Senate
19 August 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 1

QUESTION

DEATH OF FORMER SENATOR DAME IVY EVELYN WEDGWOOD, D.B.E

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

- Mr President, it is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 24 July this year of former Senator Dame Ivy Evelyn Wedgwood, D.B.E. I ask for leave to move a motion.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator WRIEDT:

-Mr President, I move:

Mr President, all honourable senators were saddened to hear of the death of former Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood on 24 July last. Dame Ivy was the first woman elected to the Senate to represent Victoria and played a full and active role in this chamber from her election in 1949 until her retirement in July 1 97 1 . She will be long remembered for untiring service as a member of various Senate and joint parliamentary committees, which included chairmanship of the 2 important committees concerned with health and welfare. From August 1962 until she retired, Dame Ivy held the position of Temporary Chairman of Committees.

Both within and outside Parliament Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood was a tireless campaigner for improved facilities for handicapped people. She was also vitally involved in the role of women in politics and in the work force. It was she who first suggested that the Government should set up a women’s secton within the Department of Labor and Immigration. In her work in the community at large, Dame Ivy was a Justice of the Peace and a Special Magistrate in the Children’s Court of Victoria. In 1968 she was awarded the title of Dame Commander of the British Empire.

On Dame Ivy’s death the Prime Minister (Mr Whitlam) said that all Victorians would fondly remember her, and all who had served with her in the Australian Parliament would remember her as a gracious and esteemed colleague. Mr President, I am sure that all honourable senators here today will endorse those remarks.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– On behalf of the Opposition I join the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Wriedt) in expressing regret at the passing of our former colleague Dame Ivy Wedgwood. Dame Ivy had a long and distinguished record as a member of this chamber for 2 1 years. Before then she was active in politics for many years. In her political career she achieved many firsts. She was one of the original delegates to the 1944 Canberra and Albury conferences which formally constituted the Liberal Party of Australia. In 1949 she entered this Senate the first woman senator from Victoria. She became, and always was, an active member of the Senate, of the Senate committees and of the joint committees of the Parliament. She became the first woman member of the Public Accounts Committee in 1955, and she also served on the Joint Select Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House, and the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory.

She had the distinction of becoming the first woman Chairman of a Senate committee when, in 1 968, she was elected to chair the Senate ‘s Select Committee on Medical and Hospital Costs. Her deep interest in health and welfare matters led to her becoming Chairman of the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare in 1970. Her services, as the Leader of the Government has said, were rightly honoured when she became a Dame Commander of the British Empire. Throughout her time in Parliament, Dame Ivy was a tireless campaigner for improved facilities for the handicapped. This was reflected in her service on the Senate Standing Committee on Health and Welfare. When I heard of the death of Dame Ivy I felt that I had lost not just a parliamentary colleague but also a very good personal friend and certainly a very good political friend. She was full of wisdom and had a lot of common sense. She had the capacity of being able to cut through a lot of the male political nonsense that goes on in this place, like a hot knife cuts through butter. Many a time I saw her put quite pompous politicians in their place by the exercise of some sound common sense.

I know that throughout her parliamentary career Dame Ivy made great sacrifices to be within the Parliament. Her husband and survivor, Jack, had a very distinguished career as an infantryman, I understand, during the First World War. He had a very hard war and basically has suffered ever since. It was a great problem for Dame Ivy to be in politics while worrying about her husband at the same time. I am quite certain that Jack, as most of us in the Senate knew him, will be comforted by the fact that all honourable senators within this chamber who served with Dame Ivy are joining with the Leader of the Government in support of this motion.

Senator WHEELDON:
Minister for Repatriation and Compensation · Western AustraliaMinister for Social Security and Minister for Repatriation and Compensation · ALP

– I think it is appropriate that I, as Minister for Social Security, should say something about the death of Dame Ivy Wedgwood because she was certainly conspicuous during her membership of the Senate as one most interested in health and social welfare. She made many very constructive contributions to the determinations of the Senate on these matters. In fact her interest did not cease when she retired from the Senate. Only a few weeks before her death I had a very long conversation with her about some matters which interested her. She was still active in Victoria, her home State, in a number of pursuits of a social nature which were beneficial to the people in the area in which she lived. Apart from those activities, I think that all of us who knew her in the Senate had a very high regard for her not only as a member of Parliament but also as a person. As the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Withers, has said, her husband Mr Jack Wedgwood was well known to nearly all of us who were senators at the same time as Dame Ivy. He was very favourably known; a man who had suffered great hardship as a result of serving this country. I know that the sympathy of all of us will go to Mr Wedgwood in his very sad loss.

Senator WEBSTER:
Victoria

-My National Country Party colleagues and I regret the passing of Dame Ivy Wedgwood. Women’s International Year will mark the death of a woman who must be judged to be one of the most notable and successful women of Australia. Since federation there have been only 5 Dames of the British Empire to serve in Federal Parliament. This honour has been accepted by women from both political sides of Federal Parliament. It is an ultimate honour. In 1949 Ivy Wedgwood became the first woman senator from the State of Victoria. That flowed from her being one of the original delegates to the Canberra and Albury conferences which formally constituted the Liberal Party of Australia. My State is indebted for her representation and for her achievements.

In Federal Parliament Dame Ivy served as a Temporary Chairman of Committees, as a member of the House Committee, a member of the Joint Select Committee on the New and Permanent Parliament House and a member of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts where she served for an unequalled record time of 16 years and virtually until the day of her retirement from Federal Parliament. I was a member of that Committee and can speak well of her contribution. Dame Ivy’s work for community stability and progress was equal to her parliamentary career. She was a Justice of the Peace and a Special Magistrate in the Children’s Court. She was also president of the Australian Council of Domiciliary Nursing and was that body’s only president.

Dame Ivy contributed in a tireless way to the affairs of the Royal District Nursing Service, but her on-going work for the After-Care Hospital in my State was, 1 believe, her greatest work. During her last 3 years she served as president, and the work involved tremendous dedication and duty. She was involved in after care work for 15 years and on the day of her death was presiding on the board of that Hospital when she suffered a setback to her normal good health. Dame Ivy passed away on the evening of 24 July 1975. She led a full life and a successful life. Australia was a fortunate country to have provided a climate for her work. She did more than her share; she went the second mile. My Party colleagues and I extend our sympathy to Jack Wedgwood in his loss.

Senator GREENWOOD:
Victoria

-I rise also to pay my tribute to a lady who was a good friend and whose record distinguishes her as a notable Australian. Dame Ivy Wedgwood was the third woman senator to enter this chamber. As the Leader of the Government in the Senator (Senator Wriedt) said, she was the first woman senator to represent the State of Victoria. She was elected to this Senate on 5 occasions and her constructive contribution to the work of this chamber is indelibly marked in its records. I remember her well as a person whose understanding and encouragement I have cause gratefully to remember because she was a friend throughout my entire political life. She was wise in the ways of politics. She was considerate and concerned. She was tolerant of people, of causes and of other people’s problems.

I knew her for approximately 30 years. She had a wide range of interests throughout the period that I knew her, but I think her 3 great interests, as we would all remember, were her husband, the Liberal Party and the work she was able to do as a member of this chamber. She had been active, of course, in the Australian Women’s National League and in the women’s sections of the Liberal Party after the Women’s National League disbanded in 1945. As the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Withers) has said, she was a foundation member of the Liberal Party and was one of the great band of people who, with little more to sustain them than the cause to promote and the enthusiasm to generate, founded one of the great political parties of this country. I think she will be remembered for her work, but to those who knew her she will be remembered as a friend. She leaves behind her a distinguished career, a compassionate concern for causes, for the handicapped and for people in whom she was interested. Above all, she leaves behind her a warm memory.

Senator POYSER:
Victoria

-I support the motion moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Wriedt). Although I am a Victorian Government senator I had not quite so long an association with Dame Ivy as did some in this House. She was a remarkable person in her compassion and her feeling for aged persons. Everybody is aware of the work she did in this area, both in relation to aged persons homes and hospitals that could be established to assist those persons. This Parliament almost did the gravest injustice done to any person ever to sit in it when it allowed a situation under our pension scheme whereby, although she was an equal member of this chamber, she was not able to participate in the pension scheme in relation to the husband she loved and cared for for so many years. Fortunately this discrimination now does not exist. I can recall Dame Ivy and me discussing at great length and speaking in this Parliament about the terrible discrimination which was exhibited against a woman member of this chamber. I am pleased that that situation no longer exists, because there was not a more sincere or real case for equality than the case of Dame Ivy Wedgwood and the husband she has left. Jack is a very fine person. He is a man whom everybody on both sides of the Parliament respects and admires. In spite of the disabilities he suffered while giving service for his country, I have never heard him make one complaint. When one met him one never found him to be anything other than a cheerful person. I express my deep sympathy to Jack because he has lost a wonderful partner.

Senator Sir MAGNUS CORMACK (Victoria) This is the first time in my service in the Senate that I have felt bound to seek your eye, Mr President, and rise to my feet when the Senate has had before it a motion of condolence. It is very sad for me that I have to do this on the occasion that marks the death of Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood. I do not intend to traverse the remarks that have been made by other honourable senators except to say, as Senator Webster observed, that Dame Ivy Wedgwood died as she had lived- working hard and earnestly at those matters that had always concerned her in her parliamentary life and after she retired from the Senate. If anyone ever died in harness it was the late senator who, as Senator Webster remarked, felt unwell when presiding over the board of the After Care Hospital. She was driven home and put to bed and died peacefully shortly afterwards.

Her parliamentary career was a parliamentary career to which she did not come unprepared, because her first interest in politics, as I recall it, was as a secretary of the Prime Minister of the day, subsequently Lord Bruce of Melbourne. It was when she was working for the Prime Minister of Australia that I think she first felt this sense of destiny which she subsequently fulfilled by entering the Parliament. My personal interest in her political career was, of course, that I was the chairman of the selection committee of the Victorian division of the Liberal Party which in 1 949 selected Mrs Wedgwood, as she then was, to be a Liberal Party candidate for the Senate election of 1949. Her subsequent career in the Senate, I am sure, justified the faith that the Party put in her. It was justified also by the electoral support that she subsequently achieved during the years in which she remained in the Senate.

As Senator Withers said, she had a long and honourable career in the Senate but, in my mind, she was distinguished for 2 outstanding qualities. First of all, she was a woman who understood parliamentary procedures. I say that in no term of deprecation, because a woman who comes into Parliament and finds herself confronted with standing orders which have been devised for the character and quality of men and the peculiarities which they exhibit to each other from time to time sometimes feels slightly ill at ease. But the late senator understood that perfectly well and when deputising for the President and when acting as Temporary Chairman of Committees she exhibited an understanding of parliamentary procedures and a firmness of grasp as to how the Senate should conduct itself. That is the first thing for which I remember her.

The second thing for which I remember her is, I think, more important. She was able to combine 2 careers, which I am sure male senators would find it extraordinarily difficult to do. That is to say, she was a senator fulfilling and discharging the senatorial responsibilities that devolved upon her as a senator and at the same time she was still fulfilling the life of a devoted wife to a husband who was equally devoted to her, as Senator Poyser observed. I do not think that in my lifetime I have seen 2 people who were so devoted to each other. The first concern of each was for the other partner. This became increasingly true as the disabilities of war wounds pressed down upon Dame Ivy’s husband, who has survived her. I shall remember her for those 2 outstanding qualities which she possessed. I think the more important one was the conjugal fidelity with which she obeyed the behest of married life. I do not wish to say any more except to support the observations and remarks that have been made by my Senate colleagues and to join with others in supporting the motion which has so kindly been presented to the Senate by the Government Leader.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I wish to pay my respect and to add my voice to the tributes that have been paid by honourable senators to the valuable work that was carried out by the late Dame Ivy Wedgwood as an Australian citizen and of course in particular as a member of this Senate. I came into the Senate in 1 96 1 after she had been here for 10 years or more. Despite the fact that I was a member of the Opposition and she was a member of the Government parties, we got to know one another very well in the ensuing 10 years in which I remained a member of the Opposition.

She was, I think, one of the first women chairmen of committees appointed by the Australian Senate. She was a member of the Senate Select Committee on Health and Hospital Costs and was appointed by the members of that Committee as its Chairman. She was the Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Health and Welfare. Also she was appointed as a member of the joint committee that was established to inquire into the siting of a new and permanent Parliament House. Of all those committees of which she was a member I too was a member. Especially in her work as Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Health and Hospital Costs 1 came to acquire the utmost respect for her sincerity, ability and dedication.

I notice that Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson is here at the moment. I think it fair to say that when he was the Leader of the Government in the Senate and Minister for Health a very long, drawn out and detailed debate took place in this Parliament on amendments to the National Health Act proposed by the then Government. Sir Kenneth Anderson led for the Government in that debate, I had the honour to lead for the Opposition, and I know that Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood played a very prominent part. I believe that her memory will be retained for ever by posterity not only for the work that she performed as a member of the Senate committees to which I have referred but also in respect of the national health legislation that subsequently was enacted by this Parliament. She had a tremendous respect for the underprivileged section of. the Australian community. I join with my colleagues in paying tribute to the enormously valuable work she did as an Australian citizen.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Victoria

-I should like to be associated with the sentiments that have been expressed with such respect and affection about my colleague, the late Dame Ivy Wedgwood. I have been fortunate to tread many of the paths that she trod in her political career and it is inspiring to me to hear the sentiments that have been expressed today by her colleagues on both sides of the House. The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Withers) mentioned that she was active in the formation of the Liberal Party of Australia. She has written into the history of the Liberal Party and I think it will be recognised that she has written into the history of women in political activity in this country. She knew that women needed to be integrated into the political system if they were to have the influence that we believe Australian women should have in political life. It was that spirit of integration at the formation of the Liberal Party which was very much the mainspring of her activity throughout her long political career.

The women in Victoria benefited greatly from the activities of Senator Dame Ivy in Canberra. They benefited particularly from the support which she gave to them in the party political organisation in our State and in other States throughout Australia. We have heard a great deal of her political service. I would like to place on record her long service as President of the Australian Women’s Liberal Club, which was very active during her presidency. She gave tremendous support to the members of the Club. She had a long political life. It is one that we remember with gratitude. At this time of recalling her activity, I wish to share in the expressions of sympathy, respect and affection for her beloved husband, Mr Jack Wedgwood.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-It would be remiss of me if I did not take the opportunity on this occasion to associate my name with the clear, complete and I think most appropriate statements that have preceded mine. I do so because my friendship with Dame Ivy Wedgwood began with the original conference that constituted the Liberal Party of Australia, since when her earnest devotion to work has been the outstanding characteristic of her purpose. Her deserved pride in the achievements and career of her husband was an obvious indication of the spirit of Senator Dame Ivy Wedgwood towards Jack to whom, joining with other honourable senators, I express my sympathy.

The PRESIDENT:

– I invite honourable senators to signify their assent to the motion by standing in silence.

Question resolved in the affirmative, honourable senators standing in their places.

page 5

PETITIONS

Taxation Indexation

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– I present the following petition from 45 citizens of Australia:

To the President, and the Members of the Senate, in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully sheweth:

That the progressive taxation scale is seriously reducing the ability of wage earners to keep up with ever increasing costs, and by forcing them to apply for large gross salary increases in order that their nett take home pay will meet these costs, is a major cause of inflation.

With these considerations in mind, we urge that the Australian Government adopt, at the earliest possible date, the recommendations of the Mathews Committee Report on taxation indexation.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

South West National Park- Tasmania

Senator TOWNLEY:

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

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

That present and proposed development of limestone mining at Precipitous Bluff, tin mining at Cox’s Bight, woodchipping in the remaining native forests and damming of South West rivers to produce power, will significantly affect the wilderness quality of South West Tasmania necessitating extensive road systems and damaging irreparably one of the last great wilderness areas of the world.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate will protect this national heritage by refusing Australian Government financial assistance to any project which will further alienate this wilderness and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

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

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

1 ) That Parliament should pass the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Corporation.

That an Australian Government Insurance Corporation will benefit all Australian women and men by offering equal opportunity for employment and insurance cover.

That there is a need to establish in Australia National Interest Insurance so that cover is available against natural disasters.

That the Australian Government Insurance Corporation will fairly compete with the general and life insurance companies thereby benefiting the industry and the policy holders.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will pass the Bill.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 102 citizens of Australia:

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

1 ) That Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.

That while there is a need to establish in Australia a Natural Disaster Fund to provide compensation for property damage and other losses resulting from disasters such as earthquakes, floods and cyclones, such a Fund can be established, as in other countries, using the medium of the existing private enterprise insurance offices.

That a plan for such a Fund was submitted to the Treasury in October 1974.

That no reasons for the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office (other than the desire to provide non-commercial disaster insurance and Australian Government competition with private enterprise) have been given by the Government.

That there is already intense competition between the existing 45 life assurance offices and between over 260 general insurance companies now operating in Australia, and that further competition from a Government Office would only be harmful.

6) That the insurance industry is already faced with

the effects of inflation,

b ) increased taxation on life assurance offices,

the effects of recent natural disasters,

other legislative measures already in train or in prospect by the Government, e.g. the National Compensation Bill, National Superannuation Plan.

That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatly concerned at the huge costs (far more than the $2 million initial capital and loan funds which it is proposed will be allocated) of establishing an Australian Government Insurance Office.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will reject the Bill.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Senator JESSOP:

– As the petition exceeds 250 words I ask that leave be given for the petition to be read by the Clerk.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Petition received and read.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

Senator COLEMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 161 citizens of Australia:

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

1 ) That Parliament should pass the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Corporation.

That an Australian Government Insurance Corporation will benefit all Australian women and men by offering equal opportunity for employment and insurance cover.

That there is a need to establish in Australia National Interest Insurance so that cover is available against natural disasters.

That the Australian Government Insurance Corporation will compete fairly with the general and life insurance companies thereby benefiting the industry and the policy holders.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will pass the Bill without further delay.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

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

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

1 ) That Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance office.

That while there is a need to establish in Australia a Natural Disaster Fund to provide compensation for property damage and other losses resulting from disasters such as earthquakes, floods and cyclones, such a Fund can be established, as in other countries, using the medium of the existing private enterprise insurance offices.

That a plan for such a Fund was submitted to the Treasury in October 1974.

That no reasons for the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office (other than the desire to provide non-commercial disaster insurance and Australian Government competition with private enterprise) have been given by the Government.

That there is already intense competition between the existing 45 life assurance offices and between over 260 general insurance companies now operating in Australia, and that further competition from a Government Office would only be harmful.

That the insurance industry is already faced with

the effects of inflation,

increased taxation on life assurance offices,

the effects of recent natural disasters,

other legislative measures already iri train or in prospect by the Government, e.g. the National Compensation Bill, a National Superannuation Plan and improved Commonwealth Public Service Superannuation.

That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatly concerned at the huge costs (far more than the $2m initial capital and loan funds which it is proposed will be allocated) of establishing an Australian Government Insurance Office.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will reject the Bill.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Senator MISSEN:

-Mr President, as the petition exceeds 250 words in length and I should like it to be read, I ask that leave be given for it to be read by the Clerk.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Petition received and read.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

Senator CARRICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 10 citizens of Australia:

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

1 ) That Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.

) That while there is a need to establish in Australia a Natural Disaster Fund to provide compensation for property damage and other losses resulting from disasters such as earthquakes, floods and cyclones, such a fund can be established, as in other countries, using the medium of the existing private enterprise insurance offices.

That a plan for such a Fund was submitted to the Treasury in October 1974.

That no reasons for the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance office (other than the desire to provide non-commercial disaster insurance and Australian Government competition with private enterprise) have been given by the Government.

That there is already intense competition between the existing 45 life assurance offices and between over 260 general insurance companies now operating in Australia, and that further competition from a Government Office would only be harmful.

That the insurance industry is already faced with

the effects of inflation,

b) increased taxation on life assurance offices,

the effects of recent natural disasters,

other legislative measures already in train or in prospect by the Government, e.g. the National Compensation Bill, National Superannuation Plan.

That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatly concerned at the huge costs (far more than the $2m initial capital and loan funds which it is proposed will be allocated) of establishing an Australian Government Insurance Office.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will reject the Bill.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Senator CARRICK:

- Mr President, as the petition exceeds 250 words in length and I should like it to be read, I ask that leave be given for the petition to be read by the Clerk.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Petition received and read.

Overseas Aid

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

- Mr President, I have received letters signed by 137 citizens of Australia petitioning me to increase the level of spending on carefully planned overseas aid and not to consider any reduction in aid. As these letters do not conform with the standing orders relating to petitions, I seek leave of the Senate to have a copy of the letter read.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The Clerk:

– The letter reads as follows: 17th July 1975

The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator D. Willesee, Parliament House, CANBERRA, A.C.T. 2600

Dear Sir,

We, the undersigned citizens of Australia are concerned for the conditions of life for our fellow citizens in many developing countries. We are particularly concerned at present on reading in The Australian, July 8, 1975 that overseas aid projects may be cut by as much as $ 100m.

We firmly believe that poverty is the principal cause of war, and that generous overseas aid is essential not only for humanitarian reasons but also for our own protection. We therefore urge you to increase the level of spending on carefully planned overseas aid and certainly not to consider any reduction.

