Senate
9 September 1976

30th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 30th Parliament
  3. 1976

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. T. C. Drake-Brockman) took the chair at 1 1 a.m., and read prayers.

page 545

PETITIONS

Building Activity

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I present the following petition from 963 citizens of Australia:

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

Concerned at the record number of building workers registered for unemployment benefits in New South Wales;

Aware of the Australian Bureau of Statistics Report for New South Wales revealing a drastic fall off in both commencements and approvals for future commencements, of building projects this year as compared to previous years;

Alarmed at the fact that 1568 building apprentices were registered for unemployment benefit payments during the month of July in New South Wales;

Conscious of the fact that most of the unemployed apprentices will never be able to complete their training (thus creating a continuing problem for the industry, and indeed the community as a whole) unless immediate urgent measures are provided for in the Federal Government ‘s Budget;

We the undersigned citizens of New South Wales in the Commonwealth of Australia by this our humble petition respectfully request that members of the Senate insist that the 1976-77 Budget provides specific measures to lift building activity particularly welfare housing, schools, hospitals and other public buildings above the present dangerously low level;

We request that the Budget be returned to the House of Representatives with instructions from the Senate to include such measures.

Petition received and read.

Building Activity

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 39 citizens of Australia:

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

Concerned at the record number of building workers registered for unemployment benefits in Australia;

Aware that the Federal Government’s Budget for 1976-77 does not include measures to restore full employment in the building and construction industry;

Alarmed at the fact that unemployment is at the highest level in New South Wales and Queensland since the depression years, with clear indications that the position will further deteriorate.

Aware that at the same time more and more people are being denied proper housing and other building needs of great social importance are not being carried out.

Aware that the apprenticeship system is being seriously threatened and many apprentices are unable to complete their apprenticeship. This along with the fact that thousands of tradesmen have been driven out of the industry, will, in years to come create a chronic shortage of skilled workers to the detriment of the community and with enormous adverse economic repercussions.

We, the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia, by this our humble petition respectfully request that members of the Senate insist that the 1976-77 Budget provides specific measures to lift building activity particularly:

Government construction of homes, schools, hospitals and public works development projects, employment and training of unemployed young people, restoration of finance cuts in sewerage and urban development work, provide finance to land commission to provide cheaper land for home building, provide low interest home loans finance.

We request that the Budget be returned to the House of Representatives with instructions from the Senate to include such measures.

Petition received.

Building Activity

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 483 citizens of Australia:

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

Concerned at the record number of building workers registered for unemployment benefits in N.S.W.: aware of the Australian Bureau of Statistics Report for N.S.W. revealing a drastic fall off in both commencements and approvals for future commencements, of building projects this year as compared to previous years; alarmed at the fact that 1368 building apprentices were registered for unemployment benefit payments during the month of July in N.S. W.: conscious of the fact that most of the unemployed apprentices will never be able to complete their training (thus creating a continuing problem for the industry, and indeed the community as a whole) unless immediate urgent measures are provided for in the Federal Government’s Budget; we the undersigned citizens of New South Wales in the Commonwealth of Australia by this our humble petition respectfully request that Members of the Senate insist that the 1976-77 Budget provides specific measures to lift building activity particularly welfare housing, schools, hospitals and other public buildings above the present dangerously low level; we request that the Budget be returned to the House of Representatives with instructions from the Senate to include such measures.

Petition received.

Building Activity

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 41 citizens of Australia:

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

Concerned at the record number of building workers registered for unemployment benefits in Australia:

Aware that the Federal Government’s Budget for 1976-77 does not include measures to restore full employment in the building and construction industry;

Alarmed at the fact that unemployment is at the highest level in New South Wales and Queensland since the depression years, with clear indications that the position will further deteriorate;

Aware that at the same time more and more people are being denied proper housing and other building needs of great social importance are not being carried out;

Aware that the apprenticeship system is being seriously threatened and many apprentices are unable to complete their apprenticeship. This along with the fact that thousands of tradesmen have been driven out of the industry, will, in years to come create a chronic shortage of skilled workers to the detriment of the community and with enormous adverse economic repercussions.

We, the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia, by this our humble petition respectfully request that Members of the Senate insist that the 1976-77 Budget provides specific measures to lift building activity particularly:

Government construction of homes, schools, hospitals and public works development projects, employment and training of unemployed young people, restoration of finance cuts in sewerage and urban development work, provide finance to land commission to provide cheaper land for home building, provide low interest home loans finance.

We request that the Budget be returned to the House of Representatives with instructions from the Senate to include such measures.

Petition received.

Building Activity

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 409 citizens of Australia:

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

Concerned at the record number of building workers registered for unemployment benefits in Australia:

Aware that the Federal Government’s Budget for 1 976-77 does not include measures to restore full employment in the building and construction industry;

Alarmed at the fact that unemployment is at the highest level in New South Wales and Queensland since the depression years, with clear indications that the position will further deteriorate.

Aware that at the same time more and more people are being denied proper housing and other building needs of great social importance are not being carried out.

Aware that the apprenticeship system is being seriously threatened and many apprentices are unable to complete their apprenticeship. This along with the fact that thousands of tradesmen have been driven out of the industry, will, in years to come create a chronic shortage of skilled workers to the detriment of the community and with enormous adverse economic repercussions.

We, the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia, by this our humble petition respectfully request that Members of the Senate insist that the 1976-77 Budget provides specific measures to lift building activity particularly:

Government construction of homes, schools, hospitals and public works development projects, employment and training of unemployed young people, restoration of finance cuts in sewerage and urban development work, provide finance to land commission to provide cheaper land for home building, provide low interest home loans finance.

We request that the Budget be returned to the House of Representatives with instructions from the Senate to include such measures.

Petition received.

Building Activity

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present two petitions from 65 and 46 citizens of Australia respectively as follows:

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

Concerned at the record number of building workers registered for unemployment benefits in New South Wales;

Aware of the Australian Bureau of Statistics Report for New South Wales revealing a drastic fall off in both commencements and approvals for future commencements, of building projects this year as compared to previous years;

Alarmed at the fact that 1568 building apprentices were registered for unemployment benefit payments during the month of July in New South Wales;

Conscious of the fact that most of the unemployed apprentices will never be able to complete their training (thus creating a continuing problem for the industry, and indeed the community as a whole) unless immediate urgent measures are provided for in the Federal Government ‘s Budget;

We the undersigned citizens of New South Wales in the Commonwealth of Australia by this our humble petition respectfully request that Members of the Senate insist that the 1976-77 Budget provides specific measures to lift building activity particularly welfare housing, schools, hospitals and other public buildings above the present dangerously low level;

We request that the Budget be returned to the House of Representatives with instructions from the Senate to include such measures.

Building Activity

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

Concerned at the record number of building workers registered for unemployment benefits in Australia:

Aware that the Federal Government’s Budget for 1976-77 does not include measures to restore full employment in the building and construction industry;

Alarmed at the fact that unemployment is at the highest level in New South Wales and Queensland since the depression years, with clear indications that the position will further deteriorate.

Aware that at the same time more and more people are being denied proper housing and other building needs of great social importance are not being carried out.

Aware that the apprenticeship system is being seriously threatened and many apprentices are unable to complete their apprenticeship. This along with the fact that thousands of tradesmen have been driven out of the industry, will, in years to come create a chronic shortage of skilled workers to the detriment of the community and with enormous adverse economic repercussions.

We, the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia, by this our humble petition respectfully request that Members of the Senate insist the the 1976-77 Budget provides specific measures to lift building activity particularly:

Government construction of homes, schools, hospitals and public works development projects, employment and training of unemployed young people, restoration of finance cuts in sewerage and urban development work, provide finance to land commission to provide cheaper land for home building, provide low interest home loans finance.

We request that the Budget be returned to the House of Representatives with instructions from the Senate to include such measures.

Petitions received.

Building Activity

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 97 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:

Concern at the record number of building workers registered for unemployment benefits in New South Wales; aware of the Australian Bureau of Statistics Report for New South Wales revealing a drastic fall off in both commencements and approvals for future commencements, of building projects this year as compared to previous years; alarm at the fact that 1368 building apprentices were registered for unemployment benefit payments during the month of July in New South Wales; conscious of the fact that most of the unemployed apprentices will never be able to complete their training (thus creating a continuing problem for the industry, and indeed the community as a whole) unless immediate urgent measures are provided for in the Federal Government’s Budget; we the undersigned citizens of New South Wales in the Commonwealth of Australia by this our humble petition respectfully request that Members of the Senate insist that the 1976-77 Budget provides specific measures to lift building activity particularly welfare housing, schools, hospitals and other public buildings above the present dangerously low level; we request that the Budget be returned to the House of Representatives with instructions from the Senate to include such measures.

Petition received.

Family Planning

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 1 97 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:

That the Family Planning Association and similar organisations throughout Australia contribute to the welfare and wellbeing of a great proportion of the Australian people both in family planning and in an advisory capacity on the prevention and control of social diseases.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, give urgent consideration to a favourable decision on the continuation of Federal Government finance to enable the activities of the Family Planning Associations and like organisations to proceed unimpaired throughout Australia.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Discrimination Against Croatians

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– I present the following petition from 263 citizens of Australia:

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

That the Ethnic Radio Hour in New South Wales broadcast in Croatian is controlled and run by members of the Yugoslav community and that the Australian-Croatian ethnic community is given no say.

That Australian passports have been denied to some Australian citizens of Croatian origin without explanation or possibility of appeal.

That discrimination has been exercised in the granting of citizenship privileges to migrants of Croatian origin.

That discrimination is being exercised by the Australian Parliament in the negation and non-recognition of Croatian nationality.

That discrimination is being exercised by the Australian Government in Ethnic Schools and University courses when it permits only the teaching of Serbo-Croat and not of the Croatian language as an alternative.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will consider these facts in the light of justice toward a people who came as strangers to this land, and that appropriate action will be taken to remedy the present situation.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Medibank

Senator DEVITT:
TASMANIA

-I present the following petition from 143 citizens of Australia:

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

Whereas Medibank was pledged to be maintained by the people now in power, and having got there partly because of that pledge.

Whereas Medibank is nearly four times more efficient than the profit seeking private insurance funds, Medibank absorbing 4 per cent of payout in running costs versus 1 3 per cent taken by the private insurance funds.

Whereas bulk billing has proven its economy and convenience.

Whereas under the Fraser scheme the lower income sections will pay a 2.3 per cent levy while the higher income earners will pay a lower percentage the higher the income.

Whereas the profit seeking section of the medical sector neither trains doctors, nurses, midwives, auxiliaries and other needed qualified people nor provides emergency aid.

Whereas the profiteering sector of medical service diverts funds and other resources away from those in need and reward excess services.

Whereas a plethora of funds is not capable or willing to control medical malpractices.

Whereas taxation information has to be made available to the private health funds.

Whereas the private medical funds have a multitude of private rules governing payment for services.

We the undersigned believe the community to be totally better off with the Labor initiated Medibank Scheme.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

St Luke’s Hospital

Senator COLSTON:
QUEENSLAND

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

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

That there is a great concern and alarm of the removal of some Government support for St Luke’s Hospital, Garden Settlement and for other institutions providing care for the aged within Queensland.

That the removal of grants is causing unnecessary hardship to those aged citizens of Australia who are dependent upon continued care and accommodation.

That the removal of grants has caused unnecessary unemployment and hardship for those who were previously employed in duties caring for the aged in those centres where reduction in grants have been made.

That the aged, and others within Australian Society who are least able to defend themselves against the arbitrary acts of Governments should be spared from these unnecessary cuts.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray:

That the government should reconsider its decision to cut the budgets of these institutions and immediately restore the grants to enable these institutions to continue their high standard of dedicated and unselfish care for the aged and infirm in the community.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Medibank

Senator MELZER:

– I present two petitions from 156 and 145 citizens respectively, as follows:

To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia by this our humble petition respectfully showeth:

That Medibank has proved to be the cheapest and most efficient means of bringing health care to Australian citizens and that the citizens of Australia have received Medibank as a great and valued social reform.

That Medibank has proved itself to be a far superior system of health care than was offered by the private funds prior to July 1975.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will observe the promsie made by the Prime Minister in his policy speech that ‘We will maintain Medibank and ensure the standard of health care does not decline’.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Medibank

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia, by this our humble petition respectfully showeth:

That Medibank, as set up in July 1975, has proved to be the cheapest and most efficient means of bringing health care to Australian citizens and that the citizens of Australia have received Medibank as a great and valued social reform.

That the abovementioned form of Medibank has proved itself to be a far superior system of health care, than was offered by the private funds prior to July 1975.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will observe the promise made by the Prime Minister in his policy speech that ‘We will maintain Medibank and ensure the standard of health care does not decline.’ During the December 1975 election we believed that the Prime Minister was referring to the original form of Medibank.

We submit that the current changes to Medibank negate the original philosophy; they introduce and encourage a tiered form of health care which relates more to the wishes of health care providers than the needs of the consumers.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petitions received, and first petition read.

Australian Broadcasting Commission

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I present two petitions, from 260 and 343 citizens, respectively, as follows:

To the Honourable President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the Australian Broadcasting Commission belongs to the people and not to the Government of the day whatever political party.

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

Eschew all means, direct or indirect, of diminishing the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Commission.

Reject all proposals for the introduction of advertising into the ABC programs.

Develop methods for publicly funding the Commission which will prevent the granting or withholding of funds being used as a method of diminishing its independence.

Ensure that any general enquiries into broadcasting in Australia which may seem desirable from time to time shall be conducted publicly and that strong representation of the public shall be included within the body conducting the enquiry.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Australian Broadcasting Commission

To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government:

  1. Subscribe to the view that the Australian Broadcasting Commission belongs to the people and not to the Government of the day whatever political party.
  2. Eschew all means, direct or indirect, of diminishing the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Commission.
  3. Reject all proposals for the introduction of advertising into ABC programs.
  4. Develop methods for publicly funding the Commission which will prevent the granting or withholding of funds being used as a method of diminishing its independence.
  5. Ensure that any general enquiries into broadcasting in Australia which may seem desirable from time to time shall be conducted publicly and that strong representation of the public shall be included within the body conducting the enquiry.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petitions received, and first petition read.

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Building Activity

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

Concerned at the record number of building workers registered for unemployment benefits in Australia;

Aware that the Federal Government ‘s Budget for 1 976-77 does not include measures to restore full employment in the building and construction industry;

Alarmed at the fact that unemployment is at the highest level in New South Wales and Queensland since the depression years, with clear indications that the position will further deteriorate.

Aware that at the same time more and more people are being denied proper housing and other building needs of great social importance are not being carried out.

Aware that the apprenticeship system is being seriously threatened and many apprentices are unable to complete their apprenticeship. This along with the fact that thousands of tradesmen have been driven out of the industry, will, in years to come create a chronic shortage of skilled workers to the detriment of the community and with enormous adverse economic repercussions.

We, the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia, by this our humble petition respectfully request that members of the Senate insist that the 1976-77 Budget provides specific measures to lift building activity particularly:

Government construction of homes, schools, hospitals and public works development projects, employment and training of unemployed young people, restoration of finance cuts in sewerage and urban development work, provide finance to land commission to provide cheaper land for home building, provide low interest home loans finance.

We request that the Budget be returned to the House of Representatives with instructions from the Senate to include such measures. by Senator Guilfoyle and Senator Bonner.

Petitions received.

Medibank

To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned, citizens of the Commonwealth by this our humble petition respectfully showeth.

That Medibank has proved to be the cheapest and most efficient means of bringing health care to Australian citizens and that the citizens of Australia have received Medibank as a great and valued social reform.

That Medibank has proved itself to be a far superior system of health care than was offered by the private funds prior to July 1975.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will observe the promise made by the Prime Minister in his policy speech that ‘We will maintain Medibank and ensure the standard of health care does not decline’.

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

Petition received.

Metric System

To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the Metric system and request the Government to restore the Imperial system.

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

Petition received.

Pensions

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

That those who have retired and those who are about to retire, are being severely and adversely affected by inflation and Australian economic circumstances.

The continuance of the means test on pensions causes undue hardship to them.

We call on the Government to immediately abolish the means test on all aged pensions.

To ensure a pension for all on retirement, and a guarantee that all Australian citizens will retire with dignity.

Acknowledge that a pension is a ‘Right and not a charity’.

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

Petition received.

Child Care Services

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

That the 1976-77 Budget allocation of $73.3m for child care amounts to less than $23 per child per year which is totally inadequate.

That in 39.4 per cent of married couple families, both parents work and of these 59 per cent have dependent children.

That 38.6 per cent of female heads of families work and of these 64 per cent have dependent children.

That present government childcare programs are heavily biassed in favour of pre-shool programs, 70 per cent of the funds being destined for pre-schools which only provide part-time services for children and do not cater for the needs of working parents. That existing government childcare facilities, schools and other government buildings which could be used for childcare programs are underutilised.

Your petitioners humbly pray that urgent consideration will be given to:

  1. an increase in funds for childcare services throughout Australia;
  2. an equitable distribution of funds to cover all the childcare needs of the community;
  3. the cessation of the wasteful useage of sessional preschool buildings, instead these buildings to be used also to cover the full range of childcare needs;
  4. the wider utilisation of government buildings or parts thereof, eg. schools, hospitals and government offices for appropriate childcare facilities. by Senator Jessop.

Petition received.

page 550

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 550

QUESTION

COAL RESEARCH

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister for Science the following question: Was a special grant made in 1975 to Australian Coal Industry Research Laboratories Ltd to supplement the National Coal Research Advisory Committee grant for laboratory studies in high pressure liquefaction of coal? Has the Minister received a progress report on this project? If not, what does he know of the progress to date? What assistance has Australian Coal Industry Research Laboratories Ltd received from the Pittsburgh and Midway Coal Co. of the United States which, I understand, is engaged in similar research activity?

Senator WEBSTER:
Minister for Science · VICTORIA · NCP/NP

– I am unable to assist the Leader of the Opposition in this matter. I do not know of a grant being made in 1975; nor am I aware of the company which he suggests may have assisted in this matter. However, I will obtain information and supply it to the honourable senator as soon as possible.

Senator WRIEDT:

– I ask a supplementary question. I ask the Minister how he relates that answer to an answer which he gave Senator Jesop yesterday, which presumably was a prepared answer supplied by his Department and in which he said:

In direct response to the honourable senator’s question, I inform him that Australia is doing a deal of research at the present time into the production of liquid fuel from coal. Those studies are currently being carried out by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation.

Am I to assume that the Minister is saying now that he cannot vouch for the authenticity of the answer that he gave yesterday?

Senator WEBSTER:

– The honourable senator asks a quite ridiculous question. In the first instance he asked me a question about a particular coal laboratory. If he had asked me a question about the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation I would have given him the same answer as I gave Senator Jessop yesterday.

Senator Wriedt:

– No, you would not have.

Senator WEBSTER:

-With due respect, Senator Wriedt asked a question about a particular coal research laboratory. I am unaware of that coal research laboratory.

page 550

QUESTION

TEXTILE INDUSTRY: UNEMPLOYMENT

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

-Has the Minister for Industry and Commerce seen the statement in the Tasmanian Press that Coats Patons (Australia) Ltd has had to retrench another 60 textile employees, partially as a result of the cancellation of large orders for cheap wool by G. J. Coles and Co. Ltd, as Coats Patons no longer is able to be competitive with overseas countries?

Senator COTTON:
Minister for Industry and Commerce · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-I have not read the newspaper statement concerned, but I know of the dismissal because it was reported to me earlier this morning. I have asked my Department to find out more details for me. This is pan of the overall problem about which I have spoken previously in the Senate. I think we should look quite factually at the position. Over about the 5 years ended December 1975 Australia’s general ability to make and sell, in cost terms, worsened by about 45 per cent. This is a dreadful problem for Australian manufacturing and for Australian employment in manufacturing. This is causing me a great deal of concern. I believe that Australians, as Australians, should understand the problem which we have had and which we now have in this country because of wage escalation well beyond the capacity to pay, because of low productivity and because of slack economic growth. We are trying to grapple with all these problems together. The unfortunate victims of these mistakes in the past are people such as the people who have been dismissed at Coats Patons (Australia) Ltd.

page 550

QUESTION

NEW ZEALAND RUGBY TEAM

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. In view of the latest race violence in Soweto and other parts of South Africa and also in view of Australia’s known and accepted antiapartheid policy, can the Minister inform the Parliament whether Qantas Airways Ltd will be carrying the New Zealand All Blacks rugby team from South Africa to Australia, leaving Johannesburg on or about 1 9 September and arriving in Sydney on or about 23 September? Can he confirm that the international relations section of the Minister’s department has approved the Qantas flight, and will Qantas also be responsible for carrying the All Blacks rugby team from Sydney to New Zealand? I remind the Minister that the visit to South Africa by the All Blacks rugby team and its supporters disrupted and almost brought about the abandonment of the Olympic Games. Will the Minister take steps to ensure that Qantas is not involved at any point in the carriage of the New Zealand All Blacks rugby team or the team supporters between South Africa and New Zealand?

Senator CARRICK:
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I have no personal knowledge at all of the matter. I will direct the question to the attention of the responsible Minister in another place.

page 551

QUESTION

TELEGRAMS

Senator COLLARD:
QUEENSLAND

-My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. Recognising the large increases in the cost of telegrams lately and the efforts of Telecom Australia to get users to use the telephone for all telegram traffic, can the Minister advise whether any special cheap rate is envisaged for those people who do not have a telephone and whose only method of communication is by telegram through outpost radio or through the Royal Flying Doctor Service?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have no particular knowledge as to whether such a cheap rate exists. I will direct the question to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications and invite him to give the honourable senator a response.

page 551

QUESTION

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Can the Minister confirm or deny Press reports which show that the Budget deficit in the first 2 months of the 1976-77 financial year is $ 1,456m, which is more than half the 1976-77 budgeted deficit of $2,607m? Can the Minister confirm whether this spending rate is 15 per cent higher than in the same period of the 1975-76 financial year? If this is so, can the Minister explain by what means the current spending deficit will be contained to meet the projected figure of $2,607m for the 1976-77 financial year? Do the possible measures include a mini-Budget in early 1977, further cuts in government expenditure, or a combination of both?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-About 7 or 8 days after the conclusion of every month a statement of government financial transactions is issued by the Treasurer. It is known as the Niemeyer statement. It outlines the expenditure of the Government for those months as against the same months of the previous year. It outlines income for the same period. It demonstrates monthly the financing transactions. It demonstrates how those transactions are being funded- by Treasury notes, loans raised or use of cash balances. I think that is the statement upon which the newspaper that made these comments to which the honourable senator refers is speculating. Let me suggest to everybody that it is an extremely foolish way to approach the consideration of public finance. Public finance runs over a full year. Expenditure runs in variable patterns and revenue accumulates in a variable style. I suggest that the honourable senator take a little time to look at the statement and I suggest that those people who write these articles give some thought to how public finance is run by a government over the 12-month period of its Budget proposals.

page 551

QUESTION

VICTORIAN AND SOUTH AUSTRALIAN BUDGETS

Senator MESSNER:

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I ask: Do the Budgets of the States of Victoria and South Australia presented this week accord with the Federal Government’s economic strategy?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-To the best of my knowledge the Budgets presented by Victoria and South Australia have almost a balanced position. I would need to study, as would the Treasurer, the details of those Budgets before making any comment about the general economic strategy they display in accordance with the overall economic strategy. I observe in passing that in the Australian scene there is always a problem of coordinated economic management. I hope that the States will play their part in seeing that the total economic management is both sensible and wise.

page 551

QUESTION

MEDIBANK

Senator DONALD CAMERON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister for Social Security and refer to a question asked of the Minister which appears on page 344 of the Senate Hansard of 26 August 1 976. The question is about alleged misleading information in a booklet produced by the Commonwealth Department of Health: How to Choose the Health Insurance Cover That’s Right for You. I ask: What are the results of the investigation promised by the Minister in regard to the inaccuracies in the booklet? Has any action been taken to rectify the mistakes, particularly in reference to pensioners and standard Medibank benefits?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · VICTORIA · LP

– The matter of the question was referred to the Minister for Health. If the honourable senator has not yet received the information from the Minister I shall see that it is expedited.

page 552

QUESTION

DARWIN RECONSTRUCTION

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– The Minister representing the Minister for the Northern Territory will be aware that the wet season in northern Australia is rapidly approaching. Will he inform the Senate what progress has been made in housing the citizens of Darwin who were left homeless by cyclone Tracy?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I thank the honourable senator for the question. Undoubtedly he gave his attention to the report which I tabled yesterday of the Darwin Cyclone Tracy Relief Trust Fund. Undoubtedly honourable senators on the Opposition side who are laughing also gave their attention to this very important matter. I welcome the opportunity to comment on this matter because there is a particularly creditable Government record. This record was not noticeable in previous years. The Government has a commitment to rebuild Darwin and has a high record -

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Mr Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to the fact that yesterday Senator Webster tabled certain reports on this matter. I on behalf of the Opposition moved that the Senate take note of the papers and sought leave to continue my remarks. I suggest that this is a matter which is on the notice paper in the hands of the Opposition at this stage. Therefore, it should not be the subject of a question at question time.

