Senate
14 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 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 601

QUESTION

DEATH OF MAO TSE-TUNG

Senator WITHERS:
Minister for Administrative Services · Western AustraliaLeader of the Government in the Senate · LP

– It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 9 September 1976 of Chairman Mao Tse-tung, Chairman of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China. I seek leave to move a motion of condolence.

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

Senator WITHERS:

-I move:

Mao Tse-tung, Chairman of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, died on 9 September. He was the principal architect of China since 1949 and one of the very few men who have had a major impact on the course of world history. He led the Chinese Communist Party through a long and destructive civil war and in his writings set out a new conception of what China should be.

Mao Tse-tung devoted his life to the vision of a rigorously egalitarian society, and in pursuit of that vision he mobilised the vast energies of the Chinese people. For the first time in many decades Mao Tse-tung gave China an effective administration, restored a country ravaged by civil war, and secured the basic necessities of life to China’s people. He sought for China selfreliance. Under his leadership China assumed a major role in world affairs.

Mao Tse-tung ‘s conception of the desirable organisation of a society was not ours, but he achieved peace internally and respect for China. He came to symbolise the new China for his own people and for the world.

In recent years, under his leadership, China began to adjust her ideological objectives to the realities of world power. His meeting in 1972 with the President of the United States was a significant and deliberate step in this process. For Australians, it is of considerable significance that, as China’s supreme leader, he lent his personal authority to the establishment and further development of China ‘s relations with Australia.

The loss of Mao Tse-tung will be deeply regretted and mourned by the Chinese people. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has publicly expressed, on behalf of the Australian people, his sympathy for their loss and was first to sign the book of condolence in Canberra. The Australian Ambassador in Peking has laid wreaths as a formal act of condolence. I am sure that the Senate would wish to place on record its sympathy for the Chinese people.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– On behalf of the Opposition I rise to support the comments of Senator Withers (Leader of the Government in the Senate) in his expression of sorrow on the death of Chairman Mao Tse-tung. Chairman Mao grew up in the old China of war lords, feudalism and foreign domination of trade in its major cities. He made a new China of independence, self respect, and international status. While commentators speculate about possible disruption following his death, Mao has left a stable Chinese social system with steady economic progress which his passing will not seriously disturb.

When Mao was fourteen years of age he was married off, I understand against his will, in the feudal style of that era in China’s history. Sixtyfour years later it was the same Mao who invited the anti-communist President Nixon to Peking, which was a significant step in easing tension between China and the United States and in bringing China into the realm of international relations. He was a young peasant organiser who stirred feelings of revolt against the tyrannical system of repression existing in his country. He was the philosopher who gave a new moral oriental form to Marxism. He was the brilliant military commander who won the populace to his cause by instilling in his troops a feeling of respect for the ordinary people. Unlike the armies of Chinese leaders before him, his armies did not loot, pillage or rape. He organised great land reform and just government. He was a poet in the classical style and a humane head of a government which was the biggest bureaucracy on earth. Throughout his life he remained a man of the people, living simply without the ornate trappings of office.

China has lost its helmsman with the death of Chairman Mao, but his legacy of a unified nation firmly advancing the welfare of the world ‘s most populous nation and its emergence to its rightful place in international affairs remains with us.

The Opposition regrets his death and expresses its sympathy to the people of China.

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

– I give support to the motion of condolence moved by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Withers). Mao Tse-tung was a world leader of great prominence. His loss will be felt by people of all nations. I place on record the regret of the members of the National Country Party at the passing of this great figure.

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

-I identify myself with the eloquent comments made by both the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Withers) and my own Leader (Senator Wriedt). I express support for the motion of condolence on the passing of Chairman Mao Tsetung. With the permission of the Senate I shall read into the Senate Hansard a decision of the Victorian Branch of the Australian Labor Party, my own branch. I had the privilege of conveying this decision to the Ambassador of the People’s Republic of China this morning. It was a decision made last Friday night. It states:

This meeting of the Administrative Committee of the Victorian Branch of the Australian Labor Party places on record a motion of condolence to the Government and the people of China on the death of Chairman Mao, and requests Senator Bill Brown … as former Chairman of the Party, to sign the book of condolences on behalf of the membership of this Branch, and that a copy of this resolution be sent to the Ambassador of the People ‘s Republic of China.

I was privileged to do that this morning. I endorse the comments made so eloquently by the 2 leaders.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

-I join with members of the Senate who have spoken on the death of Mao Tse-tung. I associate myself with the very many tributes which have been paid to his leadership and with the expressions of condolence to the Chinese people which have been made by so many international figures during the last few days. Mao Tse-tung was born at Shaoshan in the Hunan Province in 1893. He became part of the nationalist movement of China. In his early youth, because of the very strong feeling that existed in mainland China about the intervention in the internal affairs of that country by many of the Western powers he became an official of the Kuomintang, which was the revolutionary movement. General Chiang Kai-shek later succeeded to the leadership of this movement.

It is interesting to look at Mao Tse-tung ‘s development as a political figure. He was a librarian in his early youth. Subsequently he was a director of a Kuomintang propaganda department and a labour organiser and was associated with one of the great epics in world history- the Long March- in 1934-36. He was part of the leadership that developed the Fourth and Eighth Route Armies which played a very significant part in tying down large sections of the Japanese forces in the Pacific in the 1930s and 1940s. Undoubtedly, they contributed something towards the defeat of the Imperial Army of Japan because of their long involvement from 193 1 to the end of the war in 1945. The Chinese people made many sacrifices in the defeat of the Japanese invading forces. In the period from 1934 to 1936 Mao Tse-tung led a small group of men and women from one end of China to the other, and 15 years later- on 1 October 1949- he proclaimed the People’s Republic of China. That surely must indicate something of the leadership qualities of this person whom we are honouring today, and to whom great credit has been given by our Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr E. G. Whitlam) and many other eminent Western figures.

Mao Tse-tung devoted his whole life to the emancipation of his people. Whilst nobody necessarily is expected to agree with his philosophy or to understand it, it must be said that he succeeded in unifying China, which had not for many centuries been unified. China is the most heavily populated country on the earth and it was a feudal country. One has to pay tribute to the quality of Mao Tse-tung for being able to bring about such advancement in such a short space of time. Not only did he contribute greatly to the advancement of his people, as Senator Wriedt has said, but also he wrote many books advancing the particular philosophy with which he had had an early association. He set out to build an egalitarian system of society, and to a great extent he succeeded in that objective. Of course, we in Western civilisation cannot understand much of what has happened but I think it has to be said that in his efforts to improve the living standards of the people of China he largely succeeded. The people were living in appalling conditions, but that is not the position today, as many people- even from this Senatewho have been there in recent years will know. I was one of those who made an early pilgrimage to China. I went there in 1952. One could not fail to be impressed with the progress that was being made even 3 short years after the People’s Liberation Army had succeeded in taking over Peking and the whole of China. Therefore, I should like to join with all honourable senators and world leaders in paying tribute to Chairman Mao Tsetung, in expressing the condolences of the whole Senate to the Chinese people and to his family and in putting on record our appreciation of his contribution to mankind.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I invite honourable senators to signify their assent to the motion by standing in silence.

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

page 603

DEATH OF ELI JAMES HARRISON

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaLeader of the Government in the Senate · LP

- Mr Deputy-President, it is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on Thursday, 9 September, of Mr Eli James Harrison, a former member of the House of Representatives for the Division of Blaxland in the State of New South Wales. Mr Harrison was the member for Blaxland for 20 years- from 1949 until his retirement in 1969. Before entering the Commonwealth Parliament Mr Harrison was a Labor member of the New South Wales Legislative Council, serving in that Chamber from 1942 until 1949.

While in the House of Representatives, Mr Harrison served as a member of the Printing Committee and the Standing Orders Committee. In addition, his service to the Labor Movement included the positions of State Secretary and Federal President of the Australian Federated Union of Locomotive Enginemen. On behalf of all Government senators, I extend our sympathies to his family.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The Opposition supports the sentiments expressed by the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Withers) in respect of the death of Eli James Harrison, who was a former Labor member of this Parliament for the seat of Blaxland. Jim Harrison was elected to the New South Wales Legislative Council in 1942 and served there until he won the federal seat of Blaxland in 1949. He served in this Parliament for over 20 years until he retired in 1969. During his career he played an active role on several committees and also on the Parliamentary Labor Party Executive. He was a delegate to the Fortysixth Conference of the Inter-Parliamentary Union in London in 1957 and a member of the Inter-Parliamentary Council in 1957-58. I wish to place on record the Opposition’s regret at his passing.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I wish to pay tribute to the political and industrial work of Mr Eli James Harrison who, as has been said by Senator Withers and

Senator Wriedt, was a member of this Parliament for many years. Also, for a great part of his life, he was a prominent member of the Labor movement. For many years he was an official of the Australian Federated Union of Locomotive Enginemen. In that capacity in his early days he was closely associated with the former Labor Prime Minister, the right honourable Ben Chifley, who also was a prominent official of that union. The late Mr Harrison was a member of the executive of the New South Wales branch of the Australian Labor Party. Senator Mulvihill and I served with him in that capacity. As a trade union official and as a Labor Party stalwart he was chosen to represent the Party in the New South Wales Legislative Council in December 1942. He served in that Parliament until October 1949 when he resigned from that House to contest the Federal seat of Blaxland which he won at the 1949 genera] election. For 20 years Mr Harrison was a member of the House of Representatives. Therefore for 27 years he served in the New South Wales Parliament and in the Federal Parliament. As Senator Wriedt has said, Mr Harrison was a member of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party executive. While on that executive he was our Party spokesman on industrial affairs. I know that during that time while still a member of Parliament he acted as an industrial advocate for his union which he loved. I pay my respects for his service to the Labor movement and I pay tribute to his lifetime work.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

-I desire to supplement the remarks of my colleague Senator Douglas McClelland. There are 2 tributes which could be paid to the late Representative Harrison. Firstly, in his early days as a shift worker who worked all night considerably more enthusiasm was needed to participate in politics and in the trade union movement. As a locomotive engineman night work was part of his way of life. Secondly, members nowadays have better research facilities and postal facilities but when Jim Harrison came to Canberra he maintained a strong link with all trade unions, not just those in the railway group. Some members had to give considerably more time than is required today to Labor councils, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and research work. I think Senator Withers would appreciate that the postal allowance then was well and truly spent- and more with it. My ties with Jim Harrison, like those of Senator Douglas McClelland, started around about 1955 or 1956 or 1957. During that period we were inundated with summaries of all industrial legislation. Thereby, Jim Harrison fulfilled a role which was non-existent until he took it upon himself. In that area alone he will be remembered both in the trade union movement and in the Parliament of the nation.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-I add very briefly to the remarks which have been passed about Eli James Harrison. My first meeting with him was shortly after World War II. It is very significant that this man gave great devotion to whatever task he wished to carry out. I can recall that as a trade union official there were many occasions when he was asked to come to Queensland. I cannot recall one occasion on which he found it not opportune to accept the invitation. But better than that, unlike a lot of parliamentarians he used to do a great amount of work in compiling an appropriate document which would be read or presented to whatever conference he was attending. I think he was an example in this area to a lot of today’s parliamentarians. I join with those who have expressed regret at the death of Jim Harrison.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I invite honourable senators to stand in silence as a mark of respect to the memory of the former honourable member.

Honourable senators having stood in their places

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Thank you.

page 604

PETITIONS

Building Activity

Senator LAJOVIC:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I present the following petition from 480 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 1S68 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 LAJOVIC:

– I present the following petition from 158 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.

Medibank

Senator WRIEDT:

-I present the following petition from 39 citizens of Queensland:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned electors of the State of Queensland respectfully showeth:

That Medibank was established to bring to every Australian the opportunity to attend the doctor of his or her own choice and to provide hospital insurance to all Australians irrespective of their means;

That Medibank provides substantial financial assistance to the free hospital system in Queensland which has never been given under any previous government;

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should ensure that the agreements entered into between the Commonwealth and the State of Queensland should be maintained and that Medibank should not be so altered either in cost or complexity so that it may no longer be available to all people of Australia as a universal health insurance scheme.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Australian Broadcasting Commission

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

  1. Eschew all means, direct or indirect, of diminishing the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Commission.
  2. Reject all proposals for the introduction of advertising into ABC programs.
  3. 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.
  4. Ensure that any general inquiries 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 inquiry.

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

Petition received.

Australian Broadcasting Commission

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

We, the undesigned 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 inquiries into broadcasting in Australia which may seem desirable from time to time shall be conducted publicly and that strong representations of the public shall be included within the body conducting the inquiry.

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

Petition received.

Child Care Services

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble undersigned citizens of Australia respectively 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 child care programs are heavily biased in favour of pre-school 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 child care facilities, schools and other government buildings which could be used for child care programs are underutilised.

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

  1. an increase in funds for child care services throughout Australia;
  2. an equitable distribution of funds to cover all the child care 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 child care needs;
  4. d ) the wider utilisation of government buildings or parts thereof, eg. schools, hospitals and government offices for appropriate child care facilities. by Senator Guilfoyle (2 Petitions)

Petitions received.

Medibank

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia do humbly submit:

That the Government should withdraw its proposed changes to Medibank.

The United Nations has declared this decade ( 1975-85) as the Decade of Action for the needs of women. It has also declared the health of all people is a basic human right.

Believing that women have a major need for adequate, low-cost health care, the undersigned declare their wholehearted opposition to the changes intended by the present Government to Medibank, and affirm that any changes should be designed to further liberalise the original scheme, not to weaken it.

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

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 Wood.

Petition received.

Children’s Commission

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia do humbly submit:

  1. That pre-school education is the right of every child, irrespective of financial circumstances;
  2. That adequate child care facilities are the right of every woman, irrespective of financial circumstances;
  3. That any cuts in the money available for children’s services will deny these rights and many women and children in need of them;
  4. We therefore urge that the Children’s Commission be re-instituted- that the cuts made in the budget of the Children’s Commission be restored and no further cuts be made.

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

Petition received.

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.

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

Petition received.

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 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.

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

Petition received.

page 606

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 606

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY

Senator WRIEDT:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Does the Minister recall saying on an Australian Broadcasting Commission radio broadcast this morning that economic recovery was very much in the hands of the people themselves? Does this mean that the Government considers it has exhausted all means of stimulating the economy and does not intend to take any fresh initiatives to that end?

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

-It is a disappointing question from somebody who has the intelligence of Senator Wriedt. What I said last night and repeated on a radio program- I hope Senator Wriedt will understand it and I commend to him a second listening to that programwas that when tax indexation and the family allowances scheme were set off against the change in the tax rebate system, something like $ 1 , 000m increased purchasing power was in the hands of the people. Obviously, and sensibly, if economic recovery was desired by people, they had a great opportunity to further it by spending some of that money.

Senator WRIEDT:

-I wish to ask a supplementary question. With great respect to the Minister, I asked him: Does it mean that the Government considers that it has exhausted all means of stimulating the economy and does it intend to take any fresh initiatives or not?

Senator COTTON:

-Unlike the previous Government, we are not fixed at a point of time in concrete for ever. Naturally, as we go down the track in economic progress we make whatever necessary changes we have to make.

page 607

QUESTION

INCIDENT NEAR MELVILLE BAY

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

-My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I preface it by referring to the incident concerning 2 Aboriginal boys who were lost near Melville Bay in the Northern Territory on or about 23 August 1976. Was the mother charged in court in connection with this incident? If so, was she represented in court by legal counsel? Was she convicted of any offence? If so, what was the sentence? Finally, who is now taking care of the 2 small boys?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · VICTORIA · LP

– The mother in question was charged with giving false information to police and with the neglect of her children. The charges were adjourned indefinitely after a medical report indicated that the mother was mentally disturbed. The Chief Magistrate, Mr Kirkman, found that the mother was incapable of caring for herself and her children. The magistrate ordered that she be kept in custody until she could be removed to an appropriate institution for treatment. The accused was represented in court by Mr P. McMenamin of the Aboriginal Legal Service in Darwin. The boys are in the legal custody of the welfare officer at Yirrkala and will be released to the care of Aboriginal relatives with the agreement of the father and the mother.

page 607

QUESTION

DEVELOPMENT OF MANGROVE AREA AT CAIRNS

Senator KEEFFE:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development. I preface it by reminding the Minister of a previous question that I asked during the last sessional period about a project concerning the drainage of a mangrove area at Cairns. The project was instituted by the Colonial Sugar Refining Co. Ltd for the purpose of growing sugar cane. Is the Minister aware that the company concerned apparently has discovered that the land is not suitable for sugar cane growing? Can the Minister ascertain to what use CSR now proposes to put the land? Alternatively, if the land is disposed of, is it not a fact that the company will receive a substantial financial benefit by selling the land for industrial and port development? What action will the Government take to ensure that no further destruction of mangroves in the Cairns inlet will eventuate, especially if the land is to be utilised for the purpose of industrial and port development?

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

– Since the information is not available to me at the moment I ask the honourable senator to put the question on the notice paper.

page 607

QUESTION

HEALTH INSURANCE

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Treasurer the following question: Is it true that unless Commonwealth employees have filled in a health insurance levy exemption claim form- that is the yellow one that has not always been available at places where it should have been- and lodged it with their employer by Thursday this week they will have the 2Vi per cent levy deducted from their pay for October and not have it repaid to them until after the end of the financial year? Further, as individuals do not have to join the health funds of their choice until the end of this month, will the Government see that its employees are not forced to make this loan to the Taxation Office which of course pays it back but does not pay it back with interest as many people feel it should?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-I heard about the possibility of this only a few moments before coming into the Senate chamber this afternoon. What the honourable senator has said in his question is, as far as I know, the position at the present time. I must say that it seems to me to be an extremely odd situation to have. After question time I will do some further checking on this matter.

page 607

QUESTION

RETAIL INDUSTRY

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. It relates to the speech he gave at the dinner held by the Australian Retailers Association and follows a question asked earlier by Senator Wriedt. I ask the Minister: Did he say that in order to encourage consumer spending the retail industry had a very important part to play and that the age of the super salesman was upon us as a desirable thing in encouraging consumer spending? I ask the Minister: Is the age of the super salesman upon us and is the retail industry to be relied upon for that role? Have the super salesmen of the Government failed in encouraging consumers to spend? Is the onus now being shifted to private industry?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– I have never found salesmen to be objectionable people. I have found them to be active in society in getting things moving. It is equally true- I hope the Opposition understands this-that in Australia’s mixed economy about a quarter is government activity and about three-quarters is private activity. It must be obvious to those even with the most minute intelligence that activity in the private sector is essential for economic recovery, that investment in that sector is critically important and so is consumer spending. The people who are involved in attracting consumers to spend surely are important.

page 608

QUESTION

SOLAR ECLIPSE

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. I refer to the forthcoming total solar eclipse on Saturday, 23 October at 4.30 p.m. eastern standard time. Is the Minister aware that there is no safe way of looking directly at the eclipse? Is she also aware that any direct glance, however brief, could result in permanent destruction of the delicate nervous elements of the retina with consequent irreparable visual impairment or even blindness? Can the Minister say whether a public relations campaign is proposed by the Government to alert the community at large to these dangers and to inform people of safe ways to observe this phenomenon? If such a program is envisaged, can the Minister give details as to what form the campaign will take?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– The honourable senator has raised an important question. I am able to inform the Senate that action to alert the public about the dangers of direct viewing of a solar eclipse will be taken nearer to the date of the October eclipse. It is usual for warnings to be given in the media by the various authorities concerned with public health in the States. Details of the action to be taken to warn the public will be discussed with State health authorities at the meeting of the Public Health Advisory Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council, which is to be held on 16 and 17 September 1976. I would join with the honourable senator in stressing the importance of an education campaign with regard to direct viewing of the solar eclipse.

page 608

QUESTION

PROPOSED NATIONAL WOOL PRODUCING TRAINING COMMITTEE

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations: Is it true that the Government plans to establish a national wool producing training committee? Is it true that such a committee will be funded out of the allocation for the National Employment and Training scheme? Can the Minister inform the Senate how much of the $40m allocated to the NEAT scheme for 1976-77 will be spent on this proposal? Can the Minister outline under what criteria such a proposal is being made?

Senator DURACK:
Minister for Repatriation · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I regret that I do not have any information in relation to the questions asked by Senator Georges. I certainly would not have the figures that he seeks but I will pass on the question to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations in an endeavour to obtain an early detailed answer for the honourable senator.

page 608

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL GRANTS

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to the letter circulated by the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service describing the Government ‘s policy on Aboriginal grants as shortsighted economy measures. Can the Minister assure the Aboriginal Legal Service that the Government has no economic policy in this regard but is waiting on the Hay report to enable the necessary financial support to reach the Aboriginal people?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I shall direct that question to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and shall obtain his decision and a considered statement on the matters raised.

page 608

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, somewhat follows on from the previous question. I ask: Why have some Aboriginal housing associations been denied moneys and not others? Will the Minister give special consideration to the Aboriginal Housing Association at Walgat Lake which on a government establishment grant has established a company, drawn up housing plans, surveyed the settlement, engaged an architect, prepared designs and, when now ready to build, is denied funds? As the affairs of the company were not inquired into by Mr Hay, will the Minister have an immediate inquiry made into the efficiency of this company and do something to assist this most praiseworthy group of Aborigines?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I shall have to refer that specific housing association matter to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to obtain the necessary information. The Government is committed, as an integral part of its policy of selfsufficiency, to fund Aboriginal housing associations. There was a firm commitment by the Treasurer in the Budget Speech this year to make additional funds available later this financial year. The Government is determined to end inefficient spending and to see that programs operate effectively. The Aboriginal Loans Commission has $10m this year for housing and personal loans; that is $3m more than last year. The allocation for housing associations was reduced in the Budget but the commitment of the Treasurer and of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs is that further funds will be made available when the investigations have been completed.

page 609

QUESTION

DEFENCE FORCES PAY RATES

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I refer to the matter of differential pay rates in the Australian defence forces, which I raised in this House on 5 November last year. Is the Minister aware that a pay rate differential of 20 per cent still exists between male and female Army officers? In view of the policy of equal pay in the defence forces recommended in 1971, can the Minister give an assurance that this matter will receive urgent consideration?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-I do not know that I can give any particular assurances on behalf of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. However I shall pass on to him Senator Missen ‘s question about the discrepancy, which does appear to be revealed in the question, between the pay of male and female members of the defence forces.

page 609

QUESTION

ECONOMY

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer, follows on from questions asked of him by Senator Wriedt and Senator Button. I ask the Minister: Did he see in the Australian last week-end a report which was headed ‘State of the Nation’ and which said that a marked worsening in Australia’s position was reflected in the August foreign reserve figures and that Australian reserves fell during August at the same time as the trade position weakened? Is it a fact also that there was little improvement, if any, in the domestic economy? Are savings bank deposits continuing to rise and has new capital spending shown only minor growth? If so, will the Minister agree that the economy is far from improving and that all the statistics available indicate clearly that the public is far from convinced that it has reason to be confident in the state of the economy following the presentation of the Budget?

Senator COTTON:
LP

– The most reliable figures and the only ones that one can take positively are the national account figures for the end of June. I shall have to recall them as best I can out of my head, which has a limited capacity for such things. The figures show clearly that for the quarter ended in June, they being the most recent positive figures, there was a distinct pattern of economic growth for the first time since the end of 1975. For the 6-month period to the end of 1975 there was almost a nil growth rate. For the 6 months ended June of this year the figures show that the growth rate was about 3 per cent. It was a compound of farm and non-farm product. The economic recovery was clearly and discernibly on the way. It was taking place at the slow rate one would expect and at the rate that was planned in the Government’s total strategy.

The situation in regard to the Budget has become clear only since the Budget was brought down. It is much too early to predict what will happen as a result of the Budget and what its consequences might be. It is hard to be precise. I think this is a dangerous area in which to try to be precise from day to day on what might be called incidental comment. Economic change arising from the consequences of a Budget takes about 6 to 12 months to occur. My own feeling and that of the Government is that economic recovery is on the way. It can be seen in various indicators. It is occurring at the rate expected at this stage. There is a certain tendency for people to be rather hesitant regarding capital investment. That is to be expected in the overseas capital investment area because far too many people talk about devaluation without knowing a great deal about it. Equally, it is not true that the investment programs are slack. Investment programs in Australia are rising as figures, when they become available, will show. I have some of these figures now but as they are confidential I cannot discuss them. They will show that investment is rising.

page 609

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN FOREIGN POLICY

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs a question concerning suggestions that Australia should be non-aligned and that our security cooperation with the United States is ‘detrimental to Australia’s safety’. I refer particularly to an advertisement in the most recent edition of the National Times, signed by a number of people including the President of the Australian Labor Party, Mr Hawke. I ask: Is it not true that nonalignment would mean that Australia must abrogate its mutual security treaty with the United

States and New Zealand? Does the Minister recall references to ‘our policy of alignment’ and the statement that ‘the maintenance of our alliance with the United States . . . remains most important for our security’? Does the Minister also recall the following statement with respect to United States installations in Australia:

We have been convinced that they . . .

The installations-

  1. . contribute specifically to the improvement and development of Australia ‘s defence system?

Is the Minister aware that these statements were made by the present Leader of the Opposition when he was Prime Minister? Does the Minister see inconsistencies between the views expressed by the present Leader of the Opposition and many members of his Party as indicated by the signatures appearing in the advertisement in the National Times? Can the Minister indicate whether there can be any reconciliation between the foreign policy of the Leader of the Opposition -

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– What about the yellow peril?

Senator KNIGHT:

– Are you feeling a bit sensitive? Can the Minister indicate whether there can be any reconciliation -

Senator Wriedt:

– I rise to take a point of order. I think that in his laborious, cumbersome way the honourable senator has had time to make the point in his question. If it is necessary for him to keep asking supplementary questions he ought to exercise that right after he has asked his initial question. I would doubt whether it is a question without notice but I ask you, Mr Deputy President, to exercise your judgment on that point.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator DrakeBrockman) I have noticed during the past week when I have been in the chair at question time that some questions are far too long. I ask honourable senators to shorten them. If they wish to ask supplementary questions on a particular point they may do so.

Senator KNIGHT:

– I shall finish, Mr Deputy President. Will the Minister indicate whether there can be any reconciliation between the foreign policy of the Leader of the Opposition and that of the President of the Labor Party? Will he indicate the Government’s position with respect to non-alignment and the ANZUS pact?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-With regard to the final part of the honourable senator’s question, I say quite categorically that the Government intends to honour the ANZUS treaty and the Government has firmly ruled out non-alignment as a valid option for Australia. I think the other parts of the honourable senator’s question ought to be asked not only of the Government but also of those opposite with regard to who is running the Australian Labor Party’s foreign policy. Is it the parliamentary leader or is it the President of the Party who is anxiously seeking to find a seat in this Parliament? That is what it is really all about. I do not think it is altogether by accident that that advertisement appeared in the National Times. Some very interesting people signed it, but I did not see Mr Whitlam ‘s signature. One would think the elected leader of a parliamentary party would be involved in anything in which the President of his Party is involved. But I suppose that is the way they run that ramshackle outfit that they call a political party. We have Mr Hawke desperately searching to find a seat in the national Parliament, where I suppose his main objective will be to up-end the currently elected leader of his Party. To achieve that end, no doubt he has to go along with the left wing because in the State of Victoria it determines who receives endorsement. I think it is a great shame that a political party which has a so-called Federal President does not quite know what it has, whether it has a challenger to the elected parliamentary leader in this place, whether its Federal President is using his position to promote his own ambitions in the Parliament, or whether he really represents the views of the Australian Labor Party and is voicing them as its national president. All I say is that whoever is leading the Australian Labor Party for the time being, would he please stand up and let us know who he is.

page 610

QUESTION

FOREIGN AFFAIRS POLICY

Senator WRIEDT:

-I direct my question to Senator Withers who represents the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Is it not a fact that the Minister for Foreign Affairs recently said that the presence of Russian vessels in the Indian Ocean constituted a threat to Australia and that Senator Sim, Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, said that it is not a threat to Australia? Will he tell the Senate which one is correct and which one is formulating Government policy on foreign affairs?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

– I wish honourable senators opposite would not take two or three words out of a member’s speech and try to make out of them the whole of the speech. My colleague Senator Cotton this afternoon has had 4 questions directed to him about an important speech he made last night and each time somebody has picked out three or four words, taken them out of the context of the total speech and attempted to cross-examine him on those words. This is happening again in this instance. The Leader of the Opposition is attempting to pick out two or three words from the speech of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and two or three words out of the speech of my colleague Senator Sim. As I understand Senator Sim’s speech, it was in total agreement with Government policy. Even if it was not, and I just said that it was, whether honourable senators like it or not we do not run our affairs in government in the way that their ramshackle Party ran them when it was in government. Government policy will be announced by the Prime Minister and his Ministers and no one else. It will not be announced by any federal executive of faceless men. It will not be announced in newspaper advertisements by the President of the Party. It will not be announced by Caucus committees. Government policy will be announced by the Prime Minister and his Ministers, and no one else.

page 611

QUESTION

RELOCATION ASSISTANCE SCHEME

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. As the Government has announced that people who are unemployed in Australia are to be given assistance in moving to an area where employment is available, will this scheme be available to the people of the outback who because of their isolation and distance from other centres have an added financial difficulty in moving to a new job in another area? In circumstances where the proposed assistance is insufficient, will the Government give consideration to these factors of distance and isolation and give a higher level of assistance than that indicated?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– The scheme announced on Sunday evening by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has much to offer people in all parts of Australia, including the outback which is the particular concern of Senator Kilgariff. It is available to unemployed people in all parts of Australia. I stress that fact because I think Senator Kilgariff’s question does not confine itself to people who are unemployed. The scheme is limited, whether it is in the outback or anywhere else, to those who are unemployed and who agree to move voluntarily to undertake training or to take up jobs in other locations that cannot be filled from among the unemployed in those locations. The scheme will pay actual fare costs based on economy class travel associated with a person and his family exploring a prospective job in the new location and subsequently moving to it. The scheme makes allowance for people who live long distances from centres where jobs are available. I emphasise the ambit of the scheme for people who are contemplating moving to another location. It provides for the applicant to travel to the new area for employment and /or training interview. It applies to the applicant and his spouse, if necessary, travelling to any new area for one exploratory visit to examine the living conditions there and returning home. It also applies to the applicant and /or family moving to the new location to take up residence. It provides- I think this would be of great importance to people in the outback- if the applicant moves to his new place of employment ahead of his family, for 2 return visits to the family.

page 611

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Senator GIETZELT:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. I refer to reports that, apart from the series Alvin Purple, news clips of fighting in Timor, a massacre of civilians in Vietnam and other news items, the newly appointed Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, Sir Henry Bland, has involved himself in unprecedented censorship of that public corporation. Is the Minister able to tell the Senate whether the Chairman of the ABC, on his appointment, was given any instructions to censor the ABC or to interfere in the internal management affairs of that body? Is the Minister aware that the Chairman has split the ABC commissioners and has created divisions between the Commission and management, as well as responding to a well-orchestrated letter-writing campaign by the ‘Festival of Fright’? In view of the seriousness of the current dispute in the ABC, has the Government given any consideration to asking the Chairman of the ABC to resign, thus allowing the ABC to concentrate on its legitimate role of providing a balanced presentation to its ever-widening audience?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Unlike the Australian Labor Party when it was in office, the present Government does not believe in stacking the statutory corporations with political favourites; nor does it believe in its Ministers contacting staff of the Australian Broadcasting Commission and giving direct instructions of the government to the ABC, as happened in previous years. The ABC is a statutory and independent corporation. The Chairman of the ABC has no instructions of the kind which Senator Gietzelt invented. I am in no way aware of any form of censorship as alleged by Senator Gietzelt. It is entirely a matter for the Chairman and his commissioners to decide how the ABC shall be run. If Senator Gietzelt has any such information which he can make available to me I will give it to my colleague, the relevant Minister, and will seek further information. I invite Senator Gietzelt to produce the information to me in writing.

page 612

QUESTION

FAMILY ALLOWANCE PAYMENTS

Senator CHANEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I refer the Minister for Social Security to a report in the Australian Financial Review today relating to negotiations with the banks to credit family allowances to accounts monthly. The report suggests that the Government may pull out of the negotiations. Is the report accurate? What is the position of a family which wants to receive family allowance payments more frequently than on a quarterly basis?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– The article with regard to family allowances is not correct in all its detail. The statement that the Government may pull out of negotiations with the banks to credit the monthly family allowance payments unless the dispute over fees is resolved fairly soon is not accurate because the Government is negotiating with the banks with regard to crediting to accounts, on a monthly basis instead of on a 3-monthly basis, the increased family allowances. It is not correct to say that the banks were advised of the matter in June and that they have been negotiating with us since that time. It is more correct to say that we have not yet put to the banks our figure as a fee for negotiation, and the banks are awaiting information from us. It is true to say that the banks were concerned with regard to the added costs that would be incurred by them if they were to accept transfers on a monthly basis instead of on a 3-monthly basis. They drew attention to the costs that would be incurred by them if that sort of undertaking were accepted by them. The banks accept that payments made on a 3-monthly basis are an existing arrangement and they have no intention of withdrawing from that arrangement.

In answer to the last part of the question with regard to families who wish to have their payments made on a more frequent basis than 3- monthly, let me say that it is quite competent for families to request that their allowances be paid on a monthly basis with a 4-weekly cheque that can be sent to them at their own address. It is a matter of interest that the latest figure as at 30 August 1976 on the number of endowees who were paid by 12-weekly bank credit and who have transferred to 4-weekly payments is 52 570, representing 38 381 people who have requested a cheque and 14 189 people who have requested deposit with a credit union or permanent building society. I think it is important to state that negotiations are taking place with the banks on this matter and I hope that it will be resolved. It is fairly common knowledge- I may have stated it myself- that the Treasury has agreed that we can pay a fee to the banks for monthly crediting, and these are the negotiations that we are undertaking with them.

page 612

QUESTION

DOMICILIARY NURSING CARE

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Social Security, concerns domiciliary nursing care and it refers to the application of section 58e of the National Health Act. A very distressing case was brought to my attention yesterday concerning a male age pensioner caring for his totally blind wife, who is also additionally handicapped by the loss of a leg. The husband has been refused the allowances under that section because his wife is aged 62 and not 65. As it is 4 years since this matter was brought into the Parliament, I ask the Minister whether she will be good enough to discuss it with her colleague the Minister for Health with a view to reducing that limitation? I am told that there are many distressing cases similar to the one I have mentioned. Alternatively, will the Minister consider an application under the Social Services Act under which she might, when she is satisfied about a case, pay a special benefit?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I would be happy to do both those things. With regard to the domiciliary benefit being paid, I acknowledge that under the section mentioned it is applicable to a person who has attained the age of 65 years. I accept the hardship that is involved where it is the wife of the pensioner who may not have attained that age herself. As far as the general question is concerned, at the present time a committee is investigating matters relating to the care of aged people in this country. It is timely that the honourable senator has brought forward this matter as it is a matter that could be referred to that committee. I hope that out of the committee we will be able to establish some alternatives with regard to the care of the aged. Obviously, better domiciliary services are one of the alternatives that should be regarded as of very high priority. I thank the honourable senator for his question. I will refer it to the committee and I will also investigate the special benefit as he has suggested.

page 613

QUESTION

BUILDING INDUSTRY

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I remind the Minister of concern expressed in Canberra last week by building workers about the levels of employment in their industry, especially in New South Wales. I ask: Is it a fact, as these workers claim to me, that the lead time and duration of major building projects is usually measured in years and particularly that decisions to commence projects take several years to flow through? Can the Minister recall that a Mr Mundey and his militant union boasted that they, on their own, over the past few years had prevented the commencement or completion of up to $300m worth of building activity in New South Wales. Is it possible for the Minister to state the degree to which the present employment difficulties in the industry in New South Wales are a legacy of the actions of Mr Mundey several years ago?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I certainly have a very vivid recollection of the activities of Mr Mundey and his green bans on large numbers of buildings in Sydney and in other parts of Australia as well.