Yours faithfully. George Castley, Secretary Launceston Committee Austcare/Freedom from Hunger. c/- 72 George St., Launceston 7250

The Clerk:

– The following petitions have been lodged for presentation:

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

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

  1. That Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.
  2. That while there is a need to establish in Australia a Natural Disaster Fund to provide compensation for property damage and other losses resulting from disasters such as earthquakes, floods and cyclones, such a Fund can be established, as in other countries, using the medium of the existing private enterprise insurance offices.
  3. That a plan for such a Fund was submitted to the Treasury in October 1 974.
  4. That no reasons for the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office (other than the desire to provide non-commercial disaster insurance and Australian Government competition with private enterprise) have been given by the Government.
  5. That there is already intense competition between the existing 45 life assurance offices and between over 260 general insurance companies now operating in Australia, and that further competition from a Government Office would only be harmful.
  6. That the insurance industry is already faced with

    1. the effects of inflation,
    2. b) increased taxation on life assurance offices,
    3. the effects of recent natural disasters,
    4. other legislative measures already in train or in prospect by the Government, e.g. the National Compensation Bill, National Superannuation Plan.
  7. That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatly concerned at the huge costs (far more than the $2 million initial capital and loan funds which it is proposed will be allocated) of establishing an Australian Government Insurance Office.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will reject the Bill.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Durack, Senator Missen, Senator Sim, Senator Lawrie (2 petitions), Sir Kenneth Anderson (3 petitions), Senator Webster, Senator James McClelland, Senator Cotton and Senator Sheil.

Petitions received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled: The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. Add to the taxpayers burden.
  2. Create hundreds of public service jobs and cause serious unemployment in the private insurance industry throughout Australia.
  3. Increase bureaucracy at the time when Government spending should be curtailed.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

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

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled: The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. 1 ) Lead to Nationalisation of the Insurance Industry.
  2. Have a serious affect on the private sector of the economy.
  3. 3 ) Cause unemployment in the Insurance Industry.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson.

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable The President and Members of the Senate in Parliament Assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned employees and agents of the Australian insurance industry and citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

  1. 1 ) That Parliament should reject the Bill currently before it to establish an Australian Government Insurance Office.
  2. That while there is a need to establish in Australia a Natural Disaster Fund to provide compensation for property damage and other losses resulting from disasters such as earthquakes, floods and cyclones, such a fund can be established, as in other countries, using the medium of the existing private enterprise insurance offices.
  3. That a plan for such a Fund was submitted to the Treasury in October 1974.
  4. That no sound reasons for the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office (other than the desire to provide non-commercial disaster insurance and Australian Government competition with private enterprise) has been given by the Government.
  5. That there is already intense competition between the existing 45 life assurance offices and between over 260 general insurance companies now operating in Australia, and that further competition from a Government Office would only be harmful at this time.
  6. That the insurance industry is already coping with

    1. the effects of inflation,
    2. increased taxation on life assurance offices,
    3. the effects of recent natural disasters,
    4. other legislative measures already in train or in prospect by the Government, e.g. the National Compensation Bill, a National Superannuation Plan and improved Commonwealth Public Service Superannuation.

That as taxpayers your petitioners are greatly concerned at the huge costs (far more than the $2m initial capital and loan funds which it is proposed will be allocated) of establishing an Australian Government Insurance Office.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House will reject the Bill.

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

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled: The humble Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. Add to the Taxpayers burden.
  2. Create hundreds of public service jobs and cause serious unemployment in the private insurance industry throughout Australia.
  3. Increase bureaucracy at the time when Government spending should be curtailed.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

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

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled: The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of

Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. Nationalise the Insurance Industry as a step towards nationalising many other industries.
  2. Eliminate private insurance thereby denying Australians a freedom of choice.
  3. Cause serious disruption of already established career opportunities of employees in the private insurance industry.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

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

Petition received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

To the Honourable the President and Senators in Parliament assembled: The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the establishment of an Australian Government Insurance Office will:

  1. 1 ) Lead to Nationalisation of the Insurance Industry
  2. Have a serious affect on the private sector of the economy
  3. Cause unemployment in the Insurance Industry.

Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate rejects completely the Australian Government Insurance Office Bill 1975.

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

Petition received.

South West National Park Tasmania

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

That present and proposed development of limestone mining at Precipitous Bluff, tin mining at Coxs Bight, woodchipping in the remaining native forests and damming of South West rivers to produce power, will significantly affect the wilderness quality of South West Tasmania necessitating extensive road systems and damaging irreparably one of the last great wilderness areas of the world.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate will protect this national heritage by refusing Australian Government financial assistance to any project which will further alienate this wilderness.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Marriott and Senator Grimes.

Petitions received.

Australian Government Insurance Corporation

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

That the Australian Government Insurance Corporation Bill should be passed without delay and without amendment thus enabling an Australian Government Insurance Corporation to be established as soon as possible.

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

Petition received.

Medibank

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

  1. 1 ) That Australian citizens place great value on their freedom to choose their own doctor in all aspects of medical care.
  2. That we believe in a doctor’s freedom to provide a personal service based on personal responsibility within a system based on quality rather than quantity, as opposed to an impersonal service in which doctor and patient lose their identity.
  3. That proposals to change the existing health scheme are unacceptable to the people of Australia.

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

Petition received.

Leonid Plyushch

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

That Leonid Plyushch is being illegally detained at Dnepropetrovsk Special Psychiatric Hospital as a political prisoner, and is not in any way mentally or physically ill.

We request that the Australian Government to investigate, through diplomatic sources, the illegal detention in the Soviet Union of this person.

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

Petition received.

page 9

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 9

QUESTION

PALESTINE LIBERATION ORGANISATION

Senator GREENWOOD:

– I ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs: Why did the Government delegates at the International Labour Organisation Conference and the World Meteorological Conference vote in favour of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, a notorious terrorist organisation, being allowed to participate in those conferences?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-I think I have previously answered a question of this sort. Ever since, firstly, the decision of the United Nations last year to admit spokesmen for the Palestine Liberation Organisation to the United Nations and, secondly, the recognition that that organisation is regarded by most of the Arab countries as their representative, the PLO has been admitted to various organisations. As I remember the matter- I do not have notes about it in front of me- at the International Labour Organisation Conference an amendment was proposed which would have sought to bring the PLO to admit that it believed in the existence of Israel. We voted for that amendment because it would be a great step forward if one could bring the PLO just to say that. That amendment failed and when it did fail we proceeded to vote for the substantive motion.

page 10

QUESTION

PRICES JUSTIFICATION TRIBUNAL

Senator POYSER:

-Is the Special Minister of State aware that the Prices Justification Tribunal advertised in the Australian Financial Review of 1 5 August that Tribunal members will be available in their Melbourne offices until 1 1 p.m. this night to consider any urgent notices of proposed price increases arising from the Budget? What is the necessity for the Tribunal’s offices to be open this evening?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am aware that the Prices Justification Tribunal advertised recently in papers throughout Australia the action which it proposes to take this evening- that is, to remain open until 1 1 p.m., after the presentation of the Budget in the House of Representatives, and in the Senate by Senator Wriedt. The Tribunal’s decision to say open for business until 1 1 p.m. is a precaution on its part to deal with difficulties which may confront companies if there are any increases in indirect taxes which they cannot legally pass on until the Tribunal has been notified of those increases and has approved the passing on of the increases. The decision of the Tribunal to remain open is not a prejudgment on its part of anything that might be in the Budget. As I have said, it is a precaution on its part to deal with any difficulties which may confront companies. This step is a further indication of the importance which the Tribunal attaches to responding quickly to the needs of the community, particularly the business sector of the community, in the discharge of its responsibilities under the Prices Justification Act.

page 10

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT

Senator WEBSTER:

-My question is directed to the Minister for Labor and Immigration. I refer to numerous statements by the Prime Minister, the latest in July this year, that unemployment was continuing to fall. Is it a fact that the unemployment figures for July showed the worst unemployment in this country since the depression and that at that stage 287 666 persons or 4.81 per cent of the Australian work force were unemployed? Does the Minister acknowledge that this is the responsibility of the Federal Government? Was the increase inevitable in the light of Government policies which have created severe depression in industry and business? Is the Prime Minister’s assertion that unemployment was falling a credible statement? Is he to be believed in future?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– If the honourable senator seeks to make the point that our economy is still in a state of serious recession he will certainly get no dissent from me. The fact that the Prime Minister expressed the belief that unemployment was falling when it was in fact falling for a couple of months was an expression of hope that the recession may have bottomed. It turns out that that was not the case. We do not do any service to our parties, to this Parliament or to our country by refusing to look these facts in the face. As to the suggestion that this number of unemployed is entirely the responsibility of this Government, I do not think that even Senator Webster, with his usual extravagant estimate of the responsibility for all things evil falling on the head of the Australian Labor Party, would seriously believe that.

We are in the middle of a serious world recession. Although I do not shun for one moment the responsibility which falls on this Government for some of the mistakes that it has made, I suggest that if honourable senators looked at the matter seriously they would realise that, as they have obviously been told lately, if they were running the economy they could not expect any improvement in the near future. I ask Senator Webster to examine the figures closely. If he does he will see some palliating features. For instance, more than all of the increase in unemployment in Victoria was due to a building strike which was on at that time. Some 4800 building workers who were on strike and who went onto relief accounted for the increase in the unemployment figures in Victoria. If Senator Webster and other honourable senators will be patient at least until 8 o’clock tonight they will discover what we propose to do to cure the ills of our economy.

page 10

QUESTION

SUPERPHOSPHATE BOUNTY

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

– Has the Minister for Agriculture seen reports in the Hobart Mercury that Cabinet last week overwhelmingly came down against the reintroduction of the superphosphate bounty, and claiming that this followed a statement that the Minister did not consider restoration of the bounty necessary?

What are the facts concerning Cabinet’s decision on the bounty? In other words, what is the true position?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-I did see the reports to which Senator Devittt has referred and which unfortunately it seems were run across the whole newspaper chain in Australia. I am surprised at the carelessness with which these reports are given, because the figure for the superphosphate bounty was quoted at not less than $456m, when in fact it is about $60m. The Government has before it the Industries Assistance Commission’s report on superphosphate which, I think, was circulated to all members of Parliament yesterday. This document will require some considerable study. There is a dissenting report by one of the commissioners, and obviously his views will need to be taken into account. However, no decision has been taken by the Government on either the majority recommendation or the minority recommendation of the Commission.

page 11

QUESTION

RADIO STATION 3ZZ

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Has the Minister representing the Minister for the Media seen reports that Melbourne’s access radio station 3ZZ is to be replaced with a station similar to 2JJ in Sydney? Are these reports correct? If they are, what will happen to access and ethnic radio in Melbourne? Will guidelines be set to enable some control of programs and language which applies to other radio broadcasting in Australia but which at this stage does not appear to apply to 2JJ in Sydney?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have not seen the report to which the honourable senator refers but I can inform him that when I was the Minister for the Media and the Government acted on my recommendation to establish additional broadcasting channels for the Australian Broadcasting Commission in Sydney and in Melbourne- namely, by the establishment of 2JJ in Sydney and 3ZZ in Melbourne- Cabinet then determined that the way in which the stations would be operated and programmed would be a matter for the Australian Broadcasting Commission. Therefore, if the report to which the honourable senator has referred is correct, I would assume that the .commissioners of the Australian Broadcasting Commission might be giving consideration to changing the format of that station. Again I merely emphasise that I do not know whether they are considering it, but if consideration is being given to this matter I assume that it is being given by the commissioners of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. I think that I should refer the other matters raised in the honourable senator’s question to my colleague the Minister for the Media for further amplification.

page 11

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT INSURANCE CORPORATION

Senator MCAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– Has the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation seen reports of a speech made by the Leader of the Opposition to a small group of insurance industry workers outside Parliament House yesterday? If so, is the Leader of the Opposition correct in his assertion that the proposed Australian Government Insurance Corporation would not be subject to the Insurance Acts, the Trade Practices Act or the proposed Corporations and Securities Industry Act? Is the Leader of the Opposition correct in his claim that the Government has unreasonable power to decide what should be national interest insurance?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

-I not only saw the reports of the small gathering to which Senator McAuliffe has drawn my attention -

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– There were 600 people at the gathering.

Senator WHEELDON:

-We had much bigger gatherings during the moratorium compaign; far bigger gatherings than the one outside Parliament House yesterday. I actually saw the small gathering through the window and I was rather disappointed that -

Senator Carrick:

– You would not come out.

Senator WHEELDON:

– I was not invited because I am sure there must have been in that -

Senator Carrick:

– You were invited.

Senator WHEELDON:

-No, I was not invited at all. I was invited once by the insurance companies to discuss the matter with them, and I do not think that they will invite me back again. I did not hear but I did read what Mr Fraser had to say. I am afraid that Mr Fraser may not have given very much encouragement to the assembled representatives of the petty bourgeoise who surrounded him in Parkes Place. Apparently he devoted himself very largely to the Australian Government Purchasing Commission rather than to the Australian Government Insurance Corporation, according to my information. He did nonetheless make some erroneous statements about the Australian Government Insurance Corporation Bill to which Senator McAuliffe has so sagaciously drawn my attention. The Leader of the Opposition apparently said that the Australian Government Insurance Corporation would not be subject to the Trade Practices Act and would not be subject to the various insurance Acts. In fact it will be subject to all trade practices legislation and it will be subject to the insurance Acts and to the Life Insurance Act. It will be liable for all rates, levies and taxes which are imposed in all the States, unlike the Government insurance offices in some States which avoid paying the fire brigade charges and other charges which are imposed on private insurance companies in those States. Among those States I would include 2 States with Liberal governments.

The other statement which Mr Fraser made, that the Government had wide powers to determine what would be national interest insurance and that these powers would enable the Australian Government Insurance Corporation to compete unfairly with the private insurance companies, also was erroneous. The Government does not have these powers. The only way in which business which is unprofitable can be proclaimed as national interest insurance in which the Australian Government Insurance Corporation can undertake business is by way of regulation which can be disallowed by either House of the Parliament. So in fact both Houses of the Parliament, completely democratically, have the right to disallow any such proposal regarding the Australian Government Insurance Corporation.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

- Mr President, I seek your guidance on a point of order. As I recollect it, this matter is on the notice paper. I do not consider that Senator Wheeldon should make statements relating to matters that are before the Senate in accordance with the table of Government business.

The PRESIDENT:

– The Minister was answering a question in which information was sought. He answered it at length and I think he was within the Standing Orders.

page 12

QUESTION

OVERTIME PAYMENTS FOR GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

Senator MARRIOTT:
TASMANIA

– Will the Leader of the Government in the Senate make urgent inquiries in the right quarters and as soon as possible inform the Senate of the approximate number of Australian Government employees who have been waiting for overtime payments for a period longer than 2 months? Will he also obtain the name of the department and the number of its employees throughout Australia whose overtime wages have not been paid, as of this day, for the period ended 3 1 March 1975? Does this indicate that the Government is insolvent?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-I shall certainly seek that information from the Treasurer. I would imagine that the latter part of Senator Marriott’s question would be a matter of concern to everybody if what is suggested is correct. I would hope that the Treasurer would be able to give a satisfactory explanation of the reason for that situation, if it does exist.

page 12

QUESTION

NATIONAL PARKS

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment. Has the Australian Government recently bought land in the States for nature conservation purposes? Can he say whether this activity has caused considerable anxiety in certain State governments? Can he indicate to the Senate the purpose of the Australian Government’s actions?

Senator BISHOP:
Postmaster-General · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-The answer to Senator Keeffe ‘s question is as follows: Yesterday the Minister for Environment announced the purchase of 1000 hectares of land at Elanda Plains adjacent to the proposed Cooloola National Park in Queensland. Some years ago the Queensland Government promised this park to the people of Queensland, but it has yet to honour this promise. Now the Queensland Government proposes a small park of a size which is not acceptable. Accordingly we cannot assume that the Queensland Government will carry out its promises. Under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act which passed through this chamber recently the Australian Government is empowered to purchase such lands and to run parks as truly national parks. Recently the Australian Government bought some land at Towra Point, New South Wales. This piece of Australian heritage is one of the key resting areas for migratory birds in eastern Australia. In both cases these parcels of land were threatened by development. It is a case of the intentions of the Australian Government being carried out.

page 12

QUESTION

PRICES JUSTIFICATION TRIBUNAL

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I ask the Special Minister of State: What did he mean by his statement that the Prices Justification Tribunal will remain open until 1 1 p.m. tonight so that it can respond quickly to the needs of the community? Does the Minister’s statement imply that a single telephone call or personal call this evening will result in immediate approval to pass on all indirect taxes in prices so that inflation may continue as usual tomorrow?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– If the honourable senator reads the Prices Justification Act she will see that before approval can be given to any application made to the Tribunal certain information has to be notified in writing to the Tribunal. Certain matters obviously are pending decision by the Tribunal and already have been the subject of notifications, but it may well be that as a result of the Budget being introduced tonight further notification as to the possible effect of it on an individual company or companies might need to be given to the Tribunal. So that early notification can be given to the Tribunal, so that the Tribunal can give expeditious treatment to such notification and so that businesses will not be inconvenienced by having to wait a day or perhaps 2 days before being able to give further notification to the Tribunal, the Tribunal is making its officers available until 1 1 o’clock tonight.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I ask a supplementary question. Is the Minister referring to applications which are already in process before the Tribunal or is he suggesting that decisions which are taken in the Budget this evening will require immediate referral and that an immediate decision will be given?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I understand it refers to matters that are already the subject of notification and have yet to be determined by the Tribunal but in respect of which further notification might be required to be given to the Tribunal. I do not suggest for one moment that immediate approval will be given by the Tribunal but I do suggest that the ability of companies to notify the Tribunal will be immediately available to them.

page 13

QUESTION

TEXTILE MACHINERY GIFTS TO THE SOVIET UNION

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Agriculture. Has the Minister received complaints from woolgrowers about the Australian Wool Corporation giving free textile machinery, including Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation spinning plants, to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? If the complaints are true, what is the value of the gifts to the U.S.S.R.?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

– lt is customary and has been for many years for the International Wool Secretariat in London- the body concerned with the promotion of wool around the world- to afford technical and commercial assistance and advice to countries which have a developing wool and textile industry. The Soviet Union is one of our major customers and certainly the IWS has been giving technical and commercial advice to the Soviet Union for a number of years. There is nothing out of the ordinary in this. It is the practice of the IWS in respect of all countries importing wool and it is done, of course, with the complete knowledge and support of the Australian Wool Corporation. I can assure the honourable senator that no financial assistance is involved other than the cost to the IWS of conveying that technical and commercial advice to the Soviet Union.

page 13

QUESTION

HOUSING

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction. Is the Minister aware of recent public claims made by a number of housing authorities, including the Secretary of the Housing Industry Association, that Australia has reached a stage where only a select few persons can purchase their own homes? Is it a fact that the number of housing units started has fallen from 14 000 a month to 10 000 a month and that less than 10 per cent of first home seekers are able to finance their own homes? If these are facts, can the Minister indicate what steps are being considered by the Government to correct and improve this serious situation?

Senator CAVANAGH:
Minister for Police and Customs · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– I have no recollection of seeing the statements to which the honourable senator refers. Although there has been a falling off in the number of houses completed, my information is that approvals for housing have increased rapidly over the last month. My briefing notes advise me that the total number of housing loans approved to individuals by savings banks in May 1975 had declined for the third successive month since the record number of 12 115 established in February 1975. The May figure of 10 921 was 5 per cent below that for April. After the seasonal adjustment calculated within the Department, the fall was slightly less pronounced at 4 per cent. In seasonally adjusted terms, the trend in the total number of loans approved in recent months is shown in a table accompanying my notes.

There was a marginal increase of 4 per cent in the number of loans approved for new housing, but the number of loans approved for used housing fell by 7 per cent, both figures being on a seasonally adjusted basis. Of the total number of loans approved, the proportion allocated to used housing declined to 71 per cent in May compared with 73 per cent in April. The value of loans approved to individuals in May was $183m compared with $195m in April. Of that amount $5.4m was for alterations and additions, compared with $2.2m a year ago. The number of loans approved by the States for the last 1 1 months compared with the number approved a year earlier is also shown in the figures. If the honourable senator is interested, the figures which show the fluctuation in loan approvals for housing purposes will be made available to him.

page 14

QUESTION

UNITED NATIONS: POSITION OF ISRAEL

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-Can the Minister for Foreign Affairs clarify for the Senate the Government’s attitude to the suggested moves to suspend or to ban Israel from participating in the forthcoming General Assembly of the United Nations?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-Senator Grimes might recall that in a statement I made on 3 1 July I said that the Australian Government noted with concern various reports that at the coming United Nations General Assembly meeting moves might be contemplated to expel or suspend Israel from membership of the United Nations. The Australian Government supports Israel’s continuing membership of the United Nations and therefore would be strongly opposed to Israel’s expulsion or suspension. Australia would accordingly oppose moves designed to exclude Israel from participating in the General Assembly or other United Nations bodies. The Australian Government is concerned that such moves could seriously limit the ability of the United Nations to play a constructive peace-keeping role in the Middle East. We believe they could also have repercussions for the future of the organisation as a whole.

page 14

QUESTION

POSTAL AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS CHARGES

Senator DURACK:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the PostmasterGeneral approved those sections of the large increases in postal and telecommunications charges recently announced which he is required to approve under the legislation? Has he considered the serious economic and social consequences of the charges which are proposed to be levied from 1 September? Has he considered the fact that they are entirely out of proportion with rises in costs generally? In view of these circumstances, will he reconsider any decision which he has made in relation to this matter?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

- Senator Durack ‘s general question must be answered in this way: He knows that the Parliament passed the legislation which required the Post Office to be separated into 2 commissions. Those 2 commissions were to operate on a business basis- on a proper financial and management basis- and, after consideration of their operations, internal funding and so on, to propose a scale of tariffs to the Minister, who would then convey them to the Cabinet. The commissioners met me with their advisers and recommended a set of tariffs. In respect of one set of tariffs proposed- those relating to registered publications- I recommended a subsidy, but otherwise the recommendations were based on the principles propounded by the Vernon Commission. That is the way in which the commissions are required to operate and will operate in the future.