Senator Webster:

- Mr Deputy President, I wish to speak to the point of order. The question asked does not relate to those documents which I tabled yesterday. It seeks a response from me as to the current situation in relation to construction in Darwin by the Darwin Reconstruction Commission. The papers I tabled yesterday related to the reports of the Darwin Reconstruction Comis.sion for the months, I believe, of March, April, May and June.

Senator Withers:

- Mr Deputy President, may I speak to the point of order? I think this matter is a bit more important than just the question which has been asked. As I understand the Standing Orders it has been a longstanding practice of the Presiding Officers to rule that the mere fact that a matter is on the notice paper does not prevent questions from being asked. If this were not the rule it would be in order for Government senators- and indeed, Ministers- to put down notices of motion on a series of matters, basically to prevent questions being asked, covering a whole range of subjects.

Senator Grimes:

– You would not do that.

Senator Withers:

– No, I would not. I understand that the Chair in this place, for a very long time, has taken the commonsense view that merely because there is a matter on the notice paper that fact ought not to prevent a question from being asked on the generality of the subject.

Senator Cavanagh:

- Mr Deputy President, I wish to speak to the point of order. It has been pointed out that a motion relating to the subject matter of the question is on the notice paper and honourable senators are saying what they think the position is. Standing order 99 is very definite:

Questions shall not ask-

for an expression of opinion; . . .

Questions shall not refer to-

debates in the current session; or

proceedings in Committee not reported to the Senate.

Questions shall not anticipate discussion upon an Order of the Day or other matter which appears on the Notice Paper.

Obviously, as Senator Webster has said in speaking to the point of order, there are 2 things which are analogous. One is the current progress of housing construction in Darwin and the other is the report on what has been achieved over certain months. Senator Douglas McClelland for some reason or other yesterday sought the adjournment of a debate on the report. He has the right to debate it, but we are now going to have him forestalled from speaking in the debate before the debate is started.

Senator Young:

– What about Senate practice?

Senator Cavanagh:

– I am talking about Senate practice and I say definitely that previous Presidents have always ruled in accordance with the Standing Orders. On this occasion the Standing Orders are so definite that it must be the practice of the Senate to abide by them again.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator DrakeBrockman) I have heard 2 honourable senators from each side. I will not uphold the point of order. If honourable senators want the answer I refer them to standing order 103.

Senator WEBSTER:

– I was saying that the Darwin Reconstruction Commission has achieved a most remarkable record and at the present time is completing 6 houses a day on the basis of a 7-day week. Since cyclone Tracy the Darwin Reconstruction Commission has completed 675 houses and the Housing Commission has completed 355 houses. The private sector in Darwin is receiving over 10 building application approvals per day. All honourable senators will agree that that rate is truly remarkremarkable. The chairman of the Darwin Reconstruction Commission, Mr Clem Jones, has informed me that following strong representations to contractors he expects that the turn-off will increase to 8 houses per day on a 7-day week basis and that 1000 new homes will have been completed prior to cyclone Tracy’s second anniversary, a total of 1350 homes overall. This includes rebuilding and repairs. On present indications there will be more permanent houses and residential units in Darwin by December 1977 than there were prior to the cyclone in December 1974. The honourable senator’s question refers to a most remarkable situation that has developed, for which congratulations are to be extended to the Darwin Reconstruction Commission.

page 553

QUESTION

SMUGGLING CHARGES

Senator MULVIHILL:

– My question is directed to the Minister Representing the Minister for Immigration. Can the Minister confirm whether 2 French nationals on smuggling charges in Papua New Guinea, where their passports were confiscated, entered Australia via Darwin under what might be deemed a very easy visa system? Will the Minister also explain the possible slight to Papua New Guinea in view of the nature of the offences alleged against these white collar crime operators?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I have some information about 2 persons who arrived in the yacht Thetis from Port Moresby. As I understand it, although both persons did not have formal documentation upon arrival in Darwin the master of the vessel is exempt from entry requirements while he remains the master. There was evidence in the form of photo-copies that both he and his passenger had been issued with visitor visas in Noumea. As they intend to leave Australia in the vessel in which they arrived they can be regarded as being in direct transit. It is understood that these 2 persons surrendered their passports to the Papua New Guinea authorities. People without formal documentation may be refused entry. However, the circumstances of each case are considered and refusal of entry is not automatic. The Government has not received any information from the Papua New Guinea Government about any possible charges being laid against these 2 persons. The 2 persons informed officers, after their arrival, of what had transpired in New Guinea, and the Department has not received any further information about the matter. I will inquire about the aspects that were raised with regard to the slight which may have been caused to New Guinea under the circumstances that I have listed and I will see whether any further information is available for the honourable senator.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I ask a supplementary question. I wonder, in the light of the sequence of events, whether the decision to permit them to enter Australia was made by officers in Darwin and was approved by the Minister or the central office in Canberra?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I am not sure about the details, although the information I have says that as the master of a vessel he is exempt from entry requirements while he remains the master and as they intend to leave Australia in the vessel in which they arrived they can be regarded as being in direct transit. I do not know whether that answers specifically the honourable senator’s question, but I will see whether there is any further information.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Rae and Devitt, with their yachts, do not have to -

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! The honourable senator has asked 2 questions already.

page 553

RULING OF THE CHAIR

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I should like to make an explanation of the decision I gave on a point of order. When the Chair is called upon to adjudicate on a point of order there is no requirement for the Chair to explain the decision that is given. In the decision I gave on a point of order that was taken a few minutes ago I went a little further and tried to give the Senate the basis for the decision. I asked honourable senators to look at standing order 103. 1 now ask honourable senators to look at standing order 99.

page 553

QUESTION

SOUTH AUSTRALIA: DROUGHT AFFECTED FARMERS

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. I refer to a statement reported to have been made by the Minister for Agriculture in South Australia, who said that the Federal Government’s plan to assist drought affected farmers at the moment is totally confused. Is the Minister able to say whether there is any justification for such a statement? Also, has the Minister noted a statement made by the same Minister for Agriculture in which he said that he was concerned that the State Government had not received a reply from the Federal Government to a request to use drought aid funds for unemployment schemes in drought affected areas? Can the Minister say when this request was made and whether similar requests have been made by other States? Is he able to say whether the South

Australian Government’s plan to assist drought affected primary producers has been delayed because the Federal Government has not approved that Government’s request? I understand that the Minister represents a colleague in another place. If he is unable to answer specifically, I would request that he ask his colleague to respond to that request if it has been received.

Senator COTTON:
LP

-This is a delightful piece of confusion. I am grateful for the latitude given to me in the latter part of the honourable senator’s question. I want to say just one thing, and I said it earlier in response to another question: Australia is not an easy country to manage in governmental terms, although there is a great satisfaction in having the diversity of responsibilities and the ability to have checks and balances. But if the communicating process between a State government and the Federal Government on a matter of great importance to distressed primary producers is to be conducted through the columns of the daily Press we are indeed in a disastrous position. The normal process here is for a Premier to communicate with the Prime Minister on matters of State and national importance. I hope that that procedure will continue. On an issue such as this, if there is a case to be made it ought to have been communicated in the proper fashion. If the case is not dealt with, a proper request should be put for it to be dealt with. I will take the matter up in that context and try to get the matter resolved for the honourable senator.

page 554

QUESTION

LOCAL GOVERNMENT GRANTS

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Can the Minister say when the grants recently announced to be paid to local government bodies will be available to them? Will such grants be paid in a lump sum or by instalments?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I will take this question. The legislation for the moneys for local government will be introduced into this Parliament in the weeks ahead. It will provide for the payment of grants. The question of the timing of the payments will depend primarily upon the speed with which this legislation is introduced into the Parliament and passed by the Parliament. I cannot foreshadow when the actual payments will be made but I would imagine that as soon as the legislation has been passed by the Parliament the first element- that is the direct per capita grants- - will be made available immediately for payment. The second element- that is the equalisation payments- of course will depend not only on the Commonwealth but also on the ability of each of the 6 States to set up State grants commissions to hold hearings and reach conclusions to be submitted to the State governments concerned. We anticipate that that will cause no hardship because some States already have State grants commissions. In general terms, there should be no undue delay in the payment of local government funds.

page 554

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN TARIFFS

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, follows the question asked by Senator Walters. The Minister has already shown that he is fully aware that at the turn of the century the Australian people were seriously divided on the contentious issue of free trade and protection and that Australia’s tariff policy over the intervening years has been to encourage the setting up of Australian industries, particularly textile industries, with tariff protection sufficient to counter the cheap labour cost advantages of countries- particularly Asian countries- where hours of work and terms and conditions of employment leave much to be desired.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I think I have given you enough latitude, Senator O ‘Byrne. Please ask your question.

Senator O’BYRNE:

– I now ask the Minister: What method does his Government intend to pursue that would refute the growing belief that the policy of this Government is to use the lever of unemployment in an attempt to reduce the working conditions of Australian workers to that of the coolies of other countries, and so deprive the Australian worker of his hard-won living standards that he has struggled so hard over the years to obtain and maintain?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I suppose the principal method is to rely upon the good sense and wisdom of the Australian people which was demonstrated last year. They are not as stupid as the honourable senator imagines, which is fortunate for us all. There is a great problem. I have tried to be quite fair about it. Australia, during the 5 years ended December 1975, got itself into a cost to make and sell position which is really so bad that it is unbelievable. It is very hard to protect jobs as one would wish in the context of tariffs when the level of those tariffs has to be so high because of that cost disability that we cannot negotiate through the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which we agreed to join. I have made as many other arrangments as I can to try to help this situation.

The real remedy lies in Australia’s inflation returning to its normal levels, in economic recovery growing out of that and in employment regaining its proper levels once again. It will not be easy. We have tried to show this for quite a long time. Unfortunately, some levels of tariffs now required to protect Australian industry are just impossible to achieve. Other arrangements have to be made. Overlying this, the principal factors are that inflation has to be reduced dramatically, and the overall cost to make and sell has to get back to a competitive position so that the workforce in this country can be protected, as it should be.

page 555

QUESTION

AQUACULTURE

Senator YOUNG:

-I ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce: Is it a fact that aquaculture does not come under the Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Act 1935-73? If this is so, will the Minister make inquiries to have aquaculture- a relatively new Australian industry dealing with the culturing of fish and shellfish in water- included in the Schedule?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-It is lucky for me that in the last part of the honourable senator’s question aquaculture was explained to me. I thought: What have I got here? Is it viticulture? What is this new form of culture?’. One is familiar with culture in all its other manifestations in this world but this was a new one. If the growing of fish, oysters, prawns or whatever in commercial terms is not given adequate protection and the help it needs I should certainly take the matter seriously. I have long believed that Australia has a potential for developing its fish resources and aquaculture resources and this potential ought to be taken up. I am grateful for the opportunity to take this matter up with my colleague. I expect that in due course, at an appropriate time, Port Lincoln oysters will be conveyed to me on a plate by the honourable senator.

page 555

QUESTION

DARWIN COMMUNITY CRECHES

Senator ROBERTSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

-The Minister for Social Security will be aware of the problems being faced at the present time by the community creches in Darwin. Can she give some indication of when a decision will be made concerning availability of funds to enable this most worthwhile service to continue operating?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– All programs of the Office of Child Care are being given urgent consideration at the present time and an early decision is expected to be announced.

page 555

QUESTION

WATERFRONT DISPUTES

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Overseas Trade. The Minister will be aware of current industrial trouble on the Australian waterfront, including a demarcation dispute, I think in the Port of Sydney. Can he give any estimate or indication of the effect of these disputes on Australia’s export and import trade?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– This matter has not previously been raised in the Senate as a matter of consequence, and I was interested in that fact. I am indebted to the honourable senator for raising it. The facts of our commercial, economic and trading life have to be faced. As I said earlier, the present cost of making and selling goods causes enough trouble. But if we have, in exporting from and importing into this country, a total breakdown as we have now in certain areas in the loading and unloading of goods, we are creating a situation in which Australia could go out the back door. This ought to be faced up to. Those who are creating this situation ought not to come whinging for someone to help them. We are getting ourselves into a situation of almost irretrievable disaster in some places. Look at the people in Sydney who have had to sack all their employees because they could not get their goods off the waterfront in order to keep their production lines going. If this continues we will be going nowhere.

page 555

QUESTION

MEDIBANK

Senator GIETZELT:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Health: Has the Government’s attention been drawn to the latest issue of the A.M.A. Gazette and a poster which doctors are asked to display in their waiting rooms? Is the Minister aware that the journal says that ‘private insurance is still necessary to cover choice of doctor in hospital’ and that the poster is misleading in that it gives emphasis to private insurance? The poster states:

How do I pay for my Health Care after October 1? It depends whether you want a Doctor of your choice to treat you in hospital.

It goes on to state:

If you do, and your taxable income is more than $202 a week . . . then you will be better off taking out Private Insurance for both hospital and medical benefits rather than paying a Medibank tax levy.

In view of the confusion that still exists in the community and the clear misinformation given by the private insurance companies and the Australian Medical Association, will the Government give consideration to writing to each existing member of Medibank and give the necessary information and assistance so that all citizens can make a free choice in medical care?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am not aware of the poster that has been displayed in the A.M.A. Gazette but a substantial part of the honourable senator’s question is related to misleading advertising. Certainly this would be resisted by the Government, in any way that this could be undertaken, because we want to ensure that by the beginning of October all people in Australia will be aware of the ways in which they are able to cover themselves for hospital and medical costs. As far as private insurance is concerned, we would be wanting to see it put before the Australian people that Medibank private insurance is able to compete with private health funds for many of the services. If any advertising is misleading I feel sure that the Minister for Health will take action.

page 556

QUESTION

WRECK BAY ABORIGINAL HOUSING

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs concerning a proposed housing project for the Aboriginal people of Wreck Bay in the Jervis Bay area of the Australian Capital Territory. I know that the Minister is aware that existing housing conditions are inadequate for the 150 Aboriginal people, including 60 children, living in the Wreck Bay settlement. Can the Minister indicate whether funds will be made available during this financial year so that this new housing project can commence?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am able to say that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs regards the project as an important one that is worthy of special consideration. The Minister has also informed me of the interest shown in this project over recent months. Funds cannot be made available until the Government completes its review of Aboriginal housing. Funding for the Wreck Bay project for this financial year will be considered in the light of the outcome of the review and the commitment by the Government in the Treasurer’s Budget Speech to provide additional funds for Aboriginal housing in this financial year.

page 556

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN COASTGUARD

Senator DEVITT:

-I direct to the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs a question which relates particularly to the matter of customs. It is prompted by my concern at the apparent long delay in the setting up of an Australian coastguard. Bearing in mind that the subject has been under fairly active consideration, as I understand it, for the last 3 years, I ask: Can the Minister indicate to the Senate the progress being made and the likely date of setting up an appropriate coastguard or some similar organisation?

Senator DURACK:
Minister for Repatriation · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I am interested in the question asked by Senator Devitt. Unfortunately, I have no information on the subject readily available to me. It is an important matter. I shall certainly refer it to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs and endeavour to get an early reply.

page 556

QUESTION

ERADICATION OF BRUCELLOSIS AND TUBERCULOSIS

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

-I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry a question. As for all practical purposes Tasmania by continued effort over many years has achieved the eradication of brucellosis and tuberculosis from all Tasmanian cattle- I add that it is the only Australian State to do so- is it the intention of” the Government to relieve Tasmanian cattle producers of the $ 1 a head levy for the eradication of these diseases? If so, when?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-That Tasmania has achieved this eradication is a matter for congratulation. It says a great deal for the control of the veterinary authorities and people engaged in pastoral activities. I think Tasmania is to be commended. If this could be achieved in Australia as a whole we would be a great deal better off. If we do not do so, one of these days our export meat trade may find itself in a hazardous situation. This is a worthy example of what can be done with application. By chance, I have a few notes on this subject. Although honourable senators are trying to interject otherwise, I would call it anticipation. Since the national brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign commenced in 1970, Tasmania, in recognition of its own progress, has had special and very favourable financial assistance from the Commonwealth. This year, the system has been changed. But a more satisfactory method of financing the whole campaign is to be discussed with the States for introduction from 1 July 1977.

Operations and monitoring to maintain Tasmania’s freedom from these 2 diseases is costly and it is expected that that State will receive about $240,000 of Commonwealth money for these purposes in 1976-77. Equally, compensation is available in the case of a disease breakout. I think that the overall proposition will probably be raised later for consideration at the Australian Agricultural Council. I commend that thought to the honourable senator.

page 557

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN WAR MEMORIAL: THE NATIONAL LIBRARY

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I direct a question to the Minister for Administrative Services. I preface it by reminding the Minister that, during the Estimates Committee debate in the last sessional period, I drew to his attention the problems facing the Australian War Memorial in preserving valuable works of art and the urgent necessity for conservators to be appointed. In view of the great loss that could be suffered as a result of the non-preservation of these valuable and historical works, will the Minister make a special request to the Public Service Board, notwithstanding the staff ceilings which exist, to allow a number of conservators to be appointed to the War Memorial. Additionally, as the Minister responsible to the Parliament for the administration of the National Library, will he ask the National Library to consider extending its hours of operation over the next few months to enable tertiary and secondary school students sitting for examinations to make full use of the Library services?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-As to the first part of the question, I know of the honourable senator’s long interest in this matter. It is not just a question of staff ceilings; there is a problem also in obtaining people trained in the art of conservation. The Minister for Education and I have been discussing whether an appropriate course could be instituted in Australia at one of the colleges of advanced education to train people in this field. They are not wanted just at the Australian War Memorial; they are wanted also at museums throughout Australia and in a great number of fields. One of the few places in Australia which appears to be somewhat reasonably adequately catered for is the Western Australian maritime museum in Fremantle. It has done a lot of its own training and has done very good work in that field. The honourable senator no doubt will have noticed that one of the American bicentennial fellows, Miss Susan Yecies, who was here recently had some rather scathing comments to make about the general lack of conservators in the Australian museum field. I understand that some of these people have been trained in Australia but many of them have come from overseas, particularly from the Netherlands where there has been a great interest in this art for a very long period. Senator Carrick and I are continuing our endeavours to see whether we can set up an appropriate course to train people in this field. As to the second question about the hours of opening of the National Library, I will pass the question on to the Director-General of the National Library and ask what can be done to meet the request.

page 557

QUESTION

FEES OF MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS

Senator BAUME:

– I draw to the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Health the announcement yesterday that medical practitioners have agreed to limit fee increases for 1 977 and that they have agreed to reduce fees for pathology services. Can the Minister assure the Senate that those using medical services or pathology services will still be fully entitled to all the rebates and allowances they presently enjoy? Will the Minister inform the Senate whether it is a fact that it will be the doctors and not the patients who will be affected by any decision to limit or reduce fees?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am aware of the statement made yesterday by the Minister for Health and I think, as has been stated in an answer to a question, those are the facts. The restraint by the doctors in the level of fee increases is welcomed by all who need to pay for the medical and health services of this country.

Senator Primmer:

– Their image is not the best. I think they will have to have a bit of a rethink.

Senator GUILFOYLEWhat was announced was welcomed. In regard to pathology services, again it was the medical profession which had some concern about possible abuses of those services. The announcement yesterday means that the people of Australia will have the adequate service that is required but there will be a restraint on the cost of it.

page 557

QUESTION

POLICE POWERS AND BEHAVIOUR

Senator CAVANAGH:

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, although it may cover 3 ministerial positions. Has the Government considered the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission relating to police powers and behaviour which were included in the Labor Government’s Bill relating to the Australian Police Force? The Government does not agree with that proposed legislation. Whilst the Government does not believe in having an Australian Police Force, will it consider adoption of the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission and apply them to the 3 police forces operating under the Federal Government’s jurisdiction?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-As I understand the Australian Law Reform Commission’s report on police powers, it was unanimous in some respects, but there was dissent, I think by Mr Justice Brennan, as he now is, from some aspects of the Commission’s findings. As I understand the position, the attempt to resolve the differences in the commissioners’ findings in some areas has caused the delay so far in the implementation of some parts of the report.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I think you are on the wrong track.

Senator WITHERS:

-I think I am on the right track. I think there are some aspects in respect of which there was a dissenting report. If I am wrong, I will have the matter looked at, and I will advise the honourable senator next week if I can. The other matter raised related to when the general recommendations would be introduced. That is a matter for Government decision. If they are introduced, naturally they will apply to the 3 police forces.

page 558

QUESTION

ALVIN PURPLE

Senator MARTIN:

– Has the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications seen a report in yesterday’s Daily Mirror that the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, Sir Henry Bland, has offered the television series Alvin Purple for sale to commercial television networks for $30,000 to $50,000 an episode? Would the Minister agree that the massive free publicity this series has received assures the ABC of an enthusiastic and lucrative market for the series? Can the Minister advise the Senate whether this is a strategy by the ABC to overcome its normal budgetary limitations or whether, in view of the poor reviews the Alvin Purple series has received, it is a scheme by the ABC to cause a long term downturn in commercial network ratings as compared with the ratings of the ABC? In either case, would the Minister be prepared to forward, on behalf of interested and discerning Australian television viewers, to Sir Henry Bland a list of other ABC programs to which he may care to give the same treatment?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I did see the Daily Mirror report in which it was suggested that the Australian Broadcasting Commission was proposing to offer for sale to commercial television stations episodes of the series Alvin Purple. I think I saw in the Press some suggestion that the Australian Broadcasting Commission had committed something like $500,000 to the production of the series so far. That being so, the need to recover some of those expenses must be heavily upon the ABC. I am unaware of the truth or otherwise of the report that the Commission is doing so. It would be competent for the Commission to do so. I am well aware of the strategies of writers of books and of publishers generally of trying to get something banned in order to promote it. That has been a highly successful strategy since the Garden of Eden.