Senator O’Byrne:

– Minsec?

Senator DURACK:

-Yes, Mr Mundey even came to Western Australia and tried to extend his activities into Perth as well. I do not know whether he prevented $300m worth of new buildings from being commenced but he certainly made extravagant boasts of that character. There is no doubt whatsoever that his activities and the activities of those people associated with him had a very serious impact on the building industry in New South Wales. How far that activity is now the major cause of the difficulties experienced by the building industry in New South Wales I am not competent to judge. But I believe that the question is an important one. It demands a considerable degree of investigation. I shall ask my colleague to carry out that investigation as a matter of urgency to enable me to inform the Senate fully on this matter.

page 613

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH STATUTORY ORGANISATIONS

Senator WRIEDT:

– My question which is directed to the Minister for Education follows an answer which he gave to Senator Gietzelt a few minutes ago and in which I understood him to say that the Australian Labor Party Government stacked Commonwealth statutory organisations. In fairness to those people who were appointed by the Labor Government to such statutory organisations I ask the Minister to name a person or persons appointed to either the Australian Wool Corporation or to the Australian Broadcasting Commission who would come under that category and to point to evidence which shows that they were appointed purely for the purpose of stacking those 2 corporations. Will he name the person or persons to whom he was alluding.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-If the answer which I gave hurts the Australian Labor Party, that is a matter for the Labor Party. I do not intend to name the persons. I simply suggest that the Labor Party look to the appointments it made and it will get the answer quite clearly.

Senator WRIEDT:

– I direct a supplementary question to the Minister for Education. I take it that the Minister is not prepared to name the per-son or persons to whom he referred, that theY shall remain the faceless men of statutory organisations in this country.

Senator CARRICK:

– I gave my reply. I have nothing to add to it.

page 613

QUESTION

PROVISIONAL TAX: MEDIBANK LEVY

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware that in the processing anl assessing of income tax returns for the yea: ended 30 June 1976 the Medibank levy, payable from 1 October next, is being included in the pro> visional tax assessed and charged? As this ii unfair to taxpayers who either have opted out o: Medibank or propose to do so, will the Minister arrange for an urgent investigation to be conducted to devise a procedure whereby taxpayer: can advise of their intention to opt out prior te the issue of the assessment and so prevent the levy from being charged on provisional tax?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-The honourable senator asked me whether I could find out about thi; matter. As it is of interest to the whole Senate J think it would be appropriate if I read the answer which has come to me from the Treasurer. Thi Health Insurance Levy Assessment Act 1976 which received royal assent on 4 June 1976 authorised an increase, in appropriate cases, ir the amount of provisional tax liability foi 1976-77 to incorporate a component represent ing health insurance levy. Under that legislation the Commissioner of Taxation is empowered to refrain from increasing the amount of provisional tax payable to include the levy component if, from the information that he has or obtains, it appears that the taxpayer has exercised his option to take out private health insurance cover or is likely to do so. Appropriate procedures have already been devised to effect this arrangement and the Commissioner of Taxation has also sought the assistance of tax agents by asking them to indicate in their clients’ returns whether they have exercised their option to take out private health insurance. A taxpayer who has opted out of Medibank and who receives notice of provisional tax payable which includes a component of health insurance levy may apply to the Commissioner for a variation of his provisional tax payable.

page 614

QUESTION

ETHNIC BROADCASTING

Senator MULVIHILL:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. In view of the announcement placing ethnic radio under the control of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, will provision be made for the establishment of a national ethnic community advisory council in a similar format to that which previously operated? If so, in view of the prolifer.mon of ethnic radio session participants, will arrangements be made to ensure that some of the smaller ethnic groups, such as the Portuguese community, have representation on such a body? Finally, could the Minister say whether Senator Davidson and his running mate are also to be appointed to that body?

Senator GUILFOYLE The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has made an announcement that a national ethnic broadcasting advisory council and State ethnic broadcasting advisory committees will be established in the near future. A majority of members of each body will be drawn from the ethnic communities. Necessarily the size of the national ethnic broadcasting advisory council will be kept to manageable proportions as its members will need to travel from various States to attend meetings. However, it is envisaged that each of the State advisory committees will be large enough to provide comprehensive representation to the various ethnic community groups.

No decision has yet been made about who the appointees to the committees and the council will be, but I know that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs is desirous of having representative bodies and I feel sure that smaller and minority ethnic communities will find representation on them. As to the appointment of Senator Davidson and his eminent running mate, I am unable to speak for the Minister at this stage, but I am sure that consideration will be given to representation from all sectors of the community.

page 614

QUESTION

POLICE RAID AT CEDAR BAY

Senator COLSTON:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and relates to the recent raid by Queensland State Police and federal narcotics agents on a small community at Cedar Bay in North Queensland in which it has been alleged that property was destroyed, personal possessions of the inhabitants of Cedar Bay burnt and that the residents were terrorised by armed government agents. In the light of the very deep concern being expressed by civil liberty groups throughout the community about certain aspects of the raid, will the Minister advise the Senate of the extent of Commonwealth involvement in the raid, including the use of HMAS Bayonet, and on whose instructions the federal agents were acting? Has an inquiry taken place following the statement made by Senate Keeffe in the Senate last Tuesday night and by others in the community and, if so, does the Federal Government intend taking action against any of its personnel who were involved in that raid?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-The honourable senator ought to be aware that I am certainly not responsible in this Parliament for anything done by the Queensland State police. The question of the activities of the federal narcotics agents is for my colleague the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, whom I do not represent in this place. As to the general question, although allegations are made that property was destroyed, personal possessions burnt or residents terrorised, the honourable senator cannot expect the Government to institute an inquiry every time such an allegation is made. In this case it is purely an allegation. If people were arrested as a result of this raid I imagine that they will be duly brought before the proper place, namely, a court of law. If some of these things happened, maybe they can be dealt with there. If not, and if property was destroyed or personal possessions burnt, those persons affected have their remedies at law and I suggest that they take them in the proper place. It is not for governments to act on allegations made by honourable senators or by people elsewhere in the community. After all, they are but allegations. No evidence is produced. In any event, in a parliamentary situation we ought not to be making judgments on what is alleged to be evidence. There have been established, quite deliberately over centuries, courts in which evidence is presented, evidence can be tested by examination and crossexamination and independent members of the

Bench can come to proper and impartial decisions. That is where I believe these matters ought to be resolved.

Senator COLSTON:

-I wish to ask a supplementary question.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT-Is it on the same subject?

Senator COLSTON:

-Yes, indeed, Mr Deputy President. It is part of the same question. I do not believe that my original question was answered. I preface my supplementary question by saying that in order to get some information on this subject I advised the Minister of the question last Thursday. In that light, can the Minister advise the extent of the Commonwealth involvement in the raid, including the use of HMAS Bayonet?

Senator WITHERS:

-I admit that I received a telegram, sent no doubt at enormous expense to the taxpayers.

Senator McLaren:

– What about Ellicott’s telegrams last year? They were sent at enormous expense, too.

Senator WITHERS:

-Don’t get excited.

Senator McLaren:

– Misleading ones.

Senator WITHERS:

-Don’t get your feathers ruffled. I repeat: I have no intention of making any investigations into this matter. An allegation about this was made somewhere. I have no evidence, apart from some allegations, that the raid took place at all.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Oh, break it down.

Senator WITHERS:

-Just because the honourable senator comes in here with some of his wild sweeping allegations which have entertained us during adjournment debates virtually hour by hour, week in week out, mostly without a shred of evidence to enable them to be tested in the right places, I have no intention of wasting taxpayers’ money by instituting inquiries. I say that quite deliberately. It would be a different matter if the honourable senator were to come along with some real evidence. In any event, for all I know, these people may well be charged. Does the honourable senator know whether any charge has been laid against them? If any charge has been laid against them I would not wish to commence any inquiry at this stage and interfere with the normal course of justice.

page 615

QUESTION

HOME SAVINGS GRANT SCHEME

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development. Is the Minister aware of reports that many young couples in Adelaide will be deprived of grants under the home savings grant scheme because the average cost of building a home is $23,300, whereas the limit for eligibility under the scheme is $22,500? Will the Minister refer this matter to his colleague for investigation to determine whether these effects will be widespread and whether some action can be taken to alleviate the problem?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am not aware of the precise cost of housing in Adelaide, as indicated by Senator Messner, although I accept the accuracy of his figures. I will bring the question to the attention of my colleague in another place and ask him to give a direct reply.

page 615

QUESTION

PAYMENTS TO THE STATES

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs. I remind him that in portion of his answer to a question on this subject last Wednesday he said:

For the last 6 months the Australian Labor Party in the Senate has alleged that State governments did not have enough money to carry out their duties and that, as a result, they were not able to employ a sufficient number of people in their States.

Whilst I can remember Senator Wriedt, myself and others who have spoken on the subject saying that the States will be starved for funds this financial year, I can recall no Labor senators saying that the States were starved for funds last financial year, as Senator Carrick has said, as far back as 6 months ago, they were. Therefore I ask whether Senator Carrick will identify the Labor senators who are alleged to have stated that the States were starved for funds in 1975-76, and when they made the alleged statements.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-The whole purport of my statement in answer to the questions was that the general thesis of the Labor Party was that under the federalism policies the States would be starved of funds; they would be unable to do their jobs; they would therefore be facing a situation in which unemployment would occur. In answering the questions I drew attention to 2 facts in parallel. First, that many of the States ended up with a surplus- some of them with considerable surpluses- and therefore they had the capacity during the past financial year to employ more people than they did. Secondly, all States in this financial year will get more money from the revenue sharing formula of federalism than they would have received under the Whitlam Government. I took the 2 facts together and said that the picture the Labor Party was putting forward that the States would be starved of funds was not right; in fact, the States had a responsibility which they should execute in terms of employment in parallel with other forms of government and, for the future, they had substantial and growing funds. I took the 2 facts together to paint that picture.

Senator WALSH:

– I desire to ask a supplementary question. Given Senator Carrick ‘s reference to the substantial surpluses which many of the States had at the end of the 1975-76 financial year, does he therefore agree that the States were treated very generously under the financial arrangements of the Whitlam Government and that, therefore, the allegations of Premiers such as Sir Charles Court to the contrary are totally unfounded?

Senator CARRICK:

– Since the present Fraser Federal Government is treating the States better -demonstrably so- than the Whitlam Government did, the Labor Party can describe it as it wishes. It is a fact that some States could have fully spent their budgets for the last financial year if they so desired. If they had done so they could have created more employment opportunities. The whole point I made earlier was that at a time of under-employment and at a time when the Labor Party was stating that we, the Federal Government, should be giving money to the States to create employment there existed in the States a surplus of funds which was not being put to work to create employment and was therefore under-utilised. That is the whole purport of what I was saying. I repeat and make it clear that in this financial year under the revenue sharing formula of this Government the States will receive $89m more than they would have received under the Whitlam Government. Local government authorities will receive 75 per cent more than they received from the Whitlam Government. Local government bodies received $79. 9m under the Whitlam Government and they will receive $140m from this Government. Demonstrably, they are getting more.

page 616

QUESTION

NEW ZEALAND COLBY CHEESE

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. Is the product being advertised as New Zealand Colby cheese being imported inside or outside the New ZealandAustralia Free Trade Agreement cheddar quota? At what price is it entering Australia? What quantity has been brought in in the last 3 months?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-I understand that a product known as New Zealand Colby cheese is being imported into Australia. It is being advertised in Australia under the slogan ‘How the Kiwis say cheese’. I gather from Senator Archer’s question that a number of Australian manufacturers of cheese are not smiling about the sale of this cheese. As I understand it, the question may concern the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, who has jurisdiction over the Trade Practices Act. On the other hand, it may be a question which should be directed to the Minister for Overseas Trade as it relates to the New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement. I am not quite certain to which Minister this question should be referred. I will certainly refer the matter to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs and, if necessary, to the Minister for Overseas Trade who is represented in the Senate by Senator Cotton. In relation to the specific questions about the price at which the cheese is entering Australia and what quantities have been brought in, I naturally do not have that information at my disposal. I will endeavour to obtain that information also for the honourable senator in due course.

page 616

QUESTION

LOCKHEED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION

Senator McLAREN:

– My question, which is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, follows a question I asked of him on 3 1 March this year concerning pacts that had been signed by various countries and the United States Department of Justice in connection with the alleged Lockheed Aircraft Corporation bribes to which the Leader answered that he would seek the information for me. I have not yet received that information. In view of the reports in today’s Press and on the Australian Broadcasting Commission news services that Australia and the United States of America have signed an agreement to exchange information on the alleged pay-offs I now ask: Was it the Australian Government or the American Government that initiated the moves to exchange this information? Why is it, as reported in today’s Melbourne Age, that the American Government would agree to make copies of the relevant Lockheed documents available to the Australian Government only on the condition that they would not be made public unless legal proceedings were initiated? Finally, will the Australian Government initiate legal proceedings if the documents reveal that Lockheed was involved in dubious practices in Australia?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

– The honourable senator does not suggest against whom those proceedings ought to be instituted. He does not say whether he is talking about Lockheed or the recipients, if any. I have an answer here- I assure the honourable senator’s colleagues that I did not have prior notice of the question- which I think will answer the other 2 questions which the honourable senator asked. The agreement which has just been signed arose as a result of a request to the United States of America for assistance in respect of Lockheed activities in Australia. I think that that answers the honourable senator’s first question. It is proposed to table the agreement in Parliament as soon as the original agreement has been received from Washington. We expect to receive it by the end of this week.

I think the following information would cover the second part of the honourable senator’s question. The agreement is in similar terms to those entered into by the United States Department of Justice with law enforcement agencies of other countries. In this instance the agreement has been entered into with the AttorneyGeneral’s Department. The agreement is for mutual assistance in the administration of justice. It envisages the law enforcement agencies of both countries making information available upon request. The agreement provides that information made available shall be used exclusively for purposes of investigation conducted by agencies with law enforcement responsibilities and in ensuing legal proceedings- criminal, civil and administrative.

All information received shall be kept confidential and shall not be disclosed to third parties or to government agencies having no law enforcement responsibilities. Information made available may be used freely in ensuing legal proceedings in which the agency of the requesting state, having law enforcement responsibilities, is a party. It is expected that the documents will be received shortly. They will be examined promptly by the Attorney-General’s Department and any necessary action will be taken.

page 617

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE: LONG SERVICE LEAVE

Senator RYAN:
ACT

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations investigate why there are employees of the Commonwealth Public Service, such as tea ladies, with up to 15 years or more continuous service, some working up to 7 hours daily and others working broken shifts up to 6 hours daily, who are not entitled to long service leave?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– The answer is yes.

page 617

QUESTION

SOVIET NAVAL PRESENCE IN THE INDIAN OCEAN

Senator CHANEY:

-I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether the following statements represent Government attitudes in the particular area to which they refer. The first statement is as follows:

The Soviet presence in the Indian Ocean must be seen as a calculated extension of Soviet power into the region and it is now capable of extending its influence in every part of the world.

The next is:

The Soviets have never made any secret of the fact that detente does not mean ideological co-existence, nor does it mean not supporting wars of national liberation.

The final statement reads:

The United States is the only nation with the power and influence and, we trust, will provide a credible matching presence.

That refers to the Indian Ocean. Can the Minister tell us which senator made those statements, and when?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I do not think that any Government supporter would quarrel with any of those 3 statements. If honourable senators opposite were not so desirous of just picking up little bits and pieces of information they would know that those statements were made by my friend and colleague of many years standing, Senator Sim.

page 617

QUESTION

SMUGGLING CHARGES

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– Last Thursday, I undertook to obtain some further information for Senator Mulvihill with regard to a question relating to 2 French people who arrived in Darwin on a yacht. I now have some brief information which completes that answer. It is as follows: The Papua New Guinea authorities have not indicated that they regard the incident as a slight. The Department of Foreign Affairs has been assisting them in this matter and will continue to do so. The decision to permit these people to land was taken by the Regional Director of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs at Darwin in accordance with established procedures relating to persons arriving as crew or passengers of vessels.

page 617

COMMONWEALTH POLICE FORCE

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– Pursuant to section 1 1 of the Commonwealth Police Act 1957, I present the annual report of the operations and activities of the Commonwealth Police Force during the year ended 30 June 1975.

page 618

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation · LP

– Pursuant to section 122 of the Repatriation Act 1920, I present the annual report of the Repatriation Commission for the year ended 30 June 1 976.

page 618

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Senator Withers)- by leaveagreed to:

That Senators Sir Magnus Cormack, Davidson and Scott be granted leave of absence for one month and Senator Young leave of absence for 2 months on account of absence overseas on parliamentary business.

Motion (by Senator Georges)- by leaveagreed to:

That Senators Melzer and McAuliffe be granted leave of absence for one month on account of absence overseas on parliamentary business.

page 618

LOAN BILL (No. 3) 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 26 August, on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The Opposition will not be opposing the Loan Bill (No. 3) 1976. It is a type of Bill with which we have become familiar over the last 12 months. It is a Bill which provides for certain accounting procedures involving transfers of moneys to the Consolidated Revenue Fund because of the constitutional requirements pertaining to that account. It has been the practice over the years to recognise that the Bill is a machinery, one which is necessary for the normal conduct of the Government’s accounting methods. At least that was the practice until last year when everything changed, the Loan Bills brought down by the then Government were delayed for some weeks, indeed months. Also many hours of debate were spent considering the passage of those Bills. The then Opposition set a precedent to use the Loan Bills as a vehicle for a general attack on the government of the day. It was the Liberal and National Country Parties which set that standard as a precedent and the Opposition intends to continue it. We will Use it in future, in the brief time we are in Opposition, as a means of attacking this Government. We will not be doing that in the manner in which it was done last year; we will be doing it in a positive manner to analyse and examine the present economic strategy of this Government and why its strategies are going wrong. That was again evidenced only yesterday in the very dispirited manner in which Senator Cotton, the Minister for Industry and Commerce and Minister representing the Treasurer in this place, delivered a speech to the Australian Retailers Association in which he confirmed the sentiments expressed only last week in a statement by the Government that the economy’s position is precarious. I believe that was the first time that the Government admitted the precarious nature of the economy. We on the Opposition side are fully entitled, I believe, as the then Opposition did last year, to use this Bill as a vehicle to examine those policies and what has brought about the precarious state of affairs in which we find ourselves.

This Government has done a number of things. It has brought about a sudden halt in Government outlays and produced a real decline in capital works. It has reduced consumer confidence by creating further unemployment about which I will say more later. It has reduced consumption by cutting real wages. It has encouraged investment when there is no demand, and that investment has been seen to be a fallacy because the private sector has not taken up the opportunity to exercise the 40 per cent investment allowance which was announced some months ago by the Government. In continues to maintain high interest rates even though there is very limited economic activity. It has taken these steps in this year, 1976, when there will be, at least it hopes, some electoral advantage to it by 1978.

We believe that the strategy adopted by the Government is wrong. The deficit position on which it has built so much of its case and which is pertinent to this Bill has been reduced in a manner which has brought about the lack of confidence that we see in the community at present. We also see this continuing attack on the real growth sector1 In the community, the public sector, when we should realise as a Parliament, and on both sides of the Parliament, that there is no room for an attack on either the public or the private sector at the present time. An attack on one is an attack on the other, yet that is the policy being followed now by this Government.

There are certain reasons why the Government is having to fe-think its position. We see at present a large increase in unemployment, but at the same time the Government is looking for an increase in consumption. In the Government’s view an increase in consumption will result from a fall in the savings ratio as a result of the reduction in the rate of inflation, but our view in the Opposition is that there cannot be any rise in consumption while real wages are being cut and large numbers of people are out of work. It is not an over-statement to say that real wages are being cut. It was made quite clear in a statement made only last week by the Minister responsible that it is the Governments intention to cut down the real value of wages.

On the matter of unemployment, I would like to incorporate in Hansard the unemployment figures for Australia going back to October 1975 and up to the latest figures relating to August 1976.

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

The document read as follows-

Senator WRIEDT:

– I also seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the latest available seasonally adjusted figures for each of the States and the national figures.

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

The document read as follows-

Senator WRIEDT:

– These figures show beyond question the dramatic change that has taken place in economic activity and economic confidence in the past few months. I believe it needs to be restated that it was in the aftermath of the last year of the Labor Government that we saw the turn for the better in which unemployment was brought down quite dramatically. When one looks at the figures one sees that in 5 months there was a reduction of 50 000 in the number unemployed. That was over the period when we had to absorb school leavers at the beginning of this year. Then we see the dramatic about face, the dramatic change, when unemployment in the following 5 months increased by no less than 60 000 at a time during the year when workforce did not have to absorb school leavers. This is the position we see at the present time: The creation of an increasing group of long term unemployed with the consequent economic loss to the community resulting in a very large waste of resources.

There has been no attempt by the Government to lower interest rates, even though there is a slack in the economy, and Government borrowing has been reduced. The reason for that is quite clear: The Government intends to maintain interest rates at an artificially high level. All this is countering the stated intentions of the Government to get the economy moving again. During discussion on this Bill in the House of Representatives we found there was considerable debate on the question of money supply. That is a quite pertinent point to raise during the passage of this legislation. Only last June we saw that the Reserve Bank of Australia had to take the reins off to some degree on the supply of money in order to get a greater circulation of money in the community.

The Government is maintaining a climate of uncertainty because it has lost its capacity to manage the short term money market, and its lack of credibility is causing increasing speculation about devaluation. As a result there is substantial uncertainty in the minds of long term lenders and borrowers. The Government has cut its own capital works program and has forced the States to do likewise. In view of comments made again during question time today about payments to the States it ought to be borne in mind that the so called Whitlam formula that the Minister for Education and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs (Senator Carrick) refers to so constantly concerns only a section of the total payments to the States. It does not concern other areas of payments. There it has no relevance. Whenever we in the Opposition talk about the decline in payments to the States this year we are talking of total payments. How any Minister of the Government can suggest that the 32 per cent increase made available to the States last year is as much as the 13 per cent increase to the States this year is beyond my understanding.

In the present economic climate costs in the building and construction industry are artificially low due to the cutting of tender prices. It is a highly opportune time now to provide services such as schools, roads and sewerage because those services can be obtained cheaply and they could stimulate the economy. The Government ought to be concentrating its efforts in those areas of public expenditure.

I turn now to the problem of the demand in the community at the present time. For long term growth in the economy the Government is relying almost exclusively on growth in consumption and investment. Consumption makes up approximately 60 per cent of our gross domestic product. Growth rates in consumption during the 1950s and 1960s are unlikely to be repeated because we are going through a critical period now. We are seeing the effects of large scale increases in the manufacturing sectors in those 2 decades in which there was an enormous output of consumer goods and an enormous capacity by industry to increase that production. Now the pattern of demand is changing. It is important that this point be driven home consistently to the Government- that the growth area will not be found in that particular area of manufacturing. Stimulation to it is necessary, but it is in these other areas in the public sector to which I have referred where the results can be obtained, if the Government is prepared to recognise that its expenditure should be concentrated in that area.

This change is demonstrated by a substantial decline in manufacturing industries all over the world. It is not only in Australia that the percentage of the gross national product made up by the manufacturing sector is declining. It has happened in all the advanced and industrialised countries in recent years. This is because of this change in the pattern of demand which we see occurring in Australia now. The Government’s investment allowance is therefore extremely wasteful as it is misdirected. It is likely that the real growth area in the economy is for goods and services traditionally produced by the Government, but the Government’s measures do not take these factors into account.

The Government is pursuing a policy of restricting loan funds for capital works. It is using the Loan Council to limit the funds available to State governments and to their instrumentalities. This policy is based on a notion that government borrowing crowds the private sector. This idea is inconsistent, or should be seen to be inconsistent, with the Government’s notions about free competition. If government authorities were permitted to borrow openly in the market place the people would have a clear choice between higher interest rates and the provision of essential services. In this way the people would be determining the rate at which public services such as schools, hospitals and roads were developed.

As we have said before, it is obvious that the Government’s measures will not work. It would be fair to say that the economy is balanced on a knife’s edge. It could go one way or the other. If it goes the way the Government wants it to go, possibly we will not see an economic disaster in this country next year. If it does not go that way, we will see an economic disaster next year. We will not be talking in terms of 400 000 unemployed, as has been predicted; we will be talking in terms of 500 000 or 600 000 unemployed. No suppression of the seasonally adjusted figures and no exclusion of school leavers from the total figures will hide that fact. It will be evident all around us that a gigantic mistake has been made because a gigantic gamble has been taken- a gamble which the Opposition believes will not work.

It is inevitable that within 6 months political pressures will force the Government to take additional measures. If the Government has not been forced into a devaluation, those measures are likely to involve some relief of personal income tax. Press reports suggest that this tax relief will be for the benefit of the more wealthy. The Opposition will be most critical if that is the case. If such measures are adopted the deficit will be much higher than the Budget Papers currently indicate and will approach the level of last year. A change in the Government’s strategy will be needed very shortly. It will be needed in a matter of weeks, not in a matter of months. It is essential, I believe, that the Government ease the money supply. It should commence at the same time a proper capital works program funded out of increased government borrowings and through the Loan Council permitting the States to do likewise. We need public discussion of the White Paper on manufacturing industry, rather than the preparation of that Paper being persisted with in secret.

I believe that it is necessary for the Opposition to bring home to the Australian people, at every opportunity and to the maximum of its ability, the dangers that lie ahead if this Government continues to pursue the policies which it has initiated. We are using this so-called machinery Bill as a means of exposing government policy- a pattern and a precedent set by our opponents last year. I trust that the Government will recognise that the fact that it is wedded to a particular philosophy does not mean that that philosophy is what the Australian economy needs or the Australian people need. We need a proper marriage between the private and public sectors. We keep restating that- we will continue to do sobecause that is the sensible course to follow. It is the course which we followed in 1975 to bring the economy back to the maximum degree of economic activity. This Government is wedded to a different course, the outcome of which we believe will be very detrimental to the Australian people.

I have made it plain that we do not intend to oppose the Bill. I hope the Government senators recognise that the Opposition has adopted a more realistic approach to the machinery of government than they did when they were in Opposition. It is in the record last year that we in Opposition would have no intention of limiting the proper activities of a Treasurer. No matter to which political party he belongs, he is entitled to be able to exercise the normal machinery of government. We would not be a party to anything which would inhibit those rights. We hope that next time round members of the Liberal and Country Parties will remember those words.

Senator MESSNER:
South Australia

– 1 refer, firstly, to some of the points that Senator Wriedt made, particularly the one concerning devaluation. I was rather surprised to hear it come from his lips. I think I have him right. He was indicating that there may be a devaluation next year. In the light of the heap of scorn that has been poured on Mr Hayden ‘s remarks on this matter in the last week or so, I was greatly amazed to hear that statement come from the Leader of the Opposition in this place. I will examine some of the questions behind the matter of devaluation.

I think Senator Wreidt was making the point that Australia now is being faced with the long term factors. Those factors stem from rapid cost escalation and the difficulties with which we are faced from import competition, which are challenging our industrial base to such an extent that they could very well cause loss of jobs in the manufacturing sector. That problem cannot be solved by some sort of short term palliative such as devaluation. The core of the problem must be attacked, and that is what this Government is setting about doing in the Budget.

I come to the particular problems that are raised by inflation and how they have come into being. I do not suppose I need to go over the ground once more to discover that the problems stem from lack of control by the Australian Labor Party when it was in power immediately prior to 13 December last year. The deficit for the last financial year, which amounted to about $3.6 billion, contributed significantly to the rate of inflation in this country by contributing to the rate of growth in the money supply in that financial year. The budgeted deficit this year is about $2.6 billion. However, the domestic deficit, which is the fundamental figure in considering the rate of growth in the internal money supply, will be about $1.9 billion. That compares with $2.9 billion last financial year. The domestic deficit this year will be reduced by $ 1,000m. That will have a significant effect on reducing the growth in the money supply in Australia and on keeping it well within the bounds that the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) has predicted in the Budget strategy- an increase at the rate of approximately 12 per cent in the forthcoming year.

The deficit relates fairly and squarely to the question of expansion of the money supply. While some honourable senators opposite have been urging an increase in that deficit and consequently an increase in the money supply to solve the unemployment problem, a look at some of the facts over the last year or two will quickly put paid to that suggestion. In the year ended 30 June 1975 the deficit expanded rapidly to nearly $2.8 billion. Government spending in that year increased by a record 46 per cent. Yet during that year unemployment trebled. In the year ended 30 June 1976 the rate of spending increased by 23 per cent. Yet unemployment was not checked in that financial year. So, where is the ground for the argument in favour of increasing the supply of money by increasing the deficit, thereby creating jobs? The fundamental problem has to be faced. We have to get down the supply of money in order to restrict the rate of inflation so as to protect jobs. The opposite will only destroy them.

Senator Georges:

– You mean, to protect some jobs.

Senator MESSNER:

-Since Senator Georges has intervened let me quote some remarks by Mr Hayden in his Budget Speech in 1975 when he made the following point:

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

Mr Hayden, who was perhaps the only Australian Labor Party Treasurer who made any impression during Labor’s period in office, made those remarks which correspond exactly with the formulas laid down in our Budget strategy. Senator Wriedt made another point in regard to the cutting of real wages. If he has regard to page 26 of Budget Statement No. 2 he will see that the Budget is predicated on real wages being retained. The statement reads:

Real average earnings per employed person would remain approximately unchanged but, due to employment growth, aggregate real earnings would increase moderately.

That statement derives from the point that there is likely to be an increase in growth this year of the order of 4 per cent. It is that which will tend to reduce unemployment by this year’s end. Of course, at that point we are hoping for single digit inflation on an annual basis.

As I have said before, some of the problems that we see raised before us in regard to the economy generally stem immediately from inflation. The whole question of the Budget deficit as such has not been fully comprehended as being a factor in money supply and the rate of inflation, irrespective of the fact that we saw during Labor’s period in office misspent expenditure which led to waste and inefficiency in government finance. I would like to quote just one remark in regard to the question of inflation from the September review of the economy by Syntec Economic Services Pty Ltd, which is perhaps one of the more sophisticated commentators on the economy in Australia and which services businessmen in particular. It had this to say: . . poor economic government . . . have left Australia with a chronic cost inflation problem. In its bid to return Australia to Western respectability, the Government deserves more support than it is getting from major companies. These companies show poor appreciation of where their long-term interests lie in seeking to dismember the Government’s fiscal-monetary-exchange rate package.

The essence of that statement is that the whole question of money supply is not just tied up with one aspect of the problem but it is related to the size of the Budget deficit, it is related to the supply of money as controlled through the banking system and in particular by the Reserve Bank, and also, and most importantly, to exchange rate policy, in relation to which Senator Wriedt has shown himself to be in favour of some form of devaluation. It is that question which businessmen and indeed honourable senators opposite should recognise as being the key factor in determining the level of inflation for this coming year. The whole question relates to all of those factors, not to any one of them. It is the balancing of those 3 factors which will indicate whether we are successful by the time 30 June 1977 comes around.

Senator Wriedt took the dogmatic approach that the only way to solve the question of unemployment and to put people back into work is to take up slack in the public sector. He accuses us of having completely the opposite view. He claims that the investment allowance has not been working, yet he gives us no evidence of that at all. In fact there will not be any evidence of that at least until statistics are shown in respect of the year ending 30 June 1976, but even then that will not display much in respect of investment for that year, mainly due to the fact that lean times for businessmen who are investing in new plant and machinery are so significantly long that they will not have shown up significantly in that year. It is in this current financial year that the investment allowance will start to show itself and to provide some clear evidence as to the economic recovery.

The question of the public sector taking up the slack surely is one that does not need to be answered in the light of the appalling consequences of rapid government expenditure increases over the last few years, followed by a rapid escalation in the size of the deficit. It is that question which we are attacking in the Budget strategy. Some people have seen fit to compare the calculations of the Budget deficit by drawing an analogy with the situation in private industry. A lot of people have said: ‘If you are going to spend capital moneys out of revenue receipts, thereby adding to the deficit, those capital payments should be debited to a loan account and treated quite separately. ‘ That might be neat accounting but it does not even fit general accounting principles because, as we know, depreciation allowances within private enterprise are generally the sources of funds for new capital investment. Undistributed profits in the case of companies are again sources of investment funds. Consequently, even in private enterprise capital expenditure is funded from revenue receipts.

Bearing that in mind and applying that principle, we have to make the commonsense observation that it is not a matter of whether we have strictly correct accounting in these matters; the whole question is the economic consequences of how the deficit is to be funded, and its general size is taken into account in the Budget. It is the question which we have faced with a will and, bearing in mind the triple factors that I mentioned earlier, the size of monetary inflow from overseas will determine the size of the money supply growth and the overall rate of inflation. This Bill addresses itself to that question. Although the Bill is strictly a matter of accounting, as one will realise from past practice the transfer of the sum of $ 1,600m on the defence loan account is a significant factor when related to the figure of $1,43 5m which is the anticipated deficit in the Consolidated Revenue Fund. It is obviously well in line and does not allow for any rapid increase in that deficit. Therefore it will not allow for rapid escalation in the size of the money supply, consequently leading to greater inflation. I support the Bill.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– That was an abrupt and sudden end to what was stated, at the commencement of the speech, to be a major contribution to the debate on the Loan Bill (No. 3) 1976. 1 shall resist the temptation to remind the Senate, now that the word ‘loan’ has been mentioned, of what happened in this place during last year when the Senate was misused in a way which is in the historical record and can only be termed disgraceful. I could refer the Senate to names such as Karidis. That man was brought before the Bar of this place in an endeavour to discredit the Labor Government and to establish what were termed at that time reprehensible, illegal and extraordinary actions on the part of the Labor Government. Nothing came of that. Nothing was proven. It remained for the Senate Opposition at that time to use its numbers ruthlessly to displace the rightfully elected Government.

Time has gone by. We must look both to the present and to the future, although at question time we are often reminded of what the Australian Labor Party endeavoured to do in spite of obstruction by the Ministers who sit opposite and who continually try to offset their own errors by blaming the previous Labor Government. We have come to the end of that honeymoon. Now, the Government must stand upon its own feet. Ministers must make their own explanations based upon their record. It is a rather dismal record after 7 months. I shall use some of the terms which were used against the Labor

Government during the previous loan debate. That Government was accused- as I accuse this Government- of gross mismanagement of the economy which has led to an inflated unemployment situation without any great reduction in the inflation rate. This must be a matter for alarm for the community. If one can properly judge, that alarm is reflected in the lack of confidence upon which the Government depends so much in order to reduce the deficit.