As the honourable senator knows, all the commissioners are experienced. The commissions embrace many practical businessmen. The chairmen of the commissions are experts in their fields. There was no reason why the Minister or the Government should not have accepted the tariffs proposed. If we had decided to leave the tariffs as they are at present, we would have had to subsidise the 2 commissions to a total amount of $348m. I suggest that no government would be prepared to do that. I recommended to the Cabinet, and the Cabinet accepted the recommendations, that the commissions should be reimbursed for the various pensioner subsidies that applied. That amounted to about $ 1 6.5m.

In respect of the economic effects, I think most people know that the method of operation recommended by the Vernon Commission is the way the commissions are expected to operate. It is true that the general increases will be passed on down the line, as are most other increases which are necessary. The new approach breaks the tradition of paying the giant subsidies that were made to the old Australian Post Office which, as everybody knows and accepts, was too large and had inbuilt a number of general inefficiencies. Now the commissions are required, not only for the purposes of the Acts but also by the direction of the Government, to become more efficient. We hope that as a result of their efficiencies and the collaborative machinery which is now installed in the Acts they will be able to propose in the future tariffs which certainly will not be higher but which in many cases, according to the economic factors involved, will for comparative purposes be lower.

I have some short comparisons in relation to the Australian Telecommunications Commission charges and some other charges. For example, telecommunications charges will increase by 28 per cent but that the price of steel has increased by 37 per cent, health services by 35 per cent, general charges relating to motoring by 38 per cent, and newspapers by 30 per cent.

Senator Durack:

– Are there any 80 per cent increases?

Senator BISHOP:

– I am about to mention the figure in relation to average weekly earnings. I am trying to give as much information as possible. As Senator Durack knows, I am circulating today some explanatory notes about the 2 businesses and tomorrow reports on the business and service outlook of the 2 commissions will be tabled. If one looks at the charges as compared with average weekly wages, one finds that they are not extraordinarily high. I should like to know whether any government would continue to subsidise these undertakings to the extent that Australian governments have done in the past. The new obligation imposed on the commissions was that they should be run as business enterprises and should manage their own affairs in accordance with the principles set out in the legislation.

page 15

QUESTION

WOOMERA

Senator DONALD CAMERON:
Minister for Science and Consumer Affairs · SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

-Can the Minister representing the Minister for Defence tell me whether there have been any developments in relation to the future of the Woomera rocket range in South Australia?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

– I think honourable senators know that because of the proposed British use of the range it was agreed to place the range on a care and maintenance basis. However, at the recent direction of the Minister, Mr Morrison, investigations are being conducted into the use of the range by the Armed Services. Included in these investigations are the possibility of its use by the Royal Australian Air Force for instrumented trials involving the Fill aircraft and by the Australian Army for armoured exercises involving the Leopard tank. At present the effect of the activities of the equipment on the environment is under expert investigation. A preliminary armoured corps exercise by South Australian units will take place shortly in order to assess whether it is practicable to plan on future operations of this nature. I can assure the honourable senator that the Minister for Defence is anxious to see these activities taking place and the use of Woomera to the greatest possible extent.

page 15

QUESTION

STATEMENT ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Senator CHANEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Will the Minister for Foreign Affairs undertake to make a ministerial statement to the Senate before he leaves for overseas at the end of the week upon the following matters: Firstly, the situation in Bangladesh; secondly, the situation in Portuguese Timor; thirdly, the situation in the Republic of India; fourthly, the situation in Bougainville; fifthly, the results of the Law of the Sea conference in Caracas; and finally, the Helsinki treaty? In other words, will he make a comprehensive statement to the Senate on foreign affairs?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– I would imagine that the answer to the question would be no, not in this week. I would expect some questions on any of those matters in the next day or so but I could not see that we could deal with them in the form of a statement before. I leave on Thursday evening. I would certainly be quite willing, however, to give any information that we have on any of them.

page 15

QUESTION

STATEMENT BY DIRECTOR OF THE BROTHERHOOD OF ST LAURENCE

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the attention of the Minister for Social Security been drawn to an article appearing in the Sydney Morning Herald of today’s date in which the Director of the Brotherhood of St Laurence is quoted as saying: It is symptomatic of the Government’s present mood that the Henderson poverty inquiry report has been suppressed until after the Budget has been brought down’? Can the Minister advise the Senate when the report is expected to be tabled?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

– I did see the report and was rather disappointed that the Director of the Brotherhood of St Laurence should have made a statement which is, to say the least, lacking in that charity which one would expect from a charitable organisation. At no stage did the Director of the Brotherhood in any way attempt to find out from me whether in fact this was so. Nor, I understand, did he ask anybody else connected with the Department of Social Security. I am not quite sure what he means when he states, ‘symptomatic of the Government’s present mood’. What he seems to be accusing us of here is playing deceit of some sort. The fact of the matter is that Professor Henderson and his Committee have completed their report. The report is being printed and it is hoped that it will be tabled next week. There has certainly been no collusion between me, Professor Henderson and the Government Printer, any two or more of those people or any others to prevent the tabling of the report on poverty this week. I must confess I am not entirely clear what would have been the advantage or disadvantage if it had been tabled this week. Apart from accusing us of being deceitful, I am not entirely apprised of the advantage that the Director of the Brotherhood of St Laurence is anticipating we would have gained from being deceitful. In short, the answer to Senator Gietzelt ‘s question is that our friend from the Brotherhood has his facts wrong.

page 16

QUESTION

SOUTH VIETNAM

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the Minister for Foreign Affairs any information as to the authority being exercised in South Vietnam by the Provisional Revolutionary Government? Is he aware of reports by communist correspondents that there is now only one party and one army in Vietnam and that Hanoi is giving directives on matters such as the clearing of streets, and the decoration of streets, houses and roads in South Vietnam? If the Minister is not aware of these reports and others in a similar vein, will he undertake to ascertain the facts and advise the Senate who is exercising real authority in South Vietnam?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-The information I have on this is that the city of Saigon is still being administered by a military management committee. Other areas of South Vietnam appear to be administered by similar military committees or by people’s revolutionary committees, as in Da Nang. No date has been set for the formal assumption of control throughout the country by the Provisional Revolutionary Government. That is the information that I have at the moment.

page 16

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS

Senator DRURY:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport: What action has been taken to improve fettlers ‘ accommodation on the Australian Government railways?

Senator BISHOP:
ALP

-Recently the Minister for Transport, Mr Jones, requested a report from the Australian National Railways and also commissioned an inspection by the union and departmental officers. I think that inspection is currently proceeding. I know also that Mr Jones inspected some of the accommodation at Port Augusta recently. He certainly is sympathetic to what the union has been putting to him. As far as I am aware the report has not reached the Minister. I understand that there is to be a report from the Railways and also one from the union. When the Minister receives the reports he will determine to what extent the accommodation needs to be improved.

page 16

QUESTION

SUPERPHOSPHATE

Senator JESSOP:

-I direct a question to the Minister for Agriculture and refer to the Industries Assistance Commission’s report on the superphosphate matter. I have not yet discovered the report in my office, but I take it that it is now a public document. Is the Minister aware that more than 1000 employees of the fertiliser industry in Australia have been retrenched and that unless an adequate bounty is provided further unemployment will occur? Is he also aware that there are fertiliser factories in Australia which are inoperative at present and that many are working at a very low capacity? Can the Minister say when he intends to make a decision on this matter? Does the Minister intend to allow the industries concerned with superphosphate the opportunity to make further representations once they have been able to examine the report?

Senator WRIEDT:
ALP

-On the last part of the question by Senator Jessop, any one of those industries would have been at liberty to make submissions to the Commission during its hearings. Once the report has been presented to the Government it is not customary for matters to be reopened for submissions unless the Government requests the Commission to do so. I am aware that many persons engaged in the manufacture of superphosphate are currently unemployed and that the manufacturing side of the industry is in a state of very serious recession, but it ought to be said, as I have said before, that this is not due to the phase out of the bounty last year. The bounty was worth $11.81 a tonne. At that time the average price around Australia to the average farmer was about $28 a tonne. It is now about $70 a tonne. That is not because of the phase out of the bounty but is simply because we have had to pay much higher prices for our phosphate rock, the raw material which we import from Nauru and Christmas Island.

We are victims- I suppose that is a fair term to use- of the dramatic increase in the price of raw material. This is paralleled by the fact .that other people who buy our products from the land also had to pay dramatic increases in prices to us. That is the normal flow of world trade. That is the reason why there has been this very great downturn in demand for superphosphate. It would be wrong to suggest that the bounty itself has had no impact. Of course it has had an impact, but it now represents only one-sixth of the retail price to the farmer of phosphate whereas twelve to eighteen months ago it represented about 45 per cent. So, a quite new picture is presented. The other aspect of course is the question of our own phosphate deposits in Queensland. This is another matter but, nevertheless, it is related to this question. In answer to Senator Jessop, I can say only that I would hope to see a Government decision on this matter within 3 weeks.

page 17

QUESTION

PORTUGUESE TIMOR

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. In view of his often expressed view that the people of Timor should have a speedy plebiscite to determine their political future, can the Minister advise if the Portuguese Government has indicated to the Australian Ambassador in Lisbon what the proposed timetable is likely to be?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

– If I may I will give some general information first because not only is there the question of the advancement of Portuguese Timor but there is also the very critical situation that exists there at this moment. Australia is not a party principal to the decolonisation of Portuguese Timor but it is concerned that in that process the best interests of the people of the territory should be of paramount consideration, and Australia has always acted with that viewpoint in mind. The Government’s policy on this point has been stated publicly on a number of occasions and is quite well known. Recent developments in Portuguese Timor are a matter of great concern to the Government and it is studying the situation with the greatest possible care and sympathy. Two officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs have visited Portuguese Timor over the past few days and their report will form an important element in the Government’s assessment of the situation. Arrangements have been made to evacuate last night and today Australian citizens in the territory who wish to leave.

I do not believe that it would be helpful to comment further at this stage on what is obviously a delicate and difficult situation, beyond saying that it remains the Government’s strong hope that the political forces in the territory can compose their differences to the extent that they can co-operate peacefully in its further decolonisation. For the immediate future there is clearly an urgent need for the Portuguese administration to reassert its control. The Australian Government is encouraged in this regard by the dialogue that Governor Pires has been able to establish with the UDT- the Timor Democratic Union- but not yet, it seems, with the leadership of the Revolutionary Front for an Independent East Timor- FRETILIN. Nevertheless, the Government hopes that the talks, now begun, will be carried forward when Major Soares, a special emissary sent by President Costa Gomes, arrives in Dili, it is hoped in the next day or so. The Australian Ambassador in Lisbon has urged upon the Portuguese authorities the importance Australia attaches to Portugal reasserting its control over the territory.

In answer to Senator Mulvihills specific question, as honourable senators know a conference was held in Macao which was boycotted by FRETILIN but which was attended by Apodeti and the UDT. From the time I first talked at the United Nations last year to the then Foreign Minister, Mr Soares, and later to Dr Santos here, there has been a feeling amongst the Portuguese, which I think is quite sensible, of the need to keep this matter moving over a period of between four and five years. Their embryonic thoughts were not so much that there would be a plain vote by the people but that some sort of body would be formed, not a parliament but a constituent body, to give the 3 organisations that have arisen in Portuguese Timor some chance to develop, to get together, to rub the rough edges off one another and to move along to a position where they could finally decide what sort of situation they wanted- whether they wanted to be independent or to carry on as a colony of Portugal or indeed, as Apodeti wanted, to join with Indonesia.

Those moves appear to be fractured at this stage, not only because of the situation in Portuguese Timor but also because of the very severe political manoeuvrings that are going on today in Portugal. I still think that that is the most sensible situation because, although some people in Dili are asking: ‘Why do you not do as you did in Mozambique and hand over to one body’, it would be a difficult job to decide which body. The situation in Mozambique was vastly different. There the FRELIMO had been fighting and working for many years, had controlled quite a lot of land and were experienced to the extent that they were able to take over. That sort of situation does not arise in Portuguese Timor where there are 3 embryonic forms of political parties. A very tense situation exists at the moment and, as I said, I think that the most effective solution is for the Portuguese to get back into control. We are not certain how much fighting is going on there. They should get that settled down and then rethink the whole situation.

page 17

QUESTION

SOCIAL WELFARE COMMISSION

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. Did the Prime Minister announce at the end of June that the

Social Welfare Commission is to be abolished? Does the disestablishment of the Commission require special legislation for its achievement? Did the Public Service Board move unilaterally and without proper approval to dismember the Social Welfare Commission in advance of parliamentary authorisation? Will the Minister assure the Senate that no attempt will be made by the Public Service Board, by the Department of Social Security or by any other body by administrative means to destroy the Social Welfare Commission as a working body in advance of the enactment of appropriate legislation?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

-The Prime Minister did announced in June, as Senator Baume has said, that the Social Welfare Commission in its present form would be disbanded and its activities transferred elsewhere. It is not a fact that the Public Service Board tried to undermine or destroy the Social Welfare Commission in advance of legislative approval being given to the abolition of the Social Welfare Commission, which in fact would be needed as the Social Welfare Commission was established by legislation. Various leaks were taking place for some time with regard to these matters, some of which were not entirely with the best intentions. I issued a Press statement in which I denied reports that there was some sort of dispute going on between me and Mr Cooley, the Chairman of the Public Service Board, whom until then I had never met. In fact, I still have not met him; the only time I have spoken to him was when I called him on the telephone to deny that I was having any dispute with him.

Senator Poyser:

– Did he agree?

Senator WHEELDON:

-He agreed that he was not having a dispute with me. During the last month or so the Public Service Board, far from dismembering the Social Welfare Commission, has given approval to an increase in the staff of the Social Welfare Commission. As for any future activities of the Public Service Board, I am afraid that I can give no undertakings as to what it may or may not do. It is not under my authority; it is a largely autonomous body and in any event it is not responsible to me.

With regard to the future of the Social Welfare Commission, as Senator Baume would know, a royal commission has been established, under the chairmanship of Dr Coombs, to inquire into the whole framework of the Public Service in Australia. One of the matters which doubtless will be studied by the task force which has been set up within the Public Service royal commissionI hope to have a report from the task force within the next month or two- is the future performance of the functions which are now undertaken by the Social Welfare Commission. In the meantime the Social Welfare Commission is continuing to function as it did in the past and in fact the staff has been increased. Any changes in the nature of the Social Welfare Commission, including its abolition, can be brought about only by legislation. What is to be done when the report has been received from Dr Coombs ‘s task force will be open to full debate in both this chamber and the House of Representatives.

page 18

QUESTION

AID TO PAPUA NEW GUINEA

Senator EVERETT:
TASMANIA

-Can the Minister for Foreign Affairs inform the Senate whether there is any truth in the allegations made recently by Mr Peacock, M.H.R., that an independent Papua New Guinea might turn to other countries such as Russia or China for aid?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-I understand that Mr Peacock made that allegation. The answer is that the Soviet Ambassador has issued a statement saying that the question of Soviet financial aid to Papua New Guinea was not specifically raised in the talks that he had in Port Moresby. According to Press reports, Sir Maori Kiki has stated that he regarded the Ambassador’s remarks at the Press conference about the possibility of some Soviet aid being made available to Papua New Guinea as just an offer and that there were no plans to discuss the matter further. Sir Maori said that his talks with the Ambassador had been of a courtesy nature, ‘just to say hullo to each other’. Sir Maori is also reported as saying that his talks with the Soviet Ambassador came before and had no relationship to the Australian decision on aid to Papua New Guinea this year.

The Australian Government would be happy to see more countries grant aid to Papua New Guinea on terms acceptable to Papua New Guinea. I have often said that myself and have tried to encourage other countries to do just that, to help in contributing to the development of Papua New Guinea. Some countries and international organisations are already providing aid, including New Zealand, Japan and the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Co-operation. It is a sorry but hardly surprising state of affairs to find Mr Peacock looking backwards to the bogeys of the cold war rather than looking forward to the realities of the future in the various suggestions that he has made about Russian aid to Papua New Guinea. The fact is that he still has a colonialist’s view of Papua New Guinea and believes that even when independent it should still remain effectively an appendage of

Australia. The Papua New Guineans themselves will be the best judges of where they wish their aid to come from and there is no doubt that they wish to be partners with Australia in a mature relationship in the future and not subordinates in a form of subservient relationship.

page 19

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN HOUSING CORPORATION: RETURNED SERVICES LEAGUE REPRESENTATION

Senator BESSELL:
TASMANIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction, relates to the reported undertaking given by the Minister to the national body of the Returned Services League that there would be an RSL nominee on the 8-man board of the Australian Housing Corporation. Was this undertaking given by the Minister? Is it going to be honoured? If not, why not?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– I believe an undertaking was given by a previous Minister that there would be a representative of the RSL on such a body. I believe that as the body has been appointed without an accredited representation some negotiations have been going on between the Minister and the organisation. I shall endeavour to obtain the details as to the filling of future vacancies on the Board, but I think there was some reason for thinking that there was adequate representation. I will obtain those details from the Minister and furnish them to the Senate.

page 19

QUESTION

IMPORTED POTATOES

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Agriculture. I ask: Is it true, as reported in the June issue of the Potato Grower of Western Australia, in yesterday’s Canberra Times and in a number of other sources that processed potatoes are being imported into Australia in quantities large enough to depress local prices? Can the Minister provide up to date statistics on monthly potato imports?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– I think I may be able to answer the honourable senator’s question. There have been some complaints about processed potatoes being imported into Australia to the detriment of the local potato industry. I remember that some 2 years ago, when I was the Acting Minister for Primary Industry, I received such a complaint from growers in Victoria. The entry of potatoes into Australia is controlled by quota or tariff restrictions if a question arises as to dumping on the Australian market. I believe that last year the problem reached its height as a result of a poor Australian crop in the 1974 season. My Department’s inquiries have shown that potatoes were imported from New Zealand but not at dumping prices. Imports reached a peak of 3300 tonnes in January of this year. In June only 58 tonnes were imported. There was a further fall in July to 37 tonnes. There was no question that they were brought in at dumping prices. They seemed to be coming in at such times as the Australian product was in short supply.

page 19

QUESTION

LAND RIGHTS FOR ABORIGINES

Senator MISSEN:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I draw the Minister’s attention to the failure to invite Senator Neville Bonner, the only Aboriginal member of this Parliament, to the weekend ceremony at Wattie Creek when lands were officially handed over to the Aboriginal inhabitants. Was this failure due to inadvertence or did it represent deliberate Government policy?

Senator CAVANAGH:
ALP

– I can assure Senator Missen that it was not deliberate Government policy. I think the Government would have preferred Senator Bonner perhaps to the honourable member for Mackellar and the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs who were invited. That, I believe, dispels any suggestion that it was deliberate Government policy not to invite members of the Opposition. If there is any slight to Senator Bonner as the only Aboriginal member of this Parliament, I think it is brought about by the Opposition which does not recognise the significance of the individual because the Opposition has appointed a legal man to represent Aboriginal people. The Government invited to the handing over of Wattie Creek those whom the Opposition has decided should represent the Aboriginal people- the shadow Minister, a past Minister, the Leader of the National Country Party in the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory and an Aboriginal member of that Assembly. So the prestige of which I think Senator Bonner is deserving should be recognised by the Opposition. It should not blame the Government.

page 19

QUESTION

SOUTH VIETNAM

Senator PRIMMER:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. What progress has been made in the exchange of official diplomats between Australia and South Vietnam? What aid does the Australian Government envisage giving to South Vietnam by way of war reparations?

Senator WILLESEE:
ALP

-We have been conducting negotiations for some weeks with the

Provisional Revolutionary Government’s special representative in Hanoi on the establishment of diplomatic relations between the 2 countries. I hope that an announcement concerning the establishment of diplomatic relations will be made quite shortly. The other part of the question dealt with aid. The Australian Government does not envisage giving war reparations aid to South Vietnam. However, a substantial package of commodity aid is now in preparation for shipment to South Vietnam. Australia has indicated its willingness to resume aid on projects and will undertake discussions on other assistance as soon as possible.

page 20

QUESTION

REPATRIATION

Senator SCOTT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister for Repatriation and Compensation. In the light of the historic link between the repatriation structure and the Returned Services League, will the Minister give to the Senate an undertaking that no changes will take place in the Department, its status or structure before consultations are held with the RSL and other national ex-service organisations? Will the Minister not agree that the voice of the RSL should be heard on all committees relating to the welfare of ex-servicemen and women?

Senator WHEELDON:
ALP

– In regard to the latter part of the question, certainly I agree that the Returned Services League should be heard. I have the closest consultation with the RSL and with other ex-service organisations although naturally the RSL, as the biggest organisation, is the one with which I have the most dealings. I think there has been some concern in past years about the future of the repatriation system. It possibly occurred first when a Senate committee under the chairmanship of a Liberal senator, Senator Dame Nancy Buttfield, brought down various recommendations which would have led to very substantial changes in the repatriation system. I think it continued when Mr Justice Toose was appointed by the previous Government to inquire into the repatriation system. I believe the concern arose again when the Department of Repatriation was transformed into the Department of Repatriation and Compensation, and again when I was given the additional portfolio of Social Security. All of these matters have occasioned concern. I have given undertakings to the RSL and to the Australian Services Council, which represents most of the other veterans organisations, that no change in the system is proposed by us and that none will take place without consultation with them. If I may speak for myself, I do not believe there ought be any substantial change in the repatriation system.