Senator Georges:

– That has been the position in Queensland.

Senator CARRICK:

– I understand the rueful interjection by Senator Georges. I am not aware whether the Commission is using that strategy at the moment or whether it is some kind of subversion with regard to the ratings of commercial stations. In a more serious vein, I am bound to say that if the series is sold to commercial television stations the Australian Broadcasting Control Board will have to make its value judgment. The quaint situation, as Senator Douglas McClelland would know, is that the Board has a responsibility with regard to the quality of programs of commercial stations, but it does not have a responsibility with regard to the quality of programs of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. So the problem becomes a separate one. I have no further information. I regret to say that I have not seen any of the episodes. Therefore, if I sound a little rueful it is understandable.

page 558

QUESTION

SOCIAL WELFARE PAYMENTS

Senator GRIMES:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. Is it a fact that since the Government has decided to tax unemployment, sickness and other benefits the Commissioner of Taxation has requested the Department of Social Security to deduct 35c in the dollar from each of these payments, for taxation purposes? Is it a fact that this is not done with age pensioners and others, who are given a statement of benefits paid so that their taxation can be paid at the end of the year? Will her department deduct the 35c in the dollar from these benefits available to people who are in difficulties? What action will be taken to counteract the claims of the Commissioner of Taxation in this regard?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– This matter of the tax to be applied to unemployment and sickness benefits has been the subject of negotiation between my Department and the Commissioner of Taxation. With other pensions and benefits my Department arranges for taxation to be deducted if requested. The matter of unemployment and sickness benefits is still the subject of discussion between the Commissioner of Taxation and my Department at this stage.

page 558

QUESTION

ACCOMMODATION FOR AGED OR DISABLED PERSONS

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Social Security, relates to the Minister’s statement yesterday on the 3-year program for accommodation for aged or disabled persons. I ask: What proportion of the total cost of each project is to be raised by the local organisation? What conditions are to be met by the local organisation to qualify for Commonwealth assistance? Does the Minister set the rents to be paid by the tenants, or is this left to the local organisation?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– This is a fairly complex question, the first part of which related to the subsidy levels. The subsidy levels were recently announced by the Government. One-third of the cost of projects for aged persons homes and hostels will be met by the associations which are eligible for a grant. The subsidy levels will be reviewed at 3-monthly intervals in line with existing building costs, and one-third of the cost will need to be met. I think that the second part of the question concerned the qualifications for eligibility. There is an Act which relates to these matters. The organisations concerned must be eligible organisations for the purposes of the legislation and the projects need to be approved by my Department before they are eligible for the support that I have just mentioned. The matter of the rents which are to be paid is left to the local organisations to determine. In cases where complaints are made about excessive rents my Department discusses the matter with organisations and a mutual decision is reached. The Director-General must be satisfied that the organisational funds, together with the government grant, will be sufficient to meet the cost of the project. In other words I am saying that we must be satisfied that one-third of the cost on those subsidy levels would be able to be raised by the eligible organisation before we embark on a project which has our approval.

page 559

QUESTION

TELEVISION AND RADIO RECEPTION: ST HELENS, TASMANIA

Senator HARRADINE:
TASMANIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. It concerns St Helens, an idyllic spot on the east coast of Tasmania, the climate and geographical position of which attracts many thousands of tourists and retired people. The Minister will be aware, through representations from other honourable senators, the honourable member for Bass and his predecessor, of the difficulties concerning television and radio reception in the area. Can the Minister please tell us when the translator will be erected at St Helens?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-A11 who have visited St Helens would agree with the honourable senator about its natural attractions. It is true that there have been difficulties with reception. I am pleased to tell the honourable senator that the 1976-77 works program includes 2 projects concerning St Helens- a sound broadcaster and a television translator. The sound broadcaster is due to be completed by early 1977. The television translator will follow. There is no reason for delays except any possible holdup of relevant equipment from overseas. I am happy to say that the 2 main problems of broadcasting and television reception for St Helens have an early prospect of resolution.

page 559

QUESTION

SHIPBUILDING

Senator MESSNER:

-Has the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations seen Press reports of the planned order of 3 container ships by the Australian National Line from Kawasaki of Japan? Is it not a fact that Australian shipbuilders had been invited to tender for delivery but are unable to do so because they cannot guarantee delivery times? Is this not continuing evidence of the effects of industrial disputes on the performance of Australian industry which seriously inhibit its ability to compete with overseas operators?

Senator DURACK:
LP

- Senator Messner raises a very topical and difficult question. As he and the Senate would know the matter is at present under very close consideration by the Government. The future of the shipbuilding industry has been referred to the Industries Assistance Commission. I shall refer this question to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and endeavour to get an answer from him for the honourable senator.

page 559

QUESTION

MEDIBANK

Senator RYAN:
ACT

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, relates to the new Medibank arrangements. Is it the case that after December- that is, after the 2 months moratorium period- if a person wishes to transfer from one fund to another that person must pay twice over a 2-month period to ensure cover, for example, continue to pay the Medibank levy plus the new contribution for the 2 months? Is this provision a deliberate mechanism to deter people from changing funds? Will it have the effect of locking contributors into one fund, even though funds will be able to increase contributions at will and a contributor may find it desirable to change to a cheaper fund? Does the Minister agree that this provision regarding transfer is yet another restriction on freedom of choice by contributors?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– Several matters were raised in the question. It could be placed on notice or I could have it referred to the Minister for Health for an early answer.

page 560

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE: SALARY SCALE

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, refers to the fairly recent promotions of some female officers in the Australian defence forces to senior posts. As some of these officers are now posted to senior established positions previously considered to be exclusively for male officers, will the Minister request the Minister for Defence to consider a special review of salary scales applicable to these officers which are less than those applicable to male officers and to consider any similar situation or anomaly affecting other servicewomen?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I shall certainly pass that question on to the Minister for Defence and ask him to take into consideration the matter raised by the honourable senator.

page 560

QUESTION

RAPE CRISIS CENTRES

Senator MELZER:

-Can the Minister for Social Security give the Senate the actual funding made to rape crisis centres in Australia? Has the funding been reduced and, if so, by how much? For instance, I am told that the centre in Sydney has had its allocation reduced from $2,400 to $400 which will prevent the centre from having a telephone, and a rape crisis centre without a telephone is practically useless.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– It would be understood that the funding for rape crisis centres is a matter for the Minister for Health. I am aware that in this year’s Budget the funds for these organisations were matters of block grants to the States. It was for the States to make funding to the centres. I shall follow through the position in relation to the specific centre which has been mentioned and obtain the information, if it is available, from the State concerned.

page 560

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT RECIPIENTS

Senator COLEMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I refer to an article which appeared in the Australian Financial Review of Monday, 6 September, which stated that there had been a steady reduction in the number of unemployment benefit recipients between January and June this year. The figures quoted were 248,619 in January and 188,423 in

June. I ask the Minister: Are those figures correct? If so, will the Minister provide the Senate with the breakdown of that reduction of 60,196 persons in the following way: How many were transferred to sickness or other benefits; how many are no longer receiving unemployment benefit but are in fact unemployed; what were the reasons for the removal of those persons; how many were declared ineligible for receipt of those benefits in an endeavour simply to make the unemployment figures look better than they are?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (DrakeBrockman) Order! I think that question should go on notice.

Senator DURACK:
LP

-I agree.

page 560

QUESTION

NATIONAL ABORIGINAL CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE

Senator KILGARIFF:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. What is the present situation in regard to the review of the activities and the role of the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee instigated by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs? If the review has been completed, will the document be made public? If not, will a public statement be made on the recommendations in the report? Is it a fact that fees and allowances have been substantially increased while the review has been taking place?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– As I understand it, the review of the activities and role of the National Aboriginal Consultative Committee has not yet been completed. The Government will make a decision on the publishing of the report at the appropriate time after the review has been completed. The Remuneration Tribunal recently issued a determination which increased the fees and allowances of members of the NACC and I understand that that determination recognises the movements in relativity since those fees and allowances were last determined. The review was conducted on the basis of duties and responsibilities currently being performed by NACC members. It is possible that the Remuneration Tribunal may be called upon to review the fees and allowances of members after the review of the activities and role of the NACC has been completed.

page 560

QUESTION

COAL RESEARCH

Senator WEBSTER:
Minister for Science · Victoria · NCP/NP

– I seek leave to respond to a question asked by Senator Wriedt this day.

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

Senator WEBSTER:

-The first question without notice this day was asked by the Leader of the Opposition in relation to a matter which does not concern me. The Australian Coal Industry Research Laboratories Limited does not come under my portfolio. I am advised that the company received grants through the National Coal Research Advisory Committee which is funded entirely by the Commonwealth Government through the Department of National Resources.

page 561

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN HONEY BOARD

Senator COTTON (New South Wales-

Minister for Industry and Commerce)- Pursuant to section 30 of the Honey Industry Act 1 962,I present the interim annual report of the Australian Honey Board for the year ended 30 June 1976.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

-I seek leave to move a motion.

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

Senator McLAREN:

– I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 561

AUSTRALIAN EGG BOARD

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Industry and Commerce · LP

– Pursuant to section 23 of the Egg Export Control Act 1 947, I present the interim annual report of the Australian Egg Board for the year ended 30 June 1976.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I seek leave to move a motion.

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

Senator McLAREN:

– I move:

I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 561

CHRISTMAS ISLAND AGREEMENT BILL 1976

Motion (by Senator Withers) agreed to:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to approve an Agreement entered into between the Government of Australia and the Government of New Zealand to amend the Christmas Island Agreement 1958.

Bill presented, and read a first time.

Standing Orders suspended.

Second Reading

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to honour a longstanding moral obligation of the Commonwealth Government to the long term Asian residents of the Territory of Christmas Island. Honourable senators will be aware that the only commercial activity on Christmas Island is the extraction and export of rock phosphate and phosphate dust. The life of the usable phosphate deposits- at present rates of extraction and with existing technologyis about another 20 years. When that industry ends, there will be no economic future for the island ‘s residents. There are no alternative industries which could reasonably be expected to provide them with a livelihood. As a result, successive Commonwealth governments have accepted the obligation to provide some form of resettlement assistance to those residents of Christmas Island who have given long and valuable service to Australia in working the phosphate deposits on the island. I would point out that 41 7 of these long term residents are Australian citizens already. The others are eligible to apply for Australian citizenship. It is a matter of simple justice that the Commonwealth Government accepts its obligations to them. This is a government for all Australians, no matter where they may be.

As honourable senators will recall, there are no indigenous inhabitants of Christmas Island. Asian workers brought mainly from Singapore have been employed in the island’s phosphate industry since mining began in 1 899. Most of the island’s present Asian resident population came to the island since World War II or were born there. Since 1965 almost all workers brought to the island have come on a restricted term basisusually 3 years- and have been repatriated to their homelands on completion of their term by their employer as part of their normal employment arrangements. Late in 1 972 the McMahon Government approved a resettlement policy for the long term Asian residents of Christmas Island. This promise was endorsed by the Labor Government in 1 973, and announced by the then Minister for External Territories, Mr Morrison, in April 1973. His successors promised introduction of the scheme as quickly as possible to these residents a number of times. It is a matter of deep regret that despite the promises the scheme did not eventuate during the years of the Labor Government. The delay following the initial announcement has caused the residents of the island great uncertainty and extensive distress.

The extent of this concern was evidenced during my visit to Christmas Island in April of this year. The residents of the island were clearly sceptical that the promises would ever be honoured. At the time of my visit I gave an undertaking that I would bring in enabling legislation as soon as the necessary amendment to the Christmas Island Agreement could be formally agreed to by the Australian and New Zealand Governments and the Parliament. Agreement has been reached with New Zealand. The formal documents were signed yesterday. This Bill now seeks the approval of that Agreement by the Parliament. Once the Parliament ratifies the Agreement, work on the resettlement scheme can begin. Australia’s obligation to the people who have provided her with valuable and long service will begin to be repaid.

As I said earlier, the phosphate industry on Christmas Island is likely to end in 20 years. The existing Christmas Island Agreement Act of 1958 provides for the establishment of a special fund to meet the obligations on Australia when the industry ceases. The fund is built up by a levy on each tonne of phosphate rock exported from the island. It now amounts to approximately $4.5m. Under the existing Act, however, this fund cannot be used until the phosphate industry ends. This would mean prolonging introduction of any form of resettlement scheme for probably 20 years. The Government not only believes this would be unfair, it would also be a breach of the promises made to the long term residents of the island. As a result of this amendment to the Agreement, it will be possible to use the money in the special fund progressively to finance a scheme for the voluntary resettlement of the long term Asian residents. At the moment there are about 1300 residents of the island eligible to benefit from the scheme, most of whom wish to settle in Australia. Very few, if any, are likely to choose to settle in other places such as Singapore and Malaysia. Resettlement will, I stress, be a voluntary and gradual process. It is expected that the scheme will provide for about 300 peoplethat is workers and their families- to move from the island each year. This will ensure their proper integration into the Australian community and also ensure that there is no disruption of the island. As residents leave they will be replaced by restricted-term workers from Malaysia and Singapore who will return to their homelands on completion of their term of employment on the island.

The resettlement scheme will provide a resettlement allowance, free fares and other assistance such as scholarships for further education and training. The Government will also assist the resettlers in finding employment and housing. The actual level of assistance at any one time will be negotiated as necessary with New Zealand. Every effort will be made to ensure that those resettling are properly equipped to fit into the mainland community. Some 450 residents of Christmas Island have already resettled privately in Australia, principally in Western Australia. Several weeks ago I visited Katanning, one of the major areas where these people have settled, to see for myself how they had fitted in. I was highly impressed with their diligence, their competence and with the ease with which they had become part of the local community. Others have gone to the mining areas of the north-west of Western Australia and, again, they appear to have settled in extremely well. I am confident that the Christmas Island residents who take part in this scheme will be similarly accepted by their local communities. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland) adjourned.

page 562

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Precedence

Motion (by Senator Whithers) agreed to:

That unless otherwise ordered Government Business take precedence of General Business after 3 p.m. this day.

page 562

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator COLEMAN:
Western Australia

-I wish to make a personal explanation in relation to the speech I made during the adjournment debate last night.

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

Senator COLEMAN:

-I thank the Senate. At page 530 of yesterday’s Hansard some errors appear. I am quite sure that I did make these statements and that it was not a mistake by Hansard. It was my mistake. When speaking about the special benefit that is payable to supporting fathers I said that they received $82.50 a fortnight, which is correct. I said also that they received $6 for each child under the age of six. That figure, of course, should be $15 for each child under the age of six. I went on to say that once the child goes to school he loses that $6 benefit. That figure also should be $15. I said further that a supporting mother keeps the $6 benefit until the child turns sixteen. That figure should also be $15.

page 563

ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL 1976

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation · LP

– I move:

I seek leave to incorporate the second reading speech in Hansard.

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

The speech read as follows-

The purpose of this Bill is to amend a substantial number of Acts, 66 in all, involving some 270 individual amendments so as to bring up to date references in the Acts to Ministers, departments and permanent heads and other officers. The substantial re-organisation of departments effected by this Government when it came to office in December made inappropriate many existing references and a great number were out of date due to re-organisations that took place during the Labor Government’s period in office. While orders under section 19B of the Acts Interpretation Act have been made from time to time to ‘translate’ references to Ministers, departments and permanent heads, the statute book has become scattered with references that do not accurately state the present position. I am sure honourable senators will agree that it is in the public interest that the statute law should, as far as practicable, show on its face the correct designations of Ministers, departments and officers.

A comprehensive order under section 19B of the Acts Interpretation Act was made on 22 December 1975 to cover, so far as practicable, the changes that the Government desired to achieve and an amending order was made on 25 February. But there were references that could not be changed by such an order; for example, references to the Attorney-General in legislation like the Patents Act and the Commonwealth

Police Act, the administration of which was transferred under the new administrative arrangements to other Ministers. The changes could not be made because the office of Attorney-General continued in existence and section 19B only authorises orders to change references where the office no longer exists or its name is changed. While section 19 of the Acts Interpretation Act enabled those other Ministers to exercise the relevant statutory powers, they have had to do so acting for and on behalf of the Attorney-General pending amendment of the relevant provisions of the particular Acts. The Schedule to the Bill includes such amendments.

There were also other references where some doubts have been felt as to the effectiveness of the section 19B orders and in all the circumstances it was thought desirable, in bringing forward this legislation, to take the opportunity of bringing up to date all the references in Acts to Ministers, departments or officers that have become superseded by reason of changes in the structure of Government. There are a few particular amendments to which I think specific mention might briefly be made. These are cases where the opportunity has been taken, with the concurrence of the departments concerned, to make some amendments which go a little further than the statute law revision and validation aspects with which the Bill is primarily concerned.

First, in relation to the Continental Shelf (Living Natural Resources) Act, the Bill places the statutory powers conferred by the Act in the hands of the Minister for Primary Industry and the Secretary to his Department, rather than in that Minister and the Minister having responsibility for external Territories, as in the past. It is proposed, however, that Ministers administering Territories will be consulted in exercising those statutory powers in relation to the various Territories and delegations given to Territory officers where appropriate. A similar situation will exist in respect of the Fisheries Act as proposed to be amended by the Bill.

Secondly, the opportunity has been taken to omit section 32 of the Science and Industry Research Act which would have merely required the Minister for Science to give his approval to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation exercising any power or function exclusively affecting Norfolk Island but after consultation with the Minister administering that Territory. The section is of little practical application and the Ministers concerned have agreed that the continuance of the section is unnecessary and that ad hoc consultation between

Ministers will adequately achieve its objective. Extraneous references to the Territory of Papua New Guinea have also been removed from some provisions. Some other minor amendments of an up-dating nature have also been included.

The opportunity has been taken where it could conveniently be done to change some specific references to a more general form so as to avoid the need for any future referential or legislative changes upon a change in the administration of the Act or in the designation of the Minister or other relevant office. I mention by way of example the changes in the Bankruptcy Act from the Attorney-General to ‘the Minister’, which will embrace the Minister for the time being administering the Act, whoever that might be. I also mention the changes in the National Health Act to substitute ‘the Permanent Head’ for ‘the Director-General of Health’. Again, in the Patents Act, the administration of which has now passed to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, the provision made in section 129 of the Act for the vesting of rights in respect of certain inventions and patents in the AttorneyGeneral has been changed so that the rights will be vested in the Commonwealth, thus avoiding any need for change in the future should ministerial responsibility for the Act change.

The amendments made by the legislation are expressed- with a few necessary exceptions- to have come into operation on 22 December 1975, the date of the section 19b order to which I have referred above. This retrospectivity, while avoiding any possibility of challenge to anything done in reliance on that order, is expressed not to affect anything done that was lawful when it was done, for example, an action by a Minister acting for and on behalf of the Attorney-General in pursuance of section 19 of the Acts Interpretation Act, in cases where under the Bill the reference to the Attorney-General will have become a reference to some other Minister.

Some corresponding ‘cleaning up’ will be necessary in respect of regulations and ordinances. These are in hand and will be proceeded with as soon as the present Bill is assented to. I am sure honourable senators will agree that the amendments proposed to be made by the Bill are desirable. I hope that the Senate will give the Bill a speedy passage. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland) adjourned.

page 564

TELEVISION STATIONS LICENCE FEES AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I move:

I seek leave to have the text of the speech incorporated in Hansard.

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

The speech read as follows-

The purpose of the Television Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill is to bring the scale of licence fees payable by commercial television stations back into line with that payable by commercial broadcasting stations. The same scale of fees was applicable to broadcasting and television stations from 1 964 until the fees payable by broadcasting stations were increased in 1973. At this time the then Government decided that the scale for television stations licence fees should be maintained and reviewed in 1975-76 so that there could be assessed the financial effects of the phasing out of cigarette and cigarette tobacco advertising, the increase in the Australian content of programs and the introduction of colour television.

The present scale of licence fees payable by commercial television stations has not been altered since 1964. Had the scale of licence fees for both broadcasting and television stations been identical, it is estimated that an additional amount of $533,000 would have been collected in licence fees for the year 1975-76. The new scale, based on anticipated increase in gross earnings by stations, is estimated to increase 1976-77 station licence fee revenue by $624,000 to $5. 524m. The new scale of fees payable from 1 September 1 976 will be as follows:

Set fee of $200 plus:

  1. an amount equal to 1 per centum of such part of the gross earnings of the station to which the licence relates during the year ended on 30 June last preceding that anniversary or last preceding the commencement of the period for which the licence is renewed, as the case may be, as does not exceed $500,000;
  2. an amount equal to Vi per centum of such pan of those gross earnings as exceeds $500,000 but does not exceed $1,000,000;
  3. an amount equal to 2 per centum of such part of those gross earnings as exceeds $1,000,000 but does not exceed $1,500,000;
  4. an amount equal to 2Vi per centum of such part of those gross earnings as exceeds $1,500,000 but does not exceed $2,000,000;
  5. an amount equal to 3 per centum of such part of those gross earnings as exceeds $2,000,000 but does not exceed $2,500,000;
  6. an amount equal to 3lA per centum of such part of those gross earnings as exceeds $2,500,000 but does not exceed $3,000,000;
  7. an amount equal to 4 per centum of such part of those gross earnings as exceeds $3,000,000 but does not exceed $3,500,000; and
  8. an amount equal to 4V4 per centum of such part of those gross earnings as exceeds $3,500,000.

There are 48 commercial television stations in operation. Honourable senators might note that the adoption of the same scale for broadcasting and television stations will involve no increase in licence fees by 1 1 commercial television stations, including 4 which were in a loss situation in 1974-75 whose gross incomes for that year were below $0.5m. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland) adjourned.

page 565

STATES GRANTS (CAPITAL ASSISTANCE) BILL [No. 2] 1976

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator COTTON:
New South WalesMinister for Industry and Commerce · LP

– I move:

I seek leave to have the speech incorporated in Hansard.

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

The speech read as follows-

The purpose of this Bill is to authorise the payment of capital grants to the States in 1976-77 totalling $452,000,000. This amount represents the grant component of the Australian Loan Council program for State governments in 1976-77, and is equal to one-third of the total program of $ 1,356m agreed at the June 1976 Premiers Conference. The Bill also provides for the payment of capital grants in the first 6 months of 1977-78 up to an amount equal to one-half of the 1976-77 amount, pending passage of legislation to authorise grants in 1977-78. Payments authorised under this Bill may be made from the Consolidated Revenue Fund or from the Loan Fund, and appropriate borrowing authority is included. This is consistent with past practice. These grants represent a continuation of arrangements initiated by the Liberal-Country Party Government in June 1970 which provided that portion of the State governments’ Loan Council programs should take the form of interest-free non-repayable grants in lieu of what would otherwise be borrowings by the States. The effect of the grants is to relieve the States of debt charges which they would otherwise have to pay, and the grants accordingly have a substantial beneficial effect on the States’ financial positions. The grants were introduced to help the States finance works such as schools, police buildings and the like from which debt charges are not normally recovered. The States are, however, entirely free to apply these grants as they choose and no terms or conditions are attached to them.