I think it is estimated that the deficit is $2, 608m. But in order to maintain the deficit at that level consumer and business confidence must be restored otherwise other actions will need to be taken. It seems to me that those actions have already been hinted at in major statements made by Ministers from time to time. In spite of Senator Messner ‘s attempted charge of irresponsibility, one of those hints seems to indicate that there may be devaluation of the dollar, a reduction in tariff walls and other mini Budgets imposed upon us at cost to the community. Looking at the Budget, it seems to me that the Government will depend very much on an increase in inflation rather than a decrease to obtain the revenue which will cut the deficit away or maintain it at $2, 608m.

Senator Messner:

– Like Mr Hayden predicted in 1975.

Senator GEORGES:

– If the honourable senator looks at the Budget papers, particularly towards the end, he will see that no increase has been made in indirect taxation or, for that matter, other taxation. The responsibility has been left with and will be shoved fairly firmly on private enterprise to lift the price of those articles on which excise is charged in order for the Government to obtain the income which it requires to cut the deficit. In effect, a Bill of this type is a means adopted by the Government and by many previous governments to help finance the Budget deficit which, as I have mentioned, is $2,608m for the 1976-77 financial year. It is interesting to see the amounts of money that the Government has sought to raise either domestically or overseas. In due course we will be asking questions about the means used to raise such loans, the cost of raising such loans, the amount of brokerage paid on such loans and to whom the brokerage was paid, so that we can remind the Government quite clearly of some of the attacks and accusations which it made when we endeavoured to raise money overseas. Our error was to go away from the traditional methods of raising loans and to go to the area in which the Government is searching at the present time. This is an area in which there has been an accumulation of Arab dollars. We will get to that point in due course. Perhaps someone will tell us who is the broker and what brokerage has been paid.

This Bill transfers money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the Loan Fund to finance authorised Defence expenditure. For the life of me I just do not know what that device is and why this device has to be used in this way. It seems that money has to be raised by one means or another. We do not object to moneys being raised. We do not believe, as Mr Malcolm Fraser believes, that one runs the economy of this country as a strict housewife would run a household budget so that one does not spend any more than one earns. If we did that we would go out backwards rapidly. The economy of the country has to be planned over a period of time and credit has to be used. Sometimes it is necessary to use more credit than at other times. That is where Senator Messner and I differ.

As this Bill is integral to the Budget strategy I shall say a few things about the Budget and about the priorities which this Government has taken. Its priorities have had some tragic social effects because this Government has been obsessively concentrating on providing handouts to private enterprise in an effort to limit inflation. Admittedly, inflation is coming down but unemployment is going up. This is something we must look at with some concern. In West Germany where inflation has come down considerably one would have expected unemployment also to come down. But it has not. It has gone up. There is a great fear that unemployment may now become endemic and that we as a nation may become conditioned to accepting an unemployment rate of some 200 000 to 300 000 people. The cuts in capital works, programs for Aborigines, social welfare, housing and regional development have served the inequalities in the Australian society. That is the point I am trying to get at. Further, the cuts have entrenched the alienation and cynicism of people in society, especially young people.

Before I concentrate on the effects that the present economic situation and the present policies have on young people I point out that in June the unemployment level was 265 000 or 5. 1 per cent of the work force. This was in spite of the Budget strategies of this Government and in spite of its promise that it would reduce unemployment and inflation. One must admit that there was over expenditure in many directions by the previous Government but this Government has gone to the opposite extreme. It has endeavoured to cut out all public expenditure. Instead of being so conclusive or dogmatic I say that it has cut out a considerable or large amount of public expenditure. One could say that the reaction has been too sharp, too opposite and too complete. One notices that the back benchers on the Government side have reacted just recently by bringing forward some device to which I shall refer later. The most critical areas of unemployment are amongst the young, the Aborigines, migrants and women. In many ways these groups can be said to possess very little power within society to combat effectively their increasing predicament. That is the way in which we on this side of the House view the unemployment situationnot so much in terms of statistics or dollars but in terms of the tragic consequences on the lives of people, especially young people. I would be prepared to accept a higher deficit figure in the short term rather than allow these serious consequences to flow to these people who have no effective way of challenging or combatting the consequences of this strict and inhuman Budget strategy.

The present recession in the Australian economy has severely hit the job potential for young Australians. I have some well researched but little known facts on this growing problem. According to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) when announcing the committee of inquiry into education and training, 36 per cent of the total unemployed are under the age of 20 years. This figure becomes more alarming when one considers that the under-twenty age group comprises only 12 per cent of the work force. In numerical terms the number of unemployed youth is in excess of 100 000. This will rise dramatically over the next 6 months when school leavers commence their disheartening search for jobs.

They are the figures given by the Prime Minister himself. He sees the need for a long term inquiry. I have no objection to that; in fact, I support it strongly. However, I make the comment that in setting up such an inquiry we ought to consider that the young may know most about what their needs are and should, therefore, be represented on such a committee of inquiry.

The unemployment rate for persons under twenty is more than four times the rate of unemployment of persons aged twenty and over. According to recently published material, the ratio of young people registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service to the number of vacancies is 35 to 1. Senator Maunsell will agree with me that in some locations, such as in some of the provincial cities where young people are locked into an area because of the need to keep the family together, it is as high as 600 to 1 . In towns such as Barcaldine, Longreach, Charleville and all the mid-western cities of Queensland that is tragic indeed.

In a survey carried out by the Department of Labor and Immigration in 1 975 it was found that nearly 50 per cent of unemployed youth had not attempted any education beyond the ninth year, in other words they were leaving school at 14 years of age, or the tenth year, which means they were leaving at 15 years of age. Two-thirds had completed school before the fourth year at high school. The situation is aggravated in country areas. Those of us on the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts investigating the isolated children’s reference are very well aware of the problem in country areas where youngsters, having no real prospect of advancement and seeing no further than their local horizons, left school at an early age to do the work that was available in that area- work which needed very little cultural skill- to their great detriment.

The average time of unemployment amongst youths will increase. It has been estimated that about one-quarter have been unemployed for between 3 months and 6 months. These are the stark realities of unemployment, especially among young people. The Government’s cuts on spending on social welfare have added greatly to the problems of over 100 000 youths in this country. Unemployment among young people cannot be dismissed lightly. Speaking from my experience with my own family, my son who has completed a university course and has 2 degrees with honours in zoology is still unemployed. It seems that he is not the only one. I do not give his example to gain sympathy because he needs no sympathy- at present he is driving a cab- but the point ought to be driven home that he is not isolated in this tragic situation in having an education which he cannot properly apply. He is now forced to do another 3 years of study in order to obtain further qualifications for which at this time he can see little use. This is where the chronic situation of unemployment in Australia among young people is leading many young people.

Let me move away from those who have academic qualifications to those who will be leaving school at the end of this coming year. As a measure of the heartlessness of this Government I point out that it has determined arbitrarily, and without a proper understanding of the Act, that a person who leaves school at the end of this year shall not be deemed unemployed until the commencement of the first term of the subsequent school year. What right has the Minister for

Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle ) to determine that a person is not entitled to unemployment benefits when that young person ceases going to school? Would it not be more humanly desirable for the Minister to say: ‘We will not pay you these benefits because there is some confusion as to whether you will or will not go back to school. We shall not pay these benefits until the school term commences, but once that occurs these payments shall be made retrospective to the time you left school and went on the labour market’? I mention this as something which needs to be attacked. The Minister ought to be made aware of how inhuman this attitude is. If she and the Government are not made aware of it, this inhumanity will spread to other areas.

The despair and frustration faced by young unemployed can be properly assessed only by those who are in contact with them from day to day. Only then can their dependence be understood and the danger of self-degradation be measured. Unemployment has become a structural problem. Yet the current Government has done little in the 9 months since it took office. Its record could be described as one of ‘heartless inertia’. There is a lack of response to the needs of many thousands of disadvantaged Australians, especially the young unemployed.

One might argue that we are treating this Loan Bill as one would treat a money Bill at the first reading stage. As has been pointed out by my Leader, Senator Wriedt, we are following the precedent set by the previous Opposition. I would like to comment on the campaign to denigrate the unemployed- a campaign that has reached substantial proportions in Queensland, a campaign that denigrates unemployed people as ‘dole bludgers’ despite the low number of people prosecuted by the department concerned for breaches of the conditions upon which benefits are made available. This shameful attack has served only to increase the social stigma of the unemployed. It lessens self-respect amongst those who have become unemployed and again promotes cynicism and frustration.

I say to honourable senators that the figure of 265 000 unemployed people is not a static figure. Perhaps it is a static figure in respect of young people, in that people in this group stay unemployed for a considerable period of time; but older people move in and out of the pool of employed- some are moving in and some are moving out. Therefore, possibly close to half a million people are affected, and for the period that these people are unemployed they should not be classified as ‘cheats’ and ‘bludgers’, because such terms are gravely offensive not only to them but to the whole of our society.

There also has been a tendency on the part of the Government to make unemployment benefits much more difficult to obtain. This has created further hardship. In some cases it has led to a decision not to seek unemployment benefits, especially by the young. This raises the question of who is responsible for unemployment. Is the individual responsible for it, or are the current priorities of this Government responsible for it? I do not think the blame for unemployment should be placed upon the individual; it should be placed upon the Government and its policies. As I have indicated previously, the policies of this Government are harsh, unthinking, unworkable and doomed to failure. Unless there is a consumer led recovery the Budget strategy will fail. Unfortunately there is no evidence of that consumer led recovery. The indications now are that people are saving money rather than spending it. People are concerned that one of these days they may be in this pool of unemployment, that they may suffer sickness or some other hardship. Therefore they accumulate their savings, and this practice is entirely in conflict with the strategy of this Budget.

Governments are appointed to represent the people and to take initiatives on behalf of the people. Governments are not separate from the people, as the Prime Minister seems to indicate from time to time. Governments must take initiatives in public enterprise in order to stimulate private enterprise. I believe that this Government is neglecting that responsibility, and all the consequences that I have mentioned flow from that. There seems also to be some attempt to place unemployed people into different categories. I am quite astonished to note that people in the 16 to 18 years age group receive less unemployment benefit than people over 18 years of age. Again I cannot see, in this day, in this society and in this type of economy, how a person who is in the 16 to 1 8 years age group and is seeking a job can live on a lesser benefit than that on which other unemployed people can live. People in this age group should receive at least an equal benefit and not a lesser benefit, in view of the responsibilities that they have in entering the work force.

I have spoken about the unemployment benefits paid to people leaving school. I have spoken about the Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training. I have not spoken about the device, which the Government announced on

Sunday, of paying sums of money to unemployed people to enable them to move from areas where there is heavy employment to other areas where some employment is available. It seems that $2m is to be made available for this scheme. My calculations indicate that a maximum of only HOO people will benefit. The Government is afraid to provide money for employment creating schemes, but for some reason it believes that its decision to make money available for the transfer of people from areas of heavy unemployment to other areas is an exercise in public initiative and that public initiative is nowhere near as effective as private initiative. However, the two cannot be separated; they are very much intertwined; one depends very much on the other. If this Government has a desire to reduce unemployment it is necessary that it do so by creating or providing the stimulus to allow public authorities and other organisations to provide employment in areas where there is substantial unemployment.

I am rather curious to find out how the recently announced scheme is to be administrated, how costly the administration will be and how many people actually will benefit. Without in any way wishing to deprive people of assistance to help them to move to jobs or to investigate jobs, I believe that the arrangement announced by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) is very open-ended. I am waiting to see just what the results will be and how long it will be before the Government pulls back. If the previous Labor Government had announced a scheme such as the one announced by the Minister, there would have been great cries of ‘socialism’ and ‘feather-bedding the workers’. If the scheme works, I say ‘Good luck to it’; but it seems to me that it would be far better to pay substantial moneys to local authorities and organisations in order to create work than to try to shift people madly backwards and forwards across the countryside to seek work or to re-establish themselves after they have found work.

I have said quite a deal in this debate. I notice that the Government Whip is giving me the old television sign to indicate that my time is up. I advise the Government Whip that the proceedings are not being broadcast today; so I am entitled to speak for one hour. I am reminded of what we had to face when we were sitting exactly where the present Government senators are sitting. At that time they were in full flight and sharp attack when they had the opportunity to speak on the first reading of money Bills. The present Government’s turn is about to come. Its turn is about to come because the first time there are indications of a failure in the Government’s strategy- which will not be long- it will have to watch out. There will be no sympathy for the Government on that occasion because it will no longer be able to blame the previous Government. The Opposition can only say to members of the Government that what you have accused us of you will prove worthy of yourselves.

The Government’s strategies are wrong. It does not care for those in need. Its priorities work back to front. Its trust in private enterprise is ill founded. The Government will find that it cannot succeed with this strategy and it will be forced to take other measures. If other measures have to be taken I advise the Government to think of people rather than figures and first to consider the social impact of its decisions before initiating legislation. I do not oppose money raising. I have said that before. I do not oppose the use of credit and I have said that before. I do not oppose dealing with inflation by deficit budgeting. In fact, I support all that the Government appears not to support. That will be to the Government’s disadvantage.

Senator MAUNSELL:
Queensland

– I rise to support this Bill. I am pleased to note that the members of the Opposition are also supporting it. In the contributions made so far in this debate from 2 Opposition speakers we have not heard a great deal about this Bill but we have heard a great deal of criticism of the Government’s financial policy and other matters. What we need in the community today to overcome the problems created by the previous Government is confidence in the future. We should make sure that knockers in our community- knockers who are trying to prevent the economic recovery of this nation- are not supported. Members of the Opposition are joining in with these knockers at every opportunity.

The financial policy of this Government is to get the private sector going again. We have heard much about unemployment but it is the private sector which employs 75 per cent of the people. Unless we can get the private sector going -after its 3 years of attack by the Labor Government- we are not going to solve the problems of unemployment and we are not going to solve the problems of getting this nation back on its feet. We have to change the attitude of people. We have to ensure that those people who want to work, are willing to work, or who want to improve their lot in life are given the opportunity to do so with just reward. We should get rid of the attitude that we have had for the past 3 years in this country that the Government will look after Australians from the cradle to the grave and the people do not have to worry about their future. Those who did want to get out and work and look after themselves were taxed to the hilt by the previous Government in order to look after those who were not prepared to work. We have to change the attitude of the people and encourage them to produce something in this community. We have the highest rate of inflation in the Western world. We have the highest number of industrial disputes in the Western world and the lowest productivity. We have got to reverse that situation. If we can reverse it, this nation will begin to solve its problems and the unemployment rate, about which Senator Georges spoke, will be reduced.

Senator Georges:

– Are you going to starve them?

Senator MAUNSELL:

– We are not starving anyone. We have got to get things moving. Honourable senators opposite know what happened when their Government was in office. It tried to solve the unemployment problem by taxing people, by having deficits and by throwing money around. What has happened as a result of the previous Government’s action? The unemployment rate went further and further ahead because the previous Government attacked the very people who provide employment- the private sector, the private businesses in this country. We have to make sure that the attitude of the people is changed, that those who are prepared to work are given the incentive to do so and that the business people who are prepared to expand, develop and produce also are given the incentive to do so. Senator Georges adopted the typical Opposition approach to this matter when he referred to the country areas of western Queensland. He said that the unemployment rate is very high there.

Senator Georges:

– It is, Senator.

Senator MAUNSELL:

-That is right. Does Senator Georges know why it is right? It is because the whole of that community is dependent on income from exports- the export of wool and beef, but mainly wool. I am referring particularly to the areas of Barcaldine and Longreach. By not doing anything about inflation during the 3 years the previous Government was in office and by allowing it to run rampant the previous Government immediately took away the profitability of those industries. It did so by taking away the taxation incentives for improvements, by doing away with the equalisation of petrol prices and by taking a number of other measures. The previous Government got the industry in my electorate into such a situation that it could not afford to employ anyone. It did not have the opportunity to employ anyone and that is why we have unemployment in that area. We would not have such a high rate of unemployment if those areas had not been subjected to this rampant inflation and if they had been able to benefit from the tax incentives that had been operating for many years.

Senator Gietzelt:

– You have the power to give back those tax incentives, Senator.

Senator MAUNSELL:

– Most of those people in those areas- I do not think Senator Gietzelt has been out there- are not employed on stations. Fencing contractors, shearing contractors and dam sinking contractors comprise the sort of people who carry out improvement work on properties. The moment the previous Government took away the tax incentives from the areas to which I have referred it immediately cut off the supply of contract work. Of course, that is why unemployment is so high. This is the way the Opposition approached the question. It never examined the attitude of the people. The Opposition has to realise that it is the people who produce their own standard of living. Some people in our community have the attitude that if the Government provides the standard of living all they have to do is to sit down and the tree will rain apples all over the place; the Government will hand them out and everyone will be well off. That is not the way the system operates. Every person within the community has to produce something in order to contribute to the standard of living of the whole community. If we can get away from strikes and reach a situation where people are prepared to produce more, by raising the productivity of industry, costs will come down, we will be able to sustain higher wages and the nation as a whole will benefit.

We have to ensure that from here on the people outside this chamber get the message, but not the message that has been handed out by the Opposition which knocks everything that we do and tries to pull down everything that we do. This attitude, no doubt, is supported by the left wing element of the trade union movement which, of course, has a vested interest in disruption in this country because when it tries to inflict its philosophy and attitudes on the Australian people, then of course we will be subject to disruptions in industry and unemployment. All these problems have to exist for such an element to succeed. Of course, the left wing element of the trade union movement is deliberately fomenting industrial trouble in order to create that situation.

I support the financial policies of this Government. I believe that it is only a matter of time before industry will get on its feet. It has been given an opportunity in the Budget to get out and work and to give the lead to others to produce more. I also believe that when the results of tax indexation and the family allowances, which amount to about $ 1,000m, begin to show in the community we will see a rise in consumer spending which is necessary to gear up the productivity of the nation and to gear up the industries so that they can employ more people. I think it is only a matter of time before we solve our problems. It can be done only if everyone in the community is prepared to fight in the interests of this nation.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– It is clear that the Government is taking the Loan Bill (No. 3) 1976 lightly, knowing of course that the Opposition is supporting it. This Bill seeks authority for the raising of loans to finance the Budget. This is a stratagem that is engaged in every year. At Budget time we have authority to raise certain sums of money by way of loans in order to finance the annual Budget.

It is pretty clear that the previous speaker, Senator Maunsell, was a fill-in speaker. He criticised the contribution made by Senator Georges because he spoke of general economic matters and strategies being pursued by this Government. Senator Maunsell ‘s contribution added very little to the debate. Of course, he used the favourite catch-cry of this Government, that is, that we must get the private sector going. It is like trying to get the beaten favourite going when racing down the straight at Randwick; even though the jockey knows that he is losing the race he keeps on whipping the horse. That is precisely what Senator Maunsell was endeavouring to do. He was trying also to put the blame for all the current deficiencies of our society onto those unfortunate people who are out of work. That was another example of the rhetoric which has been symptomatic of many of the speakers from the Government benches when they have been debating important economic matters in the Parliament.

This behaviour is quite contrary to the disruptive tactics that were engaged in in this place by the conservative parties just a year ago when we were debating a similar Bill. I remind honourable members opposite of the way in which they behaved when we were debating an almost identical Bill in October 1975. It is a great pity that the scribes who sit in the gallery are not the same ones who were here a year ago so that they might compare the performance then with the illogicalities indulged in now by Government spokesmen on economic matters. A year ago a Bill similar to the one that we are debating now was before the Senate for 7 weeks while the then Opposition procrastinated and disrupted the Senate. We then had a lot of flamboyancy and emotionalism in the debate, particularly from the present Minister for Education, Senator Carrick, and Senator Baume who were leading the pack.

I draw the attention of the Senate to some of the remarks that were made then by Senator Carrick, who got his reward by becoming a Minister when the government changed in December last year. He talked about an analysis of that ‘simple little machinery Loan Bill’. Of course, according to the Government spokesmen in the Houses of Parliament, that is all it is. He said last year that it was a corrupt device, that the corruption was evident throughout the Budget Speech, and so he went on in a rhetorical attack on the economic program of the Government of that day.

Senator Carrick and Senator Baume went off the deep end in their speeches on 1 October last year during the debate of that Loan Bill. When I spoke a couple of weeks later, on 15 October, I drew attention to what the Melbourne Age had said in its economic pages when it suggested that Australia was not making incorrect economic judgments and management decisions in the Budget. That newspaper produced a graph showing that Australia, in terms of its Budget deficit, was in the same category as Germany and the United States of America and claimed that New Zealand and Great Britain were in a worse position than Australia in their Budget deficits. Australia’s Budget deficit in 1975-76 represented about 4 per cent of our gross national product. As I said, that newspaper said that Australia was in line with the United States of America and Germany, which had Budget deficits of a similar nature, whereas the deficit of New Zealand represented 5 per cent of its gross national product and that of Great Britain 8.5 per cent. Even Japan was fairly close to our position with a deficit of approximately 3.5 per cent of its gross national product.

When one examines what was done in 1975 one can see the complete hypocrisy of the conservative forces at that time, aided and abetted as they were by highly placed people in the Australian media and in other conservative places, including the judiciary in the person of Sir Garfield Barwick, and the Governor-General.

Others were brought in also as place men in the strategy to undermine the Government. I should like to draw the attention of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Cotton, who led the debate for the Government, to a statement he made in this place last week in reply to a question asked by, I think, Senator Georges about the statement of financial transactions for 1976-77. Senator Georges drew the Minister’s attention to the fact that the Budget deficit for 1975-76 was $ 1,071m and that within the first 2 months of this financial year this Government’s Budget deficit was $ 1,456m, which is an increase of $385m or 27 per cent. Senator Cotton’s reply was that it was most unusual to pick out a particular 2-month period in order to reach a conclusion. He claimed that that was an unfair comparison because the outgoings and incomings within a 12-month period were variable. That was a fair enough comment, but what a pity it was that his leader did not share the same point of view.

I shall quote from an article which appeared in the Australian in September last year, when Mr Malcolm Fraser was Leader of the Opposition:

The Federal Government deficit for the first two months of the present financial year is $ 1,071m, the Leader of the Federal Opposition, Mr Fraser claimed yesterday. He warned the House of Representatives the deficit would jump to more than $6,000m by the end of the year if it kept to the July and August rates.

When a similar question to that asked by Senator Georges was asked in the House of Representatives, the Treasurer, Mr Lynch, gave the same sort of reply as did Senator Cotton. That indicates the complete inconsistency and hypocrisy of the conservative parties when dealing last year with the Loan Bill and the Budget. They have one standard of conduct for themselves and another for others. It is interesting to hear so much talk about deficits, and of course the purpose of this Bill is to relate itself to deficits. I took the opportunity today to speak to the United States Embassy and to ask what the United States deficit position had been over the last 3 years.

Senator Sheil:

– Lucky for them.

Senator GIETZELT:

- Senator, I am not frightened to go to any source to get information about the way in which other governments operate. Let us face it, the Government takes the view that everything that happens in the United States is good for Australia. Let us look at the situation in that country. In June 1974, under a Republican government, whose philosophy was much closer to that of this Government than would be that of a Democratic government with which perhaps we would have closer affiliations, the United States had a Budget deficit of $3.5 billion, which jumped in June 1975 to $43.6 billion and in June 1976 to $76 billion. So there has been an increase in the United States deficit from $3.5 billion to $76 billion- twenty times greater in a space of some 3 years.

The Budget deficit of the first Labor Government in 1973-74 was $293m. It is certainly true that it went up to $3, 585m. I am quoting from the official Treasury documents that were supplied with the Budget. I am referring to table 1, page 142, of the Budget Speech. In point of fact, it is the one presented by the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) in the House of Representatives. That deficit is so small in comparison to that of the United States in its deficit budgeting arrangements. It did not stop the conservatives in this place in April 1974 from denying Supply and bringing about the defeat of the then Government and the double dissolution in May of that year. Yet we are led to believe that the whole problem associated with the economy in this country is related to deficit budgeting. If that is the case, and if Senator Maunsell has any relevance in this debate, how can he relate to the fact that the United States economic position has improved? Whilst it is true that, at the moment, the United States economy is somewhat stagnant, its inflation rate has fallen. Yet its deficit has increased out of all proportion in comparison with ours.

I find myself denying completely the illogic of the Government speakers who suggested that everything wrong with the economy in this country is due to the fact that there was, as Senator Missen said, a 46 per cent increase in Government spending in the 3 years of the Labor Government. Heavens above, the former Labor Government was subjected to arrant criticism in this chamber, particularly by Senator Carrick, because in its last Budget it made some changes in the arrangements concerning Commonwealth outgoings to the States and CommonwealthState relationships and because there was a minor reduction in expenditure and a change in the arrangements in respect to education. It was criticised also because it took certain steps to eradicate long overdue tax concessions and other malfunctions in our taxation system and budgeting arrangements over the years. It is suggested by those who do not think very deeply about this problem of economics that if governments go ahead and spend money on, for example, schools or hospitals, that is in itself inflationary, whereas if the private sector goes ahead with the mad building spree that we have seen taking place in the business districts of Sydney and Melbourne that is not inflationary. If the private sector spends thousands of millions of dollars on a building spree in our capital cities that is desirable, despite the fact that socially it contributes nothing to the improvement of living standards, whereas if governments do this through the agencies of State and local government authorities it is inflationary.

That leads me to the same general conclusion as that to which the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Wentworth) has come in his contribution to the Budget debate in the House of Representatives, in public statements he has made and in letters to the Australian Financial Review. What has Mr Wentworth said? In the Financial Review of 24 August 1976 he challenged the whole basis upon which we are carrying out our accounting system and he drew attention to the illogical thinking of those who believe that our capital works represent a negative in terms of our economic activity and that they are not to be regarded as a positive, an asset, for the people of Australia. Mr Wentworth said:

It is now clear from the papers presented with the Budget that in no reasonable sense of the word was there a deficit for 1 975-76- nor is any such deficit in prospect for 1 976-77.

I urge Senator Maunsell to read that article and try to evaluate and understand what his esteemed colleague has been trying to present to the Australian people. Mr Wentworth draws attention to the deficit when related to capital expenditure. Capital works constitute a very important output in terms of the budgeting arrangements of the Commonwealth in its own right and in its funding to the States. Senator Maunsell will do well to study what Mr Wentworth has said. He might get some of the nonsense out of his thinking. Mr Wentworth is right because I have checked his figures. In respect of capital expenditure in 1975-76 on buildings and the provision of services of a permanent nature for the Australian people, the deficit under Labor’s Budget was $2 19m. Under the present Government’s Budget it is $574m. That is the way the Government ought to be approaching its analysis of this Budget.

All Government speakers have spoken for some time about business confidence and about inflation being the evil. I am not suggesting that it is not but the Government has never attempted to work out why inflation is the evil. It was the American Government which caused inflation by financing its escapades and involvement in Korea, Vietnam and other parts of the world. Because of its tremendous trading relations the U.S. was able to inflate the world economies by manufacturing sufficient American dollars to float and filter into. all the other economies of the Western world- even penetrating the socialist world where people have a much tighter control of their national economies. Yet members of the then Opposition said that it was the small amount of public spending by the Whitlam Government that brought about the great problem facing this country. Representatives from the major business corporations of this country, in evidence before a Senate committee, indicated that there had been a rundown in private investment ig the manufacturing industry since 1967. Government senators do not even read their own reports to understand this. The documents are there for them to see. The written evidence is there for them to see. That was 5 years before a Labor Government came into office. The problem is still with us. As someone said on AM over the last couple of days, spokesmen for the manufacturing industry still believe that this Government does not understand the problems facing manufacturing industry in this country.

I do not blame Senator Cotton for suggesting in his speeches and contributions to the media that we have to get the consumers’ confidence going, get them to spend and get rid of our stocks. It is said that the reason why people are not spending is that they are afeared of the spectre of inflation. Can anybody, any government supporter, tell me how they come to that conclusion? Can anybody tell me the basis on which they are making that assessment? People are putting their money in the savings banks. It may well be that they are doing this because they are afeared of unemployment, not inflation. Nobody in his right senses would believe that money in the bank earning interest at 334 per cent, 4 per cent or even 5 per cent, or money put in a fixed deposit earning 9 per cent will counter inflation when, according to the Goverment ‘s own Budget documents, inflation will remain at 12 per cent. The way in which food prices and other prices in the consumer price index are rising it will be considerably more than that in the next financial year. Yet it is suggested that all the Government has to do is to get people to buy in the shops and everything will come good.

It denies the obvious facts in all the Western countries, that there is a greater and more fundamental deficiency within society itself than just the reluctance of somebody to buy a shirt, a refrigerator, a motorcar or whatever else is stocked up in the houses of commerce. We did not do so last year but now this Government is even asking the States to economise and cut back on their expenditures. This has happened although we were criticised last year and earlier this year by people like Senator Carrick. I believe that to ask the States to economise and cut back expenditure is to go in the wrong direction. We cannot have a reduction in government expenditure when there is a downturn in economic activity. I support entirely what Mr Wentworth and my colleague Mr Hurford have been saying about the need for some selective government spending in order to stimulate the economy. We know that there is a lot of speculation about revaluation and this clearly would cause concern to people who might have capital in Australia for investment.

We have to come to the conclusion that the Budget strategy is not working. I can only use what evidence is available to us. I think one Minister said today that the Government had certain confidential information about economic problems and activity which was not generally available. I do not believe that that sort of information should be confidential. If the Government has figures and information available it seems to me that the matter ought to be debated publicly. We can rely only on the evidence freely available to us. The publication Inside Canberra had this to say:

An overwhelming proportion of Australia’s manufacturers consider the Budget introduced to the House of Representatives last month will do nothing to stimulate their business or the economy generally.

Inside Canberra’ and ‘Canberra Survey’ are in the process of analysing replies to one of their periodic surveys of subscribers, who comprise the principals of most of Australia’s leading business undertakings. One of the questions asked was ‘Has the Budget encouraged you to expand your business in the next six months?’ Of the 200 replies received and checked so far, only 28 respondents said ‘Yes’. The remaining 172 replied ‘No , or in one or two cases ‘not applicable’. Full results of the survey, which contained 10 key questions, will appear in ‘Canberra Survey ‘ in October.

As I have pointed out, there is facing us this problem of the decline of private investment in manufacturing industry. There is this decline in activity in the agricultural sector. I am surprised that Senator Maunsell would take the view that people in these areas ought to produce more. One of the points he made was that there ought to be more productivity. Heavens above, if we have too many agricultural products and we have more than the market can absorb and therefore have to make cuts, as we have had to do in secondary industry, what is the point of producing more? Why would manufacturing industry leaders be concerned about putting in new machinery? Why would they respond to investment allowances and things of that nature when the machines they have are under producing, are inactive, are not working as they were working back in the 1950s and 1960s when they were working for 24 hours a day in three 8-hour shifts? If they were not working for as long as that, people certainly were working excessive and massive overtime in order to produce goods. Why would anyone who cannot sell what he is producing now be encouraged to put in new machines to produce more? He would have to be out of his head. Yet that is precisely the strategy which the Government suggests should be the basis of revival in this country. Private sector revival is the core upon which this Government has built its Budget strategy.

Similarly, in the field of agriculture, I cannot understand how farmers like Senator Maunsell and many of his colleagues could possibly argue for increased productivity. We all know that world markets are contracting, that prices are dropping and that many of our key industries in the primary industry area are relying on short falls in other parts of the world as a result of famine or lack of response to calls for increased production in order to survive. The likelihood is that if the Russians and the Chinese have a good harvest, even our wheat industry, which has been the pivot of some stability, is likely to be affected. Senator Maunsell ought to know that agricultural productivity has increased three times over the last 25 years despite the fact that there has been a decline of one-third in the number of people involved in farming and producing agricultural goods. Why the heck would they want to produce even more goods and why are more goods required from the manufacturing industries in Australia? All these matters are related. Senator Georges was correct in relating these matters to this Bill because this Government’s entire strategy is to cut back public spending. In my view and in the view of my Party, the public sector is the only area in which we will get certain responses and are likely to get any sort of economic revival provided that action is taken selectively.

Now there are more people out of work because the Government has taken steps to close down the shipbuilding industry. Whatever that industry represents in total spending power, those workers hitherto have received reasonably high rates of pay, but where will they be in 3 months, 4 months, 6 months or 12 months time in terms of purchasing power? They will have less money to spend than that which was in their pockets hitherto. How will they be able to buy the goods that Senator Cotton says have to be bought if we are to get economic revival? We of the Opposition are not being disruptive and discourteous in raising these matters. In supporting this Bill at least we show that we adopt a responsible attitude to our tasks in this place.

I want to finish on the note on which I started. The debate on this Bill contrasts starkly with the behaviour pattern of the Conservative parties in this chamber less than a year ago when they would not take steps to pass our Loan Bills at that time. They held them up and engaged in a propaganda campaign which finally undermined public confidence in the then Government. At that time the Conservative parties used all the nefarious and subversive actions conceivable in that situation to bring about the defeat of an elected government. Now they have the problem and they have the audacity to talk about the need for co-operation. Heavens above, they ought to talk about co-operation after the way they carried on! We had 3 elections in 3 years. We had only been in office for 5 months when Senator Withers admitted in this place that his Party sought to bring down the Government. The parties opposite did that within a year of the time he made that statement. At that time I drew attention to the fact that our deficit was considerably below the deficit of the previous Government the year before. Our deficit in our first year was $2 93 m but that of the parties opposite in the previous year when they were trying to get economic revival was $709m. They are their figures, not mine. Honourable senators opposite have the audacity to suggest that people have to work a bit harder, to stop bludging, and that the Opposition should start to co-operate. Let me tell them that they are whistling in the dark.

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

– in reply- Perhaps it is useful to remind ourselves once again that the people of Australia had an election last year and voted the then Government out of office. I note that this Bill is not opposed. There have been a series of comments and there are one or two things that one might say. There certainly was a much longer debate last year about a Bill like this, but if honourable senators turn back their minds they will realise that it was a rather more untidy Bill than this one and that the limits were much wider and much greater. They will find that on this occasion the Bill deals with the same set of principles relating to the operation of the 3 funds to finance a deficit, but it is a much smaller deficit. If they read the second reading speech they will find that a limit of $ 1,600m has been included and that the margin over the estimated deficit of $ 1,435m is very small. If nothing else happened in the process of the debate on the Loan Bill last year, it produced a greater sense of responsibility and understanding in the Senate and, I think, on this occasion a tidier Bill.

The purpose of the Bill is clearly explained in the second reading speech. Perhaps one or two comments might be made briefly, because we are anxious to get this Bill through before dinner. Senator Wriedt said that the Bill is purely a machinery Bill. That is what it is. The Bill does not increase the expenditures of the Government. It permits defence expenditures to be charged to the Loan Fund rather than to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. It permits the shortfall required to balance that Fund to be charged to the Loan Fund. It is a quite straightforward operation. Senator Georges said that he did not know why it was necessary to transfer money from one fund to another; that is, from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the Loan Fund. That was explained very carefully last year, and I think it is explained again this year. Expenditure from the Consolidated Revenue Fund cannot exceed the receipts, and any excess of expenditure must be financed from some other fund. This machinery Bill to enable such transfer of the excess expenditure has been the traditional means of financing a deficit in the Consolidated Revenue Fund for many years.