Only last week I had the advantage of talking to the Canadian Minister for Veterans Affairs who was in Australia. As far as I am aware, the Canadian system of veteran benefits and administration is probably the system most closely approximating the Australian system. There had been moves in Canada, he informed me, by some people to attempt to tone down the activities of the Department of Veterans Affairs. There had been proposals that the Canadian veteran hospitals be transformed into general hospitals available to all people. Even in Canada, where this had been adopted as policy, only a relatively small number of hospitals had been so transformed. On our calculations, it does not seem that the maximum number of repatriation beneficiaries- that is excluding the possibility of any intervening war- will reach its peak until the year 1985. Obviously, and I think most importantly, there will be a special and continuing role for the Repatriation Department far into the foreseeable future. I have given assurances in that regard. The matter which is still pending is the report of Mr Justice Toose. He has told me that his report will be available soon. I have told both the RSL and the Australian Services Council that they will have a copy of that report for at least 6 months so that they can make recommendations on it before any action would be considered by the Government in line with the recommendations of Mr Justice Toose.

page 20

QUESTION

PRICES JUSTIFICATION TRIBUNAL

page 21

PAPUA NEW GUINEA SUPERANNUATION BOARD: REPORTS

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I present the twentieth and twentyfirst reports of the Papua New Guinea Superannuation Board for 1970-71 and 1971-72 respectively.

page 21

PRIORITIES REVIEW STAFF: REPORT ON RADIO

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I present the report on radio by the Priorities Review Staff dated August 1974.

page 21

AUSTRALIAN AGRICULTURAL COUNCIL

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I present the resolution of the ninety-second meeting of the Australian Agricultural Council held in Melbourne on 28 April 1975.

page 21

AUSTRALIAN CHICKEN MEAT RESEARCH COMMITTEE: REPORT

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– I present the fifth annual report of the Australian Chicken Meat Research Committee for the year ended 30 June 1 974.

page 21

INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I present reports of the Industries Assistance Commission on cosmetics and toilet preparations, new land farms, production of gold, and heat transfer printing paper.

page 21

COMMONWEALTH TEACHING SERVICE

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Pursuant to section 52 of the Commonwealth Teaching Service Act 1972-1973, I present the annual report of the Commonwealth Teaching Service for 1974.

page 21

GRANTS COMMISSION

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Pursuant to section 25 of the Grants Commission Act 1973-75, 1 present the report by the Grants Commission on applications for financial assistance for local government for the financial year 1975-76.

page 21

MEDICAL RESEARCH ENDOWMENT ACT

Senator WHEELDON:
Western AustraliaMinister for Social Security and Minister for Repatriation and Compensation · ALP

– Pursuant to section 9 of the Medical Research Endowment Act 1937, I present a report entitled ‘Medical Research Projects 1 973 ‘.

page 21

SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND TROPICAL MEDICINE

Senator WHEELDON:
Western AustraliaMinister for Social Security and Minister for Repatriation and Compensation · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I present a report of a committee of review on the School of PublicHealth and Tropical Medicine.

page 21

TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION

Senator James McClelland:
Minister for Labor and Immigration · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

Pursuant to section 171 of the Trade Practices Act 1974-75, I present the first annual report of the Trade Practices Commission for the year ended 30 June 1975.

page 21

URGENT ENERGY ITEMS

Motion (by Senator Wright) agreed to:

That there be laid on the table of the Senate the full list and costs of urgent energy items which were referred to by the Minister for Minerals and Energy, the Hon. R. F. X. Connor, M.P., during debate in the House of Representatives on 9 July 1975 and recorded on page 3611 of Hansard of that date.

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

- Mr President, I lay on the table of the Senate the full list of urgent energy items together with the indicative order of magnitude of cost which were referred to by the Minister for Minerals and Energy, the Hon. R. F. X.

Connor, M.P., during the debate in another place on 9 July 1975 and recorded on page 3611 of Hansard of that date.

page 22

PLACING OF BUSINESS

Motion (by Senator Chaney) agreed to:

That business ofthe Senate, Notice of Motion No. 1, 1975, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 9 of 1975, and made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910-1973, and relating to the proposed disallowance of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance (No. 2) 1975, be postponed until the sitting of the Senate on Tuesday, 26 August 1975.

Motion (by Senator Douglas McClelland) agreed to:

That consideration of Government Business, Order of the Day No. 2 (Inter-State Commission Bill 1975), be postponed until the next day of sitting.

page 22

QUESTION

SENATE STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE

Sessional Orders as Amendments to Standing Orders

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Mr President, I understand that honourable senators have been provided with a list of recommendations of the Standing Orders Committee for amendments and additions to the Standing Orders. Honourable senators will recall that these matters were the subject of debate in the Senate last February. It was agreed that the recommendations should be adopted as interim standing orders on the understanding that the matters would be reviewed on the first sitting day after a period of 6 months had elapsed. This is the day on which reconsideration has to be given to these matters. With the concurrence of honourable senators I propose to put the question separately in regard to each of the 8 items that are shown on the list. I propose to move that the recommendations individually be agreed to. This will be done, as I have been reminded, in the Committee of the Whole.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

- Mr President, I intervene but shortly to indicate that as previously when this matter was before the Senate, Opposition senators will have a free vote on these questions. If I may I will just express a personal view at the moment. I suppose that I am prejudiced because I was a member of the Standing Orders Committee which made these recommendations. I think it is fair to say that during the last 6 months the proposals recommended by the Standing Orders Committee have worked more effectively than the previous standing orders.

That is my own personal experience. I personally will support the adoption of all the recommendations, but some of my colleagues may not do so when we move into the Committee of the Whole.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– in reply- Mr President, I think it is fair to say that when we move into the Committee of the Whole it will be open to either myself or Senator Withers, if he so chooses, to move for the adoption of all the recommendations.

Senator Withers:

– No. What I meant was that I support all the recommendations.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Yes. Being a member of the Standing Orders Committee which made these recommendations, I also support all the recommendations. But it may be that individual senators will have objections to some of the recommendations and I think they are entitled to put their point of view. As Senator Withers has indicated on behalf of the Opposition that Opposition senators will have a free vote in this matter, likewise Government senators will have a free vote. When we move into the Committee of the Whole I propose to move that the adoption of sessional orders as amendments to the Standing Orders be considered in accordance with the list that has been circulated to honourable senators. I suggest that I should do that in the Committee of the Whole forthwith. Therefore, I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

In Committee

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Webster)Honourable senators, you have been provided with a list of recommendations of the Standing Orders Committee for amendments and additions to the Standing Orders. I heard the discussion that took place between the Manager of Government Business in the Senate and the Leader of the Opposition. I take it that it is the wish of the Committee that we should deal with the items on the list separately. There being no objection, I will proceed to the first items which relates to questions directed to chairmen of committees.

Item No. 1 (Questions Directed to Chairmen of Committees).

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move- insert new Standing Order 98A: 98a. Questions may be put to the Chairman of a Committee relating to the activities of that Committee: Provided that-

  1. unless leave of the Senate is granted for them to be asked without Notice, such Questions may only be asked upon Notice;
  2. they shall not attempt to interfere with the Committee’s work or anticipate its report; and
  3. the Chairman shall answer such Questions only on the basis that he answers on behalf of the Committee and not of himself.’
Senator STEELE HALL:
South AustraliaLeader of the Liberal Movement

– I wish to ask a question regarding paragraph (b) of this proposed new standing order. It says that questions may be put to the chairman of a committee relating to the activities of that committee provided that:

They shall not attempt to interfere with the Committee’s work . . .

That seems to me to be an imprecise and vague way of expressing an intention not to impede a committee’s work. The words ‘shall not attempt to interfere with the Committee’s work’ could, I imagine, encompass a critical question. It would seem to me, under some construction of that phrase, that a critical question about a committee’s work, or its intention or the path that it was following, could be answered simply by the chairman saying that the question interfered with the work of the committee. I know that this is a fairly small point. This would be one of the vaguest standing order references that I can remember. The words are ‘shall not attempt to interfere with the Committee ‘s work ‘. I wonder if the Manager of Government Business in the Senate (Senator Douglas McClelland) has some explanation of why this provision is expressed in such vague terms.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– This is a report of the Standing Orders Committee and that Committee consisted of a cross section of members of the Senate. Senator Steele Hall will see that paragraph (a) of proposed new standing order 98a suggests that unless leave of the Senate is granted for questions without notice to be asked of a chairman of a committee, such questions may be asked only upon notice. It is proposed that paragraphs (b) and (c) of the proposed new standing order would follow as they appear in the recommendation.

Senator Steele Hall:

– They would apply to questions on notice or without notice, would they not?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-They would apply to questions on notice or without notice. Leave would have to be given by the Senate for a question to be asked without notice. I would assume that the sort of inquiry which Senator Steele Hall has raised would be taken into consideration by the Senate in determining whether leave were to be granted. In any event I think that it would help to remove a little of the difficulty that could emerge under what is proposed in paragraph (c); namely, that the chairman shall answer such questions only on the basis that he answers on behalf of the committee and not of himself.

The composition of Senate committees represents a wide cross section of the political views of this Parliament. The concept of this provision was that rather than having the chairman of a committee expressing what might be his personal point of view, unless leave of the Senate were given the question should be placed upon notice so that the whole committee could direct its attention to the question. I do not know what interpretation might be placed on the words that questions ‘shall not attempt to interfere with the Committee’s work or anticipate its report’. Senator Steele Hall apparently is concerned about some ambiguity that might appear to be in the words ‘attempt to interfere with the Committee’s work’. My memory of the debate that took place in the Standing Orders Committee does not bring immediately to mind any discussion that took place on those particular words. Perhaps Senator Withers or Senator Sir Magnus Cormack could jog my memory if they can remember. I know that at the time it was a unanimous decision of the Committee and it was the decision of the Senate, in Committee, that we try the standing order out on an interim basis.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Perhaps you never debated it.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I cannot remember those words being debated. It may well have been Senator Murphy who was involved at the time. I can see that it would not be desirable for the Senate to interfere by way of a question with the work of a committee. That might be done by way of resolution when the committee’s work can be discussed and debated in toto. To attempt by way of question to interfere with the work of a committee would be doing an injustice to the committee and to the Senate generally. I think that in anticipation of matters of this nature being raised this proposition probably was put on the basis that problems would be resolved by way of debate and not by way of question.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– I am at a loss to recall the reasons for this provision. I think one has to go to the Standing Orders- to standing orders 98 and 99. Standing order 98 gives the right to ask questions. The sort of questions which can be asked should not contain arguments, inferences, imputations, epithets, ironical expressions, etc. I would imagine that the purpose of paragraph (b) in proposed standing order 98a is but a guide to the Presiding Officer as to whether to allow or disallow the question, as he would either allow or disallow a question under standing order 99. If, as Senator Poyser suggests, the words in paragraph (b) are enforced with the same rigidity and strictness as is standing order 99, 1 do not think any honourable senator is going to be terribly inhibited in any questions he asks.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Item No. 2 (How Division May Be Called For)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move:

Insert new Standing Order 164a: 164a. A division shall be called for only by Senators who have given their voices against the majority as declared by the President.’

During the course of the debate that took place in the Senate on 1 1 February this matter was alluded to at length by Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson and also, I think, by Senator Marriott and my colleague, the Minister for Police and Customs, Senator Cavanagh. It was queried whether we would deprive senators of the right of calling divisions if we inserted this provision. If I recollect correctly it was Senator Sir Magnus Cormack who pointed out that this had been the custom and practice of the Westminster system of Parliament in the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand as well as in Australia. The query was put on the basis of the right of the minority to test a vote in the Parliament. For that reason this was written in as an interim measure. I think it has stood the test of time for the six months and therefore I move for the adoption of the recommendation.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Police and Customs · ALP

– I want to say a few words. I do not recall the discussion on 1 1 February. This proposition is something I would always oppose. What has been the principle and tradition of the Westminster system here when a division has been called for? The tradition is that the division is held. It is only quite recently that the question has been raised that the person who calls for the division has to be a member of the minority group involved in the vote. The value of being able to call for a division relates to the public record. A person may want to record the fact that when a certain question came before the House he voted for or against it. A person may be proud of his vote on that occasion. At present if I happened to be among the majority of opinion of the Senate on a particular issue a dispute could arise at a later date as to how I recorded my vote on that occasion. I have no proof other than perhaps in some records of the Senate. There is no indication in Hansard of how I voted. It was for the sole purpose of meeting the situation when an issue was of such particular importance to an individual that he wanted how he voted or how someone else voted recorded that we had the right to call a division and so have a record of voting which could be produced to show the action of each individual in a particular division. I recall when it was necessary to have not fewer than 2 senators call for a division, but we then insisted on, the right to have it recorded if one wanted to oppose a motion. That meant that if I was in the minority but had some supporters of my viewpoint there was no way of getting my opposition recorded whereas if I was alone in my opposition to any measure I had a way of getting my opposition recorded. That is something that has not been abused and I think the right to have recorded how one votes or how somebody else votes on a particular question is one which should be preserved.

Senator POYSER:
Victoria

– I am a member of the Standing Orders Committee which discussed this matter at some length. I fully support the recommendation. The situation is obvious when one thinks about it. How can persons protest against a decision which is in favour of them? This is in effect what we are doing by demanding the right to say to the Chairman that although he declared your vote to be correct he is incorrect. That is just what it means. I think that if any honourable senator rose to his feet immediatelY after any vote when no division had been taken, and said: ‘I want my name recorded in Hansard as being in favour of or against that motion’, he would not be denied that right. On many occasions this procedure has been used at meetings at which I have been present other than in this Parliament when there has been a majority of 300 to 20 on the voices and those 300 have used their voices to demand a division in order to flush out those who voted against the question. So it can be used for purposes other than the legitimate right of a person to cast a democratic vote. So in my view the Committee is correct in saying that the person who believes a call to be incorrect should be the only person able to call for a division. If the Chairman on a division on a particular clause says that the ayes have it, why should the ayes dispute it by demanding a division? It seems so incredibly wrong that I believe the Committee’s recommendation for a new standing order is a perfectly correct one.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Item No. 3 (Duration of Division and Quorum Bells).

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– In relation to the duration of division and quorum bells I move:

  1. Standing Orders 54, 57, 58, 173, 174 and 275, leave out ‘two minutes’, insert ‘three minutes’.
  2. Insert new Standing Order 174a:

I 74a. When successive Divisions are taken, and there is no intervening debate after the first Division, the Bells for the ensuing Division shall be rung for one minute only’.

This was tried out in the last 6 months a number of times. All told there were 1 15 divisions and a great number of them were held one after the other. I believe the procedure worked to the satisfaction of all honourable senators. No one was inconvenienced by it and I believe it gave everyone ample time to get into the chamber from any place in the Parliament. I think it was overwhelmingly successful.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Item No. 4 (Suspension of Standing Orders to Eliminate Delay in Passage of Bills).

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move:

This proposed standing order was tried out in the last sessional period and worked very effectively in expediting procedures in this chamber. Because of this succesful implementation I do not think there is anything I need add in support of the new standing order.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Item No. 5 (Calling of Committee Meetings).

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move:

I think that provision, too, has worked successfully. I have nothing to add.

Questions resolved in the affirmative.

Item No. 6 (Answers to Questions on NoticeIncorporation in Hansard).

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move:

That system has been tried and has not been found wanting.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Police and Customs · ALP

– I thought when this was debated that it would be one of the questions I would oppose. Preservation of the right of a member who wants a public answer to his question because we are on the air at the time of answering or because he wants the answer known to those in the public gallery has some appeal to me. Since I have been in the Senate I have taken the position that we should not take any action in amending Standing Orders which takes a right away from honourable senators. Mr Chairman, I recall that you were perhaps one of the most insistent honourable senators in having your questions on notice read and answered by the Minister in the Senate. What your reason may have been I do not know but obviously it had some significance and meant something to you. It is a right and a privilege which you have had. I cannot say that the procedure we are adopting has not caused inconvenience but it is doing away with one of the things that honourable senators had as a right. The individual senator is the one to decide whether he wants his question answered publicly. I would like it to be recorded that at least I am consistent in my attitude of opposing the taking away of his right from the individual senator.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON (New South Wales) (4.50)- I can appreciate what is being suggested here. We have followed the suggested procedure more recently and in the main it has proved to be satisfactory. The bugbear in the past has always been that the parliamentary proceedings are broadcast. In the case of the Senate the proceedings are broadcast on a Wednesday and on Tuesdays and Thursdays there is a rebroadcast of question time. The crunch always came when a senator insisted that the answer to his question on notice be read out. An abridged version was given, and this resulted in almost incoherence for the listener because the complete question was not always read. Then we got into a conditional situation, as I recall it, where the senator could insist on the answer being given. A message had then to be given to the Clerk, I think, in relation to the question and answer. I agree with Senator Cavanagh. When I was a Minister sitting at the table I was often put in the situation of striving to get through the business when honourable senators were insisting upon answers to questions being read. The point that Senator Cavanagh made consistently during his time in Opposition in this place- it never varied- was that questions which he felt important should be answered, particularly on broadcast days. Whilst I would be the first to admit that this new procedure which we have adopted has gone reasonably well, I just wonder whether there should not be at least some escape clause whereby in the ultimate an honourable senator, for the very reasons that Senator Cavanagh mentioned, should have some right to insist upon not only the answer but also the question being read when the proceedings of the Senate are being broadcast. The form of the amendment is absolute. Whilst I would not go to the barricades in forcing a division on it, I think it is too absolute in its present form.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Opposition

– I am only trying to be helpful, which is perhaps a strange role.

Senator Cavanagh:

– So was I.

Senator WITHERS:

-I understand the point that Senator Cavanagh makes. I quite understand that there may be occasions on which this provision is wanted, but I suppose one could draft a simple amendment to proposed standing order 103. One could commence the standing order with these words:

Unless otherwise ordered, the reply to a Question on notice shall be given by delivering the same to the Clerk . . .

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– Then you could seek leave.

Senator WITHERS:

-The words ‘unless otherwise ordered’ require a motion, do they not? Perhaps one could put in the words, ‘except by leave’. I think one could put in the words: Unless leave of the Senate is granted, the reply to a question on notice . . . ‘and so on.

Senator Cavanagh:

– It still depends on every member of the Senate agreeing to it.

Senator WITHERS:

-I realise that. It is a difficult problem because it requires only one person to be a nark to prevent it being done. I must say, however, that against that it is very rarely that leave is refused in this place, because the same proposition has been adopted in relation to the presentation of petitions.

Senator Cavanagh:

– But you may get a nark in here one day.

Senator WITHERS:

-Most of us are narks at times. We all have our moments.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– When the Minister has taken the initiative and dug his toes in the nark has sometimes gone to water.

Senator WITHERS:

-It is one of those difficult situations. I understand that the present procedure in relation to the presentation of petitions is that if the petition consists of more than 250 words the honourable senator presenting it has to get leave to have it read. I think leave has been granted almost daily without any hesitation, but one day some honourable senator is going to come along with a petition of a thousand words and he is not going to get leave to present it, and most likely he should not. The Senate, however, tends to be fairly sensible. I am only throwing up as a suggestion that proposed standing order 103 be commenced with the words ‘ Unless leave of the Senate is granted ‘.

Senator Cavanagh:

– It is an improvement.

Senator WITHERS:

-I do not know how Senator Douglas McClelland feels about my suggestion, but I think it might be a happy compromise.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I do not know how keenly Senator Cavanagh or Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson feel about this matter. I can see some merit in the case that they have put in that I know they are out to protect the individual rights of a senator. It occurs to me that there is some justification in what they put in that in the circumstance of a senator coming to this place as an independent and who does not have the support of anyone other than himself, his individual rights need some protection in certain respects. Therefore I would be prepared to amend my proposal and move that proposed standing order 103 reads:

Unless leave of the Senate is granted-

Senator Cavanagh:

– Will those words appear after the word ‘notice ‘?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-No, they will appear at the commencement of standing order 103.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– That is new standing order 103?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Yes. Proposed new standing order 103 will read as follows:

Unless leave of the Senate is granted, the reply to a question on notice shall be given by delivering the same to the Clerk. A copy thereof shall be supplied to the Senator who has asked the Question, and such Question and reply shall be printed in Hansard.

If an honourable senator is adament and is genuine in wanting his question and the answer read, he can seek to obtain the leave of the Senate to have his request met. I can see that problem could arise. I believe that the suggestion that has been made is a slight improvement on the existing standing order.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader Opposition in the Senate

– The Clerks have a look of consternation on their faces. They seem to be saying: ‘Unless leave of the Senate is granted about what?’ Probably most of standing order 103 needs to be rewritten. We all know what would be the intention of the amendment proposed by Senator Douglas McClelland. I suggest to Senator Douglas McClelland that perhaps this item ought to be stood over until tomorrow so that the Clerks may rewrite the standing order in the terms of the amendment. Then the matter could be dealt with tomorrow in about 10 seconds flat.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia Minister for Police and Customs · ALP

– I think the Clerks may possibly have the wording now. The words ‘ Unless leave of the Senate is granted ‘ suggest that the question shall be asked verbally and the answer given. It is not difficult to do that.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I understand that the proposal which is embodied in my amendment and the suggestion of Senator Withers carries with it some administrative difficulties in that at the moment the answers to questions on notice are handed to the Clerks. It would mean that the Clerks would have to prepare a list of all of the answers that were received and deliver a copy to each individual senator. Then if each individual senator wanted to seek leave to have an answer read he would have to refer to the Clerks’ list. That would create some administrative problems. Therefore, in view of the circumstances and in view of the Clerks ‘ understanding -

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– It is given by the questioner, not by 60 senators.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-That is right. The Clerks understand what lies behind the proposal. I agree that this matter should be deferred until the next day of sitting.

Consideration of item 6 postponed.

Item No. 7 (Motion for Adjournment to Debate Matter of Urgency)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move:

I think every honourable senator knows the reason for initiating the proposed standing order. Previously when a matter of urgency was raised the motion was that the Senate should stand adjourned until a certain time on the next day, that time generally being an amendment of the normal sitting hour. This is merely a tidying up of the procedure.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Item No. 8 (Time Limit to Speeches)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move:

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– Does that mean that the speaking senator may move the motion?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I assume he could move it, but whether or not he would get an extension of time after an hour is another thing. At least he has that right; it still exists. Existing standing order 407a states:

Any Senator may move that the limit of one hour or of one hour and a half may be extended for 30 minutes;

What we are saying in this motion is that any senator may move that the limit of one hour be extended for 30 minutes.

Senator DEVITT:
Tasmania

-May I observe just briefly, for the purposes of clarification, that the wording now proposed is that No Senator shall speak for more than one hour in any debate in the Senate’. I refer to the expression ‘the Senate’. I just want an assurance that it is exclusive of any consideration which ensues in the Committee of the Whole.

The CHAIRMAN:

– We have a standing order which confines a senator’s speaking time in Committee to 15 minutes. But that is another standing order and does not refer to the matter we are now considering.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South AustraliaMinister for Police and Customs · ALP

– Rather than call for a division to record my vote as having opposed this proposal, I shall briefly voice my opposition. My opposition is in the same terms that 1 have always raised- that we here are seeking to take a right away from senators. Whilst I would agree that we should perhaps do so if some mischief called for remedial action, in my 1 3 years in the Senate very infrequently, if ever, have honourable senators taken up the hour and a half. Actually over this period speeches in the Senate have become shorter. Rarely does someone speak for an hour. I do not think there is any need to provide for a longer time, but a senator may have a case to make out and may need more than an hour to develop convincing argument which would justify his being given an extension of time by other senators. He has had that right thus far but now we are seeking to take it away.

The other point which concerns me is that a senator should be limited at all. The time which he is allotted includes the time occupied by questions raised, points of order raised or disagreements with the President’s ruling. As we know, a lot of time can be taken up with various points of order which are raised from time to time and discussion on those points of order.

Senator Marriott:

– You are fairly well experienced in that.

Senator CAVANAGH:

-Yes. When we do not want to listen to Senator Marriott on a matter and he is limited to 20 minutes, we can reduce his time most effectively. I am sure that if we listened to him for the 20 minutes he would convince us, but we purposely deprive ourselves of his knowledge and the convincing arguments he wishes to develop by seeing that he does not get the opportunity to develop them. They are some of the situations that may arise from time to time. The rule that permits an extension of time has not been abused. Whilst I admit that the proposal for an hour with an extension of half an hour seems reasonable, it does place some limitation on the rights of back benchers. Accordingly, I record my opposition to this proposal.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON (New South Wales) (5.7)- Others have been in this place longer than I have, but to my knowledge in the past 22 years no honourable senator has spoken for an hour and presumed to move for another half hour. I know that I am going to be told that existing standing order 40 7 a contains the words ‘any senator’. But it has always been the tradition for a senator to seek out somebody else to move that he be given an extension of time. I think that in itself is a jolly good rule because it would be pretty grim if 59 of us ‘had’ him and he were able to give himself another half an hour. I should like to see inserted a provision that an extension of half an hour be granted by leave. If we are to settle for an hour let us settle for the hour and grant the other half an hour perhaps in circumstances which Senator Cavanagh has canvassed. We have lawyers here- God help us- and we have witnessed debates in which some lawyers and bush lawyers have taken up most of a senator’s time on matters of procedure.

Senator Cavanagh:

– But this extra half an hour would only be by decision of the Senate.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– Yes. It was so by tradition but not by virtue of the standing order.

Senator Cavanagh:

– But even the new standing order would require a decision of the Senate to give him an extra half hour.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

-That is going to take up a bit of the time too, presumably, if there is a division on it. What I am suggesting is that we should add to the proposed amendment a provision that a senator may seek an extra half hour by leave, as that is what we have always done. With good sense, we have managed to adjust the equities of the debate and, where such justice was required, speakers have received an extension of time.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Put at the mercy of the nark.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON:

– It could be said sometimes that the nark is the speaker.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have listened with interest to what Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson has said. All I point out is that in the existing standing order 407a and the standing order that existed prior to the trial period in February of this year there appear the words:

Any Senator may move that the limit of one hour or of one hour and a half may be extended for thirty minutes;

I am told by the Clerk that he cannot remember any single occasion on which a senator who had been speaking for an hour and a half moved for an extension of time on his own behalf.

Senator Sir Kenneth Anderson:

– But he can do it under this proposed standing order.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-But he could do it under the other standing order also. It has never been done. I suggest that it is never likely to be done. Even if a senator had been speaking for one hour, I suggest it would never be likely to be done by the senator concerned. If it were done, he would need not only considerablewhat is the word -

Senator Withers:

– Hide.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Hide, yes. He would also be a great extrovert and he would probably lose his preselection ballot.

Senator Sir KENNETH ANDERSON (New South Wales) (5.13)- In response to the Manager of Government Business in the Senate (Senator Douglas McClelland), I suggest that the Standing Orders should not be produced on the basis that he has just stated. The Standing Orders should prescribe a procedure. I am suggesting that a senator should not be allowed to do what the Minister proposes the Standing Orders would permit him to do. I ask that the Minister insist that such a senator receives leave of the Senate to speak for that extra half an hour.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator Webster:
VICTORIA

-The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion say ‘ aye ‘, to the contrary ‘ no ‘.

Senator Cavanagh:

– No.

The CHAIRMAN:

– I think the ayes have it. I take it that the proposal of Senator Cavanagh is that he have his name recorded as being opposed to the motion. Is that your wish, Senator Cavanagh?

Senator Cavanagh:

– Yes.

The CHAIRMAN:

– There being no objection to it being so recorded, it is so ordered.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– In view of the fact that the Committee of the Whole has deferred further consideration of proposed Item 6- the one relating to answers to questions upon notice and their incorporation in Hansard- until further report, 1 move:

That progress be reported and that the committee seek leave to sit again.

Leave granted; progress reported.

page 29

PURCHASING COMMISSION BILL 1975

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 28 May on motion by Senator Willesee:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator COTTON:
New South Wales

– I have been listening to the debate on the Standing Orders with considerable fascination because this is likely to be the time in my life when I could easily talk for an hour and a half and then move for an extension of my time in which to speak. I will try to persuade myself not to do that. The Opposition is not attracted to the Purchasing Commission Bill. It sees it as a general arrangement to bring the private sector much more under total control than it now is. lt does not see that as desirable. The Opposition believes that this is a centralising function at a time when it does not think that is wise in the Australian democratic scene. The Opposition is a believer in the theory that the dispersion of power and authority in the current world and Australian scene is much more desirable than centralising power and authority. It will take me quite a long time to elaborate this point. I suggest to those honourable senators who feel that the matter is no longer interesting to them that they leave the chamber and go to sleep or have a cup of tea.

The first test to apply in relation to this measure is this: Is there any real efficiency to be gained by adopting the proposals contained in the Purchasing Commission Bill? Having studied this matter since 3 June 1975, 1 state that it is the Opposition ‘s view that the creation, of such a Purchasing Commission will not necessarily promote efficiency. I say this because first of all the Bill interposes the Commission between the users and suppliers. The Opposition does not see that that will be a useful device. Clause 9 (2) of the Bill which is to be read in conjunction with the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Government Procurement Policy- the Scott report- gives to departments and authorities the power to retain their purchasing function up to the $5,000 threshold. Obviously, there will be duplication of effort and manpower in the departments under this proposal, if it were passed, because departments would still have some authority to do their own purchasing and would pass a lot of that authority away.

There are certain cases where industries have only two or three suppliers, each of whom depends very largely on government for contracts. The centralised purchasing proposed here may end existing competition between them and it may establish monopolies in the supplier sense. From one’s own commercial and industrial experience, one has learnt that in a world in which one tends to aggregate people together to become single buyers, in effect, one usually ends up with what I call a single seller situation. Out of such a situation, one very rarely sees any real economies in cost. There are some departures from the Scott report included in the Bill. Purchases by Australian Government authorities, agencies, boards and commissions were specifically excluded by recommendation 6 on page 81 of the Scott report. Of course, it is proposed that this be included in the Purchasing Commission’s functions. Government authorities, in competition with private enterprise, may gain advantages in obtaining supplies. There are bulk buying discounts, opportunities above the norm, for the possibility of some form of coercion, if not express then explicit, in such a scene.

Clause 41 of the Bill states that the Commission is not subject to taxation. Recommendation 31 of the Scott report stated that departments, authorities and agencies should pay import duty. The Special Minister of State (Senator Douglas McClelland) has not specified whether he considers such a duty to be a tax. In any case, exemption from sales tax gives Government authorities as such a substantial advantage in competition with the private sector. Under clause 37(3) the Minister has sole power to determine the composition of advisory committees. Compared with the recommendation of the Scott Committee, this is not satisfactory. If regard is had to what was recommended on pages 133 to 136 of the Scott Committee report, we would be able to identify the massive size of the total Australian Government buying position as expressed in the year 1972-73, which are the latest figures on record. At that time, the total value of purchases by the Australian Government was almost $ 1 3 billion dollars. It is my conclusion, after discussion with responsible people, that with price escalation, increasing movements by the Government into the private sector and more and more government control that we are talking about a Commission that of itself would currently have a buying power of about $20 billion if this Bill were to be passed. That is a tremendous amount of buying power to put in the hands of one single authority without any evidence of economy and efficiency and with considerable evidence of the possibility of duplication and some areas of inefficiency.

I turn to clause 17 of the Bill which deals with the area of ministerial directives. In the view of the Opposition and those people to whom we have talked about this whole measure, that clause is far too wide. It can lead to the pursuit of purely political objectives in government purchases. There is no effective parliamentary control over such directives given from month to month. There is only a need to put them in the annual report. When I remind honourable senators that the Trans-Australia Airlines annual report, due at the end of June and normally available about September, appeared in the Parliament about the following May they will see the possibilities for things to be long gone, beyond recovery, if an annual report is said to be the remedy for what might be called dangerous practice or unfair practice. It is possible that directives of that kind in a wise administration could include some ability to help and offset programs. These are always negotiable between one country and another.

There is a need for an Australian content to be thought about. I cannot see any substantial reference to that in the Scott report, but if it is there I shall be glad to learn of it. I cannot see any preference to Australian goods and services. In the current manufacturing industry rundown it would be very valuable to see Australian governments as such trying to induce Australian purchases from Australian manufacturers as far as possible. There is a possibility in due course in a wise program of some ability to try to help in particular regions and perhaps some particular industries. As will be detected by my colleagues in the Senate I am trying to be fair about this measure while at the same time indicating our opposition to it.

There are certain unacceptable areas in clause 1 7. They could be worker participation areas and other directives designed to achieve social and political ends. I have run out a few such possibilities. People might be directed purposely to involve themselves in urban and regional development in unwise propositions. Companies might be directed to have compulsory unionism otherwise they will have no government contracts. There could be measures about compensation and insurance being included if indeed a government of the Australian character became a government insurer. There could be clear directions on import policy running contrary to what might be the broad public intent. There could be arguments on environmental control. Industry restructuring could be argued via backdoor methods. These are some of the problems that one sees in clause 1 7.

Clause 14 ( 10) provides for ministerial directives to be given to leaders of special research teams, but there is no provision whatever for Parliament to be informed about those particular directions. We find a great number of other clauses objectionable. I shall mention some. Clause 15 (2) gives the Minister a wider power to demand documents than the courts have. One is reminded in this circumstance of what a pity it was the Senate did not have such a power itself to demand some documents that it needed in the recent loans affair, it would have been most illuminating. We might have learned something accurate for a change instead of getting ourselves fobbed off. Clause 3 gives me some concern. It gives various definitions. Clause 3(1) describes an authority as a prescribed company being a company in which Australia has a controlling interest. This clause possibly could link the Purchasing Commission as proposed directly with, for example, the recent Government purchase of a pharmaceutical company, or with a company in the mining industry or proposed State trading corporation. This means the Commission could buy or dispose of goods on behalf of these companies and in effect become a trader or operator in the private sector.

This Commission, as we see it, not only gives some power to be centralised buyers but also gives some substantial power to become centralised sellers and centralised market operators. Such described companies would enjoy an unfair advantage in the local market as purchases by the Commission are not subject to customs tariff or taxes under the Bill. Clause 3 defines ‘goods’ as follows:

  1. stores within the meaning,ofthe Audit Act 1901-1973 and supplies within the meaning of the Treasury Regulations;
  2. copyrights, patent rights, trade marks and other incorporeal property; and
  3. ships, aircraft, vehicles, machinery and equipment;

Honourable senators must get an idea of the broad ambit that is proposed by this massive centralised government purchasing authority. A further definition relates to government bodies and provides:

Governmental body’ includes the Government of a State and a local governing body, but does not include a Department or an Authority.

That is an assumption that the Commission would have some overriding ability to act as to State governments and local governing bodies. That, if it were true, would be a particularly strange position to have created. Clause 5 (e) refers to the right to acquire, hold, deal with and dispose of goods for other purposes of the Australian Government. What other purposes are we talking about? It seems to us that the Commission has an ability to become the buyer and seller of uranium, wool, wheat, coal or any of the massive bulk commodity mineral products produced in this country. Clause 6(b) enables the Commission to undertake research into the private sector- another intrusion that seems to be quite unnecessary. Clause 13 ( 1 ) (a) enables the views of the departments and authorities to prevail over those of the Commission in the purchase of goods, but does not do so for services and works. So, why the difference? It is unreasonable and unworkable to prevent a user department from suggesting the manner or source of procurement.

After examining in some detail, again with people whom I hope would have a clear understanding of this measure, my definition of clause 17, which seems to me to be reliable, is thus: Tenders under this particular proposal, if it becomes law, would normally still be decided by the Commission without reference to the Government. But the Government has an overriding power to give directions to the Commission for tenders to be accepted or rejected.

Honourable senators will gather from a careful study that we find this piece of legislation not necessary or wise. It has to us a few repugnant features. We believe, first of all, that it is unnecessary. We believe it interposes between users and suppliers. We believe in particular areas, such as the defence purchasing requirements, that it could be extremely dangerous. Other colleagues of mine have a particular interest in the defence procurement situation. On page 66 of the Scott report a large chapter deals with defence, but one particular sentence springs clearly to mind. It reads:

This Committee-

That is the Scott Committee- gave the most careful consideration to the whole subject before it decided to recommend that the purchase of all defence requirements above the tender threshold-

That is $5,000- should not be excluded from the scope of its recommendations.

In other words this operation will purchase the whole of the defence requirements, including destroyers, aircraft, weapons, tanks and what you will.

Senator Webster:

– Is any reason put forward why several departments should be excluded from the umbrella of this?

Senator COTTON:

– Only in the sense I was going to pick it up later but I do it now that they appear to have some kind of purchasing functions of their own. It did not seem to me, on explanation, to be truly satisfactory. I refer to the Department of Services and Property, the Department of the Media and the Department of Housing and Construction.

This piece of legislation has moved around a bit in the departmental scene. It has been owned by various people. It is now the child of the Department of Services and Property which has excluded itself from the Commission’s ambit. We object to technical purchases. The objection is that technical purchases require direct consultation in our view between users and suppliers from tender to installation. For example, Qantas could be directed in regard to what aircraft to buy as could TAA. It is interesting that in discussion the current Minister for Transport, Mr Jones, indicated that he believes that the A300B widebodied jet is the most desirable aircraft to use in the Australian domestic system for the next stage of equipment. The airlines do not believe that at all. They believe something quite different. What would Qantas be directed to do? Would it be directed to buy or not to buy Concorde? How does all this work out? The Commission will interpose between the user departments, notwithstanding their size and the complexity of their problems, yet the Commission really will not have the knowledge which the departments have. We believe there will be delays resulting in user frustration and we believe there will be cost increases.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– I have never known in the industry any purchasing agent who lays down the specification of the stuff that is wanted by the production people.

Senator COTTON:

– I have found the same situation in my life, senator. This is why I find this strange. We believe government trading authorities gain advantage in this measure over the private enterprise system. One is not hostile to having in the Australian scene situations in which there is a duopoly. The 2 airlines policy confirms that. There is a market economy arm of Ansett Airlines of Australia. That is a very great company. The Australian Airlines Commission operates in open competition with Ansett. They operate fairly with each other and share the business. This Bill would give an advantage to a government marketing authority or a government operating authority as against its counterpart in the market system. I think this is quite wrong.

Massive costs would be involved in this Commission. These sorts of things cannot be run for nothing. The best information one can get is that about 800 to 1000 people will be engaged in this exercise at stage one. In our view, there is clearly duplication of functions. The Opposition cannot see anywhere any economic feasibility studies properly carried out to show any cost benefit or total economic advantages. There is no obligation in anything that the Opposition can find on the Commission to be efficient. We think that the Minister would have too much power, and so would the Commission, and too little accountability. There is no mention in the Bill, or in the report, of national security considerations. It is very hard to find any reference to the total impact on the Australian economic scene, but at pages 47 and 48 of the Scott report an attempt is made to do some analytical work on the effect of the Government position on the total position. Table 1 shows as about 23 per cent the total public sector expenditure as a percentage of the total Australian expenditure for the year 1972-73. From that point, I think it would have advanced itself very considerably indeed. But it would be a modest claim to make that at least this Commission would have the effect of being a total purchasing body over something like 25 per cent of the total Australian area of expenditure by all governments and all bodies.

On the other hand, as I said at the outset, one wishes to take a fairly broad view of this, and in examining the Scott report the Opposition did see some points of value. We think that the drawing up of a purchasing manual is a suggestion of merit. We think that establishing a register of non-standard specifications by government agencies is also worth consideration. We are not sure about the discontinuance of the need for deposits with tenders. It is a Scott report recommendation, but the Opposition cannot see that that would be quite as safe as it might be. We think that the proposition that the results of all tenders should be available to all tenderers, together with the reasons for the awarding of contracts, is a good proposition. We think that the amendment of Treasury regulation 553 (1) with respect to advertising has merit in it.

We think that the requirement that payments by governments for goods and services should be in accord with accepted commercial practice is an extremely good measure. We think that at times when the Government is running out of money it has no right to fund its exercises by leaning on the people who are supplying, as it sometimes does. Stories have been circulated that people have had to wait 90 to 120 days for their money. That is something for which governments ought not to be responsible when they are operating in the commercial world in which they deal. The Opposition believes that tender specifications should be written in conformity with existing commercial standards. The Scott report indicates that; we think it is a suggestion of value. We think that there is strong merit in standardisation of documentation. We think that the process of inspection in departments might well stand a little updating. We are not very excited about the minimum value proposals. We believe that purchasing as such in Government departments as such as a function may stand a little updating in relation to general training and professional standards. We think there is a strong duty on governments, and indeed on everybody involved in government purchasing, to try to keep the business world informed as to forward programs and forward requirements.

When the Opposition looked at all the ideas in the Scott report that seemed to it to have merit, none of them, not a single one, was necessary to be achieved by the creation of this Commission. They are all capable of achievement in existing departments and authorities. It is purely a matter of co-ordination and co-operation and understanding. Therefore, we can see no value in creating an extensive bureaucratic machine at this time. I think it will be clear to everybody that the Opposition has long held the view that the time has come to reduce inefficiency in government and government extravagance and waste, and the creation of this Commission seems to be a clear case of creating a further unnecessary device that really is not going to do anything useful or save any money.

The sort of approach that the Opposition would take in government would be something like this: Each department would act independently under the guidelines and supervision of overall government policy. They would do their own purchasing and make their own arrangements on the broad basis of what a government’s intent was. The Opposition would endeavour to improve the efficiency of what are called common user items by co-operation and coordination between the Stores and Tender Board, contract boards and the Department of Manufacturing Industry. Any recommendations in the Scott report that the Opposition thought were of value it would endeavour to pick up and use. We would like to see an advance in Public Service career opportunities in the procurement area and we would like to see people involved in government procurement programs and buying given training off time in private industry in an interchange. We would argue strongly for some lateral transfers, with people who are fairly young in the system and who have career promise, perhaps under 30 years of age, being given a period in a private enterprise area of magnitude, with some people in private enterprise coming into government to learn for a period.