Turning to the details of the Bill, clause 3 authorises the payment of grants to the States totalling $452m in 1976-77, and clause 4 authorises the Treasurer to make advance payments in the first 6 months of 1977-78 at the same annual rate as in the current financial year. The amounts payable to each State are set out in the Schedule to the Bill. Clause 5 of the Bill provides for payments to be made from either the Consolidated Revenue Fund or Loan Fund and clause 9 provides for the necessary appropriation of these funds. The extent to which the payments will be met from the Loan fund will depend in part on the level ©f government borrowings during the year, and this cannot be precisely estimated at this point. Finally, on the details of the Bill, clauses 6 and 7 authorise the Treasurer to borrow funds in the period from the commencement of the Act to the end of December 1 977, up to the total of the amounts of the grants payable in 1976-77 and in the first 6 months of 1977-78. This borrowing authority will be reduced by the amount of any borrowings made before the enactment of this Bill, under the authority of the States Grants (Capital Assistance) Act 1976, which may have been used to finance grants made in the first 6 months of 1 976-77.

I turn now to the general context in which this Bill is being introduced. Claims have been made from some quarters that the States are being treated unfairly, particularly by the 5 per cent increase in 1976-77 in the State governments’ Loan Council program of which the grants which are the subject of this Bill are a component. Such claims should be assessed against the following:

This increase follows substantial increases in State government Loan Council programs in recent years- for example, the increase in 1975- 76 was 20 per cent;

An increase of 18.6 per cent for 1976-77 in the Loan Council program for the States’ larger local and semi-government authorities which will result in an overall increase in programs for the States and their authorities of $2 15m or 10.0 per cent;

The $643.4m or 20.9 per cent increase which the States’ presently estimated entitlements under the new personal income tax sharing arrangements in 1976-77 would represent over the financial assistance grants paid to the States in 1975-76;

The overall increase of almost 1 5 per cent in 1976- 77- after adjustment for advance payments in 1975-76 of 1976-77 hospital funds and non-recurring payments for unemployment relief in 1975-76- in payments from the Commonwealth’s budget to the States and local government authorities;

The fact that this increase of almost 1 5 per cent compares with an estimated increase in other Commonwealth outlays for 1976-77 of 13.8 per cent and follows a number of years where payments to the States have grown much faster than other Commonwealth outlays- including 1975-76 where the relevant increases were 30 per cent in payments to the States as against 1 7 per cent for other outlays; and the fact that, consistent with wishes expressed by the States, the emphasis of the previous Commonwealth Government on specific purpose assistance which was tied and subject to detailed controls, has been reversed with the emphasis now being placed on general purpose untied funds which the States are free to allocate as they choose according to their own priorities.

The States must, along with the Commonwealth, play their part in the battle against inflation by restraint in their expenditures, but the overall picture I have outlined clearly shows that the States are not being asked to bear any undue share of this crucial task. I shall in this regard be providing further information on overall CommonwealthState financial relations when I introduce later in the session the enabling legislation for implementation of Stage 1 of the new tax sharing arrangements with the States. I commend this Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland) adjourned.

page 566

QUESTION

BUDGET 1976-77

Debate resumed from 8 September, on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the Senate take note of the following papers:

Australia’s Official Development Assistance to Developing Countries 1976-77

Civil Works Program 1976-77

Estimates of Receipts and Summary of Estimated Expenditure for the year ending 30 June 1977

Particulars of Proposed Expenditure for the Service of the year ending 30 June 1977

Particulars of Certain Proposed Expenditure in respect of the year ending 30 June 1977

Government Securities on Issue at 30 June 1976

Income Tax Statistics

National Accounting Estimates of Receipts and outlays of Commonwealth Government Authorities

National Income Tax and Expenditure 1975-76

Payments to or for the States and Local Government Authorities 1976-77

Upon which Senator Wriedt had moved by way of amendment:

Leave out all words after ‘That’ insert ‘the Senate condemns the Budget because:

1 ) it pursues a policy of unemployment as a weapon to reduce real wages and salaries;

2 ) it abdicates Federal Government responsibilities and forces the State governments and local governments either to reduce their services or to institute additional charges, or both;

it introduces an additional tax in the form of the Medibank levy, thus further reducing consumer spending;

it reduces the availability of services to the whole community but particularly to those most vulnerably to hardship notably aborigines, the unemployed and migrants; and

) it fails to institute selective stimulatory expenditure to reduce unemployment and restore consumer confidence’.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western Australia

– The annual opportunity for a debate on the Budget provides a chance for members of Parliament to do 2 things: The first is to act, for the most part, as unqualified public accountants perusing the statements of receipts and expenditure which the Government provides, and the second is to discuss in rather broader terms the policies which are exemplified on the part of the Government by the Budget which it brings down and which divide the Government from the Opposition. On this occasion the views of the Australian Labor Party are very admirably contained in the terms of the amendment which has been proposed by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Wriedt, that is, that the Senate condemns the Budget because:

  1. 1 ) it pursues a policy of unemployment as a weapon to reduce real wages and salaries;
  2. 2 ) it abdicates Federal Government responsibilities and forces the State governments and local governments either to reduce their services or to institute additional charges, or both;
  3. it introduces an additional tax in the form of the Medibank levy, thus further reducing consumer spending;
  4. it reduces the availability of services to the whole community but particularly those most vulnerable to hardship notably Aborigines, the unemployed and migrants; and
  5. it fails to institute selective stimulatory expenditure to reduce unemployment and restore consumer confidence.

This Budget marks a very significant departure not only from the policies which were pursued by the Labor Government during its less than 3 years of office but also, in emphasis, the policies that were followed, however inadequately, for 23 years by the Liberal-Country Party Government which preceded the election of Labor in 1972.

In referring briefly to some of the hardships which are imposed by the Budget I should like to mention, first of all, what has been done in the field of health and social welfare. Expenditure in real terms on health services has been reduced by some 12 per cent over the last year of expenditure under the Federal Labor Government. It is equivalent to an expenditure of $ 165m annually and it affects particularly adversely the community health program, the school dental program and the family planning program. The situation is compounded by the fact that the Hospitals and Health Services Commission, which we understand is shortly to be abolished, has estimated that some 15 to 20 per cent of Australians are living in areas which have totally inadequate community health services.

The school dental services program has been allocated $ 1 m less in 1976-77 than was allocated to it in previous years- again, as the words of the amendment point out, imposing a severe hardship on young Australians who are least able to bear the brunt of these dramatic changes. The family planning services budget has been reduced in real terms by one-half. The health services for Aborigines have been allocated Sim less than in 1975-76 despite the fact that the present Attorney-General (Mr Ellicott), when he was the Opposition spokesman on Aboriginal Affairs, promised before the last general election that there would be no cut whatsoever in the moneys to be made available for Aboriginal services. Probably most importantly of all in that field, again despite promises that were made before the last general election by the people who now constitute the Government, Medibank which was accepted by the people, which was voted for on 2 occasions in Federal elections and which was introduced as a result of a joint sitting of both Houses of this Parliament, has been so mutilated as to be unrecognisable. I defy anybody on the Government side, including the Leader of the Government in the Senate, to stand up and explain to us exactly what is going on with Medibank. I have very grave doubts whether Senator Withers yet knows whether he is going to take out additional cover with Medibank or with a private health fund. As I said, this was done contrary to promises that were given and was done as pan of a general program of undermining health services for the Australian people.

The same approach had been taken in the field of education, which has already been dealt with very adequately by members of the Labor Party in the Senate. The moneys available for the education of the Australian people have been slashed in a most outrageous manner. We see this happening in all sorts of other fields. We see it in the arts where the Philistines who inveighed so heavily against Blue Poles have now come into their own and we will be back where we were, a tepid little backwater in the Antipodes where the people are unable to appreciate the Western heritage- that Western civilisation we hear so much about from the Government supporters- in the way in which people in comparable countries in other parts of the world are able to do.

We have seen the most extraordinary activities in the Australian Broadcasting Commission, to which Sir Henry Bland, not hitherto noted as a connoisseur of the arts or, for that matter, entertainmentparticularly entertainment, I would think- has now been appointed in order to demolish that Commission. I find myself in something of a cleft stick on his first action with regard to Alvin Purple. I had the misfortune to watch 5 minutes on one occasion and Vh minutes on another occasion of episodes of that program. I had a rather nostalgic feeling on looking at it. It reminded me of the jokes we used to tell when we were in third infants at Nedlands State School. I do not think it is for those reasons that Sir Henry has taken the action that he took. I imagine that it was not because of aesthetic reasons or because he is noted as a wit and has a more Rabelaisian or Balzacian approach to scatological humour, but rather because of a desire to save money and because he has been receiving the communiques we all receive from the Festival of Light. I do not intend to dwell on this matter. I merely wish to say that the attack on the ABC- I must confess if one were to attack the ABC one could not pick a better mark than Alvin Purple- is part of an attack on something which the Australian people have become used to, that is, that the Commonwealth, through a statutory corporation, the Australian Broadcasting Commission, should be providing to the Australian people entertainment and education of a type which they could not expect to obtain from commercial radio and television stations which operate only on the basis of making profits.

Much more serious than anything that has been done with the unfortunate Alvin Purple program has been the decision of the Government not to extend frequency modulation radio beyond Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra and Adelaide. That is a much more serious matter than the shenanigans of Alvin Purple with these weak attempts of humour. FM radio can be found in practically every country in the world, not only Western countries but also countries with a considerably lower material standard of living than Australia. However isolated, those countries have been able to appreciate through FM radio the finest music which our civilisation has produced. It is not an expensive medium to operate and yet we are now told that despite the undertakings given, the people of Western Australia, Queensland, Tasmania, and those outside the metropolitan areas of the other 3 States, will not be able to have the benefits of FM radio in the way in which people throughout almost the whole world- in countries much poorer than Australia- are able to have them.

In other fields, such as the field of housing, there have been the same cutbacks. These have been dealt with by other members of the Opposition. I do not intend to go through the details which we have all heard at considerable length over the past several weeks. Why is this being done? It is being done for several reasons. It is being done because the Government believes- to a certain extent, I think correctly believes- that one cannot continue to have public expenditure operating at a level beyond which the private enterprise economy can alford to maintain that public expenditure. The former Labor Government, in the last Budget it introduced, which as honourable senators may remember was passed in a most extraordinary manner in the Senate, provided for a cutback in the rate of increase in Government expenditure. I make no apology for saying that I was one of the Ministers who believed during the last 6 months or year of the Labor Government’s administration that we had to apply the brakes to public expenditure, that we could not continue to increase it at the rate at which we had been increasing it.

There is no doubt that to operate a private enterprise economy those people who engage in business have to have some reasonable expectation of profits. If the level of taxation becomes too high they will not continue to carry on their business in the way which is necessary in order to see that the business of the country is satisfactorily conducted and at the same time the imposition of taxation will be passed on in various ways which will cause inflation which in turn causes unemployment. I do not dispute that. But I believe that this Government goes far beyond upholding that principle. It goes far beyond saying that from time to time a brake has to be applied to public expenditure within a private enterprise economy. What is significant about this Budget is that it is probably the first Budget presented outside post-coup Chile in which the ideology of the woman who is mis-described as a philosopher, Miss Ayn Rand, and Professor Friedman of the University of Chicago, is, in fact, being applied. A lot of slogans go with their doctrines. One is to the effect that there is no such thing as a free lunch, although, for some reason, it is always put in the form: ‘There aint no such thing as a free lunch. ‘

Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator WHEELDON:

-For the benefit of those honourable senators who missed the first instalment of this serial, I was saying before the luncheon adjournment that what is significant about the Budget now before the Parliament is that it shows a radical departure from principles which had been followed not only by the previous Labor Government but also by previous Liberal and National Country Party Governments, although somewhat inadequately, during the previous 23 years in which they held office. Although the Labor Party would not deny that there needed to be a reduction in certain forms of public expenditure- indeed, while we were in government we endeavoured to do something about it- in order to deal with the inflationary problem facing Australia and the lack of productivity which was taking place because of taxation, which doubtless in certain sectors was too high to maintain productive industry, there is much more involved in the approach of the present Government than a mere accounting procedure. In fact the economics of Professor Milton Friedman and the philosophy, if you can grace it with that word, of Miss Ayn Rand are being applied to this country.

I mentioned the slogan which apparently has been acquired. It is to the effect that ‘there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch’. The purport of that rather illiterate but apparently whimsical statement is that somebody has to pay for everything and therefore nobody should be paying for social services or for things for which those who use them do not pay.

Senator O’Byrne:

– What about the rabbits that get two free lunches before you poison them?

Senator WHEELDON:

– I was not going to deal with that subject but doubtless someone may touch on it later. There is an ideological position which has been enunciated pretty clearly by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and a number of his supporters. It is to the effect that the business of government is business. In fact they are using that slogan of the unfortunate Calvin Coolidge and his successor, Mr Herbert Hoover, that America’s business is business; that provided you have an unrestricted market economy everything will work out for the best and that the market place is the best place to resolve all priorities and all needs.

I think this has been shown quite clearly in this Budget by the attitude adopted towards education, housing and social security. This Government is trying to return to the world of Adam Smith whose doctrines were not successful even in the 18th Century, let alone the 20th Century. They were not successful in the 18th Century when there was an opportunity for practically any person to become a small businessman with a cottage industry. They are completely inapplicable in modern industrial society where there has to be a small group of people who have the power and the ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange concentrated in their few hands.

The effect of the cutting back of public expenditure has been two-fold. The first has been the immediate economic consequence which has been felt throughout Australia. I suppose it has been felt nowhere more severely than in Canberra where we are at the moment. That consequence resulted from the strange belief to which the Government seems to subscribe- that it can somehow turn back the clock, that it can act as if we were right back at the beginning of industrial civilisation and that it can decide that we are going to have a completely capitalist market economy.

Whether one likes it or not, Australia is a mixed economy. There is a very substantial sector of public enterprise already existing in this country- in fact there has been since the origins of Australia. Australia was founded by public enterprise- the public enterprise of convicts. I am not discussing the merits of whether there should or should not have been convicts, but the origins of this country were brought about by the use of public enterprise and not private enterprise. The settlements could not have taken place at that time without British government intervention. Deeply embedded in the economy of this country are public works activities- all sorts of activities by public departments.

Just to take one instance, the cutting back of public expenditure had a most damaging effect on the building industry because a large part of it, even though it is in private hands, has depended upon government contracts for its existence. To say that the Government somehow is encouraging private enterprise, particularly in building and in very large areas of the manufacturing and service industries, by cutting back on public expenditure is nonsense. The cutbacks in so many fields which this Government has followed already have had dire effects on building, construction and manufacturing industry throughout this country. The pattern already established in Canberra in the Australian Capital Territory is, I suggest, likely to be repeated, like an arithmetic progression, throughout the rest of Australia the longer this Government continues it present policy.

What is much more serious than the immediate economic consequences of the cuts in public expenditure is the dismay, the disenchantment, the disgust which they have caused amongst great masses of the Australian people. I think it was Senator Sibraa who said in the Senate last night that countries in which the democratic system has been preserved are almost entirely countries which have had a social democratic form of government. Those countries where democracy is strongest are countries in which fraternal parties of the Australian Labor Party, parties affiliated with the socialist internationale, are either in government or have been in government for very long periods. I notice that Senator Walters, on the government side, is shaking her head in disagreement, but I would like to mention those countries where there are social democratic parties, parties which are members of the socialist internationale in government. Those are all countries in which democracy is strongest. They are West Germany, Austria, Denmark, Sweden -

Senator Walters:

– It is nothing like the democratic socialism here. It is a totally different government.

Senator WHEELDON:

-Oh yes they are, very much indeed. I do not wish to appear arrogant towards Senator Walters but if I may say so I can assure her that my knowledge of the Austrian, Belgian, Norwegian and West German social democratic parties and the British Labour Party is much more intimate than hers. I do not say that in any way offensively. I can assure her that in many respects the policies of the Australian Labor Party are very innocuous indeed when compared with the policies followed not only by the British Labour Party but also by parties such as the Austrian Socialist Party. She may wish to see their record of progress. In Austria, for example, where 45 per cent of industry is nationalised, I would suggest to her that much more progress has been made in the direction of socialism than has ever been made in Australia or has even been proposed by the Australian Labor Party.

Senator Walters:

– I was talking about West German).

Senator WHEELDON:

-Senator Walters can talk about it later; I want to continue what I am saying at the moment. Those countries in which there are parties affiliated with the socialist internationale, if I may repeat them and complete the list, are West Germany, Austria, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Israel, Malta, Great Britain and Portugal. Other countries in which there are social democratic parties as members of a coalition include the Republic of Ireland and various countries throughout the West Indies. All these countries are democratic countries. The only major democratic countries, apart from Australia, and New Zealand where there has been a recent change, in which there are not parties affiliated with the socialist internationale in office are the United States of America and Canada, but even in Canada 2 provinces, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, have socialist governments. In all these countries there has been a long period of gradual change from the son of capitalist system and its ideology which is now being embraced by this Government; and the ruthless doctrines of people such as Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand are not being applied. Without destroying the rule of law and without destroying the nile of parliament, the great masses of the people of those countries, including the working people and the poor people, are given a share in the wealth of the country in which they live and work.

If the Government wants to turn back the clock and to say that that no longer is to be the case and that it will be the law of the jungle once again, Australia will be placed in the same sort of situation as that which produced the upheaval which destroyed democracy in Europe in the 1920s and 1930s. What destroyed democracy in Europe in the 1920s and 1930s was the unemployment and the deprivation which the great masses of the people were suffering. Some of them turned to communism; some of them turned to fascism. Democracy can function only when there is not a significant number of people who are living in the sort of poverty in which they will be living if this Government continues its present policies.

I do not dispute that, as a French newspaper recently said of the Government of Jamaica which is having financial difficulties, a country cannot be run on a policy of socialist expenditure but private revenue. I agree that this country was faced with difficulties because of the taxation burdens which were being placed on private enterprise. I do not believe that there is any dispute about that. I am not one of those who subscribes to the conspiracy theory of history. At the same time, I think that private enterprise in Australia was involved in what could be described as something of a conspiracy to destroy the Labor Government. There certainly are countries which have much more lavish social services and much higher expenditure on education and health than Australia has. Many of those countries have a much higher level of personal and company taxation than Australia has. Private enterprise in those countries has been able to flourish. I admit that there are difficulties in that situation; I do not dispute that.

In Australia we need a radical change in the economic system. There needs to be a move towards public enterprise. We made some small efforts in that direction while we were in office. They were bitterly resisted by the Liberal Party. I will refer to one of them. It was in the field of insurance. We talk about all the things which cause inflation. What could be more inflationary than the present, ever increasing, shocking charges for all forms of general insurance, particularly those essential forms of general insurance such as third party motor vehicle insurance and workers compensation insurance? Why is there such a rapid increase in premiums for this form of insurance which imposes all sorts of burdens on employers and workers throughout Australia? It is because of the total inadequacy of the private enterprise insurance system to meet the needs of the Australian people.

If all public expenditure and all public enterprise are to be in the form of paying out by way of pensions and hospital benefits, this will impose a burden of some sort on the economy. It may well be a burden that we can bear, but it is not necessary for all public enterprise to be like that. There are precedents in this country, without looking overseas, where public enterprise has been highly profitable. Again I refer to the field of insurance. The government insurance offices of New South Wales and Queensland are highly profitable. Both of them are playing a role in keeping down premiums, in keeping down the price of insurance and in fighting inflation. Those are policies which the Australian Labor Party supported.

The present Government’s policies are, on the one hand, to demolish our social welfare system and, on the other hand, to allow a return to the law of the jungle in private enterprise by not proceeding with legislation to control corporations and the exchange of securities. Even in the United States such legislation was adopted more than 40 years ago. The Government’s policies will cause even further rifts in this society. They will weaken the system which the Government claims it wants to preserve. They will hammer another nail in the coffin of Australian democracy, which already has been badly damaged by the disgraceful events that occurred last year in this Parliament and elsewhere. By this Government acerbating class distinctions in this country, returning to the Coolidge-Hoover policies and the outmoded, outdated and eminently unsuccessful Adam Smith policies, and turning to the policies of Milton Friedman, which clearly do not work even in Chile where they have a military junta backing them up, the economic system of this country will fail, there will be dire poverty amongst substantial sections of the Australian people and even more irreparable damage will be done to the already badly damaged democratic system of this country.

Debate (on motion by Senator Kilgariff) adjourned.

page 571

COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY INTO EDUCATION AND TRAINING

Ministerial Statement

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– by leave- I wish to inform the Senate that the Government has decided to appoint a Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training. The Committee will deal with a number of fundamental issues related to education. In particular, the Committee will examine the whole field of postsecondary education. It will also examine the broader problem of the relationship between education and the labour market. In the latter area the Committee will be asked to expand its review into secondary education as appropriate.

I will deal firstly with post-secondary education. It is now more than a decade since the Martin report on tertiary education in Australia. In that decade there have been major changes in post-secondary education- changes which were strongly influenced by the Martin report itself. In the period since the Martin report the number of universities has increased from ten to nineteen. The whole system of colleges of advanced education has been developed. Recently the Commonwealth has become more heavily involved in technical and further education. Not merely has the structure of education altered. During this period also there has been a vigorous debate about the role of education in our society, about the purposes of education and in particular about the appropriate relationship between education and the economy. The developments in the structure of post-secondary education, the growing interest in concepts such as open education, recurrent education and retraining, the growing recognition of the importance of technical and further education and the question of education’s relevance to a person’s working life have led the Government to conclude that there is a need for a wide ranging review of the whole area of post-secondary education. Inquiries in this area have recently been completed in Western Australia and Tasmania. Victoria and South Australia have announced proposals to conduct inquiries. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development is at present conducting a review of Australian education, focussing on the transition from school to work or further study. A national working party established by the Australian Education Council has recently completed a report on the problems of school leavers in making the transition to employment.

The Commonwealth Government believes that a comprehensive review is required. This review will complement, not duplicate, the various State and other inquiries by taking a broad and long term perspective on the development of post-secondary education and by examining the relationship between education and the labour market. I have mentioned that one important reason for this review is the changing structure of post-secondary education. These developments have raised questions about the most appropriate allocation of responsibilities between the different sectors of post-secondary education. Boundaries between these sectors have become blurred. Particularly because of the establishment of separate commissions in post-secondary education there has grown up a tendency to treat the universities, the colleges of advanced education and institutions for technical and further education in isolation from each other. There is a need for the roles of these various institutions to be clarified. More than that, there is a need to consider how post-secondary education as a whole relates to the needs of individuals and to the linkages between education and employment.