I think one or two other comments might be made. Measures in the Bill do not of themselves affect the money supply or interest rates. It is merely a machinery measure. The financing required for the Budget is indicated by the overall deficit which is not affected by anything in this Bill. The reduction which we have effected in the Budget deficit between the 2 years reduces very substantially the Government’s call on financing from the community. The Treasurer (Mr Lynch), in his Budget Speech, said: - . this broad indication of the monetary outlook - given a 10 to 12 per cent growth in the broad money supply- will provide the private sector with a greater degree of certainty regarding that aspect of policy in the year ahead than it has previously enjoyed- particularly in recent years.

If one looks at the line of economic growth in Australia and at the way the money supply has jumped around, one can see why there was great uncertainty. One of the purposes in reducing the deficit is to get it financed early rather than late and to be much more certain and constant in the way in which the money supply is handled. I made the comment the other day that about 2 months of evidence on income and expenditure is not a good enough period on which to judge a full Budget year. I think that is known to all honourable senators. I do not think that needs any further comment.

Senator Gietzelt suggested that various investment ideas about which I talked this morning should be made public property and should be able to be debated. I was adverting to the fact that many companies come to see the Department that I currently administer. They talk about their plans. They discuss what is necessary to get them moving. I was telling the Senate that there are many such plans in the pipeline. Some have been announced. Those that have been announced are public property. Those that are yet to be announced will be announced when the confidential discussions have been concluded. They cannot be announced before then. The honourable senator would understand that very well from his days in local government. People in administrative posts must observe the confidence of those who discuss things with them until the matters can properly be made public.

What we are looking at here is clearly an argument on economic strategy. We have a strategy; the Opposition has another one. We are in charge of the economy of this country, and we are bringing our strategy to bear upon the problem. We could talk about this forever if we wished. What Labor did in 3 years is a fair test of how good it is on economic management and on setting down strategies. It is critical, in the view of the Government, to bring down the total demand put on the resources of this country, principally by government extravagance; to get that down to reasonable limits; to have some balance between availability of resources and demand on resources; to have resources available for use in the private sector for investment and consumption where they are, therefore, available to produce economic growth. That is what is happening.

One of the speakers on the Labor side talked about interest rates. Let us bear in mind this point: It was the Labor Party that put up interest rates very substantially. Why did it do so? It did so because the inflation rate went up very sharply. Interest rates are very difficult for any government to bring down without a drop in the inflation rate. I would be the first to say- I always have said this-that this country needs a low interest rate. It has to get that through a low inflation rate, which is what we are aiming at. I have said previously- I repeat it- that comments by various people about a potential devaluation are better not made. Any government knows this. People who have been in previous governments know this. It is better to let that matter be dealt with on the most confidential basis possible. One sometimes listens to a debate and feels that perhaps the Labor Party is hoping for an economic disaster. I can assure it that that will not happen. A recovery will come through strongly. Inflation will come down. Growth and development will occur. Unemployment will decrease. All this will take time. That has been said by people such as myself on many occasionsbefore the election, during the election campaign and after the election.

Senator Wriedt spoke about the need for a White Paper on manufacturing industry. It is very well advanced. I should be able to get it to a conclusive stage before the end of this year. That is my current aim. Most of the submissions in relation to the Paper have been made public. Some could not be made public because the people who made them insisted that they be kept private. That could not be helped. The White Paper will take account of all those views. One could go on at great length about Budget strategy, the meaning of deficits, the accounting processes used to record deficits and what is now regarded as old hat Keynesian economics. None of this is valid. What is valid is that this is a Bill to handle a machinery matter of financing a deficit and of transferring funds. It is not opposed by the Opposition. I listened with great interest to the remarks of all speakers, as I always do. I found in all the remarks things to which I would attach a value in my mind for later observation.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

Sitting suspended from 5.48 to 8 p.m.

page 634

ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 9 September, on motion by Senator Durack:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– This Bill is quite short, consisting of 4 clauses. It is designed to amend certain Acts in consequence of certain administrative changes and to provide for related matters. Attached to the Bill is a schedule setting out 66 enactments of the Parliament. The Bill is really designed to change the names of certain departments or bodies affected by the change of government that took place last December. In the main the amendments are to operate from 22 December 1975, with the exception of the amendments to five Acts, namely, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act, which is deemed to have come into operation on 1 July last; the

Child Care Act, which takes effect from 23 June when responsibility for the Act was transferred to the Department of Social Security; the Cities Commission (Repeal.) Act, which is deemed to have come into operation on 19 January 1976; the National Health Amendment Act; and the Roads Grants Act.

Let me cite a few examples of the amendments. The words ‘Social Security’ are substituted for the words ‘Social Services’; the words Primary Industry’ are substituted for the word Agriculture’; ‘Minerals and Energy’ now becomes ‘National Resources’; ‘Services and Property’ becomes ‘Administrative Services’; and Police and Customs’ becomes ‘Business and Consumer Affairs’. This change of nomenclature comes about as a result of the change of government. We know that as governments change so do the names given to departments and authorities but it has been suggested by some members of my party that consideration should be given to having some sort of uniformity agreed to by the Government- whichever political party may be in office- and the Opposition as to the names of departments and statutory bodies that might be involved following a change of government. I suppose that one must agree that the naming of a department or statutory body is a matter for the Prime Minister of the day. I doubt that any Prime Minister would agree completely with another Prime Minister- even one who succeeded him from his own party- as to the name of a department or statutory body.

I have read the House of Representatives Hansard of 8 September where my colleague the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen) suggested that the Acts Interpretation Act might be streamlined to enable easy legislative alterations to take place following administrative changes occurring as a result of a change of government. He referred to sections 19a and 19b of the Acts Interpretation Act. I understand that the Attorney-General (Mr Ellicott) in another place has expressed some doubts about the course of action suggested by my colleague, Mr Bowen. Having regard to those matters, the Opposition does not object to the Bill. The Opposition realises that, as governments change, so do the names of departments and statutory bodies. We wish the Bill a speedy passage.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Repatriation · LP

– in reply- I thank the Opposition for its support of the Bill. I think that the tentative proposal which Senator Douglas McClelland made about having some agreement between governments and oppositions as to the naming of departments is a forlorn hope, as he clearly recognised. However, there is room for greater uniformity in references in legislation, and that has been taken care of in the Bill. Where it could conveniently be done, specific references have been made in more general form as far as designations of ministers and officers are concerned. Changes have been made in the Bankruptcy Act to substitute the word ‘Minister’ for ‘Attorney-General’ so that in future the Act will refer to the Minister who is administering that Act, whoever he may be. The National Health Act has been changed to substitute the words ‘Permanent Head’ for ‘DirectorGeneral of Health’. Patents and inventions had previously been the responsibility of the Attorney-General but those rights will now be vested in the Commonwealth. So some advances have been made along the lines suggested by Senator Douglas McClelland in the non-political areas.

Essentially, this Bill arises out of the administrative orders of the present Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) when he was commissioned to form a government after the election on 13 December. Any Prime Minister in that situation will have his own views as to the names of departments and the allocation of their functions. However, I think that this Bill, apart from being a tidying up operation, has some qualitative, long term, useful functions and purposes. I thank the Opposition for its support of the legislation.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 635

AGED PERSONS HOSTELS AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 24 August, on motion by Senator Guilfoyle:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-When I spoke on this Bill on a previous occasion I referred to some of the problems that were being encountered, particularly in my home State of Queensland. It is a little difficult to pick up the threads of the debate after so many weeks have elapsed. I want to make particular reference to the Good Shepherd Hospice for the Chronically 111 in Townsville which is the only one catering for the frail aged group of people. For a long period it was the only one that was able to fill in some of the gaps associated with the geriatric ward at the Townsville General Hospital, At that time unfortunately a lot of patients had to pay particularly large amounts over and above their rate of pension.

During the period of the Labor Government there was an attempt to increase the size of the Hospice. I think the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) is probably aware of much of the correspondence which took place between the Hospice and the previous Government as well as with the new Government in its early stages. I do not know what the end result of this is. I am told that the matter is again under consideration. I ask that particular consideration be given to this organisation because 2 problems are involved. One problem relates to the extension of the Hospice in order to take an increasing number of the frail aged people. Mr Roberts who is the chairman of the group which handles the Hospice has been iri continual consultation not only with the Department but also with the Liberal National-Country Party Government prior to 2 December 1972, with the Labor Government and with the new Government. I hope that some agreement can be reached. One of our greatest problems is that we have only 3 organisations catering for aged people of Townsville, namely, the Villa Vincent Home for the Aged which is run by the Catholic Church, a home at Pallarenda which is run by a joint organisation comprising a number of church and private groups and the Good Shepherd Hospice for the Chronically 111. The amount of money which has been made available over a period has always been rather small. I think one of the greatest needs is for an adequate organisation at government level which is able, firstly, to appreciate the situation and, secondly, to provide adequate funding.

I did not mention in the previous debate the other problem which we have in country areas. When I was in Cooktown recently talking to pensioner organisations, they told me that they had no units at all. They were receiving no help from the State Housing Commission for either units or homes. I wonder whether the Minister might investigate this matter. It has been the subject of correspondence not only between myself and the Minister but also from my office to the Queensland Minister for Works and Housing. No allocations have been made. In fact, the only Housing Commission allocation ever made to the area of Cooktown, which has about 1000 people a large number of whom are fairly elderly, has been for one home and that was for an ordinary working family. There have been no allocations at all for people in the older age group. I ask that that matter be taken into consideration.

At Mareeba, a little under 200 road miles south of Cooktown, a small settlement has been set aside for aged people. It was funded largely by the local shire council with some help by way of subsidy from the State for the construction of homes. In recent months 17 of those homes have been condemned. This means that once the people move out or die those homes will no longer be available for aged people. I am told by the local pensioner organisation that about $250,000 is required in this area alone.

In Cairns we have a similar problem. There is limited accommodation for the very old. Probably the most tragic thing in our society today is finding accommodation for the frail aged who need constant medical attention. I am reminded of a case we had some three or four years ago, or probably a little longer. A very elderly gentleman in our town was unable to secure the type of accommodation he needed for an advanced terminal case of cancer. His only surviving relative was a daughter who had suffered from a similar medical problem. As we could not obtain a public bed for him at that time, that little family group of father and daughter was in the situation where she had to use all her wages, plus the family savings, in order to keep her father in a private ward. Over a long time the Queensland Government, in spite of subsidies which have been given by federal governments for providing accommodation for the aged, and the frail aged in particular, has not been able to provide the amount of accommodation that is necessary.

In Townsville we have 2 groups of units for elderly people. One is at Garbutt and the other is in the Wulguru area. The Garbutt suburb is almost an inner city suburb. Wulguru is an outer suburb. We have a long waiting list of people, paritcularly widows and some aged couples, without anyone to look after them. Each time we have a confrontation with the State Department we are not able to get the accommodation we require. If this happens in one provincial city obviously it is multiplied around the State. If it is multiplied around the State, the same sort of thing must happen right across north Australia. It is probably not inopportune to say that one of the greatest problems for people who have to live on age pensions in remote parts of Australia is their inability to keep up with the cost of living. I know that over the years representations have been made in an effort to get some type of relief for people who come into this category. Of course, one of the greatest problems is that they are not able to make their pensions stretch from one fortnightly payday to the next. Freight charges are a continuing problem. Not only are pensioners affected in this way but also they are affected by high rentals.

Quite recently the Minister made available a list of people who are in receipt of age pensions, invalid pensions and so in the various electoral areas. Some of these statistics are quite revealing. Looking at Townsville, Rockhampton, Cairns and Mackay, we see in the older suburban areas the greatest number of people in receipt of rental allowance. In the newer suburban areas a smaller percentage of people come into this classification. If we examine in detail the figures for the people who live at Hughenden, Katherine in the Northern Territory and at Charters Towers- each of these areas is the major town in a district- we find that the number of persons in receipt of pensions is particularly high.

I understand that in the Northern Territory the Red Cross has been able to provide some units. But it should not be the responsibility of private or semi-private organisations to find this sort of money. It is the responsibility of every member of the community who is able to work and earn a living wage to make some contribution. Of course, that contribution must be made through the taxation system. While the general discussion on this Aged Persons Hostels Amendment BDI has been in a friendly fashion, I hope that the sorts of things my colleague Senator Grimes and I have raised will be taken into consideration. I hope that in any future allocations the Minister, through her Department, will be able to make an adjustment so that we will not have this same problem.

I know that the subject I am about to mention is not within the terms of the Bill but we do have a number of elderly women who, from time to time, seek accommodation through the women’s shelters. I will not go into this matter in detail because it is the subject of correspondence between the Minister and me at the moment. There has to be some change as far as Queensland is concerned because, quite frankly, the money is not coming back through the State to the area where it is needed. I believe that those are the pertinent points of this debate and that the points raised by me and particularly Senator Grimes, our official spokesman in this area, will be taken into consideration in the future allocation of money to the various areas covered by this legislation.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

-in reply-I thank the Senate for the way in which it has received the debate on the Bill and Senator Keeffe for the remarks he has just made with regard to the provision of accommodation for frail aged and aging people, particularly in northern Queensland. As he mentioned, we have in the past few days been able to release the names of organisations which have been granted funds under the 3-year program and, whilst I have been unable to find in that list some of the organisations which he has mentioned, I am able to see in the list that allocations have been made to Mareeba and to Townsville. I am hopeful that the 3-year program that has been announced will give assistance to that part of Queensland. I take his point that people who live in this area have had some limited development of accommodation in either aged persons’ hostels or homes for the aged, but this probably is the situation in many parts of Australia. The Government hopes that what it has been able to do in recent weeks will be of assistance. I have noted the other questions which have been raised by Senator Keeffe and will respond to those in detail as soon as I can.

In closing the debate I take the opportunity to mention a few matters concerning the aged persons’ accommodation program, in particular the aged persons’ hostels program. Honourable senators will be aware of the 3-year program recently announced providing a total of $22 5m. Of this amount $120m has been allocated to the hostels program; that is double the amount expended on the program since its inception in 1972. 1 have announced the projects which have been funded under the Aged Persons Hostels Act and I think honourable senators will be aware that the organisations providing accommodation for the aged obtain entitlements under this Act on the basis of 2 beds for every one bed unsubsidised and operated by them or one bed for every two where the accommodation was previously subsidised on a dollar for dollar basis. So far 16 300 bed entitlements have been obtained in this fashion, of which 6000 have already been funded.

When the Government came to office it was faced with over 300 applications for financial assistance for the provision of 9800 beds under this legislation at a cost, based on present day costs, of about $172m. Under the 3-year program about which I have been speaking, approximately 6700 additional beds will be provided. That is 700 more than have been provided over the past 3 years. About 200 bed entitlements were not taken up and 3100 beds, which we estimate to cost in the region of $55m on present costs, have been preserved. In view of the assurances that we as a government have given and the assurances which had been given by the previous Government, every effort will be made to fund those remaining beds as soon as possible after the completion of this present 3-year program. Under the Aged Persons Hostels Act and the Aged and Disabled Persons Homes Act the projects that have been approved plus those that will be approved for funding under this program will result in the provision of some 13 595 beds. Additional projects will be selected for funding under both Acts in the latter part of 1978-79 when the Government is in a position to know what funds have been utilised. I am sure that honourable senators will appreciate the necessity to keep some funds in reserve to meet contingencies, variations to projects and escalation in building costs.

I hope that the funds made available will enable me to approve further projects in the 1978-79 year to provide approximately 1400 additional beds. I might add that a reserve list of propects has been drawn up in case this situation eventuates and, whilst I hope we will be able to proceed with all that have received approval, we will be reviewing the list from time to time to see whether further approvals can be given. The advance assurance that this 3-year progam has given to organisations will enable them to proceed with the planning and construction of projects either with their own funds or with bridging finance on the basis that grants will be made to them to recoup their expenditure and discharge bridging finance when funds are available. I feel sure that this will enable steady progress to be made in providing more accommodation for the frail aged and aging people. Armed with a letter of approval from the Commonwealth Government, we believe that the raising of bridging finance will be facilitated and, as we will be able to indicate the approximate date on which a grant will be made by the Government, organisations will be able to develop their plans on the basis that future support will be definitely forthcoming.

At this stage I am not able to say what future programs will be undertaken with regard to aged persons. At the present time we have a committee which is reviewing matters of welfare services and facilities for aged and infirm people and I am hoping that as a result of that committee’s work we will be able to develop further programs which will give assistance and security to aged people. I think we recognise- Senator Grimes referred to this-that we need to look at the alternatives that can be provided to existing services. We need to recognise the development that is required in services taken into the homes of people to enable them to retain their independence for as long as possible. I believe that those alternatives are the urgent matters that need to have government attention. In addition to the committee which at the present time is inquiring into the care of the aged and infirm, the Government has appointed a task force to examine welfare services and community-based welfare programs in the health, welfare and community development areas. Future policy decisions will be taken on that committee’s work and also on the work done within this section of my Department. In the meantime the 3-year program that has been announced for the further development of hostels and homes for aged people in Australia will be of assistance in meeting the needs of those people.

The grants under the Aged Persons Hostels Act will continue to be paid at 100 per cent of project costs up to an approved subsidy limit and in line with the realistic limits adopted under the Aged and Disabled Persons Homes Act. The limit will be increased from $1 1,700 to $15,300 for each person housed. These limits will be reviewed every quarter to take account of movements in building costs. With these remarks I thank the Senate for the debate on the Aged Persons’ Hostels Amendment Bill and foreshadow that I have some amendments to move in Committee.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

-I have a couple of questions on the general issues raised in the debate on the second reading of the Bill. Firstly, with regard to the bridging finance which obviously will be necessary for projects under the aged persons accommodation program generally, has the Government decided whether it will assist the various organisations to pay the interest on this bridging finance up to three or four years? Secondly, has the Government decided whether the report of the Sax Committee which is looking into aged persons accommodation will be made available to the Parliament?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– With regard to the matter of bridging finance and the interest involved, the Government has not decided that it will provide assistance in this respect. It has taken the view that the provision of a 3-year program has enabled those organisations which have their own funds or which have resources available to them to proceed earlier than otherwise would have been possible. I think that there will be various ways in which organisations will be able to find their finance and make their own arrangements.

For instance, I believe that there are builders who are able and willing to undertake contracts from organisations and to make arrangements with regard to final funding. There are established groups in the community such as church and other bodies, which have resources available from within their own organisations. As a general practice we believe that many organisations will proceed quite early with the development of their programs, even though their funds may have been noted to be available in the second or third year of the program. It was our endeavour to release information and to guarantee Government support to many organisations that led us to have the 3-year program. For these reasons we have not undertaken to provide any assistance with regard to interest payments which may need to be met by the organisations concerned.

With regard to the report of the committee which is dealing with programs for aged people, I do not think a decision on the work of that committee and its method of reporting back has been taken one way or the other. The committee will be reporting to more than one Minister. I will make inquiries with regard to the nature of its reporting, whether its report will be a public document and whether the committee will be treated as one that is working inside government itself. The committee has been drawing on the information and assistance of voluntary organisations in the community. From my point of view, I see that a great deal of good could come from releasing the work of this committee as it relates to the development of future programs. As I understand it, a decision has not yet been taken on whether its terms of reference are such that all of its work needs to be made available or is of use. I will obtain for the honourable senator the information with regard to that matter.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I want to ask a couple of questions. I noted that the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle), when winding up the second reading stage of the debate, referred to Mareeba. May I just seek clarification on 3 points? The Mareeba development, of course, has been overdue for quite a long time. It is a matter of very great interest to a large number of elderly people in the Mareeba area whether the local authority is to be subsidised to the extent of $250,000 or some lesser amount.

I also would like to know whether the Minister is able to explain at the moment what has happened to the Good Shepherd Hospice so far as funding for the current financial year is concerned? The Good Shepherd Hospice is the Townsville Church of England organisation to which I referred earlier this evening. I also seek, through you, Mr Temporary Chairman, an explanation from the Minister as to the policy of the Government in respect of isolated areas. When I talk of isolated areas I refer to such places as Burketown, Cooktown, areas in the Northern Territory, areas in the north-west and other parts of Western Australia and the more sparsely settled areas of western Queensland. I ask the Minister whether there is a policy for assistance to elderly people in respect of the provision of homes either by way of subsidy or by way of straight out grants through State government instrumentalities?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I am looking at the lists of the organisations, under both Acts, covered under the 3-year program. Just scanning through them I am able to select some organisations that are in north Queensland. For instance, I notice that the organisations on the lists include the Sisters of Mercy in Rockhampton, which has an allocation for the 1976-77 year, the Presbyterian Church in Mackay, the Blue Nursing Service’s Good Samaritan Home in Cairns, the Corporation of the Methodist Church of Australasia in Mareeba, the Masonic Home for the Aged at Kirwan in Townsville, the Mareeba Garden Settlement, the Sisters of Mercy Villa Vincent in Townsville, the Rockhampton Benevolent Homes and the Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Rockhampton. There are quite a number that I can select through my own knowledge of the names of towns in north Queensland. There are other names with which I am not so familiar, such as Laidley.

I do not appear to have any information with regard to the Good Shepherd Hospice. I wonder whether it is a nursing home which does not involve any further development under this program. I will obtain for the honourable senator information with regard to the Good Shepherd Hospice. I will see what information I am able to obtain. Lists also are available with respect to the north-west of Queensland and the Northern Territory. I could go through the lists and indicate to the honourable senator the names of he organisations involved. With regard to the Aged Persons Hostels Act, of course, it would be understood that the organisations eligible for assistance would be those which prior to 1972 had already developed some hostel accommodation. This would limit to that extent those which are now eligible, unless there had been some exchange with other organisations which had been able to assist them. In areas remote from the capital cities very limited accommodation is available to enable frail aged people to live within their own communities. This is something that is of concern; it is something that I believe needs early attention from governments in future programs.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– I do not want to appear to be stubborn or overpersistent; but one of the specific things I asked the Minister- this could be covered by recurring expenditure or capital expenditure- was: What is the policy of the Government in relation to isolated areas? I thank the Minister very much for saying that she will obtain for me the information on the Good Shepherd Hospice, which is a matter of very serious concern to frail aged people. I think that in matters involving expenditure of this nature we should look at the situation right across the board. The responsibility is squarely on the shoulders of the Australian Government and the Australian taxpayer to see that our aged people are looked after properly. After all, the Minister and I one day will be hopping around on walking sticks.

Senator Grimes:

– Not you, Jim.

Senator KEEFFE:

-My doctor friend tells me that I will die before I get to that stage. Well, the Minister may be on crutches or walking sticks or she may be confined to a wheel chair, because she probably will live to be 90 years of age or so. I believe that we should look at this matter right across the board. If the Government has a policy in regard to what it intends to do in these fields, I think the Australian people ought to know about it. It is important that they know, because we have a very big group of aging and aged people in our community. The Minister may be able to give me some information with regard to isolated areas such as Cooktown and the other areas to which I referred earlier. She may be able to tell me whether the Government intends to assist through the State governments or to give assistance by way of a direct grant. Can she tell me in precisely what way the Government can help perhaps local government by way of subsidy or whatever? I know that this subject covers a fairly wide area, but my remarks are directed to hostels and accommodation generally.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– The points made again go beyond the scope of this legislation, which deals with a program for aged persons’ hostels. The eligibility for assistance belongs to organisations which had developed hostel accommodation prior to 1972. As I explained to the honourable senator a committee is looking at the care of the aged. One of the matters with which it will be concerned is the provision of future services in addition to the programs which do exist under the Aged Persons Homes Act and the Aged Persons Hostels Act. I believe that isolation is one of the matters that does need attention because where none of these services has been developed previously or where organisations are not already established which could take responsibility under the 2 Acts concerned, it is fair to say that it is unlikely that we would have the provision of aged persons’ homes in isolated areas. That is one of the matters that could be brought to the attention of the committee which is looking at the care of the aged and infirm. I will refer specifically to that committee for its attention the honourable senator’s comments with regard to isolated areas.

The policy that exists at the present time under these 2 Acts has been expressed in our 3-year program. Future development of policy either in the provision of accommodation or alternative domiciliary services is also a matter that needs further development before I am able to give any other definitive statement at this time.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

– I am pressing the point a little but I think it is a very important point in view of this Bill and in view of the statement made by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) the other day. It is also important bearing in mind the fact that this is not the sort of legislation that the Minister or I would have introduced, with hindsight. It still was introduced as a crash program and it still was introduced as a means of overcoming an acute shortage of this sort of accommodation. Bearing in mind the fact that any program which is introduced should apply to people in need- I think both sides of the chamber would agree with this- I see a very great problem if the Government does not at least keep the door open to a flexible approach to the possibility of providing bridging finance.

It seems that there are 2 sorts of groups which build aged persons’ hostels. They are what I would call big charities and the religious organisations about which the Minister spoke. These groups operate particularly in Sydney and Melbourne where charitable funds are freely available. Often those funds are made available by the conduct of large appeals each year. Many of them are traditional appeals held annually.

These groups have financial backing that others do not have. There are other groups, particularly in the smaller capital cities and in the smaller towns- I think of some of the Methodist church groups in particular- which tend to provide accommodation for people in the low socioeconomic groups and a very high percentage of pensioners. Some of the big organisations charge an entry deposit for people to be admitted. I think the Government should give some indication that it will at least keep the door open to do something about bridging finance because the need to pay interest- high interest rates apply at the moment- will be, I believe, somewhat of a burden to some of the less affluent charitable organisations in our society.

The second point I wish to raise- I do not think I raised it with the Minister in the first place- is that the Government’s 3-year scheme of funding aged persons’ homes and hostels preempts a fair amount of money in future budgetary considerations. Initially statements by, I think, the Minister- if not by the Minister certainly by other people- always have had the proviso that budgetary considerations allowing, this money would be available. Are we to understand that this amount of money that is being made available is now firm; that it is not open to change in later Budgets due to budgetary considerations or due to economic difficulties in the community; and that people who have been approved will have a cast iron guarantee that they will get their money when their name is indicated on the list that the Minister has released?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I can understand the honourable senator’s concern with regard to the interest rates which would be incurred by organisations. If we look at it in a practical way it is probably only those organisations which are to be funded in the third year of the program which would incur very much interest because funds for the second year of the program can be released as early as 1 July next year. I think it is probably only in the third year of the program that organisations may be incurring interest to any great extent. I consider that those organisations which are to be funded next year and which use their own proportion of the costs in terms of the Homes Act would be in a fairly satisfactory position. I do not say that the door needs ever to be closed irrevocably on any decision. The decision at the present time is that bridging finance would be the arrangement that would be made by the organisation with its builder or constructing company, its banks, its own parent organisation or something else of that nature. I cannot say any more than that at this time with regard to that part of the arrangement.

As far as a firm approval and guarantee of government funds are concerned, when an organisation has had the approval of its project and it is embarking on the actual development of that program, there will be a letter of authority which will enable it to obtain funds. It will be a guarantee from the Government that the organisation is able to proceed on the basis of the year of funding which has been established for it. We have not released the total amount of the 2 years of that funding for the reason that we recognise that we need to keep some money held back to cover escalation costs and other matters. We believe that the approvals that have been given are within the terms of our total funding over the 3 years. A letter of firm approval will be given by the Government as a guarantee for any organisation embarking on a project to enable it to raise the necessary finance.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I have only one question which I would like to raise with the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle). I will be brief. I refer to clause 5 of the Bill which deals with power of delegation. Since I have been in the Parliament in most Bills provision is made for either the total delegation of powers of the Minister or directorate, or partial delegation of power to some officer of the Public Service. I am once again a member of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. The legal adviser to that committee is very much opposed to complete delegation of power to someone who need not have a greater title than an officer of the Public Service. As the Bill provides, it could be used by a Minister for the purpose of dodging obligations. At any time a fund is refused approval, as the Bill provides now, it could be as a result of the delegated authority to a junior officer of the Public Service. Therefore, I am of the opinion that if a Minister wants to delegate authority in relation to some duties which he or she has not time to undertakethis can be understood- it should be delegated to some class of officer or it should be a partial delegation or a delegation of only some powers.

The Regulations and Ordinances Committee considers this point from time to time. Of course, although the committee has not rejected a regulation as a result of this overall delegation, if it does come to a rejection I think that the members of that committee would be bound to oppose it in legislation in the House. I put it to the Minister- I do not require a reply- as a warning that I think future Bills placed before us should consider this point. The question which should be considered is: ‘Are we giving too wide a delegation to an unnamed and possibly unimportant officer of a department?’

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I take the opportunity to respond briefly to the remarks made by Senator Cavanagh. I would agree with what he has said. In fact, I think every honourable senator would probably find agreement with Senator Cavanagh ‘s sentiments in relation to delegation of powers. I believe that the Government is aware that the Senate holds a fairly strong view along the lines outlined by Senator Cavanagh. I take the opportunity, in speaking to this Bill, to state that within the functioning of my Department it is usual to have a delegation of power to the State director in the Department.

Senator Cavanagh:

– But your Bill gives it to anyone.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– That is right. I think that in a department of this size State director level is perhaps something that could be defined. Perhaps some definition of delegation in some aspects of our legislation would be appropriate. It has been our practice and custom to delegate authority to the State director level in many of the more important areas of delegation that have been undertaken.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– I must apologise to the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) for continuing to attract her attention. As a Whip I must apologise for the fact that, as we are slightly ahead of our time-table, it is perhaps necessary to ask the Minister further questions which may have been asked already. In all seriousness, what concerns me is this concept of a triennium and the fact that the organisations which do this most necessary work for the community are now required to make financial arrangements with builders, as the Minister has stated, with banks and with their own organisations in order to plan. With all the best intentions in the world this must be accepted by the Minister as an inhibition to future planning in an area of great need.

As I think Senator Grimes has pointed out, some of the smaller organisations in the more isolated regions will find themselves saddled after a considerable period- we are not talking about one, two or three months; it could be a period of 12 months or even longer- with bridging finance, no matter who happens to be the provider of that finance, which will attract an interest rate of from 10.25 per cent to 11.5 per cent. This seems to be an added burden and added worry for the organisations concerned and it may cause them to hold up their planning. I think it has been accepted by both parties in government that the responsibility of raising moneys should not be carried by these organisations and that they should be free to give all their time to the care of the aged. 1 question whether the Government is right in allowing such an open-ended arrangement for bridging finance. Perhaps it would be better if the Government were to make some sort of fund available. This might destroy the purpose of the Government. In fact, I am not quite certain what the purpose of the Government is. I am certain it is not the purpose of the Minister to extend this program over 3 years- to delay this program and to delay assistance to the aged- in order to meet the Government’s Budget strategy, which seems to be to reduce the deficit. I have already expressed the opinion today that that is a rather hopeless and, shall we say, inhuman sort of attitude. I pose a question: Can I be assured that the proposal is not merely to extend responsibility and to spread that responsibility over 3 years when the responsibility should really be accepted in this year?

To move to another point, I ask the Minister whether the committee of inquiry- perhaps she could give me some explanation of this committee of inquiry- has made any in depth assessment of the needs of the aged over the next 10 to 15 years. If it has not made such an assessment, does it intend to do so? Is it the opinion of the Government, or perhaps of this committee of inquiry in any advice that it has given already, that we have reached a peak in the need? In other words, have we gone through the period where because of neglect in past years- I am talking about a past generation- it has been necessary to provide facilities for the aged in substantial amounts and this need has reached a peak, or will it peak and will the responsibility and the need to supply diminish? In spite of what I said before as I rose to my feet, I really am concerned about these matters. Perhaps the Minister can oblige with some information.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I was not aware that we Were just stretching time. I did not take the point raised by the honourable senator in that context. I do want to explain that the 3-year program was devised to enable a lot of organisations to plan. Whatever funds we may have been able to find for this sort of work in this year, we certainly would not have been able to provide $22 5 m in the first year for any program that could have been undertaken. What this 3-year program has done has been to enable a lot of organisations to have a firm guarantee from the Government that they will get their funds. I can accept that some will experience difficulty in finding the finance for their projects if they are funded in the third year, for instance. But the decision to start on a project still rests with the organisations. If a program is funded in the third year and it falls within the category where there would be insurmountable difficulty with regard to finance, perhaps the organisation might not start its planning until later next year and thus have the call on its funds a little later than otherwise would have occurred.

Many organisations in Australia have requested just this sort of program so that they will be able to go ahead and plan and to start the development of, in some cases, additions to existing hostels or homes which they have to enable them to work more economically or more practically. We believe that with building costs escalating as they are many organisations will choose to build at this stage rather than to be looking 2 or 3 years ahead when costs might be more prohibitive than they are at the present time. The honourable senator can be assured that what we have attempted to do in this 3-year program has been to increase as quickly as possible the number of beds that are available for our aged and infirm and ageing people.

The honourable senator asked me about the needs of the aged over the next 10 or 15 years and whether we will be devising practical programs to cover those needs. Part of the work of the committee of inquiry will be to look at the needs as they exist and the projected needs. I hope that our Department and others will work together to provide new programs and new ways in which we will be able to attack the need that does exist. The honourable senator asked whether we have reached a peak in the need. I should not like to say that we have any information that would suggest that that is so. In many ways we are an ageing community and we can see a growing need, particularly when we link that fact with the changing patterns in living which are evident in Australia. It would be true to say that not many years ago we would not have recognised a need to provide aged persons homes and hostels to the degree that we see now.

The changing patterns of living are such that not more than 2 generations seem to be living in the same household, and the third generation is finding alternative accommodation. In this country that has become an aged person’s home unit, a hostel, a nursing home or a geriatric ward. All of these developments have led to an increase in the need. I should not like to suggest that the need throughout the community to provide adequate and desirable facilities for many of the people who require them has yet peaked. I think these are the only comments that I can make with regard to the matters raised by the honourable senator.

Mr Temporary Chairman, I seek leave to move an amendment to clause 4, which reads:

Section 9 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from sub-section ( 1 ) the words “ approval of the hostel under section 5 of this Act” and substituting the words “the making of the grant”.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Devitt:
TASMANIA

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

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I move:

I should like to restate that the purpose of this Bill is to extend the effective operation of the Aged Persons Hostels Act 1972-74 to enable grants to be made for aged persons hostel projects for which applications have been lodged but which, for one reason or another, could not be commenced within the time limits imposed by the Act. It provides for the time limit of 12 months to run from the date on which a grant is actually approved. However, I have been advised that the Government’s decision to reimburse organisations for expenditure incurred on the preliminary planning of deferred projects constitutes a grant within the meaning of the Act. As these reimbursements commenced approximately 12 months ago, organisations could lose their entitlements if work is not commenced shortly. This is not possible in the majority of cases and to overcome this it is necessary to amend clause 4 of the Bill in the terms that I have just moved. I think that the preliminary planning expenses that were given to a vast number of organisations are a matter well known to members of the Senate. This was done to reimburse those organisations for architectural and planning expenses that had been incurred when it was necessary to defer future funding some time last year. It is for this reason that we need to amend clause 4 in the terms that I have outlined.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN:

– Perhaps it would be appropriate as the Minister has received leave to move her amendment that she should also, under cover of that leave, move and address herself to the proposed new clause. In that way, they may be taken together.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Victoria · LP

-I move:

Another difficulty that is being experienced is that approvals already given to preserve the eligibility of organisations for a grant are in respect of buildings to be constructed at a specific site. Because many grants have been deferred due to the unavailability of funds, some organisations have relinquished their options to purchase or otherwise to acquire the sites selected for their hostels. Most of these organisations plan to construct hostels on alternative sites. But the original approval cannot be varied to enable this to be done under the existing legislation. The amendment will correct this situation and, Mr Temporary Chairman, I commend it to the Committee.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I am very suspicious of draughtsmen. I think they like to use words for no reason other than to distinguish themselves from ordinary people or, possibly, to create opportunities for lawyers to enter into disputations as to the legal meanings of those words. The intention of the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) in proposing a new clause 4a is to cover the situation in which an organisation which has received approval for construction of an aged persons home on a particular site finds that by the time finance is available and it is ready to proceed its option on that site has expired. Therefore that organisation cannot build on that site. The new clause seeks to give the DirectorGeneral the power to approve another site.

However, the draughtsmen require a little more than that. The organisation has to prove that there are ‘exceptional circumstances beyond its control’. If the Director-General is satisfied that by reason of circumstances beyond its control an organisation has been unable to commence construction on its site within the specified period, I think that he should have power to approve building on another site. I think that this is the intention of the new clause. Because of the way in which the new clause has been drafted, a further requirement is imposed. An organisation must prove ‘exceptional circumstances’. When lawyers argue what ‘exceptional circumstances’ are in any given case, no one can know where the argument will end. An organisation may fail to prove exceptional circumstances. For instance, I ask: Is the fact that an organisation has lost its option on one site an exceptional circumstance? I would say that in normal circumstances we would expect that an organisation which has not commenced construction on a site within a specified period of 12 months would lose that site. Therefore, that circumstance is not provided for as ‘exceptional’. An organisation has to establish exceptional circumstances. I ask the Minister: What is the justification for using the word ‘exceptional’? Has its use any value other than to deprive some organisation of a grant which it would otherwise receive?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Victoria · LP

-in reply- I can understand the senator’s concern with regard to the terminology in the proposed new clause. I can assure him that the relationships between the Director-General, my Department and the organisations concerned have been most co-operative and have worked towards the development of these facilities in the terms of the agreements that are undertaken. I think that when, because of exceptional circumstances beyond the control of the organisation, it is necessary to vary the approval, power to do this is required by the Director-General. I do not believe that the terminology of sub-section (b) will be of any difficulty to organisations when working with our Department. The clause needs to be stated in those terms so that it does not give an opportunity to organisations to decide, for a whole variety of reasons, to vary something for which a firm approval and an undertaking have been made as a commitment between the Government and an organisation.

Amendment and proposed new clause agreed to.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 644

TELECOMMUNICATIONS 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:

Mr President, as announced by the Government in May and restated by the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) in his Budget Speech, the Australian Telecommunications Commission will seek part of the funds it requires for capital investment this year from the domestic loan market. The purpose of the amendments in the Bill now before this House is to facilitate the approach by the Commission to the loan market for this purpose. In 1976-77 the Telecommunications Commission has an approved capital expenditure program of $9 10m. These funds will be spent in renewing, as appropriate, the equipment which provides almost 4 million services to customers connected to the telecommunications networks, in providing for the increased services required by those customers, and in connections for new customers requiring service. A capital investment of this order is necessary if the Commission is to meet the reasonable demands of the community for modern telecommunications services, and our network is to be up-graded to take advantage of the latest technological developments. Annual borrowings of the Commission have reached a very substantial figure in terms of the Commonwealth Budget and, in the Government’s view, it is appropriate that the Commission should seek a portion of these funds this year from the capital market as an alternative to direct funding from the Budget. Of the total capital investment proposed this year, the Commission will provide approximately 54 per cent from its internal sources, including provision for depreciation of assets, a budgeted trading surplus and funds retained to meet its future liabilities for furlough payments to staff. The provision in the Budget for Commonwealth advances to the Commission of $2 15m will provide 24 per cent of its capital requirements. Proposed borrowings from the domestic loan market- $200m- will provide a further 22 per cent of the total capital program. The Commission will be seeking funds on the loan market in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the Loan Council for semigovernment authorities. It will be competing with other semi-government authorities for subscribers to its securities.

The Commission itself is exempt from taxation under any Commonwealth, State or Territory law, but subscribers to Commission securities could be made liable to pay stamp duty under State or Territory legislation, and transfers of Commission securities would be dutiable under existing legislation in some States. Securities issued by State authorities, being exempt from such duty, could prove more attractive to some investors than Commission securities, and the financial advisers to the Commission believe that the borrowing potential of the Commission would be markedly reduced if State authorities continued to have the advantage of exemption of securities from stamp duty.

One of the principal purposes of this Bill is to exempt transactions involving Commission securities from State stamp duty. Other clauses of the Bill would give a specific authority for the Commission to issue securities, with the Commonwealth guaranteeing the repayment of the amounts so borrowed and the payment of interest on those borrowings. Clause 1 of the Bill is the usual formal provision regarding the title of the amending Act. Clause 2 provides that the amending Act will be deemed to come into operation on 15 September 1976 which is the date approved by the Loan Council for the Commission to open its loan. Clause 3 substitutes the words ‘the Commonwealth’ for the word Australia’ in section 72 of the principal Act which concerns borrowings by the Commission.

Sub-clause (b) inserts a new sub-section in section 72 to provide that a borrowing by the Commission may be by the issue of prescribed securities. The securities which it is intended so to prescribe would include registered stock, registered debentures and bonds, and bonds and debentures transferable by delivery. Sub-clause (c) inserts a further sub-section in section 72 to provide that, where the Commission borrows money under that section by the issue of prescribed securities, the repayment by the Commission of the amounts borrowed and the payment of interest due on such borrowings is guaranteed by the Commonwealth.

Clause 4 substitutes the words ‘the Commonwealth’ for the word ‘Australia ‘ in section 80 of the principal Act which exempts the Commission from taxation. The clause further proposes the addition of a new sub-section to section 80 to provide that stamp duty or any similar tax is not payable under a Commonwealth, State or Territory law is respect of:

  1. a security issued by the Commission;
  2. the issue, redemption, transfer, sale or purchase of such a security, but excluding a transaction entered into without consideration or for an inadequate consideration; or
  3. any document executed by or on behalf of the Commission, or any transaction in relation to the borrowing of moneys by the Commission.

I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Douglas McClelland) adjourned.

page 645

FOREIGN TAKEOVERS AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 19 May, on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– The Bill before the Senate contains amendments to the Foreign Takeovers Act of 1975 and the Opposition will not oppose them. If we go back to 1972 the Senate will recall the original proposal by the McMahon Government to introduce legislation to control the takeover of Australian firms- both firms incorporated in Australia and firms incorporated overseas. It was not until 1975 that the then government introduced substantive legislation which provided for restrictions and constraints upon the takeover of Australian companies. This Bill seeks to amend the 1975 legislation in certain areas. I am sure the Senate is aware that they are fairly technical amendments, but they have been outlined by the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Cotton). From memory they number about four. One or two of them are amendments particularly worthy of support.

I think it can fairly be said that it was not intended that certain loopholes would appear in legislation of this nature. At the time of the original legislation this Parliament entered into an area in which it had not legislated in substance before. It is understandable therefore that the present amendments before us would arise and for that reason we do not oppose them.

Nevertheless this Bill does give us again an opportunity to consider some of the wider aspects of government foreign investment policy. I believe it would not be unfair to describe the Government’s investment policy as a policy of pursuing the inflow of capital in as great a quantity as possible for no purpose whatever and with no regard to the cost. Another aspect of the present policy is that it leaves the Government at the mercy of investors who may quite well have differing interests from those of the Government. The Senate will recall that last year there was some debate on this legislation involving what was considered to be an interpretation of what was in the national interest or, conversely, whether a takeover was not in the national interest. The legislation at that time provided that the Government had to be the final arbiter and decision maker on whether takeovers would involve a breach of the national interest. If my memory serves me correctly, the original McMahon legislation envisaged an independent authority to make that judgment, but I believe that in view of the implications of takeovers the Government must make that determination.

Of considerable concern to us at present is a matter 1 raised this afternoon, the question of the effect upon intending investors in Australia, which of course involves takeovers of Australian companies, of the possibility of devaluation of the currency. It is not a question of emphasising this point without concern because there is concern. There is concern in our own community and there is concern overseas. We, both major parties, have moved towards what may be described as a more common policy in this area. It is significant to recall that although it was the McMahon government which introduced this legislation- I believe it introduced it in 1 972- the legislation introduced by the Labor Government in 1 974 was designed substantially to achieve the same ends.

If we are to maintain a desirable level of investment in Australia obviously overseas investors have to have a clear indication of what the Government intends to do, particularly in regard to the exchange rate. Unfortunately this does not appear to be the position at present. There are very severe pressures on the Government at the moment, I believe both from outside the Government amongst what may be termed its business friends, and of course from within the coalition, to be quite specific, about devaluation. We all recall the pressures that have been exerted by the Country Party in the coalition Government over the years concerning devaluation and revaluation. The Country Party and the Liberal Party have been at odds. That is understandable, I suppose, because the Country Party sees devaluation as a means of improving the marketing performance of the rural sector. It is not to be denied that belief.

At the same time, the whole question of the position in which we find ourselves today and the effect on intending investment in this country is opened up. Among those who may be termed the Government’s friends in the business world there are those who believe that a climate could be created which would encourage devaluation by delaying investment or by creating capital flows out of this country. For example, one of the main beneficiaries of the Government’s policies in recent times would be the Utah Development Co. There has been increased pressure on the Government to devalue, by it remitting dividends to its foreign shareholders, thus causing a further outflow of capital. In other words, those friends of the Government who stand to gain most from a devaluation are the very ones who are creating the pressures which encourage such action to be taken by this Government.

I do not say those things lightly, because they are matters which are of concern to the nation as a whole; but the Government must face up to the position that confronts it now. If we dilly-dally about a devaluation, it is quite obvious that this will have a very significant impact on those persons who intend to invest in this country, especially in the short term, until they know what the Government proposes to do. I believe that the Government quite rightly is trying to avoid a devaluation by firmly denying that it is intending to devalue and by borrowing overseas to balance the capital outflow. The problem is this: Who believes the Government? What reasons are there to believe it? There is a lack of credibility on foreign investment and devaluation which is causing real pressure. No one really believes what the Government is saying because the pressures for devaluation are increasing.

Not only did the Government fail to release the seasonally adjusted employment figures but it sought to draw comfort from the slight fall in the actual number of unemployed by saying that the economy was now under control. Yet the true position, as we know, is that in seasonally adjusted terms unemployment rose in the last month. This was not made public, but it has since been leaked, if one might call it that, when the Federal department made the figures available to the various State departments. The August Round-up of Economic Statistics failed to show the figures on the net apparent capital inflow or outflow. Traditionally they are included in that document. Again we have a departure from the normal procedure. Why has the Government done this? It led immediately to Press speculation that the Government was concealing figures. That added to the pressure for devaluation. People who are in a position to act on the information knew that there had been a capital outflow in August simply by reading the weekly balances of the Reserve Bank. So in trying to conceal these figures again the Government’s action has misfired.

The Government has produced foreign investment guidelines; yet in recent weeks members of the Foreign Investment Review Board have sought foreign investment overseas on any conditions. In fact, one member of the Board publicly rejected the Government’s guidelines, lt surely is a serious matter that a member of that Board should question the credibility of the policy of the Government. Only last Tuesday the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) claimed in the Parliament that the borrowing by the Government of up to $300m on the Euro-dollar market was not for the purpose of borrowing its way out of devaluation. It is obvious to everybody that the purpose of the loan was to reduce the pressure for devaluation. So the Treasurer is in a position in which he cannot afford, and we as a nation cannot afford, to dilly-dally on this whole matter. I accept that an attempt is being made to resist these pressures. The implications of holding off are matters for which the Government must be held responsible.

We know that even on the Government side there are very strong differences of opinion as to whether there ought to be a devaluation. If my information is correct, there has been a great deal of discussion in the party rooms about this matter. That is understandable, because any coalition government which has 2 major parties with completely divergent viewpoints on this matter obviously will find those parties in conflict. Last week the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Treasurer made statements which indicated that there would be no devaluation. In view of the statement made by the Leader of the National Country Party (Mr Anthony) subsequent to those statements, one wonders whether he was consulted by Mr Fraser or Mr Lynch. It seems to me a long shot indeed that there was no consultation between the leaders of the 2 coalition parties, because it is quite obvious that Mr Anthony disagrees quite strongly with the opinions expressed by the Treasurer.

I put it to the Senate that unless we have a clear position in this area of devaluation, and one in which the Government can speak with a united voice instead of senior spokesmen of both parties in the coalition Government taking different points of view, it is not unreasonable for there to be confusion in the minds not only of people in Australia but also of people overseas. We must speak with a united voice. When I say we’ I mean the Government, because the Government will make the decision, not the Opposition. I put it to the Minister in charge of this legislation that, although I would not expect him to be in a position to speak with complete authority on behalf of the 3 senior members of the Government to whom I have referred, it is a matter which, if need be, should be taken back to the Government so that it can make a clear statement on its intentions in respect of this matter. One or two question may need to be asked about the Bill in the Committee stage, but the Opposition will not be opposing the second reading of the Bill.

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

– in reply- I note that the Opposition does not oppose the Bill, but is engaging in the game of devaluation catch-as-catch-can. I do not think we need to take a lot of time on this matter. Senator Wriedt has asked for some definitive views from the Government. He ought to have had enough of them by now. We were very clear about this early in the year. We said that devaluation is not on. We have said it continually ever since. He would have heard his conjectures about Mr Anthony answered if he had listened to the radio this evening. Mr Anthony said this evening that it is not on. I suggest that no good purpose is served by playing devaluation catchascatchcan around this Parliament. If anybody thinks there is a good purpose in playing that game, I suggest that he go away quietly and reflect. No government, no parliament, no country is helped by people speculating on the future of the currency. That is one of the things that one does not do.

When one talks about overseas investment one should talk about reality. I recollect that this piece of legislation really began in about 1 972 under the McMahon Government. It was adjusted in 1974 when Senator Wriedt’s party was in government. It has been brought up to date in the time of this Government. I believe that it is substantially the same legislation, endeavouring to overcome technical defects in what is very close to being a bipartisan position in this area.

When we talk about foreign investment in Australia we should talk about the historic facts. Australia is a high saving country. It has managed to accumulate for purposes of its own development about 90 per cent of its capital requirements. Traditionally it has imported about 10 per cent of those requirements. It has done that almost continuously under one government or another. Perhaps the method of doing it has varied, and the propriety of doing it may well be questioned. We have a Foreign Investment Review Board. It is noted that the chairman of that board recently said that the policy of the current Government on overseas investment coming into Australia and the guidelines are almost identical with those of the previous Government. If that is the case, what is all the hoo-ha about? The Bill is not opposed. If there are technical problems to be answered in the Committee stage I will be happy to answer them. 1 shall certainly not engage here or in any other place in currency speculation, in estimates of desirable levels of currency valuation. In my view, that is a disastrous course for anybody to pursue.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I would like to have one matter clarified. I refer the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Cotton) to the third amendment in the second reading speech where reference is made to section 26 of the original Act as follows:

  1. . persons who are required to compulsorily notify a proposal under section 26 of the present Act cannot implement their proposals until the expiration of the 40 days period laid down in that section. This applies even when, within the 40 days, the persons concerned have been advised that the Government has no objections to their proposal. This situation was never intended and clause 7 of the Bill will correct the anomaly.

I ask the Minister to indicate to me specifically which sub-section removes the anomaly which apparently exists in the 1975 Act. I have read clause 7 of the new Bill a couple of times and I confess that I have difficulty in finding precisely that section which removes the anomaly referred to in the second reading speech. Perhaps the Minister can assist me there. If it is not possible for him to do so immediately I would be quite happy to accept an explanation in writing to clarify the position in my mind.

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

– I thank Senator Wriedt very much. It may well be that the best way of dealing with this matter adequately and properly is to get a written answer from the Treasurer (Mr Lynch). I notice that my adviser is turning over his papers at a rather fast rate. One thing which we do not want is an answer which is not fully detailed. I shall be happy to provide an answer for Senator Wriedt.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 648

QUESTION

BUDGET 1976-77

Debate resumed from 9 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 1 977

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 1 977

Government Securities on Issue at 30 June 1976

Income Tax Statistics

National Accounting Estimates of Receipts and outlays of Commonwealth Governnment Authorities

National Income Tax and Expenditure 1 975-76

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;

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 vulnerable to hardship notably Aborigines, the unemployed and migrants; and

it fails to institute a selective stimulatary expenditure to reduce unemployment and restore consumer confidence’.

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

– I welcome the opportunity this evening to make a contribution to this Budget debate. Naturally, I reject out of hand the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt). I am amazed that the Leader of the Opposition should move such a motion. He was a senior Minister in a Government which was in charge of the affairs of this nation for nigh on 3 years and which was responsible for the highest rate of inflation that this country has seen since the depression of the 1930s. Members of the Opposition will deny it, but the facts speak for themselves. I do not think that the loud voices coming from the Opposition benches at the moment will in any way satisfy the people of Australia who, on 13 December last year, were quite categoric in their condemnation of the previous Government and its policies. On 13 December last year the people tossed out the members of the previous Government on their little pink ears and put the sensible, rational, stable government that we have at the moment- the Liberal and National Country Party Government- which is in charge of the affairs of this nation at the present time.

Naturally one must look at the Budget in its overall context to see what it will do for this nation and for its people. I think that we should look at the 5 principles of the Budget strategy as announced by the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) and as supported by all honourable senators on this side of the chamber. The 5 principles of the Budget naturally treat the eradication of inflation as the No. 1 priority. Surely not even members of the Opposition would deny that inflation in this country must be reduced because it eats away at savings and because people on fixed incomes are affected by it, as is the whole nation. The ineptitude of the previous Government brought about this inflationary situation. We on the government benches now have the responsibility for doing something about it.

Senator Georges:

– You are not doing such a hot job of it.

Senator BONNER:

-We are doing quite well, Senator Georges. We are doing far better than the previous Government was able to do in its term of office and I think that the people of Australia are quite aware of that. I am sure that they are confident that the present Government will be able to bring about some sanity to this nation, to reduce the inflationary spiral and to create employment where employment is so sorely needed in the community.

I do not know whether I should reiterate what has been said previously by my colleagues on this side of the chamber. Many of them have covered the details of the Budget very adequately. Naturally there are other points which I wish to raise in this Budget debate tonight. I suppose all honourable senators from both sides of the chamber feel the need to say something about certain matters. I want to raise two or three matters and one of them is a matter which is near and dear to my heart; that is, what is happening in the field of Aboriginal advancement. I am sure that all honourable senators have some sympathy for and some little understanding of the problems facing members of my race throughout this Commonwealth. They have been suffering from those problems since 1788- some 188 years.

I am concerned. I have made this known previously. For example, I mentioned it on the night on which the Treasurer brought down his Budget and on the following day. I am on record through the Press, television and radio as saying some things which perhaps have not made my colleagues very happy. But for that I make no apology because it was announced that there would be a substantial cut in Aboriginal affairs. That has given me grave concern. It has caused grave concern throughout the Aboriginal community of this nation. I know that the Government commissioned Mr Hay to examine in depth the delivery of service by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to the Aboriginal community. Mr Hay has been very busy travelling around this nation. He took many weeks- I think 6 or 8 weeks- to ascertain what was going wrong or what was going right with the delivery of service to the Aboriginal community. On 8 April 1976 I had the opportunity to table in the Senate a report. This is unlike the copy of the Hay report which was not tabled in the Senate.

Senator McLaren:

– Why was it not tabled? .

Senator BONNER:

- Senator McLaren seems to have been able to acquire a copy of the Hay report. I am the only Aboriginal voice in the Parliament but I was not able to acquire a copy. But by some means or other, according to the honourable senator’s own words, he was able to obtain a copy of that report. The idea I am getting across is that on 8 April I tabled in the Senate the report of the Senate Select Committee on Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders on the environmental conditions of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders and the preservation of their sacred sites. I am not able to go into that report in depth this evening. I mention it for the simple reason that it was the first and only indepth study of the environmental conditions of Aboriginals in the Commonwealth in nigh on 200 years. It is a study which took place over some S years under 2 governments and under 3 Chairmen. The first Chairman was the President, Senator Laucke, who sits in that chair when he is not overseas. In 1972 there was a change of government and he was followed by my colleague Senator Keeffe who sits on the other side of the chamber. With the next change of government I was appointed as chairman of that Select Committee.

Senator Cotton:

– And a very good chairman, too.

Senator BONNER:

-Thank you; that is very kind of you. The point is that 5lA years work has been put into this report by a number of honourable senators who sat in the chamber and who still sit in the chamber. It was not a Liberal Party report. It was not an Australian Labor Party report. It was not a National Country Party report. It was not an Australian Democratic Labor Party report. Members of each of those Parties sat on the Committee and looked into the environmental conditions of Aboriginal people. What I want to know, and I am sure what Aboriginals across the length and breadth of this country want to know, is: Of which report will this Government or future governments take note? Will it be the report from the Select Committee or the report by Mr David Hay. Naturally, they are 2 different types of reports. One report is on the conditions under which Aboriginal people throughout this Commonwealth have lived, are living and will continue to live until this nation wakes up to itself and starts to do something positive about those living conditions. The other report was by Mr Hay. Even before the report was tabled there was criticism that there had been wastage and duplication in the delivery of service to Aboriginal people. My question to the Government and, for that matter, to the Opposition is: Who is responsible for that wastage? Who is responsible for that duplication? I assure the Senate that it is not the Aboriginal people but white bureaucrats. They are responsible for the duplication and the wastage.

But if there is some little wastage by Aboriginal people of the money which is allocated for their advancement, so what? Since 1788 Aboriginals have been at the bottom rung of the ladder. They have been deprived of their natural way of living. They have been dispossessed of the entire country which was once theirs in which to roam and to live. They were dispossessed. They were robbed. Some money is made available for their advancement, for them to become responsible and respected citizens in the community as each and every honourable senator in this place wants to be, and they will endeavour to do that. They have never had the opportunities honourable senators have had in acquiring business expertise and in handling that kind of money. If there is some wastage, then it is time that the Australian people said: ‘Well, that is not bad after 188 years. That is not bad at all. ‘ I have said before and I say again that the Aboriginal people have lived on and will continue for a long time to live on the charity of the governments of the day unless certain things take place. We have seen the classic example of that in the last few years.

Under the previous Liberal National Country Party Government a certain amount of money was made available for Aboriginal advancement. There was a change of Government and a change of attitude. There was a different idea. So another lot of money was made available by the Labor Government from 1972 to 1975. There was a change of government again and there was a different idea. Less money was made available. While $33m was cut away another promise was given that more money would be made available and we should not worry. Again we live on the charity of the government of the day. One government is sympathetic, the next government is not so sympathetic and the next government is sympathetic. Some time ago in this chamber I was given the opportunity to move a motion to urge the Government to recognise the fact that Aboriginals and Islanders were in possession of this entire continent prior to 1788. 1 spoke to the motion at length. There was no opposition to it and it was carried without dissent. At that time the Labor Party was in government. It claimed to be the champions of the Aboriginals. The motion having been passed in this chamber went to the other place. But where is it? It is lost. Nothing was done about it. At that time I stated:

I say that the day is fast approaching when this compensation for dispossession of Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders must -

I emphasise ‘must’- be channelled to an all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander statutory body empowered to administer such compensation for dispossession.

Until that kind of thing happens we will be dependent upon the charity of the government of the day. We will be dependent upon the charity of the government of the day until the Australian Government, whichever government it may be and of whatever political persuasion it may follow, accepts the fact that the indigenous people owned this entire nation and sets up a compensation or dispossession fund to be administered by an all-Aboriginal body responsible not to partypolitical government but to Parliament. Whilst we have been waiting on the Hay report there has been chaos within the Aboriginal community, within the Aboriginal Medical Service, the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders Legal Service, in the housing societies and the building societies that were created by government. Let me read a letter that was sent to one of the Aborigines Torres Strait Islanders Legal Service today. We are told that money will be made available; we are told that services will not be hindered. However, this letter states.

Dear Sir,

Re: Payment of Accounts Rendered

At the partners meeting of this firm held last Monday and our letter of 23rd of August was considered it was decided that all accounts outstanding of 60 days or more will have to be paid no later than 14th September next!

We reluctantly have to advise that if these accounts have not been paid by 14th September we then will have no alternative than to cease acting for the Service.

All we can say, as we are most concerned, and have been for some time at those accounts outstanding for a lengthy period of time.

That is an account owed to solicitors who dealt with the Aborigines and Islanders Legal Service. They worked for that service and rendered their services because they were told that the money that would be allocated to the Aborigines and Islanders Legal Service would be forthcoming. If these solicitors do not work for the legal service, how many more Aborigines and Islanders will not be represented in court, will be railroaded into gaol, will not understand court procedures and will not be able to stand up for themselves because money is not being made available for legal services? The Legal Service has done so much to help Aboriginal people over some two or three years now.

In my city of Ipswich the Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders Medical Service received a letter recently. Unfortunately I do not have it with me but it was from the headquarters of the Aborigines and Islanders Community Health Service in Brisbane and said that because of the cutbacks in government expenditure on Aboriginal affairs, in future Aborigines would have to pay for their own prescriptions. Is this fair to the Aboriginal people who for reasons beyond their control are not able to do the things they would like to do in their own Health Service? Mothers receiving that letter will not take their children to the Medical Service to be examined, to be diagnosed and then to be sent to the chemist because they would not have the money to pay for the prescriptions. This means that they will not even go to the Medical Service to be examined in the first place because they will say: ‘What is the good? If I go to the hospital the doctor will tell me I am sick. He will write a prescription but I will not be able to get the medicine. So what is the good of going to the doctor?’ These services must be maintained at all costs and I ask the Government to look into these matters and make money available for them.

Another organisation whose funds have been slashed mercilessly is Aboriginal Hostels Limited, of which I happen to be on the board of directors. Our funds have been slashed to the extent that there will be no new acquisitions this current year which means that a number of people will continue to live in old motor cars on the banks of creeks or on the commons of country towns, will continue to go to their friends in overcrowded homes that some Aboriginal people do happen to have, will continue to cause health hazards in those homes because of overcrowding, will continue to cause problems for the Aboriginal people who happen to be living in those houses because of neighbours complaining and health authorities saying that they cannot live there. Aboriginal Hostels Limited was filling a need in the community. It was established in the Australian Capital Territory on 6 June 1973 and presently its building acquisition program has been suspended. It was providing accommodation under its charter, which was to assess the need for and to operate or fund suitable accommodation for Aboriginal people whose tenure of residence is to be determined by need. We have established a number of hostels. In Brisbane we have 5 hostels being run by Aboriginal Hostels Limited. People in Brisbane who were our strongest critics are now our strongest supporters because of the kind of work we have been doing in this field. I have collated a fair amount of material explaining what Aboriginal Hostels Limited is all about, what it has endeavoured to do and what it will continue to do providing the Government makes funds available to it, and I seek leave to have this information incorporated in Hansard.

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

The document read as follows-

Aboriginal Hostels Limited is a Public Company, established in the Australian Capital Territory on the 6th June, 1973. Presently, its building acquisition program has been suspended. I believe on the basis of the Hay inquiry and pending the outcome of the current Inter-Departmental Committee. It was set up as an expression of new emphasis to be given to Aboriginal Advancement by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. The aim adopted by Aboriginal Hostels Limited is: to assess the need for, and to operate or fund suitable accommodation for Aboriginals whose tenure of residence will be determined by need, adding to capacity at a rate which will meet needs by 1 982.

Specifically in categories such as students and trainees, persons seeking medical or rehabilitation assistance, supporting single parents and children, workers, transients and aged or infirm persons.

Aboriginal Hostels was seen as a means by which essential and urgent accommodation could be provided for such

Aboriginal people with a minimum amount of delay and maximum of flexibility.

But allow me to begin by answering one of the real questions. Why is temporary accommodation so urgently needed and so essential for Aboriginal people? Well, in order to understand why, you need, at the same time, to get to know a little bit about what the situation is now for many Aboriginal people who are unable to find suitable temporary accommodation. To talk a little more about the people we have mentioned already -

You 11 find that more and more frequently nowdays, programs of the various Federal and State Department of Education are enabling students from small Aboriginal communities to take up opportunities for better education. Yet often these schools are a long way from home and usually in larger country towns or in cities. Where the student is faced with the problems of adjusting to living in a larger town and attending a large school without the benefit of family kin support. Most students from small communities drop out of secondary school within eighteen months, under these circumstances.

Pre-employment and trade training programs conducted by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations offer great opportunities to young Aboriginal people. Once again, however, the young student, a long way from home and without family support, has a very difficult road to success.

As with education facilities, medical assistance generally is concentrated in city or regional areas and thus Aboriginal people and their families need to visit these centres to obtain health care. If there is a need to wait for admission to hospital or for transport home after their hospital care is completed they require temporary accommodation and they are often unable to find it at a cost they can afford. Lack of this sort of suitable accommodation at an affordable cost often deters Aboriginal people from seeking medical attention which they or their family require, and if they do receive such medical assistance it does happen that these patients are kept in hospital for longer than is necessary purely because of the lack of suitable accommodation in which aftercare medical treatment and full recovery can be effected.

Still, health is one of many problems besetting Aboriginal people, alcohol is another. Most of you are probably aware of the negative stereotype of the drunken Aboriginal, but, do you know what is being done about it? The Department of Aboriginal Affairs puts a high priority on finding solutions to the alcoholic problems of individuals and communities and is very keen to encourage Aboriginal initiatives in alcoholic rehabilitation. Yet it is observed that many alcoholic rehabilitation programs stand a better chance of being successful. If they are able to provide accommodation for the people undergoing rehabilitation. Such provision of accommodation has often been the determining factor in the success of alcoholic rehabilitative programs. It would seem that if the person really wants to be rehabilitated he has a better chance of success if he has a place to stay while he’s undergoing the program. At the moment programs for Aboriginal alcoholic rehabilitation are able to provide for this essential accommodation facility. Yet in these existing programs where accommodation is presently provided it is insufficient, either for different stages of the rehabilitation process or because of the number of Aboriginals seeking treatment being too great for the existing live-in facilities.

Supporting mothers and single parents who, when they find themselves alone in times of crisis need immediate accommodation. Yet at present they frequently have to wait a couple of weeks for assistance or the provision of housing and pension payments. And frequently, because of their young children, they cannot work and are unable to raise funds to pay bonds and rent. Women’s Refuges are crowded with needy, supporting mothers. Supporting mothers often have to put their children in homes or with relatives and friends until they can re-establish themselves. They can, sometimes, encounter difficulty in regaining the custody of their children if they have been unable to find accommodation and a means of support in the intervening period. Without temporary accommodation the mother and her children are sometimes unable to avoid these difficult circumstances, the continuity and security so essential for any family is often disrupted.

Aboriginal people, as do many others for a variety of reasons, often choose to seek employment opportunities away from their original area, or family home. And because of the generally unskilled and semi-permanent nature of the employment that is most readily available they are unable to accumulate the necessary savings or perhaps even earn sufficient wages to compete for the accommodation that is quite often in short supply in seasonal or contract work locations. Thus, in order to take up job opportunities, single Aboriginal people and Aboriginal families must often make such a move and since, under the circumstances, it often takes some time to find suitable accommodation, these Aboriginal people require opportunities to take up suitable forms of temporary accommodation at reasonable cost, in locations where such employment opportunities from time to time become available. Aboriginal itinerants, homeless people and people visiting other areas for their own economic or social purposes, form a small but significant part of the Aboriginal population. These transient peoples’ needs for accommodation are very difficult to ascertain and fulfil. Yet it is very apparent that where no attempt is made to serve the temporary accommodation needs of this large group. Many of such people are forced to sleep in unsanitary and hazardous conditions in parks, railway stations, culverts and abandoned cars at some personal and health risk or are forced to overcrowd family or kin resident households possibly causing anxiety, financial difficulties, and stress for all concerned.

But, apart from any compassionate reasons for attempting to obvert these sorts of situations you should be aware that a similar negative stereotype to that of the drunken Aboriginal is the Aboriginal who is dirty, unkempt and sleeps in parks. Yet, many of the inter-racial tensions between Aboriginals and others, many of the problems of local government and police might be alleviated by the provision of temporary accommodation for such transient Aboriginal people in city and regional centres.

To continue, it often happens that aged Aboriginal people, just like aged people in almost any country cannot always be cared for by their families. Or, again, just like anyone else, don’t like to feel that they are a burden on their families. So, it can and does happen that some aged Aboriginal people are obliged to live in squalid circumstances and if they become ill or infirm, they may be in danger if they are then unable to care for themselves.

If I may just repeat these points, temporary accommodation is needed to enable Aboriginal individuals and families to move to new areas to take up opportunities in education, employment, rehabilitation and medical treatment or to travel for personal purposes while maintaining a decent standard of living at a price they can afford.

As well, emergency temporary accommodation is also necessary for families in crisis or transit until permanent housing can be found. None of these needs are presently met by existing services as housing programs for Aboriginals only cater for permanent residency and the private accommodation market is difficult to break into at short notice, with limited finances and in the face of apprehension on the part of landlords and agents.

In the absence of temporary accommodation, most Aboriginals do not avail themselves of opportunities which are presented to them purely because of this lack of temporary accommodation. Those who do attempt to travel in search of opportunities resort to sleeping in parks or overcrowding the homes of local residents living in unsanitary conditions and creating a nuisance. Usually the difficulties of living jeopardise the persons performance in education or employment and they drop out and fall prey to the alcohol and social problems of urban living.

Because unsatisfactory accommodation and associated worries distract people from studies, training and other specific programs, special accommodation is essential to ensure that Aboriginals derive full benefit from programs presented for them by Government authorities. Without temporary accommodation there is very low cost effectiveness on the following programs: the Department of Education- Aboriginal Secondary and Study Grant the Department of Employment and Industrial relationsTrade training courses and individual placements in employment

Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Health (through third parties)- alcoholic rehabilitation programs

Department of Aboriginal Affairs (through Aboriginal Legal Services)- pre-court, probation and post-release action

State and Federal Departments of Health- General health care programs are often ineffective in the face of overcrowding and poor living conditions.

These then are the reasons why temporary accommodation is so urgently needed and so essential to the advancement and development of Aboriginal people and despite the fact that their programs are presently under review allow me to further explain just what- Aboriginal Hostels Limited has done about filling the need for temporary accommodation since it commenced operations in 1 973.

Aboriginal Hostels Limited goes to great pains to realistically determine the needs for hostels taking into account desperation of need, social development of the users, social development of the area, economic appropriateness and possible social and economic changes in the area or in the Aboriginal client group. You sec, AHL and I, myself, believe that temporary accommodation is the major part of the remedial action necessary to intercept the cycle of poverty and dependence which Aboriginals are now pan of. By providing accommodation and support services Aboriginals are given a boost which gives them the opportunity to become self-sufficient and able to participate in the wider Australian society if they so desire. Especially since Aboriginals need the support of special accommodation and sometimes welfare assistance because they are usually the last choice of employers and landlords and lack the resources of economic, technical and social skills.

Furthermore, because of their different lifestyle and lack of personal resources, Aboriginals find themselves peripheral to the non-Aboriginal social and economic system and need extra assistance to establish themselves within it. Appropriate accommodation and support services can help significant numbers of Aboriginals to take up education and employment opportunities and to avoid getting trapped in this poverty cycle. Given this appropriate accommodation the following present and pressing Government problems could be eased:

  1. The unproductive welfare drain, with no hope of individuals being able to leave their dependent state
  2. The cost of police, legal aid, courts and gaol for vagrancy, drunkenness and petty crime, when Aboriginal individuals have no real alternative
  3. The cost of ineffective education, health and employment programs which are rendered ineffective by the lack of suitable accommodation for the Aboriginal client group
  4. Racial tension due to the present largely unavoidable lifestyles of many Aboriginals and consequent apprehension on the part of non-Aboriginal residents.

In determining strategies to meet these needs, Aboriginal Hostels Limited has conducted a town by town estimate of hostel needs throughout Australia and it is calculated that an additional 6328 beds are urgently needed with a further 5200 beds of a lower priority subsequently required. Yet, presently their building and acquisition program has been suspended. But to continue as well as owning and operating its own hostels, the Company assists Aboriginal organisations and selected other interested organisations to run their own hostels. This may be where an existing hostel serves a clientele which would otherwise have been served by the Company, or where an Aboriginal community wishes to run its own programs of community development value. A number of programs of alcoholics and ex-prisoners are successfully operating under this scheme. At 30 June 1976 the Company funded 28 third party organisations, some of which were operating from Company owned properties. In addition, the Company owned or leased and operated 55 hostels. To enumerate these needs by client category, the immediate identified known Australian requirements are as follows:

Education needs- 266 beds already provided by AHL and 550 additional beds urgently required

Employment needs- 165 beds already provided by AHL and 740 additional beds urgently required

Training Courses needed- 1 16 already provided by AHL and 48 additional beds urgently required

Transients’ needs- 153 beds already provided by AHL and 2720 additional beds urgently required

Supporting Mothers’ needs- 58 beds already provided by AHL and 1005 additional beds urgently required

Medical Outpatients needs- 640 additional beds urgently required

Alcoholics needs- 57 beds already provided by AHL and 225 additional beds urgently required

Legal needs- 32 beds already provided by AHL and 100 additional beds urgently required

Aged Persons needs- 22 beds already provided by AHL and 300 additional beds urgently required

Other needs- 45 beds already provided by AHL with a total of 914 beds presently provided by AHL and 6328 additional beds urgently required. The 6328 beds urgently required is a conservative but thoroughly documental estimate.

In addition to meeting the needs for temporary accommodation, self-management and self-sufficiency by the Aboriginal people is a top priority in the policy of Aboriginal Hostels Limited. The Company is run by a Board of Directors responsible to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and comprises six Aboriginal and three non-Aboriginal people, all leaders in their particular field be it Aboriginal community affairs, hostel, hotel or financial administration. Another priority policy of the Company is to regionalise, as far as economically possible, to ensure that the Aboriginal community has a say in the location and operation of hostels. Eight Regional Managers have been appointed strategically throughout Australia to be responsible for the development and operation of hostels in their Region. Regional Managers’ activities are co-ordinated through a strong administrative Central Office comprising five Divisions-

  1. . Planning and Programming
  2. Project, Management and Control
  3. Operations
  4. Personnel, Training and Development, and
  5. Finance these Divisions in turn are co-ordinated by the General Manager. The Company’s staff of 230 at 30th June, 1976 is 76 per cent comprised of Aboriginal people. All the Company’s hostels are managed by Aboriginal persons, in just a few cases with non-Aboriginal assistance. Very high in the Company priorities is the training of personnel since many of the Company’s staff are Aboriginal people, some of whom have not had experience in the operation of a large organisation. This policy is in line with the recommendation of the (April 1975) Commission of Inquiry into Poverty which states: it is most important that Government Departments should increase their efforts to employ Aboriginals at all levels in the design and implementation of programmes which effect Aboriginal people. These departments should be prepared to give extra training to Aboriginals even if it means treating the situation as subsidised employment for the first year or so ‘.

The Company at 30 June 1976 employed 176 Aboriginal people in effective operating positions. It trains its people on the job as well as through formal training programmes.

As well the Company is very much aware that its hostels must not become institutional in character. It has endeavoured to acquire properties which avoid the pitfalls of a common boarding house- which are usually impersonal and non supportive of boarders or residents. The Company has expressed preference for smaller hostels particularly when it is required for student or pre-employment purposes. All of the Company’s student and pre-employment hostels have a resident capacity up to a maximum of sixteen persons plus accommodation for the House Parents and their dependents. There is one exception at Cairns where the hostel has a capacity for 44 students. The Company’s employment hostels vary in size from the small type for young workers to the larger 44 or 60 bed hostel. Generally speaking, the size of the hostel is smaller for the younger worker, the larger type hostels being acquired where the availability of work justifies the larger sized property. The Company also has some employment hostels where no food is provided and these are under the supervision and responsibility of a head lessee.

Transient Hostels cater for families as well as individuals in transit, homeless or seeking employment or medical help and are of larger sizes depending upon the demand and the properties available at the time of acquisition. Current sizes range between 28 and 60 beds per hostel.

For Aged Persons small units are desirable although for administrative ease, a number of the Company’s properties may be placed under one management.

The Company also has one hostel catering for women and their dependent children, the capacity being 38 beds. As well the Company funds many third party hostels. Conditions of the Company funding third party operations include the meeting not only of operational standards set by the Company but also quarterly submissions of income expenditure statements and occupancy statistics followed by an annual audited statement of income and expenditure. Third party operations in Company owned hostels are governed by a lease document entered into between the Company and the third party organisation. Regional Managers maintain regular contact with these organisations giving advice as needed and the cost of their operations are scrutinized and compared to the Company’s known costs of operations.

In Company operated hostels, the size of the hostel has a great bearing on the cost per head of operations. It is calculated that an employment hostel of 64 beds, 100 per cent occupied for the whole year with no bad debts will break even on cost at the Company standard employment tariff rate. However, only in one instance is the company operating a 64 bed employment hostel and it cannot be expected to maintain total occupancy rate and a 100 per cent tariff payment level. Smaller hostels proportionally have a higher operating cost per head. Hostel operational costs are closely controlled through specific authorities for expenditure, close budgetary control over individual expense items and staff numbers. The Company has engaged the Auditor General under the Companies Ordinance 1962-74 to report on the Company’s account and the accounting and other records required to be kept under the Ordinance. The Company also has its own internal audit section. The Company tariffs are currently the source of some conjecture. Yet, consider that hostel accommodation is, by definition, temporary accommodation. The Company through the establishment of hostel accommodation is giving its clients a boost in life and is not trying to capture them as permanent residents. The tariffs established are therefore at a level which encourages persons to use the Company’s hostels but does not encourage them to remain for long periods. Because if the tariff level is too high then Aboriginal people will prefer to use unsatisfactory living conditions and the Company would not be serving the need. Too high a tariff would also mean that clients would also be unable to save for bond money etc. to move into housing. On the other hand, the tariff must be high enough to provide an incentive for the person to move into permanent accommodation. If tariffs are set incorrectly persons may be forced to remain in the hostel longer than they would otherwise have done, preventing other Aboriginals from using the hostel and requiring the Company to establish more hostels in the long run.

Yet a further factor to consider is that the Company should not expect persons to pay a different tariff in a small hostel from that of a large hostel which is for the same category of client. The general tariff structure must be considered in the light of the particular persons who are the Company’s prospective clientele, their ability to pay and the temporary term of such accommodation. The report of the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty advises that income data from research studies in Brisbane and Adelaide indicates the 55 per cent of Aboriginal households in these areas are well below or near the poverty line. There is a high instance of poverty among urban Aboriginals and the report further states that whilst there is: no recent study of income of rural Aboriginals, our impression is that they are generally lower- because of high unemployment- and we expect the instance of poverty to be consequently higher’.

The report further states-

Aboriginals typically have poorly paid jobs and many are unemployed’. ( More than 30 per cent of the Aboriginal work force was unemployed as at March, 1976. The Brisbane research study found that of Aboriginals who were working more than 90 per cent were in unskilled jobs.

People who are unemployed, whatever their race, are likely to be in poverty. Aboriginals face many problems in the employment field. Many of them are located in areas where there are insufficient jobs and they are competing with white people who are better trained and more experienced in work practices ‘.

With these observations in mind, Company tariff charges are currently governed by the following guidelines:

  1. Income earners are required to pay Vs of normal gross earnings up to a maximum of $31.35 per week (the maximum tariff applicable to migrant hostels).
  2. Family tariff associated with an income earner is 50 per cent of the normal gross earnings up to a maximum of $56 per week.
  3. Recipients of Social Service benefits are required to pay 50 per cent of the amount of benefit received.
  4. Secondary students, primary students, students attending training courses are required to pay the full living-away-from-home allowance to which they are entitled in any State or Commonwealth assistance scheme.
  5. Residents occupying houses or self-contained flats are required to pay an ‘economic rental ‘ based on formula used for calculating rentals applicable to Aboriginal housing financed by the Australian Government.
  6. Hostel Managers/House Parents are provided free board and lodging. Dependents of Hostel Managers/House Parents are required to pay the equivalent of tariff charges for migrant hostel accommodation for family dependents.
  7. Other Hostel Staff are required to pay in accordance with the Award under which these persons are employed.

Following this Government’s establishment of increased family allowances, particularly to assist the low family income earner, the Company is in the process of revising its tariffs to take account of family allowances within total income assessed for tariff purposes. The Company also intends to make representations to the Departments of Education and Employment and Industrial Relations for increases in the living-away-from-home-allowances paid to students. The $26 per week currently provided is inadequate.

A further point needs to be made. The tariffs established and as included in Hostel Instructions are intended to be clear in their interpretation. With Aboriginal people, there will always be persons in special needy circumstances and where special consideration must be given to reduce or completely waive the tariffs in respect of certain individuals for short or long period dependent upon the circumstances. The General Manager will review special cases and authorise, in writing, any amendment to tariffs in individual cases accordingly.

To conclude, the provision of hostels is not an isolated activity which can be increased or decreased at will because the effectiveness of so much other Aboriginal Affairs expenditure relates to or hinges upon of all such programs to the Aboriginal community would improve measurably with a continuity of hostel acquisition particularly as it relates to other government outlays on Aboriginal employment and training, secondary and study grants, alcoholic rehabilitation, hospital and health services and the care of young children. Apart from the need for special purpose hostels to support programmes of other organisations, Aboriginals Hostels Limited services a large clientele of Aboriginal people unable to find proper temporary and permanent accommodation anywhere else. Many have unstable employment patterns, many are itinerant for a variety of reasons and therefore have difficulty in securing suitable accommodation.

Aboriginal Hostels Limited seeks recognition of the achievements it has made in the difficult role of balancing needs, community development, social and economic responsibility and Aboriginal management to which it has addressed itself. Such recognition is best facilitated by the provision of adequate finance.

Senator BONNER:

-I am glad that I was given leave to incorporate that information because it certainly would have taken a long time to read it to the Senate this evening. I am concerned about the report that has been tabled in the Senate and the report that has not been tabled, that is, the allegedly confidential Cabinet document, the report of Mr Hay. I hope that the Government when considering that latter report will bear in mind the other report that was tabled here by me a couple of weeks ago. Certainly I hope that money will be forthcoming for Aboriginal advancement because, regardless of what is contained in the report presented by Mr Hay, I defy the Government and Mr Hay to prove to me that the duplication and wastage he has found will reach the amount that has been slashed from the Budget, $33m. I would go as far as to say that it is possible that there has been wastage of maybe $lm. But to the extent of $33m, never. I certainly will be concerned. I will continue to show my concern. I will continue to press the Government to make good the amount of money that was slashed from the Aboriginal affairs part of the Budget, because I earnestly believe that that money must be made available again to the Aboriginal community; otherwise all that will happen is that there will be a perpetuation of the conditions under which we have lived for nigh on 200 years. This will happen unless Governments understand the problems that we are facing and continue to make money available to better the conditions under which unfortunately a great percentage of my fellow Aborigines have to live at the present time.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I think that at the outset of my contribution to the Budget debate I should make reference to the amendment which has been moved to the motion to take note of the Budget Papers by Senator Ken Wriedt, my Leader in the Senate, to put the Budget debate into proper perspective. For the record I will quote the terms of the amendment which he moved. The amendment states:

  1. . the Senate condemns the Budget because:

    1. 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;

Of course, over the months that the present Government has been in office we have heard Senator Carrick saying that there will be no extra taxes and that all that will happen in the States will be the imposition of a surcharge. But Senator Carrick has not told any member of the Senate what is the difference between an additional tax and a surcharge. It is just the form of words he is using to try to hoodwink the people. The amendment further states:

  1. it introduces an additional tax in the form of the Medibank levy, thus further reducing consumer spending;
  2. it reduces the availability of services to the whole community but particularly to those most vulnerable to hardship notably Aborigines, the unemployed and migrants; and
  3. 5 ) it fails to institute selective stimulatory expenditure to reduce unemployment and restore consumer confidence.

Of course, those of us who were in the Senate prior to the infamous day of 1 1 November last year will recall the debate that took place when the then Opposition senators sitting on this side of the Senate vigorously opposed the Whitlam Government’s legislation to fund Medibank by striking a levy of 1.35 per cent of salaries. Those honourable senators found all sorts of problems associated with the imposition of a levy. Nothing was said during the subsequent election campaign to the effect that a Liberal-National Country Party government would impose a levy. As a matter of fact, Mr Fraser said that he would not interfere with Medibank. But what did the Government do as soon as it took control of the government benches? It brought in a proposal for a levy of 2.5 per cent, which is much more than we said we would impose. This is one of the areas in which the Government misled the people during the election campaign.

Another area embodied in the amendment moved by Senator Wriedt is the hardship which this Government’s Budget has created for Aborigines. Senator Bonner devoted all of his speech to the Aboriginal cause. I sympathise with Senator Bonner because I believe that he has his back to the wall. He is a supporter of a Government which is undoing everything that the Labor Government did in its 3 short years of office to uplift Aborigines and to do everything that it could to help them. Yet the first words that Senator Bonner uttered when he commenced his speech were that he supported the Government’s Budget and opposed the amendment moved by Senator Wriedt. From memory, I think the honourable senator said, to use his own words, that for the life of him he could not see why a senior Minister in the previous Labor Government should stand up in this place and move such an amendment. The honourable senator then went on to tell the Senate of all the good things that the Labor Government did for the Aboriginal cause. He criticised the Government of which he is a supporter. He criticised the Government most severely for the massive cuts. Just before he sat down he made mention of the fact that in the Budget the Government had made a cut of $33m in Aboriginal affairs expenditure.

We all know about that famous telegram that was sent during the election campaign by Mr Ellicott, who was then the Shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, to all the Aboriginal communities in Australia pointing out to them that if a Liberal-National Country Party government was elected there would be no reduction, not even by one cent, of expenditure on Aboriginal affairs. It has been reported in many newspapers that the cost of sending the telegram was in the region of $40,000, If I am incorrect in making that statement- I am making it only because it has been reported in the Press- I hope that government senators will come forward and make a denial that it cost $40,000 and tell this Parliament what the actual cost was. In this Parliament today Senator Colston asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Withers) a question which he prefaced by saying that he had advised the Leader of the Government on Thursday of last week, by way of a telegram, that he was going to raise the matter today. What was Senator Withers’ reaction? Senator Withers got up and answered the question in a most derogatory fashion. He held up the telegram and his very words were that Senator Colston had sent the telegram- which was not very long- at the expense of the taxpayers of this country. Senator Withers held up the telegram and from where I was sitting it appeared that the telegram would not have cost any more than $5. The Leader of the Government upbraided Senator Colston, who is a member of the Opposition, for having the audacity to send a telegram advising him that he was going to raise the matter in the Senate today. Senator Bonner did not mention a word about the promise made by Mr Ellicott to the Aboriginal community at a reported cost of about $40,000 in telegrams. I ask honourable senators: Where do we go when we have things like this?

Senator Mulvihill:

– Double standards.

Senator McLAREN:

- Senator Mulvihill said: Double standards’. I am sure they are double standards. Of course, Senator Bonner went on to make great play about the report which he had the pleasure of tabling in the Parliament some weeks ago. The report is entitled The Environmental Conditions of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and the Preservation of Their

Committee on Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. I was very pleased to hear the remarks made by Senator Bonner when he spoke about that report tonight. He said that he hoped that this Government would take some action on it. He went on to say that the inquiry took place over a period of 5 years. He said that the Committee’s first chairman was Senator Laucke, who is now the President of the Senate, and the next chairman was Senator Keeffe. At that stage I interjected and said that Senator Keeffe was a very capable chairman. I made that interjection because I have served with Senator Keeffe on committees and I know how thorough he is when it comes to committee work. Senator Bonner said that the report did not come from any particular party; that it was a parliamentary report; and that he hoped that this Government would act upon it.

Senator Bonner then went on to tell us that in the Budget the Government had cut Aboriginal expenditure by $33m. For the life of me I cannot see how Senator Bonner can believe, even in his wildest dreams or hopes, that this Government will act upon the recommendations in that report. I say this bearing in mind the fact that Senator Bonner also talked about the Hay inquiry which was instituted by the Government. There is no doubt that that inquiry was set up to run counter to the recommendations of the parliamentary Committee to which evidence was given under oath. I am sure that no evidence would have been taken under oath in the Hay inquiry. However, I emphasise that evidence was taken under oath by the parliamentary Committee so that it could bring down recommendations to this Parliament.

Senator Cavanagh:

– The Hay Committee did not have the power to put anyone under oath.

Senator McLAREN:

– I am pleased that Senator Cavanagh has interjected and said that the Hay Committee did not have any power to take evidence under oath. Senator Bonner questioned the validity of the Hay inquiry and whatever findings may be put to the Government. The most astounding thing about the Hay reportduring the consideration of the Estimates we will want to find out what the cost of that inquiry was- is that it is not a public document. Senator Bonner said to me after I interjected that I had obtained a copy of that report from somewhere. Of course, had I not been following Senator Bonner in this debate, I could have exercised my rights by making a personal explanation and pointing out to him and the Senate that he had misrepresented me, because I did not get a copy of that report. I have not seen a copy of that report.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I offered to give a copy to Senator Bonner at his request.

Senator McLAREN:

- Senator Cavanagh has admitted that he has a copy. I was only basing my interjections to Senator Bonner on the fact that I had read extracts of the report in newspapers. The newspapers were able to get the report and to digest it. The Press informed the community at large what the Hay Committee had recommended. No doubt those recommendations are causing Senator Bonner very great concern because he now realises that this Government- through its then shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Ellicott- during the election campaign promised the Aborigines that it would not cut by one cent the appropriation by the Labor Government. I repeat: It would not cut expenditure by one cent. Yet, Senator Bonner is now fearful that the Government will cut expenditure on Aboriginal affairs. This Government proposes to appropriate $33m for Aboriginal Affairs. Senator Bonner is fearful that this Government will not restore it despite the fact that a committee of inquiry sat to see whether, in effect, the Government could restore some of that money,

Senator Bonner also said that perhaps quite a large sum of money which we allocated to Aboriginal affairs, when in Government, was wasted. If the Liberal and National Country parties were of the opinion whilst we were in Government that funds that we had allocated to Aboriginal affairs were wasted, why on earth did Mr Ellicott sign that famous telegram sent to the Aboriginal communities which said that if his government was elected it would not cut expenditure by one cent? That is an indication of the double standards of those in office. Honourable senators on this side of the chamber during this Budget debate have pointed out the many double standards of the present Government. I am faced with the situation now of speaking in this debate at a very late stage. The debate is just about to wind up. It leaves one with very little to say in pointing up the many weaknesses which the Budget contains unless I wish to repeat the excellent contributions made by my colleagues which pointed out the weaknesses in the Budget.

I should like to place again on record that I believe that my colleagues have destroyed the claims of honourable senators opposite that this Liberal and National Country Party Government was capable of managing the economy of this great country to the extent where every Australian man, woman and child would have a fair share of the wealth of the nation; that this Government would create full employment; and that it would cure inflation. Those were the statements and the promises given by this Government during the election campaign. Now, of course, if one goes out to talk to the electors at large, one now finds that they realise that they were the victims of a massive confidence trick last December. Many of them have said to me that in fact they exchanged the substance for the shadow.

In Parliament House the other day I was talking to an ex-Labor Government member and a Minister. He visited us in the chamber and in the dining room. He was in the gallery and I said to him: ‘How is your campaign going for the next election?’ He said: ‘I wish the election was on Saturday because I would have a majority of 5000 votes’. He formerly held a seat which has often been looked upon as a political indicator. From my calculations and discussions with people in the electorate, I think he is right on the mark.

Senator Webster:

– It is bad luck that you will not be able to bring it about.

Senator McLAREN:

- Senator Webster says that it is bad luck that we cannot have an election very soon. But we are not in the situation which he was in. A government was elected in December of 1972 with a majority in the other place but it did not have a majority in this chamber and the Government was not allowed to govern. When we were in government we were frustrated at every turn of the wheel. We were forced to the people in May of 1 974 and we were returned to office again. We had the confidence of the electors but this Government was not prepared to accept the decision of the umpire. It adopted all the unfair tactics that could possibly have been adopted. I have spoken about those tactics in this Parliament on other occasions. I think I followed Senator Sir Magnus Cormack in a debate when he came in here with a great version of what took place. I pointed out to the Senate that he forgot to tell the Senate many things. I filled in all the gaps, what he forgot to tell the Australian people.

Of course, we now find ourselves in the situation where a political party in this country that represents the wealth of this country can dismiss a properly elected government at the whim of the Governor-General. The people of Australia no longer have a say about who will represent them because the powerful forces of this country are able to manipulate the people who can dismiss a government.

Senator Mulvihill:

– The forces of darkness.

Senator McLAREN:

– The forces of darkness, as Senator Mulvihill says. I will refer later in my speech to the remarks made by Senator Young when he spoke about people in South Australia and said that they have got long memories. I am firmly convinced in my own mind that the electors all over Australia have long memories. They found that a government was dismissed by an improper act. They then found that they were hoodwinked by false promises by this Government. The people of Australia now find themselves with a government which is not honouring its promises and, in effect, is dishonouring them to such an extent that many people are in desperate financial circumstances in this country. The people to whom I am referring and who concern me most are the lower income earners and the wage earners who keep this country going.

I pose this question: What is the real purpose behind this Government’s policy? This Government’s answer, which we have every day, is that its policy is to reduce inflation before jobs are created. Of course, we said when we were in government that if inflation was to be reduced in the way that our opponents- the then Oppositionsuggested at that time a massive pool of unemployment would be created. That is the remedy that we said the then Opposition would adopt if it were elected to government. Of course, we were proved right because this is the method that it has adopted. This Government has created an increase in unemployment, despite what some honourable senators opposite say.

I intend to quote the remarks of Senator Young later in my speech. In particular, I should like to refer to the fact that he admitted in his speech to this House the other day that unemployment is greater than what it was when we were in government. That is an admission by Senator Young. I will later refer in detail to what Senator Young had to say. One of the policies of this Government, of course, is to create fear in the minds of the workers. It set out to break their spirit to such an extent that they will accept a lowering of their living standards rather than be out of a job.

Senator Webster:

– Oh rubbish!

Senator McLAREN:

– It is all very well for Senator Webster to say ‘Oh rubbish’ but it is on record that that is what this Government is doing. Every utterance from the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street), the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), and the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) sets out to create fear in the minds of the people that they may lose a job if they do not knuckle down and accept wage restraint. This Government believes that the workers should not ask for any better conditions on the job. Of course, we are getting back to the Menzies era. I can remember when I was a young fellow standing in queues for a job. The word would go down the line: Menzies ‘s policy is 50 men waiting at the gate is the best foreman you can get on any job. They did not need a foreman because fear was in the minds of the workers that they had better knuckle down or they would be replaced by a man waiting at the gate. I had to stand in queues in Victoria week after week trying to get a job.

I was not afraid to work. These were the situations with which we were faced years ago. The wheel has turned full circle and now the same old philosophy is surfacing again. The same old philosophy is being poured out by honourable senators opposite. They do not have any solution to the problems of inflation and unemployment in Australia. They do not have any solutions yet they endeavoured to convince- and did convince -the people during the election campaign last year that they had all the solutions. As I said earlier, the people have woken up to the fact that this Government does not have the solutions and when they get the opportunity in another 2 years time- it could be less than 2 years because a half Senate election is coming up- they will be able to point out to this Government that they were misled during the last election campaign. We may find honourable senators opposite in the same situation as we were in last year. We might have the numbers on this side of the chamber. I will not forecast what we might do if that situation arises but honourable senators opposite might get some of their own medicine back.

Senator Missen:

– What would you do, senator? Do tell us.

Senator McLAREN:

– Well, Senator Missen, had we been in your position we would not have acted as your party did. I am not criticising you as an individual, Senator, because I have come to respect you in this Senate. You are what they call a small ‘1’ Liberal. You have a policy of justice, but unfortunately a lot of your comrades in your Party do not have that sense of justice.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENTSenator, you will address the Chair.

Senator McLAREN:

– Iwas addressing Senator Missen through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, with respect. When in Opposition the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) said often that confidence would return to the private sector immediately a Liberal-National Country Party Government was elected. This has not happened. We only have to look at the speech made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Cotton) on Monday. What did he say to the retail sector? He said: ‘Get in there boots and all and get the highfalutin salesmen ‘. What does that mean if one really looks into it? Who are they going to use the heavy boots on? On the poor old working man again! That is the Government’s philsophy.

We find now that the areas earmarked for further savage cutbacks in addition to those outlined on 20 May when the mini-Budget was introduced are those which were actively associated with improving and maintaining the Australian way of life when the Australian Labor Party formed the Australian Government. Aborigines constituted one of those areas. We tried to uplift them. Senator Bonner and myself have spoken about that in some detail tonight. This is one of the few occasions on which Senator Bonner and I can agree on what this Government is doing. We have now reverted to the old situation where the only national interest the Federal Government has is defence. All other areas will be left to the States with the panacea of free enterprise. We know the philosophy of this Government is to leave all the problems to the States. The Federal Government is going to pass the buck so that when Mr Fraser has to face the electors for the half-Senate election he will be able to say: ‘Look, you cannot blame me; that is the States’ problem. We have handed that back to the States. They cannot do the people justice.’ Why can the States not do the people justice? It is because they are not getting the finance.

On the one hand Mr Fraser has the taxing powers to take the money away from the people but he is not giving it back to the States to spend in areas of need. I have a philosophy that when there is unemployment in any country- I am speaking specifically about this country- we should not worry if there is a deficit. We should be carrying out massive capital works programs, which are desperately needed to give the unemployed a job, like the massive capital works programs carried out under the Labor Government. Such projects have been put on record.

Senator Mulvihill:

– There should be more projects like the Snowy Mountains scheme.

Senator McLAREN:

– There should be more projects like the Snowy Mountains project, which was boycotted by Mr Menzies. He would not attend the laying of the foundation stone. He boycotted it because the scheme was a Labor Government enterprise. There was the construction of the east-west railway line- another big project which is of massive benefit to this country and which was paid for by the time it was completed. These are the sorts of things that ought to be carried out now instead of having a pool of unemployment and coming out with a sugar-coated statement as the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) did recently. He said that he is going to expend up to $1,900 a person to shift people from an area of unemployment to an area where there is a job. Where is the job?

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– Do you not agree with that?

Senator McLAREN:

– Of course I agree, if there is a job. But we have not been told where the work is. Where is the job? On looking at the statement made by Mr Street, to which the Minister for Repatriation (Senator Durack) referred today, $500 of the $1,900 is allocated for removal expenses. But on the bottom line of the list of expenses $500 is shown for legal expenses. It is to cost as much in legal expenses to shift one person from point A, where there is no work, to point B where supposedly there is a job as it is for removal expenses. What a stupid idea!

Senator Missen:

- Mr Hawke said it is a good idea.

Senator McLAREN:

– Well, I do not agree with Mr Hawke. It is not a good idea and I think that will be proved. I do not agree with Mr Hawke on many things, and I am not afraid to say so.

Senator Cavanagh:

– The scheme is to shift tradesmen from Whyalla and Newcastle when they close the shipbuilding yards.

Senator McLAREN:

– The statement that has just been made by Senator Cavanagh that the scheme is to shift tradesmen from Whyalla and Newcastle when they close the shipyards is very interesting. Where are those tradesmen to be employed? It reminds me that many years ago when Mr Playford, who was then the Premier of South Australia used to promise every election time that right down the coast and around to Ceduna he would construct deep-sea ports. He did this until one wag interjected at an election meeting and said to him: ‘Are you going to construct a port at Karoonda?’ That is a town in the Mallee and the only place at which Mr Playford had not promised to build deep-sea ports. As Senator Cavanagh pointed out, that is similar to the plan to shift shipbuilders from Whyalla and Newcastle to places where there is no shipbuilding to be done. What are those people going to be put to work at? We should be building ships in this country, as Senator Cavanagh jogged my memory, because that is our first line of defence. Irrespective of the cost, we should build them, because they are needed.

Now we find that the Treasury is attempting to restrain the expansion of, if not remove expenditure in, the public sector so that opportunities for the private sector will improve. Of course, the Government is pleading to the private sector daily to have more output. How can the private sector increase its output when expenditure is cut down in the public sector, which is the best customer of the private sector? If the Government is not carrying out capital works and constructing schools and all the things that meet the needs of this nation, how on earth can the private sector produce the things which the Government would use? The Government is not a manufacturer. It has to buy from the private sector the commodities that it uses- as items of capital expenditure. So the argument for cutting expenditure in the public sector goes by the board. The Minister for Science (Senator Webster) said:

I would say that the first thing that needs to be done in our community at the moment is to see that jobs are provided.

During his term in Opposition he used to say that repeatedly. Why has he not carried it out? He is a Minister in the present Government. I would not go as far as to use in relation to Senator Webster the words used by Senator Bonner when he spoke of Senator Wriedt as being a senior Minister, because Senator Webster is not a senior Minister. If he had as much to say in his Party room or in the Cabinet room as he had to say in criticism of the Whitlam Government for 3 years I am sure that he would have got through to the supporters of his Government his view that they should create jobs. Despite the fact that Senator Webster says that more jobs should be provided, I think he is struck dumb when he gets into his Party room- probably because he does not have somebody to provide him with a long answer as he has for some of the questions that pop up here.

Senator Cotton, during his speech on the Hayden Budget said:

I find it hard, really, to contain my total hostility. When we left government unemployment was almost negligible.

I remind Senator Cotton that at the time that he left government the level of unemployment had topped the 100 000 mark. Negligible indeed! Tomorrow I shall quote more fully what Senator Young said. I shall leave it until then because we will be on the air and people will be interested to hear Senator Young’s remarks to the effect that unemployment is much higher at the present time than it was when the previous general election was held. He is on record as having said that, so it is of no good honourable senators opposite disputing the fact. Later Senator Cotton said:

This country must always be a country where any person who wants a job of useful work can get that job.

We in the Labor Party believe that too. If a person wants a job he should be able to get it.

Over the years I had had many jobs that I suppose could not be called white-collar jobs. They have been back-breaking jobs but I have been proud to do them. Most Australians are proud to go out and do a job of work, but when they do that hard job of work they feel that they should get a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. We do not deny that. As I have pointed out, the present policy of this Government is to break the spirit of the worker so that he will be subservient to the bosses. Not all bosses are hard. I have worked for many bosses for whom I have been proud to work because they have appreciated the work of an honest worker.

The economic impact of the Budget brought down by this conservative Government is certain to have drastic results. I have made a list of a few of the many effects that will flow from this illconsidered Budget. There will be increased unemployment as a result of the drastic reduction in public expenditure, especially in the construction industry. We had the experience of the construction workers from New South Wales descending on this Parliament last week and putting up a strong and justifiable case. Yet we heard Senator Baume, who is a New South Wales senator, trying today to lay the blame for the unemployment in the construction industry in New South Wales on Jack Mundey. How is that for trying to crawl out from under, to get away from the responsibility of not providing work for the workers? Those are the tactics that are adopted by honourable senators opposite.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Jack Mundey has not been an official of the Builders Labourers Federation for about Vh years.

Senator McLAREN:

– Of course, Senator Baume did not tell us that. He conveniently forgot to tell us that. He may not have known. I go on from that point -

Debate interrupted.

page 661

ADJOURNMENT

Aboriginal Affairs -Taxation -Newspaper Article

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- Order! It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional orders I put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-I wish to make a number of observations this evening about Aboriginal affairs. When speaking in the Budget debate last week, I mentioned that it was my hope to incorporate those remarks in my contribution to that debate or make them at some future appropriate time. Because of the seriousness of the overall situation in Aboriginal affairs, I feel that I cannot wait to make that contribution until such time as an appropriate Bill is before this chamber, so I propose to make it tonight. First of all, I challenge the Minister for Aboriginal affairs (Mr Viner) to table the report of the Hay inquiry. That report has been the subject of some debate in this chamber tonight. I challenge the Minister to produce also a clear and concise document on the true financial cuts in funds for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and to make a public statement clearing Aboriginal people of responsibility for the alleged wastage of public funds.

Ever since the election of the Fraser Government a series of direct and indirect statements and accusations has been made by Ministers in this chamber as well as in the other place fixing on Aboriginal communities the blame for the wastage in Government expenditure. I wish to quote a couple of paragraphs from an article which appeared as long ago as 12 June 1976. It was published in the Bulletin and was written by a journalist, Peter Samuel. Among the statements which were made in that article are these:

Stupendous waste and corruption has been reported on the Federal Government’s Aboriginal housing program. A preliminary and confidential report of the Hay Committee of Inquiry into the Depanment of Aboriginal Affairs indicates gross negligence by the depanment and enormous misuse of taxpayers’ money.

Aboriginal housing corporations financed to the tune of $20m a year by the Federal Government have been a major scandal in non-administration by the Depanment of Aboriginal Affairs. The report by the Hay Committee states: ‘Departmental monitoring and supervision appear to be almost non-existent.’

Last year the Whitlam Government appropriated $ 19.8m in non-repayable grants under the program.

The article goes on to develop that argument. The overall impression that the average reader must gain is that this wastage has been caused by Aboriginal people. The Hay report has been used as a secret weapon to build up public support for cuts in Aboriginal Affairs spending which, according to the Budget Papers, stand at $33m but which are likely to be well in excess of that amount when inflation and other factors are taken into consideration.

Senator Missen:

– That is a distortion of the true situation.

Senator KEEFFE:

– That is a distortion from the honourable senator’s point of view. It is not a distortion when the actual figures are considered. If the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Government generally are prepared to make a clear and unequivocal statement on precisely where the cuts are, there would be many more happy people in this country today. But the Government is smothering the truth. It is hiding these facts in every possible way that it can. Certain amounts for printing purposes have been deducted but these have been hidden under another label. That is all right. I do not argue against that action. The amount is still available for that purpose. But there are many areas from which expenditure has been taken. It has been diverted altogether. That is not good enough for the Aboriginal people of Australia. Never has a document been treated so secretly in this country as the Hay report is being treated.

Senator Missen:

– We all have copies of it.

Senator KEEFFE:

– Apparently it is in the possession of a large number of people. If the honourable senator has a copy I would like him to lend it to me. I offered on one occasion to get a copy of it and hire it to the honourable senator. What I propose is the only way that the recommendations in the report will see the light of day. If the journalist Peter Samuel can have a copy of this report for publication of his article on 12 June last year- obviously he wrote his story a day or two before- I too would like to see a copy of it, officially. After that article was published in the Bulletin a member of my staff rang the Minister’s office and was told that only one copy was available and the Minister needed it. On 2 1 July I wrote to the Minister. On 29 July I received this reply:

I refer to your letter of 2 1 July 1976 requesting copy of the Hay Report. The report is at present under examination by the Government and your request will be considered at the appropriate time.

I think that time has long past. The reply continues:

I point out also that sections of the report have not, to my knowledge, been made available to the Press.

Yet Peter Samuel wrote a story which he said was based on a leak from the confidential Hay Report. The Minister knows nothing about it. He still has not made that report available.

The cuts in Aboriginal Affairs expenditure are having a demoralising effect on the whole of the

Aboriginal community. The Mowanjum community near Derby set this fact out in very explicit terms in a letter to various parliamentarians and to an officer of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. I quote from that letter:

For 6 weeks workers in this community have received no pay and some community accounts are now 2 months overdue. The community store has been closed.

I will refer to this again at a later stage in my contribution to this debate. The Gulperan Pastoral Company on what was formerly known as Bulman Station has virtually closed down. This is another project. The letter states also that from May 1976, at the time of the famous Lynch lynching document, wages were stopped and the remainder of the money in the Station account was being used by the European supervisor to supply some rations each week for the people on the property. Three out-stations in Arnhem Land- in Bamdibu and Weemolhave had support withdrawn. The establishment of out-stations was encouraged by the previous Labor Government to enable Aboriginal people to return to their traditional lands, to regain cultures that many of them had lost and to live in peace with their own people. But as a result of this Government’s activities these opportunities will be smashed.

This is consistent with the conference arrangements at Darwin in May where the general consensus appeared to be that what one had to do was to herd Aboriginal people into an area regardless of any tribal affiliations. The idea was to absorb and to assimilate them but not to allow them to integrate within the Australian society in their own way, at their own pace and in their own time. This is consistent, too, with the underthetable agreement being made by the Australian Department of Health and a National Country Party dominated Legislative Assembly in the Northern Territory. A secret deal is being made to take over the health of the people in the Northern Territory for administration by a commission. Guess where the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly will put the Aborigines? It will put them at the bottom of the barrel. If aspirins are to be dished out Aborigines will be the last to get them. If an immunisation campaign is to be conducted the Aboriginal people will be the last to benefit. I accuse this Government of handing this matter over to the Northern Territory because it cannot stand up to the pressure of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly on any matter.

The Aputula project at the Finke River has been closed totally, as have the Hooker Creek, Wattie Creek and many other housing projects. I read a paragraph from a letter sent to the Prime Minister by the Chairman of the Aputula project:

Dear Mr Fraser,

Why is the Government ‘ killing ‘ Aboriginal people?

We want our work. We have done it fully and well. Long ago John McNiel suggested a factory and work and we got it. When we have work we are happy and we keep the place clean and look after ourselves. Our children see their parents working and they are happy and proud and secure. Their parents can buy plenty of food at the store and look after them. When our parents don’t work, they can’t look after their children properly.

That letter contains a number of other paragraphs. I seek leave to have the letter incorporated.

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

The document read as follows-

To The Prime Minister, 29 July 1 976

Parliament House Canberra, A.C.T.

Dear Mr Fraser,

Why is the Govern ment ‘ killing ‘ Aboriginal people?

We want our work. We have done it fully and well. Long ago John McNeil suggested a factory and work and we got it. When we have work we are happy and we keep the place clean and look after ourselves. Our children see their parents working and they are happy and proud and secure. Their parents can buy plenty of food at the store and look after them. When our parents don’t work, they can’t look after their children properly.

If we sit down without work we won’t know what to do. People will stop caring about themselves. They will drink a lot and knock their houses about. We will be back where we started. We will be finished. Why do you want to finish us off? Please leave us our work.

Some white people have no work, but many of them do, you’re taking away all our work. Why? Are white people jealous? We send our children to school because the Government wants us to. They are learning, and they see their fathers’ work and they are proud. What is the good of school if you take all our work away? What will our children do? Leave them their school and please leave us our work.

If our factory and work close we think you will not get it going again. The Government will not send John (McNeil) back to us to help us. We must keep him. Miss Bain started us off and John helped us for ages to work and get these things. We have learned to weld and build. Why are you taking these things away from us? We don’t want to go back to the old ways. What will we do? We are proud of what we have done. Please help us to keep it. (Dictated to Rev. J. H. Downing in Pitjatjatjara and translated at Finke on 29th July 1 976. )

Copies to: Mr I. Viner; Mr B. Dexter; and Mr B. Huey.

Aputula Council Chairman

Senator KEEFFE:

– The Aboriginal Medical Service and the Aboriginal Legal Service are both under threat. There is a real determination to take the Aboriginal Legal Service out of the hands of Aborigines and to put it under some other umbrella. When this happens it will be lost to the Aboriginal people. As Senator Bonner said here earlier tonight in another debate, if you take the Legal Service away from the Aborigines the Aboriginal people will not patronise it because they fear seeking assistance through the normal channels from which the average Australian seeks assistance.

Before going on I want to make another reference relating to the Mowanjum community. There are 2 documents relating to this. In order to save the time of the Senate I seek leave to have them incorporated in Hansard. One document is from the chaplain at Mowanjum and the other contains attachments from the Mowanjum Community Incorporated. There is nothing obscene in them, except the obscenity of cutting off the money to them. I seek leave to incorporate these documents merely to save time.

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

The documents read as follows- 3 Sept 1976

The Director,

Dept of Aboriginal Affairs,

Perth, W.A.6000.

Dear Mr Gare,

In my two and three quarter years at Mowanjum I have never seen the outlook and moral of these people so run down. There has been low periods and occasions when everything appeared to be out of hand, but never have I seen them trampled down for trying so hard. An Interim Budget that does not include Aboriginal workers wages and funds for back-pay for work already done, is NOT Aboriginal welfare, and has created an atmosphere of gloom and depression.

Mowanjum is in urgent need for attention in the following areas:

  1. Funding- Cuts in funding and the unrealistic interim funding has caused a depressed and apathetic community. There is a need for an urgent review of funding, based on real understanding.
  2. Staff- A mechanic is coming in October and a change of book-keeper about the same time. There is a need for someone, with overall understanding, insight and guidance, who can co-ordinate and help the staff settle into the right relationship with the community.
  3. Community Advisor- For the above reasons and the Mowanjum has always asked for someone to fulfil this function, there is a need for a community advisor, to help the Mowanjum people find their feet and undertake the shift to a new site, with the minimum of confusion and loss.

I write with a deep concern for these people who have not been able to pay Aboriginal workers wages for six weeks. Without money coming into the community, all their facilities are becoming run-down. The community store is an example. It was hoped that the store would be self supporting. Now, with the store not being open, the people must go to town and shop. This means $3.60 taxi-fare each way, and the temptations of town-life, etc.

The SO per cent cut in the community budget will have a destructive affect on community life. As over SO per cent of the budget was for Aboriginal workers wages, employment of Aboriginal people will have to be cut drastically. If each worker was cut back to working only 20 hours a week then they earn less than the unemployment benefit. Whichever way the wages are cut back, there is a further degradation of the people who are trying, i.e. the workers.

One cannot cut back on basic running costs for a community, except run the power plant for only twelve hours a day, cut back on rubbish removals and town bank and mail runs, etc. Capital expenditure appears to be cut right out, without consideration of the fact that it was only to replace items and works lost through actions of past advisers, who acted without the community knowledge and agreement.

Since the decision in February to ask B.O.B.M.A.R. to find advisory and assisting staff, there has been continual interference and . influence from outside the community, to counter the move. Some have said, as Albert Barunga, quote, “That you Mowanjum people are going back to a Mission” or “The Church is taking over again”. The result of this has been a slowing down of the process of obtaining the required helpers.

We were able to bring a book-keeper in for a six month period, beginning April ‘76. A mechanic is due in midOctober and we should have a replacement book-keeper in October also. This again concerns me. Two new staff members in October and maybe no Advisor to co-ordinate and guide them into a harmonious relationship with the Council and people. Both the Council and workers need the overall help and guidance.

The present book-keeper, because of her past experience and knowledge of the Mowanjum people, has been able to tidy up the office and get it running smoothly again. This was no small task as there has been 12 people through that office in the past 1 5 months. Not one of those people was a community advisor. However, she is worn out and depressed by the constant pressure placed upon her, because there is no official community advisor. I have tried to help in this area but there are some functions I cannot fulfil unless I was to become that advisor.

During the past six months I have been more and more drawn into the office of the community. I have been asked by the Chairman and the book-keeper to fulfil functions, which are the role of a community advisor. The book-keeper also has had to call on me to attend to various matters because they are either beyond her ability and experience, or she hasn’t just had the time to do them. e.g. organize the mens work team, arrange sale of cattle, negotiate over mechanical troubles, etc. The community accepts the need for an advisor. This is seen by their history of always asking someone to function in this role. It has also been freely expressed at Council Meetings.

The decision that Mowanjum need an advisor and the one to ask for that advisor have become separated because of outside interference, suggesting that maybe they don’t need an advisor, and that they shouldn’t ask the Church, for help. It is hard to discover just where these influences come from but the Regional Office of D.A.A. indicates agreement in this direction. Mr Joe Baker, Regional Officer, stated in a recent meeting that maybe they didn’t need an advisor, also that they should advertize, with Government funds, Australia wide and not just see those at hand, just because they happen to be there. The context of that meeting made it clear that he was talking about using Church agencies, in recruiting staff.

I cannot sit back and see government departments treat a community of people in this way. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs pushed hard to take the responsibility for the Mowanjum people and now have let them down badly. A more realistic approach towards understanding the needs of the people, and not just based on the surface appearance that are gained by the occasional visits of departmental staff. Also the taking of two delegates from the community as a consultative committee and asking them to talk about their affairs, does not get anywhere near what is happening nor the hopes of their community. All one gets on both occasions is comfortable words which will please and agree with those present and involved, at the moment. There is no substitute for length of involvement at depth with the people themselves. I therefore, request that you look urgently into their plight and be realistic in your allocation of funds and the basic staffing needs of the community.

Yours faithfully,

  1. J. Foster, Chaplain Mowanjum cc J. Baker, D.A.A. Derby, Chairman, B.O.B.M.A.R. Sydney; Senator J. Keeffe, Canberra, Chairman, A.A.D.S. Darwin; J. Tozer, M.L.C. Perth; A. Ridge, Member for Kimberley, Penh; R. I. Viner, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Canberra.

MOWANJUM COMMUNITY INCORPORATED

Phone No.: 9 1 - 1 1 04. P.O. Box 37, Derby 3 September 1976

Our Ref.: AM/MND Your Ref.

The Director,

Dept of Aboriginal Affairs,

Perth, W.A. 6000.

Dear Sir,

Enclosed is a letter from our community book-keeper, outlining the financial situation and needs of Mowanjum Community. I ask you to give special attention to the requests made in this letter.

The past six weeks have been a very worrying time for myself and the community members. Our workers have not been paid during this time. We have not been able to pay any of our accounts, some are now two months overdue. Our store has had to be closed, making food shopping difficult for everyone, especially the pensioners of our community.

In this time, many of our young people have turned to the unemployment benefit, for help. This only makes them lazy and we lose the biggest part of our work team.

Today we are driving cattle to the Demco Meatworks. This being done by our unpaid farm workers. We are hoping the money we get from the cattle will help our situation a little, at least pay our workers something.

The Council and I have the full responsibility for Mowanjum Community, and it is most distressing to just watch our community come to a stand still, with no hope of recovery. Therefore, we asked our book-keeper to write the letter, and we now ask for your quick assistance to our problem.

Yours faithfully,

Alan Mungulu (Chairman) cc J. Baker, DAA, Derby. Senator J. Keeffe, Canberra. J. Tozer, MLC, Penh. A. Ridge, Member for Kimberley, Perth. R. I. Viner, Minister for Abor. Affairs, Canberra. Chairman, BOBMAR Sydney. Chairman, AADS, Darwin.

MOWANJUM COMMUNITY INCORPORATED

Phone No.: 91 1 104. P.O. Box 37, Derby 2 September 1976

Our Ref.

Your Ref.: C17-764/75

The Director,

Dept of Aboriginal Affairs,

G.P.0. Box Nl 127

Penh, W. A. 6001.

Dear Sir,

Re: Mowanjum Community Inc. Budget 1976/77

The Mowanjum Council were pleased to receive your telegram of the 1st September, and to know that the Interim Funding, namely $41,450.00 would be here within a couple of days.

It is of great concern to me, to note, that apart from the supply of fuel, my wages and wages for the maintenance officer there are no funds for

  1. Wages for the person operating the power plant.
  2. b ) Farm and community workers.
  3. c ) Repairs, maintenance and running costs of vehicles.
  4. d ) Repairs and maintenance for the buildings.
  5. e ) Routine running costs for the community.

NO labour has been paid since the 29th of July. It now appears that I can be paid, but not the Aboriginal workers. Lack of opportunity for customary work within the community is seriously affecting the spirit of the WHOLE community.

Wages to the extent of $4,124.00 and workers compensation insurance of $3,320.00 were committed before it was realized that no carry-on finance would be available. To clear outstanding debts because of this, I urgently request funds for the following:

Wages committed $4, 142.00 Workers compensation $3,320.00.

I do strongly urge money to be made available to supply employment for Aboriginal workers as follows:

I also wish to draw your attention to a letter of the 27.8.76 from Mr J. Baker, Area Officer, Derby (copy enclosed). Mr Baker outlines what funds Mowanjum would be getting for the community and the housing programme, at the Mowanjum new site.

It would appear that the $55,000.00, being Town Management- Continue Operations and Administration, is the sum total of Mowanjums allocation for 1976-77. The Mowanjum Council spent considerable time before the 30th of June 1976 working out a suitable budget for the community, for 1976-77.

Their main aim being to employ their own men to work and improve Mowanjum, hence the need for capital expenditure on a tractor and fencing materials. The confidence, enthusiasm and work force all being at the ready, to implement these ideas.

If Mowanjum is to operate only with the said $55,000.00, it means: no capital outlay whatsoever, running the power plant for only a limited amount of hours a day and having the workers put in only twenty hours a week. Their salary thus becoming $41.40, which is little better than the unemployment benefit, for which, people do not have to work.

Mowanjum Community will require more than $55,000.00, even just to ‘continue’, I therefore request your immediate attention to:

  1. Finance for wages for Aboriginal workers and weekly running costs of the community.
  2. Reconsideration of the 1976-77 Budget monies.

Yours faithfully, Miss Maureen Day (Community Book-keeper) cc J. Baker, DAA, Derby. Senator J. Keeffe, Canberra. J. Tozer, MLC, Perth. A. Ridge, Member for Kimberley, Perth. R. I. Viner, Minister for Abor. Affairs, Canberra. Chairman, BOBMAR Sydney. Chairman, AADS Darwin.

DEPARTMENT OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

Ref:5-1 P.O. Box 73

Derby 6728 27 August 1976

The Chairman

Mowanjum Community Incorporated P.O. Box 37 DERBY, W.A. 6728

The following has been calculated by DAA as the proposed grant to your association for 1976-77. Funds can only be for the purpose stated. Discussion on grants will be a major pan of the Consultative Committee. The amount listed includes any money you may receive as interim funds. You may not incur expenditure pertinent to these amounts until you actually have received the funds. There is no guarantee of any further funds for this financial year. Delegates to the Consultative Committee are requested to bring your association’s detailed budget for 1976-77 with them. The budget should show ail anticipated income and detailed expected income and detailed expected expenditure of rates of pay, number of workers, amount of fuel etc.

Joseph A. Baker Area Officer

Senator KEEFFE:

– I thank the Senate. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, through his agents, is now demanding details of drugs purchased for the Aboriginal Medical Service. It is within the Minister’s knowledge that there is already a discounting system for drugs. What does this do for the Aboriginal Medical Service? It is another way of whittling away the autonomy that is enjoyed and has been enjoyed under the old voluntary system of self-funding or charitable funding and under Government funding. I seriously suggest to the Minister and his Department that in view of the small amount of money they are going to save they ought to re-examine this problem.

The same sort of indecision is extending into Aboriginal land rights. The Government has allowed the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, which is dominated by the National Country Party, to change the face of the original legislation brought in by a Labor Government in 1975. It has handed away, without compensation to the Aboriginal people, a number of major aspects of that legislation. The Government is not paying proper respect to the wishes of the Aboriginal people. It ought to know that every time it rains in Alice Springs a thousand people are wet and cold. I would have thought that the honourable senator from the Northern Territory, who sits on the Government side, would be aware of that because Alice Springs is his home city. The people who suffer most are the very young and the very old. I want to quote again a couple of paragraphs from a document I have prepared on the Ilparpa situation. This is a community established on a small area of land approximately 4 kilometres south of Alice Springs. A natural swamp of some ecological importance runs parallel to the road. The community is located within 120 metres of the swamp. The high rainfall over the past few years has caused the swamp to swell significantly.

A critical complication is caused by sewerage seeping to the natural water contained in the swamp, posing a continual health risk to the community, particularly to adventurous children. Mosquitoes are breeding extensively and have been in plague proportions for the past 2 years. The mosquito carries encephalitis virus, which is of the same type as virus known in the River Murray area. Health authorities are reticent in providing information on how many people have been stricken by this virus in the past few years. Tests carried out on Ilparpa people indicated that of the 113 people 92 had positive blood results. Hence 90 per cent of the people had contracted the virus over the years and the other 10 per cent are prone to be stricken down.

I suggest that this is one area in which the extension of the land rights ought to be looked at as a matter of urgency, but that is not the case. It is a matter of argument. At night children within this settlement are kept within a tin shed where a smoke fire is kept burning as one reasonable means of keeping the mosquitoes away from the youngsters.

Senator Kilgariff:

– Did you read the statement last week which indicated that the Ilparpa group has now been given a new lease to the southern side of the range?

Senator KEEFFE:

– Yes, but they have not been given money. One of the recommendations of the Woodward report was that where land was given, some financial assistance ought to be given as well. It was only as a result of great pressure that that lease has been sorted out. I suggest to the honourable senator that part of the responsibility of his Government, as it was of the Government defeated on 11 November last year, is to see that sufficient capital is given for the development of these areas. It is politically dishonest for the Minister, the Prime Minister or anyone else to keep on saying that there is no intention to cut back on the housing programs and employment when they know that on 26 July this year the Minister demanded, through his departmental officers, that all regional officers supply him with details of the cost of terminating at the same time the services of all employees in housing associations. He also took other action which clearly indicated that this was the end for some time at least of the Aboriginal housing program. I have here a document dated 26 July which is headed ‘Re: Housing Associations’. Aboriginal people cannot blame the Labor Government for this because it is all happening within the terms of authority of this Government. The letter I refer to states:

Can you please provide estimates for Housing Associations divided into the following categories:

Leave entitlements (both Staff and Labour) as at 31 August 1976.

Cost to terminate all employees at the same date.

Workmens ‘ compensation premiums due.

Inescapable legal commitments made to outside contractors.

Unpaid accounts. These obviously cannot be forecast and therefore the present figure will suffice.

Goods in transit- value of goods ordered but not yet -

The next words were ‘paid for’, but the officer who wrote it, whoever he was, crossed those words out so that it reads ‘but not yet invoiced’. The letter continues:

These estimates are required to be in Darwin by Wednesday morning, 28 July 1976.

It is realised that the deadline set is a most difficult one and your co-operation is much appreciated.

That is a clear indication that there was an all out attempt, as we heard on the very green grapevine earlier this year- about mid-May to be precise- to get a cutback and that the Prime Minister had ordered such a cutback. It is unfair to blame Aboriginal people for the wastage of public money when the Minister and his Government must be aware that 90 per cent of such wastage is confined to the poor administration and maladministration of agencies engaged by the Department, agencies which have indulged in a long history of ripping off the taxpayer. I have long been a critic of organisations engaged as consultants, but I am not making accusations. I am hoping that somewhere along the line the Minister or the Prime Minister will be able to come up with a proper statement about a number of things I have mentioned this evening and I hope they will be properly documented. I do not want to see doctored figures produced. If I am not satisfied with them I would like the right to examine the documents from which any answers may be supplied with an accountant of my choosing.

I want to make a number of references to a couple of other points before going on to some major statements. It is a well-known fact that the old Aboriginal Foundation got into financial trouble. I understand that it was put in the hands of receivers. However I make this plea and I hope the Minister will take note of it: The liquidators really are not interested in any other property owned by the Foundation, but they want to hold on to some of the paintings of the now deceased and famous painter Yirrawala. I am told that in the late 1960s Professor Geddes bought some of these paintings and gave them to the Foundation. For a while it displayed them in its arts and crafts shop, with a view to selling them. Finally it sold one of the paintings. It then decided that because Yirrawala was a painter of such note it did not want to sell the rest of his paintings. It is significant that the liquidators are most anxious to get hold of these paintings, when one would have thought that the real estate value of the Foudation’s building would have been more than sufficient to pay off any debts. I hope that the Minister will intervene to save those paintings.

The Prime Minister said that there would be no increase in unemployment; that the Government would hold the figures at the current level. He must know full well that in excess of 200 to 300 people have been displaced as a result of the activities of the Governent in this regard. At

Warrabri about 16 per cent of the total population is employed. Not one unemployed person gets any unemployment benefits. I have a whole host of other figures which I will keep for a subsequent debate. At Yuendumu, where approximately 15 per cent of the total population is employed, only seven people receive unemployment benefits. Another 7 claims are in the process of being sorted out by the appropriate department.

The Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) might desire to convey this to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs: I would like an explanation of why an expensive PABX system, which services only about 30 staff members situated in a small, open office in the Melbourne branch of the Department, was installed. This was done during the last 8 months. Honourable senators opposite cannot blame the Labor Government for it. I would like an explanation of why the establishment of a printing section was commenced and then dismantled before completion. When something is erected and then dismantled, it shows a shocking lack of supervision of contractors’ work or whatever it might be. While the Minister is on the subject he might like to explain why a photographic darkroom with associated equipment was set up in this building, when no photographer is employed or is ever likely to be employed. I would like to know the cost of the 3 projects. There appears to be a total silence on the cost of the installations. They were carried out during the last few months, and it is almost certain that the money involved in this wastage would have built at least another 2 Aboriginal houses.

Senator Missen:

– Why not ask these questions at the appropriate Estimates committee?

Senator KEEFFE:

– The honourable senator is a great procrastinator; he would like to postpone everything until tomorrow. We are told now that if a senator is not a member of an Estimates Committee he must obtain permission in writing to ask questions. The Government is suppressing discussion everywhere in this Parliament. I am taking up my right to make my statements now.

Senator Missen:

– You know that the Minister cannot answer you tonight. He is not a member of this chamber.

Senator KEEFFE:

– He can answer me tomorrow if he wishes. I suggest that the honourable senator keep his contribution until a later debate.

For a long period the Anglican Church has owned an area of land at Clump Point near Tully. It got that land under a will. There is a developmental project there which has been surrounded by a wall of silence. I have endeavoured to obtain copies of the feasibility studies which indicate that economically it was a non-viable project. The Department or the Minister says that I cannot look at them. The cost of carrying out successive feasibility studies on this project would have covered the planned establishment costs of the project. I hope that some day I will get the answer. It certainly has not been available at previous Estimates committee discussions. All the people who carried out the feasibility studies were snow white, employed by snow white companies.

The Yawarli Housing Association at Hooker Creek is another prime example of wastage of public funds. I am not making accusations; but I am asking questions publicly. I want public answers to them. I ask the Minister whether an accounting firm, Messrs Peat, Marwick and Mitchell, was paid $1,500 a week. I want to know for how long this money was paid on this project. I also ask whether an engineering firm, Messrs Gutteridge, Haskins and Davey, was paid $56,000 a year, plus $1,800 a month, plus the manager’s wages on this project. I want to know whether, as a result of its involvement in some 20 Aboriginal projects- give or take one or two- this company was able to increase its staff considerably. Was it able to do so because it had access to a number of Aboriginal contracts? I want to know whether in 2V4 years fewer than 5 houses were completed on the project.

Senator Walters:

– Would not that have been under your Government?

Senator KEEFFE:

– I did not say that it all happened under this Government. I am saying that 90 per cent of it happened under this Government and that 90 per cent of the misery that has been caused to Aborigines has been caused under this Government. It has done this in a bare 10 months. The honourable senator brings in very good receipes for apple strudel and that sort of thing, but she has not made any real contribution to Aboriginal affairs. So I suggest that she cease interjecting at this point and confine her major speeches in this chamber to the subject of apples and how to cook them.

I want to know whether wages were paid on this project to which I referred to workers who never existed. Did this also happen at Bamyili? Most of this happened in the last few months. That puts it right back at the door of the present

Government. In other words, were fictitious employees on the payroll at both settlements? My colleague Senator Colston asked a question about this matter in this chamber not so long ago. The Minister, among a number of other statements, said:

The appointment of the manager terminated on 2 May 1 976. The manager’s salary was $ 10,740 per annum.

My Department has commenced an investigation into the affairs of the Bamyili Housing Association.

I reiterate that I am not accusing anybody, but I want an explanation. If I am wrong, I will apologise publicly. I also want to know whether 16 homes on the Hooker Creek project remain unfinished. All this year the Hooker Creek people have asked for a few pipes and things to be put into the crossings on their road so that they can get their food supplies in during the wet season. Only a week or so ago they told me that they are bogging semi-trailers on that road; and that they cannot get any satisfaction on that point either. Are homes on the Amoonguna project unfinished, and does this situation apply also at Wattie Creek? Has the staff in each instance been dismissed? If so, why have they been dismissed? We have been told that they have not been dismissed; but the houses remain there partly finished. I want to know whether a large number of freezers and refrigerators were taken to the Hooker Creek area, and what has happened to them. Was material for the Yawarli project diverted to a firm named Gateway Constructions? That was another company that was building the Hooker Creek hospital. Was material meant for the housing project diverted to that company? Did a white employee of the Association order $ 1 ,800 worth of spare parts for the 4 motor vehicles on the scene? Is it a fact that after 3 months there was a shortage of spare parts?

While the Minister is looking at some of these things, in respect of which the blacks are getting all the blame at the moment, it might be an idea to look at the firm Rex Prior Real Estate, a Townsville firm, and find out its profits for the period that housing association funds were made available. He may find out what it paid to people in so-called spotter’s fees and whether prices were increased when it was known that the Department wanted to buy a house. These are only a few examples. If I am wrong, I will apologise publicly. If I am not, I would like to see the matters corrected. I want to see the Minister take the pressure off the Aboriginal people. They are the people who are being made to suffer, not the white people in the department, not the white consultants or anybody else. The Aboriginal people are doing without employment. Their medical aid programs are being cut. Their legal service programs have not been cut to the extent that we expected but obviously there is a desire to put them under another umbrella and make them less effective. Perhaps they will be put under the Australian Legal Aid Office. Most of the teeth have been pulled out of that organisation. As far as the Parliament is concerned, the best thing that can happen is for the Minister to lay the Hay report on the table for scrutiny.

Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales

– I will not unduly delay the Senate but I want to indicate to the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Cotton) that I have had disturbing responses from Sydney and from Geelong, via the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes), that a 1974 Whitlam Government innovation in relation to overseas dependants as legitimate tax deductions appears on the present income tax returns to have been somewhat diluted. To speed up the submissions that will be made to the Minister and to put the matter into its proper sequence I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a letter from the Acting Commissioner of Taxation, Mr O’Reilly, dated 13 January 1975 and addressed to me, together with a letter from Mr Maher, a State member of Parliament, concerning a Mr Grigorios Angelis, and his own tax document. This will be the basis of the submission which I will be making to the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) via Senator Cotton.

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

The document read as follows- 13 January 1975

Senator J. A. Mulvihill, Australian Government Centre, Chifley Square, Sydney, N.S.W. 2000

Dear Senator Mulvihill,

I refer to your letter of 30 September 1974 and to subsequent discussions with this office concerning the nature of the information that will be required of taxpayers claiming deductions in their income tax returns for the maintenance of dependants who reside in overseas countries.

As a result of the recent amendments to the income tax law which first apply in relation to the income year ending 30 June 1975, a taxpayer who maintains a dependant residing in an overseas country will be able to claim a concessional deduction for the maintenance of the dependant. As you know, a deduction for a dependant was formerly available only if the dependant was a resident of Australia or Papua New Guinea.

In practical terms, a dependant for the purpose of the extended concession will be the taxpayer’s spouse, a child of the taxpayer under 16 years of age, a full-time student under 25 years of age or a parent of the taxpayer or of the taxpayer’s spouse.

Any taxpayer claiming deductions in respect of the maintenance of dependants will be required to complete the standard dependants block in the income tax return form by showing the name of each dependant for whom a deduction is claimed, the place at which the dependant resides, the amount of the dependant’s separate net income for the year and whether the dependant was wholly maintained by the taxpayer for the year. This information will be required whether or not the dependant is a resident of Australia or of an overseas country.

A taxpayer who claims a deduction for maintaining a dependant living overseas will, in addition, be asked to snow in the annual income tax return the total amount of money sent overseas during the year by the taxpayer in order to maintain the dependant.

As a general rule, the provision of these details in the income tax return lodged by a taxpayer who claims a concessional deduction in respect of a dependant residing overseas will be all that is needed. If, in a particular case, further information or substantiation of the particulars shown in the return is thought necessary, the taxpayer will be requested to supply fuller details to enable his claim to be determined.

Yours faithfully, (W.J. O’Reilly) Acting Commissioner of Taxation

page 669

PARLIAMENT OF NEW SOUTH WALES LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

106 Lyons Road, Drummoyne 2047 Telephone 81 5562 7th September, 1976

Senator J. A. Mulvihill, Australian Government Offices, Chifley Square, SYDNEY. 2000

Dear Senator Mulvihill,

I write on behalf of my constituent, Mr. Grigorios Angelis of 13 Bouvardia Street, Five Dock, who has complained to me that his income tax claim for support for his two parents in Greece has been rejected.

Mr. Angelis claimed an amount of $400.00 for each parent and holds receipts for payments made. His parents in Greece have no pension, except a small sum of $7.00 a month. It is of great concern to Mr. Angelis if settlers in Australia are discriminated against in relation to maintenance payments.

I ask that you have this matter investigated by the Treasury and do all possible to have Mr. Angelis’ claim allowed.

I am forwarding a copy of this letter to the Commissioner for Taxation so that it may be considered by way of objection to the assessment.

Yours faithfully.

Michael Maher, M.L.A. MEMBER FOR DRUMMOYNE

INCOME TAX ADJUSTMENT SHEET

The taxable income and claims for rebate and concessional expenditure shown on your return have been altered by the adjustment of items shown below. The reason for each adjustment is indicated by a number printed alongside it in the righthand column. The meaning of each number is printed on the back of this sheet. {: #subdebate-43-0-s0 .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator MULVIHILL: -- Let me inform the Minister that in 1974, after the Labor Government was returned, as Chairman of the Immigration Advisory Council and with the concurrence of the then Minister, the Honourable Clyde Cameron, I talked to the Taxation Commissioner. This was at the time when **Dr Jim** Cairns was Treasurer. The Taxation Commissioner had some reservations that the scheme would work. What it meant was- it is not all in this letter- that if a person applied for an annual deduction of about $400 and it was reasonably documented it would be accepted. I do not know of many cases beyond that. On Saturday night there was a big Portuguese function at the Paddington Town Hall at which about 800 people attended. This was the feedback. They felt that, compared with the previous year the matter was not being strictly implemented. I want to be fair about it. I know that there was a restructuring of taxation deductions last year and that there could be a legitimate reason for it. **Mr Scholes** has been receiving the same complaint in Geelong, which is a city with a high migrant content. Let us clear the decks about it. If there are explanations for this particular case which I mentionedI selected it because it looked fairly clear cut- I think that the ethnic Press and the ethnic clubs generally will know what the position is. In conclusion I repeat that this innovation was never visualised to apply above a ceiling of a $400 deduction. Most people below the middle income group were remitting money to Athens, Belgrade, Rome or other cities. The scheme was not abused. I simply leave the matter at that. I think that the Minister will agree that it should be vetted. Some errors may have been committed. It may be that people will have to revise their applications in the face of the new deduction structure that has been set up. I leave the matter at that. {: #subdebate-43-0-s1 .speaker-KPO} ##### Senator KILGARIFF:
Northern Territory -- Last week in a debate in this chamber **Senator Mulvihill** referred to an article in the *Nation Review.* I thank the honourable senator for drawing my attention to that article. I have looked at the article which was included in *Hansard* during that debate. In the first place I would like to say to the Senate and to **Senator Mulvihill** that that report in the *Nation Review* of 10 to 16 September by D. Jenkyn is a very inaccurate and misleading statement. It is so inaccurate and so misleading that one can understand why **Senator Mulvihill** looked at it with some concern. In fact **Senator Mulvihill,** in drawing the Senate's attention to it, challenged me to look at the matter further. I have done so. He said: >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. I 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 am amazed that such a misleading article could get into the national Press. In fact I suggest that the article is rather pitiful. Evidently its aim is to belittle boards of the Northern Territory, by saying that their members receive a travelling allowance. The article implies that there is political influence up there which ensures that members of the National Country Party and the Liberal Party in the Northern Territory are in the majority on those boards. That is not the case. Let us look at the boards of the Northern Territory. The article implies that they are rather frivolous, but these boards are State-like boards. One sees such boards in the States and one sees their counterparts in the Commonwealth. The author of the article says that there are about 70 boards. I think that there are really about 77 of them. They include the Tourist Board, the Reserves Board, the Northern Territory Port Authority, the Apprentices Board, the Housing Commission, the Bushfires Council, the Hospital Advisory Boards and so on. One sees in the 77 boards a call from within the community of the Northern Territory to participate in these Statelike organisations. These people have to travel over a large area. The area of the Northern Territory is about 540 000 square miles. There is a lot of" work to be done and, for these people to do their work, they have to travel. Why should they not be paid a travelling allowance? As the article says, they are paid $37 a day which is the same as we are paid, as State parliamentarians are paid and as other members of State and Commonwealth organisations are paid. To carry out their duties in the Northern Territory is not as easy as it is for us here. They have the problems of the climate and the country to contend with. Members of these boards work under difficulties. They work under the heat of a tropic sun and a desert sun. They work under the cold of winter in central Australia where the temperature can fall to below zero. In fact this year it went down to minus 7 degrees. So this is not a laughing matter. I say that the charge is quite frivolous. {: .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator Mulvihill: -- Are there any trade unionists on those boards? {: .speaker-KPO} ##### Senator KILGARIFF: -- Yes, there are trade unionists on the boards. Let me endeavour to set **Senator Mulvihill** 's mind at rest. One finds that the members of those boards are drawn from the Northern Territory community according to the responsibilities of those particular boards and the capabilities of the men involved. The positions are filled by the process of advertising vacancies in the Northern Territory newspapers. Individuals or organisations may nominate a person and the name goes to the AdministratorinCouncil. {: .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator Keeffe: -- Who selects them? {: .speaker-KPO} ##### Senator KILGARIFF: -- The AdministratorinCouncil selects the membership of these boards. While the Administrator-in-Council selects the members of these boards one realises that in the Northern Territory the Administrator is the chairman of that Council. I do not think there is any inference that over the years the Administrator has acted in any way improperly. One just has to remember the Administrators whom we have had in the Northern Territory over the last few years. Of course, now we have **Mr John** England; we know all about him. We had a very prominent Northern Territory person prior to **Mr England,** namely, **Mr Jock** Nelson who served the Territory in many ways. Originally, he was a member of the Northern Territory Legislative Council. He went into the Federal House for, I think, 17 or 18 years. He retired and became mayor of Alice Springs. From mayor of Alice Springs, in 1 974 for about a year or more he served as Administrator of the Northern Territory. During this period I was on the Administrator's Council with **Mr Nelson.** He was a very fine Administrator. Many of the appointments which are being discussed today were made in that period. Prior to **Mr Nelson** were **Mr Fred** Chaney, **Mr Roger** Dean and so on. At the moment, despite the fact that there are Liberal Party members on the Administrator's Council, there were no political appointments as can very easily be seen. I refer to the various points which have been made. The article refers to **Mr Rex** Jettner. It is true that he is a member of the CLP. I have looked through the records and in fact he is the only member of a political party to be chairman of a board. I suggest to the Senate that as **Mr Jettner** was appointed to the Primary Producers Board on 7 October 1970 and as he was appointed Chairman on 24 March 1971 he is a very dedicated person. It is quite wrong to draw the inference that he is on that Board for any other reason than to assist the people of the Territory. There are very few people in Australia today who work the hours that **Mr Rex** Jettner works. As Chairman of the Primary Producers Board he has given away his business and devoted himself fulltime to the Board because that is required. As we have discussed on many occasions in the Senate, the pastoral industry in the Territory and in Australia is in extreme difficulties. The Territory is fortunate to have a man such as **Mr Rex** Jettner Then we come to mistake after mistake made by the author of this article. It reads: >Next, take Reg Harris. It states that he is a CLP vice-president, and continues: >He chairs the Tourist board . . . and is a member of the Reserves board (national parks and gardens ordinance). The inference is that jobs for the boys get members on these boards; it is jobs galore. The fact is that **Mr Reg** Harris who is chairman of the Northern Territory Tourist Board is not a member of the CLP. The fact that he is on 2 boards is because there has to be liaison between the Northern Territory Tourist Board and the Reserve Board. If we look for a Reg Harris who is a member of the CLP we should look down the Track some 250 miles. There is a Reg Harris there but he is a completely different person and they are not related. So there in a national newspaper is the first glaring mistake. The article goes on to mention Merv Elliott. This Merv Elliott is supposedly the chairman of the Wildlife Advisory Council and supposedly holds a senior position in the CLP. That is far from the case. **Mr Merv** Elliott is not chairman of the Wildlife Advisory Council. The fact is that the chairman is **Mr Murray** Elliott, who is chief inspector of wildlife and who is a Commonwealth public servant. So once again there is a glaring mistake. It is rather incredible to me that a person who is a journalist for a national newspaper should make such glaring mistakes. The newspaper article continues on to make remarks about an A. G. W. Greatorex. It is quite true that he is a prominent person in the Northern Territory and was, before he retired, an active member in the National Country Party. He was appointed to the Lands Board, I think back in 1963. The dedication of people such as **Mr Greatorex** has also contributed greatly to the Northern Territory. The article then refers to **Mr Rupert** Kentish. **Mr Rupert** Kentish is the member for Arnhem. It is suggested that as he is a member of the same Lands Board there is something odd there. These instances which I cite now are the few cases where there are people within the CLP on these boards. I draw the attention of **Senator Mulvihill** to the fact that there are many other people on these various boards. I might point out to the honourable senator that members of the Australian Labor Party are also on these boards. One could cite, for instance, **Mr John** Isaacs. **Mr John** Isaacs is a well known Labor identity in the Northern Territory. He is a member of the Northern Territory Port Authority, and as a member of that authority he gives invaluable service because of his expertise in that particular field. On top of that he is on the Parole Board of the Northern Territory. In addition to that again he is on the workers' compensation tribunal along with another leading Labor identity whose name escapes me at the moment. {: .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator Keeffe: -- Maybe he has escaped. {: .speaker-KPO} ##### Senator KILGARIFF: -- No, he is **Mr John** Isaacs' offsider in the union; and there are others I could mention as well. But getting back to **Mr Kentish,** he has been on the Lands Board for a considerable time and has given tremendous service on it. In fact, the newspaper article did not mention one board of which **Mr Rupert** Kentish is a member, and that is the Aboriginal Lands Board. Not too many people realise that the Northern Territory has an Aboriginal Lands Board. It has been granting land to Aborigines for several years. It was established as a result of the first action to give land to Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory back in 1970, which, as I indicated before when I gave a brief talk on the matter, was when I was chairman of the particular select committee which recommended that land rights be given to the people of the Northern Territory. **Mr Rupert** Kentish was on that board for many years until the board was told by a government administrative order that it was to cease its activities. That board had granted some 60-odd blocks of land- various leases- to the Aboriginal people. {: .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator Keeffe: -- How many acres? {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- A big deal! {: .speaker-KPO} ##### Senator KILGARIFF: -- It would have been a bigger deal if the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly and the Aboriginal Lands Board had been given a go. I can remember one pastoral lease on the Daly River. The area involved runs into several hundred square miles; I think it may be 800 to 1000 square miles. The particular group on that land is doing very fine work. It is a group of Aboriginal people whom I would recommend any honourable senator should visit. All in all I suggest that this article is misleading. I hope from the explanation I have given that **Senator Mulvihill** will not be alarmed by the allegations that have been made because in many cases the names referred to in this article are completely incorrect. {: #subdebate-43-0-s2 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP -- I feel I should take this opportunity to respond to some of the matters that have been raised in the adjournment debate tonight. Firstly, I want to make some comments about matters raised by **Senator Keeffe.** There **Senator Keeffe** referred to wastage. It was certainly not the main consideration of the Government that the wastage or inefficiencies that were referred to were related to Aborigines. Rather, the investigation was undertaken to assess the programs and their effectiveness and the way in which services were being delivered to Aborigines. This was the major concern. It seems to be common knowledge in many quarters that excerpts from the Hay report are available to members of the Press and many others. The Government has no knowledge of how **Mr Peter** Samuel and others who have written about the report have obtained their copies. However, as I have stated previously in the Senate, no decision has yet been made on the publication of the report but several matters have been under consideration by the Government and interdepartmental committees have been established urgently to examine the recommendations of the Hay Committee in certain areas. When these reviews have been completed and the Government is able to determine those projects and programs which are of great benefit to Aborigines and those which will be effective in achieving our objectives the Government will make more money available for Aboriginal affairs. The Prime Minister **(Mr Malcolm Fraser)** has stated that a decision will be made on the publication of 14 September 1976 SENATE 673 {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- Why can we not have it now? {: .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator GUILFOYLE: **- Senator Georges** will understand that this is a report to government. The Government is now considering it and interdepartmental committees are looking at it, acting on its recommendations and investigating some of the matters raised. The Government will make a decision on these matters at a later stage. Concern has been expressed about the allocation announced for Aboriginal programs this year. It has never been suggested by the Government that the Hay report was to be used as the only basis for determining the Budget allocation for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. The report was presented to the Government in June whereas most of the Budget allocations were arrived at in May. The Treasurer **(Mr Lynch)** made it perfectly clear in his Budget Speech that as our investigations proceed and when the best way in which funds can be expended is determined more money will be made available for Aboriginal programs. A lot has been said about the cuts in the Budget allocation for Aboriginal Affairs, but I think it is fair that this should be seen in the context of what has been provided in Aboriginal programs. After hearing some of the comments that were made it could have been assumed that all programs had been cut, abolished or abandoned. However if we look at the Budget we will see that the health programs through Aboriginal organisations will be maintained at the same level. Education will be funded at the same level so that existing programs should be maintained. Employment will be funded at a slightly increased level. Existing employment support schemes will be re-oriented to give more emphasis to training and permanent employment and a review is to be undertaken of Aboriginal employment opportunities. Legal aid will be funded at the same level and continue as an autonomous operation. It will require some rationalisation of service and more efficient use of funds in some areas if service is to be maintained at the current levels. In welfare there will be an increase of $200,000 and overall programs will be maintained. In the support of missions and settlements there will be funding at the same level to enable continuation of essential services; capital expenditure on some new facilities will be deferred. Town management and public utilities will be funded at about the same level. In enterprises there will be a review of the operation of existing enterprises and of the role and objectives of the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission. In housing a complete reassessment of Aboriginal housing programs has been instituted to investigate allegations of waste and extravagance and to establish the most efficient ways of providing housing to Aborigines in urban, rural and remote situations. This reassessment will apply to Aboriginal directed and State government directed programs. Funds for Aboriginal housing associations will be limited, pending current reviews, to about $7m to cover legal commitments only, while State grants will be limited to $7m pending review to see that housing is going to areas and people in greatest need. There will be a $3m increase to a total of $ 10m in funds provided to the Aboriginal Loans Commission for housing loans. In cultural, sporting and recreational activities, funds will be reduced to $400,000 next year. This will require a greater contribution by Aboriginal participants if programs are to continue at existing levels. The Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies will be funded at the same level. The Government's decision to introduce a new system of family allowances paid to wives will provide a substantial increase in income for many Aboriginal families and reduce the demands on some programs that were necessary for Aborigines in the past. With all these factors being taken into consideration and with the Government's commitment to provide additional funds when the reviews which are at present being undertaken are completed, I believe that we will be able to meet our commitment to improve the opportunities for Aborigines and to enhance their opportunities for self-management and other objectives which are our stated policies. I believe that those matters that have been raised by **Senator Keeffe** should be the subject of a response. It may be appropriate for this to be undertaken during the sittings of the Senate Estimates Committee. If I can get information for him on many of the matters raised, I will see that it is available at that time. As far as the general approach to Aboriginal services is concerned, I do want to assure him of the Government's intention to see that these are developed in the interests of the Aborigines as soon as we are able to determine the best ways in which we can provide increased expenditure. **Senator Mulvihill** raised the matter of overseas dependants. I have his letter from the Commissioner for Taxation. I will refer it to the Treasurer and obtain information along the lines he requires. As far as the comments from **Senator** Kilgariff are concerned with regard to appointments to Northern Territory boards, I am sure that the Senate is indebted to him for the information that he has provided. {: #subdebate-43-0-s3 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia -- I desire to take a few minutes of the Senate's time. I am drawn into this debate to reply to the Minister for Social Security **(Senator Guilfoyle).** I do not think there is any need for the Government to try to fool us concerning Aboriginal affairs. The present situation worries me because during my term in office, and I think before that, there was general agreement that Aboriginal affairs would not be a party political issue. I appreciate the fact that I seemed to get on very well with present supporters of the Government who were interested in Aboriginal affairs and who conferred with me on many occasions when they were in Opposition. During the Budget debate we have heard from honourable senators on the Government side who have an interest in Aboriginal affairs. Those honourable senators whom one would accept as the more liberal of the conservative elements on that side are all satisfied today that it was only a question of time before **Mr Lynch** made provisions in his Budget with respect to Aborigines. **Senator Bonner** protested vehemently against cuts in Aboriginal expenditure, but he hopes that something will be done. No-one, other than **Senator Chaney** who last Wednesday spoke about the misuse of money in a case in which a boat was delivered without an engine, can definitely identify areas in which there has been misuse of money. **Senator Kilgariff** is so convinced that he made this statement. This halting of money has been for a few brief weeks and money is now in the process of coming forward again. Where is it? The Hay Committee, which is the justification for the cutting of expenditure, was set up to defeat the recommendations of the Senate Select Committee on Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. The report of the Hay Committee has been in the Department's hands since May. Since then the Government has asked an interdepartmental committee to examine this matter again. The Hay Committee reported that the housing commissions of the States were building houses conveniently and economically for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and that therefore this arrangement should be promoted. Nonetheless there is a reduction in the allocation for this area. I think that as a result of protests some alteration has been made in **Mr Lynch** 's proposal. There is talk about there being no intention of cutting down. The explanatory notes in regard to the appropriations of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs point out that approximately 589 houses were constructed or purchased in 1975-76 and an estimated 229 houses will be provided in 1976-77. The explanatory notes go on to state: >Additionally, it is estimated that 546 Aborigines and 93 non-Aborigines would be employed in administration and house construction during 1976-77 compared to 660 and 1 1 1 respectively for 1975-76. Therefore the plan of the Department and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs **(Mr Viner)** for the next 12 months is to cut the annual rate of housing from 589 to 229- a reduction of more than half. They also plan to reduce the employment in the administration area of housing from 660 Aborigines to 546 and from 1 1 1 Europeans to 93. There is the planned intention to cut housing. Protests may achieve some results; but the denial of rights to Aborigines was highlighted in the Minister's Press release of 18 August, which stated: > **Mr Viner** said the difference between this year's budget of $ 152.6m and the $185m expended last year was accounted for in reduced funds for housing (down (15m) enterprises (down $10m) cultural, recreational and sporting activities (down Sim)- all of which are the subject of reviews before further funds are provided. The suspension of capital works for Aboriginal development normally carried out by the Departments of Health, Education and Construction was also reflected in the balance of the reduced figure- in line with the Government's decision to limit Capital Works . . . The Minister told us tonight that this year expenditure will be the same as last year. We have been told there will be no reduction. Last year's estimate was increased by 13 per cent to obtain the same productivity as the year before. Therefore there is an immediate reduction of 13 per cent in this year's estimate. It has been admitted that $33m has been taken off for specific projects. But what about this reduction of 13 per cent? The Minister has told us that expenditure will be the same as the amount allocated last year. Receipts for 1976-77 have increased by $1,706,187 on last year's receipts. Under the provisions of the Remunerations Tribunal Act there has been an increase in special appropriation amounting to $1,913 in administration expenses. The Aborigines in the Northern Territory are not affected by that increase. The increase affects the Europeans within their Department. They deserve this increase which has been granted by the tribunal. There has been an increase of $831,000 in the estimate for the payment of salaries. There has been an increase in salaries and allowances of $796,000. Those increases affect the administration of the Department. Yet in the statement I referred to the Minister said: >In my first meeting with Aboriginals upon being appointed Minister I was met with the continual complaint that money spent by the Department was not getting to the Aboriginal people, but was going into the pockets of others or gobbled up in administration. Although proposed expenditure has been increased for administration there is a reduction of 1 3 per cent this year in money for specific projects. The estimate for investigation and research has been decreased by $75,000. The estimate for support for Aboriginal government settlements has been reduced by $102,620. Funds will be provided to meet wages for 311 Aborigines employed on award wages to undertake various activities. An amount of $708,350 is to be appropriated for assistance to the missions. Wherever an Aboriginal population is involved there is a reduction in the appropriation. These reductions are drastic measures. They have not been made in the light of consideration of the Hay report. The Hay report could be dispensed with. **Senator Keeffe** tonight gave some credence to the view that there is a need for investigation. I have said from my experience that it will be found there has been some misuse of money on new projects. **Senator Bonner** reiterated this today. Of course one can find misuse. We have an obligation to these people. Promises have been made to these people. A shadow Minister sent telegrams to these people saying: Give us your vote and there will be no reduction in expenditure'. These people have said that this Government has broken its promises. Do not let us on this side of the chamber influence honourable senators on the other side to permit the Government to break the promises that have been made to these unfortunate people by kidding them that it is only a matter of a few weeks before money becomes available. I told the Senate this morning about Walgat Lake where a successful company had been formed and some successful things had been done. It has not built a house. The Hay Committee did not inquire into the company established by the Aboriginal Housing Association at Walgat Lake. The department is aware that the Aboriginal housing associations have been a success. Why should funding to these associations be stopped? The Hay Committee report makes no reference to this company at Walgat Lake. **Mr Hay** said that he could make observations but time did not permit him to make decisions on the question. The inquiry by **Mr Hay** was simply a method of pleasing the dissatisfied backbenchers of the Liberal Party who were not happy that the Government should attempt to decrease expenditure to Aboriginal housing associations. It annoys and distresses me when the Government is not straightforward. We cannot accept the words of **Senator Chaney:** 'If we get together we might achieve something'. We want the money now. The Aborigines want the money now so that there will be no halting Aboriginal activities throughout Australia. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 1 1.41 p.m. {: .page-start } page 677 {:#debate-44} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS The following answers to questions were circulated: {:#subdebate-44-0} #### Mental Health Services (Question No. 759) {: #subdebate-44-0-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice: >Has the Minister's attention been drawn to statements by Professor E. Saint, Dean of the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Queensland, in the Courier Mail of 20 May 1976, that insufficient funds are being spent on mental health services in Australia; if so, (a) what financial assistance has the Australian Government provided for mental health programmes since 1 July 1970, (b) what additional funds are planned for injection into mental health programmes for the remainder of this financial year; and (c) is the Department of Health in general agreement with Professor Saint's statement that spending on mental health should be doubled or trebled, given the availability of funds in the Government's national priorities. {: #subdebate-44-0-s1 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >My attention has been drawn to the statements reported in the Courier Mail of 20 May 1976. The details requested by the honourable senator are as follows: > >Up to 30 June 1973, the Commonwealth under the States Grants (Mental Health Institutions) Act made payments to the States on a $ 1 to $2 basis for capital expenditure on mental health institutions. > >Commonwealth expenditure since 1970 under that Act is listed hereunder. In 1973, the abovementioned Act was replaced by the Mental Health and Related Services Assistance Act 1973, which provided up to $7.5m in each of the two years 1973-74 and 1974-75 for community-based mental health, alcoholism and drug dependency services specifically. The objective of this financial assistance under what was known as the Community Mental Health, Alcoholism and Drug Dependency Program was to assist patients to achieve independence and self-reliance through the funding of services which would provide readily available care in the community, enabling early treatment, after-care and education services to be placed at the doorstep of persons who might otherwise hesitate or delay in seeking institutional help. Such services included the provision of community mental health centres, referral centres, 'drop in' centres, hostels and halfway houses. Expenditure under this Program were: Commencing in 1975-76, the Community Mental Health Alcoholism and Drug Dependency Program was incorporated in the Commonwealth's broader-based Community Health Program. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. In 1975-76 the Commonwealth provided financial assistance of $54.3m to the States, local government bodies, and non-governmental organisations for a wide range of community-oriented health services under the Community Health Program, including mental health projects as a significant element of the Program. The Government has already announced that a further $81m, which includes $70m for the Community Health Program, will be provided for community health services and facilities in 1 976-77. 1. As implied in the question, the determination of priorities to be given to Commonwealth programs is a matter for decision by the Government. Although there is obviously need for extension and improvement of mental health services, this does not depend solely on the availability of funds. Improvement depends in large part on co-ordination, creative leadership, skilled manpower, and the support of a concerned, actively involved community. The trend is for mental health services to move out from institutions into the community, and be integrated into general health services as far as practicable, and to be subject to usual, rather than special, funding arrangements. The Commonwealth is providing substantial financial assistance to the States for mental health services through the Community Health Program. Funds available under the five-year Hospital Development Program may also be used by States to assist with the construction, extension and modernisation of mental health facilities included in agreed State hospital works programs. To date States have given priority to the provision of general hospital facilities in such programs. Under the Community Health Program and the Hospital Development Program, the States consult the Commonwealth on overall priorities, after which the States make allocations to individual projects, in accordance with their primary responsibility for the provision and delivery of health services. {:#subdebate-44-1} #### Family Trusts (Question No. 799) {: #subdebate-44-1-s0 .speaker-TJ4} ##### Senator Walsh: asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many family trusts were registered in Australia (a) in 1972-73, and (b) in 1975-76, or the most recent available year. 1. In each year, what was the aggregate income liable to be taxed, either within the trusts, or after distribution to individual beneficiaries. 2. In each year, what was the aggregate tax revenue obtained from income originating from these trusts, whether the tax was levied within the trusts or upon their beneficiaries. {: #subdebate-44-1-s1 .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator Cotton:
LP -- The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) No arrangements for the registration of family trusts exist in Australia, but trusts are required to lodge income tax returns each year. The total numbers of trusts, excluding unit trusts, recorded as having lodged returns for the 1972-73 and 1973-74 income years (the latest years for which such statistics are available) were 117 235 and 120 263 respectively. The net income of these trusts was $285mforthe 1972-73 income year and $363m for 1973-74. 1. Income tax revenue from income originating from trusts is not recorded separately. Much of the net income of trusts is assessed to the beneficiaries concerned, along with the other income of the beneficiaries. Trustees are liable to be assessed in respect of trust income to which a beneficiary who is under a legal disability is presently entitled and in respect of trust income to which no beneficiary is presently entitled. A survey for the 1 974-75 income year indicated that about 20 000 such assessments were issued to trustees, covering net income of about $75m. {:#subdebate-44-2} #### Australian Taxation Office (Question No. 810) {: #subdebate-44-2-s0 .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator Rae:
TASMANIA asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Of each of the income schemes referred to in Senate Question No. 109, on how many occasions during each of the past three years and under which particular schemes has information been given by the Australian Taxation Office to the Department or organisation administering each such system. 1. Is it contradictory and discriminatory to have a bond of secrecy on the Australian Taxation Office for some taxpayers on the movement of information out of that Office but not for others; if not, why not. 2. What is the criteria used to determine the non-secrecy of confidential information on taxpayers held in the Australian Taxation Office. {: #subdebate-44-2-s1 .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator Cotton:
LP -- The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) No statistical records have been kept of the number of inquiries made to the Australian Taxation Office concerning each of the various schemes referred to in Senate Question No. 109. The total number of such inquiries made annually is estimated to be in the vicinity of 20 000. Approximately onehalf of these inquiries relate to schemes which come under the category of 'Education' and the balance consists almost wholly of 'Social Security' and 'Repatriation and Compensation ' scheme inquiries. 1. No. The secrecy provisions of the law apply to the affairs of all taxpayers, except that certain specified information may be conveyed to certain other departments and authorities where, and to the extent, required for the purposes of the laws administered by those departments or authorities. In effect, any person who claims a benefit under those laws does so in the face of long standing statutory provisions which permit the Commissioner of Taxation to disclose information which is relevant to the administration of the laws. 2. Information furnished by the Australian Taxation Office to other departments or authorities does not become non-secret. Any person to whom information is so disclosed becomes subject to the same restraints against divulging that information as apply to an employee of the Australian Taxation Office. Information on the affairs of a taxpayer is made known by that office only on receipt of a specific request from an authorised officer of the department or authority concerned and then only to the extent that it is relevant for the purposes specified in section 16 of the Income Tax Assessment Act. {:#subdebate-44-3} #### Census Forms (Question No. 814) {: #subdebate-44-3-s0 .speaker-IE4} ##### Senator Archer: asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many Census forms were distributed for completion in connection with the 1 976 Census. 1. How many Census forms were collected. {: #subdebate-44-3-s1 .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator Cotton:
LP -- The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The Australian Statistician has advised that it is not possible to provide the exact number of Census schedules distributed for the 1976 Census but the approximate number was 4 million. 1. Of these all but about 4500 have been collected and it is expected that up to one half of those will be collected before collection activity ceases entirely. A final figure of households refusing to return schedules is thus not yet available but it is expected that that figure will be in the vicinity of 2500. {:#subdebate-44-4} #### Australian Bureau of Statistics: Expenditure and Stan* Turnover (Question No. 815) {: #subdebate-44-4-s0 .speaker-IE4} ##### Senator Archer: asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What has been the total annual expenditure of the Australian Bureau of Statistics in each of the years 1965 to 1975 inclusive. 1. What has been the number of First, Second, Third and Fourth Division staff employed in the Bureau in each of the years from 1965 to 1975 inclusive. 2. How many temporary staff have been employed by the Bureau in connection with each of the last three Censuses, and what has been the total spent on salaries for such temporary staff in each case. {: #subdebate-44-4-s1 .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator Cotton:
LP -- The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The Australian Statistician has advised that the total ABS Expenditure for the years 1964-65 to 1974-75 was as follows: {: type="1" start="2"} 0. The number of staff, by Divisions, employed in the ABS since 1965 is as follows: {: type="1" start="3"} 0. Numbers of temporary staff employed in connection with each of the last three Censuses and amounts spent on salaries for such staff are as follows: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Includes 600 staff for Preliminary Processing and 1 200 for Main Processing which is not due to commence until mid- 1977. 1. Estimate only. Final field staff numbers have not yet been received from Divisional Field Supervisors. {:#subdebate-44-5} #### Australian and South Vietnamese Government Property (Question No. 816) {: #subdebate-44-5-s0 .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator Rae: asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Did the Australian Government own any, and if so, what buildings and land in Saigon at the time of the conquest by North Vietnam. 1. If the answer to 1. is in the affirmative, what has happened since in relation to any such property and in particular what has happened to the (a) occupation, and (b) ownership thereof. 2. Did the South Vietnamese Government own any, and if so, what land and buildings in Australia at the time referred to in 1. above. 3. If the answer to 3. is in the affirmative, what has happened since in relation to any such property and in particular what has happened to the (a) occupation, and (b) ownership thereof. {: #subdebate-44-5-s1 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. Australian Government owned property in Saigon consists of: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Headof Mission residence 1 49 Rue Pasteur 1. Chancery offices, 7th Floor, Caravelle Hotel 2. c ) Site for proposed new chancery , Dai Lo Thong N hut 1. All properties are believed to be unoccupied and under the surveillance of the local authorities. All are still owned by the Australian Government. 2. Yes. As far as the Government is aware the only property owned in Australia by the former RVN Government consists of a combined chancery and residence, together with an adjacent dwelling, in Canberra. 3. The buildings concerned have been taken into the protective custody of the Australian Government and are at present unoccupied. The question of ownership of these buildings will be considered in accordance with the principles of international law. {:#subdebate-44-6} #### Guard Dogs (Question No. 860) {: #subdebate-44-6-s0 .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator Mulvihill: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Does the Australian Government use contract guard dogs in any Government properties located in New South Wales; if so, does Ingleburn Security Service have such a contract. 1. If the answer to ( 1 ) is in the affirmative, will the Minister cancel the contract of the Ingleburn Security Service, in view of the conviction of its registered owner, **Mr Brian** Hacking, of Campbelltown, on charges of gross cruelty of Doberman dogs which were part of his operating units. {: #subdebate-44-6-s1 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers:
LP -- The answers to the honourable senator's questions are as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. No. 1. Not applicable in view of answer to ( 1 ). {:#subdebate-44-7} #### Consumer Price Index (Question No. 879) {: #subdebate-44-7-s0 .speaker-EJ4} ##### Senator Sibraa:
NEW SOUTH WALES asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice: >Does the Government intend deleting from the formula used for calculating the Consumer Price Index such items as potatoes, onions and meat; if so, what are the reasons for such action being taken. {: #subdebate-44-7-s1 .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator Cotton:
LP -- The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >The Australian Statistician has advised that there is no intention of deleting such items from the Consumer Price Index. {:#subdebate-44-8} #### Global Maritime Satellite System (Question No. 892) {: #subdebate-44-8-s0 .speaker-K1M} ##### Senator Primmer:
VICTORIA asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What involvement will Australia have in the Conference to be held in September 1976 under the sponsorship of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation to discuss proposals for a global maritime satellite system for merchant shipping. 1. If Australia does have an involvement will the Minister supply details of the proposed satellites, their functions and capabilities. 2. Will the proposed system in any way intrude on the role of the Omega base the Government proposes to establish in Australia. {: #subdebate-44-8-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Australia will be represented at the Third Session of the International Conference which will be held in September 1976. Should the remaining questions concerning the establishment of an International Maritime Satellite System be agreed, the question on whether Australia should sign the Convention, and the operating agreement will be decided by the Government. 1. The proposed Satellite System will provide high quality communication services. Eventually, these services will be available on a world-wide coverage basis. 2. The proposed system will not intrude into the role of the Omega navigation transmitter that is planned for Australia. {:#subdebate-44-9} #### Commonwealth Statistician: Darwin (Question No. 893) {: #subdebate-44-9-s0 .speaker-K2U} ##### Senator Robertson:
NORTHERN TERRITORY asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice: >Are new staff and funds to be made available this financial year to enable the Commonwealth Statistician to compile a consumer price index for Darwin. {: #subdebate-44-9-s1 .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator Cotton:
LP -- The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >The Australian Statistician has advised that this is not possible under present circumstances. However, the Statistician is attempting, with existing resources, to complete and publish early in 1977 a Darwin index number for the food group of the consumer price index. {:#subdebate-44-10} #### Inquiry Service (Question No. 912) {: #subdebate-44-10-s0 .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator Rae: asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Has the Australian Government Publications and Inquiry telephone service, formerly contactable on Canberra 48 8640, been discontinued. 1. Have the parallel services in each of the other capital cities been discontinued; if so, what is the reason in each case. 2. If cost saving is the reason, what is the saving in each case. {: #subdebate-44-10-s1 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Yes. 1. Yes; the inquiry service (including the telephone service) provided at the Australian Government Publications and Inquiry Centres has been discontinued to achieve cost savings. 2. The estimated annual cost savings from the cessation of the inquiry service are {:#subdebate-44-11} #### Department of Foreign Affairs: Statutory Authorities (Question No. 948) {: #subdebate-44-11-s0 .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator Wriedt: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. Which statutory authorities come under the control of the Department of Foreign Affairs? 1. What is the name, occupation, date and term of appointment and remuneration of each holder of public office of each authority? {: #subdebate-44-11-s1 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers:
LP -- The Foreign Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The Australian Development Assistance Agency (ADAA) has been the only statutory authority under the control of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. As announced by the Government, ADAA will formally become a Bureau within the Department of Foreign Affairs upon repeal of the ADAA Act. 1. Pending repeal of the legislation, the following officer has been appointed Acting Director under its provisions: Name : Laurence Corkery Occupation: Public Servant Date of Appointment: 3 May 1976 Term of Appointment: Not more than 12 months Remuneration: $29,508 per annum The Act also provides for appointments by the Minister to a Development Assistance Advisory Board of between 4 and 12 members. Members of the Board are: >Name: **Sir John** Grenfell Crawford, C.B.E. > >Occupation: Consultant > >Date of Appointment: 1 1 February 1975 > >Term of Appointment: 3 years > >Remuneration: $3,000 per annum > >Name: Leslie Wilson Johnson > >Occupation: Australian Ambassador to Greece > >Date of Appointment: 1 1 February 1975 > >Term of Appointment: 3 years > >Remuneration: Nil > >Name: Alan Philip Renouf, O.B.E. > >Occupation: Secretary, Department of Foreign Affairs > >Date of Appointment: 11 February 1975 > >Term of Appointment: 3 years > >Remuneration: Nil > >Name: Gonvill Arthur John Beytagh > >Occupation: General Manager > >Date of Appointment: 1 1 February 1975 > >Term of Appointment: 2 years > >Remuneration: $ 1 , 200 per annum > >Name: Reverend Keith McCallum Dowding > >Occupation: General Secretary, Western Australian Council of Churches > >Date of Appointment: 1 1 February 1975 > >Term of Appointment: 2 years > >Remuneration: $ 1 , 200 per annum > >Name: Alban Frederick Gurnett-Smith > >Occupation: Secretary, CSIRO > >Date of Appointment: 11 February 1975 > >Term of Appointment: 2 years > >Remuneration: Nil > >Name: Robert Francis McMullen > >Occupation: Assistant General Secretary, ALP, Western Australia > >Date of Appointment: 11 February 1975 > >Term of Appointment: 2 years > >Remuneration: $ 1 , 200 per annum > >Name: Michael Philip Sullivan > >Occupation: Executive Director, Australian Council for Overseas Aid > >Date of Appointment: 1 1 February 1975 > >Term of Appointment: 2 years > >Remuneration: $ 1 , 200 per annum > >Name: **Senator Gordon** Sinclair Davidson > >Occupation: **Senator** > >Date of Appointment: 4 June 1975 > >Term of Appointment: 3 years > >Remuneration: Nil {:#subdebate-44-12} #### Aboriginal Land Rights (Question No. 964) {: #subdebate-44-12-s0 .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator Keeffe: asked the Minister represent ing the Prime Minister, upon notice: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1) How many written submissions have been received by the 'Hay' Inquiry in connection with the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill 1976. 1. How long will the 'Hay' Inquiry into the submissions take. 2. Can the Prime Minister give an assurance that such an inquiry is not designed to prevent Aboriginals from obtaining title to non-traditional land and to allow mining companies to operate on traditional land before the already delayed Land Rights Bill becomes law. {: #subdebate-44-12-s1 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers:
LP -- The Prime Minister has provided the following information for answer to the honourable senator's question: (1)I announced on 24 August 1976 that **Mr Hay** would not receive representations direct but that he would be given copies of all representations to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and other Ministers. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. **Mr Hay** has been asked to report no later than the end ofSeptember. 1. The special analysis **Mr Hay** is undertaking is consistent with the commitment given by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs on 4 June 1976 while introducing the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill 1976. The Minister stated on that occasion that all representations would be taken into account in arriving at the final form of the legislation. {:#subdebate-44-13} #### Australian Taxation Office: Flexitime (Question No. 1005) {: #subdebate-44-13-s0 .speaker-EJ4} ##### Senator Sibraa: asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice. {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has the Treasurer given any consideration to further adjusting the starting time provisions of the flextime system for officers of the Australian Taxation Office. 1. What costs would be incurred if employees of the Taxation Office were permitted to commence work at (a) 9.15 a.m.; (b) 9.30 a.m.; (c) 9.45 a.m.; and (d) 10.00 a.m. {: #subdebate-44-13-s1 .speaker-JQR} ##### Senator Cotton:
LP -- The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) and (2) The Australian Taxation Office was one of the first Commonwealth organisations to adopt flexible hours for all members of its staff and a system has been developed which is considered on balance to meet all reasonable needs of the staff. The system does not provide for regular commencement of duty after 9 a.m. because experience has shown that there is practically no demand for late starting by taxation officers. Statistics show that the preference is almost wholly for earlier starting and earlier finishing times. The Taxation Office is engaged in complex financial and administrative transactions which make it necessary for supervisors and other executive staff to be on duty whenever this work is being carried out. Late starting would bring with it a need for late finishing times, not only for the very small minority of people who may wish to work late occasionally but also for the supervisors who would have to be rostered to work late to accommodate their wishes, and who generally would not wish to do so. The Commissioner of Taxation is satisfied that such arrangements would, on balance, be against the best interests of the majority of the staff. There is no issue of cost involved and cost figures are not available. Administrative Review Committee: Reports {: #subdebate-44-13-s2 .speaker-DV4} ##### Senator Withers:
LP -On 27 May 1976 *(Hansard,* page 2006) **Senator Ryan** asked me a question without notice regarding the reports of the Administrative Review Committee. The Prime Minister has now supplied the following information for answer to the honourable senator's question: >The reports of the Administrative Review Committee have been prepared in a form and style appropriate to internal advisings to the Government. It is not intended to make them public.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 14 September 1976, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1976/19760914_senate_30_s69/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant