Withers:

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

  1. Who are the members of the National Literature Board of Review.
  2. When was each member appointed and when does his/her term of office expire.
  3. What remuneration and allowance does each member of the Board receive.
  4. What is the occupation of each member of the Board.
Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The AttorneyGeneral has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s questions:

  1. 1 ) The members of the National Literature Board are:

Professor E. R. Bryan, O.B.E., Chairman

Lady Hope Hewitt, Deputy Chairman

Mr L. O’Neil, Deputy Chairman

Professor J. P. McAuley, Member

DrK. Tregonning, Member

Miss N. Keesing, Member

Miss T. Astley, Member.

  1. Appointments: Professor Bryan, Lady Hewitt, Mr O’Neil and Professor McAuley were appointed to the Board on its establishment in 1968. Their current appointments expire on 31 December 1976. Dr Tregonning was first appointed on 1 January 1971 and has been reappointed till 31 December 1976. Misses Keesing and Astley were appointed on 24 January 1974 and the appointments expire on 31 December 1976.
  2. Remuneration:

Chairman- $2,300 per annum

Deputy Chairman- $ 1 , 650 per annum

Members- $ 1 , 000 per annum.

  1. Occupations: Professor Bryan is Professor of English, Royal Military College, Duntroon. Lady Hewitt is Senior Lecturer in English, Australian National University. Mr O’Neil is a publisher. Professor McAuley is Professor of English, University of Tasmania. Dr Tregonning is Headmaster of Hale School in Western Australia. Miss Keesing is a freelance journalist and social worker. Miss Astley is Senior Tutor, Department of English, Macquarie University.

Defence and Security Establishments: Employment of Australians (Question No. 266)

Senator Milliner:

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

Will the Minister inform the Senate as to whether there is a policy to ensure that employees of sensitive defence and security establishments are Australian citizens.

Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

Employees of sensitive defence establishments are screened to a level appropriate to the required security level of the establishment.

Road Accidents (Question No. 439)

Senator Baume:

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

  1. Has the Depanment of Transport investigated claims made by Dr Hans Pacy of Tea Gardens, New South Wales, that a free emergency telephone at critical points on highways could significantly shorten the time required for rescuers to reach the scene of road accidents.
  2. What plans does the Depanment have to investigate Dr Pacy’s assertions and the feasibility of assisting State governments to introduce an improved communications system to enable more rapid roadside attention to victims of road accidents.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. In September 1972, the Expert Group on Road Safety completed a report on the Road Accident Situation in Australia which contained a section on emergency medical services. To obtain information for this section, a literature review was commissioned with the School of Social and Preventive Medicine, Monash University. The review discussed the operation of roadside communication systems in Australia and overseas. Dr Pacy’s system at Tea Gardens was considered to be an example where an emergency roadside telephone may be justified on a sparsely populated highway, as it is a location at which numerous crashes occur. Capital costs and the availability of public telephones and other means of communication appeared to limit their use elsewhere.

Unfortunately, detailed information concerning the magnitude of delays in the provision of medical attention to casualties in accidents in country areas is sparse. The Department of Transport is currently sponsoring the development of a comprehensive plan for an in-depth study of accidents on rural roads in south-east Queensland. One of the factors to be studied will be the possible benefits of emergency roadside telephones, which will enable a proper assessment of their wider use.

Cyclone Tracy (Question No. 452)

Senator Baume:

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

  1. 1 ) Did the RAAF use Hercules aircraft in the airlift from Darwin following cyclone Tracy
  2. Did the RAAF use its available flying hours for the year 1974-75 during this evacuation.
  3. Were RAAF Hercules aircraft stopped from flying during January and February 1975 because the permitted flying hours were exhausted.
  4. How many hours have been flown by RAAF Hercules aircraft in each month since June 1 974.
Senator Bishop:
ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. No.
  3. No.
  4. The consolidation of the information sought would reveal an operational capability which would not be appropriate for me to release.

Metric Conversion

Senator McClelland:

– On 6 March, Senator Missen asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science the following question, without notice:

Is the Minister representing the Minister for Science aware of the widespread and growing objections by individuals, consumers and business to the continued implementation of the metric conversion program, and of the allegations of increasing costs, waste, confusion and inflationary effects of the present program? Is the Government prepared to suspend conversion so that its costs and benefits may be reassessed, as advocated by the now Deputy Prime Minister, Dr Cairns, in May of last year, or to appoint an independent investigation to assess the comparative costs and benefits of limiting or suspending the further implementation of the program or continuing with it on the present basis?

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

It is evident that a small but vocal minority is attempting to stir up opposition to the conversion to the sole use of the metric system of measurement. Some forty petitions have been presented to the Parliament but include relatively few signatures. More significantly, a Gallup Poll conducted last year showed that 65 per cent of the population favoured proceeding with metric conversion.

At this stage little would be gained by delaying any part of the program. Already more than half the conversion program has been completed. It is evident that we are well past the half way mark. The public has been exposed to most of the units that will be required for everyday use and little would be gained by delaying conversion of the remaining items. Indeed such delays would prolong the difficulties which arise from the concurrent use of two separate systems of measurement.

The anti-metric lobby is doing the country a dis-service by arousing unjustified fears in the community and generating uncertainty about the program. The Government’s intention is clear it intends to complete the conversion in accordance with the present program.

It is important to recognise that all the traditional users of the Imperial system have converted, are converting or are committed to convert. Conversion in the United Kingdom, South Africa and New Zealand is at least as far advanced as it is in this country. Canada has established a Metric Conversion Commission and the United States of America has recently provided US$30m for training in the metric system which the United States Act says ‘will become the predominant system of measurement in America. ‘ A delegation from the U.S. and Canada will visit this country shortly to study our approach to conversion which they consider to have been a model exercise.

Metric conversion involves major changes in our traditional patterns of thought and it is not surprising that objections arise. However, it is not true to say that business in general is opposed to conversion. Many companies have welcomed the benefits which result from the simpler system and are already reporting savings as a result of the change. The public as a whole has responded well to the change and, for example, the recent conversion of road signs passed without any of the disruption or difficulties that had been forecast.

The anti-metric lobby has made much of the costs and alleged inflationary effects of conversion and has conjured up some grossly inflated estimates. There is no substance in its estimates nor has it produced any great evidence to support those estimates. It is true, of course, that some initial outlay is required to effect conversion. However, this is being rapidly offset by the savings in operations and reductions in stockholdings that have resulted from the change.

It has been suggested that there should be a public enquiry to reassess the benefits. Honourable senators will recall that an enquiry was held by a Senate Select Committee chaired by the late Senator Laught in 1967-68, before the decision to change was made. The voice of the present opposition was heard at that time and given due weight. Nevertheless the Committee was satisfied that the evidence was overwhelmingly in favour of an early conversion. Nothing has happened to alter that assessment.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 8 April 1975, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1975/19750408_senate_29_s63/>.