Because Australia has an advanced industrial economy and because the aspirations of our people demand it there is a need for a substantial share of the nation’s resources to be devoted to education. Because this share is so large it is vital that resources devoted to education should be used to maximum effect, that unnecessary duplication should be avoided and that integrated forward planning of educational provision be given every encouragement. The Government wishes to set in train the extensive work required to anticipate needs for post-secondary education over the medium and longer term. Issues of major concern to this inquiry will include the coordination and rationalisation of existing types of post-secondary institutions, the relevance of new kinds of institutions and the capability of both existing and possible new structures for meeting the educational needs and preferences of the individual, the community and the economy.

In addressing itself to the provision of educational facilities and services it will examine amongst other things the overall pattern of institutions and courses including their objectives, the magnitude of the provision including the desirable balance between sectors, the relationship of educational provision to community and individual needs and preferences and the accessibility of education and training including reentry and transferability and the problems of special groups such as the handicapped, ethnic groups, Aboriginals and women. It will also examine the responsibility of State and Commonwealth authorities in relation to the nature and location of institutions, preparation for employment including skilled and semi-skilled groups, the provision of recurrent education and the means of evaluating the quality and efficiency of the system. Honourable Senators will see from this the wide ranging nature of the inquiry. Education has a vital role in achieving the objectives of the Government and the Australian people for an Australia in which everyone has a realistic opportunity to seek personal fulfilment. It is not only through the educational system that this objective will be achieved. All our institutions have a role to play in expanding people’s capacities to realise their abilities and in encouraging them to achieve their best.

I now turn to the second major aspect of the inquiry- the relation between education and the labour market. If an educational system fails to provide people with relevant skills- skills which they can use in their work- it is at the same time diminishing their chances of achieving satisfying lives. There are few aspects of a person’s life which can be more important in achieving personal satisfaction than their work. The inquiry will need to consider the view that the education system, and particularly the pattern of postsecondary education, is not matching satisfactorily the employment needs of many young people with the demands of the labour market.

Unemployment is particularly severe among the young and this is a matter of serious concern to the Government. In May 1976 the unemployment rate for persons under 20 years of age was 12.5 per cent, or more than 4 times the rate- that is, of 3.0 per cent- for those aged twenty and over. Although persons under twenty comprise only 12 per cent of the labour force, they account for 36 per cent of the total unemployed. The incidence of unemployment is even greater among some disadvantaged groups, such as young females, young people generally in nonmetropolitan areas, Aborigines and young migrants. Underemployment is also widespread. Australians, through their choices in the market place, significantly influence the pattern of job opportunities. This inquiry is intended to examine the relationship between this pattern and the role of our educational system.

Clearly many fundamental issues are raised here. Some have argued that the existing pattern of education and training in Australia has led to bottlenecks in the economy- shortages of critical skills which inhibit the creation of job opportunities in other areas. This requires examination. There is a danger that as economic growth gathers pace it may be hampered by inadequate availability of people with appropriate skills. In considering the relationship between the labour market and the education system the committee has been asked to extend its review into secondary education as appropriate, having regard to the fact that a significant number of children do not proceed beyond year ten in secondary schools. The committee of inquiry will be required under its terms of reference to have regard to the Government’s objectives in the area of education. These include widening educational opportunity, including access to education for those with the ability, but lacking the means; expanding educational and occupational choice; developing quality and excellence in all spheres of education and encouraging community participation in education and training matters. It is frequently said that we live in a society experiencing rapid change. Our educational system has a central role in increasing the capacity of people to adapt to change. This involves not merely increasing understanding of the nature of change. It includes also providing opportunities for re-entry into formal education for the updating of old skills or the acquisition of new skills relevant to new needs and new demands.

In this context the inquiry will be asked to examine the variety of linkages between education and employment. The Committee is being asked to examine: The role of the educational system in preparing people for work and influencing their choice of occupation, both for new entrants to the work force and for existing members; the extent of and trends in unemployment and underemployment expecially amongst the young; the interaction between the labor market and rising educational standards of new recruits to the work force, including the role of educational qualifications in credentialling or selecting people for jobs; the needs of special groups with special regard to government services for special groups; the manner in which manpower forecasts may be made- their reliability and their application in educational planning. I wish to emphasise, however, that this inquiry will extend its consideration to a wide range of fundamental issues in education. The committee will take as given the arrangements for financing and co-ordinating post-secondary education agreed between the State and Commonwealth governments except insofar as such consideration is essential to the main theme of the inquiry. It will, of course, have regard to other related inquiries and reviews.

The Government anticipates that the inquiry will last approximately 18 months. The submissions to the inquiry and the findings of the committee will be made public. It will be left to the committee itself to determine whether it wishes to hold public hearings. The composition of the committee has yet to be decided, but it will be a small expert group expressing a variety of perspectives. It will have a full-time secretariat and will be able, subject to the usual controls, to hire consultants and to commission research. The Government’s decision to establish this inquiry reflects our concern that our educational system must adapt to meet the changing needs of Australians. A great deal depends on that system for achieving objectives we all share. The Government is, of course, seeking the co-operation of State governments in the conduct of the inquiry and inviting nominations from among which a member of the committee will be chosen. This inquiry will be probably the most important and certainly the most comprehensive and farreaching in this field ever established in this country. The findings of the inquiry should be of value to the community and to Commonwealth and State governments for many years ahead. It will provide a perspective on educational planning to the year 2000. 1 commend the inquiry to honourable senators.

I seek leave to incorporate the terms of reference of the inquiry in Hansard.

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

The document read as follows-

page 573

COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY INTO EDUCATION AND TRAINING

It is now more than a decade since the Martin Report on Tertiary Education in Australia, which strongly influenced the present form of our tertiary education system. Since then there has been growing recognition of the importance of technical and further education and deeper interest in concepts of open education, recurrent education and retraining. There is now concern about the overall pattern of postsecondary education. There is equally concern about problems of the relation between secondary, or post-secondary education on the one hand and subsequent employment and careers on the other.

To assist the Commonwealth and the States in responding co-operatively to this situation, the Commonwealth Government has decided to establish a committee to undertake a review of possible developments up to 2000. Issues of major concern clearly reflected in a number of recent and current inquiries are the co-ordination and rationalisation of existing types of post-secondary institutions, the relevance of new kinds of institutions and the capabilities of both existing and possible new structures for meeting the educational needs and preferences of the individual, the community and the requirements of the labour market.

In considering the relationship between the labour market and the education system the committee is asked to extend its review into secondary education as appropriate having regard to the fact that a significant number of children do not proceed beyond year ten in secondary schools.

TERMS OF REFERENCE

The review should address itself specifically to the following:

The Committee shall: have regard to the Government’s objectives including widening educational opportunity, expanding educational and occupational choice, developing quality and excellence in education and encouraging community participation in education and training matters; take as given and not consider in detail, the arrangements for funding and coordinating post-secondary education agreed between the State and Commonwealth Governments, except insofar as such consideration is essential to the main theme; and have regard to recent and current State and Commonwealth inquiries and reviews such as that conducted by the OECD on the transition from school to work or further study.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I present the following paper:

Committee of Inquiry into Education and TrainingMinisterial Statement, 9 September 1976 and move:

That the Senate take note of the statement.

Debate (on motion by Senator Wriedt) adjourned.

page 574

QUESTION

BUDGET 1976-77

Debate resumed.

Senator KILGARIFF:
Northern Territory

– It is with considerable relief that I stand here today to review the 1 976-77 Budget. It is a Budget which, after the chaotic state in which we lived less than 12 months ago, must give confidence and encouragement to the majority of Australians who wish for the opprtunity to return to a stable state of mind and living which was so abruptly taken away from them over the years 1973, 1974 and 1975 when spiralling inflation, like a cyclone, laid waste to Australia leaving it tottering on the brink of financial collapse. This could have meant that our free enterprise system which the majority of Australians wanted would possibly disappear. One can only stand appalled at the destruction to which this experiment in a social welfare state has led us. The damage which has been done to people and industry in Australia is almost too great to measure. Inflation which was running at a rate of some 18 per cent per annum- I understand that this was the third highest in the developing countries- has priced our products into so high a bracket that we are in danger of losing overseas sales and of losing markets, both in Australia and overseas. This is despite the fact that Australia is a veritable warehouse of primary products and minerals which make us the envy of most nations.

Most of our primary industries lie bruised and battered. Costs have ground them down. Yet a scant few years ago they were vibrant, economically viable industries. Our mining industry has suffered most. Costs have beaten many a mining operation. Many a project lies idle and silent. Many are on the brink of uneconomic operation. Other projects have not got off the ground because of the anticipated high operational costs. The noise of robust mineral exploration has gone. This was outlined very ably by Senator Young when speaking in this debate yesterday. He indicated that over the last few years exploration for gas and oil had practically disappeared from this country. Yet, just five or six years ago, no matter where one went- in the outback or in the other States- a vibrant exploration was going on for oil and gas. As I shall point out later, these rigs have disappeared. In industry and in the commercial world of free enterprise costs have so increased that many industrial projects have closed down or have departed from this country or are on their knees. Unemployment in all these areas is rampant.

The Australian tourist industry is in a much weakened condition. Like other industries with a high employment factor it is continuing to slip away on a dangerous path. The cost of the product is too high. The cost of remaining viable is too high. The man in the street, whether he is an employee or an employer, has been beset by rapidly increasing living costs, food costs, clothing costs, the cost of a house, the cost of rearing a family, etc. How far does a $10 note go now for a housewife or perhaps it would be better to ask that question in relation to a $20 note? It can be assumed that a considerable amount of the blame for the collapse of the young married couple and of family life is the result of the pressures and strains which are products of these inflationary years. It is true that wages have chased the cost of living. That is inflation. But how much was the increase in wages worth to the worker?

Senator Mulvihill:

- Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. Is this speech being read or is the honourable senator reading copious notes?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Wood)- A point of order has been raised by Senator Mulvihill about an honourable senator reading a speech. I want it to be understood that speeches should not be read in this chamber. As far as I am concerned, if honourable senators want to speak from notes they may, but they should not read their speeches.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I suggest it is also true to say that after the Government has taken its increasing share in taxation out of the pay packet very little is left with which the worker can fortify himself in the inflation gallop. The year 1976 must go into history as the year when Australia, as we knew it, nearly collapsed with its financial structure in ruins. Out of this wreckage would have come, unwanted by the majority of Australians, a social welfare state. This was out of character for the average Australian but it was a situation from which there was little chance of escape. Coupled with this situation was a laxity of Government control over social benefits. People were encouraged to live off the government. At the same time the Public Service increased its numbers within the work force. Fewer hours were worked, production dropped, costs soared and the Government apparently lost control of its expenditure.

Treasurers came and went. The deficit mounted. Last year’s Labor Party Budget became an empty shell. In this situation the present Government took over with a clear mandate from the people of Australia to bring the country back to stability. Stern measures were enacted and they are now history. There was a slashing of Government expenditure, a restriction on the Public Service and a review of the social welfare system. The measures were hard but the move into higher inflation was checked. Gradually the rate of inflation was reduced to the stage where it is forecast that within the next period it will be less than 10 per cent. The deficit has been chopped from some $3, 585m by some $997m. This action was taken by Cabinet. These were hard decisions and in many places they were unpopular. In some areas they caused some hardship and consternation. These decisions required courage.

Much has happened in the past 1 1 months. Australia is struggling painfully from the debris. Market pointers are beginning to stir. Unemployment, the painful result of these irresponsible years, continues to remain with us. Unfortunately it will remain with us for some time until once again the country comes back to stability and commences to produce. This situation will continue until the country gets rid of its high inflation rate, the cost of living stabilises and the community settles down to a reasonable work pattern of production. The confidence of the nation requires a boost. Australia’s name requires a spring clean. Considering the painful period we have endured, I stand here today expressing my considerable relief at the 1976-77 Budget.

Despite the setbacks, the deficit, the near catastrophe we have experienced, the Budget should encourage and entice the Australian community to raise its head once more and move. The Budget recognises the demand of education and the Government’s responsibility to social security. The fact is that for the first time in a very long period the family has been recognised. Some 300 000 low income families are assisted. For too long the Australian family has been ignored. While I certainly have no quarrel with our immigration program I believe that in these days when we are nearing zero growth and when our population is nothing more than static, the natural Australian family must be encouraged. In future it could well be that we will find it increasingly more difficult to draw migrants from those countries, mainly in the European sphere, which have assisted Australia over the years.

The assisted migrant is a cost to Australia. Why should not the Australian family be assisted in providing our future citizens? In the years to come Australia must give much thought to its future population. I believe it is not good enough to say that by 1980 we will be a scant 15 million people. I do-not think Australia can go along for yet another generation without taking due recognition of the fact that eventually, with its resources in mineral wealth and its land available for more intensive development of primary industry, it could eventually be engulfed. Hand in hand with the development of our natural resources and with the healthy growth rate of our population we have a responsibility to Australians of the future to provide an adequate defence system. In the last few years our ability to defend ourselves has been eroded. Insufficient funds have been made available to provide an adequate defence system. Property for defence has been denied and funds have been frittered away on a welfare system which has gone a long way towards undermining the strength of our Australian character and producing, as the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) has said, the soft Australian. A strong country is a healthy country, and it is with satisfaction and relief that we see the present Government determined to restore and maintain an adequate defence capability, one that will once again command respect in this part of the world.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Wood)- Order! A point of order was raised a while ago about the reading of speeches. Senator Kilgariff, I think you are reading a speech and I ask you to desist. It is becoming a practice too frequent in this chamber and I think a stand has to be made.

Senator Keeffe:

– I rise to order. I was looking for the relevant standing order because I agree with you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that it is becoming too prevalent. I seek your ruling on the proper course of action to take if the honourable senator persists in reading his speech to have the document from which he is reading tabled and included in the records.

Senator Webster:

– Speaking to this point of order, this is a matter which has been brought forward in this chamber from time to time. All honourable senators are aware that they should not read their speeches. I realise that it is difficult for honourable senators, in view of the nature of their speech material, not to refer to notes to some extent. For instance, last evening on the adjournment debate one Opposition senator totally read his speech for 15 minutes. This occurs regularly. If we are to have a situation where the Opposition wishes to take this stance against senators on this side, Opposition senators certainly must accept the same rules being applied to themselves. I believe that Senator Kilgariff has at times read from his notes. I have been watching him intently. There certainly have been occasions when he has gone for minutes without referring to those notes, but it has been only when he has wanted to have accuracy of wording that he has referred to his notes. I put on alert the Australian Labor Party senators that if they wish to take this stance and interfere with the speech of Senator Kilgariff they must expect the same stance to be adopted in relation to them. I realise that Senator Mulvihill and Senator Keeffe do not often transgress in this way, but other members of their Party do wish to read from copious notes. I hope that they will accept the same point of order being applied to their own members.

Senator McLaren:

– I wish to speak to the point of order. Senator Webster has accused Opposition senators of complaining about people reading their speeches as though we instigated the practice. I remind Senator Webster that 2 weeks ago in this chamber it was Senator Cormack who first raised the question of a senator on this side reading his speech. I remind the Senate also that some years ago Senator Kane was reading his speech and Senator Cavanagh then drew the attention of the President to the relevant standing order. At the conclusion of his speech Senator Kane was asked to table the documents and we found after that that Senator Kane made no more speeches because the notes he had been reading from were word for word with what was recorded in Hansard. One way of proving whether a senator is reading his speech is to compare his notes with Hansard the next day.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Wood)- I want to make it clear that as the occupant of the chair I cannot become involved in whether it is the Government or the Opposition raising the point of order. I can adjudicate only on what is right according to the Standing Orders and according to the Standing Orders a senator should not read his speech. In relation to the point raised by Senator Keeffe, there is nothing to stop an honourable senator asking that a statement he has written out be incorporated in his speech. The point put forward by Senator Webster was that Senator Kilgariff was making a speech and only referring to his notes. However, as one who has had a quite lengthy experience in public life, I think that is stretching the bow. My assessment was that Senator Kilgariff was reading the speech and occasionally looking up, giving the impression that he was not reading. The Standing Orders have to be carried out and the fact that Senator Sir Magnus Cormack, a former President, raised this point a while ago indicates that in his experience too this has become a practice that is too prevalent. The sooner honourable senators get back to abiding by the Standing Orders and making their speeches either from short notes or from their minds the better. As the point of order had earlier been raised I thought I should draw Senator Kilgariff’s attention to the matter.

Senator Keeffe:

- Mr Deputy President, I am not quite sure whether the point I was trying to make was absorbed by you. Perhaps I did not make it clear enough. You might recall that on a previous occasion an honourable senator read a speech that apparently had not been compiled by him. I am not making this accusation against Senator Kilgariff and I realise that he can seek to have his speech incorporated in Hansard in accordance with the Standing Orders, with the permission of the Senate. However, I requested a ruling from you on the method which should be adopted to have the documents from which he was reading tabled as other documents are often tabled in this chamber at the request of the Senate.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTSenator Keeffe, I understand your request to be whether at the end of Senator Kilgariff’s speech you can move that the documents be tabled with his speech. That can be done.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Speaking to the point of order, I think what Senator Keeffe was referring to was the time when I asked a Democratic Labor Party senator, Senator Kane, to table his documents. That was an occasion when there had been a denial by the senator that he was reading from his notes. He had defied the Chair and continued reading, saying that he was using copious notes. By getting him to table his documents subsequently I was able to follow him in the debate and make the same speech, word for word, using the same notes he had used. This showed clearly that he had been deceiving the Senate. I do not think this applies to Senator Kilgariff. He has never denied that he was reading from notes. Perhaps he does not know that under standing order 406 the reading of speeches is not permitted and, knowing Senator Kilgariff, I know that he would not deliberately offend against Standing Orders or your ruling. I am sure that Senator Kilgariff will desist from reading as you have asked him to do and will speak from his mind on what he thinks are the problems associated with the Budget. It would be only if he took the same attitude as Senator Kane that I would be prepared to agree that he should table the documents to show that he was not honest and truthful.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– I rise only because my name has been brought into this matter by a senator on the other side. There are some observations that I should make. I make them in no way in the course of canvassing the observations you have made from the chair, Mr Acting Deputy President, for I subscribe to your observations. I am interested in Senator Cavanagh ‘s observations because it has crossed my mind in an historical sense that at last the noble Brutus has risen to his feet. Perhaps Senator Cavanagh is correct in his argument that a senator should be capable of addressing you without having to speak from copious notes. There is a fundamental problem involved here and it shows a difference between the House of Representatives and this chamber. It is simply that if a senator reads a speech or uses copious notes- an observation which was made by a predecessor in the chair, Senator Brown from Queensland, who first enunciated the theory about speaking from copious notes, one with which I do not agree- he creates a problem for our parliamentary system. In the Westminster system, under which we operate, there is a style of dialogue across the chamber. In other words, we exchange views. The reason for the standing order that honourable senators should not read their speeches is that in a debating system from which the Westminster system has evolved senators should respond to the debating points made by the other side. That is the meaning of the dialogue system from which the Westminster system has evolved. I am now giving the history of the standing order.

What I describe as the Latin system of debate is a system of people going to a podium and making an address to the whole of the assemblage. It does not become a dialogue; it becomes a hortatory system. The origin of the standing order quite simply is this: People must speak, as it were, from the heart. The moment we introduce the system which has now become part of the Standing Orders in another place, under which a member speaks from a prepared text and literally reads his speech, we are embarking upon a system under which a senator expounds a point of view that has been produced by someone else and therefore is not speaking as a senator sitting in his place. The great danger if a speech is read is that an honourable senator is being used to expound a point of view that has been written out by someone else. 1 will not embark upon this matter any further, except to say this: A Minister of State sitting in this place- I have remarked before that I do not believe that Ministers of state should ever sit in the Senate, but that is an ambition that I will never see realised- is entitled to read a speech where he is dealing with problems relating to government business. In these circumstances there must be total precision in what is said. Consequently, I have never offered any objection to Ministers of state speaking, if I may use former President Brown’s phrase, ‘from copious notes’.

I think that the Senate is losing the quality which was once held, well acknowledged and well understood by people outside the Parliament; the Senate was the greater debating chamber of the two Houses of Parliament. I say with great humility that, if we allow ourselves to get involved in the question whether an honourable senator is speaking from copious notes or in fact is reading his speech, we are in the process of destroying the system by which the Parliament operates.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Hear, hear!

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– I am glad that Senator Cavanagh, by his observation, has reinforced my view. I think, sir. with great respect, that the tendency which I have noticed over the last few years for honourable senators to read their speeches must be opposed. I suggest that any presiding officer, in a temporary capacity or in a permanent capacity, should apply the standing order that honourable senators must not read their speeches.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I think I have heard sufficient debate. I have given my ruling that the honourable senator who now has the call and all other honourable senators must not read their speeches. Before asking the honourable senator to proceed I would like to read standing order 364, which states:

A Document quoted from by a Senator not a Minister of the Crown may be ordered by the Senate to be laid upon the Table: such Order may be made without Notice immediately upon the conclusion of the speech of the Senator who has quoted therefrom.

I ask Senator Kilgariff to resume his speech.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I was discussing the defence of Australia as it relates to the Budget. I would like to carry on with my thoughts on this subject. I hope that the recognition that has now been given by the Government to the upgrading of the defence of Australia will give a much needed boost to the morale of the Australian Defence Force. In the last few years we have seen many resignations from the Defence Force; many valuable men have been lost to the defence of Australia.

As a territorian, my mind goes back just a few years to when Darwin was bombed. At that time Darwin was the mini-Pearl Harbour of Australia. As a result of the bombing there was great loss of life. Over a period of many months, Broome and many other settlements were bombed, many aircraft were destroyed and many people were killed. I would say that there is very little difference between the situation these days and the situation that existed then. There has been a very small amount of development in the north. Very few defence facilities have been provided in the north. It is true that some aircraft perform minor patrolling duties. Also patrol boats carry out some semblance of patrolling along the northern coast. But there are no ground troops at all. While people in the north probably are aware of the problems arising from the fact that the north of Australia is still undefended, the average person in the south does not realise that the front door of Australia is in such condition. Therefore once again I compliment the Government on renewing the defence facilities of Australia. I look forward very much to the release of the promised White Paper that is to be delivered to the Senate in the next few weeks. 1 would like to talk now about the Northern Territory scene. Once again I go back a few years to the time when Labor was in power. Prior to Labor gaining office the industries in the Northern Territory- industries such as the pastoral, mining and tourism industries- were developing and flourishing. The then Government had given recognition to the fact that the people in the outback needed assistance. Assistance was given on the basis that people in the outback should have a life comparable with that of city dwellers. As a result the then Government introduced the fuel prices equalisation scheme. The then Government also provided freight assistance which meant that goods transported to the Northern Territory and outback Australia from the seaboard and the southern cities arrived and could be purchased at a reasonable price. But what happened? One of the first things that occurred when Labor came to power in 1972 was that Dr Coombs was asked to report to the Labor Government on savings that could be made in expenditures of the previous Government. As a result the Coombs Report was presented, and one of the first things that happened was that the fuel prices equalisation scheme was abolished. This meant an immediate and dramatic jump in fuel prices for the people of the outback.

Also freight assistance was discontinued, with the result that the cost of goods- clothing, food and all of the requirements for a reasonable life in the Territory- jumped dramatically. This is still the case at the moment. Because the fuel prices equalisation scheme was abolished the North Australia Railway had to increase its freight rates to the Frances Creek project, which has received much publicity in the last few days. The increase in freight rates meant that the Frances Creek project could not sustain its costs and became insolvent. Having lost its main client, the North Australia Railway went further and further into the red. Last year, Mr Charles Jones, the then Minister for Transport, initiated an inquiry into the viability of the North Australia Railway, which has been closed down this year on the recommendation of that inquiry.

Senator McLaren:

– The report of that inquiry has never been made public. I have asked for it, and I cannot get it from your Government. So you cannot use that as an argument.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– I am not using that as an argument, Mr Acting Deputy President; I am merely stating a matter of fact. I would not know why the report has not been made available to the honourable senator. I imagine that if the honourable senator inquired again, it might be made available to him. The pastoral industry has also suffered severely. This is partly because of its distance from the interstate markets. The overseas markets are dwindling away. What has also hit this industry extremely hard is the cost recovery policy that was initiated by the Labor Government in the last two or three years. This cost recovery policy has probably hit people in the outback harder than any other measure to increase prices.

Senator O’Byrne:

– You forgot to blame us for cyclone Tracy.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– I will come to that later. The cost recovery policy of the previous Government has brought about increased rail freights. Rail freights have increased by about 100 percent.

Senator McLaren:

– Not in the Northern Territory. You do not have any railway lines.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– I am talking about the rail freights on goods which come from Port

Augusta to Alice Springs. Freight rates have increased by 95 per cent. Fuel costs also have increased in the Territory. For example, petrol is now $1.20 a gallon in some places. It has meant that pastoralists who were in a very poor economic situation have been brought to their knees. This Government which introduced the fuel equalisation scheme recognises it is an important principle. As a person from the outback and one who represents the Northern Territory, I would expect that when this Government gets this country back into a stable situation the matter will be reviewed and some type of fuel equalisation scheme will be introduced. It has been said by honourable senators opposite that the Budget is a disaster for the Northern Territory and that it is a standstill Budget. This has been said in the last few days by the other honourable senator from the Northern Territory. He said that the Northern Territory News is a supporter of the Liberal and National Country parties. This newspaper is a part of the Murdoch chain but despite that it said that the Budget was a standstill Budget. That is not the opinion of all people in the Territory. I should like to refer to another newspaper published in the Northern Territory, the Centralian Advocate. It also is a part of the Murdoch chain. On 19 August one of its headlines stated:

Boost for Building.

Another article stated:

Man in the Street Not Hit by Budget. The good news from Tuesday night’s ‘steady growth ‘ Budget is that for the first time since 1972, there will be no increases in excise on cigarettes, beer, spirits or petrol.

Excise on these goods was, of course, increased by the Labor Government during the years it was in office. It has been indicated very firmly that the majority viewpoint of the Northern Territory people is that this Budget is acceptable to them. Why should it not be acceptable? I should like to examine the program that has been laid down by this Government for the Northern Territory. The vote for the Darwin Reconstruction Commission this year is $139m. The Housing Commission will receive $2 1.2m. Last year it received $13m. Capital works within the Northern Territory have been allocated a further $50m. This will ensure that the building industry in the Darwin area will continue. The services that are urgently required by the Darwin community will continue to be provided. The building of houses will continue. The home finance scheme has been criticised. Adequate finance is provided in the Budget for this housing authority for this financial year. I believe that the Budget for this year sufficiently caters for those, areas that I have outlined. Naturally, not all industries are coming to the Territory because of the economic situation. This is understood. With the plans that are being prepared for the Territory for the next year or two projects that have not been financed this year will, no doubt, be financed in other years.

I now refer to the position of the Northern Territory. The Territory has problems which are unique compared with the States of Australia. The Territory- because it is a territory- has very little say in its own affairs. During the years many moves have been made to bring about constitutional changes. People in the Northern Territory desire constitutional changes. It is a fact that the majority of the people in the Northern Territory look forward to ultimate Statehood. They do not believe that Statehood should come overnight. Statehood will be attained by the acceptance of State-like responsibilities. As one climbing a ladder, ultimately we will get there. As the Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, said in his election speech in the Northern Territory last December, perhaps Statehood will be achieved in 5 years. This was an opinion and it does not necessarily mean that it will come about. Statehood for the Northern Territory is dependent on the speed with which responsibilities are handed over to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. I must say that since this Government has come to power in the last few months some recognition has been given to the report of the Joint Committee on the Northern Territory which spells out the transfer of powers. The result of this report has been that in the last few months in the House of Representatives we have seen the introduction of the Northern Territory (Administration) Amendment Bill. This Bill seeks to give power to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. In the attainment of this power and as we move forward to Statehood more say will be given to the people in this particular area. It will bring about more financial responsibility. With the coming of that financial responsibility there will be- as the States have- a buffer against financial cuts such as we have experienced in the past 10 months. Unfortunately, the Territory now is too dependent on Federal Parliament funds.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Where do you get the revenue to build it up, Senator?

Senator KILGARIFF:

– Revenue for Statehood in the Northern Territory is funded in the same way as with any of the States in Australia. As I indicated earlier the Northern Territory is a warehouse for the future needs of Australia. In that warehouse there is scope for further development in private industry, mining and tourism. One has to look only at the mineral wealth of the Northern Territory to see what that will mean to Australia in the future. As someone said: Uranium to the Northern Territory and to Australia is what oil is to the Arab states.

I turn now to our unfortunate people- the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory and Australia generally. Over the years these people have had literally millions of dollars spent on them. One wonders whether any other minority group in the world has had so much per head spent on it.

Senator Cavanagh:

– You are kidding, are you not? They had nothing until 1 968.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– As I said, literally millions of dollars have been spent on these people. A mass of organisations, governments, departments and do-gooders have grown around them and all of these have a claim on the money that is made available for the Aboriginal people. I wonder just how many people there are in Australia who are on the Aboriginal pay-roll. When one travels around and sees the people who are interested in the Aboriginal people one wonders whether they are pursuing this interest at their own cost. Some may be, but I would say that a lot would be living off the Aborigines.

Senator Cavanagh:

– You are referring to the fact that they voted for you, Senator?

Senator KILGARIFF:

– I do not live off the Aborigines. As I was saying, very much money has been spent on the Aborigines from which they are not receiving a benefit. I instance the housing associations that are now coming under review by this Government. Surely I do not have to spell out the situation in the Senate because it has been obvious to everyone that the previous Government gave, in a willy-nilly fashion, millions of dollars for Aboriginal housing. The Government had no control over this housing, nor did it ask for it. The poor unfortunate Aboriginal person, having had no experience in this type of thing, had to fall back on very many people. Over the years there has been extreme wastage.

Over the last few months I have travelled consistently in the Northern Territory and I suppose I have visited most housing associations in the Territory. Some have been successful and some have fallen by the wayside, but not through the fault of the Aboriginal people. Once again, the fault has been this frittering away, this wastage of funds, by people who have come in as consultants and the like. It is not odd to see that some of the houses in the Northern Territory have cost up to $50,000, $60,000 or $70,000. It is rumoured that S 1 1 5,000 has been paid for a house at Amoonguna. This has happened in Tennant Creek, and at Snake Bay and other places. It has happened in many places, once again not through the fault of the Aborigine but because the previous Government did not take the time or the trouble to ensure that the money that was allocated to the Aboriginal people was spent correctly.

We have Senator Cavanagh in this chamber, who I believe has a genuine interest in Aboriginal housing. But he. like others, did not follow the matter through and allowed these vast sums of money to be frittered away. So what is the situation today? It is natural, in correcting this situation, that we should ensure that the Aboriginal people get value for their money and that the money that has been allocated by the Government gets to the Aboriginal people. This has not been done previously. As I said, the previous Government allowed the money to be frittered away. Whilst Senator Cavanagh, who is trying to interject, is probably a genuine person I would say that when the Labor Government of which he was a member made the declaration that 5100m, or an amount of that proportion, was being allocated for Aborigines all it was interested in doing was to wave the flag and say: Look what we have done. We have allocated $100m But the Labor Government did not ensure that that money was spent to the advantage of the Aboriginal people.

We now have the situation where Mr Hay has looked at the Aboriginal associations with a view to correcting the situation quickly and to ensuring that the housing associations that have proved to be successful and are being well controlled and well managed will commence rebuilding as quickly as possible. In other areas that have suffered disasters, more thought will have to be given and more work will have to be done before building is commenced.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Why have you stopped money for all of them? You have had the Hay report since May.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– This halting of money has been for a brief few weeks and money is now in the process of coming forward again. It will provide much housing that is required for Aboriginals- the type of housing that is wanted by the Aboriginal people. As I said before, previously there was no control over the money. When one looks at the types of houses that were built in some of the settlements, against the wishes of the Aboriginal people, one wonders. I have seen houses of some 15 to 16 squaresmodern houses that should or could have fitted into a modern suburb. The money was frittered away in these various ways.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Why not?

Senator KILGARIFF:

– Because at the side of these houses people are living in the dust with their dogs. If this money had been well spent, instead of 560,000, $80,000 or 5100,000 being spent on one house the Aboriginal people would have received some 6 to 8 houses. The Labor Government had nothing to be proud of in this field. The Opposition continues to raise its voice on behalf of the Aboriginal people but what has it done for the Aboriginal people? As far as I am concerned and as far as the people of the Northern Territory are concerned, it has done nothing but bring misery to the people. It is only now that the fringe dwellers of the towns are being housed. It has only been since we began our brief period in office that leases are being issued and camping facilities provided. So let us hear no more of this in the Senate when honourable senators opposite wave the flag on behalf of the Aboriginal people. They have used the Aboriginal people.

As I have said before, this Budget has been described as a Budget of reform, a Budget for the man in the street. Having moved around Australia, it is my opinion that the Budget is welcomed by the people of Australia, including the people of” the Northern. Territory. It is welcomed because last year the people of Australia wondered where they were going but now, within the brief period of some 10 months that we have been in office, we have brought down this Budget which wil! lift Australia back onto its feet. I make one point in this respect: This Budget can be successful, bur its success will depend on the ability of Australia to produce, to control inflation, to keep the cost of its products down and- at the same time, naturally- to contain increases in wages. But if the objectives of this Budget are to be frustrated by wildcat strikes and go-slow methods, we will see inflation continue as it has been. An excellent Budget has been produced by the Treasurer, Mr Lynch. If those conditions continue to prevail, it can fall by the wayside. So, while in the Budget we see a move to cure inflation and to return stability to the country, the success of this endeavour will depend very much on the assistance given by people in industry.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– The whole gist of the submissions by Senator Kilgariff in relation to either the Northern Territory or the whole of Australia is that if big industry is given its head it will do the right thing for Australia. That doctrine used to be expounded by the General Motors Corporation in the United States of America. Even President Eisenhower, a Republican, had to curb the actions of then Secretary of Defense Wilson who was making the situation pretty good for General Motors by proposing that the American Army was to be exclusively tooled by General Motors.

I wish to take up with the senator from the Northern Territory 3 areas of concern. I have here a copy of the Commonwealth Scientific and Research Organisation Environmental Research Bulletin of May 1976. The Bulletin states that at the moment there are too many cattle in central Australia. It refers to half a million cattle grazing on properties around Alice Springs and states that the high rainfall that has been experienced in the last 3 years cannot be expected to continue. I put clearly to the honourable senator the point that, whether under his Government or a Labor government, cattlemen cannot be permitted to overstock. Some men would be aware of this fact; others would not. That is why regulations must be applied. It is of no good for the honourable senator to seek to get away from this fact by saying that we should let the cattlemen do as they like or that we should let the miners rape our land. Nobody objects to mining activities, but these must be undertaken on the people’s terms.

When I listened to the honourable senator I was reminded of an occasion one night when, as a member of a Senate committee- and I am ashamed of this- I with other honourable senators was having a drink with the directors of the Comalco organisation. Among those present was a man, an American, who must have been 80 years of age. He had had quite a few cigars. He said: ‘Senator, I wish I was back in Peru in 1936. You could have the Indians there working 80 hours a week. They would wear just a few beads. You would give them a bit of tobacco and a bit of salt as payment’. Senator, those days have gone. When the honourable senator talks about wages and prices, I wonder whether he realises that, as late as 1948 when a person signed on before 7.30 in the morning or worked until after midnight, many awards provided for only ordinary rates of payment. The honourable senator must know that a return to those conditions is just not on.

Let me demonstrate to the honourable senator the by-product of such conditions. I say to him, as a compliment, that he is up to his neck in the tourist industry. He would be aware that the stability of that industry in the Northern Territory depends on an exodus of people from the south to the Northern Territory. The bulk of those people are able to travel because of what has been achieved for them by the trade union movement, in many cases backed up by State Labor governments, in increased long service leave entitlements. The result of these activities is that people after 20 years, 15 years or even 10 years’ service are now able to go on tours to this area and other areas. The honourable senator knows that the Northern Territory does particularly well out of such tours, including bus tours. I am not talking about exploitation of those tourists. If we took to its logical conclusion the argument that the honourable senator has put, the result would be a call for a really good Premiers Plan, part of which would be the elimination of long service leave. Certainly costs would be reduced. But I ask: What would happen to the tourist industry, for instance? The honourable senator knows that there would be chaos in the Northern Territory as a result of such action. That is where this whole idea fails. I do not believe that the views put forward by the honourable senator are shared completely by his colleagues. They may be shared by Mr Anthony. I believe that there are a number of progessives in the Liberal Party who would not buy that proposition.

As I expound my views on the Budget, I will deal with a number of areas in respect of which I believe the Liberal and National Country Parties will need to bite the bullet and adopt an attitude different from the one that they espoused on the hustings not so long ago. I find it significant that today a number of petitions were presented by Government senators on behalf of a section of the Croatian community in Australia. The Croations have a perfect right to seek to present such petitions -

Senator Missen:

– Senators have a perfect duty to do so.

Senator MULVIHILL:

- Senator, I have a sore throat. I do not propose to indulge as I normally would in answering interjections.

Senator Missen:

– I am saying that senators have a perfect duty to present petitions as petitioners have a right to forward petitions.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I am coming to that point. Anybody has the right to do so, as other ethnic groups did some 3 years ago prior to the introduction of the portability of pensions. Let me come to my point: These petitions were presented by Government senators. This Government has been in office for nearly 12 months.

What are the facts of the matter with which the petitions dealt? I refer to the case of a Croatian gentleman who lives in St George. He is an aeronautical engineer. The Labor Government would not grant him a passport. There was no reason why he should not be allowed to visit America and improve his skills with the General Dynamics Corporation, but he would not give an assurance to the Labor Government that he would not get involved with the HOP- the Croatian Liberation Movement- and other groups in West Germany and other countries. More importantly, concern was expressed that he might fraternise with the terrorist element in Chicago. He would not give that undertaking to the Labor Government.

I believe in giving credit where it is due. Not so long ago, I took a group representing a section of the Yugoslav community to see the AttorneyGeneral, Bob Ellicott. The Attorney-General was informed by these people that some of them had served in World War II and a couple of others had served in Vietnam. Some people were trying to claim that migrants were involved in Communist activities. Some of those who made such accusations did not hold Australian citizenship and had not, for example, served in Korea. It might be claimed that due to the upsets which occurred in the Second World War these people may have been involved with the Axis powers. Some were. I am not passing judgment on this matter. Let us not put ourselves forward as super patriots.

Let me outline what has happened with regard to the case that I have mentioned. The Liberal Party was elected to government. The honourable member for St George, Mr Neil, told the Croats in Rockdale that everything would be all right and that this man would receive his passport He has not received his passport. He will not be granted a passport while he continues to become involved in potential terrorist activities. People such as this man are in the minority. I know that the present Government will not grant him a passport; I would not expect it do so. I make this point: People from our ethnic communities may be regarded as either Left or Right in their outlooks and be refused passports accordingly. I have said in a letter that I sent to the Sydney Morning Herald, but which has not been published, that I believe a panel of 9 people should be established to consider the cases of those who have been denied passports. Perhaps the Canadian system could be followed, with 3 members of the panel being legal persons, 3 members drawn from leaders of the ethnic community and the remaining three a blending of representatives from such bodies as the Returned Services League and the trade union movement. It does not matter whether the Government concerned is the present Government or a future Labor Government: The fact is that there are people to whom, for good and sufficient reasons, passports will not be granted. I know that one honourable senator will appreciate my point in this respect. As the years go by, we all mellow. I know that many people who have come to Australia from Europe have been labelled in terrible terms. We have all believed such statements at times. My view is that a 9-man tribunal would be able to sift through such cases that came before it. If we are honest, we will admit that most people who were first denied citizenship have now been granted citizenship. No country will extend to a man who, for instance, is a narcotics pedlar or a white-slaver the privileges which other citizens receive. Let me make this point: Government senators may say that I am adopting this attitude just to be a little difficult. I point out that I am supported by Peter Samuel who has been an avid supporter of this Government. I refer to the Bulletin of 10 July 1976 in which he said that this Government had been just as tough on Croatians as the Whitlam Government was. Those who were in trade unions with me received the same service as anyone else received. It is one thing to expect equality; it is another to get a hang-up which leads one to believe that one is a super patriot. I repeat that it is not an invasion of rights for a citizen to be refused a passport by the present Attorney-General or any other holder of that office if that person has had associations with those engaged in terrorist activities and is not prepared to give an assurance that he will desist from such associations. I say good luck to those on whose behalf Government senators presented petitions today.

I have deliberately not used names in this speech, as I do not wish to embarrass anybody. People have consulted me about this matter and I have said to them what I have said in this debate. The man to whom I referred earlier can go overseas to study with the General Dynamics Corporation. He can carry on his engineering course. If he commences fraternising with these elements to which I have referred he will be in difficulty. That is not my opinion alone. If honourable senators were to read through the columns of the Canberra Times they would find that not so long ago in Uruguay the ambassador of Paraguay was gunned down by mistake for the ambassador from Yugoslavia. Among those involved in this incident were a couple of people from Australia who held Australian passports.

One person was of Croatian origin. He said that he had lost his passport in Spain. I find it rather strange to hear Croatians say that they have entered Spain because there are many people of the far Right in that country. But let us give this person the benefit of the doubt. He is in a bit of bother there. People in Australia argue about ethnic radio. I must say, on behalf of Senator Lajovic and myself, that we have tried in our own way to cool people. I think he would know that this has happened with the Slovenes. It has happened to a degree with the Polish people also. But there are some Croatians who want things 99 per cent their way. These are the problems that we have. I do not mind that Senator Withers made a back-slap abour a petition a week or so ago. Let him say in respect of a petition: ‘You may be right about this but you are not right about the other thing’. They are the 2 points I wanted to make on those issues.

If we are going to argue abou: threats from communist powers I should mention that it is significant that one man came out with a statement which defused an issue. That person was Senator Sim. I do not think he is a man who would espouse left wing causes. The greatest tragedy today is our inability to be rational in our approaches to some subjects. One of the honourable senators from the Northern Territory, Senator Kilgariff, argued about letting industry do its thing. As far as the cattlemen are concerned, it would not be socialism or communism if the Government limited stocking in the Northern Territory. Where I take exception is in relation to mining. The honourable senator knows about the mining council. I have been a member of committees where mining people have come before us and there has been no guilt about them. When we asked them about the pollution of different rivers they said that the law did not demand that they do anything. We talk about being great Australians, but are we emitted to pollute areas?

We talk about leadership and people accepting the decision of the umpire. Senator Kilgariff had a shot about the trade unions. My union, the Australian Railways Union, shortly has to make a decision about whether it will assist in the transport of uranium. The Australian Conservation Foundation has produced a statement on what it believes, although I think it is trying to anticipate the decision of Mr Justice Fox. In my trade union career I was one of those people who tried to get to the middle ground. However, I make this remark to the honourable senator from the Northern Territory who espoused tourism: If we are going to mine in the areas near the

East Alligator River and the South Alligator River, I think he will agree that it will be the greatest ravishment that has ever occurred. I do not mind, in a sense, if I am forced into a corner because I acknowledge that there may have to be some limited extraction from Mary Kathleen. I am quoting the options talked about by the Australian Conservation Foundation people.

I think there will be a challenge to this Government if it does not carry on with a dream: With all due respects to my Party and the government I supported I refer to the dream of John Grey Gorton. In 1966 one of the first questions I asked was about the Top End national park, and the man who fielded that question was John Grey Gorton. He wanted that park to cover a particular acreage. I acknowledge to the honourable senator from the Northern Territory that it is a big area. On several occasions I have been in the happy position of being able to see it from helicopters and light aircraft, and I have seen it also while on foot. My own Party had a committee up there 2 years ago with Mr Bryant and Mr Lamb. Only a person without a soul would not realise what a magnificent area it is. I make this plea to Senator Kilgariff because his friends dominate the Northern Territory Legislative Council: If he gets his way and some uranium is taken from Mary Kathleen, give us this 900 square miles for this park. That was the original area, but I do not know how many hectares or acres it covers now. Let us have that area as a park. It is no use people describing conservationists as idiots, and so on. If honourable senators on the Government side believe in leadership, they will ensure that we have an area of that size. We cannot have anything less.

I have a grave fear about the mining companies. We remember this septuagenarian who said he wished he had Indians wearing G-strings to work their guts out for 80 hours a week. I do not want that and I hope honourable senators opposite do not want it. 1 know a lot of people on mining councils who want this area. I live in Sydney and the establishment of national parks in the Northern Territory will not mean more votes for me, but as an Australian I would like to believe that we will see this vision which was John Grey Gorton’s. It was the vision of Rex Patterson and many other people, and it is also mine. I know the mentality of Mr Anthony. I will have to moderate the expression I could use, but his idea is to give the mining companies what they want. There are some Australian officers of mining companies who might do the right thing, but some of these overseas people only regard

Australia as being a place to use, to cheat and to draw out.

While I atn on this subject, there is a double standard. I do not blame private enterprise but I do blame Sir Phillip Baxter, former chief of the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. Under past Liberal and National Country Party governments pollution of the Finnis River was allowed. I was at one time on a committee under Senator Davidson which was dealing with water pollution and I gave the Atomic Energy people a bit of a gruelling. When I came out of the hearing a cattleman said to me that from the way I performed I ought to be a member of the National Country Party. It worries me that a member of that Party can be pro-mining and pro-cattlemen as well. I know there are some other honourable senators like Senator Bonner and myself who definitely would lean in favour of the cattlemen before leaning towards the miners.

Do not kid us that these mining people are lovely people, that they are knights in shining armour. I know how they operate. I know how they operated in Mexico and in Latin America. They never change. A young executive with these companies is concerned only with squeezing and driving people. I accept the cattlemen, yes, but not the mining people. If Senator Kilgariff and I can say that we have to preserve this particular expanse of Australian wildlife habitat for tourism, although tourism would have to be limited because there have to be wilderness areas, let us have it. However, he is the one who will have to do the political splits on whether he lines up with the big mining companies or with the tourist people.

I know some very fine people on the Northern Territory Reserves Board and they want what I want and what John Grey Gorton wanted. I am horribly afraid that even if Mr Justice Fox comes out with a ruling which meets some of what the Australian Conservation Foundation desires, that decision will go by the board. I seek permission to have incorporated in Hansard a document from Mr D. G. Hill, Senior Projects Officer of the Australian Conservation Foundation, together with the code which that organisation submitted to Mr Justice Fox.