The Opposition argues strongly for greater understanding between the sectors- in the public sector in buying requirements in manufacturing industry and in the private sector in making requirements. We think that an interchange is needed between the personnel in both areas. We believe that government purchasing programs would stand reviewing at all times and ought to be standardised, and that there ought to be developed a continuing process of interchange, inspection and understanding. We would certainly abolish clearly ministerial directives to achieve social and other aims. We would regard this as a market place business operation, not to be interfered with for political reasons. We have a very clear view of getting service and the best value for the money spent, while ensuring that the need pattern in the requirements of Public Service departments is made known to the supplier so that he can understand that this is a long term need and not a one-off job. The Opposition also has the view that specific provisions made in this area should be clearly outlined, should be tabled in the Parliament and should be subject to parliamentary debate. We are not at all keen on giving commissions or Ministers untrammelled powers in this area.

I have tried to be fair. I have pointed out that the Opposition sees massive dangers in this Bill. We think that it is not a wise measure. We cannot see that it has any real virtue at all. We think that any benefit that could come out of the approach of the Scott report could be far better achieved in existing departments through co-ordination and consultation, and by a better understanding between the private sector and the public sector through discussion and interchange and by making long term needs fairly clearly known. I suppose one could argue that the Bill might stand amendment. When we looked through this Bill we concluded that it was impossible for us to spend the time in amending it. Indeed, if it were amended satisfactorily there would be no Bill left because we would come back to what I said at the beginning. There is a need for consultation and communication and there is a need for coordination and understanding. This can be achieved now through the existing mechanisms by people working together. Therefore, in the Opposition’s view, there is no need for the Commission and there is no need for the Bill. On the other hand, the Opposition believes that the Government has a responsibility. in the brief time that it has left to be the Government, to try to improve its processes in a more workmanlike style than it is currently demonstrating. If we can do anything at all to overcome the distress and disaster into which the Government has plunged the economy and the manufacturing industry the Opposition would certainly try to support that laudable aim.

Senator MAUNSELL:
Queensland

– I indicate on behalf of the National Country Party that we also oppose this Bill for the reasons given by Senator Cotton. We oppose it as being yet another socialistic measure to control private enterprise and interfere in the free enterprise system. Certainly there is a need to update and improve the present government purchasing system for the purposes of government requirements. There is possibly a need for some improvement in our assistance to private industry, but only in an advisory capacity. I cannot see any need at this stage to set up a great bureaucracy that is going to interfere with the normal market place, with the free enterprise system that we have enjoyed in this country. I cannot see that there is any possible need for that. All the Commission would do is centralise the bureaucracy that is trying to interfere between the purchaser and the supplier of goods.

As I see it, the Commission is not going to effect any great efficiency or any cost savings. In fact, the opposite could be the case. Let us face it, we have private industries which have operated competitively in all areas. That is how they survive. They have had to be efficient to survive. In most cases, they must have organised a pretty elaborate buying system, an efficient buying system, otherwise they would not be in business. To think that someone who is unproved in the business community can direct others on what they should purchase and on how they should purchase is contrary to all my concepts. I believe there is a need to improve purchasing within the departments. I also believe that the Department of Overseas Trade could be strengthened to assist export industries and manufacturers who are importing raw materials and goods to simplify the matter, if necessary by bulk purchasing a lot of things. Is this proposed commission to determine what goods are to be purchased without any prior trial? After all, each individual company and enterprise in private industry decides on its own what it will purchase, what manufactured goods it needs and what raw materials it needs for its manufacturing processes. If it purchases the wrong material or makes a mistake in that direction it suffers accordingly in the market place.

What amazes me is that although the various departments- I think the Department of Defence was mentioned- must have their own experts to decide on their requirements, the departments will still need those experts if this commission is established. I could not imagine the personnel of this proposed great bureaucracy being able to determine what the Army and the Navy require better than the Army personnel and the Navy personnel could determine. One would still need the experts in a particular field to advise. If we go through the clauses of this Bill we realise the implications of the Bill. It is only another instrument in the socialisation of this nation. One can imagine that if the $4,000m loan deal had been negotiated and Mr Connor had been able, as he calls it, to buy back some of the farm- I see it as a mortgage on some of our national assets to the Arabs- we would have seen public enterprises all over this country in competition with our private industry and, as Senator Cotton pointed out, not subject to customs duty.

Quite frankly I cannot see at this stage the necessity for this proposal. As Senator Cotton said, we could not amend this Bill because then there would not be any Bill at all. One could go through one clause after another and find items that are completely contrary to our philosophy. Therefore, I believe all that we as an Opposition can do is to throw out the Bill and to hope that at some stage the Government will come back with a proposition for improving purchasing arrangements within departments and, if necessary, setting up an advisory body for private industry. 1 will not go into all the details. I know that other speakers have special areas of concern. I just say on behalf of our Party that this is another socialistic measure to interfere with and control private industry. For that reason alone I will not support it.

Debate (on motion by Senator Bishop) adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 5.44 to 8 p.m.

page 35

QUESTION

BUDGET 1975-76

Senator WRIEDT:
Minister for Agriculture · Tasmania · ALP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the following papers:

Australia ‘s Overseas Development Assistance 1975-76

Civil Works Program 1975-76

Education 1975-76

Estimates of Receipts and Summary of Estimated Expenditure 1975-76

Particulars of Proposed Expenditure for the Service of the year ending 30 June 1976

Particulars of Certain Proposed Expenditure in respect of the year ending 30 June 1976

Government Securities on Issue at 30 June 1 975

Income Tax Statistics

National Accounting Estimates of Receipts and Outlays of Australian Government Authorities Supplement to the Treasury Information Bulletin, dated August 1975

National Income and Expenditure 1974-75

Payments to or for the States and Local Government Authorities 1975-76

Treasurer’s Statement of Receipts and Expenditure for the year ended 30 June 1975

Urban and Regional Development 1975-76

I ask for leave to move a motion that the Senate take note of the papers.

The PRESIDENT:

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

Senator WRIEDT:

-I move:

Tonight the Treasurer (Mr Hayden) is delivering in another place his Budget Speech for 1975-76.

It is my privilege to outline to the Senate the Budget proposals of the Government.

The Budget is presented at a time of high inflation and, by Australian standards, high unemployment.

There are now some early signs of a recovery in the private sector. Retail sales are improving. Business inventories are falling. The home building industry is strengthening.

On balance unemployment in recent monthsand notwithstanding the rise in July has been fairly steady. The situation will be carefully watched.

The public sector has played an important part so far in stimulating the movement towards recovery from the recession. Furthermore, the big increases in spending on the Government’s programs in the past 2 years were needed to overcome decades of neglect.

Because of the structure of our mixed economy, where three out of four jobs are in the private sector, there are firm limits on how far the public sector should be stimulated in this recovery phase. In framing the Budget, therefore, the Government has exercised the utmost restraint on its spending.

The key-note of this Budget is consolidation and restraint, rather than further expansion of the public sector.

On the economic front, inflation is this nation ‘s most menacing enemy. The Government aims to curb it. Unless this aim is achieved, the nation’s productive capacity will run down and job opportunities will diminish.

The present level of unemployment is too high. If inflation is not controlled unemployment will get worse.

page 35

THE BUDGET AND ECONOMIC POLICY

Recent developments offer some hope that 1975-76 will be a better year than its predecessor. For that, steady and responsible economic policies are needed.

This year’s budgetary considerations began, as usual, with an examination of the prospective Budget aggregates. Expenditures were projected to grow much more rapidly than revenues and the prospective deficit was nearly double that of 1974-75. Clearly, such a deficit could not be countenanced under the circumstances.

In the context of an economy beginning to pick up, a deficit of the order initially projected would have been a prescription for accelerating inflation. Its acceptance would have been tantamount to abandoning concern with inflation, discarding the Government’s wages policies, condemning the corporate sector to an attack upon its profitability and threatening the future jobs of thousands of Australians- all at a time when the first signs of improvement in most of those respects are beginning to appear.

That simple Keynesian world in which some reduction in unemployment could, apparently, always be purchased at the cost of some more inflation no longer exists. Today, it is inflation itself which is the central policy problem. More inflation simply leads to more unemployment.

Some might argue that a large deficit could be offset by a tough monetary policy- but this would mean greatly increased interest rates, disruption in financial markets, further depression of business confidence and serious company failures. That is an unacceptable option.

An alternative approach, in its own way equally extreme, would have been to seek to pull down outlays sufficiently to bring the deficit well below that of 1974-75. That would have caused severe disruption to the economy. Economic recovery would almost certainly have halted.

The prescription which this course would have entailed is just as unacceptable as the other prescription of letting inflation rip. The Government rejects a policy of deliberately creating massive unemployment and widespread business failures in order to stop inflation abruptly.

The Government has therefore tried to find a middle way- a line along which sound and sustainable growth can be achieved while at the same time bringing inflation down gradually over perhaps two or three years.

In the outcome, the Budget holds the share of Australian Government outlays in the total economy steady. Even to restrain that share from rising further has involved many painful decisions.

It is a firm Budget in which the rate of growth in outlays has been halved as compared with last year.

It is a Budget neither too lax, thereby inviting a renewed acceleration of inflation, nor too harsh, causing unconscionable loss of production and the human and social costs of massive unemployment.

page 36

WAGES AND SALARIES

The Budget is one major instrument of economic policy. Another major policy area concerns the growth in wages and salaries.

If wages and salaries continue to outstrip productivity increases, the productive capacity of the economy will decline and everyone shall eventually be worse off.

It is too early yet to determine whether wage indexation will succeed in dampening the recent wage-price spiral. The signs are mixed. The Government intends to do what it can to make indexation work.

Meanwhile, however, it is clear that some wage and salary pressures are unrealistic and, when successful, harmful. It does employees generally no good to get higher and higher money incomes if the results are just higher prices, a severe squeeze on profits, a slump in new investment and a contraction of job opportunities.

Wage and salary earners’ purchasing power is already being maintained through wage indexation and the indexation guidelines provide for increases to be sought on other specified grounds, including increases in productivity. To call as well for tax indexation, and at the same time expect the Government to provide better education, free medical services and so onwhich it can only do by increasing its claims upon our national resources- is to ask for the impossible.

It is not possible to provide more and more government services or transfer payments from the Budget without ultimately having to pay for them through cutting back after-tax earnings via increased taxes. It is not possible to get quarts out of pint pots.

In this Budget, the Government has exercised restraint. That restraint needs to be shared throughout the whole community. There must be a community will to combat inflation. There must be action to back up that will.

page 36

REINING IN BUDGET OUTLAYS

Last financial year, outlays increased very sharply- by 46 per cent.

Whereas total Australian Government Budget outlays maintained a remarkably stable proportion of around 25 per cent of gross domestic product in the decade to 1973-74, in 1974-75 that proportion increased to 30.5 per cent. There was a number of special factors present in that outcome, including the need for some fiscal stimulus during the year.

There is nothing sacrosanct about the particular public and private sector shares of GDP. But sharp movements in these shares can be disruptive.

If Budget outlays this year were again to grow faster than total spending, a further decline in the private sector share of GDP would ensue.

That would mean an accelerated decline in investment and productivity as well as a further contraction in job opportunities.

The Government is committed to the present mixed economy’ framework and wants to strengthen that framework. To reduce unemployment lastingly, recovery in the private sector is essential.

Expenditure restraint in the Budget will lay the foundations for a desirable balance between the public and private sectors.

Total outlays are now estimated to increase by 23 per cent in 1975-76, half the rate of increase of last year. Little change is expected in the proportion of Budget outlays to GDP. This offers a challenge to the private sector to respond with robust attitudes towards expansion which should serve well those who adopt them.

Cutting back the increase in Budget outlays is not easy. Everyone favours expenditure restraint in the abstract; few favour it when it affects them personally.

In approaching its task, the Government has distinguished between programs of utmost priority; programs where very rapid increases in recent years now permit some consolidation; and programs which might be deferred for a time.

In all this the less well-off members of the community have been protected. Inevitably in the process, many desirable expenditures have been scaled down or postponed. This will concern and disappoint many. That is unfortunate, but in present circumstances it is also unavoidable.

page 37

OUTLAYS

Outlays in 1975-76 are estimated to total $2 1,915 m, an increase of 23 per cent over actual outlays last year.

page 37

DEFENCE

Defence expenditure in 1975-76 is estimated at $ 1,800.1m.

Last year the Government approved the acquisition of a number of major items for the Services, including long-range maritime patrol aircraft, tanks and patrol frigates. Significantly greater expenditure will be incurred this year on capital equipment, improvements to defence installations and on housing for servicemen.

page 37

EDUCATION

In 1975-76, total outlays on education are estimated at $ 1,908m, an increase of $237m over last year.

In the first full year of office of this Government, Australian Government expenditure on education almost doubled. Last year, it almost doubled again. This year, recurrent expenditure will be maintained at no less than the present real levels, but capital expenditure will be limited to essential projects.

The remarkable quadrupling of the total education expenditure figures in just over two years has been only part of the record. Benefits in relation to the quality of education will continue to flow on a long-term basis from the machinery established, and the programs fostered by the Government.

Care and Education of Young Children

The Government is providing $74m in financial assistance to community organisations and to the States towards the care and education of young children.

page 37

HEALTH

Medibank

Medibank was launched on 1 July last. $ 1,445m is included in the Budget for this program.

This financial year, medical and optometrical benefits are estimated to cost $6 15m while the hospital side of Medibank is estimated to cost $822m.

Community Health

A sum of $65m is appropriated for services provided under the Community Health Program.

Hospitals Development Program

A further $ 108m will be made available to the States in 1 975-76 by way of capital assistance for the development of public hospitals and related health care facilities.

The Australian Government will maintain its contribution at least at this level during each of the remaining 3 years of the program.

Nursing Home Benefits

It is proposed to increase the additional nursing home benefit in three States- New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia. These increases represent the first step towards a common nursing home benefit rate for all States.

The effect of the increases will be that ordinary care patients in those States will receive a uniform total benefit of $66. 1 5 a week. Rates of benefit for ordinary care patients in other States, which are already higher, will be maintained at current levels. The supplementary intensive care benefit will be increased from $21 a week to $30.80 a week in all States. This benefit has remained unchanged since January 1969.

The increases in both the additional and intensive care benefits will not apply to patients in Government nursing homes.

These increases, estimated to cost $10m in 1975-76,- take effect from the first pension pay day in November.

Medical Research

The Government will increase by 39 per cent, to $24m, its support in the 1976-78 triennium for medical research under the auspices* of the National Health and Medical Research Council. Expenditure in 1975-76 is estimated at $4m.

Additional payments totalling $lm will be made to the Florey and Walter and Eliza Hall research institutes.

page 38

SOCIAL SECURITY AND WELFARE

The Prime Minister has announced that the Government is to institute a review of Australia’s income security system.

Social Security Benefit Rates

The standard rate of social service pensions and benefits will be increased in the spring of 1 975 by the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index between the December quarter 1974 and the June quarter 1975; and again in the autumn of 1976 by the increase in the Consumer Price Index between the June and December quarters of 1975.

This will mean a first increase in the standard rate of $2.75 a week. The combined married rate will be increased by $4.50 a week so as to maintain the standard rate at 60 per cent of the combined married rate. These increases will become effective from the first pension pay day in November.

The basic pension has increased by 80 per cent since the December quarter of 1972, well ahead of the rate of increase in average weekly earnings 56 per cent- and consumer prices- 41 per cent. The relative improvement compared to the average wage earner is even more pronounced in after-tax terms. Since the December quarter of 1972, the increase in take-home pay of the typical family man on average weekly earnings has been 50 per cent.

The increases proposed will maintain the real purchasing power of those greatly increased pensions and are estimated to cost $233 million in 1975-76.

There will be no change in the rate of unemployment and sickness benefit payable to persons under 18 years of age.

The rates of additional pension and benefit payable for dependent children, including student children, are to be increased by 50 cents to $7.50 a week.

Abolition of the Means Test

For budgetary reasons the Government will not be able to complete- the final stage of the abolition of the means test- for those aged 65 to 69 years- as quickly as it had hoped. Nonetheless it is intended to make as much further progress as economic circumstances allow.

The Government has decided to abolish the means test for residentially qualified persons aged 69 years from 1 July 1976. The necessary legislation will be introduced in the autumn sittings.

Repatriation Benefits

Since coming to office the Government has improved repatriation benefits substantially. Legislation providing further improvements will be introduced in the current sittings and in Autumn 1976.

Aboriginal Advancement

The record level of expenditure on Aboriginal advancement achieved in 1974-75 will be exceeded in 1975-76; direct expenditure in 1975-76 is estimated at $192 million, compared with $158 million in 1974-75 and $98 million in

1973- 74.

page 38

HOUSING

Welfare Housing

In the light of the recovery in private housing now in train, advances totalling $364.6 million will be provided to the States for welfare housing purposes in 1975-76. Bearing in mind the $10.4 million advanced in June on the basis that it would be taken into account in this year’s allocation, the Government is thus maintaining advances in 1975-76 at the greatly increased 1974- 75 level and well above the $218.6 million allocated in 1973-74.

Australian Housing Corporation

Responsibility for the Defence Service Homes scheme has been transferred to the newly proclaimed Australian Housing Corporation. An amount of $122.5 million will be available for Defence Service Homes advances in 1975-76.

A further $20 million has been provided for the Corporation in 1975-76. Together with the $25 million remaining unspent from 1974-75, this will enable the Corporation to meet its administrative expenses and to undertake new programs in the housing field.

page 39

URBAN AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

This year the Government plans to spend $442 million on urban and regional development programs.

Canberra

Expenditure on development for residential, commercial and community uses in Canberra this year is estimated at $43. 1 million.

Growth Centres $38.6 million is being provided in 1975-76 for further works and planning by the AlburyWodonga Development Corporation.

Agreement has been reached with New South Wales for financial assistance for two further growth centres at Bathurst-Orange and the South- West sector of Sydney and $28.5 million has been allocated for these centres.

Land Agreements

This program will help stabilise land prices. Expenditure this year is estimated at $53.6 million.

Sewerage Program

This year a further $115 million will be provided towards eliminating the backlog of sewerage services.

Wooloomooloo Redevelopment $ 1 4.67 million is being provided to New South Wales to assist with land acquisition and site development in the Wooloomooloo Basin of Sydney. The Australian Government has also agreed to transfer, at no cost, land it owns in the area val ued in excess of $ 1 1 million.

page 39

CULTURE AND RECREATION

$132 million is being provided to the Australian Broadcasting Commission. Provisions are also being made for support for the Arts through the Australia Council and for the Australian Film Commission, International Women’s Year, the National Estate and Nature Conservation programs.

page 39

ECONOMIC SERVICES

Postal and Telecommunication Services

Since 1 July 1975, the former functions of the Post Office have been undertaken by the Australian Postal Commission and the Australian Telecommunications Commission.

Increased postal and telecommunication charges to operate from 1 September 1975 have already been announced. The increased charges are necessary to cover significant increases in the cost of providing services and to enable each Commission to comply with the requirement, under its constituting legislation, to cover its costs and finance at least 50 per cent of its capital expenditure from internal sources.

The amount to be provided from the Budget to help finance the capital programs of the two Commissions comprises $14 million for the Postal Commission and $403 million for the Telecommunications Commission.

If the increased charges were not applied, then the costs they were to cover would have to be covered in some other way. That is, the Government would either have to increase direct or indirect taxes, or add to the deficit by printing money.

Alternatively, the Government could cut-back further on existing programs but it is clear that additional cut-backs would be extremely difficult to make.

Air Transport

It was announced in the 1973-74 Budget Speech that the Government proposed to increase the rate of recovery of the costs of providing and operating airport and airway facilities to 80 per cent within 5 years. It was then estimated that a recovery rate of 70 per cent should be reached in 1975-76.

Despite increases in air navigation charges, very little progress has been made towards this objective. Currently about 55 per cent of costs are being recovered.

The Government does not believe that the general taxpayer should continue to subsidise air services and proposes to achieve its objective of 80 per cent recovery by 1977-78. Action will be taken to increase the recovery rate to 70 per cent this year.

Rail Transport

An amount of $5 1.9 million is being provided to finance the new Australian National Railways Commission’s 1975-76 capital works program, compared with expenditure of $14.6 million by the former Commonwealth Railways in 1974-75. This includes work on the railway between Tarcoola and Alice Springs, and on the Adelaide to Crystal Brook standard gauge line. It also includes funds for the Tasmanian railways and for the South Australian railways.

A further $40 million is being provided to the Commission as a subsidy to cover its estimated losses in 1975-76; the Tasmanian and nonmetropolitan South Australian railways are expected to account for about 80 per cent of this loss.

Urban Public Transport

The Australian Government has so far agreed to provide $138 million under the terms of the Urban Public Transport Assistance Agreement to assist the States to upgrade their urban public transport systems.

The Government expects to provide some $43 million this year towards the cost of presently approved projects.

Shipping

An amount of $56.9 million is being provided from the Budget to help finance the Australian National Line’s capital program.

Provision is also made for subsidy payments of $ 1 .0 million for the operations of the Empress of Australia between the mainland and Tasmania and $3.9 million in respect of northbound general cargo services between Tasmania and the mainland.

Freight rates on this latter service are being maintained at present levels pending receipt of the Report by the Nimmo Commission of Inquiry.

Roads

A total of up to $445 million will be made available for roads in the States in 1975-76. This provision should ensure that the real level of Australian Government outlays for roads is maintained this year.

Pipeline Authority

An amount of $67 million has been provided for advances to the Pipeline Authority for expenditure on the Moomba-Sydney natural gas pipeline and associated works. The pipeline is expected to be completed early in 1 976.

Wool

The Government has authorised the Australian Wool Corporation to continue to operate a minimum reserve price equivalent to 250 cents per kilo clean for 21 micron wool during the 1975-76 season. An amount of $80 million is included in the Budget for advances to the Corporation; the Government will also guarantee further borrowings of $70 million from private sources.

While the Government judges that this $150 million should be adequate, it shall of course keep the position under close review.

Beef

In addition to existing measures, $ 1 9.6 million will be provided for the joint Australian Government/State Government scheme of carry-on finance at concessional rates of interest.

An extra $8 million will be provided to the Commonwealth Development Bank to supplement the $20 million provided to the Bank last year to lend to seriously affected beef producers.

As already announced, the question of further short-term assistance for beef producers has been referred to the Industries Assistance Commission.

Rural Reconstruction

The Government is providing $50 million in 1975-76 to facilitate the adjustment of certain rural industries to changing market conditions through the Rural and Fruitgrowing Reconstruction Schemes and the Dairy Adjustment Program. These schemes expire on 30 June 1 976.

The question of possible future arrangements is under examination by the Industries Assistance Commission.

Mining Industry

Pending the passage by the Parliament of a new Petroleum and Minerals Authority Bill, $10.4 million has been provided in the appropriations of the Department of Minerals and Energy to meet commitments entered into by the former Petroleum and Minerals Authority.

The appropriation for the Australian Atomic Energy Commission in 1975-76 includes approximately $4.7 million for uranium exploration in the Northern Territory.

Australian Industry Development Corporation

The capital stock of the Australian Industry Development Corporation is to be increased by a further $25 million to $75 million.

Provision is made also for $50 million to be on-lent to the Corporation from the proceeds of official overseas loans.

Regional Employment Development Scheme

In present circumstances, no new projects are being approved. There remains, however, a large volume of commitments, in respect of which an amount of $135 million is included in the Budget. This will provide continuing employment on previously approved REDS projects for some time.

Industrial Training

The Government is allocating $88 million this financial year to its various manpower training programs, including NEATS and support for apprenticeship training.

Immigration

It has been decided to double the migrant contribution towards assisted passage costs, to an amount of $ 1 50 per family or single person.

page 41

GENERAL PUBLIC SERVICES

Legal Aid

To extend the availability of legal aid we are proposing to establish a further 28 regional offices during 1975-76.

Total expenditure on legal aid in 1975-76 is estimated at $16.7 million; this includes $3 million on legal aid for Aboriginals.

Foreign Affairs and Overseas Aid

Outlays from the Budget on foreign aid, excluding defence co-operation, are estimated to increase from $334 million in 1974-75 to $385 million in 1975-76.

Papua New Guinea will continue to be the major recipient, receiving an estimated $210 million in 1975-76.

Ceiling on Staff Growth

As already announced, the growth in full-time staff employed under the Public Service Act in 1 975-76 is to be limited to a ceiling increase of 2.8 percent.

After allowance for the expected increase in staff on leave, the ceiling increase in operative staff is effectively 1.5 per cent. This compares with increases in operative staff of over 4 per cent in 1972-73 and 1973-74, and over 5 per cent in 1974-75. Government authorities financed from the Budget have been requested to operate within an overall ceiling increase of 2.2 per cent.

Administrative Savings

Stringent restraint has also been imposed on administrative expenditures. Overall, the provisions for administrative expenses for Departments and statutory authorities (other than business undertakings) financed from the Budget have been reduced by about 10 per cent.

Particular examples of restraint include economy class domestic air travel for Members of Parliament and Government employees, restrictions on the use of Government cars, reductions in overseas travel, non-replacement of existing office furniture and fittings and restrictions on overtime working and engagement of consultants.

It is estimated that these measures will produce savings totalling about $35 million in 1975-76.

page 41

PAYMENTS TO OR FOR THE STATES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES AND NATURAL DISASTER RELIEF

General Purpose Funds for the States

At the Premiers’ Conference on 19 June 1975 the Australian Government undertook to improve the financial assistance grants arrangements with the States.

It is estimated that the financial assistance grants payable to the States in 1975-76 under these new arrangements will total about $3, 185m, an increase of $81 lm or 34.2 per cent over the grants paid in 1974-75.

In addition, the Government has accepted recommendations by the Grants Commission that special grants totalling $38.8m be paid to Queensland and South Australia in 1975-76.

The Government also agreed in June to support a 1975-76 Loan Council program for State Government of $ 1,291m which, after adjustments are made for special factors, represents an increase of 20 per cent over the program for

1974- 75.

Local Government Grants

The Government has already announced its acceptance of the recommendations contained in the Grants Commission’s second report on unconditional financial assistance for local government totalling $79.9m, or 42 per cent more than last year.

Natural Disaster Relief

It is presently estimated that expenditures by the Government on natural disaster relief in 1975- 76 will total $57.6m, of which $48. lm will be for relief measures arising out of the devastation of Darwin by Cyclone Tracy.

Included in this latter amount are $33m for continuation of compensation payments to Darwin residents and $12m for the maintenance of various relief measures, including emergency accommodation and loans to small businesses.

The Government has also established the Darwin Reconstruction Commission, and provided $99.7m for the Commission’s construction program in 1975-76.

page 42

RECEIPTS

In deciding on revenue measures the Government took it as essential that there be some reduction in both personal and company income tax. At the same time it was judged necessary to reduce the potential deficit somewhat.

Consequently, the Government has determined on a mix of tax measures, some of them increasing the revenue and some reducing it. Their net effect is to increase total tax revenue in 1975-76 by an estimated $207m.

Beer

It is proposed to increase the duty on beer immediately by the equivalent of 4 cents a 10 ounce glass. The estimated revenue yield in 1975-76 is $234m.

Potable Spirits

Duties on potable spirits have been increased considerably over recent years and the present scope for further increase is not great. It is proposed to increase the duty on potable spirits immediately by the equivalent of 1 cent a nip. It is also proposed to complete the third and last step in the phasing out of the differential between the rates of duty on brandy and other potable spirits. The estimated revenue yield of these measures in 1975-76 is $12m.

Tobacco Products

The duty on tobacco and cigarettes will be increased immediately by the equivalent of 6 cents an average packet of 20 cigarettes, with equivalent increases on other tobacco products. The estimated revenue yield in 1 975-76 is $75m.

Crude Petroleum

The present price of domestically produced crude oil is about onequarter of the landed price of imported crude. The low domestic price is not conductive to rational resource usage. Yet it does not necessarily follow that increases in the domestic price should be reflected fully in corresponding increases in prices to Australian producers: the rise in world oil prices has occurred largely because governments in OPEC and other producing countries have greatly increased their taxes on production.

The indigenous crude oil absorption policy, which runs for a period of 10 years from 1 7 September 1970, provides for a review of price after 5 years. The Government is considering and will be announcing shortly the price arrangements which will apply from 1 7 September next.

Meanwhile, the Government has decided to impose a levy of $2 per barrel on the production of crude oil, condensate and naturally occurring liquefied petroleum gas, with immediate effect. The levy will not fall on natural gas or refinery products although, of course, its price effects can be expected to spread through into the latter.

The estimated revenue yield in 1975-76 is $280 million.

Export Duty on Coal

Following the sharp rise in oil prices, coal prices have risen dramatically in the past two years, in many cases trebling. In consequence, very large windfall profits are currently being earned by the export sector of the coal industry. The Government considers it reasonable that part of these increased profits should be channelled to the community by means of an export duty.

Price movements for various classes of coal have not been uniform but higher quality coking coals have experienced much greater price increases than other coals. It is therefore proposed to levy export duty of $6 per tonne on these high quality coking coals and $2 per tonne on other coals, with immediate effect. To protect buyers in respect of prices recently renegotiated, approval to export will be in terms of those prices and no consideration will be given to adjustment of prices to take account of the duty.

The revenue yield from this duty in 1975-76 is estimated to be $ 120 million.

Company Tax

The Government has had before it the recommendations on business taxation contained in the Mathews Report on’Inflation and Taxation’.

The first of the Mathews recommendations related to the valuation of most trading stocks for taxation purposes. Its primary purpose was to ease pressures on business liquidity in inflationary periods.

After careful consideration we have decided that it is not at this time possible to act on this recommendation, partly because of its enormous revenue cost but also because of the complexity and difficulty involved in giving effect to the Committee’s proposal to defer tax for individual firms on the basis of each individual firm’s changing stock values. Very serious practical problems would also be created for both industry and the Taxation Office in implementing the Committee’s suggestion that deferred tax be collected when stock values fall or when businesses change hands. It has not been possible to this time to resolve these difficulties.

The Government shall, of course, keep the question of business profitability and liquidity under careful notice but, in all circumstances, it has turned to the other alternative in this area which was mentioned by the Mathews Committeenamely, a reduction in company tax.

The Government has decided to adopt this alternative and proposes to reduce the general rate of company tax by 2.5 per cent to 42.5 per cent. The new rate will apply to 1974-75 income and will cost an estimated $120 million in 1975-76.

It has also been decided to continue the system of doubled rates of depreciation beyond 30 June 1975 and extend it to all sectors of commerce and industry. The Government has taken note here of the Mathews Committee’s advice that:-

Accelerated depreciation and investment allowances are appropriate policy options for a government which wishes to influence the level or the pattern of private investment . . .’

The doubled rates of depreciation will be made applicable to all new plant other than motor cars and utility trucks, including plant used in industries such as transportation and construction that were excluded from the 1974-75 double ‘ depreciation provisions and from the investment allowances granted from time to time by the previous Government. The first cost to revenue of this proposal will fall in 1976-77 and will approximate $75 million.

The decision to opt for double depreciation rather than the indexation of depreciation allowances as recommended in the Mathews Report reflected the Government’s view that it was desirable to introduce immediately a clearly understood aid to business investment. The indexation recommendation would introduce some complex new elements into the depreciation provisions and there is a need for further study as to how a practicable and equitable scheme might be worked out.

Meanwhile, the double depreciation provisions will without delay greatly help the business sector in the planning of its investment and cash flows.

Personal Income Tax

The Government has decided to introduce a radical new personal income tax system which involves fundamental reform of the tax system with one overwhelmingly important objectivethe achievement of a more equitable distribution of the tax burden.

Under the new system nearly half a million existing taxpayers will be freed from tax entirely. Those earning least in the community will be exempted from personal tax.

A very large number of taxpayers will benefit by the changes we are making. But what is of greatest satisfaction to the Government is the fact that those in most need will benefit substantially.

The existing personal income tax system has persisted almost unchanged for over 2 decades and has about reached the end of its tether.

Criticism of the present arrangements has rightly focussed upon the excessive marginal rates which are imposed upon taxpayers on average incomes. For example, a taxpayer on average weekly earnings with a dependent wife and two dependent children and average other deductions would lose 44 cents of each extra dollar of his pay in higher taxation if the present rates were maintained. If he had smaller deductions his marginal rate could be as high as 48 cents in the dollar.

In deciding what to do about this state of affairs the Government had several choices. The Mathews report recommended that this year the Government introduce tax indexation or, alternatively, introduce a new tax schedule with a commitment to index it in future. The Asprey report recommended that a quite different type of rate scale be introduced, with an initial marginal rate much higher than at present and with much lower marginal rates at intermediate ranges of income.

So far as the rate scale is concerned, what is proposed is based on the Asprey concept. But before going on, the Government’s attitude to tax indexation should be explained.

It would not be possible to introduce tax indexation this year because of the very great revenue cost. In any case, the present rate scale is wholly unsatisfactory as a basis for indexation. Consequently the Government is taking up the Mathews suggestion of introducing a new tax scale to apply this year.

As for next year, no Government can commit itself to a precise measure a year hence when the revenue implications are so large but the circumstances of that future time are not foreseeable. However, in framing the 1976-77 Budget the Government will take full advantage of the greater flexibility- including greater flexibility in adjusting for price increases- which this year’s reform of the tax system will offer. Indexing of the new scale will thus be available as an option next year.

So far as this year is concerned, the new scale will actually reduce marginal tax rates of taxpayers on average weekly earnings by more than would be the case if the present scale were indexed. That is, what is proposed will produce a better result than tax indexation so far as the marginal ‘tax bite ‘is concerned.

Turning now to the proposed new system, the Asprey report drew attention to the low marginal rates of tax on low incomes and suggested that they be increased. It added:

The most important advantage of an initial step of some magnitude is not that it raises much tax from the taxpayers whose total income is confined within this step: it is rather that a sizeable minimum average rate is thereby struck for all higher incomes. Without a significant rate on the lower steps, much higher marginal rates than otherwise must be imposed further up the income scale . . .

This approach, of course, involves raising more tax from so-called low income earners. Many such people depend solely on their own incomes and could hardly be expected to pay more tax. Certainly the Government does not expect them to do so.

But many others in this income group are members of multi-income households who might be supposed, on general social grounds, to be capable of contributing further.

The Government has therefore devised a system designed to retain the desirable features of the Asprey suggestion but to exclude the undesirable income distribution features.

The main features of the new system are now outlined.

First, there will be a new and much simplified rate scale, with only seven steps instead of the present fourteen. The marginal rates will begin at 20 cents in the dollar on taxable incomes of up to $2,000 rising to 27 cents in the dollar on incomes from $2,000 to $5,000 and to 35 cents in the dollar on incomes from $5,000 to $10,000.

The marginal rates rise in four further steps to reach a maximum of 65 cents in the dollar at a taxable income of $25,000.

On incomes from $6,000 to $25,000 marginal rates generally will fall, the greatest fall being in the $8,000-10,000 income range, where the drop is from 48 cents in the dollar to 35 cents in the dollar.

Secondly, every individual taxpayer, whether or not he or she has dependants or spends on items which attract deductions, will receive a minimum concessional rebate of $540. This will protect low income earners from the impact of the higher marginal rates at low income levels.

The minimum concessional rebate does this by, in effect, increasing the minimum taxable income from its present $1,041 to $2,520 per annum. The introduction of this rebate will make possible the elimination of the present age rebate and the new scheme provides for that.

Thirdly, the present concessional allowances for dependants will be replaced by much more generous dependant’s rebates. For a spouse the rebate will be $400; for children it will be $200 for the first child under 16 and student children redefined to include all children under 25 receiving full-time education, and $150 in respect of other children.

There will be a separate rebate of $200, known as the sole parent rebate, for parents without partners, such as widows or widowers or unmarried persons, who have the sole responsibility for maintenance of dependent children.

Fourthly, with certain exceptions, the existing concessional deductions for private expenditures will be converted to rebates calculated at 40 cents in the dollar of the amounts allowable under the present law. However, the minimum concessional rebate will be regarded as covering the first $540 of rebate claimable, other than for dependants. The effect of this will be that taxpayers whose rebatable expenditures are less than $1,350 will not need to itemise them as they will be covered by the minimum concessional rebate.

There will be certain exceptions to these rebate arrangements, as follows.

The existing housing loan interest deductions scheme will remain in its present form; that is, allowable deductions as presently prescribed will reduce taxable income.

The existing provisions for gifts to charities and school building funds will also remain unaltered.

There will be separate zone allowance rebates over and above the $540 minimum concessional rebate for taxpayers in the prescribed zones.

Finally, the allowable deduction for education expenses, now one of the concessional deductions to be converted to the rebate basis, will be increased from $ 1 50 to $250 per student child.

It is not possible to outline all the benefits of the new tax system here. The main attractions, however, are as follows:

Nearly 500 000 taxpayers will be freed from tax entirely; there will be a very big increase in minimum taxable incomes- for example, to $5,372 in the case of a taxpayer with a dependent wife and two dependent student children; there will be a very big drop in marginal rates of tax on incomes in the range into which most full-time employees fall; taxpayers with dependants are heavily favoured as compared with the present system, particularly in the lower income ranges. For example, in his statement announcing tax cuts last November, the Prime Minister gave as an illustration the taxpayer with a dependent wife and 2 dependent children earning $100 a week. If his other deductions were 10 per cent of his income his tax payable would have declined from $568 in 1 973-74 to $264 in 1974-75. Under the new arrangements such a taxpayer is freed from tax entirely.

The Government believes that the new system is both more equitable and more adaptable for revenue raising and economic management purposes.

Because of the extensive changes it entails, it will not be possible to have the proposed system in operation for PA YE purposes until 1 January 1976.

The cost to revenue of the new system cannot be as simply summarised as is usually the case. On a true ‘full year’ basis, the cost to revenue will be $205m.

However, an additional advantage of the new system to taxpayers is that it will permit a large reduction in the present degree of overdeduction of PAYE tax instalments- and a consequential reduction in refunds which, this year, are estimated at $ 1,025m. That will assist the monetary authorities by reducing seasonal swings in revenue flows; it will also reduce the need for taxpayers to make, as it were, involuntary loans to the Government.

The combined effect of these taxation measures and of the more accurate PAYE deductions which they make possible will be a substantial reduction in PAYE tax instalments for most taxpayers from the beginning of 1 976. The precise instalments to be applied will be determined in due course but for purposes of illustration, the rise in the take-home pay of a wageearner with a dependent wife and two children, and earning between $100 and $150 per week, will be well over $5 per week. There will be small rises- generally of less than $ 1 per week- in the PAYE instalment deductions of some taxpayers without dependants.

The total estimated cost to revenue of the scheme in 1975-76 is $395 million, but of this, $365 million is attributable to the more accurate PAYE deductions which the new arrangements will permit.

Property Income Surcharge

It is proposed to abolish the property income surcharge with effect from this income year. There will be no cost to revenue in 1975-76; the cost in a full year will be $25 million.

page 45

BUDGET OUTCOME

In aggregate, Budget outlays are estimated to increase in 1 975-76 by $4,084 million or 22.9 per cent to $2 1,9 15 million.

Receipts are estimated to increase by $3,852 million or 25.2 per cent to $ 1 9, 1 1 7 million.

The estimated deficit is thus $2,798 million and the domestic deficit $2,068 million.

page 45

THE POST-BUDGET ECONOMIC OUTLOOK

Given the budgetary decisions, what is the economic outlook for the period ahead?

Reflecting the policy decisions, government spending at all levels will show only modest real growth in 1975-76.

With the exception of business investment expenditure, which remains the weakest area of prospective demand, other components of domestic spending should show a strengthening trend and prospects for exports are also reasonably good. Imports have been quite subdued but will probably pick up during the year.

In recent months, consistent with the need to avoid sudden and disruptive changes in the monetary aggregates, the Reserve Bank has acted to gradually restrain the growth in bank lending and liquidity. Nonetheless the liquidity of the banking system should be sufficient to meet the basic immediate needs of the economy for finance without being fully accommodating to inflation.

In this Budget fiscal policy has been brought into better balance with monetary policy; both ;have now appropriately shifted from earlier strong stimulus to postures of moderation.

Against this background, real gross domestic product is forecast to increase by about 5 per cent in 1975-76, after falling by 2 per cent in 1974-75. Prospects for employment should improve, but the improvement is likely to be gradual.

The course charted has its risks and the possibility of temporary reverses cannot be ruled out. But if there is an equal commitment in the community to play its part in steering the economy back to a firmer footing, it will be possible to overcome any such temporary problems.

On the matter of prices, the increased duties on beer, tobacco and potable spirits will increase prices as stocks are worked off. There will also be price increases, which cannot be calculated with precision, resulting from the passing on of the crude petroleum levy into the prices of motor spirit and other products. The increased postal and telephone charges to come into operation from 1 September next will also add a little to the CPI in the December quarter.

The Government is fully aware that, in itself, the effect on prices is unwelcome. What were the alternatives?

One alternative would have been to let the deficit rise even further. That would have been more inflationary and would have thrown an undue burden onto monetary policy.

Another alternative would have been to refrain both from raising these indirect taxes and from reducing company and personal income taxes.

The Government considered that course equally untenable.

In theory, another alternative would have been to cut our expenditures by a further $500m or $600m. That possibility was examined but the Government concluded that it was impracticable.

In drawing attention to these price effects, it is the Government’s firm view that, for the purposes of wage indexation, increases in prices resulting from tax measures of the sort indicated should be discounted. It would be self-defeating if the system of wage indaxation were to attempt to insulate the community from tax measures designed to redistribute resources for the benefit of the community in the form of improved public facilities in fields such as education, health, welfare, personal benefits, urban improvement and so on. These improvements must be seen as a real improvement in people’s living standards and are a non-money form of addition to their incomes.

In its submissions in the recent wage indexation hearings before the Arbitration Commission the Government foreshadowed the likelihood that it would make submissions on this matter in future quarterly hearings.

Notwithstanding these direct price effects of the indirect tax measures, the Government looks for a continuing downward shift in the underlying rate of inflation during 1975-76. It can hardly be more than a slow winding down within that time-frame; but our time-frame must extend beyond the immediate confines of this financial year. 1975-76 is therefore seen as a year of consolidation. Economic growth will only be restored by way of gradual policies firmly grounded upon an effective anti-inflationary foundation.

page 46

CONCLUSION

In this Budget the Government has endeavoured to give a lead to the community.

If inflation is to be curbed there are no soft options- only a choice between more or less difficult ones.

It is the Government’s hope that with a community appreciation of the need for restraint, a real start can be made on getting inflation under control and further raising living standards for everybody.

Debate (on motion by Senator Withers) adjourned.

Senate adjourned at 8.58 p.m.

page 47

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Community Video Resource Centres (Question No. 667)

Senator Baume:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) As Community Video Resource Centres make it possible for members of the public to make video tapes on community based projects and that community groups wishing to keep a tape for later use can do this on payment of $12.00 towards the cost of the tape, with whom does the copyright for the tapes remain.
  2. Will the Minister agree that community groups using the video resource centres and willing to pay for their tapes should be allowed to keep the copyright and thus keep their entitlement to performing rights for any tapes with entertainment value.
Senator Wriedt:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Video Access Centres are funded by the Film, Radio and Television Board of the Australia Council and administered by the Australian Film Institute. They are intended to be autonomous community groups and are not subject to policy instructions from the Film, Radio and Television Board.

In relation to copyright on video tapes, any group which made a program at an Access Centre and paid for the cost of the tape would be entitled to the copyright for whatever material was on the tape.

  1. A community group which acquired a tape in the manner mentioned above would have the copyright and would therefore have the entitlement to any performing rights.

Alleged Seizure of Documents

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– On 29 May 1975, Senator Greenwood asked the Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral the following question, without notice:

My question is directed to the Minister representing the AttorneyGeneral. Are reports correct that officers of the Trade Practices Commission, aided by the Commonwealth Police, raided a businessman’s home and business premises and seized documents last weekend? Is not such action contrary to the Trade Practices Act which gives no power to seize documents and gives no authority whatsoever to the police? If so, are not raids of this character and the seizure of documents typical of the notorious dictatorships of this world? Is the Government now accepting that in this country a person’s property and privacy may be invaded to discover evidence with which to convict him? In view of the fact that citizens appear to have no redress to the courts against invasions of this character, will the Minister table in the Senate the documents under which this invasion of privacy took place?

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

On 25 May 1975 officers of the Australia Police Force, accompanied by officers of the Trade Practices Commission, entered certain premises and seized documents believed to constitute evidence of offences against the Trade Practices Act 1974. The officers took this action pursuant to search’ warrants issued by a magistrate under section 10 of the Crimes Act 1914-1973 and the Chief Commissioner of the Australia Police is satisfied that they acted properly in all respects. Prosecution proceedings based in part on evidence obtained by the officers may shortly be instituted. Until prosecutions have been instituted it would be undesirable to table the warrants and thereby identify the persons whose premises were searched.

United Kingdom Entry Control Regulations

Senator Willesee:
ALP

– On 9 July 1975, Senator Mulvihill asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs a question comparing the conditions of entry of Australian Members of Parliament into Britain, and British Members of Parliament into Australia. The senator referred specifically to his experiences at Heathrow and the treatment accorded to Mr John Stonehouse.

The treatment at the points of entry into each country is in effect identical. Since 1 March 1975, it has been a requirement of the United Kingdom authorities that all passengers passing through immigration control and not being holders of United Kingdom passports complete landing or embarkation cards at the point of entry or departure. Similarly, Australia does not exempt anyone from the requirement to complete incoming and outgoing passenger cards on arrival and departure. Exemptions which Australia has granted to Members of Commonwealth Parliaments who identify themselves as such are exemptions from the need to obtain visas for travel to Australia and entry permits on arrival here. Australian Members of Parliament travelling to Britain on visits need neither entry visas nor entry permits. Mr Stonehouse ‘s treatment in Australia has been in accordance with the foregoing provisions.

Fruit Juice Concentrates

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– On 10 April 1975, Senator McLaren asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science, the following question without notice:

My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Science. It refers to imported fruit juice concentrates which are contained in products labelled ‘pure fruit juice processed daily from crushed fruit’ or in similar terms, implying that the contents consist solely of concentrated pure juice of fresh fruit. Will the Minister arrange for the Australian Government Analyst to run such tests as may be necessary to determine whether such products are true to label?

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

The laboratories of the Department of Science and Consumer Affairs regularly analyse samples of imported fruit juice concentrate for the Department of Police and Customs. During the past twelve months only one sample was unsatisfactory. It appeared to have been artificially coloured and contained more citric acid than normal.

I am advised that there are no mandatory standards for imported fruit juice concentrates. It would not be possible to determine by analysis whether fruit had been pressed daily; the presence of preservatives could be detected as could adulteration by the addition of substantial quantities of water.

Gurindji Tribe: Offer of Land (Question No. 523)

Senator Georges:
QUEENSLAND

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

Are the members of the Gurindji Aboriginal Tribe, located in the Wattie Creek area of Wave Hill Station in the Northern Territory, being offering land in that area; if so, (a) what is the location and area of the land being offered; (b) when will the offered land become available for occupancy; (c) what will be the tenure of the land being offered; (d) under which Northern Territory Ordinance will the offered land be held; (e) what conditions of occupancy of the land will bc imposed; and (0 what financial assistance will be provided and under what conditions for (i) effecting structural improvements and land development; (ii) purchase of livestock, plant and equipment; and (iii) for the maintenance of members of the Gurindji Aboriginal Tribe.

Senator Cavanagh:
ALP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable Senator’s question:

Yes. For some time the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the Department of the Northern Territory have been negotiating with the Wave Hill Pastoral Company for the transfer to the Gurindji of that portion of Pastoral Lease 529 lying west of the Victoria River, comprising approximately 1250 square miles. This is the land over which the Gurindji have stated they have traditional interests.

At discussions held in December, the transfer was agreed in principle and detailed negotiations undertaken to enable the transfer of the area west of the Victoria River to be effected on 16 August 1975. Initially the land will be held by the Aborigines under a pastoral lease issued under the Crown Lands Ordinance of the Northern Territory; following passage of the proposed Aboriginal Land (Northern Territory) Act, however, it is intended that the pastoral lease will be surrendered and the Gurindji will be given freehold title to the land in accordance with the recommendations of the Aboriginal Land Rights Commission.

The Government will be seeking the passage of the Aboriginal Land (Northern Territory) Bill in the Budget session of Parliament; until the proposed Act is passed the land will be subject to the normal provision of a pastoral lease in the Northern Territory. In accordance with the recommendations of the Aboriginal Land Rights Commission, when the land becomes Aboriginal freehold, covenants and conditions will cease to apply.

The Gurindji have said that they wish to develop the property at their own pace and the Government will consider provision of financial assistance as and when the Gurindji formulate proposals. Funds may be provided by way of either loan or direct grant, under various schemes administered by my Department and the Aboriginal Loans Commission for the development of economic enterprises, special employment projects, housing, community amenities, and other purposes.

Petroleum and Minerals Authority (Question No. 564)

Senator Greenwood:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Minerals and Energy, upon notice:

  1. What sums have been spent by the Petroleum and Minerals Authority in the acquisition of any interest or by way of equity in, or loan to, any other concern.
  2. What is the nature of each interest acquired as a result of that expenditure and in what concern has it been acquired.
  3. In whose name has each interest been acquired.
  4. What safeguards have been adopted to protect the funds spent in the event of the Petroleum and Minerals Authority being held to have been invalidly constituted.
Senator Wriedt:
ALP

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

  1. This question relates to matters of detail in the management of the Authority’s operations upon which the Petroleum and Minerals Authority was neither required nor expected to report.
  2. See(l) above.
  3. The Commonwealth of Australia and the Petroleum and Minerals Authority.
  4. The Australian Government held a beneficial interest jointly with the Petroleum and Minerals Authority.

Government Advertising (Question No. 569)

Senator Young:

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

What has been the total cost of Government advertising since December 1972 and the cost of each particular matter on which the Government has advertised.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

The total cost of Australian Government advertising arranged through the Australian Government Advertising Service since 1 December 1972 and 3 1 May 1975 has been:

To answer the second part of the honourable senator’s question about the cost of each particular matter on which the Government has advertised since 1 December 1972, would involve the staffof the Australian Government Advertising Service in an inordinate amount of time that I believe is not justified.

However, if any specific information is required on a particular advertising matter or media campaign, this can be provided.

Pine Creek Pre-school (Question No. 579)

Senator Guilfoyle:

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

  1. Did the Pine Creek Pre-school Association in the Northern Territory make representations to the Minister in an endeavour to seek the appointment of a pre-school teacher this year.
  2. As at least SO per cent of the children attending Pine Creek Pre-school are Aboriginals, and a large proportion of all of the children are from socially or economically disadvantaged backgrounds, will the Minister give urgent attention to securing a teacher for the beginning of second term this year.
Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The Commonwealth Teaching Service has recently recruited an additional teacher for Pine Creek. This teacher took up duty on 26 May and will teach pre-school and primary classes.

The school at Pine Creek has two other primary teachers.

Government Publications Sale Centres (Question No. 590)

Senator Baume:

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

In the various Australian Government Publishing Service’s Sales Centres, are publications frequently packed in specially printed plastic carrying bags printed by Protopak for the Minister’s Department; if so, how many of these bags are produced and at what cost.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Minister for the Media has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

Both paper bags and plastic carry bags are used for packing publications for customers in the Publications and Inquiry Centres operated by the Department. The plastic carry bags were introduced in February of this year for the larger sales. The initial quantity produced was 50 000 at a total cost of $1,982.90.

Stilboestrol (Question No. 591)

Senator BAUME:

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

  1. 1 ) Was a warning issued in the ‘Adverse Drug Reactions Bulletin’ No. 5 in April 1975 by the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee concerning the risk associated with the use of the drug Stilboestrol.
  2. Did the report allude to an association between maternal treatment with Stilboestrol and the development of cancer of the vagina in young female offspring.
  3. Have specific recommendations been received from the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee as to measures which should be taken to recognise and deal with this adverse drug reaction.
  4. When were the recommendations received from the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee.
  5. What action has the Department taken on the recommendations of the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee on this matter.
Senator Wheeldon:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) Yes.
  2. to (5 ) As far as can be ascertained, Stilboestrol has not been used to any extent in this country for the management of threatened abortion, though it was recommended in diabetic programs in the late 1940’s.

The Australian Drug Evaluation Committee recommended in 1972 that medical practitioners be alerted to the problem and requested to provide reports of cases of the development of adenocarcinoma of the vagina in adolescents and young adults who may have been associated with exposure to Stilboestrol in utero. The Committee published a statement on this subject in the Medical Journal of Australia on 9 September 1972.

On 2 November 1973 the Committee recommended that:

  1. A register be maintained of cases of adenocarcinoma ofthe vagina.
  2. It should be recommended to the Royal College of Pathologists of Australia and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists that such a register be established and maintained by the Colleges with details of any cases being recorded by either register being forwarded to the ADEC.

The Colleges were advised of this recommendation but the College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in reply indicated that it did not have the resources at the time to establish such a register. The matter was reconsidered by the Committee on 5 April 1974 which then recommended that:

The College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists should be requested to provide information on all cases of carcinoma of the vagina which may be associated with exposure to diethylstilboestrol in utero.

This was reiterated by the Committee on 4 April 1975. The most recent advice from the College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists is that the matter is to be placed again before its Research and Scientific Committee.

On 4 April 1975 the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee recommended that the matter should again be drawn to the attention of the medical profession, as early diagnosis of adenocarcinoma of the vagina offered the best chance of successful therapy. Accordingly, the item drawing attention to this condition was included in the Adverse Drug Reaction Bulletin of 1 May 1975. 40 000 copies were distributed to medical practitioners, hospitals, pharmacists, dentists and medical students.

My Department is currently examining the feasibility of establishing a monitoring scheme for congenital abnormalities, which would serve as a register ofcongenital abnormalities. There is at present no established scheme to associate maternal drug therapy with subsequent appearance of abnormality ofthe offspring.

Lorella Springs Cattle Station (Question No. 575)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Northern Australia, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What has been the final determination in the use of the 3,841 square kilometre cattle station ‘Lorella Springs’, which was forfeited to the Australian Government.
  2. Who were the directors of the company that were in default of the lease covenants in this instance.
  3. Can the area concerned become part of the Northern Territory National Park structure.
Senator Cavanagh:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) The forfeiture has been annulled and the lease continues under new conditions set out in a ‘deed of settlement’ entered into between the lessees and the administrator of the Northern Territory. The new conditions allowed short extensions of time to rectify defaults but imposed more stringent pasture improvement conditions.
  2. Directors of the lessee company, Lorella Springs Pty Ltd, were Edward Philip Telford Simpson of 56 Fairfax Road, Bellevue Hill, New South Wales, solicitor and Paul Kenneth Mazondier of 3 1 Lord Street, Roseville, New South Wales, solicitor.
  3. Lorella Springs Pty Ltd is a trustee of a trust whose beneficiaries are ‘Lorella Springs Partners’ made up of a group of international sportsmen including Jack Nicklaus, Arnold Palmer, Rod Laver and English model Jean Shrimpton and others. The managing partner of ‘Lorella Springs Partners’ is International Financial Management Inc. of Cleveland Ohio, U.S.A., whose senior corporate vice president was Arthur J. Lafave, junior. International Financial Management Inc., entered into a management agreement with Philip Gibson Pty Ltd a pastoral management company, for the operation of the Pastoral Lease No. 757 Lorella Springs.
  4. The land comprised in Pastoral Lease No. 757 Lorella Springs is alienated for pastoral purposes, providing covenanted conditions are complied with until the year 202 1 . There is no departmental record of any plan to include part or all of this land in this lease as a national park.

Aboriginal Militant Movement (Question No. 642)

Senator Bonner:
QUEENSLAND

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

Will the Minister, to avoid bloodshed, instigate a full inquiry into the Trotskyists and other elements who have taken over the Aboriginal militant movement and the distribution by them of firearms and hard drugs to young Aborigines.

Senator Cavanagh:
ALP

– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

No. I am not aware of any evidence that would indicate that firearms and hard drugs are being distributed to young Aboriginals. If you have some information which you feel the Government should receive, will you please make it known to me so that I may reconsider the matter.

Open Government’ (Question No. 647)

Senator Missen:

asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Will the Minister detail those measures introduced by the Government since December 1 972 which have added to the development of ‘open government’.
  2. Will the Minister describe and identify any action taken by the Government to create easier public access to official records.
  3. In particular, will the Minister state what has been done to give the Australian public greater access to the Australian Archives and what is intended to be done to improve the accessibility of the Archives.
Senator Douglas McClelland:
Special Minister of State · NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. and (2) I refer the honourable senator to part 3 of the comments made by the Prime Minister in his reply to Question No. 2243 in the House of Representatives (Hansard, 13 May 1975, page2!98).
  2. Steps taken to date to give the public greater access to the Australian Archives include:

    1. Clearance of archives for public access on request and a continuous program of clearance in advance of request. Some 830 metres of records have been released in this way by the Australian Archives from January 1973 - March 1975 inclusive.
    2. Release in November 1974 of Cabinet records for the period from 1 942- 1 945 inclusive. Work is continuing on the preparation of the remainder of open period Cabinet records for release.
    3. Development of facilities for public use in new buildings in Sydney and Brisbane, in buildings under construction in Darwin and Perth, and in buildings approved for construction in Canberra and Adelaide.

The Government is in the course of upgrading the operations of the Australian Archives. In accordance with Government policy, legislation to provide for the development of a National Archives system, and for public rights of access, will be introduced.

Minerals and Solar Energy Research Activities (Question No. 654)

Senator Missen:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Minerals and Energy, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) In view of the attempts of the Prime Minister to have the Minierals Research Laboratories and Solar Energy Studies Unit removed from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization to the Department of Minerals and Energy, why is the Government pursuing this policy of vandalism to the detriment of the nation and the future of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization.
  2. What power and what influence does the Minister for Minerals and Energy have in relation to the Prime Minister that he is able to effect this dissection of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization.
  3. What answer does the Minister make to the legal, moral and policy objections to the decision detailed by Senator Missen in his speech on the adjournment debate on 1 1 June 1975.
  4. Will the Government reconsider its decision in the light of the representations made by officers of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization and other responsible persons.
Senator Wriedt:
ALP

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

  1. ) to (4)I invite the honourable senator’s attention to the Prime Minister’s Press Statement of 1 July 1975 which included the following:

The Prime Minister today announced that a revised Administrative Arrangements Order had been approved by the Executive Council this morning.

The Order incorporates new legislation passed during the recent sittings of Parliament and brings up to date the citations of Acts which were amended during those sittings.

The Order also consolidates the various amendments which have been approved and gazetted since the last consolidated Order was issued on 10 February 1975.

These amendments include those made on 6 June last concerning the minerals and solar energy research activities of the C.S.I. R.O. The Prime Minister said that he wished make it clear that the fact that the Minister for Minerals and Energy was responsible for those aspects of the C.S.I. R.O.’s research work did not entail the transfer of the C.S.I.R.O. staff concerned to the Public Service. These staff would remain employed under the Science and Industry Research Act, and it is not proposed that they should be transferred.’

Palestine Liberation Organisation (Question No. 656)

Senator Baume:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Did Mr Gamal El-Surani, a senior Palestine Liberation Organisation official, who is at present visiting Australia, state in a press conference on Sunday, 8 June 1975, that he felt sure the Australian Government would give approval for the Palestine Liberation Organisation to open a diplomatic office in Australia soon.
  2. Is there any basis of fact in Mr El-Surani ‘s claim that the terrorist organisation, the Palestine Liberation Organisation, will be able to open an office in Australia.
  3. Is there any truth in the claim that this will be a diplomatic office.
  4. Does the Australian Government recognise the Palestine Liberation Organisation as the representative ofthe disparate groups of refugees in the Middle East.
Senator Willesee:
ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Mr Gamal El-Surani is reported by the Australian Press to have stated on several occasions during his recent visit to Australia that he felt confident that the Palestine Liberation Organisation would be allowed to open an office in Australia soon. He is also reported to have expressed confidence that such an office would be given diplomatic status.
  2. and (3) The question has not arisen. No request has been made to the Australian Government for its concurrence in the establishment of an office of the Palestine Liberation Organisation in Australia.
  3. The Australian Government acknowledges that the Palestine Liberation Organisation has been recognised by the Arab States and by a very large majority of members of the United Nations as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestine people.

Pacific Islands Region (Question No. 493)

Senator Rae:
TASMANIA

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Which countries does the Australian Government define as being part of the Pacific Islands region.
  2. Which countries does the New Zealand Government define as being part of the Pacific Islands region.
  3. What has been Australia’s monetary foreign aid contribution to the Pacific Islands region for each of the years 1960-61 to 1973-74.
  4. For what purposes and to which nations has this aid been given.
  5. What has been New Zealand’s monetary foreign aid contribution to the Pacific Islands region for each of the years 1960-61 to 1973-74.
  6. For what purposes and to which nations has this aid been given.
  7. What other non-monetary forms of Australian foreign aid have been given over the same period, to which countries and for what purposes.
  8. What other non-monetary forms of New Zealand foreign aid have been given over the same period, to which countries and for what purposes.
  9. Taking the Pacific Islands region as a whole, what has Australia ‘s total foreign aid contribution been to that region in terms of a percentage of GNP for each of the years 1960-61 to 1973-74, and what has been the total contribution in terms of Australian aid dollars per head of population for the same period.
  10. 10) Taking the Pacific Islands region as a whole, what has New Zealand’s total foreign aid contribution been to that region in terms of a percentage of GNP for each of the years 1960-61 to 1973-74 and what has been the total contributionin terms of New Zealand aid dollars per head of population for the same period.
  11. Other than Australia and New Zealand what are (a) the main sources of foreign aid to the Pacific Islands region, (b) what forms does it take, and (c) to which countries is it given.
Senator Willesee:
ALP

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

  1. and (2) For international development assistance purposes the following countries and territories are defined as being part of the Pacific Islands region:

Cook Islands

Fiji

Gilbert and Ellice Islands

French Polynesia

Nauru

New Caledonia

New Hebrides

Niue

Trust Territory ofthe Pacific Islands

Papua New Guinea

Solomon Islands

Tokelau Islands

Tonga

Wallis and Futuna

Western Samoa

  1. Australia’s monetary foreign aid contributions to the Pacific Islands region in the form of budgetary support, capital equipment and disaster relief are as follows:
  1. The following table 1 sets out details of Australian Official Development Assistance to the Pacific Islands region by purpose and by country.
  2. and (6) The New Zealand Government’s administrative procedures do not facilitate a ready computation of New Zealand’s foreign aid contribution to the Pacific Islands region for each ofthe years 1960-61 to 1973-74. In 1960-61, it is estimated that New Zealand contributed a total of $2.5 ‘ million to the Cook Islands, Tokelau Islands, Niue and Western Samoa, which were the only recipients of New Zealand aid the Pacific Islands region in that year. In 1973-74, New Zealand’s bilateral aid to the Pacific totalled $7.3 million, and was directed to the Cook Islands, Niue, Western Samoa, Fiji, Tokelau Islands, Tonga, Solomon Islands, Gilbert and Ellice Islands, Papua New Guinea, New Hebrides and South Pacific regional programs. The aid was largely concentrated upon the fields of agriculture, forestry, education, transport and communications.
  3. Australia’s non-monetary foreign aid contributions to the Pacific Islands region in the form of training, experts and volunteers are as follows:

Details of the recipient country and the purpose are given in the attached Table 1 .

  1. Information requested for each of the years 1960-61 to 1973-74 is unavailable for reasons given in 5 and 6 above. In 1 973-74, the New Zealand Government provided the following non-monetary aid to the South Pacific:
  1. The answer is as follows:
  1. 10) The New Zealand Government is unable to provide the information requested for each of the years 1960-61 to 1973-74 for the reasons given in 5 and 6 above.in 1973-74, New Zealand’s aid to the Pacific Islands region was approximately 0.1 percent of GNP or approximately $3 per head of population.
  2. Based on the available data, the answer is summarised in the table below.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 19 August 1975, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1975/19750819_senate_29_s65/>.