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

The documents read as follows-

ACF

206 Clarendon Street East Melbourne Victoria Australia 3002 Telephone 4 19 3366 17 August 1976.

Australian Conservation Foundation DGH : MD Senator Mulvihill, The Senate,

Commonwealth Parliament Offices, Sydney.

New South Wales 2000.

Dear Senator Mulvihill,

Uranium-Ranger

I enclose for your information a document headed Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry- Summary of ACF Position ‘and dated 10 August, 1976.

This document was submitted to the Inquiry when ACF representatives were questioned at the final hearings in Sydney.

Perhaps an additional point worth emphasising is that, if the Inquiry were to recommend mining at Ranger, we would consider that action should be deferred until the area was examined with regard to its suitability for acceptance as part of the World Heritage under the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage.

Yours sincerely,

G. HILL

Senior Projects Officer.

RANGER URANIUM ENVIRONMENTAL INQUIRY

SUMMARY OF ACF POSITION

In summary, ACF believes the Inquiry should recommend as follows:

That there should be no mining or export of uranium in or from Australia (ACF policy would permit the use of uranium for medical purposes only, but very limited quantities would be involved).

The above is ACF’s basic position. However, if the Inquiry were to recommend mining and export, ACF would oppose mining in West Arnhem land, because of aboriginal claims and the superior merits of the area for conservation purposes as part of the world heritage.

Conservation reserves should be established over the whole of the catchments of the East Alligator and South Alligator Rivers.

If the Inquiry were to recommend mining at Ranger, ACF:

Believes that mining should be controlled within the context of predominant conservation use of the area;

Opposes any release of heavy metals into Magela Creek;

Presses the need for effective control by a Commonwealth Government agency, not through AAEC or DONT

ACF recommends determination of the pastoral leases to Northern Pastoral Services and the removal of buffalo from the area.

Australia should develop and maintain research and foreign aid programmes in the energy field designed to meet the needs of poor people in developing countries.

The Inquiry should recommend to the Commonwealth Government that its findings be widely publicised and for that purpose should itself commission simple summaries of our conclusions, suitable for popular consumption, to be issued as nearly as possible contemporaneously with its Reports.

page 586

EDWARD ST. JOHN

Counsel for

Australian Conservation Foundation

Sydney, 10 August 1976

Senator MULVIHILL:

-I want to refer now to another matter which I think Senator Lajovic would appreciate. I have been going into Eastern Europe since 1959. I can remember giving a paper to the trade union movement relating to a simple matter. I went to shipyards at Riga and Split. As a person who had worked on lofty cranes I was impressed with their modern designs. Having been there, it was amazing to me that Australia should be so obsessed with luxury industries, but at the same time do nothing about renovating our shipyards. About 4 years after my visit a tripartite committee went over there. I think Senator Mcintosh would know that that party consisted of people from the Australian Engineering Union, the Australasian Society of Engineers and the Vehicle Builders Union. It was accompanied also by a very high public servant, Mr Colin Smee, who retired recently. Probably all honourable senators received a letter from him. That party brought back far-reaching reports on industrial procedures.

I have been in Turkey and other countries whose politics are to the right. Let us get away from this 1917 concept of communism, the belief that people work under guards armed with machine guns and that if a person leaves his lathe he will be shot down. I was in the Litistory factory in Slovenia which had a tremendously high safety record and in that establishment people were not fined when they went to the toilet. Somebody spoke earlier about migrants. You, Madam Acting Deputy President, would know something of what female migrants have to put up with in some of our clothing factories. Conditions there have not been very creditable. Somebody mentioned a Labor government, but I am talking about what happened in Victoria under the State government. Some of these State labour inspectors have never got off their backsides and done a fair job in their lives. I have put cases in all these States. I think the federal inspectors do a good job, but I am not so happy about the State arbitration inspectors. I raised a matter of underpayment with one inspector in New South Wales anil he said to me: ‘Senator, I think that girl is sleeping with the boss’. That is the thinking of the male pig. Some of these inspectors do not deserve to have their job. Honourable senators know me well enough to know that he was given a dressing down. I was not worried about his job. He will not come at that again.

Senator Lajovic would know about some of these things. That girl who was brought to see me was active in the Croatian organisation, but she said that she would sooner put up with my arguing with her about the rights of the Croatians than put up with that boss. Although I have not described that incident very dramatically, this is the situation that you get with some of these things. I want to go a little further and refer to the shipbuilding situation. Consider the situation of Britain between the wars. I recall the town of Jarrow. Some honourable senators may have read a book called The Town That Was Murdered written by Eileen Wilkinson who was an illustrious Minister in the Atlee-Churchill wartime government. I think she served in a couple of the postwar years. She wrote a very fine book about the town of Jarrow. In the mid- 1930s those British shipyard workers walked right through to London as a demonstration about their skills being preserved. By the time of the Munich talks British officials were running all over the country trying to get shipwrights, boilermakers, caulkers, platers and similar people. I am not one of those people who believe in the scare technique- I do not think Senator Sim is either- but there are senators who are talking about the presence of the Red fleet. If the Government wants to argue about large subsidies for shipbuilding, let it be realistic. We have heard talk about the Premiers Plan between the 2 wars. Whether we like it or not, Australia had not got back to the Garden of Eden by 1936 or 1938 but money was found for rearmament. I am not suggesting that today there be rearmament to the extent of building large vessels, but we must face up to facts.

Senator Kilgariff talked about the native born child, not the migrant, being the best Australian. He must include the children of migrants. I have spoken to Greeks and Yugoslavs on the assembly line. Whatever we say about the assembly line blues, they say: ‘We are here. We are in the production line in the rubber industry. Are we going to be here for the next 25 or 30 years?’ No government has done enough about automation. I say this to the Northern Territory senator: The trade union movement has accepted automation. Take the sugar industry. The work force on the waterfront at Mackay is much smaller now than it was before automation, but the price of sugar has not come down. We have not had the lengthy sit-down strikes which France had when new techniques were introduced. I am not suggesting that we go back to the conditions of the Luddites in Great Britain in the last century. Let us be realistic. If productivity in an area is increased by automation, the worker is entitled to a particular level of leisure.

Senator Kilgariff, as a champion of the miners, has not commented about the Utah Development company and the millions of dollars of profit that it has made. I agree with graduation in taxation. He cannot tell me that big overseas firms should skim millions out of Australia. Surely, as an Australian, he will admit to me that at least the Government can tax the Broken Hill Pty Co. Ltd because it is a local company, but it is not able to tax large overseas mining companies. That is the whole theme of the situation at which we are looking.

I refer now to the matter of shipping freights. There is nothing new about the way in which rural industry has been pack raped- that is the appropriate term- by overseas shippers. I know that it must be a hell of a problem for the Government. At times it must feel like hiring Russian freighters. I do not know how it would go if it did that and brought in a bit of the competition about which it talks. It should have learned its lesson with regard to our wheat. Many people sneer at what the Labor Party did. Until we came into power Canada was cornering the Russian wheat market. Australia had a fear about selling wheat to Russia. I believe that we had the Country Party on our side in this matter. Under Labor we got our cut of the Russian wheat market.

One thing which honourable senators opposite continue to do is blame the previous Government. We had not been in office long before we attempted to grasp the nettle. We held a referendum on a prices and incomes policy. I am not running away from the result. Some sections of the trade union movement were apprehensive. They said: ‘We will not always have a Labor government. What will happen when the others get in?’ After hearing Senator Kilgariff, I would be worried too. Honourable senators opposite played politics. They advocated a ‘no’ vote. They had their win. Now they are coming out with all sons of ideas. They talk about wage restraint. They say to us that we should accept it. One day the Prime Minister and Mr Street condemn the whole trade union movement- the ordinary shop steward, Bob Hawke, Harold Souter, the whole lot. The next day they want to make up. There has not been enough research.

I heard Senator Tehan, I think it was, talk about the containerisation depot. I wonder whether he knows the position. The truck driver in his 40s, the watersider and the tally clerk do not aspire to be members of Parliament. They do not aspire to be on boards or anything like that. Nobody can tell them where they will be in 5 years time. They have every right to seek job protection, as do some of the over-paid economists who are always giving us wrong information. This afternoon Senator Carrick talked about an inquiry into education. If the Government can phase out some of these over-paid economists who are always wrong, it will be doing a good job. I do not know where a farmer who made a mistake with his crops or an engineer who ruined material, as the economists do with their false predictions, would be. All these academics, particularly the economists, should go out and put in 6 months in the foundries and 6 months on the farms.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The lawyers should, too.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– It all depends on the particular lawyers. Some of them are progressive; others are not. Honourable senators opposite wonder why we get so heated on this subject. I have here an article from the Nation Review which contains alarming allegations about members of the Country Party. It talks about a chap named Rex Jettner. Several other people are named. Reg Harris is one. They are on boards galore. 1 do not object to their being on boards. If a Labor man is appointed to a board, it is said to be a terrible thing. I ask for permission to have the article incorporated in Hansard. If Senator Kilgariff wants to take the article and give me an answer later, I do not mind. If he does not, and as I want to challenge the Country Party, I ask that the article be incorporated in Hansard. What is the verdict?

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

The document read as follows-

Rugged, masculine, colorful, though without that (now banned) tobacco flavor, the Northern Territory is a living commercial for the Country Liberal party, the northern wing of the National Country party. John England, the new administrator and former NCP member for Calare (NSW ) fits perfectly into the set. There was nothing sinister about England’s appointment, as readers of this column will remember. Malcolm Fraser offered the job to two other men who wouldnt or couldnt take it; and he didnt offer it to any woman. Moreover, England’s appointment has made little political difference in the Territory, which is already in the best of hands- Country Liberal party hands.

By the peoples will, the CLP controls the legislative assembly. The administrator in council, which means the controlling party, makes appointments to the statutory boards that administer ordinances and do other pleasant jobs. There are around 70 of these boards in the NT, with so many members that the obliging clerk to the administrator’s council begged off sending me a list of their names and their members. Always trying to be helpful, your columnist was happy to settle for the 1 5 most important boards.

On these statutory boards, you can’t expect a busy territorian to serve without payment. After all, our northern pioneers arent like those lazybones who sit, without pay, on the Arts Council of Great Britain- poets, painters and all that lot. No, pioneering time costs money: for a chairman, $50 a day, for a member $45 a day- for attending a session or when boardpersons ‘are otherwise engaged on the business of the authority’. They also get travel expenses and $37 travel allowance a day. Public servants on boards dont get anything. To these arrangements there are three exceptions: there’s one fulltime salaried chairman, one fulltime salaried executive member and one executive member on an annual stipend.

As I was saying, it’s CLP territory up north, right into the statutory boards.

Stan with Rex Jettner. According to the NCP federal office in Canberra, Jettner is general secretary of the CLP; according to information coming to me from Darwin this week, he may now have become party president. What hasnt changed is that Jettner is chairman of the Primary Producers board (encouragement of primary production ordinance), a job which involves some travelling.

Next, take Reg Harris. He ‘s one of the two CLP vice presidents. He chairs the Tourist board (tourist board ordinance) and is a member of the Reserves board (national parks and gardens ordinance).

Pass on to Merv Elliott, one of the three CLP executive committee members (not counting the ex officio members) and, as a fulltime occupation, is executive director of the Master Builders association. Merv Elliott is chairman of the Wildlife Advisory council.

Perhaps you’ll remember A. G. W. Greatorex, who used to be president of the superseded legislative council of the Northern Territory and was a good CLP man. He’s now mayor of Alice and a member of the Land Board (crown lands ordinance).

And how about R. J. Kentish, the CLP member of the legislative assembly for Arnhem? He’s on the same Land board as mayor Greatorex.

The CLP has its admirers in the public service too- as do other parties, further south. That’s all right by me: it’s a free country. If any of those public servants are on the 70 statutory boards, they dont get paid.

What intrigues the minds of some territorians is the identity of the consultant (unpaid) who was recently asked to look into the Territory’s electricity rates. His identity has not been disclosed and his recommendations have not been made known. There’s at least one distinguished member of the accountancy profession resident in Darwin: he ‘s the local man of the auditing international Peat, Marwick, Mitchell. His name is Grahame Lewis and he is the treasurer of the CLP. Could you go past him for electric expertise?

Senator MULVIHILL:

-I thank the Senate. We are dealing again with industrial relations. It does not matter whether it is a trade union official, an airline pilot or someone else. We are in a modern age. Big business encourages some executives to go to Mount Macedon to learn to be astute administrators. Surely the trade unions are entitled to have colleges to which they can send their officials. Make no bones about it; that was one of the hallmarks of Clyde Cameron’s term as Minister for Labor.

Today the question is about shop stewards. Do not run away with the idea that the general position is as it is in the rag trade. Think about the disrupted home lives of people, the hours spent at meetings, and getting a reputation and having to go back on to the job. I am sorry that Senator Tehan is not present, because I have something to tell him. He talked about some snivelling union members in Victoria who are squealing about the right of a union to fine its members. Let them become active in the union and try to depose the people who are officials. Many people have done it. At times we have been defeated; at times we have won. I do not like these snivelling people who never go to union meetings and never aspire to office. If Senator Tehan has read the book by Sheridan called Mindful Militants he will have a very good knowledge of the history of the metal trades industry. My Western Australian colleague Senator Mcintosh one memorable night related the saga of the shop stewards and their problems.

The game is a rough and tumble one, but do not say that it is only the trade union movement that has to pay the piper. We have always been told that it was not time for any of the reforms which we have gained. There is no doubt that Bob Hawke, Harold Somer and many other officials do not mind talking with people, but the Government does not help with its extravagant language. I remember the occasion when there was a very tough postal dispute. Five Liberals spoke in the adjournment debate and told us what was wrong with George Slater. As an official, he enjoys the confidence of his union. The Government does not get anything that way. I could be antagonistic to Sir William Pettingell of the Australian Gas Light Co., but I suppose one should not bear grudges. My father told me a story about what happened in 1937. He got steel in his eye. He went to hospital. He was given cocaine. He did not leave the hospital until 4 p.m. He did not report back to work. He had to go home by public transport. When he went before Pettingell, who was the industrial officer, he was told that he could stay off for another 2 days without pay. My father did not work in an air conditioned office; he was operating a conveyor system which carted coal. These are the people I do not forget.

Today people such as Sir William Pettingell talk about the fuel lines and this sort of thing.

The Commonwealth Government has to exercise some authority. I think the best answer I can give to these people is something which Mr Anthony said. I ought to retract my criticism of him. I notice that Sir Charles Court on some occasions reckons he is almost a socialist. This shows the absurd way that tags and names are used. Some people have the idea that all the world is one way; other people have the idea that all the world is the other way. Let me deal now with one of the most stupid or patronising statements I have heard. I was in Brisbane when criticism of the Australian team’s performance at the Olympic Games was at its height. The Queensland Minister for Sport said: ‘When I saw the rowing, there were the East German girls right out in front, and there were the Australian girls splashing away happily behind’. What a patronising thing to say. Honourable senators opposite praise only the winners in business. Their attitude is: If a person does not win, let him lie in the gutter; there are too many bludgers on social security.

I do not want to bore the Senate. I see Senator Webster looking at me. I must come back to my original theme. Several honourable senators opposite, and particularly one from Western Australia, have spoken about hypochondriacs and people wanting free medicine. Do they realise that I, like a lot of people, joined the Hospitals Contribution Fund and the Medical Benefits Fund in 1954 and was silly enought to join a railway fund as well. I have had one call in 20-odd years. They chiselled me out of one claim and I was able to make only one claim. I have been a gilt-edged security to those funds. Honourable senators opposite tell me that we should not have a uniform scheme. My money helped the HCF to acquire an aeroplane to fly around. It helped Cade and Turner, who do not work very much, to be paid $25,000. There is nothing wrong with the Scandinavian universal health system. If the Nimmo report commissioned by the Gorton Government had been brought in there would not have been a clamour for reform. The Government would have had a better system. But that was not done and the chickens are coming home to roost. The Government cannot expect us to be sympathetic.

I know that honourable senators opposite are going to tell us about the umpire’s decision, but prominent legal people have questioned the way the previous Government was dismissed. I have said before and I will say again that many people like myself are at times difficult to handle, but one is not sent off immediately; one is warned. I make that analogy for the benefit of the present occupant of the Governor-Generalship. People should have been warned. I am not trying to be offensive. That is the reason why a lot of people like me are not really demonstrating but we cannot be expected to have a lot of respect for the Governor-General when that happens. It is as simple as that.

Senator Webster:

– He did warn you.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– Let me take it a little bit further, senator. I know that this hurts. We all know that when the Australians were bowling a few bumpers in the West Indies they were not ordered off the field but they were warned after they had bowled a couple of bumpers. I will wait until the present occupant at Yarralumla writes his memoirs to see whether he answers that.

I now refer to the former Minister for Tourism and Recreation, Mr Frank Stewart, who called for subsidies for sport. I agree that winning is not everything, but if we believe in competition we should have better facilities provided. That is the case for a lot of sports. It is significant that the hockey team, which was runner-up at the Olympic Games, admitted that the grants it received from the Australian Government had enabled the team to get overseas competition and to perform so well. I see no reason why grants should not be made. The Queensland Minister who sneered about the East German girls for not being feminine put on a very poor show. With all due respect to you, Madam Acting Deputy President, the sentiments expressed in the Queensland Parliament sometimes come from the cesspool. That was a shocking statement. I saw the gentleman on television, and the program was repeated. People like Shirley Strickland from Western Australia tried to get things going. Unfortunately the program which the previous Government had in mind did not develop as it should have developed, but it was significant that the hockey team which received grants to travel around did so well.

On the other hand, Rothmans National Sports Foundation and others get on the bandwagon when the actual Olympic appeal is conducted, but nobody thinks about providing adequate sports grounds or supplementary aid. I wonder how many Olympians working for private enterprise were told: ‘Look, chum, you cannot train for 3 months. Out you go ‘. People might ask me why a Yugoslav or Bulgarian rower should become a sergeant in the army and not appear on the parade ground for 3 months. That happens. No doubt the American employers are making provision for their sportsmen. But look at the number of Australians whose private enterprise employers tell them: ‘You had better move out. That is it’. We must take stock of our values. The Government talks about the trade unionists and says that they should forgo wage increases. But let it look at the boardroom philosophies. I suppose that I get a game of golf about every sixth Friday morning.

Senator Missen:

– You are lucky.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– The members of the club whom I see playing there are all company directors. Let me cover myself by saying that I would have worked back on Thursday night and the Friday night, in case the honourable senator wants to make any point there. The Government patronises and sermonises about the trade unions. It says to a rank and file member: ‘What is your trade union doing?’. If the union advocate is not delivering the goods the Government says that he is lackadaisical and ought to be turfed out. If he is getting results the Government says that he is disturbing the equilibrium of the economy. I simply say that it remains to be seen what will happen in the next 12 months. I commenced with the analogy of the Premiers Plan of the early 1930s. By 1936 or 1938 it was not working. Nobody knows what would have happened but for the war clouds of 1939 when we began rearmament and our own shipbuilding.

Let me mention one other matter for good measure. Many honourable senators have seen the films Picnic at Hanging Rock, Mad Dog Morgan and a host of others. My colleague Senator Douglas McClelland worked hard for the Australian film industry. He does not take all the credit and neither does the Australian Labor Party. We recognise the skills of the people in the industry. But honourable senators opposite should chew on this: From 1923 right up to the 1970s we were in hock to British and American film companies. In all the States they had ironclad agreements on our cinemas. Sir Bernard Freeman, who is 85 years old if he is a day, has been the lackey of Metro-Goldwyn Mayer. He attended a jubilee dinner recently. Like the Bourbons of old, he still has not learnt his lesson. He said that we still cannot make major films. That shows great loyalty to MGM. He has been with MGM for 50 years. He came out of World War I, went to San Francisco and sold his soul to MGM. I think that the analogy of the film industry can apply to the shipyards. Money is needed, but if people have any pride they will agree with me that we are making films, and people like Senator Douglas McClelland played a very big role in the development of the industry.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

-I have always had some doubts about entering into the Budget debate, because, in many ways, it is a very curious debate. It is perhaps not a debate at all. If it is one, it is a very discursive one, and, if you are not careful, you can travel along running after hares and following them down holes.

It is true that honourable senators speak on very diverse issues in the course of a Budget debate. It is a pleasure to follow Senator Mulvihill in these debates because, although he may not be reasonable on many of the things he says, he is always interesting. Today I felt that in his early statements there was an air of reason which was quite unusual coming from the Opposition, and many suggestions he made appealed to me. I must say, though, that, in his criticism of Government senators for presenting petitions about Croatians he seemed to feel that these petitions were related to some individual or another. Of course, they are not. They are petitions signed by many citizens claiming various grievances. It is not just our pleasure to present them, it is our duty to present them so that those people have a voice in this assembly. He said that he would like to see a tribunal set up with 9 members and he suggested various people for those positions. He proposed that the tribunal would look at such matters as the refusal to grant passports. I and many others in this chamber have been pressing for that sort of change for some time. This should not be a matter of division across the chamber. It is a matter on which there ought to be a lot of agreement. There ought to be a better means of review so that care is taken -

Senator Mulvihill:

– I gave evidence before Mr Justice Hope on that matter.

Senator MISSEN:

– I have no doubt that that is the case and I accept Senator Mulvihill ‘s sincere interest in this matter. I am just saying that a lot of people, on both sides of the Parliament and in the community, feel that these sorts of suggestions are worthy of a lot more consideration.

I must say that in the latter part of the honourable senator’s speech I had some difficulty in finding the logic of some of his propositions. I did not understand his suggestions about subsidies for ships and for armaments. He used the example of between the wars and it appeared that this was the reason why we should maintain, at its full strength, an industry which is costing $13,000 a worker a year. I do not think that we can sustain that logic in the community and I do not think he should use war scares. He is using war scares to suggest that we, on this side of the chamber, ought to put economics to the wind and agree to his subsidy proposal. He may not have meant that, but that is how it sounded to me and I am afraid that that is where the logic of his speech escaped me.

It is with pleasure that I support the Budget and the general lines which the Government is pursuing. Nobody suggests that all the things in the Budget will be immutable or that they will necessarily work. It is always a matter on which flexibility and change must be considered by government. With my knowledge of the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) over many years, with my great respect and affection for him and with my knowledge of his work and his intelligence, I have no doubt that he is going to watch the continuing progress of this Budget and be ready to change or supplement it where it becomes necessary.

Senator Wheeldon, in a speech earlier today, I think very wisely assured us that he was not one who subscribed to theories of conspiracy. It was unfortunate that, a little later, he went on to expand some of the conspiracy theories which have been prevalent in this debate. Nonetheless, taking the wish for the deed, I must say that one would have expected him, with the experience which he had in government, not to have come so happily to the conclusions which are to be found in the Opposition ‘s case and in the amendment which it has moved.

We must realise that the amendment is the same amendment as was moved in the House of Representatives. I suppose that is a great economy of effort and I suppose the amendment originated in the other place. But one must realise that in the course of the amendment there are conspiracy theories. There are allegations which suggest, for example, that this Government is desirous of promoting a policy of unemployment for various purposes. Even in the amendment of the Opposition, pride of place is given to the statement that the Government pursues a policy of unemployment as a weapon to reduce real wages and salaries. I refute that suggestion. I do not believe it. I do not believe for one moment that members of the Australian community expect any government, and certainly not this one, to pursue any such policy. I think the community is greatly concerned at the problems which are arising.

Before I go on to develop that matter I refer once more to Senator Wheeldon ‘s statements. He contended that one thing the Government was doing was ‘demolishing the social service system’. I ask honourable senators to look at the Budget in order to see whether it accords with what Senator Wheeldon has said. We have to look not only at the Budget document which was brought down in August but also at the forecast reforms which were brought forward in May. Firstly, let us look at the family allowances which were presented to the community in May. That vast increase in the allowances was designed to give dignity to people on low incomes. It was also designed to ensure that wives in particular had some moneys of their own in order to make their own judgments as to expenditure. It is shown that 300 000 families will benefit by this and 800 000 children are to be beneficiaries, ls this the type of reform which can be described as demolishing the social service system? Is it not something which has expanded and widened enormously the effect of the social service system? Secondly, we see that full personal income tax indexation, was a feature brought forward from May. The middle income group, which has seen taxation taking a bigger and bigger bite of income over many years, is given an opportunity to see some normality. This is another expression which has crept into this debate. Yesterday Senator Button in criticising our wages policy seemed to object to normality. Yet this is a way in which normality can be brought to the incomes of people in the community so that they can see their future, knowing that it will not be eaten up by taxation. Is this action something which is demolishing the social service system or demolishing the ordinary living conditions of the people?

Thirdly, the pension rate is to be adjusted automatically, taking into account movements in the consumer price index. That is a major and important reform in this era of austerity when it is difficult to imagine that a great deal of progress can be undertaken. But I suggest that this is an important area of social service. It is certainly not something which demolishes the social service system. Fourthly, we have new exemption from estate duty on estates passing to the surviving spouse. This is a matter of justice which, I suppose, should have been done years ago. It has now been done. This means that, at the very time when the surviving spouse is most worried, most affected and likely to be in danger, that spouse knows that justice will be done. Duty, in all normal cases, will not have to be paid at that time. I say to Senator Wheeldon that / wish he would stick to his statement that he does not believe in conspiracy theories. I wish he would not come before this chamber and make a sweeping statement that we are demolishing the social service system when, in fact, we have greatly improved it in this Budget.

This is a Budget which concentrates on inflation and it makes no apology for regarding that as the major menace to the community. The Treasurer made significant statements in relation to this matter and in relation to unemployment, which is grave in the community. This is a matter to which I hope to devote some time of my speech. In his Budget statement after dealing with the economic strategy he said: lt is inflation that is at the heart of the problem. This Government yields to none in its concern for the genuinely unemployed. But, whether they know it or not, those who, in the name of reducing unemployment, call for higher government spending, or bigger deficits, or full wage indexation, or devaluation of the Australia dollar, are calling for highernot lower- unemployment in this country. The overwhelming weight of evidence is against such courses. They have been tried both here and abroad: and they have failed.

I think those are the terms on which the sincerity of the Government should be judged. The fact is that evidence shows that the Government has to get control of the inflationary problem and thereby take the major attack on unemployment. I suggest that there are some other things which ought to be looked at. These are matters which may, because of special circumstances, be needed to supplement unemployment, or unemployment in certain sections of the community. But there are not matters which go to the whole basis of unemployment. Clearly, as was said yesterday by Senator Durack in the paper on Wages Policy, which he tabled here, there is a nexus between inflation and unemployment and that nexus must be recognised.

Senator Donald Cameron:

– Can you explain the freezing of unemployment benefits for those under 1 8 years of age?

Senator MISSEN:

– There is a limited amount of money which can be used. Those under 18 years of age are very often still at home. They still have help from parents and so forth. It is impossible to cope with benefits for all people at all times. I think this area is one where we must restrict the benefits. Likewise, it might be very nice if the child who leaves school received benefits in the period before the school resumes. But that is one of the options the Government has not been able to undertake. Therefore, I think we cannot expect at this stage that benefits will be adequate for all groups. We must choose those of most urgency. In regard to the position of unemployment, I refer to the fact that there is, of course, no policy of unemployment. A policy has been designed so to strengthen and improve the community that unemployment will wither as time goes on. I believe that great care must be exercised in the forthcoming 6 months or so in relation to the state of unemployment and of various groups in the community, particularly school leavers.

In relation to the unemployed in the community, I hope I am not misunderstood; I recognise that this is an enormous problem. Many people are suffering considerably. But there are curious features of unemployment in the community and there are curious difficulties which many employers have in getting staff to serve them. Jobs are waiting unfilled. Of course, there is some desire by people to wait and choose some better job. Yesterday I received figures on unfilled vacancies in the Victorian Tramways organisation. There are 264 positions which cannot be filled. These jobs do not require great skill. But the organisation cannot find staff to fill them. Likewise I received figures yesterday from the Victorian Railways. In that service there are 215 unfilled jobs, including apprenticeships, at the present time. They cannot get people to fill those vacancies. This is a curious feature.

Senator Mcintosh:

– Why will people not fill them?

Senator MISSEN:

– Because included in our unemployed are many people who are choosy. There are people who prefer to stay on unemployment relief until something better comes up. That is not said to be the overall position or anything of the sort. I am making the point that it is most curious that time and again honourable senators hear of employers who cannot fill unskilled jobs. Sometimes they are jobs which require some shift work or something which is not terribly agreeable, but, in a situation of grave unemployment, it is surprising that people will not come forward to take these jobs. I make that point without over-emphasising it, but it is a point we have to remember. I do not think unions in this country are very concerned about their ex-members but, unemployment, unemployed. In their demands, many of which have been criticised, they do very often have a desire to look after their members, but very little thought is given to those who have left the ranks and lost their jobs and for whom the high demands that are made for wages sometimes makes it more difficult.

One must take into account also that there will be 200 000 school leavers who will want jobs at the end of this year. In this area particularly, I think there will have to be some special measures. Unemployment of school leavers presents very grave dangers. There are dangers of demoralisation of people who are ready to work but find there is nothing to be done. The social dangers, the dangers to their morale, are matters which require special treatment. I am going to suggest some things that ought to be looked at, not as major programs but as extra programs to cover this area. There is a great danger that if school leavers are out of work for long periods they will lose the incentive to work, will not expect to work and it will be more difficult for them eventually to get into work.

Because of the shortage of time, although I will not go down any rabbit holes I want to suggest some possibilities that ought to be looked at very closely. One of these possibilities is the extension of vocational training. A number of people leave school at an early age and a few years later realise that they want further training. We have to do our best to give them an opportunity to try again for a more useful way of life. We must find socially valuable work.

There are roads to be made and other things that need to be done in this community and, where those projects are labour intensive and present an opportunity for employment, we have to concentrate on them. We have the National Employment and Training Scheme and we will no doubt need some extension of it to cater for school leavers. There is in the community idle building capacity and idle capital. It is not being used at present. In areas like this which may be non-inflationary and can lead to the using up of capital equipment, the Government needs to concentrate on trying to use up on a temporary basis these facilities in order to provide employment for school leavers. Rather than have people on unemployment relief it would be better if employers, who cannot economically employ someone, could be persuaded to employ people at a lower rate- this, of course, is if the unions would be prepared not to obstruct- as a temporary measure with the wages and salaries being supplemented by benefits being paid to the employees. In this way they would have jobs and employers would be playing their pan by subsidising employment.

I also believe, and I referred to this in a question I asked in the Senate recently, that students who are completing courses of tertiary education and need experience ought to be able to get jobs with employers. Through contributions provided by the Government, employers could be persuaded to take them on and to give them training before they finish their degrees or courses of tertiary education. That is one area that ought to be looked at.

It has been suggested to me that there are penalties on employers which discourage them from putting people on their staffs. For example, I do not think the payroll tax which the States now have, ought to be bigger. There is a case for grants to the States to enable them to move out of that area so that that type of tax, which I have always found in my experience to oe regressive and useless and one that discourages employers from putting on staff, can be eliminated. That would be a useful device. 1 put those suggestions forward in brief. 1 have no doubt that most of them have been heard by Ministers before but I record them because in regard to school leavers particularly, there will probably need to be some special extra measures while the economy improves and unemployment is decreasing. I do not think we can allow school leavers to be out of work for long periods. 1 turn very briefly to 3 aspects of the Budget where, I think there are matters unresolved and uncompleted and where perhaps the worst conclusions have been drawn by members of the Press and, of course, members of the Opposition. These areas are subject to reviews and consideration, and in a public relations sense, the Government has not gained the best publicity for its proposals.

In the first place, I refer to grants to Aborigines and to what was immediately the conclusion of the Opposition and the Press that an amount of $33m was to be removed, that there was to be a reduction. One only has to read what was said in the Budget Speech to realise that what is happening is a reassessment of the efficacies of some of the approaches of the past. The Government will have the benefit of the Hay report and I, like other honourable senators, hope that the Hay report will be released. I hope that we will have it. Most members of the Opposition have copies of it but we do not. As we see changes taking place in Aboriginal programs, we will be able to judge them by the opinions of Mr Hay. 1 hope also that the very solid opinions which have come forward in that massive and tremendously long-considered report of the committee headed by Senator Bonner will also be available. If we have that document we can judge the needs and I have no doubt that it will lead to additional expenditures and additional programs. However, it would be useful if we also had the Hay report. Although it was compiled in a much shorter time 1 hope the Government will release that document so that we can judge changes in policy on the basis of the evidence which is before the Government.

I mention, in passing, that I have noted the submissions of the Aboriginal Advancement League of Victoria which sought $ 1 98,000 for its work and is apparently to receive only $64,000 in the Budget. Many honourable senators have received representations from that organisation and it does seem, on the surface, that the cut is very severe. There is good reason for thinking that organisations such as that which can practice self-help and work closely in the Aboriginal community ought to be treated generously and to be provided with reasonable funds with which to carry out their works.

However, there is no suggestion of a $33m cut in programs. There are many programs being examined and although I think that, when we come to the final wash, this figure will probably be different, for the moment people have assumed that there will be a reduction of $33m. I hope that the examination of the programs is quickly done by the Government so that that assumption can be disabused.

The second matter I raise is that of growth centres in which I have a great deal of interest. I will not go into detail except to say something about the Albury-Wodonga area which I visited not long ago and which I regard as one of the most promising and important developments in the history of this country. The Government has this project under review as part of a comprehensive review of all major urban and regional development programs. For the moment certain sums have been specified, including $15m for Albury-Wodonga. But I think we must bear in mind that the concept is not one that can sit in cold storage for any length of time at all. It is a concept of raising there a city of 300 000 people by the year 2000. It is an area which already has had much less unemployment than many other parts of Australia. It is an area in which there has been a great deal of interest. If one visits that site, one realises that it is a magnificent area in which a fine new series of satellite cities could be developed; in which experimentation in all kinds of areas could be undertaken; and which, I believe, would be a success under its own steam in a matter of a few years.

I would like to quote at this stage from a report made by Sir John Overall in February this year, because I think this summarises the position rather well. Sir John made certain observations which I think are important. He said:

Considerable financial investment has already been made both in physical commitments and in the acquisition of land. A firm on-going commitment is essential to promote full confidence in the public mind both nationally and locally and with private enterprise.

He went on to say:

Stop-go’ financing of the new growth centre should be clearly avoided. This is costly to the taxpayer, destroys confidence and involves heavier costs in the long term, lt has been demonstrated elsewhere that once the ‘take-off’ point has been reached in a new centre the cost per head of housing an Australian family is considerably less than is the case in housing that family in a capital city. The ‘take-off’ point in the Albury-Wodonga area should be achieved within the first 5 years of the Corporation ‘s operations.

Already, of course, something like $90m has been spent. Already, of course, the Commonwealth has contributed substantially to that project and the States have contributed all kinds of services and so forth, although I think it is suggested that the States actually should contribute more. I find it a little sad to see that the Victorian Budget provision for this growth centre this year is only $1,100,000. I believe that it is important, as Sir John Overall says, that there should not be an interregnum.

I have seen there the industrial sites which people, at the moment, are waiting to decide whether they will take up. This is a situation that requires confidence and statements by all the governments involved. I hope that in fact the project will proceed. I point out to the Senate that the businessmen of Albury-Wodonga recently were reported as receiving a massive groundswell of support in their fight for the growth centre. The report stated:

Today’s meeting was much bigger than our inaugural meeting on Monday, ‘ . . .

Both meetings have given unequivocal support to the growth centre’.

The spokesman for the group pointed out the damage that could be done by delay. The report concluded:

Mr Wallace the leader of the groupstressed that the Albury/Wodonga complex did not want grants- it required some long-term loan funds to provide a framework in which private enterprise could develop the area.

I think that is indicative of that area. I hope that the project will not be allowed to fall between the 2 stools of Federal and State governments, but that both areas quickly will accept the responsibility for keeping the growth centre going.

Senator McLaren:

– Do you support Monarto? Senator MISSEN-I will not talk about Monarto. That is someone else ‘s problem.

I come to my third example of areas which are of some worry because they are uncertain areas under the Budget, namely, the community health centres area. For example, the amount included in the Budget for such centres in Victoria is $15m, which is an increase from $10m. The States have indicated to the community health centre organisations, which want to build and which have been promised money for some years now, that no further ventures will be financed this year. One cannot go into detail on this. Last week I visited a centre at St Albans which has plans to build- plans which it has changed over the years to accord with a more limited development prescribed by the Commonwealth and State governments. This organisation has been promised moneys and is operating in most temporary and unsatisfactory premises. It would be a great shame if money were not used in such areas, in a non-inflationary way, to encourage the building of community health centres which could be operative in the relatively near future. One should speak at length to do justice to such a subject. This is an area which is being transferred from the Commonwealth to the States. I hope that in the process it does not fail to realise the expectations of the people involved.

Finally, I want to say a word about Australia’s position in respect of foreign trade. Having recently been abroad and seen and heard from one country after another of the difficulties that this country has in not being able to sell its products and in it being able to compete so well on international markets, I worry about suggestions such as that made by Mr Hawke the other day to the effect that our trade unions might block our trade with New Zealand, not for any political reason in Australia but for a political reason in New Zealand. This amounts to a double offence to the community. It is proposed that there be a political strike, but a political strike about another country. It is clear that inflation should be the really important issue in this community when our exports are as dependent on our solving this problem at an early stage. It is important that we build up new markets, for example in Israel, and not submit to the boycotts which the Arabs are insisting on imposing on many countries. We need expansion in Europe and even, as suggested to me in Russia, trade ought to be possible with Siberia. There are probably many areas in which more adventure is needed. But, above all, if we are ever to succeed we have to stop the escalation of our prices which is excluding us from all world markets.

I hope that in this short period, I have indicated some constructive suggestions, general support for the whole venture which this Government is about in this Budget, and a belief that the Budget should succeed. But that success will depend on some goodwill on all sides of the community. Long term recovery will mean that we will have the money to return to a much more generous provision of” social welfare schemes which many of us on both sides of the chamber find extremely important. Therefore, I support the Budget and urge the Government to maintain a flexible position. I believe that the Budget strategy generally will succeed.

Debate (on motion by Senator Durack) adjourned.

Senate adjourned at 4.44 p.m.

page 596

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions werecircula

Fraser Island: Ministerial Visit (Question No. 826)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) During which period in July 1976 did the Minister visit Fraser Island.
  2. 2 ) Who accompanied the Minister and which areas of the Island did the party visit.
  3. With which groups und individuals did the Minister and his party Iia ve formal meetings. <A) What action, if any. has the Minister taken since his return from ‘Fraser Island with respect to the sand mining, forestry operations and associated aspects on the Island.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (. 1 ) He visited Fraser Island on 29 and 30 July 1976.

  1. 2 ) He wa; accompanied by two senior officers of his Department. Mi H. J. Higgs and Dr J. D. Bell, and a Private Secretary. M G. .1. Henderson. The Minister inspected the sandmining iterations of DM Minerals and Queensland Titanium Mi,nes He also travelled by four wheel drive vehicle to view a number or the Island’s scenic attractions including Central Station, where he inspected rainforest and Angioptera ferns on the bunks of Woongoolbver Creek, Lake Wabby and *n area of recent timber felling adjacent to the Buff Road J. In addition, large parts of the Island were viewed ficm the mr. A landing was made on the beach to permit a closer inspection of the coloured sand cliffs.
  2. He mc with mining company officials on the Island, and with Mr Ti. Alison. M.L.A., and members of the Fraser Island Defenders Organisation, the Maryborough City Council and he Chamber of Commerce, the Maryborough Hervey Bay Den’opment Board, the Fraser Island and Maryborough Citizens Action Group and a representative of the local timber industry
  3. No a. lion will bc taken by the Commonwealth Government .>n matters concerning Fraser Island until the report of the Commission of Inquiry has been received and considered by the Government.

Housing Allowance Voucher System (Question No. 842)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice:

What action has the Minister’s Department taken to date relating to consideration of a voucher system designed to allow low-income earners to rent or buy private homes rather than rely on Stale housing commission assistance, as outlined in the Brisbane Telegraph dated 25 June 1976.

Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Brisbane Telegraph article to which the senator referred was written at a time when the Housing Allowance Voucher Experiment was in the pre-design phase.

As the senator will now be aware the Government has allocated S 75, 000 in this year’s Budget to enable the design phase of the experiment to proceed. This allocation is for the design phase of the experiment only and does not involve the making of voucher payments. The design phase of the experiment has now begun. Voucher payments will begin with the implementation phase which will commence in the new year.

Social Security Field Officers (Question No. 843)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the function of Field Officers employed by the Department of Social Security.
  2. What is the Field Office establishment for each State as at 30 June 1971 to 1976.
  3. If there has been a reduction since 1 1 November 1975. in the number of Field Officers employed by the Department, (a) what is the reason for the reduction, and (b) what effect has the reduction had on (i) the work of the Department, and (ii) the workload of the remaining Field Officers.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Field Officer tasks include helping people who need assistance in claiming pensions or benefits, especially those unable to call at Social Security offices to discuss their problems. Field officers also undertake a number of routine checking duties (e.g. dates of birth, marriage, termination of employment, etc.). A small number of them have, as part of their other duties, the checking out of allegations of misrepresentation or abuse of the welfare system. They also carry out special enquiries regarding earnings and circumstances.
  2. The Field Officer establishment for each State as at 30 June 1971 to 1976 is shown below:
  3. As can be seen there has been a small reduction in overall numbers since June. 1975. I am informed that this reduction occurred prior to 1 1 November. 1975.

Since 1 1 November 1975, the overall numbers have increased bv two (2) but there have been minor increases and reductions in the numbers employed in some States. These variations occur mainly because of fluctuating workloads and delays in filling vacant positions.

Emus (Question No. 858)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice:

In view of the Australian Broadcasting Commission receiving over two hundred letters of protest against the methods used by Western Australian farmers to slaughter emus, as portrayed on the television program This Day Tonight on 29 June 1976, has the matter been raised at a subsequent meeting of State Ministers responsible for wildlife, with a view to providing adequate fencing to divert the emus instead of slaughtering them.

Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The matter was not discussed at the last meeting of the Council of Nature Conservation Ministers held in Hobart on 13 August 1976 since the incident at Perenjori, Western Australia, is primarily a management problem specific to that State.

There already exists in south-western Australia an emuproof fence which I understand is generally effective in preventing emus from invading pastoral areas. Fencing alone will not solve the problem occurring in times of drought when competition between native species, such as emus and kangaroos, and introduced grazing animals becomes severe and hard management decisions have to bc made. Decisions to reduce the numbers of native wildlife in the interests of maintaining domestic stock must be made on the basis of the best knowledge available taking full account of the interests of nature conservation. Any reduction in wildlife numbers should be carried out humanely to minimise suffering.

The Western Australian Department of Fisheries and Wildlife has produced a publication on the management of the emu in Western Australia. A copy has been sent to the honourable Senator. If he wishes to pursue the details which led to the specific incident portrayed in the television program This Day Tonight on 29 June 1976 he might wish to contact the Western Australian agriculture or conservation authorities.

Environmental Protection (Question No. 881)

Senator Sibraa:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, upon notice:

Is the Minister able to give an assurance that there will be no further cuts in expenditure in the area of environmental protection.

Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The expenditure proposed by the Government for the financial year 1976-77 is set out in the Appropriation Bills Nos 1 and 2, 1976-77. 1 will have no reason to suppose that these funds will not be spent during the remainder of the financial year.

Waterfront Industrial Safety (Question No. 886)

Senator Mulvihill:

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

  1. 1 ) What role does the Shipping Section of the Department of Transport exercise in respect of waterfront industrial safety.
  2. Does such a role enable the Department to intervene in the manifestation of doubts expressed on page 4 of the Maritime Worker of 15 June 1976 by the Australian Waterside Workers’ Federation concerning some safety aspects or various new cranes located at the ports of Fremantle, Melbourne and Sydney.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Marine Standards Division of the Department of Transport administers the Navigation (Loading and Unloading- Safety Measures) Regulations made under the Navigation Act.

These regulations are concerned with safe working practices and safe standards of cargo gear for the protection from injury of persons on board ship during loading and unloading operations.

  1. The article on page 4 of the Maritime Worker of 15 June concerns the provision of lifts to give access to container cranes in certain Australian ports. As this does not concern safety on board ship, it is not a matter within the ambit of the Department. The standards required for the installation of the lifts are a matter for the appropriate State authority concerned with machinery of this type.

Beef Cattle (Question No. 778)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the total area used for beef grazing in the following areas, north of 26° latitude in (a) Queensland (b) Western Australia and (c) the Northern Territory.
  2. What is the current number of beef cattle in each of these States and the Territory.
  3. What was the total number of beef cattle in each of these States and the Territory for each of the past fifteen years.
  4. What was the area used for beef cattle in each of these areas for each of the past fifteen years.
  5. What are the main twenty companies, or groups of companies, that have interests in beef cattle in these States and the Territory, and where are these interests located.
Senator Cotton:
LP

– The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question which is based on information from State Departments and the Department of Northern Territory:

I. (a) I 343 000 square kilometres. There is no single shire North of 26° latitude in Queensland in which beef cattle has not made a major contribution to Primary production. That statement does not overlook that some areas of Cape York Peninsular have not been stocked and that there are some areas on the coast used exclusively for crops. In the central west there is a proportion of holdings running sheep only. Fifteen years ago there would have been more sheep carried on properties. For economic reasons in recent years there has been a trend to increase the number of cattle and reduce sheep numbers. Also there has been a swing from dairy cattle to beef cattle.

This information is not readily available from Western Australian Government sources.

780 000 square kilometres.

This information is published in Australian Bureau of Statistics Bulletin. Reference Number 10.63, released on 5 July 1976.

This information is published annually by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Reference Number 10. 14.

–

Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development: Statutory Authorities (Question No. 959)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development the following question, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Which statutory authorities come under the control of the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development.
  2. What is the name, occupation, date and term of appointment and remuneration of each holder of public office of each authority.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Environment. Housing and Community Development

(2)

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

  1. 1 ) Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation. Australian Housing Corporation, Commonwealth Hostels Limited, Housing Loans Insurance Corporation, Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Australian Heritage Commission.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 9 September 1976, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1976/19760909_senate_30_s69/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant