Senate
10 December 1976

30th Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 30th Parliament
  3. 1976

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Condor Laucke) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers.

page 3001

PETITIONS

Torres Strait Islands

Senator ROBERTSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I present the following petition from 56 citizens of Australia:

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

That we the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia express grave concern at the proposal to divide the Torres Strait Islands and its people by proposing a seabed boundary between Papua and Australia, south of Saibai, Dauan and Boigu.

Respectfully request that any international boundaries between Australia and Papua be set in such a way that the traditional life style and rights of the Torres Strait Islands people can be continued without interruption and unimpeded.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Primary School at Fraser

Senator RYAN:
through Senator Keeffe

-I present the following petition from 120 citizens of the Australian Capital Territory.

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

That residents of the suburb of Fraser, in the Australian Capital Territory are deeply concerned at the lack of adequate educational facilities to be made available to our primary school aged children.

That plans to remove children daily to other suburbs will cause overcrowding, will force parents to private transport or pay bus levies, and will make a mockery of the frequently quoted A.C.T. Schools Authority policy that primary school students should have access to a school within reasonable walking distance of their homes.

That population trends in Fraser and adjoining suburbs more than adequately prove the need for a separate primary school in each of these suburbs.

That a primary school in the suburb would provide an important focus for an area which currently lacks any identity as a community.

That plans to distribute Fraser students between two to four different schools in adjoining areas may well frustrate the social development of many ofthese young persons, forcing them into a situation where they must relate to two different sets of peers.

Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that Senate in Parliament assembled will take urgent steps to revise current plans for the education of our children with a view to the provision of a government primary school in Fraser.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Pensions: Income Tax

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

That the inclusion in taxable incomes of superannuants and retired persons, amounts of old-age and other pensions is unfair to such persons who have contributed significantly to national development during their working lives.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should take steps to ensure that these people are exempted from income tax being assessed in respect of those pensions.

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

Petition received.

Molonglo Parkway

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

  1. That previous public inquiries into the Molonglo Arterial- Western Distributor have not considered Canberra’s total transport needs;
  2. That construction of the proposed Molonglo Freeway will divert scarce public resources away from Canberra’ s public transport sytem;
  3. That Canberra’s high unemployment problems will only be solved satisfactorily, both socially and environmentally, by the construction of urgently needed public transport facilities;
  4. That massive environmental degradation of Lake Burley Griffin’s foreshores will occur if the proposed Molonglo Freeway is constructed;
  5. That Canberra’s air pollution levels are already dangerously high as a direct result of over-dependence on the motor car for private transport and this situation will not be rectified in the foreseeable future by vehicle exhaust emission controls;
  6. That many Canberra residents, particularly in the young and elderly age groups, do not have unfettered access to a car and therefore will be substantially disadvantaged if the money proposed for the construction of the freeway is not channelled into public transport facilities which will benefit these groups.

We your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Molonglo Arterial and Western Distributor be deferred until a full public inquiry has been carried out investigating Canberra’ s total transport needs.

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

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 Sheil.

Petition received.

page 3002

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 3002

QUESTION

LIBERAL PARTY PUBLICATION

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

-I direct a question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I ask: As it has now been claimed by the Liberal Party in a brochure to be issued on 13 December that unavoidable devaluation was one of the Government’s major achievements’, can the Minister explain to the Senate how something that is unavoidable can be a major achievement? Can he also tell the Senate what other unavoidable acts the Government hopes to achieve in 1977?

Senator WITHERS:
Minister for Administrative Services · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

-I am delighted that the Leader of the Opposition is prepared to advertise something which even I have not read.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– What do you read?

Senator WITHERS:

– Well, Senator, I am certainly not as misinformed about what is happening in this country as most honourable senators opposite are. The Leader of the Opposition picked out one word in a phrase in a pamphlet. I have no intention of answering questions in relation to a word plucked out of some hundreds of words. It is one of the oldest tricks in the book to take something out of context and seek an explanation on it, even though it is totally out of context.

Senator WRIEDT:

– I ask a supplementary question. I assure Senator Withers that it was not taken out of context. I am astonished that as Leader of the Government in the Senate he is not conversant with a document that the Liberal Party has produced. I ask him: In view of his lack of knowledge of what his own Party is saying, are we to assume that that is indicative of all the Government’s actions at the present time.

Senator WITHERS:

– The honourable senator said that the publication was to be issued on 13 December. Perhaps he can disclose how he obtained a pre-issue copy.

Senator Wriedt:

– It was circulated.

Senator WITHERS:

– Why did the Leader of the Opposition say that it is being issued on 13 December if he has a copy of it today, which is 10 December? Honourable senators opposite seem to spend all their time reading various publications. I assure the honourable senator that I can well understand why the previous Government got into such a mess. It spent all its time reading newspapers and documents, whereas this Government gets on with the business of governing and running its departments. We do not have to keep switching our Treasurer or our Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. We do not have to hire Khemlanis to tell us how to get overseas loans. We do not have to have funny Executive Council meetings in secret at the Lodge, out of which unusual situations arise. This Government is a government of competence. We get on with the business of governing and not just chasing hares here, there and everywhere.

page 3002

QUESTION

PROPELLANT GASES

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Science. I refer to the report in the Australian of 12 November, outlining the results of the tests conducted by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration into the concentrations of propel- lant gases, mainly fluorocarbons in the southern hemisphere. Are these tests part of a continuing program to ascertain the effect of these fluorocarbons on the ozone layer? Will recommendations be made regarding any necessary regulations on such propellant gases? If so, can the Minister indicate when the recommendations are likely to be available?

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

– I answered a question in the Senate some time ago relating to the effect of pollution of the atmosphere. I say to the Senate and to the honourable senator that I believe that this is perhaps one of the most important areas of scientific investigation taking place in the world at the present time. The pollution of the atmosphere of the world is important to its inhabitants. The direct answer to the honourable senator’s question relating to the article in the Australian of 12 November is that in part the article is correct and in part it is incorrect. So far as I can recall, the article suggested that high levels of Freon II exist in the atmosphere. That is apparently the substance which is mainly the basis of the propellant force in aerosol cans. It is apparently a non-degradable substance and can have some quite devastating effects on the ozone layer. The article was written in response to information that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Commission of the United States had sent an aircraft to Australia to assist in the monitoring of the quality of the equipment we were using in Australia to test the atmosphere and its pollutants. The result of that flight and the equipment I saw were quite surprising in some respects. Although CSIRO scientists have been looking at the effects of pollution for over 20 years, this is a very new branch of science. The Senate will appreciate the importance of Australia joining in an international group to establish base line air pollution studies. An association has been formed and stations set up in Samoa, Hawaii and at Barrow in Alaska, and attempts are being made to decide what is the base content of the atmosphere.

The aircraft to which I referred flew in a gradually rising motion to some 27 000 metres, which is a very high level, and tested the levels of pollutants, particularly in relation to Freon II. The test led to the surprising conclusion that the level of pollution of the southern hemisphere is very near to that of the northern hemisphere. It had been suggested that because of industrialisation and the greater population in the northern hemisphere the high levels of pollution found there would not be found in Australia. However, it was found that the pollution in our atmosphere is within 8 per cent to 10 per cent of that of the northern hemisphere. The monitoring of our equipment and the monitoring of the atmosphere are particularly important. We should all be very proud that a station has been established in Tasmania at Cape Grimm. Senator Wriedt and Senator Devitt have asked questions about it previously. It is from that station and from a permanent station which we hope to establish before very long in southern Tasmania that we will be monitoring the atmosphere. In regard to regulations, I doubt very much whether we will be able to bring them forward for some years.

page 3003

QUESTION

MAREEBA MINING N.L

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

-Mr President, I apologise in advance for the length of my question, but it will not be as long as the Minister’s reply to the last question. I preface my question to the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources by reminding him of the -continuing saga of Mareeba Mining No Liability. Is the Minister aware that unless the company receives a reprieve and funding before 14 December 1976 it will become insolvent and in breach of the Companies Act? Will that mean that the promising high grade Dianne copper deposit will be sold, possibly to overseas companies? Will the Government come to the aid of this allAustralian company by giving a deed of release for the company’s last house in Mareeba so that the company may sell the house to generate a cash flow to pay overdue accounts and the company’s geologists’ salaries for the next few weeks? Will the Minister also ensure that his Government gives this proposal immediate and urgent consideration in order to give the company some breathing space?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I think the honourable senator asked me a question on this matter yesterday or the day before.

Senator Keeffe:

– No, somebody else did.

Senator WITHERS:

-One of the honourable senators on the Opposition side asked me a question on this matter during this week. I said then that I would refer the matter to the Acting Minister for National Resources and ask him to take it up as a matter of urgency. I believe that has been done. I will check on it and, if it has not, I will again refer the contents of the honourable senator’s question to the Minister.

page 3003

QUESTION

OFFENSIVE STATEMENTS ABOUT LEGISLATIVE BODIES

Senator BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

- Mr President, my question is directed to you. I preface the question by reminding you of a vigorous debate in the Senate this week in which frequent reference was made to the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory. Does the protection afforded by standing order 418 against the use of offensive words in respect of a House of a State Parliament extend to offensive words used in respect of an elected assembly in a Territory? If appropriate, Mr President, would you be willing to refer this question and the possible need for an extension of standing order 418 to the next meeting of the Standing Orders Committee?

The PRESIDENT:

– The honourable senator raises a fine point, one which I shall bring before the next meeting of the Standing Orders Committee. Meanwhile I shall interpret the provisions of standing order 418 as applying to references to an Assembly of a Territory just as they apply to references to the Parliament of a State.

page 3003

QUESTION

PASSPORT APPLICATIONS

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. It refers to a recent Sydney court prosecution for an offence relating to a passport application. I gave him the relevant newspaper report early this morning. Can the Minister advise whether a wife has mandatory powers to deny the issue of a passport to her husband or vice versa?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-The honourable senator was kind enough to alert me that he would be requiring some information on this subject and I have been advised by my colleague that the short answer is that a wife has no mandatory power to deny the issue of a passport to her husband. Neither the Passports Act nor the passport regulations contain any specific reference to consent of spouse. Section 7 of the Passports Act provides the Minister with discretionary power to grant or refuse a passport. In the exercise of this discretionary power successive Ministers- Ministers of Immigration prior to the transfer of responsibility to the Minister for Foreign Affairs in 1975, and Ministers for Foreign Affairs since then- have followed the practice of requiring an applicant for a passport, if married, to obtain the consent of his or her spouse.

page 3004

QUESTION

REPORT OF POVERTY AND EDUCATION

Senator CHANEY:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Has the Minister for Education had the opportunity of examining the report on poverty and education produced by the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty under Dr Ronald T. Fitzgerald which was tabled in the Senate this week? If he has examined it can he indicate whether the Government has made any decision with respect to the numerous detailed recommendations in the report relating to poverty and education?

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

-The report is in printed form now and is available. I, as Minister for Education, have had the opportunity to study it only briefly. I had the opportunity yesterday, a valuable one but a brief one necessarily, to talk to its author, Dr Fitzgerald. I have undertaken to study the report myself and to have my Department study it in depth in the days and weeks immediately ahead. I will seek a very detailed discussion again with Dr Fitzgerald in the near future. The report raises some profound questions, and I use word advisedly. Those questions are borne out by studies elsewhere by a working party from the Australian Education Council on transition from secondary schooling to work, by the study at the moment in dialogue in Paris at the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development on transition from school to work based on study done in Australia. All these things tend to point to the fact that a student on leaving school at this moment is, in the main, not effectively equipped for vocational transference and orientation. Perhaps we have oriented education over decades more towards a general and special kind of education that would aid the 20 per cent or 25 per cent that go on to matriculation and tertiary education than towards the great bulk of students. There are so many profound questions involved. There are the questions of whether primary and secondary education are effective; whether technical education has been underprivileged and even neglected. All these things are important and also are indicated by the nature and construction of unemployment today. I regret the length of this answer but the subject is an important one. It is well to point out that 40 per cent of our unemployed people are under 2 1 years of age; three-quarters of those receiving the unemployment benefit are without dependants, as I understand my colleague the Minister for Social Security would indicate. That being so, in the past 4 years there has been a transfer of some unemployability to a group which formerly enjoyed full employment continuously. I do not seek to draw any political inference from that; I just seek to find out what is the reason for it. The facts are so significant and so depressing that they require the greatest study and, in conjunction with other departments, my Deparetment will undertake that study immediately.

page 3004

QUESTION

OFFENSIVE STATEMENTS ABOUT LEGISLATIVE BODIES

Senator WRIEDT:

-My question follows that asked by Senator Baume concerning statements allegedly made in this Parliament about members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly and of State parliaments. My question is directed to you, Mr President. I ask: Will you also consider referring to the Senate Standing Orders Committee the reciprocal remarks made in certain State parliaments, particularly in the Queensland Parliament in the last year or two, about members of this Federal Parliament?

The PRESIDENT:

– The matter raised by Senator Wriedt will be referred to the Committee as he suggests.

page 3004

QUESTION

QUARTERLY COMPANY TAX PAYMENTS

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. He will be aware of the statistics recently released which show that collection of company tax for the first 5 months of the financial year 1976-77 amount to only $50.7m as against a figure of $938m for the same period last financial year. This presumably is as a result of the abolition of quarterly company tax payments. Can the Minister confirm a report that the Government proposes to reintroduce quarterly company tax payments from the start of the 1 977-78 financial year?

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

-This is clearly a question in the area of what future policy is to be, and as such cannot be answered.

page 3005

QUESTION

ALLEGED MEETING OF PRIME MINISTER AND TREASURY OFFICIALS AT PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

-I direct a question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. In an answer to a question from Senator Wriedt the Minister referred to secret meetings at the Lodge. I refer now to midnight meetings in Parliament House. What was the purpose of the visit of 6 Treasury officials to Parliament House at midnight last night? Why did the Prime Minister request their attendance? Is this an indication that there is to be a change in economic initiative? If the meeting was important enough to need the attendance of 6 Treasury officials, why did they have to enter Parliament House in such a surreptitious manner through the back door?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I am somewhat surprised at the honourable senator’s question. I think he is seeing spooks at the bottom of the garden. He does not say how those people entered surreptitiously. Did they come in in boxes? Did they come in with cloaks and daggers? An honourable senator suggests by interjection that they came in in tea chests. Honourable senators opposite cannot understand- they all have a 35-hour week mentality- that people on our side of the Parliament are prepared to work about 28 hours a day 7 days a week.

Senator GEORGES:

– I have a supplementary question, Mr President. Since I did not do very well by putting the question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, may I ask this question of the Minister representing the Treasurer?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! You have asked for permission to ask a supplementary question, which must be directed to the Minister to whom you directed your first question.

Senator GEORGES:

– It was worth a try.

page 3005

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN MOTOR INDUSTRY: EFFECT OF REVALUATION

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Is the Minister for Industry and Commerce aware of an assertion by the Assistant Secretary of the Vehicle Builders Employees Federation of Australia in Adelaide recently that the recent revaluation of the dollar will have an effect on job opportunities in the motor industry in South Australia because the Nissan and Toyota companies will now make some components outside Australia? Can the Minister say whether there is any substance in these claims?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-I doubt very much that there is any substance in them. I suggest to the honourable senator that he might commend to that gentleman a discussion with his own union officials who talk to me regularly about these problems and whom I have found extremely reliable men to talk to about the industry. I refer to Mr Townsend and Mr Thompson. I talk to them; they talk to me. None of them has come to me about this problem. Maybe this gentleman to whom the honourable senator referred is looking through keyholes and hearing noises in the night.

page 3005

QUESTION

SCHOOL LEAVERS: UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask a question of the Minister for Social Security. Have two 16-year old school leavers in Victoria issued a writ out of the Victorian Supreme Court against the Director of her Department for payment of unemployment benefit? If so, and if the writ is successful, would there be automatic payment to all school leavers who qualified from their date of application for unemployment benefit, or would all of them be well advised to make court applications?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · VICTORIA · LP

– If, as has been stated, two 16-year olds have issued a Supreme Court writ against the State Director of my Department, I would find myself unable to contemplate any of the suggestions made in the question.

page 3005

QUESTION

OPIUM POPPY SEEDS

Senator BAUME:

– Can the Minister representing the Minister for Health give details of the inadvertent mixing of opium poppy seeds with lucerne in seed supplied recently to a Victorian farmer? Is not control of opium poppy growing strictly administered by the Commonwealth, by licensing and by strict supervision of the production areas? If so, how did this astonishing accident occur? Are there any other known instances of opium poppy seed being made available inadvertently? What effort is being made to review the security measures surrounding the licit supply and availability of opium poppy seed in Australia to ensure that all growing of poppies is under proper statutory supervision and control and to prevent the emergence of an illicit opium industry?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

-No instance such as has been suggested in the question has been referred to the Commonwealth Department of Health. The only legitimate growing of opium poppy is in Tasmania, and the industry is strictly controlled by the Commonwealth and Tasmanian governments. Lucerne seed is not produced in Tasmania for supply to the mainand. Any certified lucerne seed would not contain poppy seed, due to the difference in size and shape. No other instance of mixed seeds is known. The growing of opium poppy is illegal in all States, other than the controlled cultivation in Tasmania. The Department of Health, in conjunction with State authorities, takes all precautions to prevent illicit cultivation and to eradicate unathorised growing. I am able to assure the Senate that the Minister for Health is making inquiries into the report that was the subject of the question. If any information is to be released, it will be done by him.

page 3006

QUESTION

WHITE PAPER ON MANUFACTURING

Senator WRIEDT:

-I direct a question to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I discussed with him earlier this week the question of the White Paper on manufacturing. He indicated to me that he hoped to table it before the Parliament rose. I am sure everyone realises the importance of this document, particularly to the manufacturing sector. Will it be tabled before we rise? If not, will the Government make it a public document before Christmas?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-It will not be possible to table it before the Parliament rises because today is the last day of sitting. My intention is make it a public document I think I should advert to an article in today’s Canberra Times that purports to publish extracts from it. I think I would probably have Senator Wriedt’s sympathy when I say that I do not think that either he or I could be accused of being keyhole gazers, leakers of stories or people who chatter in the Press gallery at any stage. I find it quite reprehensible that people should do these things. It is a discourtesy to the Parliament. When the officials who are working on this matter have completed their inputs, which completion I think is only a few days away, I shall certainly make the document available in a proper way.

page 3006

QUESTION

WESTERN AUSTRALIA: LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ELECTORATE OF BALCATTA

Senator WHEELDON:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Is the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs aware that Mr Brian Horgan, who was until yesterday the endorsed candidate of the Liberal Party of Australia for the Legislative Assembly electorate of Balcatta in Western Australia, has announced that he no longer wishes to contest the election on behalf of the Liberal Party for a number of reasons, among them being the fact, according to him, that Liberal Party officials in Western Australia have been describing him as a pommy’ and his wife, who is of Greek descent, as a ‘ wog’ and that he has announced that he will now support the Australian Labor Party member for the electorate, Mr Brian Burke? Will the Minister investigate the charges which have been made by Mr Horgan, which I am sure the Minister will agree, as Mr Horgan was an endorsed Liberal Party candidate and must therefore have had the confidence of the Liberal Party, should be taken seriously? In the event of some substance being found in what this former Liberal Party candidate has been saying, will an apology be issued on behalf of the Liberal Party to those many British and Greek immigrants in Western Australia who no doubt will have been very distressed by Mr Horgan ‘s revelations?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– The only knowledge that I have of this matter has been gained from a brief newspaper report which, I point out to Senator Withers, I read this morning. It did not give the reason for the resignation of the chosen candidate from the Liberal Party’s preselection team for the seat of Balcatta, but it did say that he had decided that he would assist the Labor Party’s candidate. That in itself seemed to indicate to me some confusion in the mind of the candidate who had been formerly preselected by the Liberals. If the reason for his resignation was not as was suggested- that is, the he was unable to work with the Liberal Party members of the branches in that area- but was because he felt that there had been discriminatory remarks made against him or his wife, I would suggest that the Commissioner for Community Relations, Mr Grassby, could look into the situation. Perhaps he would be able to reconcile the facts as they are and the confusion in the mind of the former candidate and have made any appropriate apology that should be made to him.

page 3006

QUESTION

ECONOMY: BUDGET DEFICIT

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Is the Minister representing the Treasurer able to say what the Budget deficit is now and how it is running in relation to the Budget deficit initially estimated? Is it a fact that, despite the already huge cutbacks in government expenditure, the Treasurer is expressing concern at the existing level of public sector expenditure?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-I think that I have mentioned before- if not, I should have- that a statement is issued each month by the Treasury on this matter. It comes out at about the middle of each month. I suppose the next one will be available in about another week. The statement shows government financing transactions in fine detail for the year to date- actual against estimates- and for the previous year in comparative terms, how that amount of expenditure has been financed and, if there is a deficit, how the deficit has been financed. It is a statement which covers fully the question asked by Senator Douglas McClelland. Like him, I shall have to wait for it.

page 3007

QUESTION

SCHOOL LEAVERS: UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT

Senator BROWN:
VICTORIA · ALP

– I direct a question to the Minister for Social Security. I ask: If the Director-General of her Department finds that a school leaver has applied consistently but unsuccessfully for work during the months of December of this year and January of next year will that school leaver be paid retrospectively from the date when the Director-General determines that he or she had fulfilled all conditions in the Social Services Act for entitlement to unemployment benefit?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– The DirectorGeneral will determine when a school leaver or any other person is eligible for unemployment benefit, and unemployment benefits will be paid from the date of eligibility.

page 3007

QUESTION

DARWIN POWER SUPPLY

Senator ROBERTSON:

-My question, which I direct to the Minister representing the Minister for the Northern Territory, follows questions asked previously by both Senator Kilgariff and myself concerning the supply of electricity to the Darwin area. The Minister will be aware of reports of frequent blackouts and selective interruptions to the Darwin power supply. My information is that the problem is two-fold- shortage of staff at the power house and inadequate capacity of the generators to meet peak load while allowing for maintenance. Will the Minister see whether more staff can be provided and will he take action to ensure that an additional generator is procured to enable regular maintenance to be carried out so that a reliable power supply can be provided for the people of Darwin?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I acknowledge that apparently there have been some minor power failures in the Darwin power house over recent months. My understanding is that prior to cyclone Tracy the power lines from the power house to an extent were not as good as they could be. A problem has existed for some time. My understanding is that the disruptions to the power supply have nothing whatsoever to do with a shortage of labour but have resulted mainly from breakdowns of equipment. Several turbines have broken down. In one instance it was necessary to bring turbine blades from Sweden. Apparently an assurance has not been able to be given that the back-up system will prevent temporary blackouts from occurring. If I can give the honourable senator further information I shall do so; but he can be assured that those responsible for this matter in the Northern Territory are attempting to keep the supply of electricity to the population as assurred as possible.

page 3007

QUESTION

DOMESTIC AIRLINES: OVERBOOKING

Senator BAUME:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. To what extent are Australian domestic airlines, one of which is a statutory authority of the Commonwealth, permitted to sell more air tickets than there are seats on aircraft? What regulations exist to prevent or to police this practice? What are the rights of a passenger who, having purchased a ticket and believing that he is able to travel on a particular flight, finds that he is off-loaded because of overbooking? Is there any move to insist that airlines indicate to all extra passengers that in fact they are only waitlisted for a particular flight?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I do not have detailed or authoritative answers to the series of questions asked by the honourable senator. I think that the questions he asks are important. As a preliminary, I make these comments, subject to check: In the first place I understand that it is the practice of airlines to sell in some cases, if not in all cases, more tickets than there are seats on the aircraft on the basis that invariably there is a wastage or a failure of passengers to turn up for a flight. If that is so and it can be guaranteed, clearly that is in the interests of both the public and the airlines, because if an aircraft can carry a high passenger load that ultimately will keep the cost of a ticket down.

Of course, the honourable senator’s question is directed, and properly so, to the rights of the traveller in taking out a ticket. My own impression, with my meagre knowledge of the law, is that all travellers who use public carriers are invited to read the small print on the back of their tickets. I think that is a sound principle of law. Noting that the lawyers in this place have relaxed their faces, it seems that I have got a legal point right for once in my life. I understand that, as with other things, to a certain extent there is a caveat emptor or ‘let the buyer beware ‘ situation in respect of the airlines. However, I am not fully aware whether there is any protection. I do not know whether there are any regulations which prevent airlines from over-booking beyond a certain percentage of the seats. Nor do I know what the rights of passengers are if, having validly booked and validly turned up at the airport within the required margin of time, they are refused a seat, on the ground that the aircraft is overloaded. It is an important point. I will take it up, have it examined and let the honourable senator have an answer.

page 3008

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Senator COLSTON:
QUEENSLAND

-I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. The Minister will recall that on 9 November I raised with him the matter of Australian Broadcasting Commission radio news services in Queensland following the introduction of daylight saving in other eastern States. In his reply the Minister stated that he would draw the attention of his colleague in the House of Representatives to my comments about evening radio news services now being at times inappropriate for Queensland people. Further, the Minister said that he would ask his colleague to give my comments his consideration. Subsequent to my question. I was given a copy of a letter sent from the ABC to the Secretary of the Graziers Association of Central and Northern Queensland. The letter indicated that the ABC could not accommodate the people of Queensland because of a lack of funds. I therefore ask: Has the Minister’s colleague given any indication of what decision he reached following consideration of my comments? Will the Minister again raise the matter with the Minister for Post and Telecommunications and ask him to ensure that the ABC does receive sufficient funds so that the people of Queensland are not discriminated against?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I would be interested to have, if Senator Colston would give it to me, a copy of the letter to the Graziers Association. With my knowledge of economics, now perhaps meagre, I am reminded of marginal utility. The marginal utility of the cutback of $9m to the Australian Broadcasting Commission is reflected in the situation that apparently every kind of failure to perform is drawn to it and not to the $120m that basically remains in the Commission’s budget. I do not say that with any cynicism. It is important that we should examine whether every mote in the eye- every suggested threat to some 7 orchestras or the news services or State of the Nation or any other program- can be attributed to what is I think a 6 per cent cut. If this is so, what happens with the rest of the budget may puzzle some of us. Nevertheless, having said that, I stress that I accept that the honourable senator’s question is an important one for the people of Queensland in that it relates to the need for them to have proper news services. I did refer the matter to my collleague, the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. I have no firsthand response to it. I will take up the matter if the honourable senator will let me have a copy of the letter to which he referred.

page 3008

QUESTION

INDIAN HIGH COMMISSION

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– Can the Minister for Administrative Services give any information on the matter I raised yesterday concerning the intimidation and harassment of the Indian High Commissioner in Canberra, members of his staff at the High Commission and also the families of these people? Is he aware that serious thought is being given to the withdrawal by India, one of the world’s most populous nations, of its diplomatic representation in Australia as a result of this matter? Will the Minister advise what action has been taken to investigate the serious complaints by the Indian High Commissioner? In view of the urgency, will the Minister make a statement to the Senate on the situation before the Senate rises?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I am unaware whether the Indian High Commissioner has made any official complaint to the Government. He may have lodged one with my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I will ascertain whether he has. He has certainly made no representations to me as the Minister responsible for the security of foreign diplomats within this country. I think I said to the honourable senator yesterday that steps were being taken to put an end to this harassment. I think it may well be in the interests of the success of the prevention of the harassment that the steps being taken are not disclosed as that may be of assistance to those who are doing the harassing. As to the threat of withdrawal, I hope it will not come about. It is very important for Australian-Indian relations that we maintain the closest contact. I will ascertain from my colleague whether there is any substance to the report which the honourable senator received.

Senator O’Byrne:

-Senator Wheeldon raised the matter.

Senator WITHERS:

-Senator Wheeldon raised it- yes.

page 3008

QUESTION

STOCK VALUATION TAX CUTS

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

-Has the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs seen the headlines in the business sector of the media this morning? One headline states:

Rises all round as share revival continues.

The article goes on to point out how heartened investors were by the Treasurer’s statement setting forth the additional details of the stock valuation tax cuts.

Senator DURACK:
Minister for Veterans’ Affairs · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

-I have not seen the headline referred to or any other headlines this morning. I shall endeavour to rectify that situation during the day. Until I do so and unless I do so I have no further comment on the question.

page 3009

QUESTION

REFUGEES

Senator HARRADINE:
TASMANIA

– My question which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs follows a question which I raised in the Senate the other day concerning the very fine report of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, Australia and the Refugee Problem. The Committee investigated the problems of Vietnamese and other refugees. Is the Minister aware that yesterday the Thailand Government announced that it would stop accepting refugees from Indo-China by the end of this year, that is, by 3 1 December 1 976? Is the Minister aware that the number of refugees from Vietnam is still running extremely high, even though it is 18 months since the cessation of hostilities in that country? Is the Minister aware that as a result of the Senate inquiry and the understanding gained, the Australian public is conscious of the need to assist with this problem? Will the Minister obtain from her colleague in the other place a commitment that Australia will take a substantial number of refugees? Can this commitment be made prior to Christmas in the spirit of generosity and responsibility?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am not aware of the statement by the Thai Government that it will stop accepting refugees by the end of this year. But I believe the Senate is aware of many statements which have been made by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in past months about our assistance and our willingness to assist those refugees whom we are able to help in Australia. I shall refer to the Minister the special matters which have been raised in the question in order to obtain a response from him. But I cannot give the assurance that a statement will be made by the Government before Christmas on this matter. I will have the matter examined by the Minister.

page 3009

QUESTION

ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT STUDY

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister for Education. I refer to the Minister’s statement in an earlier answer that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has been studying the problems of the transition from school to work in Australia. I ask: What are the background and origins of this study? When is the report being released? Is the Department of Education in contact with the study? Will the results of the study be made available to the Australian public?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I think Senator Martin poses 4 questions relating to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development study. I point out as a general background that the OECD undertook to make a study of a particular aspect of education in Australia this year. It invited my department through the Australian Government to nominate a particular subject. We nominated the subject, ‘Transition from school to work’, because in our view it is highly significant for Australia. Equally in the view of the OECD it is a world-wide problem. It undertook that study. Four members from the OECD made a detailed tour of Australia. I was privileged to have some discussions with them in general terms. May I say in passing that, as to the general standard of Australian education, whilst they saw detailed deficiencies in other categories they expressed a view that measured against standards elsewhere we were performing reasonably well. The origin of the study is that we nominated the subject. The second question concerned the release of the report. My recollection is that as at 9 December, which was yesterday, in Paris the OECD was undertaking an examination of its investigations. It has circulated a series of questions which it has identified in terms of those investigations. If the honourable senator is interested we can make available to her details of those questions. The OECD operates by posing questions rather than providing answers. Australia was invited to be present. I was unable, due to other commitments, to be present and I asked that my departmental head, Mr Ken Jones, should go. He is there as is a senior officer from Mr Street’s Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. They are taking part in the discussions. We are in continuous contact. There will, of course, be documentation arising out of the discussions. I think this will be important as will the study of the working party of the Australian Education Council on the subject Secondary education to work’. Along with the documentation of Dr Fitzgerald they are starting to produce a mosaic of the whole field of education which poses a series of questions at which we will need to look.

page 3010

QUESTION

POST OFFICE: SCHOOL MAIL STORAGE FEE

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. The Minister may be aware that at the present time schools are charged $3 a month or part thereof by the Post Office to store school mail during summer vacations. It is claimed by the Post Office that schools are being treated as business firms, but business firms are charged only $1.50 for a similar service. As schools never have sufficient money for their needs and this is an additional burden and must represent a small amount of revenue to the authority, will the Minister use his influence and suggest that the charge be withdrawn?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I do not have the detailed knowledge to respond. I accept the information provided by Senator Melzer. It is worth while pursuing and I will do so. I will bring it to the attention of my colleague.

page 3010

QUESTION

PENSIONS: CHRISTMAS BONUS

Senator LAJOVIC:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. I ask the Minister to comment on the suggestion by Mr Bob Hawke that pensioners should be given an extra week ‘s payment of the pension at Christmas.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am aware of the suggestion of Mr Hawke and of Mr Souter that there should be an additional payment of one week’s pension prior to Christmas for age pensioners. I can respond only by saying that this is a difficult matter to consider in the present economic climate. I wonder whether Mr Hawke and Mr Souter were aware of the fact that if this additional payment were to be made it would amount to something like $47.5m. The payout to the age pensioners in cheque payments yesterday was approximately $95m. Mr Hawke and Mr Souter might also consider that if we were to give an additional week’s pension to age pensioners, the invalid pensioners, the widows pension beneficiaries, the supporting mothers beneficiaries, the unemployment beneficiaries and others might also feel that Christmas should arrive for them. If that were to be considered by the Government we would be talking about a total amount of $81m. There are probably people who would see that as being desirable, and I do not argue with that point of view. I stress that it is a burden of cost which, in the present economic context, could not be considered. I can only respond to the suggestion of Mr Hawke and Mr Souter in that way.

page 3010

QUESTION

CURRENCY DEVALUATION: ECONOMY

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

-Is the Minister for Industry and Commerce aware of the comments made by the Associated Chambers of Manufactures of Australia in its annual report for 1976 relating to devaluation? For the Minister’s information I quote a section of the report as follows:

However at this stage the advantages of devaluation could be only temporary and the cost to the national economy of such a move unduly high.

In view of the massive 17.5 per cent devaluation, followed 9 days later by a 2 per cent revaluation, can the Minister outline the Government’s projection of the inflation rate over the next year resulting from devaluation? Can he confirm reports that the effect will be between 3 per cent and 4 per cent? Does he not agree that the Treasurer’s objective of single digit inflation is now in shambles and the Government’s economic strategy in disarray?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-It is very hard to work out from that series of questions the sequence of yeses and noes. I would say first of all that I am aware of what the Associated Chambers of Manufactures of Australia had to say in its annual report. I receive copies of its annual reports. Equally I was aware of its view long before I saw the annual report. It published its view at the end of September. That view was that devaluation and tariff cutting were not good ideas. Everybody is entitled to his own view in these matters.

Senator Georges:

– That is not what you said yesterday.

Senator COTTON:

-Why do you not keep quiet for a while? I said nothing of the kind. What I am trying to do is answer a question from one of the sensible senators. I would like to do that if I may. Let me go one stage further and say that people are now making conjectural remarks about future rates of devaluation, the revaluation position and what the rate of inflation may be. Those speculations do not really help anybody. I think we all know now that the exchange regime is not what is was before. I think we all understand that. What I suggested yesterday, and it will be disposed of this morning, is that it would serve us well if we put these matters to the Senate Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce for continuous study. That is my recommendation to the Senate. It would help to answer more carefully and objectively a lot of the questions which Senator Primmer raised and I think it would be very valuable to us all.

page 3011

QUESTION

VICTORIAN ROADS

Senator MISSEN:

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Transport aware of the claim by the Country Roads Board of Victoria, in its annual report tabled in the Victorian Parliament yesterday, that there are 3000 bridges and culverts in Victorian rural roads in urgent need of replacement and that only $2. 5m can be spared from the Board’s finances for the $150m required for that purpose? Can the Minister comment on this situation and say whether any early amelioration of the position can be expected?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have not seen a copy of the Country Roads Board annual report which Senator Missen says was tabled in the Victorian Parliament yesterday. I would be grateful if he would refer me to the source of his information and I would be very happy to study the media report of it. Because I have not seen it, it is very hard for me to comment on it. I am aware that my colleague in another place, Mr Nixon, is very keen that the moneys made available to the States for roads, which are a substantial amount- the honourable senator will recall that a further $3 5 m was made available recentlyshould be used to the best possible purpose in terms of priorities. It is a matter of assessing priorities, a matter on which I am not expert. I will seek out the media source and I will seek out the report itself. I will certainly discuss with the Minister for Transport the factors which Senator Missen has outlined.

page 3011

QUESTION

PARLIAMENT HOUSE: TOILET PAPER

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Does the Minister for Administrative Services know that the inside of the rolls of toilet paper currently in use in Parliament House- I have a roll here- is clearly marked Government of New South Wales’. In response to the Prime Minister’s latest exhortation to reduce government expenditure, has the Government taken to pilfering parliamentary toilet paper from the State of New South Wales? If not, what is the explanation?

Senator WITHERS:
LP

-I think that question should have been directed to you, Mr President, because I neither order nor pay for the toilet paper used in Parliament House. I suppose that one could say at the conclusion of the parliamentary session that Senator Walsh has come to the bottom of question time by asking that sort of question. I shall leave it to you, Mr President, to answer the question whether your officers are stealing the paper or purchasing it.

The PRESIDENT:

– It is hardly my role.

page 3011

QUESTION

BEEF EXPORT

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. In view of reports that the United States Agriculture Department has proposed that foreign beef entering the United States from a duty free foreign trade zone next year be counted against the originating country’s quota for the year, can the Minister say whether Australia is one of the 12 countries which have agreed to restrain their beef shipments to the United States next year? If Australia has entered into that agreement, what action does the Government intend taking to find alternative markets so as to prevent any escalation of the present economic crisis being experienced by the Australian beef producers?

Senator COTTON:
LP

-I think the honourable senator knows that a fairly large additional market has recently been developed in Russia. The Australian Meat Board and other people in the commercial world, including the Australian Meat Exporters Federation, are always searching the world for increased opportunities to sell Australian beef. Many beef producers believe that they do not carry out that task energetically enough. I cannot give the honourable senator any further detail about the negotiations taking place in Washington. The officials are there and the negotiations are proceeding. Since the Parliament will not be sitting much longer, I think it might be useful if, when the discussions are concluded, I ask the Department to write to me so that I can give the honourable senator an uptodate assessment of the position at the point of time when we as Australians know the situation.

page 3011

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRY

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– I preface my question, which is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, by saying that no doubt the Minister is aware that the report of the Australian National Airlines Commission, which operates as Trans-Australian Airlines, showed a reduction in the number of passengers carried during the last financial year. It also showed that only a marginal profit was made during that year.

Senator Baume:

– It was up 6.4 per cent.

Senator TOWNLEY:

-The profit may be up 6.4 per cent, but it is still only a marginal profit when it is related to turnover. The report showed also that there has been a strong passenger resistance to the increase in air fares that we have experienced over the last few years, particularly during the reign of the Labor Government. Has the Government considered setting up an inquiry into the whole airline industry so that the level of costs levied upon airlines by government charges can be viewed in the context of the benefit that the airline industry is for the whole country? I ask that question because any fall in the number of airline passengers obviously affects the tourist industry and, of course, that industry is most important to my State of Tasmania.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have seen the report of the Australian National Airlines Commission. Indeed, I recall that I tabled it in this place yesterday. I have noted that airlines in Australia generally have suffered a decline in patronage, and that decline has paralleled the acceleration over recent years of the rate of inflation in Australia. The profitability and trading of the airlines have been directly related to the failure of the previous Labor Government to maintain a stable cost structure in this country. The real root of the problem is inflation. The real root of the problem is the need to bring about cost stability so that passenger usage will once again be increased. I appreciate fully the reason why Senator Townley, who comes from an island State which has been beleaguered by the difficulties caused by the high costs of sea transport and which therefore is dependent on efficient air transport- if I may say so, it is first class air transport to the State of Tasmania- should raise this matter with me. As a second part of his question he asked whether any consideration had been given to an inquiry into the cost structure of airlines as imposed by governmental authorities. I am not aware of that having been done in any in globo fashion. Of course, 3 levels of government would be involved. I shall raise the matter with my colleague, the Minister for Transport.

page 3012

QUESTION

AIRLINE INDUSTRY

Senator WRIEDT:

– Normally I would not ask a question of Senator Carrick on this subject but, for the sake of putting the record straight, I ask him: Is he not aware that the airline industry expanded at a greater rate during the time of the Labor Government? In fact, the greatest annual growth rate in Australian domestic airlines over the past 5 years occurred during the time of the Labor Government. Is the Minister further aware that this is the first year for several years in which there has been a decline in the growth of the airline system in this country?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– With my eye on the clock, with some consciousness that this will probably be the last question to be answered this year, and in a spirit of good will I have to say to the honourable senator that I am not aware of that fact. I shall certainly have a look at the matter. I wish the honourable senator a merry Christmas.

page 3012

QUESTION

JAMES RICHARDSON PTY LTD

Senator DURACK:
LP

– Earlier in the week Senator Mulvihill asked me a question to which I undertook to obtain a reply. He asked me about inquiries being conducted by the Commonwealth Arbitration Inspectorate into matters involving the observance of awards binding upon James Richardson Pty Ltd and other concessionaires operating at Kingsford-Smith International Airport. I am now able to say that that company, which conducts the duty-free shop at Kingsford-Smith Airport, is bound by the provisions of the Duty-Free International Airport Stores Award of 1974. Investigation of the company’s award observance at the KingsfordSmith Airport was initiated by the Sydney inspectorate following the lodgment in November 1975 of a complaint by an employee working at the airport. The complainant contended that the company’s employees were working under the day work provisions of the award whereas they should have been employed under the shift work provisions of the same award. Calculations have had to be made by the inspectorate in relation to the possibility of underpayents having been made in respect of each of these 2 awards, and it is proving to be a very complicated task.

The company itself has had an investigation made by an independent accountant. As a result of that investigation the company claims that in fact it has overpaid its employees by an amount of $6,782.71. However, the accountant’s calculations, which were based on the shift work provisions of the award, may not have taken into account certain of those provisions. It has first to be established which of the provisions of the award should be applied to individual employees and then a large number of wage records made available by the company must be examined. All this is proving to be a very extensive and complicated investigation. I think that in fairness to the company, in view of statements that have been made, it should be emphasised that the company is claiming that there has been an overpayment, whereas there have been allegations of very large underpayments. I think it is only fair to say that, whilst Senator Mulvihill no doubt is justified in raising the matter, the company has been concerned that the allegations made may have reflected upon it.

The fact remains that the investigation is still continuing and, in view of the complexity of the whole arrangement, I cannot clear up the matter any further. There is only one other matter to which I should refer, that is, that it was alleged that an accountant had been sacked because he had drawn attention to these matters. The company has informed me that it had an unqualified accountant employed and his services were terminated on 1 1 November 1976, but that this termination had nothing to do with this matter. This would seem to be confirmed by the fact that the complaint was made in November 1975. I think the complaint must have been made by somebody else.

page 3013

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Federal Court of Australia Bill 1976.

Federal Court of Australia (Consequential Provisions) Bill 1976.

Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Amendment Bill 1976.

Northern Territory Supreme Court Amendment Bill 1 976.

Conciliation and Arbitration Bill (No. 3) 1976.

Bankruptcy Amendment Bill 1976.

Patents Amendment Bill 1976.

Trade Marks Amendment Bill 1976.

Judiciary Amendment Bill 1976.

Income Tax Assessment Amendment (Jurisdiction of Courts) Bill 1976.

page 3013

FILM AND TELEVISION SCHOOL

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– Pursuant to section 42 of the Film and Television Act 1 973,I present the first annual report of the Film and Television School for the year ended 30 June 1974.

page 3013

DEFENCE REPORT

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the Defence Report 1976.

page 3013

QUESTION

DEFENCE FORCES RETIREMENT BENEFITS

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present the text of a statement on behalf of the Minister for Defence relating to amendments to defence forces retirement benefits legislation. An honourable senator on the Opposition side asked me a question on this matter yesterday. I forget who asked the question. It was someone who takes an interest in this matter. This is the information he was seeking.

page 3013

QUESTION

ECONOMIC STATEMENT

Ministerial Statement

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– by leave- I wish to make a statement on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). As the statement was made by the Prime Minister last night in the House of Representatives- I assume from question time this morning that most honourable senators have read it- I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The statement read as follows-

Throughout this year, the Government has had one clear goal in front of it. That goal is a sustainable economic recovery- a recovery which will lead Australia towards sustained economic growth, and increasing employment opportunities. A prerequisite for achieving that goal is the control of inflation. The dominant goal of our whole economic strategy has been- and remains- directed to the control of inflation. In this statement, I want to set the measures of the last two weeks in the context of that strategy. A realistic assessment of the impact of those measures must take into account the effects of policies already implemented during the last year. These policies have already achieved a slowdown in the rate of inflation and in the growth of wages and salaries. The increases in each of the last three quarters in the Consumer Price Index were lower than any increase for two years, leaving aside the effects of Medibank. In the September quarter, the increase was 2.2 per cent the lowest since the March quarter 1973.

Components of the index show very encouraging trends. Other price indicators have also been encouraging. For example, the price index for materials used in house building rose by 0.5 per cent, in October, the lowest increase since November 1972. Similarly, the price index of materials used in building other than housing increased by 0.4 per cent in October- again the lowest increase since November 1972. Figures published recently show that Australia’s rate of inflation is now broadly in line with the average of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. In fact, the Consumer Price Index, expressed as a compound monthly rate of 0.7 per cent, is actually marginally better than the 0.8 per cent for the OECD countries as a whole during September. While other indicators are mixed, there are encouraging signs. Among these the index of industrial production has firmed since July and in October was 9 per cent above its low point in June 1975. Recent figures show that investment spending on new buildings and structures in manufacturing industry is expected to increase by some 3 1 per cent in the half year to December. Some of the distortions inflicted on the economy during 1974-75 are beginning to be corrected. For example, business profitability has grown; the savings ratio has declined and the shake-out in stocks appears to have run its course.

Despite this progress, we could not put off facing the problem by our loss of Reserves. On coming to office, the government faced an exchange rate which was already susceptible to speculation and uncertainty. In the weeks immediately following the election in December 1975, several hundred million dollars of private capital flowed out of the country- mainly due to a widespread belief that the Australian exchange rate was overvalued. In the three months to the end of November 1976, the decline escalated- our reserves fell by over $700m, if official borrowings by the government in this period are left to one side. The decline in reserves continued despite the additional monetary measures of 7 November. The continued outflow of reserves stemmed from the fact that most observers in Australia and overseas believed that our currency was overvalued.

The week before last, the Government’s official advisers jointly presented two options to the government: Overseas borrowing of around $ 1,000m or immediate devaluation. The Government looked at these options with a number of facts in mind. One central fact was the uncompetitive position of Australia’s export and import-competing industries. In the last six years wages in Australia’s manufacturing industry increased by 130 per cent compared with 53 per cent in the United States, and 70 per cent in West Germany. The Industries Assistance Commission estimated that the general competitiveness of the Australian import competing sector fell some 17 per cent between 1970-71 and 1975-76.

One drastic consequence of this and related factors is that employment in Australian manufacturing industry fell by almost 100,000 between May 1974 and the end of June 1976. There has been a growing tendency for some sections of manufacturing industry to move offshore to minimise cost disadvantages. This export of jobs had to cease. These facts were of deep concern to the Government. They could not be ignored. Further, uncertainty about the exchange rate was causing new projects involving overseas investment to be deferred. There was continuing and growing belief overseas about the inevitability of an Australian exchange rate adjustment. Increasingly, the overwhelming view in international circles was that the Australian exchange rate was overvalued, and that sooner or later an adjustment would have to be made.

Throughout this year the Government has done everything possible to protect the exchange rate, as part of the fight against inflation. Ultimately the point was reached where the rate was no longer sustainable. By the time this decision was unavoidable we had been able to bring each of the other major arms of policy to focus in the fight against inflation. Policies in these areas must now be tightened further. In all these circumstances the first option of borrowing around $ 1,000m, including funds from the IMF presented substantial risks. A borrowing of this magnitude would not have ended speculation against the downward movement of the dollar because people were looking as much at the underlying cost position as at the balance of payments position. To take just one example, as the chief international economist of Morgan Guaranty has said: ‘You simply lost competitiveness because of the amount of inflation. This situation has been widely recognised over the last year. ‘

Since Australia only began in the battle against inflation in December last year, further borrowings in the situation which had arisen would not have provided the change in attitudes the Government was determined to achieve. Were that the case the strengthening economic recovery would have been threatened and the eventual devaluation or further borrowing could well have been greater. In these circumstances it would have been nonsense for Australia to have gone to the IMF. The Government was not prepared to put Australia in that position.

Once we had made the inevitable decision to devalue there were a number of options open to us on the extent of devaluation and on the form of the new exchange rate system. We could have moved to a new fixed rate which would, at some future time, perhaps require a further significant alteration in the exchange rate- a move which, as the devaluation demonstrated, is attended by major public concern. We could have a market determined float which would make fluctuations possible on a daily basis, or we could have an administered and controlled management of the exchange rate. A further question requiring very careful consideration was the magnitude of the initial change in the rate which would be made.

The choice before us was to make a move which would decisively end further speculation against the downward movement of the dollar, or a move which would leave the way open for speculation about a further devaluation perhaps in the not too distant future. The government took the view that it was essential to end definitively further speculation against the dollar, and to establish a regime which would in future permit the exchange rate to adjust smoothly to changing circumstances. The decision to devalue by 1 7Vi per cent was made after full consultation with the government’s advisers and on the basis of a technical evaluation of the magnitude required to achieve that result. The magnitude of the devaluation indicates the seriousness of the cost disadvantages which had been weighing with increasing heaviness on Australian manufacturing industry. It should awaken all Australians to the serious weakness in our economic situation which will require a concerted national effort to overcome. It is important that there should be a much wider understanding than now exists, of the implications of adopting a managed regime.

In taking this decision, the Government has brought Australia more into line with the system adopted by other major trading countries. It needs to be understood that most major countries have tended to adopt exchange arrangements that permit more flexibility in rates in response to changes in economic circumstances. The experience of a number of countries (including the United States, Germany, Japan and Canada) has clearly demonstrated the important role that a managed exchange rate can play in the pursuit of domestic policy objectives. And in this context, it is interesting to note the comments of the IMF in its 1976 Annual Report:

Faced with substantial uncertainty concerning future balance of payments developments and exchange rate patterns, and aware of the persistence of marked differences among national economies, in particular with respect to rates of inflation, interest rates and levels of economic activity, as well as of structural changes, the major industrial countries have continued to permit their currencies to float. Indeed, as underlying economic conditions have continued to differ among countries whose currencies are floating, frequent exchange rate variations have been a major form of balance of payment adjustments.

Some people have expressed surprise that under the new system of a managed exchange rate the first change in the rate should have occurred so soon. I regret to say that this indicates a lack of understanding of the nature of an administered exchange rate. Suppose that we had adopted a fully floating exchange rate, under which it is not unusual for rates to fluctuate daily. If under such a float the rate had moved upwards on the first day would anyone have suggested that it should not have done so? Of course not. Under the regime we have adopted not infrequent changes are likely to occur in the ordinary course of events. That is deliberate. The regime is designed to avoid the large jumps that have occurred in the past. That is, indeed, the purpose of adopting a managed exchange rate.

The initial decision was taken in the context of the adoption of such a system. Critics of the two per cent revaluation are tied to the past. They have not understood the nature of the change which has been made. For example, some critics have asked why all the criteria used by the bank in making decisions about the rate should not be made public. Such a course would only advance the cause of the speculator. There is no responsible bank in the world which would give the precise grounds on which decisions about changes in the rate would be made or for those on floating rates, about daily interventions in the market. As understanding of the new system grows it will be fully accepted. Devaluation inevitably means that a number of other difficult decisions had to be taken. It is a decision with some inflationary consequences which can only be countered by a tightening of policy in other areas. Devaluation makes it more necessary than ever that the anti-inflation strategy we have pursued throughout this year be persisted with. In the light of the seriousness of the situation made clear by the devaluation, that strategy will be pursued with renewed intensity. The government has already announced a number of measures designed to counteract the inflationary impact of devaluation.

On the fiscal side, a review of expenditures aimed at identifying scope for further savings through the deferment of expenditures has been put in hand, through the new Department of Finance. The Government is determined to hold government spending firmly in check. This is essential to reduce the pressure on monetary policy. Let me emphasise that responsible further relief in income tax is dependent on success in this area. Further to this, in the preparation of forward estimates of expenditure for next yearnow under way- Ministers have been asked to identify any increases in existing programs so that these can be looked at separately in the same way as entirely new proposals. Keeping a very tight grip on government spending continues one major Une of the anti-inflation strategy we have been pursuing with success. It is an unpleasant reality that if we want to beat inflation and restore employment opportunities the pressure on national resources from high government spending and high deficits must be reduced. There are widespread calls for further tax cuts, and the government in principle accepts this. But if these tax cuts are to be made responsibly, they must be matched by further restraint in government spending. This year we have shown that we are prepared to take the tough decisions required in this area. We intend to demonstrate that determination again in the coming months.

On the monetary side, action has already been announced to help ensure that monetary conditions do not become accommodating to increased inflation, but at the same time providing adequate funds to underwrite economic recovery. Yields on Treasury notes were raised by 0.5 per cent on 29 November. Subscriptions to the notes have been encouraging- non official holdings are presently $ 1,400m. About half of which is held by the non-bank public. Subsequent action by the authorities has brought about an adjustment of similar magnitude in yields on short-dated bonds, with consequential adjustment- on a diminishing basis- of yields on other securities. The long term bond rate has been increased by 0.3 per cent to 10.5 per cent. The yield on savings bonds has been increased to 10 per cent. Bank lending will be monitored so as to prevent any increase in inflationary pressures. Normal financing requirements of business will be met.

I should not need to emphasise that wages policy has assumed an even greater importance in the post-devaluation context. To allow the rate of increase in wage settlements to escalate as a result of devaluation would be to negate the beneficial effects which otherwise flow from devaluation for the competitive position of Australian industry and for employment. The Government will therefore be doing everything within its power to ensure that any identifiable effects of devaluation on the CPI do not flow through into wages and salaries. A number of major measures adopted during this year have been designed to protect potentially disadvantaged groups from the costs of inflation. These measures include: the automatic adjustment of pensions for inflation; the family allowance scheme; and full personal income tax indexation. These measures which are of continuing benefit should provide an important support to wage and salary restraint. There should be a recognition that the important fact to the wage and salary earner should not be gross income, but final real disposable income. The wages area is one where- as both the Treasurer and I have emphasised throughout the year, the Government cannot achieve success on its own. In this area particularly, it will take a commitment by all sections of the community to take up the fight against inflation and to restore employment opportunities.

It is somewhat ironic to recall that we were attacked earlier in the year for arguing as strongly as we did in our first submission to the Arbitration Commission. Even then, there were those who predicted that if the Government based its policies on economic commonsense, the result would be confrontation with the unions. Unfortunately, too much credence has been given to the threats of extremist union leaders to create further conflict. In this area there has been a capitulation to threats instead of recognising economic common sense. Not enough weight has been given to the great common sense of the vast majority of rank and file trade union members who know full well the importance of restraint at this time. I believe most are fed up as Australians with the disruptive tactics of a few.

This Government will not allow an unreasonable burden in the fight against inflation to fall on any section of the community including wage and salary earners. The Government has deliberately taken a number of major measures designed to encourage wage and salary restraint and to protect potentially disadvantaged groups from the costs of inflation. These measures include: the automatic adjustment of pensions for inflation, the family allowance scheme, and full personal income tax indexation. These measures, which are of continuing benefit should provide an important support to wage and salary restraint. As well the Government’s submissions before the Arbitration Commission are designed to protect lower income earners. The should be a recognition that the important fact to the wage and salary earner should not be gross income, but final real disposable income. These measures provide a totally reasonable basis for wage and salary restraint.

It is in this total context that the Government intends to argue more strongly before the Commission for recognition of the absolute importance of wage and salary restraint. Beyond that we will be taking every step within our power to secure restraint. The Treasurer will, for example, be discussing the impact of wage levels on the State loan programs with the Premiers at the Loan Council next week. Quite clearly, with wage restraint, the States can achieve more effective loan programs. This again is part of action to tighten the main lines of the strategy we have followed throughout this year. In addition to action on the budgetary, monetary and wages front, action has also been taken on the prices front.

The Prices Justification Tribunal has been asked to pay special attention to price increases consequent on devaluation. This will not be limited to companies technically covered by the Act. The purpose is to ensure that devaluation is not used as an excuse for unjustified price increases. The Government’s legislation regarding the PJT will in fact increase its surveillance capacity and its ability to investigate areas where there is evidence of price abuse. The PJT will report progressively to the Minister, and at the end of three months, the Government will review its requests.

In the external area, as a result of the devaluation of the Australian dollar, the Government has examined the Australian tariff. We have not made across the board cuts in tariffs but have acted selectively to reduce inflationary effects arising from the devaluation without negating the improved competitive position that devaluations has brought to Australian industry. This improvement is greatly needed by Australian industry if jobs are to be created and industries are to be discouraged from going off-shore. Our decisions on tariffs have been the right decisions taken at the appropriate time.

An across-the-board tariff cut would have been foolish. Selectivity was necessary and it was therefore imperative to take advice. In this case, advice could not be sought until after the devaluation was announced. To have done otherwise would have been imprudent- to say the least- it would have extended the circle of people who knew about the devaluation beyond responsible bounds. Accordingly, the decisions on tariffs had to be taken after the devaluation. We were fortunate to have before us, IAC recommendations and we acted on those recommendations.

The Government’s decisions affect over 900 of the 2750 items covered by tariffs, the value of the trade in these items being around $2,000m. The reason for the selectivity of the tariff reductions, for our refusal to engage in across the board cuts, is clear. Manufacturing industry has in recent years had its competitive position eroded by rising wage costs, a dollar which was until recently overvalued and the shocks imposed by the Labor Government’s 25 per cent acrosstheboard tariff cut. What needs to be understood is that the. competitive position of Australian industry had to be restored. Devaluation will achieve that. At the same time, we have sought to reduce the inflationary impact of the decision.

Thus following devaluation, the Government has acted with respect to each of the major arms of policy. On monetary policy: Adjustments to interest rates on Treasury notes, Australian Savings Bonds, and other Government securities. On tariffs: A review of temporary assistance arrangements followed by measures announced to offset the inflationary impact in certain areas. On budgetary policy: A further review of government expenditure aimed at holding real expenditure levels. We will also maintain pressure on the wages front and we have acted to establish conditions in which restraint is possible. We intend to persist with our anti-inflationary strategy in full measure.

In the circumstances that Australia faces, it is disappointing to note that some people who should, by now, know better, continue to promote policies which only add to inflation. The vast majority of people realise that it is no longer possible to spend our way out of inflation and unemployment. One consistent feature of all the alternatives offered by Labor Party leaders has been the willingness- some might say eagerness- to vastly increase public spending once more, or to pump up the size of the Federal Budget deficit. The Leader of the Opposition some weeks ago urged the Government to adopt measures which would increase the budget deficit by some $ 1 billion. The Premier of Tasmania followed up with an extravagant 24-point plan. The Premier of New South Wales outshone both of them with proposals for almost $2 billion more in federal spending. Others have urged, and continue to urge, tax cuts and inflationary spending.

It would seem that these proposals are made in total disregard for their consequences. Each of these proposals, without exception, would be highly inflationary. The overriding need of this country is to conquer inflation. What the Labor Party is proposing would create yet more inflation. Surely they understand that by now. Throughout its period in office the Labor Party failed to develop a credible anti-inflationary policy. All its essays in economic policy this year have been designed to give a further spur to inflation.

Let me explain in plain terms the effects of increasing the Government’s deficit in the present context. Every new expenditure means a higher deficit and this must be paid for in some way. Let me explain in plain terms how this can happen. It can be done by the Reserve Bank printing money which adds further to inflationary pressures. Secondly, it can be paid for through higher interest rates, which can lead to a credit squeeze on business, and a loss of job opportunities. Thirdly, it can be met by increased taxes, and no one is proposing that. All these alternatives are inflationary. The clear consequences of further increases in spending are unacceptable.

When people propose policies of this kind, they must be prepared to follow through the full consequences of these policies. Unfortunately, this is too often not done. The Government rejects these as desirable or viable alternatives. Higher government spending, larger deficits would do nothing whatever to correct the imbalances in the economy. Such an approach would: Further damage the private sector; increase further government demands on the nation’s resources; it would increase unemployment. Those who propose to solve our problems through yet higher government expenditures are in fact- whether they know it or not- perpetrating a cruel deception.

Contrast the effects of devaluation. It does not add significantly to the deficit. It will reduce the burdens on those sectors which have been hardest hit by inflation and which have not been protected by some form of indexed returns, which have not had guaranteed selling prices for their products. It will create conditions where more jobs can be created. It will reduce the reason for Australian companies to move offshore. Overseas and domestic investment projects will start moving again.

The real possibilities of increased production for domestic industries constitute a substantial benefit from devaluation. Many manufacturing firms are able to expand their currently under.tilised capacity. At present their fixed costs- such as plant and equipment depreciation, capital costs, rent and salaries- represent a high proportion of total costs. In this situation, increases in demand and production can produce quite significant reductions in unit costs. It is worth recalling the words of the 1975 Jackson Committee report:

Australian manufacturing industry is in acute financial crisis. Unemployment is high. Factories are running below capacity . . . Their profit record and prospects make it hard to raise equity.

The Jackson report also mentioned the damage caused to manufacturing industry by recent adjustments in the exchange rate and the levels of protection. Our company tax measures have made a contribution to alleviating this situation, but beyond this, devaluation presents an opportunity for much needed relief in the problem areas identified by the Jackson Report. The alternatives to devaluation would have been massive subsidies or even higher tariffs. Those who criticise the decision to devalue, fail to appreciate the continued thrust for more and more tariff protection which carries its own inflationary impact.

In the last two weeks, there has been a remarkable unwillingness on the part of some commentators to assess the decisions objectively in their full ramifications. One well known economic commentator writing on the devaluation of the Australian dollar has made the following points. He stated firstly that: . . most spectators would have felt the devaluation would have been timed for some time next year. The Government, by getting in early before speculative pressures built up, has avoided a haemoraging of Australia’s international reserves through capital outflow . . . The extent of the devaluation will be sufficient to convince potential foreign investors in Australia that there is unlikely to be any further devaluations . . . will give a breathing space to some Australian industries now suffering from severe import competition . . . The economy is running below full capacity, so the extra stimulus to domestic demand and employment will hopefully take up some of the spare capacity . . . The devaluation will give a fillip to business confidence.

There could be no better description of the positive aspects of the 1976 devaluation. But these comments were made about the 1974 devaluation which was undertaken in an inflationary context and followed by a number of inflationary measures. The same commentator condemned the 1976 decision neglecting his own earlier arguments- not to mention the complete different policy context within which the 1976 decision has been taken.

Many of the statements being made in recent days about the devaluation are quite out of touch with reality. Wild assertions about interest rates, the availability of credit and exchange rate confusion are not based on a considered assessment of what has actually been occurring. The information available suggests the transformation to the new interest rate yield curve has been successful. The greater indications of support for the Government Treasury notes is encouraging. A cautious observation of the stock market indicates strengthening since devaluation. The Government welcomes renewed interest from overseas in portfolio investment. The changes made in the exchange rate have halted speculation against the dollar and the haemoraging of our reserves. The massive inflow of capital that some people have predicted has not occurred.

Much of the criticism failed to understand the changed nature of the regime. This week’s adjustment reflects no more than the success of the initial move. Commodity markets have also shown continuing strength. The hysteria and humbug which certain people have tried to create in relation to the last two weeks is not supportable by the evidence to hand. The Government condemns it. The Government believes that the movements will be seen as responsible and appropriate. What a contrast has been provided by some more measured reactions overseas. In accordance with normal practice the executive board of the International Monetary Fund has considered Australia’s decision to devalue. The board appreciated the factors behind the decision. All directors who spoke supported Australia’s decision to devalue. In addition, the greater flexibility that would be permitted under the new exchange arrangements was welcomed. There was no suggestion that the devaluation could be regarded as a competitive devaluation.

Most international reaction to our measures has recognised the soundness of the decisions which have already been taken. The New York Morgan Guaranty’s Chief International Economist described the 17.5 per cent devaluation as a very correct amount and noted the wide recognition of Australia’s international uncompetitiveness. Milton Friedman has observed, postdevaluation:

Australia is very well regarded internationally because now- and this is comparatively rare amongst Western nations at the moment- it appears to be pursuing a mature and steady course.

Our Ambassador to the United States has reported that our emphasis on the anti-inflationary objectives accompanying the devaluation is being applauded, and that the devaluation has been seen as removing a significant disincentive to investment in Australia.

In balancing the arms of ecomonic policy, the government considered inflation as the number one priority but we have never contended that it was the only priority. Nor has it ever been argued to my knowledge that it ought to be the only priority. In a number of decisions, such as the introduction of family allowances, full personal tax indexation, the investment allowance, and the allocation of moneys to Aboriginal and welfare programs, the Government has moved to help the sectors of the community hit hardest by inflation, and to encourage activity. If inflation had been the only priority then there would have been no family allowances, no indexation, and no increases in money for social programs. There would have been no Budget deficit and much more extensive cut backs in government programs. If inflation were our sole objective we should have had a balanced budget. I do not recall the Government being urged to bring down a balanced budget. The reason is obvious. The hardship in the other areas would have been too great.

The fight against inflation, although our dominant objective, cannot be conducted with an utter disregard for its effects on other areas of social policy. The fact that devaluation has taken place does not mean that combating inflation has lost its place as our first priority. The fact that the Government has been forced to take a decision which has some inflationary consequences can no more be adduced as evidence that the antiinflationary strategy has been abandoned, that the fact that the Government did not plan for a balanced budget. The reverse is the truth. The devaluation decision requires that we redouble our efforts to get on top of inflation- that there be no let up- that we press ahead with our announced strategy more strongly than ever before.

Let me review the year’s major economic decisions. In February, $360m worth of savings resulting from an expenditure review were announced. In January, decisions were taken to soak up excess liquidity in the financial system. In May, a package of fiscal policy decisions was introduced- tax indexation, $2, 600m savings to forward estimates, family allowances. In the Budget, spending was held and the deficit contained, monetary guidelines were laid down and strategy for recovery was firmly implemented.

Let me state the main elements of our strategy again. The most rigorous restraint on Government spending to rein in the bloated public sector and free resources to productive private enterprise, the provision of a wide range of incentives to industry to resume expansion and provide employment opportunities. We are seizing every opportunity to emphasise the importance of restraint in wage and salary demands; establishing, through a variety of measures a climate which will make wage and salary restraint possible. This is essential to keep costs down and create conditions in which employment opportunities can be expanded as rapidly as possible. We always said that this strategy would take time- that it would be a full three year program. It is the only strategy which is going to work.

Let me state the Government’s attitude to inflation so there can be no possible misunderstanding. Inflation is the enemy Australia must defeat. It undermines security, destroys the value of savings and incomes, hinders the expansion of job opportunities, erodes our position in the world, and in the end eats away at the vitality of our institutions and our way of life. Twelve months ago, Australia, we all know, was in economic disarray. When we came to office we were faced by the worst unemployment since the 1930s, an actual decline in the gross domestic product, a depression in company profits, a decline in business investment to its lowest level in three years, a desperate situation in the farming sector and an inflation rate that was fourteen per cent- higher than it had been a year before and showing no substantive indications of declining. In the past year, we have focussed the arms of policy on the problem of inflation and have achieved improvement in our position.

The fact that it was not possible to avoid devaluation shows the magnitude of the problems which still face the Australian economyand every one of us as Australians. Some people appear to believe that devaluation was a soft option. Nothing could be further from the truth- it is the hardest option of all. If we do not take advantage of the opportunities that devaluation offers us, if we do not bring every weapon of policy to bear on inflation then the future will be a grave one- we may not get another opportunity. The present situation facing us all- demands a conceited national effort. All Australians, all sectors of the community, have an overriding national interest in achieving a soundly based economic recovery. We have made a beginning- and we must not squander out national opportunities and our national strengths.

The Government’s measures have been the right ones- but the Government cannot do it alone. In the battle against inflation, we need the support of all Australians. We need to find a national will and determination to overcome inflation. Too often our institutions seek to sharpen differences in the community- to pursue an adversary relationship with each other for temporary advantage rather than emphasising the common interests we all share. This is a time when all our institutions, all Australiansbusinesses, trade unions, all in positions of leadership in the community- must seek to set aside narrow interests in favour of the overriding common interests we all share. Devaluation should underline for every Australian the seriousness of the problem that confronts us. It also gives us an opportunity that we as a nation cannot afford to lose. The fight against inflation is a fight we are going to win.

page 3020

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Senator SIM:
Western Australia

– Last Tuesday I asked the Leader of the Government a question based on a reported statement by Mr

Dillon of the Chamber of Manufactures advising certain Government members that they should literally belt up. I have now been advised that Mr Dillon did not make that statement. I accept that advice without question. Apparently the statement was made by somebody else and was wrongly attributed to Mr Dillon in some reports.

page 3020

JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS

The PRESIDENT:

– I inform the Senate that I have received letters from the Leader of the Government and the Leader of the Opposition nominating Senators Bonner, Cavanagh, Chaney, Coleman, Kilgariff and Robertson to be members of the Joint Select Committee on the Operation of the Provisions of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976.

Motion (by Senator Withers) agreed to:

That the Senators nominated be appointed members of the Joint Select Committee on the Operation of the Provisions of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 in accordance with the resolution agreed this day.

The PRESIDENT:

– I also inform the Senate that I have received letters from the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives nominating Mr Bryant, Mr Calder, Mr Drummond, Mr L. R. Johnson, Mr McLean, Mr Ruddock, Mr Wallis and Mr Wentworth to be members of the Committee.

page 3020

HISTORIC SHIPWRECKS BILL 1976

Bill returned from the House of Representatives with amendments.

In Committee

Consideration of House of Representatives amendments.

Clause 9.

House of Representatives’ amendment No. 1-

In clause 9, omit “and “(first occurring), substitute “or”.

House of Representatives’ amendment No. 2-

In clause 9, after sub-clause (4), insert the following clause: (4a) It is a defence to a prosecution of a person for an offence against a provision of this section in relation to an article if the person proves-

in the case of an offence against sub-section ( 1 ) or (2) in relation to an article in respect of which a notice was published in the Gazelle under section5 or 6- that the person did not know, and had no reasonable grounds for believing, that the article was an article to which the notice related; or

in the case of an offence against sub-section (3) or (4)- that the person did not know, and had no reasonable grounds for believing, that the article was a Dutch relic or a part of a Dutch shipwreck.’

Clause 1 7.

House of Representatives’ amendment No. 3-

In clause 17, sub-clause (2), after ‘proves’, insert ‘, or proves that he had reasonable grounds for believing,’.

Clause 23.

Penalty: $1,000.

House of Representatives’ amendment No. 4-

In clause 23, after sub-clause (5), insert the following subclause: (5a) It is a reasonable excuse for a person to fail to answer a question that he is required to answer under this section that the answer to the question may tend to incriminate him. ‘.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– I move:

Honourable senators will recall that when the Bill was in the Committee stage in this chamber that first Senator Douglas McClelland and later Senator Cavanagh drew my attention to 2 clauses of the Bill and pointed out what they believed and saw to be perhaps not defects but a harshness within the Bill. Honourable senators will also recall that I said at the time that, subject to Parliamentary Counsel being able to overcome the problem, I saw no difficulty in accepting those amendments. The amendments were moved by my colleague the Attorney-General (Mr Ellicott) in the other place and I believe that they give effect to the requests of Senator Douglas McClelland and Senator Cavanagh. I commend the amendments to the Senate.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I have looked at the amendments, particularly the amendment to clause 17 which was the amendment to which I suggested the Government should give consideration. I commend the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers) for taking cognizance of my request and also the request of my colleague, Senator Cavanagh. I believe that the amendments to which the Government has agreed make a considerable improvement to the Bill and protect the civil liberties of Australian citizens.

Senator McINTOSH:
Western Australia

– All parties recognise the need to amend the Bill so as to protect anyone who might quite innocently commit an offence. After all, not too many people are as well informed as the Hendersons, when they located and recognised the Gilt Dragon in 1963, who assigned the ownership of the wreck to the Western Australian Museum because they believed that it was of historic value and belonged to the nation.

Senator Chaney:

– Very public spirited, was it not?

Senator McINTOSH:

-It was indeed. The honourable senator should know. I am sure that the amendments will be supported not only by those who are keen to protect relics from shipwrecks, but also by all fair-minded sections of the community.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I join with Senator Douglas McClelland in thanking the Minister for accepting the amendments to what we saw as defects or unfair aspects of the Bill. I also notice that in the Foreign Proceedings (Prohibition of Certain Evidence) Amendment Bill this has occurred. This indicates the role that the Senate plays in these matters. It is appreciated when the Government accepts amendments on the basis of good advice. Whether this is because of the attitude of particular Ministers, I do not know. I know that it is in contrast to what we experienced with regard to the Aboriginal land rights legislation.

Perhaps the Minister for Administrative Services can explain to me the legal interpretation of the difference between the words ‘or’ and ‘and’ in regard to the first amendment. I should think that the words ‘where a person has possession, custody and control of an article; and a notice applying in respect of the article is published in the Gazette under section 5 or 6’ are selfexplanatory. But now we find that the word ‘ and ‘ is altered to the word ‘or’. That is disjunctive. So, clause 9(1) will now read:

Where-

a person has possession, custody and control of an article; the person shall, within 30 days after the date of publication of the notice in the Gazette, give the prescribed notice to the Minister in relation to the article.

I fail to see the reason for the change. I commend to honourable senators the amendment to clause 17 which reads:

After ‘proves’, insert ‘, or proves that he had reasonable grounds for believing, ‘.

My complaint with regard to clause 9 is that in places such as Port Hedland or the northern gulf a person might not see the Gazette notice. A person has a defence if he has reasonable grounds for believing that the article was not the one referred to in the Gazette. If the words ‘reasonable grounds for believing’ include the fact that he had not seen the Gazette, that covers the point completely.

I also appreciate the amendment to clause 23. I have a long recollection of cases of people being compelled to answer a question that may tend to incriminate them. This matter first arose under the Evidence Ordinance, when the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances recommended disallowance of the Ordinance which, amongst other things, contained things that the Senate at the time thought improper. Therefore, it disallowed the Ordinance. The late Senator Greenwood appealed to us to rescind our decision, as the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory would not sit because it did not have an evidence ordinance and it did not know how to take evidence. The result was that, although the Senate would not reconsider its previous decision, the then Senator Murphy moved a motion to make the Ordinance an Act for 6 months- I think, so that it could be considered by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. At the end of that 6 months, when the Act expired, Senator

Murphy, the then Attorney-General, moved that it become an Act without a specified lifetime. That undesirable Evidence Ordinance is now an Act of this Parliament. From that time onwards most Acts and most ordinances have contained that provision compelling a person to answer a question even though that answer may tend to incriminate him; but they also have contained a provision that the answer cannot be used in a prosecution of that person in a court of law. Now there is a reversion to the position that a person does not need to answer a question if the answer to that question may tend to incriminate him. I appreciate the change of attitude. I suggest that perhaps our legal committee could at some time determine whether it should be essential to answer such questions.

Senator WITHERS:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– The honourable senator raised 2 points. I will answer the last one first. I am advised by the Parliamentary Counsel that an acting judge of the Supreme Court of South Australia in Loftus v. Taylor, which is reported at page 289 of the South Australian law reports for 1955, held that fear of self incrimination was a reasonable excuse within the meaning of the legislation under consideration in that case. I am further advised by the Parliamentary Counsel that the question has not come before the High Court and therefore, to put the matter beyond doubt, it is recommended that new sub-clause (5A) be inserted. The Parliamentary Counsel advised that, relying on the decision in Loftus v. Taylor, which is now 21 years old and which has not been challenged by anybody as being unreasonable- certainly it has not been challenged by any prosecutor- it has become accepted that the normal clauses in Bills which have been dealt with in the past have been subject to that decision. I imagine that the office of Parliamentary Counsel, having now put its toe in the water with new sub-clause (5A), will follow that course until there is a more definite ruling on this matter by some court.

I refer now to the amendment moved to clause 9 which was the first matter raised by Senator Cavanagh. He referred to the taking out of the word ‘and’ and inserting the word ‘or’. I suppose there is quite a difference between custody or control and custody and control. It is rather like the distinction which is often drawn between possession and property. Occasionally one can have both. Occasionally an article could be in the custody of one person but the control of another. The Bill, as originally introduced, provided for both custody and control. The situation could have arisen where a person could have had custody but not control or a person could have control but not custody. They are 2 different concepts in law.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I was looking at the wrong ‘and’.

Senator WITHERS:

-I am sorry, Senator. The amendment was introduced to cover both aspects.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I can see it now, thank you.

Senator WITHERS:

-I thank honourable senators for their support.

Amendments agreed to.

Resolution reported; report adopted.

page 3023

ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS (NORTHERN TERRITORY) BILL 1976

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

page 3023

QUESTION

THE TARIFF

Ministerial Statement

Debate resumed from 9 December, on motions by Senator Cotton:

  1. 1 ) That the Senate take note of the Statement; and
  2. (a) That the following matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce for inquiry and report: The effects of (i) currency alterations and (ii) changes to manufacturing industry protection upon employment, inflation (including prices of manufactured goods), (b) That the Committee report to the Senate on these matters every three months from the commencement of the Opening Session of Parliament in 1977-
Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I will be very brief in my remarks. The Opposition will not oppose the reference of this matter to the Senate Standing Committee on Trade and Commerce. It will remain to be seen just how much the Committee will be able to do in view of the complexity of the reference, involving, as it does, currency alterations and changes to manufacturing industry protection. Another element is inflation, including prices and manufactured goods. Nevertheless, the Opposition feels that there could be some value certainly to the Parliament and, we would hope, to the nation as a whole from the work and findings of the Committee on this matter. The only point I stress is my hope that it is clearly understood that in no way would any member of the Committee be inhibited from asking questions in this chamber on those matters to which reference is made. I note that the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Senator Cotton, nods his head in agreement. I am sure that in the course of consideration of this reference by the Committee there will be many matters which members of that Committee will wish to raise in the Senate, particularly at question time. Provided it is quite clear that there will be no factors inhibiting members of the Committee in that respect, the Opposition will not oppose the reference.

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

– by leave- The assurance sought by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt) is one that I give clearly without qualification. The whole purpose of this reference is to add to the state of total and public knowledge.

Questions resolved in the affirmative.

page 3023

BROADCASTING AND TELEVISION AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1976

Second Readings

Debate resumed from 9 December, on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bills be now read a second time.

Upon which Senator Button moved by way of amendment:

At the end of motion add “, but the Senate is of the opinion that the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1976 should be withdrawn and redrafted because-

there has been inadequate time for proper public consideration of the Government’s proposals in relation to broadcasting;

it fails to establish a proper basis for public broadcasting in Australia; and

it is inconsistent with the principles enunciated for the structure of broadcasting in Australia by the report of the Postal and Telecommunications Department on Australian Broadcasting”.

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

- Mr President, for reasons that I was outlining last night when the Senate was debating this legislation, the Opposition opposes these Bills. The Opposition does not find the legislation in its present form particularly offensive. However, we oppose the legislation because of the haste and secrecy with which the inquiry into broadcasting was held. We oppose it also because of the original form of the legislation which was totally obnoxious and because we believe that the community should have the opportunity to investigate thoroughly all of the issues involved in broadcasting before structural changes are implemented.

Opposition to the legislation in its original form was very great. Members of the chamber will be aware of the outcry from the general public and from members of the Press, even the most conservative elements of the Press, who were highly critical of the attempt to destroy the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Commission in the original legislation. Opposition also came from academics and scholars, teachers, parents concerned with standards of children’s broadcasting, ethnic groups which, in the period of the Whitlam Government for the first time had had access to broadcasting, and in particular, members of the staff of the ABC.

I mention in passing that a strike was held in most States and the Territories by staff members of the ABC. It was a political strike against the Government’s legislation. I think it can be fairly characterised as a political strike. It was a successful strike. It achieved its objectives. I believe that that strike had broad support from the community. It is interesting to note that political strikes can be just strikes; we have had an example of one.

The attack by the Government on the Australian Broadcasting Commission, of which the legislation before us is just one part, was threefold. The first prong of the attack was the appointment of a partisan chairman, Sir Henry Bland, to the ABC. The second prong was the cutting of funds to the Commission. This has led to a most undesirable and unwelcome cutting of programs. The third prong is this legislation. I wish to make some comments on the appointment of Sir Henry Bland and on his subsequent actions. I know that these matters have been discussed by honourable senators on several occasions. However, I think the most recent evidence of the unsuitability of Sir Henry as chairman of an independent broadcasting commission came to our attention this week. I refer to the remarks that Sir Henry made when addressing the Northern Tasmanian Regional Advisory Committee of the ABC on 1 6 November 1 976.

Senator Button:

– Does the honourable senator know that she is on the ABC?

Senator RYAN:

-I am aware that I am on the ABC. If I may say so, I think that that is most appropriate. Sir Henry said a number of quite surprising and distressing things in giving his views on the ABC and Senator Missen, who is aware of what Sir Henry said on that occasion, tried to defend the inappropriateness of the statements made by Sir Henry by saying that he was expressing only a personal opinion and that everyone is entitled to a personal opinion. I do not believe that somebody in what has become such a controversial position since Sir Henry became Chairman of the ABC and during a period when we have a government which has conducted an unceasing onslaught on the independence of the ABC, can address a meeting of people connected with the ABC and then have it claimed on his behalf afterwards that he was merely making personal statements. Those of us who go into public life and enter public debate lose the right to make merely personal statements on some issues. I certainly do not believe that Sir Henry’s remarks on that occasion can be dismissed as being merely private and personal points of view.

He said a number of disturbing things. I found one of the lines of attack which he took particularly distressing, and that was that all present and past commissioners, and by implication past chairman, of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, management of the ABC and program makers in the ABC were totally irresponsible and unrealistic when it came to budgeting. I quote a couple of remarks from the transcript. Sir Henry said:

I think the ABC news service has done a magnificent job. Now when it comes to programs they cost a lot of moneyand it apparently hasnt occurred to the ABC in the pastand it’s the Commission I’m talking about- that it ought to be interested in what its programmers propose to do with the money that the Commonwealth Parliament gives it.

A remark like that is nothing short of insulting to present and past commissioners and chairmen. I am sure that all those people were aware that programs cost money and that they had a responsibility to the Parliament to expend their allocation responsibly. Perhaps even more interesting was the statement which Sir Henry Bland made in respect of what the Government intended to do with the ABC. This statement was made on 16 November which honourable senators will be aware was before the first draft of the Government’s broadcasting legislation was introduced. He said:

It’s beyond my comprehension that any government would wish to sweep away the commission’s membership as it now stands . . . you know this assumption that governments and politicians . . . are cunning, sophisticated, shrewd people . . . it’s one of the greatest pieces of journalistic construction that I know of, believed mostly by all of us . . . occasionally they’ve been known to be cunning and shrewd, but not very often. I think they thrive on being thought to be just that. But no government in its right senses would sweep away the membership of the ABC, because they know that to create that sort of precedent would be utterly disastrous.

They were the words of Sir Henry Bland, Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission and the appointee of the Fraser Government, a few days before the same Government introduced legislation which was designed to do just what Sir Henry Bland said was unthinkable and disastrous. That indicates a total breakdown of communication and confusion by the Government on broadcasting policy.

Another very distressing view expressed by Sir Henry Bland on the same occasion was in relation to Radio Australia. He expressed the view that Radio Australia had no right to objectivity, had no claims to independence and should be nothing but a further arm of the Government’s foreign policy. I again quote Sir Henry Bland ‘s own words:

How on earth does anybody imagine that Radio Australia could go its own way . . . anybody can simply imagine that the Radio Australia can put out programs in direct contradiction to government policy, foreign policy … of course Radio Australia can’t put out programs in direct opposition to it.

So from Sir Henry Bland’s point of view Radio Australia is not a news broadcast to inform people in any kind of balanced or objective way of what is going on in Australia; it is merely a propaganda instrument for the present Government.

This is not only my interpretation of Sir Henry Bland ‘s comments. In the Age today the editorial writer was similarly horrified by the suggestion that Radio Australia should be reduced to this propaganda status. It states:

Sir Henry now seems to be saying that Radio Australia’s claims to be something more than an uncritical vehicle for Government public relations is, or should be, invalid. We rind his view totally unacceptable. There are no defensible grounds for arguing that the ABC-which runs Radio Australia as its international arm- should be less open and honest with its foreign audience than it is with its domestic listeners. As we pointed out some weeks ago, when commenting on suggestions that the Foreign Affairs Department should lay down formal guidelines for Radio Australia, the world has enough propaganda services already.

Radio Australia is today serving a much reduced audience as a result of the loss of its Darwin transmitters in Cyclone Tracy. We believe the enormous cost of replacing and updating those transmitters would be well worthwhile- but not if Sir Henry Bland ‘s views become official ABC policy.

As I have quoted at some length from the transcript of Sir Henry Bland’s remarks to the ABC Northern Tasmania Regional Advisory Committee on 16 November 1976, and as those transcripts clearly have been available to many Australian journalists because extracts were published in the Press yesterday and the day before, I think it is appropriate that I seek leave to have the transcript incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

page 3025

QUESTION

ABC NORTHERN TASMANIA REGIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

16 November 1976

Sir Henry Bland;Extracts from Discussion

Sir HENRY BLAND; Well, chairman, let me say immediately that I’m extremely pleased that arrangements could be made to have this meeting at this time and that it was possible for me to come down. We’ve been in the commission somewhat exercised about advisory committees, whether they were justified, what they are doing, what their role was, what notice was taken of them . . . and I myself said I would go round and discover for myself what is happening . . . what sort of contributions are made . . . what notice is being taken of them. And let me say immediately that one of the problems in an organisation like the ABC is that it becomes highly institutionalised, runs great risk of coming to believe that it knows all the answers and what’s more knows what’s best. This is something for which I have no time, particularly in an organisation with the responsibilities such as the ABC has. The great value, as I see it, in theory at least of advisory committees, is that they provide a means whereby . . . assuming the committees represent a broad sweep of community attitudes . . . provide a means whereby those who are concerned with producing programs and planning facilities can understand more clearly what is local opinion. And so I think we’re thrown back to the first point as to the reason that is exercised in assembling committees and the wisdom that is displayed by individual members of committees in directing themselves, devoting themselves to issues that are of considerable significance and finally as to what happens inside the head office of the ABC and the State regional offices in respect of views and opinions expressed at meetings of the advisory committees. Nobody of course is any better than the people who constitute it and so it becomes enormously important that the advisory committees, like the ABC commission itself should be well-constituted and whatever is the situation about the constitution of the committee, the real value of them is only to be measured by the notice that’s taken of them by the organisation.

I, myself, as I think I’ve already indicated believe that this advisory committee system is a good system and ought to be preserved and what’s more I think there’s probably a need for looking more closely at just what happens with the proposals and the views and the attitudes when they do get to head office. Nothing will be achieved of course if they’re put into nice files and pigeon holes . . . and this is a matter that I’m interested in … but I make the severration quite firmly that I believe in advisory committees, indeed I believe in the maximum input from all community sources, so that the ABC can do better its job of service to the community.

Now, rather than deal specifically in insteriatum with the various points that have been raised, I think perhaps it might stimulate discussion, chairman, if I raise some broader issues. We’ve heard a lot about a lot of things since I’ve been around the place . . perhaps there were a lot of things said about the ABC before I was around the place, but since I had no particular responsibility I wasn’t particularly interested. We’ve heard about financial constraints - . . we’ve heard about (tape mutilated), we’ve heard about interference with management, we’ve heard about independence . . . now let me take them in some sort of order.

It is for the parliament to decide what funds will be made available to the ABC in common with what funds will be made available for all the other purposes to which the parliament directs itself. In this case, this current case we’ve got a certain financial allocation which is what the parliament has decided is available to the ABC. This is set in a total framework of financial restraint as pan of a total policy which is directed to containing inflation . . . it’s an uncomfortable situation, when people have been given candy and lollies for a long time they nave exactly the same withdrawal problems that people who suffer from any other situation. It’s not for the ABC to complain, let alone rally about what the parliament decides what the ABC should have, because the ABC is an instrument of parliament. The ABC put forward some financial proposals which were not adopted in their entirety and in the end result it was given a sum of money fixed and said this is what you’re going to spend. Unfortunately we’ve been brought up in the society over a long period of time when the parliament has done that in the past, the recipients of its distribution have said how nice and then proceeded to go ahead and when they ran out of cash went back to the parliament for extra funds which have been granted . . . and this of course is something that can be done when you can provide funds by printing money, but it’s not the sort of thing that any ordinary householder or ordinary business can live with and we’ve now got the situation where the government has decided that they’re going to apply some fairly stern measures and when funds are made available they convey the impression that they mean that and that this is not just a starting point . . . and of course, what has happened in the past, and this is not only what has happened with the ABC, everybody has run riot and that’s why we’re paying taxes of the order of which we are, and that’s where 1 as a taxpayer have a very direct and personal interest . . . and don’t forget, I come from having done another job … or a job for the government in which I didn’t like what I saw was happening in departments or instrumentalities and remember also of course that I used to be a practitioner myself in this area.

Now, we wanted something like $137m all up and we finished up with $129m all up. The first task that fell to me, almost after my appointment was to have to tell the astonished world that the ABC had decided that it had to make some reductions in activities in order to live within the budget . . . and it was perhaps not surprising to me for a free organisation which has been unaccustomed to living with budgets that when we came to review our financial situation a few weeks ago, we found that we were spending ahead of budget. We also found that we were much further ahead of budget because of all sorts of increased costs quite beyond the control of the ABC. Now there’s a certain irony in this, which I won’t trouble you with, but those of you who are engaged in private enterprise know very well that if you run into situations where there are costs external to your control, then you meet them either by shoving up the price if the community is prepared to pay for it, or you cut your cloth according to the total funds that are available. Now, in our situation as of a few weeks ago we found that we had … we were running ahead of budget in respect of costs entirely within our control by about $2m and in respect of costs entirely beyond our control to the extent of $3m. But the government has said, not to the ABC only, but to all departments who are going through precisely the same traumas that the ABC has because this idea that governments ought to behave like private businesses is extremely strange in government circles, . . . they are equally going through the trauma of trying to conform with decision of government which is that the departments and agencies should live within their budgets and absorb increased costs, whether they ‘re within or without their control.

Now, at the last commission meeting, we directed ourselves first to the problem as to how we could do what any ordinary individual and organisation in the community has had to do, and is accustomed to doing, namely cut our cloth so that we could live within the amount that parliament has allocated to us to the extent that we could control this . . . and so we directed ourselves as to how we could save $2m, with the results that have been announced. And that still leaves us with $3m less . . . $3m that we’ve got to do something about. Which means, as I’ve already announced, that if the government is not prepared to make available that $3m, then certain consequences will flow. And of course we’re not through the sums yet . . . if the Arbitration Commission should hand out some more money for national wage cases in the next week or so and do so again in February and do so again in May, we’re in accelerated, compounded trouble. But, you know, don’t let’s get too fussed about this . . . this is what private sector has had to live with for a long time and unless you ‘re in a situation where you can convince the prices justification tribunal and then find buyers who are prepared to pay even what the PJT says you can charge, you don ‘t get terribly far . . . and I think it’s rather important that we shouldn’t get carried away by notions that public bodies are immune from these traumas, because that only induces the irresponsibility which some of us know a fair deal about. But as of the moment, what we ‘ve done is to cut our cloth to the money that parliament said that we could have, that is to say, in respect only of costs that we should have been able to control, but we haven’t controlled effectively in the first five months of the financial year . . . and at the next commission meeting in December, well have in front of us other things that we would have to face up to and then I shall be going off, as I’ve said publicly to talk to the government about the consequences of the government’s not persuading the parliament to provide extra funds.

Now, all of this of course is tending to get mixed up with other things that are happening. We’ve had a report produced by Mr Green, Secretary of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, or whatever it’s called these days, which is a commendable document, I think he’s to be complimented on producing a document which is readable and sensible in the short space that he had. We have had a statement by the Minister which indicated certain decisions of the government which were not in accord with the Green recommendations, and which was notable for the things that it didn’t say, which is not surprising, because after all, the Minister will be bringing down a Bill before long and he needs to make a second reading speech and there wouldn’t be very much point in exhausting the subject matter of the second reading speech before he made it. So we will know in art the government response to the Green report when the ill comes in and the second reading speech is made. I think it’s quite likely that the bill that comes in will not deal exhaustively with the Green report because I don’t think it was competent for the draughtsmen to prepare a bill covering everything and indeed it may be that the Cabinet has not decided all the issues that were raised by the Green report. So it looks as though there ‘II be two bites at the cherry.

Of the Green report, all I want to say is this: that it causes me no concern whatever . . . and I speak now as Chairman of the ABC. Indeed, I think if I’d been writing the Green report I might have been doing some other things. But it causes me no concern whatever. The similarity between the recommendations made by the Green report and the submissions made by the ABC- and they weren’t mine, I had no pan in them- they all occurred before I turned up- is very great. The ABC asked for control of transmitters; the ABC thought that the ABC ought to be subject to external review every so often; the ABC thought that it ought to escape the clutches of the Public Service Board; the ABC thought that it ought to be able to get a triennial rolling program; it wanted to have great freedom in respect of acquisitions of property and getting its building works done; just about everything the ABC proposed in its submission has been adopted in the Green report. True, the Green report came up with proposals for restructuring the Commission, which have not been adopted by the Government judging by what the Minister said in his interim statement . . . and 111 come in a moment to Radio Australia. But there is nothing in the Green report or in the statements that have been made on behalf of the government which in any way impinges upon the independence of the ABC in its program making, and that is the critical issue. There has been a great deal of speculation by people who seem supremely capable of dreaming up every sinister implication. It’s beyond my comprehension that any government would wish to sweep away the Commission’s membership as it now stands . . . you know this assumption that governments and politicians- and I bow respectively to our friend on my left- are cunning, sophisticated, shrewd people . . . it’s one of the greatest pieces of journalistic construction that I know of, believed mostly by all of us . . . occasionally they’ve been known to be cunning and shrewd, but not very often. I think they thrive on being thought to be just that. But no government in its right senses would sweep away the membership of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, because they know that to create that sort of precedent would be utterly disastrous.

Now, I may be proved to be wrong, I don’t know, but it’s my quite firm belief that when the number’s go up you 11 find that what I say is right. There is no threat to the ABC . . . there is just about only one as of the moment issue on which there is unanimity of views among parliamentary parties, and that is the independence of the ABC in its programming. And now that leads me on . . . there’s nothing in the Green report . . . one can’t complain about review of the ABC. The more I see of the ABC and the more I understand the enormous power the ABC has, the more I respond to Lord Acton’s statement that power corrupts and the more I would be anxious, I think if I’d been in the Green position, to want somehow to have some arrangement that ensured that power didn’t corrupt the ABC. Now, the pluses are very great, but before I pass on from the point I Ve just made, the Tribunal has got proposed according to the report to have authority to determine minimum Australian content and advertising. Neither of these worry about us, we’re not in the advertising game and we’re so far out ahead of everybody else in program content , . Australian content . . . that that’s of no consequence. On the Broadcasting Council- which will be concerned with program standards and development of programme standards which are left to the industry .. . no problems for us. We ‘ve always followed the program standards, laid down by the ABC Board, although they didn’t apply to us, except for radio. And so this is to me of no consequence.

And so I’m led on to talk about the ABC ‘s programs. Now there’s been a great deal of hoohah going on about censorship. You know, to put it in an oversimplified form, parliament has charged nine commissioners with the responsibility for what the ABC does, which means what it puts to air. This is not the responsibility of the staff, it is the responsibility of the commissioners and the commissioners have quaintly enough been exercising their responsibilities. And of course this has become consorship. Now, unhappily of course, words in this day and age have all sorts of meanings that the user of them attributes to them. But censorship is an act of external imposition. No organisation can censor itself. What an organisation can do is to make selections and can exercise self-discipline. Every day our news service, which is acclaimed as the best news service in Australia and it is, is engaged in selecting out of an enormous number of news items what it will put to air. Now, if you like you can say that is censorship . . . it’s nothing of the sort . . . it’s selection . . . there may be plenty of people who disagree with the items selected and all their judgments will be subjective, but the news service every day selects what it will put to air on the basis of professional judgment . . . and

I think the ABC news service has done a magnificent job. Now, when it comes to programs they cost a lot of moneyand it apparently hasn’t occurred to the ABC in the pastand it’s the commission I’m talking about- that it ought to be interested in what its programmers propose to do with the money that the Commonwealth Parliament gives it. And this I find very strange. So we are now becoming very interested as a body of commissioners in what the programmers propose to do with the money that they’ve got. And there is nothing odd about this. It doesn’t make any sense to me that some bright person, regardless of what it costs, declares to make a program without wondering who’s going to look at it, and finishes up by putting a very expensive program on the air at a quarter to eleven at night when everybody’s gone to bed . . . and somebody was talking about this a little while ago. Somebody, and in this case the commissioners, charged by the parliament with the responsibility of spending their funds, and for what goes to air, has got to become . . . to be interested in what the contribution is going to be . . . what benefit costs are going to be . . . and don’t get alarmed when I introduce phrases like that- they have equal relevance to creative activity . . . here is one of the commercial programs that . . . commercial stations that have spent a lot of money in producing a new series which canned it after the fifth episode, it was so bad . . . and there’s Thames in England, has just made a very expensive program which they’re even burning before they’re shown . . . and there are all these stupid idiotic people who chase strange fantasies that people round the ABC can do what they like. Now, they can’t (tape mutilated) … the act which says that the ABC staff can do what it likes and I don’t think any parliament is going to be quite so rash as to do that. Now don’t let anybody get me wrong. Our job as commissioners is to encourage to the uttermost creativity, to encourage to the uttermost innovation and this is what well go on doing. But particularly when funds are not unlimited, somebody has got to say ‘are we going to spend our money on light entertainment, or are we going to spend it on televising sport or are we going to spend it on heavy drama or are we going to spend it on light situation- I ‘m sorry, I oughtn’t to say light because I haven’t discovered one yet- situation comedy, or are we going to spend it on current affairs. Now, that is the job of the commissioners; and it’s not discharged by saying well, TV can have 1014m dollars and say how you use it is no concern of ours . . . and so we’re beginning to look at this sort of problem and with some traumas that you’ve been aware of. So if I come in and I doubt you’ll misunderstand me I want it understood that the commissioners, not I, I ‘ve got no powers as Chairman under the legislation . . . there are nine commissioners who somehow or other have to come to a conclusion . . . and strangely enough despite everything that’s been said, we come to conclusions and most times, indeed on all the critical occasions, unanimously . . . and I haven’t felt it necessary to hammer these points, because I don’t believe that that’s desirable. The situation ought to be that we have a corporate body which somehow or other comes to a conclusion . . . and sometimes it may be 5/4 and sometimes it may be 6/3 and sometimes it may be 7/2 and sometimes it may be 8/1 and sometimes 9/0 . . . and I don’t see any point whatever, except the surest way to destroy the insitution to identify how it’s come to its conclusion. There is a decision it’s come to, but I say in this respect that all the critical decisions since I’ve been around the place have been unanimous decisions . . . and so what I’m saying is the commissioners are charged by the parliament to the responsibility for providing-what is it- adequate and comprehensive programs and necessarily the commissioners are charged with what goes to air . . . and I’ve also dealt with the subject of censorship.

Now, if I may deal with some of the particular matters.

One of the other-many other-matters that have been impressed on me over the last six months is the difficulty in discovering what people will think about anything that is televised or broadcast. As I’ve gone round talking with people it’s been a very salutory experience to discover that people who I would stake my fortune on would hold a particular view, have proved to hold precisely the opposite one. It’s quite impossible to discover or guess how people are going to respond to this program or that program. We all know a great human failing of describing as biased anything that we don’t happen to believe with or in. I was remarking earlier in the day that I got accused the other night at a gathering of swallowtails that the ABC was showing its wellknown communistic bias by refusing Mr Hamer five minutes at 7.30 on ABC when the commercials were giving him five minutes and so I indicated what the background was and had a certain amount of joy in saying that I’d been described as many things and abused as many things, but so far I hadn’t been described as being communist . . . but you know, they haven’t had enough time yet . . . but remember, everybody considers what is broadcast or what is televised through his own eyes and ears against his prejudices, his predictions, his attitudes, his faiths . . . one can go on listing the characteristics that determine these things and they’re all different to everybody, and we’ve got this uncomfortable job of trying to be as honest and sincere and objective as we can be . . . and we are no way succeeding as we know. Now, that’s another problem that faces the commissioners . . . but a great deal of effort is put in to trying to be objective by a great number of very devoted members of staff . . . and this is why our programs are I think generally very good. There are lapses, we know, and some of them of course are not always the responsibility of individual producers and time wreaks all sorts of results because a situation that might have been appropriate at point X becomes quite inappropriate at X plus two years when community attitudes may have vastly changed. But all I can say is that we do our best; when there are deviations from what we as commissioners think is the true gospel, we try to do something about it. But of course the horse is well and truly out of the stable by then and what you’re doing is to try and avoid that situation arising in the future.

Now, it’s as a consequence of this, of course, that we get abused by members of parliament, members of political parties, members of churches, members of . . . you name them, we get abused. My fan mail is really fascinating. Some very delightfully direct letters tell me I’m the greatest disaster since the San Francisco earthquake, and others who write to me rather plaintively and say, well, you know, you were appointed as the saviour of society and all we conclude now is that you’re just as bad as the rest of them, which just shows that there may be some truth in the (tape mutilated) policy that somebody was laughing about recently . . . that the ABC has some characteristics that are generally attributed to the Chinese. But just to pick up this point . . . somebody was referring to Mr Nixon’s (tape mutilated) . . . well look, he may have been justified, I don’t know, about some programs, but there are lots of other people who are equally upset about our programs . . some programs I’m upset about . . . and some of my colleagues are upset about others . . . and as I’ve said to you what we try to do is to see whether, looked at as objectively as it is possible to look at things, this or that just went over the edge. There is a tolerance point . . . there are some people around the place who are trying to stretch the tolerance point . . . and they have to be looked at as you go along and don’t forget always that tolerance point isn’t always there . . . (gestures) … it can be back there . . . (gestures) . . . or it can be up there . . . (gestures) . . depending on . . . like skins, whether they’re at thigh level or whether they’re at ankle level … things change.

Somebody spoke about Radio Australia. This again of course has been a subject which has had a great deal of bashing about in the press. I think one of our problems is these days you know, if you haven’t got any news you make it up, and if somebody doesn’t deny it the next day it becomes fact the day after. In the case of Radio Australia, there’s no suggestion that the ABC should not cease to control Radio Australia, there is a suggestion that there ought to be guidelines from Foreign Affairs on Radio Australia. And of course the fact of the matter is that as long as I’ve been associated with government there has been a liaison between Foreign Affairs and Radio Australia . . . and how on earth does anybody imagine that Radio Australia could go its own way . . . anybody can simply imagine that the Radio Australia can put out programs in direct contradiction to government policy, foreign policy. And I’m not talking about liberals or country party or labor, I’m talking about government . . . and so if the government has a policy … a foreign policy … of course Radio Australia can’t put out programs in direct opposition to it, which isn’t to say of course that if the government has a foreign policy, and there is a parliamentary debate in which the Leader of the Opposition or the Shadow Foreign Minister states the Opposition’s viewpoint, that Radio Australia doesn’t report it … of course, it reports it . . . and I think this is one of the reasons why Radio Australia has the reputation it has overseas. I know that on occasions Radio Australia has caused a great deal of annoyance to Indonesia over recent events, and this is the price that we pay I suppose in one sense. But there’s a clear distinction between Radio Australia understanding what a government policy is and recognising it and doing nothing itself to run a different line . . . editorial line . . . rather different for Radio Australia to report what one would hope would be the considered remarks in the parliament of the Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs . . . and then that shades off into all sorts of problems that Radio Australia you wouldn’t imagine would report what some ratbag said on the Yarra Bank. And I don’t think Radio Australia would have done that . . and that isn’t censorship . . . that’s just sound commonsense which I’d expect of any professional operating a delicate instrument like Radio Australia . . . and the Green report has said that our overseas trade ought to have some sort of input. Well, I’m not troubled by Radio Australia sitting down with somebody from Overseas Trade who says, we’re sending a delegation to Kamchakwi (?) or Kashmir . . . will you give it a mention and Radio Australia in its normal way putting together something about it. But really there’s no question about the ABC losing control over Radio Australia and I can’t imagine any government suggesting otherwise. The real problem about Radio Australia at the moment is that it hasn’t got the transmitters in Darwin because the aerials aren’t there . . . haven’t even got a launch to get out to the site … it got blown up in Cyclone Tracy . . . and the poor old transmitters at Shepparton are 35 years old and are strung together with cotton wool, I think, or reels of cotton. And this is all very deplorable … the BBC is putting its new big transmitters into Singapore and other stations- the Russkies and the Chinese and the Americans and the French are all pumping out stuff on souped up transmitters and new transmitters and we’re getting squeezed out . . . and we see this immediately in the response to our letters . . . there has been a very great decline in our correspondence and not only is this sad from our point of view, and by our point of view I mean Australia’s point of view and Australia’s image in the South East Asian area and the Pacific area, it’s sad from the point of view of our listeners, who really do have a great regard for Radio Australia. Now that is a matter that will be receiving the attention of government before long.

Orchestras … let me just simply say this … I happen to be very fond of orchestral music . . but I do have to say in this room . . . that orchestras can’t be treated as something sacrosanct when an organisation like ours is faced with the sorts of problems it is. I don’t want to start a discussion on this, but 1 suppose the Philistine would probably prefer current affairs to orchestras … on the other hand as one who had to listen to so many people for so often I couldn’t care less if there were no current affairs program . . . and I could put up with a lot more orchestras. But I just throw in, and don t read anything into my remarks for goodness sake, we have six very large orchestras in this country. The English with a population of rive times our size don ‘t have as many as that. The nips that run a very good service only have two for a population of 125 million. There may be a great deal of room for the State Governments to chip in … so don’t forget our approach to orchestras and concerts and don’t forget that we’re the biggest concert managers in the world, which is a strange distinction . . . don’t forget that there’s . . . the States don’t chip in terribly much and we give a very good service to country areas, to schools . . don’t forget that we ourselves perhaps aren’t doing as much as we might have done to try to develop highly specialised groups … we tried in South Australia with the choral group which unfortunately folded up . . . but all I’m just simply saying is that nobody can these days put a fence round anything and say that’s absolutely taboo. But keep your ringers crossed.

I was interested in the comment about the image of woman . . . I’ve been trying to work that out myself for seventy years and having looked at Monday Conference last night I was even more unclear . . . but I don’t need to say anything about Alvin Purple … I think you’ve rather judged my views on that and if there was one thing that led me to believe that there was a lot to be said for gallup polls it was to pick up one and discover that 30 per cent of the people thought like me … it ought to be burned. For anyone engaged in marketing, which is after all what we are in a certain way could ever afford to market a program that 30 per cent of the people didn’t want … I was a bit distressed to hear it said that our . . . or I got the impression the feeling was that our TV programs were at an all time low. I don’t think this is right … I think Alvin Purple was a disaster, I think that this other wretched show is an equal disaster. We’re not good yet at making light situation comedy . . . you Enow, we’re very heavy handed and there are very few people around the world who are good at this … the French are, the Brits are, the Americans are horrible and the Germans are colossal. Which isn’t to say that we’ve got to stop trying and what I want to see happen is that we just go on trying to see whether we can get on top of this particular technique. But never in another disastrous series . . . it’s one thing to spend $25,000 maybe on a half hour show and then when you recover from the brickbats in three months’ time you try again. But we haven’t produced yet good script writers, good producers and good actors for this sort of thing, which, as I say, is no reason why we shouldn’t go on trying. I think that some of the programs are very good. Indeed, I think that what we’ve done is encourage (?) the commercials to follow suit . . . there’s a new show started in Melbourne last night which has had a lot of rave notices, which is directly a result of the work we did on Power Without Glory, Rush and we’re coming up to a Timeless Land and all I hope is that the script turns out well and then that it’s cast well and then produced well . . . and the consequence of this is that another of the commercials is coming up with one of the other Australian novels … the name keeps escaping me. Some of the documentaries, some of the nature films that we’ve produced I think are world class. We’re selling them overseas, which is something … we even sold Certain Women overseas. But I . . . you know, we Ve had our lapses, but so do most people and what we’ve got to do is try to reduce the lapses as far as we can.

On current affairs, there’s no intention on our pan to cut current affairs . . . the AMs and the PMs . . . programmes will continue, TDT will continue, Four Corners will continue. We decided to cut out State of the Nation . . . it’s been a bit of a disaster in terms of what’s generally thought of it, and I’m not talking about politicians here. I ‘m talking about the people who look at it. TDT is a terribly expensive program- it costs about $2m . . . and, you know, it’s getting up into the orchestra class. TDT as I Ve said elsewhere in most States has been scraping the barrel … I don’t know for myself, but I suppose I’d better watch it for the next few days down here, which will encourage everybody to put on some good performances … the ogre is about. But judging by my fan mail, apparently a lot of people aren’t terribly impressed by some of TDT down here. It’s extremely difficult to keep up a high level of informed, critical, analytical approach to what may be called current affairs problems . . and I suspect, indeed I know that in some cases TDT has gone out and created news and then rushed along next night and filmed the result of their stimulation of the previous day. I’ve already referred elsewhere to that awful affair at Monash, which I’m sorry to say I think TDT had a large hand in … in producing. Now, what we’re looking for is a means of revitalising the TDT program, we haven’t yet taken final decisions as to how this should be done. Whatever happens there’ll be a large input from the regions … it won’t be dominated by Melbourne or Sydney. And I would hope that we come up with a program that instead of having a half a dozen snippets, none of which treats anything in any effective way, that we’ll have rather fewer items which will treat in more depth and with more sophistication and with more balance items of significance that come up in the news. And this raises an enormously important problem that we’re wrestling with … we have as perhaps you ‘ve heard, a sort of barrier between news and current affairs . . . we’ve got some union problems in this area, which ought to be capable of solution. If you’ve watched the news you will have noticed that the straight news particularly on the seven o’clock national TV program, sometimes has an element of what I might call embroidery or elaboration about it. Now, you can go through from straight news to commentary over a spectrum and somewhere in the middle you get out of straight news and before you know where you are you’re into straight analytic commentary. Now, this is troubling broadcasting outfits all round the world . . . how you cope with it . . . the newsboys here are concerned that the current affairs boys are seen as the glamour boys and they don ‘t see any reason why they shouldn’t be in the glamour game. I think what we may get to is the situation where the TDT program becomes an analytic, critical study of the main items of news of the day and this itself produces some problems because so much can happen between the time that TDT goes to bed and the time the news comes on. And we’ve had, indeed last night was another occasion in point . . . lots of problems because in the 2’A hours or 2 hours that expires between . . . elapses between TDT going to bed and the seven o’clock news comes on all sorts of things can happen. In Melbourne last night the seven o’clock news quite rightly said that the Post Office hoohah was over in Sydney and TDT came on five minutes later and said, you know, what’s going to happen to the Post Office hoohah in Sydney . . . so we’ve got some technical problems as well to solve.

But what we would hope will come out of this will not only be some money saving, but a better program and I think I might just stop here if I may … I’m talking too long chairman … to say this . . . don’t regard this financial constraint as a dreadful disaster for the ABC- it is nothing of the son. The ABC is now having happen to it what has happened to a great number of organisations over the years. It s going to discover that it can do a lot of things very much better than it has been doing and it’s going to discover a lot of new ways of doing things that it hasn’t been doing in the past. And this I think is tremendously important.

On Launceston I know all about the desire of Launceston to have its own TV facilities … the folk here have been telling me about your transmitter problems it seems that some areas round Launceston are sublimely placed in that they can’t hear anybody. I’d have thought that had a great lot going for it. But all I would just simply say is . . . and I don’t misunderstand the position at all . . . but when I was in Newcastle a few weeks ago, they were very insistent that they had an area to serve of over half a million and they don’t have facilities and they’re very well advanced- they’ve got a studio mostly fitted out, except that we’ve been cannibalising it in recent times to use bits and pieces for elsewhere. And as I’ve said Radio Australia wants an awful lot of money to get its launch to go to its transmitter and to get some aerials on the transmitters and to replace the ones that are falling apart at Shepparton. It’s all a matter of priorities . . . and from now on as you have seen from the Green report the ABC is going to be vitally concerned with planning . . . this is again if the government adopts this tremendous advance because here we’ve had a situation where Telecom goes rushing around shoving up transmitters in all sorts of people’s back yards, virtually for the benefit of two people living in next door houses, and this doesn’t make terribly much sense. And so the ABC will I hope from now on really be determining where transmitters should be and of course at that stage the politicians and the parliamentarians mightn’t like the ABC taking an independent objective view of where transmitters ought to be placed, because they’ll no longer be able to rush along to Ministers and encourage them to put transmitters in people ‘s back yards.

Well, chairman, I think I’ve said enough for the time being.

Senator RYAN:

– I thank the Senate. I turn now to the legislation before us. It has been drasticlly amended since it was first introduced into the other place last week. I believe now, perhaps because it has been drastically amended, that it is fairly pointless legislation which is not worth pursuing at this stage. The remaining provisions in the legislation, now that the most obnoxious provisions which would have sacked the entire ABC and funded commercial broadcasting have been removed, are fairly pointless.

There is a provision in the Bill that every State should be represented on the ABC. I think this is a quite unnecessary piece of legalism. Any government which wants to ensure a balanced representation of States could have done so under the existing legislation and could do so without any legislative requirement. This is an inflexible provision. I should like to point out a couple of other inadequacies in a provision such as this. One is, of course, that no mention is made of the Territories. The Territories yet again are ignored. At this point of time I would not claim that the ACT would necessarily require a representative because it is fortunate, in one respect, in that it is close to the national media. I would suggest that if there is a case for having State representation-I am not sure that there is- the Northern Territory should be considered. Surely the people of the Northern Territory who have particular needs with regard to national and public broadcasting would be entitled to representation. They have particular problems with their huge distances, with the Aboriginal population and with the decentralised and isolated areas of population. If there is any justification for representation on the basis of States, surely the Northern Territory-if not the Australian Capital Territory- should be included.

An amazingly anachronistic and uncalled for provision is contained in this legislation requiring the appointment of 2 women commissioners. I am not grateful for such a provision. I remind the Senate that when the original legislation was drawn up in 1942- the year in which I was born- it provided for one woman commissioner. At that time, only S commissioners were appointed to the ABC. At that time the rights of women to participate in public institutions and public life had suffered a great setback since the early feminist movement because of the Depression of the late 1920s and early 1930s and the subsequent world war. The argument about the status of women was probably at an all-time low in 1942. It may not have been unreasonable at that stage to provide specifically for representation by a woman on the Commission. I hope that during my lifetime, and partly as a result of the feminist movement, to which I have devoted a lot of my energies and will continue to do so, we will find that we have passed the stage where unless we provide legislatively for the appointment of a woman no woman will be appointed. What sort of egalitarianism is that? I am not particularly interested in that kind of legislative provision for equal opportunity. Equal opportunity must come in a more sound and basic way than through mere legislative provision. But if one is proffering some sort of egalitarianism through this legislation, I should have thought that a provision for at least 4 women out of the 9 members would have been more realistic. I will not say any more about that at this point because it will be raised at the Committee stage.

The main issue at stake in the current debate on broadcasting in Australia is the issue of access to information. The reason why all sections of the community have risen up and opposed the Government’s attempts to interfere with the ABC is simply this: In Australia we have a print media which is a complete monopoly of a very small number of people who, on the whole, are not democratic in their outlook. The Opposition sees a danger of the electronic media becoming a similar monopoly. Australians appreciate the fact that an independent broadcasting system is probably the only guarantee they have in present circumstances of having access to information which they may fairly judge to be unbiased, objective and properly critical of all political parties. That is the main issue, and that is the reason why the Government’s attempts to set up an ABC composed entirely of its own nominees were so strenuously opposed by the community.

There are a couple of other issues. There is the issue involved with Australia’s peculiar geography and peculiar geographic position. Because Australia is so isolated from the rest of the world, broadcasting is particularly important. Because many Australians are so isolated from other Australians and from access to any kind of information at all, broadcasting is particularly important. Another issue which I am pleased to say has become of importance to the community is the issue of Australian content. I do not want to go over the whole of the Australian content debate, but I would like to say that Australians are ready for Australian content in their broadcasting and television programs, in both current affairs and drama. They are ready for it, and evidence for that can be found in the great success- the almost surprising success- of a number of ABC television dramas which have an Australian content. I refer to programs such as Seven Little Australians, Rush, Luke’s Kingdom, Certain Women, Bellbird and Power Without Glory. Not all those programs were really brilliant. For example, I am surprised at the tremendous success of Power Without Glory, which seems to me, as a piece of television drama, not to be of exceptional standard. But the success of these programs lies in the fact that they are Australian. They are about our own culture, they are written by our own writers, and they reflect our own social mores of the present and of the past. I have noticed that young children and teenagers particularly are absolutely fascinated by programs like Rush and Power Without Glory, which give them some insight into their own history. These programs have been made and been very successful. The issue of Australian content, I think, has now been settled. Similarly, the success of the Australian film industry indicates a readiness by Australians to accept their own products in the media.

Honourable senators may be wondering why I have raised the subject of Australian content at this point in the debate. If we have legislation which undermines the independence of the ABC, if we have financial strictures which limit the ability of the ABC to make programs such as those, we will not continue to have them. It is fairly clear that the commercial interests will not spend the money and do not have the skills and resources to proceed with the development of this very exciting phenomenon of Australian media productions. Only the ABC can continue to do those things and it can do them only if it has the creative freedom, the independence, and an appropriate financial allocation.

In conclusion, I must make it clear that the Opposition does not believe that everything is perfect with the ABC or with the Broadcasting Control Board or with the issuing of licences or any other matters that are touched on in the legislation before us. We have never said that there was no need for public inquiry or that there was no need for a restructuring of broadcasting. There is a need for all those things. I submit there is a need for a public inquiry into broadcasting, one of suitable duration and substance to give rise to good legislation and sensible structural change. I refer to the fact that the Arran inquiry in Great Britain will take 3 years. That seems to me to be an appropriate period of time for a public inquiry into broadcasting. There have been just criticisms of the ABC which a public inquiry could explore, such as its having a top-heavy bureaucracy, a lack of depth in some current affairs programs, a lack of professionalism on the part of some interviewers, and so on. All these things are just criticisms and could be properly investigated by a public inquiry.

Our earlier contention has been proved right, that a new type of broadcasting structure is necessary to accommodate developments such as community access broadcasting, special interest broadcasting, and the issue of public broadcasting licensing. There is a need for clarification of where editorial and programming policy should properly reside in broadcasting. We have seen a great deal of confusion. There have been accusations of censorship and, indeed, there have been acts of censorship in the past few months since Sir Henry Bland took over chairmanship of the ABC, partly because, I believe, responsibility for editorial and programming policy has not been clearly enough defined, or where it is defined it is no longer appropriate. There is a need for more community and worker participation in order to decentralise and demonopolise the media.

There are lots of examples of things a public inquiry could look at. We could look at what has happened in Holland where there is a very interesting and innovative structure in access radio. We could take a lesson from what has happened in France where there is monopolisation of the media by the Government. None of these things was looked at in the hurried and secret inquiry that led up to the legislation before us. There is also the question of standards but I will not dwell on that subject because my colleague Senator Melzer spoke very persuasively last night about the needs for standards for children’s television and there is to be a Senate Standing Committee inquiry into that matter. However, standards are of concern to the community. There is a lot of confusion about aesthetic standards, moral standards, technical standards and so on and so forth and a lot of these things need to be resolved. There is also the possibility of investigating the potential of the ABC to make and sell programs of high quality overseas. Perhaps that is one way in which the financing of the ABC could be more satisfactorily managed. Undoubtedly it can make programs of high standard and if it were appropriately structured it could sell these on the market and recoup the finance for investment in further programs of that kind.

I suggest these things because I do not want the Government to think we are being entirely negative about the whole question. We appreciate the fact that the Government responded to public criticism and removed the most offensive aspects from the legislation before us, but because it did that we really think that the legislation now have is botched. It was hastily conceived legislation. It originally was drawn up for a sinister political purpose-to rid of the Commissioners who were unacceptable to the Government. That strategy did not succeed. What we have left in this Bui really is not worth proceeding with at present.

Senator Young:

-Tell that to the staff of the ABC.

Senator RYAN:

-The honourable senator suggests that I should tell something to the staff of the ABC. I have not been telling the staff of the ABC anything. I have been listening to the ABC staff for some time on this issue and I will continue to listen to the staff of the ABC and workers in associated industries, and I will continue to listen to members of the public express their views on broadcasting because I think that is my responsibility rather than telling them what they should be doing. Because the legislation before us virtually has had its guts taken out- the sinister political aspect has been removed- there is nothing much in it which is worth proceeding with. The change from a Broadcasting Control Board to a Tribunal really only means that we will have a body similar in structure and function but all its members will be nominees of the present Government, and that is most unfortunate. Therefore, I support the amendment moved by my colleague Senator Button which opposes this legislation and proposes to send it back for redrafting after a period of time for proper public inquiry and discussion so that the Government will then come up with legislation which will restructure public broadcasting in the interests of democracy, the Australian consumer and all the people involved in the industry.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– in reply- The Senate has been engaged in an extensive debate involving some 9 honourable senators from both sides of the chamber, primarily concerning one main Bill, the Broadcsting and Television Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1076 and 2 machinery measures considered cognately. Inevitably the debate has ranged more widely than the terms of the Bill. The main substance of the debate has been an expression by honourable senators of their concepts of what may be the defects of the electronic media, both radio and television, and how they feel there should be some improvements. None of those matters relate to the mechanics of this Bill. I think all Australians share the view that it is eminently desirable to upgrade, as far as one can, broadcasting and television in this country. The elements are expressed in the same way in every country that has such a debate today. Of course the Government agrees and we would seek to have the highest possible standards for broadcasting and television in Australia.

It is significant to record that nevertheless the Opposition has expressed the view that it is not opposed to the concept of some reforms, some legislative restructuring of the broadcasting and television system. In fact a number of Opposition senators said so. Senator Button, who lead for the Opposition, I think indicated that. Indeed basically what a number of Opposition senators have said is that the present legislation is, in their words, ‘somewhat insignificant’. There has been a dialogue in public. The Government listened to the dialogue and made some amendments. Incidentally, on the one hand we had an argument that we ought to have a public debate and listen to it but we had not and on the other hand, I think, the Opposition acknowledged that we had had such a public debate and we had listened and had amended legislation and the Opposition commended the amendments as such.

I want to state some principles. I state quite unequivocally that my Governemnt stands for an independent broadcasting and television system, in terms of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, absolutely free of all political interference. There has been considerable debate and emotionalism over recent weeks. I simply invite the public of Australia to test one thing. In 23 years of Liberal-Country Party Government in the past the Australian Broadcasting Commission grew in strength, in quality and in independence, and was free of political interference. I invite the public to recall that we are a Government of the same philosophy and with the same goals. We aim to have the Australian Broadcasting Commission enhanced in the quality of its delivery. As I have said before, the goal of the Australian Broadcasting Commission is often argued as being the goal of independence. That is not the goal. The goal of the Australian Broadcasting Commission is to establish an adequate and comprehensive programming service for Australia and that is what the legislation enjoins the Commission to do. Towards the accomplishment of that goal, independence is provided so that objectivity shall be achieved. It is vital that in the seeking of the goal everybody-both Government and the ABCshould look to a completely non-partisan and objective approach by the ABC. I believe that this will be the goal to which we will work.

Much has been said about the Government seeking to stack the Commission. I respond by saying that during the course of the Whitlam Government, I think it is right to say, all members of the Australian Broadcasting Commission and almost all members of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board were replaced by the Whitlam Government. It seems that the Opposition feels that it was quite all right for it to make such replacements but that replacements by this Government would be wrong. Over a period of 23 years numerous replacements were made by governments of my philosophy, and without critical comment by the people of Australia. That would justify our judgment, in that -

Senator Button:

– Hear, hear!

Senator CARRICK:

- Senator Button acknowledges that fact. I think it is important that we acknowledge it. The real test is whether we are appointing people of objectivity and quality to the Commission. I think it is significant that it is acknowledged by the Labor Opposition that in the past Liberal-Country Party appointments to the Commission have been good appointments. That has been said.

The Bill is virtually an interim measure. It seeks to set up a series of institutions. It abolishes the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, sets up the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and gives to that Tribunal in the interim period, prior to further legislation, virtually the powers of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. The Bill leaves with the Minister temporarily, in that interim period, the final power of licence approvals. Ultimately that power will be transferred to the Tribunal. Since we are debating the need for a non-political broadcasting and television system, I want to say that this Government is going further than any government went in the past. Whereas in the past applications for licences were investigated and recommended by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board and then approved by the Minister, in future the Tribunal- an independent statutory body- will investigate applications and determine licences free of political intervention. Whilst in the past under the Wireless Telegraphy Act it was possiblethat Act was operated on by the Whitlam Government-for Ministers to grant licences, for instance, for public broadcasting, in the longer term this power will pass to the Tribunal and there will be no political or ministerial determination of licences. I think all these matters are valuable.

In the course of the debate there was a great deal of discussion about standards. A lot of concern was expressed, and rightly so, about the quality of television and broadcasting as it relates to children primarily, during children’s viewing and listening times, and to adults, because assault on the eyes and ears is as bad in many ways as physical assault on the body. It is important to understand that this measure envisages that, immediately upon the setting up of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, that Tribunal will set out upon a broad ranging public inquiry into standards and will invite the public of Australia to tell that Tribunal the kind of standards that the people of Australia want. This is an enormously important inquiry and one which should have full public support. I hope that members of the Opposition will make submissions to that inquiry on standards, because we all will be very interested to see what kind of standards they suggest. I remind Senator Button, who is smiling now, that when he was in government Ministers of his persuasion argued that there should be a relaxation of standards and that the public should be given freer choice. So this is basically an important matter.

There are some matters that I would like to clean up. I am conscious of the time limit and shall therefore do so quickly. An important announcement was made this morning on ethnic radio. There was acknowledgement by the Australian Broadcasting Commission of its acceptance of its role. To save time and with the Opposition’s approval, I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a telex of a statement by the Australian Broadcasting Commission on ethnic radio, which was signed by the General Manager, Mr Duckmanton. I think that it would be handy for all honourable senators to have it in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The document read as follows-

ATTN: Minister for Post and Telecommunications

ATTN: Norman Bennell Sectel

page 3034

ATTN: AAP

ATTN: The Australian Martin Beasley please copy to news editor daily Telegraph and Phillip Macintosh, Age Sydney Bureau

ATTN: The Age Phillip McCarthy

ATTN: MGRVic

Statement by the Australian Broadcasting Commission. Embargoed for public release at 7 p.m. Thursday 9 December 1 976.

The Commission at its meeting today, reviewed the course of discussions the Chairman and the General Manager had had with the Minister for Post and Telecommunications and the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs since the Government invited the ABC to take over the ethnic radio stations 2EA Sydney and 3EA Melbourne.

Agreement has been reached about the functions of the national ethnic broadcasting advisory committee, which go beyond advice for the ABC, that the secretariat for it would be provided by the ABC, and that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs would consult with the ABC about appointments to the committee.

As soon as the Committee has been appointed, the ABC will be looking to it for advice about the conduct and program structure of the ethnic stations. The Commission’s objective will be, in light of this advice, to settle these matters by early March and then assume formal responsibility for the stations. It may take some little time thereafter to implement the conclusions arrived at in actual program structure.

The plan is to operate the ethnic broadcasting service as a discreete element of the ABC. The Commission has already given preliminary consideration to detailed investigations made by its staff and feels confident that it will be able to provide a service that not merely meets more adequately the needs of ethnic communities, but one which will have an appeal to the Australian community as a whole.

The Commission’s acceptance of the generment’s invitation is subject to its covering all costs of the new service, including the cost of support services, e.g. management, personnel, accounts and general administration without any diminution in the funds that would be provided for the ABC’s normal services. It is not possible at this stage to quantify the ultimate costs because so much depends upon the conclusions reached by the commission following the advice of the committee, the extent to which it is decided that english language training should be provided, the need to provide a special program content of news from migrants’ countries of origin and the decisions reached by the Government about the transmitters.

The present transmitters are obviously inadequate to provide a service to ethnic communities, for example, in the Wollongong and Newcastle areas.

The commission contemplates a continuing substantial input from the volunteers who have so far provided much of the content of 2EA and 3EA. It seems likely that some legislative changes will be needed to provide protection for the ABC in relation to its legal responsibility for program output.

There is agreement also with the Ministers that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs will proceed to the appointment of advisory committees in Sydney and Melbourne when the ABC has considered early in the new year the general advice of the new national advisory committee on matters affecting the overall conduct of the ethnic broadcasting system.

The Commission is aware of considerable concern in Melbourne about the future of 3ZZ. Today’s decision has no bearing upon the future of this station.

From Duckmanton

Ends sent 5.20 9. 12.76.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Equally I would like hastily to reaffirm a statement that I made, I think yesterday, with regard to Radio Australia. Whatever may be the statements of individuals, I repeat that this Government believes in and will implement a free and independent Radio Australia of the highest possible quality. Let there be no doubt about that.

A number of statements was made during the debate. I will be very quick in replying to them. Senator Jessop asked what was the cost of the Alvin Purple program. My understanding is that the cost of 13 episodes runs somewhat higher than his figure. He put a figure of $500,000 on it. My impression and that of my advisers is that it ran higher than that. Senator Jessop asked under what conditions a commissioner could be dismissed. I invite his attention and that of all other honourable senators to section 37 of the principal Act, which sets out the conditions and the safeguards in that regard. I will not go into them because we are racing against time. Senator Jessop asked a number of questions regarding public broadcasting. I repeat what I have said in the interim period. This will be a matter for the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to recommend. Incidentally, I should add that during the interim period standards will be the responsibility of the Tribunal, just as they are at this moment the responsibility of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board.

Senator Harradine:

– Under what section?

Senator CARRICK:

-I will find it and draw the honourable senator’s attention to it. I think that it is important to understand that at this moment, under the existing Act, the standards for commercial stations are the responsibility of the Control Board and that the standards for the Australian Broadcasting Commission are its responsibility. There is a dichotomy there. It is one to which the public may wish to address itself. That will be a matter for discussion. The answer to the interjection by Senator Harradine is that proposed section 16(1) (a), as provided for in clause 6 of the present Bill, at page 8, is the head of power to which I refer.

Senator Harradine:

– But it says nothing about administration.

Senator CARRICK:

-I think that this matter would be more appropriately dealt with in the Committee stage. Senator Ryan said 2 things. She said really that the Opposition was opposing this matter only because of the prior events that related to the amendments and not to the substance of the Bill itself. I should have thought that events which led to public dialogue and to amendments arising out of public dialogue would be events that would be commended and I would see that as being a virtue. Senator Ryan also argued that State representation was wrong. As the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications I say that scarcely a week passes by in this chamber when an honourable senator from a particular State does not get up and argue that his State is not getting a fair deal one way or another- whether by way of local news services, regional news services or regional public information services- from the ABC. It seems to me to be vital in terms of the consensus of the Senate that we should enshrine the concept of minimal representation in legislation. Honourable senators have drawn my attention to this situation in recent days. I think it is fair to say that in recent times Tasmania and South Australia have suffered simply because they do not have a voice on the Commission. It is interesting that there should be a suggestion that that voice be denied.

Senator Young raised a question in respect of the Broadcasting Council. This body will be established by regulation in early 1977 but representatives of the 3 sectors of broadcasting on the Council will have to be chosen by their professional associations. The functions of the Broadcasting Council, as set out under this Bill, are to review and comment upon plans for developments in broadcasting presented to the Minister. The Commission is to have a consultative function only. Assuming that we follow the pattern set in the other place and the Bill is passed by the Senate the Commission will have modified consultative powers.

Let me very quickly pull all of the points together. The Government has introduced a Bill which seeks to abolish the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. This legislation proposes to transfer the Board’s powers of licensing to a statutory authority, and no one argues against that. Also, it proposes to transfer the Board’s powers of inquiry to a statutory body, and no one argues against that. In addition it proposes to transfer the Board’s technical powers to the Postal and Telecommunications Department, and there is no dialogue against that at all. The legislation proposes to give to the Tribunal the power to undertake a major wide-ranging inquiry into standards, and everyone has sought just such a move.

In accordance with a series of important measures recommended to the Green Committee by the Australian Broadcasting Commission itself and by employees of the ABC it is proposed to give the Australian Broadcasting Commission vital new changes in respect of staffing arrangements by releasing the Commission partially and significantly from the control of the Public Service Board. The proposal to establish a management-employee consultative committee is of vital importance because it provides the basis for consultation within the industry. As a consequence the Australian community will have an impeccable broadcasting and television service in the sense that it will be absolutely free of political control. I repeat that there will be less political intervention than was possible under the previous legislation. There will be no political intervention in respect of licencing at all, and this proposal is absolutely vital. There will be in fact absolute freedom for the Australian Broadcasting Commission.

I repeat that the Australian Broadcasting Commission is and will remain a statutory body charged with producing adequate and comprehensive programming in Australia. All aspects of programming by the Commission are the total responsibility of the Commission and of nobody else. No government seeks- and certainly not this Government- to intervene in the programming of the Commission. The government of the day on behalf of the taxpayer says to the Commission, as it does to others: ‘This is your budget for the year’. This year the Commission suffered, as did all government departments and instrumentalities, some restraints in finance because of recessive characteristics which this Government inherited. A reduction of some 6 per cent was made in respect of the budget of the Commission. Virtually $130m of taxpayers’ money is available to the Commission. This money will be allocated by the Commission and by nobody else according to its priorities and without any intervention at all by government. This is an interim measure, and of course a series of events will flow from it. I repeat that during the second reading debate nobody really suggested that there was a fundamental defect in the structure of this measure. I take aboard the general criticisms of honourable senators about the need continuously to upgrade the quality of programs and the need to upgrade standards. I will convey them to my Government. In the light of those comments, the Government will reject the Opposition’s proposed amendment. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Amendment negatived.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills read a second time.

In Committee

Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1976

Clauses 1 and 2- by leave- taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 3 postponed.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5

“PART II-THE AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING TRIBUNAL”.

  1. Division 1 of Pan II of the Principal Act is repealed and the following Division substituted:- “Division 1 -Establishment and Constitution of the Tribunal “(4) Subject to sub-section ( 1 1 ), a person appointed to act in accordance with sub-section ( 1 ) or (2) shall not continue so to act for more than 12 months.
Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-I move:

In effect and in summary, proposed new subclause (4a) provides that members of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board, which is to be abolished by this legislation, who have unexpired terms as statutory officers should be appointed for the balance of these unexpired terms to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal which will be established by this legislation. The functions of the Broadcasting Control Board, which will be abolished as at 1 January 1977, apart from its technical functions, are in essence twofold. There is the quasi-judicial function of dealing with licence applications, licence renewals, the granting of licences, and so on; and there is the administrative function of administering the standards insofar as standards are prescribed by the Broadcasting and Television Act. The Government, by its amendment made to this legislation in relation to the Australian Broadcasting Commission, has seen fit to say: The position of statutory office holders on the Australian Broadcasting Commission should be protected. They should not be axed. ‘ I use that expression in a political context, totally unfamiliar to us all! Office holders should be allowed to complete the unexpired portion of their terms as members of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. It has probably been a less flamboyant political issue, but the same thing intended by the original legislation in relation to the Australian Broadcasting Commission is being done by this Bill to the office holders of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board. I thought the matter was well expressed by the honourable member for Casey, Mr Peter Falconer. Speaking in the House of Representatives he is reported at page 3399 of the House of Representatives Hansard oil December to have stated:

My objection to the legislation in its initial form was that it seemed that it required some people to be removed from the present Commission-

He is speaking about the Australian Broadcasting Commission -

I believe that people ought to be allowed to serve out their existing terms.

If that proposition is right in respect of one statutory body it should, in our view, be right in respect of another statutory body, namely, the Broadcasting Control Board. In fact, there are 3 members of the Broadcasting Control Board who would, in the normal course of events, continue to hold office after 1 January 1977. The full time member is Dr Geoffrey Evans, who was appointed on 1 November 1975 by the Australian Labor Party Government. Page 3 of the annual report of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board for the year ending 30 June 1976 makes reference to members of the Board. It states:

Dr Evans was formerly Ministerial Adviser to Dr Moss Cass, the Minister for the Media. He holds degrees of Master of Agricultural Science, Sydney University (1961) and Doctor of Philosophy, Cornell University (1965). From 1967-71 he was a Research Scientist with CSIRO and from 1972-74 was Secretary to the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts.

It was during that period that the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts, produced one of the Senate’s most monumental reports on an inquiry into broadcasting. The Committee lasted for some 2 years. Senator Carrick and Senator James McClelland served on that Committee. There may be other honourable senators present who also served on it. Dr Evans was secretary to the Committee. He has a long period of expertise in broadcasting. The other 2 members of the Broadcasting Control Board who would be affected are: Dr Patricia Edgar of La Trobe University, who has published a number of reports relating to children’s television standards in this country, and Mr E. A. Kellam who was appointed this year by the Liberal Government and who was formerly managing director of Dunlop Australia Ltd. He has also made a significant contribution to the work of the Broadcasting Control Board.

So of the 3 persons concerned, only one is a full time member and that is Dr Evans. Only one member would be eligible for a full time appointment on the proposed tribunal, and that would be Dr Evans. Presumably, the other two would be eligible in the category of associate member of the tribunal. I put to the Senate very seriously that if the principle holds good in relation to one statutory body it should hold good in relation to another. That principle was stated by Mr Falconer in the House of Representatives. I believe it is shared by most members of the Parliament. It is for that reason that I have moved the amendment.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I shall say some few words in reply to Senator Button. I assume that the Government will not accept the amendment. I think it is most unfair of Senator Button to bring in an argument which Mr Falconer raised in relation to the Australian Broadcasting Commission, which is an organisation running the national broadcasting service and which will continue to do that. Although the complexion of this organisation will change it will continue to run this national service. The honourable senator has transposed Mr

Falconer’s words in that respect- I strongly support them- namely, that there should be continuity of employment for the people who are in their present positions. But under this clause we are discussing another matter with which Mr Falconer was not dealing at all, namely, that this is a new organisation to be known as the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal.

Senator Button:

– I made that clear.

Senator MISSEN:

– The honourable senator used the argument of Mr Falconer and transposed it to a completely separate situation, namely, that this clause sets up a new tribunal. The Australian Broadcasting Control Board is being abolished. The honourable senator is suggesting that when the Government transfers some of the Control Board’s powers to the new Tribunal is must appoint to the Tribunal the same persons who were on the Control Board. If that suggestion were accepted, the Government would be inhibited in deciding who was suitable for appointment to the Tribunal with the powers that it will have.

I have no doubt that the Government will take into account the people and the qualifications of the people who are on the existing Board, but to suggest that there is any relevance between this and the other situation is nonsense. The suggestion that the Government ought to be inhibited is, I think, quite inconceivable.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– The Government will oppose this amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6

Section 1 6 of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section substituted:

  1. ( 1) The functions of the Tribunal are to perform the duties and to exercise the powers imposed or conferred upon it by other provisions of this Act and, in addition-

    1. to determine the standards to be observed by licensees in respect of broadcasting or televising of programs;
    2. to determine the conditions subject to which advertisements may be broadcast or televised by licensees; and
    3. to determine the hours during which programs are to be or may be broadcast or televised by licensees, and include such other functions in relation to broadcasting stations and television stations as are prescribed.’
Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

– I move:

The Opposition’s position on this is quite clear. Senator Carrick, in his reply to the second reading debate today, stressed time and again that the Australian Broadcasting Commission was required by the terms of the Broadcasting and Television Act to provide adequate and comprehensive programs. Until this Bill is passed the commercial sector of the industry is also required under section 16 of the existing Act to provide adequate and comprehensive programs in exactly the same way as the ABC. The effect of this clause is to repeal the requirement that commercial television stations provide adequate and comprehensive programs and to leave the ABC with that statutory instruction to provide adequate and comprehensive programs.

I think there is a general concern about the standards of television programs. Senator Carrick addressed himself to this question this morning. We feel, for a number of reasons, that section 16 should remain in the Act as it always has. I illustrate my point in this way. In the Green report on broadcasting and television there is a reference in paragraphs 75 and 76 at page 26 to a discussion by the Vincent Committee in 1962 about the expression ‘adequate and comprehensive programs’. The Green committee went on in paragraph 76, after dealing with the interpretation of those words, to discuss them in the context of the commercial sector of broadcasting. It said:

  1. . that this inquiry would endorse the spirit of the above interpretation, but in the following paragraphs will canvass those individual aims which it considers appropriate to each sector of broadcasting.

The fact of the matter is that they were accepted as appropriate criteria for the commercial sector as well as the ABC. The Government is displaying inconsistency in removing this stipulation in relation to the commercial sector but leaving it there for the Australian Broadcasting Commission.

It is often said on behalf of the commercial sector that it gives the public what they want. I refer the Senate again to the comment of the Pilkington Committee in Great Britain on this very question. It is quoted in the Green report at page 33 and it says:

No one can say he is giving the public what he wants unless the public knows the whole range of possibilities which television can offer and from this range chooses what it wants to see. What the public wants and what it has a right to get is the freedom to choose from the widest possible range of program matter. Anything less than this is deprivation.

The section which this Bill removes is the only stipulation in the Broadcasting and Television Act which does something towards preventing what the Pilkington inquiry called deprivation in terms of television comprehensiveness and adequateness, to use the words of the section.

There is one other thing I want to say. I refer the Senate to the report of the Broadcasting Control Board which was referred to in yesterday’s Press. I read from the report in the Age which refers to self-regulation being a subject for a public inquiry next year by the proposed Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. The article says:

The survey found that 39 per cent of those favouring control of television believed it should be done by a Government body.

An independent representative body was favoured by 27 percent.

Fewer than one in four believed control of TV content should be left to television stations.

Only a small minority believed there should be no control at all.

The report then goes on to deal with the poll which was conducted and says:

The response favouring controls on what was shown was 75 per cent. The opposition was 22 per cent. The remaining 3 per cent did not know.

They are the sort of people who listen to test pattern music. The article continues:

The response favouring control of time of programs was 83 per cent. The opposition was 14 per cent.

The figures go on in that vein. I do not need to go into them in further detail but I refer honourable senators to the report. So the Opposition has moved its amendment because the Government is adopting double standards on this issue by not retaining the present prescription in the Broadcasting and Television Act.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– Let me state very briefly that the Government will oppose this amendment. It will do so not for the reasons that Senator Button adduced but for very good and cogent reasons. As soon as the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal is established its primary job will be to set up a major public inquiry into standards so that in the place of an amorphous stipulation of adequate and comprehensive programs it will be possible for the community to transmit to the tribunal its ideas as to what standards there ought to be in terms of hours or in terms of the quality and the comprehensive and adequate nature of programs generally. That is the whole basis for the inquiry. So this legislation is in no way an abandonment of sanctions upon commercial stations or indeed, in the end, standards which the Australian Broadcasting Commission must look at. It is an invitation to the public in the first place to find out what the public requires and, consequent upon that, it is competent for this Parliament to legislate further if it so desires.

In the interm, after the passage of this Bill, the Tribunal will be responsible for standards, just as the Broadcasting Control Board has been responsible. So there will be no vacuum. There will be an interim period in which the Tribunal will have the same powers as the Board had. Following the public inquiry, the likelihood is that there will be a far more comprehensive expression of standards desired by the public than is contained in the general terms now in the Act.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

– Following my contribution to the debate last night, I might appear to be a little obtuse this morning, but I cannot see how, under clause 6, the Tribunal has, firstly, the authority and, secondly, the power to administer what is already able to be administered by the Australian Broadcasting Control Board under section 16 ( 1 ) (c) of the current Broadcasting and Television Act which is sought to be repealed by this Bill. I advert to what Senator Melzer said last night. She made the point very clearly that in America television has taught children to kill before they learn to read. As I read the Bill- I hope my interpretation is incorrect- it seeks to repeal that part of the Act which is related to the Broadcasting Control Board. One of the functions of the Broadcasting Control Board, albeit recently it has not lived up to its reputation, is to deal with complaints from viewers as to standards of production and standards of presentation.

If there is one thing that the people of Australia want it is ease of access to some sort of tribunal in order to ensure that the standards which they deem to be acceptable are those standards which are accepted by the electronic media. Admittedly at present that requirement can be imposed only on the commercial stations, and that is not done with great effect by the Broadcasting Control Board. At least the amendment put forward by Senator Button attempts to enshrine in this legislation a power for the Tribunal to ensure that adequate and comprehensive programs are provided by commercial broadcasting stations and commercial television stations in the best interests of the general public. Of course, it is an attempt to transpose what is currently contained in section 16 (1) (c) of the Act into the new provisions for the Tribunal. I wonder whether the Minister can explain to the Senate just where in proposed new section 16 the Tribunal is given power to administer, as distinct from determine, the standards to be observed by licensees? Does the Minister interpret the word determine’ to mean both determine and administer? If so, are there provisions for regulations to be made so that the Tribunal in the period between its establishment and its making findings after the public inquiry can ensure the maintenance of standards in the public interest?

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– There was a curiously convoluted illogicality in the reply which the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) gave to Senator Button. As I understood him he was saying that there has existed in the Act up till now some requirement on commercial broadcasters to provide adequate and comprehensive programs. I do not think anybody would claim that they satisfy that requirement in the Act. It was constantly claimed in defence of the Broadcasting Control Board that it had fallen down on its job to police that requirement because of some weakness in the powers conferred on the Board.

I can remember when the Committee to which Senator Button adverted was holding its inquiries. It had the Chairman of the Broadcasting Control Board, Mr Miles Wright, before it on several occasions. He was asked- principally by me-why it was that with this provision in the Act the broadcasters were able to drive a horse and cart through the Act and were obviously not providing adequate and comprehensive programs. He took the curious view, especially in relation to radio programs, that provided in a given area there were adequate and comprehensive programs- if rock music was coming from one station and high class music from another- this constituted for an area some sort of adequate and comprehensive broadcasting. Nonetheless, we did not get adequate and comprehensive broadcasting, from either commercial television or commercial radio stations, even when this provision was in the Act.

Now Senator Carrick tells us that they are going to hold an inquiry which almost inevitably will result in even more stringent requirements for adequate and comprehensive services. I take it that he envisages a fairly lengthy inquiry. At least I hope he envisages a lengthy inquiry so that the matter will be looked at in the way that Senator Ryan has suggested. But in the meantime we will have this hiatus when the message will go out to these custodians of popular broadcasting: ‘Bob’s your uncle’. I very much fear that if they are allowed 6 months, 12 months, or 2 years to establish their own notion of standards they will be immovable, no matter what emerges from the inquiry. They are a very powerful lobby and I know that their philosophy of using the air waves of the nation merely to make money without any regard for the public interest has many sympathisers on the Government side of politics.

I fear that if we allow this hiatus and the broadcasters are allowed to establish their standards before the public inquiry is finished we shall get their standards all right and they will be worse than they have been up to now.

Senator YOUNG:
South Australia

– I have listened with interest to the comments of the Opposition speakers and to the arguments they have been propounding. I was interested in the comments Senator James McClelland made when he referred to the commercial interests of commercial radio and television and to the fact that they were not worried about standards during this so-called interim period. I remind the Senate of what the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) has said today, that is, that the Tribunal is going to hold a public inquiry so that the people of this country can come forward and give evidence and pass comment. If the standards of these commercial sinners that are referred to by the Opposition are going to become so low, I am very certain that the people of Australia will come forward and say many critical things and will want to lay down very stringent standards.

I feel that this responsibility should rest with the people concerned, that is, with the general public. It is all very well for us to stand here and use the term ‘adequate and comprehensive’. Let one of the honourable senators opposite define for me what the Opposition means by ‘adequate and comprehensive . It will be far better for the general public to come forward when the opportunity is given for the Tribunal to hold a public inquiry and set down standards that it thinks are necessary for this country. A lot of confusion surrounds this issue. A lot of discussion has been going on for a long time. We have problems with children’s programs, on which we hear contradictory arguments. There are many areas about which people have been concerned and I am certain that people will come forward on this occasion and express their concern. I feel that they will be far better at setting down the definition, as they see it, of ‘adequate and comprehensive ‘ than anyone else.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

– I make just one comment on what Senator James McClelland said about this hiatus period. I ask the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) in his reply to comment on the fact- I put it to him that it is a fact-that in the past 3 months average advertising time per hour on commercial television has gone up from 9 minutes to 13 minutes when the standard set by the Broadcasting Control Board is a maximum of 1 1 minutes per hour. That is the sort of thing which I believe Senator

James McClelland had in mind and which will occur in this hiatus period if this amendment is not passed and if there is not some authority to deal with these issues until the inquiry make the recommendations to which the Minister has referred.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I am advised that the standards for advertising are 13 minutes during prime viewing time and 1 1 minutes during non-prime viewing time. I have no evidence that those times have been exceeded. It is competent for the Australian Broadcasting Control Board to look at that matter in respect of the weeks immediately past. Let me deal with this matter as quietly as I can. I do understand it. Senator James McClelland and I did a great deal of work together on this matter. I hope that I am not misjudging what he said in any way. As I understand it, he said that the words ‘adequate and comprehensive’ were so ambiguous that it was virtually impossible to pin them down and that to that extent they were of no great help to the Broadcasting Control Board.

Senator James McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I did not agree with Myles Wright’s interpretation. I thought the words were adequate.

Senator CARRICK:

– The Control Board itself expressed the view that the words were amorphous or woolly. At present, the Board itself holds the view that the words do not give it any real directions. Therefore, I put it to the Senate that their presence or absence is inconsequential.

There are 2 important things to remember. One is that this Bill specifically will give the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal the power to determine the standards to be observed by licensees in respect of the broadcasting or televising of programs. It is not a question of whether the commercial stations will do their own thing. It is for the Tribunal to determine the standards. There is a firm provision for the Tribunal to do what the Australian Broadcasting Control Board can do now in accordance with the woolly wording ‘adequate and comprehensive programs’. In case anybody has any doubt about this matter, I draw the attention of the Senate to section 86 of the principal Act. That gives a residual power to the Minister. If there were to be any hiatus- I do not acknowledge that there will be- it is competent upon the Minister, indeed he is responsible, to take such action as he sees fit, under his power of suspension or revocation of licences, if there is a decline in standards.

In summary, the Board felt that the words ‘adequate’ and ‘comprehensive’ were of no use to it and that their deletion was therefore of no significance. The powers of the proposed Tribunal have been more rigidly expressed in a clear way in the Bill before us. There is a residual responsibility upon the Minister. The Government has no intention of allowing any kind of open season. It will try to interpret from the public what it wants. Senator James McClelland often has expressed the view- he expressed it when he was a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Science and the Arts- that it is important not to have standards so rigid that they do not express the contemporary viewpoint. I do not want to put words into his mouth; but at the same time, I imagine, he believes that the standards should not be so lax that they are arbitrary. Standards can and must be fixed by the Tribunal. The public has the opportunity to determine the matter. In the interim 2 things can happen: The Minister may exercise his power which, I admit, is a bulldozer power and has some defects. More importantly, the Parliament has the power to intervene by introducing legislation- if necessary, next February- if there are any defects in the present legislation. Should there be any defects in this legislation, it would be possible for very swift action. It would be a very short period before the Government could introduce legislation which would express the will of the Parliament.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

– I am sorry to take up the time of the Committee but I want to make 2 comments. I invite the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) to reply with one word. After 1 January, when the Tribunal is established, will the Australian viewing public be able to raise with the Tribunal questions of standards? Will the Tribunal be able then to determine the particular matter and to enforce its decisions on both the commercial and the public broadcasting areas?

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– The answer is yes. The Tribunal can also take over and enforce the standards, as they exist today, if it so desires.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7

After section 22 of the Principal Act the following section is inserted: 22a. ( 1 ) Where an inquiry is held by 2 or more members and those members are divided in opinion as to the recommendations to be made on any matter-

  1. if there is a majority of the one opinion- the recommendation shall be in accordance with the opinion of the majority; or

  2. in any other case- the recommendation shall be in accordance with the opinion of the member presiding at the inquiry, but the opinion or opinions of the member or members disagreeing with the recommendation shall be set out in the report relating to the inquiry.

    1. In sub-section (1), ‘member’ includes an associate member.’.
Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

– I move:

At end of proposed sub-section 22a ( 1 ), add ‘ , which shall be published and tabled in the Parliament’.

The amendment, I believe, is self-explanatory. Why should that stipulation not be included if we believe in open public discussion of what the Broadcasting Tribunal is doing? The Opposition takes the view very strongly that this is a matter, as Senator Carrick said only a few minutes ago, about which the public is concerned and about which there should be public discussion. The Opposition believes that the reports of the Tribunal should be published so that the public can take a continuing interest in the structure of broadcasting in this country and in reports which are made by the Tribunal. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s reason for opposing the amendment if, as he has often professed, he believes in openness of government. Maybe there is some sort of ritualistic Party decision which binds the Minister. I commend the amendment to the Senate.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– The Government opposes the amendment. It is true that the Green report proposes that the Tribunal should prepare and publish reports of all inquiries. However, the provision has not been included in the Bill because it is felt that the Tribunal may prepare some reports which are of a confidential nature and therefore should not be available for publication. In any event, it is considered that the publishing of reports, wherever possible, should be dealt with on an administrative basis and not as a legislative commitment. I share Senator Button’s concern for open government, and so does the Government. The test of whether the Government pursues the principles of open government will be the decisions it makes administratively from time to time on these reports, and not whether it entrenches something which may prove to be a burden. It ought to be possible for a government to determine and then to justify as it has to justify to this Parliament and to the people of Australia, whether a report is confidential. The Government opposes the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8 agreed to.

Clause 9

Sections 31, 32 and 33 of the Principal Act are repealed and the following sections substituted:

  1. 1 . ( 1 ) The Commission shall consist of-

    1. 6 Commissioners, comprising, in respect of each State, a person ordinarily resident in that State; and
    2. 3 other Commissioners.
    1. ) At least 2 of the Commissioners shall be women.
Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

– I move:

With your permission, Mr Chairman, it might be possible to deal with the 2 amendments to clause 9 together.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator DrakeBrockman) Is it the wish of the Committee to deal with the 2 clauses together? There being no objection it is so ordered.

Senator BUTTON:

– The first amendment relates to a staff elected representative on the Australian Broadcasting Commission. This was a matter of quite lengthy debate in the House of Representatives and I do not want to go into the matter in great detail, except to make one point which I feel was not made in the other place when there was this tedious discussion of what worker participation means, and so on. The point about the Australian Broadcasting Commission or a body such as the Australian Broadcasting Commission is that they are not factories. The Australian Broadcasting Commission is a creative body; it has creative tasks. I believe there is a difference between the sort of discussion on worker participation which took place in the House of Representatives and a body like the Australian Broadcasting Commission.

I understand that the Government will oppose these amendments. In all sincerity, I say that I believe that reasonably cogent arguments were advanced on this general question in the House of Representatives. Our position, however, is that the ABC has a staff elected commissioner. It should continue to do so. It was the wish of the staff association that that election take place. I believe it has led to a degree of openness within the affairs of the ABC. As to the question of the women representatives on the Commission we find that a quite extraordinary and Neanderthal sort of provision. I believe that one of my colleagues may have something to say about that aspect.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

-Like Senator Button, I have a strong view in regard to worker participation. I acknowledge readily that an organisation like the Australian Broadcasting Commission is not an organisation which produces goods and so forth; it is an organisation in which it is the responsibility of the employees to have a great public concern.

I think the situation is this: The amendments ought to be opposed. At the moment an elected staff representative is a member of the Commission. His appointment, as the Government has made it clear, is to be continued. He will be employed as a member of the Commission for the next 1 8 months or 2 years or whatever his term of office is.

There is also provision in this Bill for consultative machinery. We will be able to judge in the next 1 8 months whether it is adequate, whether it will provide a panacea, or whether the election of a staff representative is still desirable. I think that it is desirable to have a period when these methods of participation can be seen in operation and tested. I happen to have strong views on the subject, though they may not be the views of all my colleagues. But I am content to wait and see how the whole effort pans out in that period, how the consultative machinery from low to high ranks, effectively brings the staff into the decisions that are made by management. I think therefore, that that particular amendment is not called for at this stage.

With regard to the appointment of 2 women Commissioners, it is all right to say that there is no need to have this provision. But in fact we live in a society where I think we need to ensure that there are at least 2 women Commissioners. I hope that in future more than two will be appointed. But I think that there is no reason for cutting out that provision which would then be interpreted in a different way.

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– During the second reading debate on this Bill I said that the more sinister aspects of it had been removed when the Bill was redrafted. However, when looking at these two amendments to the clause we are endeavouring to amend, I think one can draw some sort of sinister inference. On the one hand, the Government is prepared to make a quite unnecessary, anachronistic and even sexist provision for the inclusion of 2 women on the Commission. But at the same time, it is not prepared to make the desirable, sensible, and perfectly acceptable provision for the appointment of an elected representative of the staff to the Commission. In order to accommodate the quite unnecessary provision of 2 women Commissioners, the Government has actually had to go to the length of saying that the number of commissioners shall be increased from nine to eleven if this is necessary to achieve the balance. It seems to me to be extraordinarily complex, clumsy and quite unnecessary.

The Green report which the Government claims is the basis for this legislation said that 9 Commissioners were too many and that seven would be adequate. Here we have a measure aimed at the possibility of having 11 commissioners simply to accommodate an unnecessary provision for 2 women. On the other hand, there is the refusal of the Government to admit a very basic principle of worker participation, which is that those working in the Australian Broadcasting Commission should have the right to elect one spokesperson to the Commission.

Sitting suspended from 1 to 2.15 p.m.

Senator RYAN:

– I conclude by saying that the amendment to provide for a representative to be elected by the staff to serve on the Commission is probably the most important amendment the Opposition has moved to this Bill. I hope the Government will accept it. We oppose, for the reasons I have given, the unnecessary sexist and patronising provision for 2 women commissioners.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– The Government will oppose the amendments for reasons as set out in another place. I think they were described as cogent reasons by Senator Button. It is important to identify the fact that this is not an attempt on our part to remove from existing legislation any legislative power to appoint a staff representative. That power does not exist. It is true that there is a staff representative on the Commission at the moment. That has happened without the necessity for any legislative amendment at all. This Government’s Bill does not preclude such a situation. The Government’s Bill provides for management staff consultation. On that basis we oppose the amendments.

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 10 to 13- by leave-taken together, and agreed to.

Clause 14

After Part IV of the principal Act the following Pan is inserted:-

Part IVa- The Public Broadcasting Service and the Public Television Service 1 1 1 a. ( 1 ) Subject to this Act, the Minister may, on payment of the prescribed fee, grant to a person a licence to operate a broadcasting station or television station for one or more of the following purposes, as specified in the licence:-

  1. to provide services for people within a specified area;
  2. b ) to provide programs of a specfied nature;

  3. to provide programs for a specified purpose.

    1. A public broadcasting licence or public television licence shall not be granted except to a corporation formed within the limits of the Commonwealth or a Territory, not being a corporation the objects of which include the acquisition of profit or gain for the benefit of its individual members.
    2. A public broadcasting licence or public television licence may be granted on such conditions, and in accordance with such form, as the Minister determines.
    3. It is a condition of a licence granted under this Part that the broadcasting station or television station, as the case may be, is to be operated only for the purpose or purposes specified in the licence in accordance with sub-section ( 1 ).
    4. The establishment, erection, maintenance and use of a public broadcasting station or public television station in pursuance of a licence under this Part shall be deemed not to be a contravention of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1 905 or of the regulations under that Act. 111b. Subject to section 1 11a, the other provisions of this Act apply, with such exceptions and subject to such modifications and adaptions as are prescribed, in relation to public broadcasting stations, public television stations, public broadcasting station licences, public television station licences and the holders of such licences as they apply in relation to commercial broadcasting stations, commercial television stations, licences for such stations and the holders of such licences.’.
Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-The Opposition will move 3 amendments to clause 14. They all relate to public broadcasting and are designed, in effect, to do 2 things. The first is to make the Broadcasting Tribunal the responsible body for issuing licences to public radio and television broadcasting stations. As the Bill now reads, the Minister is the responsible person to grant licences. The Government has talked a lot about keeping politics out of broadcasting. I thought that the Tribunal was part of that exercise. We are concerned that it should be the Tribunal which should grant these licences. Consistent with that we are concerned that public broadcasting licences should be granted on the same basis as all other licences; that is, subject to public inquiry and so on by the Tribunal. Basically the amendments are to achieve that purpose.

The other purpose of the amendments is to ensure that broadcasting licences for the public sector should not have these limiting conditions placed on them by the legislation. That seems to us to represent a misconception of the nature of public broadcasting. Public broadcasting cannot be defined by the sort of criteria which the Bill puts on it. For example, the needs of the community which is served by an access radio station change from time to time. The needs cannot be spelt out in the terms of a licence or as conditions for the granting of a licence. For example this provision of the Bill is ridiculously inhibiting if a licence of a particular kind is granted and the needs of the community change. Accordingly I move:

Leave out proposed sub-section 1 1 1 a ( 1 ), insert the following proposed sub-section:

1 ) Subject to this Act, the Minister may, on the recommendation of the Tribunal and upon payment of the prescribed fee, grant a person a licence to operate a broadcasting station or television station. ‘.

At end of proposed sub-section 1 1 1a (3), add ‘in accordance with the recommendations of the Tribunal ‘.

Leave out proposed sub-section 1 1 1a (4).

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

-My advice, understanding and reading is that the Tribunal has the power under the Bill before the Committee to grant licences for public broadcasting. That is the understanding of the Government of the Bill.

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 15 (Functions of Department)

Senator TOWNLEY:
Tasmania

– I did not speak in the second reading debate, but I am pleased to see that the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Eric Robinson) in the other place and the Government have been prepared to listen to the representations that I and others have made about certain aspects of this legislation. I believe that we now have before us a Bill that is better than the one that was foreshadowed in the beginning. There is still one aspect of this Bill that I feel deserves further consideration. The Government may argue against any changes, perhaps because the Government will point out that this is only an interim measure and that a subsequent rewrite of the Broadcasting and Television Act will tidy up all aspects that are not dealt with in this Bill. Perhaps that is so. But this Bill does incorporate some major changes. It does change much of the distribution of powers within broadcasting. I feel that we must assume that this Bill will remain in force for a considerable time.

The clause with which we are now dealing proposes to give the Secretary of the Postal and Telecommunications Department power to plan the future of all broadcasting in Australia. These powers, I feel, are pretty wide. I would like to see any such planning subject to inquiry and report by the proposed Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. The Minister has already gone some of the way towards restricting the power of the Secretary of that Department. Paragraph 9 of proposed new section 1 11D provides:

Nothing in this section empowers the Secretary to make orders or give directions relating to matters of program content.

This is one of the most significant changes envisaged by the Bill. It is significant as it relates to commercial broadcasting. It transfers fully the power of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board and the current functions that it exercises under section 16 ( 1 ) of the Act to the Secretary of the Postal and Telecommunications Department. I think there are some objections to this proposal. For instance, the transfer of the planning functions to that Department will move those functions from an independent statutory authority to a government department. That department must become responsive to the direction of its political head. Earlier in the day, the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) in summing up the second reading debate said that the aim of the legislation was to make broadcasting free from political interference. The clause that we are discussing proposes to move planning from a neutral environment to a politically influenced atmosphere.

Senator Button:

– That is technical planning.

Senator TOWNLEY:

-The clause does not say technical planning.

Senator Button:

– It does.

Senator TOWNLEY:

-I am sorry; if you can point out to me how technical planning is referred to in proposed new sections 1 11c ( 1) (a) and (b), I will be obliged. If it is just technical planning, perhaps the Minister will say so.

Senator Button:

– It would take me some time to do that.

Senator TOWNLEY:

– It would take the honourable senator a tremendous amount of time because what the honourable senator is saying is not correct. It is obvious that the honourable senator has not read the Bill as closely as a senator who has led for the Opposition is this debate and has moved amendments to the Bill should have done. I would like to see words added to this clause which will mean that we will have an inquiry into any plans that are developed by the Postal and Telecommunications Department. If this were done it would mean that the Department and the Minister would be required to reveal to the Broadcasting Tribunal proposed plans. The Minister would be required to withhold action until the Tribunal had held an inquiry at which all parties, the public and commercial broadcasters as well as the Australian Broadcasting Commission, could attend and express their views. He also would have to hold any action until the Tribunal had made a report on the desirability of the plans, and if he did not do so he would be acting in the face of a comprehensive report compiled by that eminent body.

There is some precedent for this in the area of the protection of Australian industry. Before the Government can grant protection to an Australian industry it must commission an inquiry and a report by the Industries Assistance Commission. Of course, the Government is not bound to follow the recommendations of the IAC, but it rarely departs from them because it knows that the IAC report represents the result of a quite thorough study of the needs of the industry concerned. We should not assume that this Bill is merely an interim measure, and I ask the Minister for Education whether he can envisage when alterations to this legislation will be introduced. I would like to hear his attitude to amending proposed new sub-section 111 C(l)(a), (b)in the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1976 to provide for wording such as being plans from time to time approved by the Minister after inquiry and report by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal ‘.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– I will refer Senator Townley ‘s comments to the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Eric Robinson) so that they will be kept in mind. I make only the following brief comments. It ought to be understood that the existing Act does not require the Australian Broadcasting Control Board or the Minister to publish plans prepared by the Board, so today the Minister makes his plans and there is no question of publication. On the other hand, this Bill says that the secretary shall consult with the Broadcasting Council which is made up of the whole industry and that provision goes a long way towards meeting what the honourable senator is talking about. Until the Broadcasting Council is established, the Minister is required to consult with representatives of radio and television stations. Equally, the Green report suggests that major planning proposals should be the subject of so-called Green Papers. I want to make it clear that we would not want to transfer all the decision making for the whole of the broadcasting and television industry to a statutory body, however good or objective that body is. After all, the fundamental situation is that in the end the planning, the essential decision making, for the structure of broadcasting and television in Australia must reside in this Parliament, and it would be wrong if that were not so. There are 2 quite separate situations. One is the political intervention in programming, which ought to be anathema to government, and the other is the absolute responsibility of a government for the structure and mechanism of broadcasting and television. However, I will take the suggestion aboard.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 16

Section 134 of the Principal Act is amended by inserting after paragraph (b) of sub-section (1) the following paragraph: (ba) the establishment and constitution of a Broadcasting Council for the purposes of sub-section (2 ) of section 1 6 and sub-section (2) of section 1 1 Id; ‘.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

– I move:

Leave out the clause, insert the following clause:

After section 134 of the Principal Act the following sections are inserted: 135. (1) For the purposes of this Act, there shall be a Council, to be known as the Broadcasting Council, which, subject to this Act, shall have and may exercise the rights, powers, authorities and functions conferred upon it by this Act and shall be charged with and perform the duties and obligations imposed upon it by this Act.

The Council shall be a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal and may acquire, hold and dispose of real and personal property and shall be capable of suing and being sued in its corporate name.

All courts, judges and persons acting judicially shall take judicial notice of the seal of the Council affixed to any document and shall presume that it was duly affixed.

The exercise of the rights, powers, authorities or functions, or the performance of the duties or obligations, of the Council shall not be affected by reason only of there being a vacancy in the office of a member. 136. ( 1 ) The Broadcasting Council shall consist of eleven members, who shall be appointed by the Governor-General, comprising:

a Chairman;

b) one representative of commercial radio;

one representative of commercial television;

two representatives of the Australian Broadcasting Commission;

two representatives of the public broadcasting sector;

one representative of the Australia Council;

one representative of the Australian Film and Television School;

one representative of the Postal and Telecommunications Department, and

i) one representative from the Schools Commission.

All members of the Council shall be appointed as part-time members, except the Chairman, who shall be appointed as a full-time member. 137. The Council shall be empowered to:

suggest and consider planning proposals for the introduction, extension or development of broadcasting services;

overview the administration of standards as defined in codes of broadcasting practice set out by the industry;

receive and respond to complaints on the administration of standards;

liaise with the broadcasting industry, the public and other interested parties, and

assemble industry data relevant to its functions. 138. Terms and conditions of members of the Council shall be as prescribed.’.”.

The Opposition’s dissatisfaction with this provision in the Bill is simply that it allows the Minister to establish a Broadcasting Council by regulation. There is no guarantee, except for some talk, that the Broadcasting Council will be established. In abolishing the Australian Broadcasting Control Board the Government is destroying a body which exercised a number of functions. Part of its functions will be taken over by the Broadcasting Tribunal and part of its functions- the technical functions- will be taken over by the Department of Post and Telecommunications. But the part of its functions which deal with administration of broadcasting standards and so on will not be transferred, and there will be a vacuum in that area. It is assumed, one gathers, that the Broadcasting Council when it is appointed by regulation under this Bill will take over that function. We do not think it is good enough to have the Broadcasting Council appointed as a sort of advisory body by regulation. In his second reading speech the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) said that the Council will be largely comprised of representatives of the national and commercial public sectors of broadcasting. I would like to know what the expression ‘largely’ means. I hope that it does mean that the Minister will accept some suggestions at least from the amendment which has been moved by the Opposition.

What we have sought to do, consistent with the spirit and terminology of the Green report, is to establish the Broadcasting Council as a statutory authority which would be a significant body in the administration of Australian broadcasting and which would be representative of a wide range of interests. Of course, it has got to be representative of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, the commercial sector, the public sector and so on. The Minister has announced already on television, I understand, that it will have 4 representatives from the commercial sectorcontrary to the 3 representatives suggested in the Green report. Senator Missen nods his head. The Minister has said that there will be 4 representatives from the commercial sector.

Senator Missen:

– He has changed it.

Senator BUTTON:

– He may have changed his mind again but I heard him say that there would be 4 representatives from the commercial sector. I hope he has now changed his mind again. If that is so, well and good. There are, of course, provisions for representation of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. There should be representation of the public sector.

What we have done in the second part of this amendment is to suggest something which appears to be common ground to both Parties in all the rhetoric that has gone on about the broadcasting system; that is, to give some recognition of what might be regarded as the public interest. After all, we talk about public airways, a great public service in terms of the ABC, a lesser public service in terms of the commercial sector, and public radio. Here is a proposed Broadcasting Council with no representation of the listeners or viewers. The fact is that we should have consumer representation if we are going to talk seriously about the importance of national broadcasting and the importance of the views of consumers. Senator Carrick himself used the words ‘public importance’ and the ‘significance of the public’. These sorts of expressions have been used in this debate about a dozen times. I am not singling out the Minister. The fact of the matter is that this Council is to have no consumer representation. We thought about the question of consumer representation. It is difficult to establish representative bodies. If the Government is concerned about qualitative considerations of broadcasting the sort of representative bodies which we have suggested as possible members of the Broadcasting Council include the Australian Film and Television School which was set up by a Liberal government under Mr Gorton, was proceeded with under the Whitlam Government and is being proceeded with now under the Fraser Government as a great national institution with the purpose of improving standards in film and television in this country. If the Broadcasting Council is to be established there should be a representative of the Australian Film and Television School on it, because that is what it is all about.

Similarly, we have suggested that there should be a representative of the Australia Council because we spend $22m a year trying to improve cultural standards in this community. That money is spent through the Australia Council and it should be represented on a body such as this because, hopefully, broadcasting will become one of the important cultural mediums in this country. We have suggested also representation from the Australian Schools Commission because there has been a lot of pious cant about children’s television emanating from people like me. The important thing is that we recognise that a body such as the Schools Commission should be represented on the Broadcasting Council because children’s television and the sort of educational standards which one would hope that the broadcasting system will inject a little more of into the Australian community would be very important considerations.

The Opposition has moved that the Broadcasting Council should be established in the way in which I have just suggested and that it should be a representative body to provide a national, representative and a community service. If we are going to talk about self-regulation, let us have the advice on self-regulation on a continuing basis from a council which represents consumer organisations or public instrumentalities which have an important vested interest in that body. The only thing I would say about our amendments relating to the Broadcasting Council is that they do make the scheme of the broadcasting structure complete, which the Bill does not do. The powers we have suggested for it are taken holus-bolus from the Government’s own inquiry, the Green inquiry into broadcasting and television. We think they are reasonable and sensible powers for a body of this kind to have. I commend the amendment to the Senate.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I wish to speak very briefly to this amendment. In general, I feel a great deal of sympathy with the view put by Senator Button that these matters ought to be spelled out in the legislation. Of course, that has not happened. The Government has proposed that there should be matters which will be dealt with by regulation. What Senator Button ignores is that, first, this is interim legislation which sets up a body at this stage. Secondly, it sets up a council which is essentially advisory in nature.

Nonetheless, I hope that account will be taken of the matters which have been put forward. I do not agree with some of the details of the amendment. I do not think that the point about consumer representation comes through in the Opposition’s amendment. Reference is made to other organisations, officials and so on, which the Opposition wants included on the Council, but I do not think that the requirement for consumer representation is covered in the proposal. I do not propose to be petty about this because I believe it ought to be considered and I am sure that in determining the composition of this Council the Government will take it into account.

I remind the Senate that the Regulations and Ordinances Committee of this Senate has constantly complained about major powers being left to regulation and not being set out in statutes. It is unfortunate that these powers and the existence of this Council are not provided for in the legislation. I rather hope that when the Government considers the next stage it will also consider the possibility of including those matters in the legislation, so that it will be known to the public and not have to be looked for in the regulations. Apart from that, I hope that the Government will consider some of the ideas which are spelled out in the amendment and will give further thought to those suggestions.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– The comments made will be taken into account. Indeed, I am advised that the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Eric Robinson) is considering seriously the matter of consumer representation and has in mind a balance between national and commercial advertising, as well as the public. The Council is not a decision-making body. Its function is purely consultative and therefore it does not require to be a body corporate. I shall not go into that now and I simply acknowledge that the suggestions will be taken into account. The Government opposes the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-As I recall it, the amendment to clause 3 now falls with the defeat of the last amendment. I abandon that amendment, if that is the appropriate expression.

Clause agreed to.

Remainder of Bill- by leave- taken as a whole, and agreed to.

Bills reported without amendment or request; report adopted.

Third Readings

Bills (on motion by Senator Carrick) together read a third time.

page 3048

LONG SERVICE LEAVE (COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYEES) BILL 1976

Second Readings

Debate resumed from 6 December, on motion by Senator Durack:

That the Bills be now read a second time.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-The Opposition does not oppose these 3 Bills, which are being dealt with cognately. We draw attention to the fact that the rate of accumulation of long service leave as set out in the first Bill represents an improvement. Most of the matters in the Bill do represent an improvement and were supported by the previous Government. We regret that the rate of accumulation is not of the same high standard as that in 3 States, but I do not wish to refer to the details of this matter any further. The Bills were fully debated in the House of Representatives and people who are interested will be able to read the report of that debate in the House of Representatives Hansard. We do not oppose the Bills.

Senator KILGARIFF:
Northern Territory

– I commend the Government for introducing the Public Service Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1976, which relates to the setting up of the Northern Territory Public Service. As honourable senators know, there is to be a transfer of powers from the Commonwealth Government to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly on 1 January. Several statutory bodies, the police and various other departments, will be transferred as part of the initial transfer of powers. Several hundred Commonwealth public servants will be seconded to the Northern Territory Public Service.

This matter goes back to 1974 when the Commonwealth Parliament set up a Joint Committee on the Northern Territory. That Committee is to be commended for the work it did in producing its report on constitutional development in the Northern Territory. Since that date that report more or less has been the bible for developing the transfer of powers. In the first year after that the transfer was in the doldrums; very little was done in regard to the report. But in the last year in particular a considerable number of moves have been made. I commend the Minister for the Northern Territory, Mr Evan Adermann, for his work in this field. Despite his responsibilities in this very busy year in the Federal Parliament, he has been to the Northern Territory no fewer than 20 times and has spent many weeks there. I think that would be a record for any Minister holding responsibility for the Northern Territory.

Senator Sir Magnus Cormack:

– Who is going to pay for these public servants?

Senator KILGARIFF:

– That matter is to be worked out during the transfer of powers. The area of finance is being looked into. We saw the amendment to the Northern Territory Administration Act which set up the Executive and now we are seeing this legislation being passed in order to set up the Northern Territory Public Service. It seconds Commonwealth public servants to the Northern Territory Public Service. But in seconding the public servants to the Northern Territory Public Service there will be no loss of privileges and if they wish they will be able to go back into the Commonwealth Public Service. So they will not be left in the Northern Territory Public Service if they do not wish to stay there.

In the last few months continuous talks have been going on between the Majority Leader and the Executive of the Northern Territory Public Service, the Minister for the Northern Territory and the Department of the Northern Territory and the various public service unions involved. One report from Mr Norman Campbell of the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association, indicated that the discussions went very well and the Assembly wants to do the right thing. There has been very good consultation by all. The public service unions are in agreement. Three to four weeks ago I had discussions with the Federal Executive of the ACOA in Darwin. All these members of the Federal Executive from the various States of Australia were there and indicated that as far as they could see the problems that had appeared had been ironed out and apparently the move will be quite successful. I commend the Government for this initiative that it has taken- a very firm initiative- to ensure in this coming year that after the transfer of powers we will have a strong Northern Territory Public Service.

Senator ROBERTSON:
Northern Territory

– I rise in this debate to speak briefly on the Public Service Amendment Bill (No. 2). As has been explained by the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Senator Durack) the purpose of the Bill is to facilitate the transfer of officers from the Australian Public Service to the Northern Territory Public Service. This is a most important step for the Northern Territory, following as it does the decision of the Labor Government to establish a fully elected Northern Territory Legislative Assembly and to arrange for the transfer of powers to give the people of the Northern Territory greater involvement in the decision-making process. Like my fellow senator from the Northern Territory I welcome this legislation, but I have some reservations which I shall come to in a moment.

I agree with the Minister that the Northern Territory should be given greater control and that arrangements should be made for the governance of the Northern Territory to reflect the views and the aspirations, not only of some of the local communities but the majority of the people in the local communities and of all communities, not only Darwin itself. The Minister in his statement said that he was looking for a viable and efficient Public Service. I think we ought to go one stage further than this; we want something better than a service which is viable and efficient. The setting up of a new Public Service is a most exciting, challenging situation. I think those people who have served in the Public Service would agree that the opportunities are there for people to enter and to give us the best possible Public Service. I agree with the Minister that one of the jobs we have in front of us is to protect the rights of those officers who are moving to the Northern Territory.

The reservations I have about the Bill relate in the main to the haste- I would call it unseemly haste, although one of the newspaper reports mentioned ‘irresponsible haste’- with which the Bill is being introduced and things are being implemented. Only recently we had a situation here in which a Bill was brought in and we had to deal with it late at night. It came back later to be corrected. The situation where a Bill has to be corrected is deplorable, but when we are dealing with people’s lives it is just not a tenable situation. We cannot afford the luxury of what we might call experimentation when we are dealing with people’s lives. My information is that the people of the Territory are particularly disturbed about the haste, especially those who are at the moment based in Brisbane.

Let us look briefly at the situation in the Northern Territory. Approximately one-third of the officers involved are on leave at present. This is fairly standard at this time of the year. People move out before the wet. The Northern Territory Commissioner has only just been appointed. He arrived in the Territory this week and he has yet to prepare his determinations. It is fairly obvious that he will not do this in two or three days. This has resulted in a feeling of uncertainty among public servants in the Territory. From my understanding, no one has yet been advised whether he is to be transferred. So we have this feeling of uncertainty. People are being asked to make decisions before Christmas. Christmas is about 2 weeks away. With the Public Service grinding to a halt, as it does before the Christmas season, I think it is fair to say that this is unseemly or irresponsible haste.

I have always agreed with the dictum that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. I think we could transfer this to the present situation and say that arrangements must be not only fair and reasonable but must be seen to be so. I think it must be agreed that the Minister and the Department are not giving people any time to make decisions which have to be made in the best interests of all concerned. It is fair to say that people have some fear of change, particularly abrupt change. They need time to adjust and to adapt. The decisions which people are being asked to make involve a career for the rest of their working life. The decisions involve the education of children. With examinations just over and people waiting for results, they are not sure what they will do next year. With the state of the economy and unemployment they are not sure whether the children will be employed. So they are reluctant to break away and move to a new area when so many factors must be considered.

I do not think the department or the Minister have considered the social situation of the families concerned in asking them to make a decision of this social magnitude so quickly. There is no reason why the legislation should not be deferred and not implemented for 6 months. As my colleague Senator Kilgariff said, secondments could be made. Temporary appointments could be made. The executive to work the Legislative Assembly could be set up. I agree entirely that this is most important and that it should be done, but it could be done other than by permanent appointments. The branches and the boards that have been transferred could continue operating as they are operating at present. Things could go ahead normally. It would give people an opportunity to look further at the Northern Territory ordinance which sets up the Public Service.

The comments that have been made to me on the legislation are that it has some very rough edges, that it has a few omissions. There have been discussions with the Council of Australian Government Employee Organisations and the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association. I commend the Minister for having these discussions. As a result there have been some improvements, but the legislation could still do with further improvements. I wonder whether the Minister realises that the setting up of a new department such as this is a wonderful opportunity for the Public Service. It does not happen very often. I think that to rush into it, without taking the opportunity to look at the position in the States and to get the best possible situation, is most unreasonable and unwise. From personal experience of a similar situation, I know that the opportunity to correct errors that other people have made, the historical errors which we cannot correct in a State situation, is one that should not be overlooked. I commend to the Minister very sincerely the suggestion that we should think of not implementing the legislation for 6 months.

There is a complicating factor. It has been mentioned in the Press. The Public Service Board in the Territory is determined that all officers in Darwin will lose one week’s tropical leave and that leave fares will be paid only to Adelaide, not to any other capital city. The Minister may know that a protest meeting is being held in Darwin more or less at present to discuss this matter. This is one more factor to suggest that it is not the right climate for setting up a service which will last us into and during statehood.

There are a couple of other comments which I wish to make as an ex-public servant. I am concerned about the Minister’s powers to override the Public Service Act and to transfer officers against will. I am not suggesting that it will happen, but the power is there. This is something which we will not support. I think that most of us on this side of the chamber would not be happy about it. As the Senate would know, the Act enables officers to decline transfer. This right must be maintained. A situation where the only option to transfer is resignation, is not acceptable in a career Public Service. Despite what my colleague said, there is no guarantee of acceptance back into the Australian Public Service. I have mentioned this matter here previously. If we are to have a good, strong Public Service, people must be able to move back. My view is that there should be free movement at all times. Certainly at the moment there appears to be no such opportunity. I am a huie disturbed that the honourable member for Canberra (Mr Haslem) said that he would be watching the Northern Territory to see what happens in the Australian Capital Territory. I certainly do not want to see the Northern Territory used as some sort of guinea pig to try out what is going to happen in Canberra. We have had enough experimentation. My discussions with the Public Service unions have led me to believe that they are very frightened that the cream of the Public Service at the present time is not prepared to stay in Darwin and that they are frightened that good men will not be attracted if the legislation goes through at the speed at which it is being proposed. The honourable member for Canberra said in the other place on 2 December:

There is some feeling, albeit a psychological or emotional feeling, that if they join another body which does not have quite the stature of the national Public Service, somehow or other they will be second grade citizens in the national capital.

That would apply in the Northern Territory. I repeat that the Northern Territory Public Service wants the best and needs the best at this exciting and challenging point in time. I ask the Minister to consider delaying the implementation of the legislation and, secondly, to remove the uncertainty which exists at the present time by saying what is proposed and then to have full and frank discussions with the Council of Australian Government Employee Organisations. I commend the Minister for starting these discussions. But let us see them develop so that we will have the best possible Public Service.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– in reply-I thank the Senate for its support of this measure. Briefly, in response to the points that Senator Robertson has made, the Government has decided that this transfer will be implemented on, I think, 1 January of next year. That timetable has been fixed. Discussions have taken place on that basis. The Government sees no reason for any delay in that regard. Regarding some of the concerns which have been expressed by Senator Robertson and others, I point out to him that the Bill contains within it a provision enabling officers who have been transferred to have the right to apply for positions in the Commonwealth Public Service. Rights to apply for promotion also will be available to them. That is not to say that they will be guaranteed to get a position, but they will have their rights the same as they have now. There is certainly a lot of precedents for this being done. It was done last year by the Labor Government when it set up the Australian Telecommunications Commission and the Australian Postal Commission. I think almost half its members were public servants who transferred to those new Commissions under provisions broadly similar to the ones in this legislation. Having said that, I am pleased that this legislation is to have a speedy passage.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills together read a second time.

In Committee

The Bills.

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– I put one question to the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Senator Durack). I have put the Minister on notice about this matter. I am concerned about whether part time employees of the Commonwealth Public Service, in particular tea ladies, will be eligible for long service leave on a pro rata basis under this legislation. I would like clarification on that aspect from the Minister.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

-The answer to the question is yes. Part time employees do not have to work a minimum number of hours. It will certainly mean that the tea ladies about whom Senator Ryan has been asking will be covered.

Bills agreed to.

Bills reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Readings

Bills (on motion by Senator Durack) together read a third time.

page 3051

APPLE AND PEAR LEVY BILL 1976

Second Readings

Debate resumed from 3 December, on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the Bills be now read a second time.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– The purpose of these Bills, which are concerned with the apple and pear industry, is to provide for the imposition and collection of levies on the production and sale in Australia of apples and pears and a charge on apples and pears exported from Australia. The need for these new measures arises because of the steep decline that has taken place in the export trade, particularly in respect of apples. The Senate has discussed this matter from time to time. The measures are necessary also because the Apple and Pear Corporation is lacking the necessary financial resources to carry out its functions adequately, particularly those functions related to the development and promotion of the Australian domestic market.

The Opposition supports the legislation. It recognised the problems faced by the industry when the then Government brought about a reorganisation of the industry in 1974 and reformed the Apple and Pear Board into the Apple and Pear Corporation. Of course, more changes are necessary if we are to overcome the problems that have been referred to for many years in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, particularly by the Tasmanian representatives who have spoken about the problems of the industry.

It would appear that nothing has happened to bring about any substantial change in the nature of the industry or in creating conditions of stability. It is a matter of regret that the Government has continued to fail to take the restructuring action essential for the industry. The need to restructure the industry and to create some stability cannot be denied as the present methods of marketing and promotion have proven to be unsuccessful.

The record of the industry indicates its poor state of health over the past few years. This position is unlikely to improve in the future. An Industries Assistance Commission report has been unable to predict accurately the future of the apple and pear industry as it relates to the export market. With the permission of the Senate I would like to incorporate in Hansard, rather than read to the Senate, the comments of the IAC in this respect.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The document read as follows-

While it is not possible to predict accurately the long term competitive position or trends in freight and exchange rates, it does not seem likely that the adverse circumstances of the recent past will be reversed. Average returns from apple exports to Europe will continue to be subject to considerable marketing pressure and marketing disadvantages and the Commission does not see any prospect for their improvement. Although the situation facing pear exports to Europe is somewhat better than for apples (since controlled atmosphere cool storage is not used commonly for pears and Southern Hemisphere shipments from competing suppliers have not increased to the same extent) they too face the same freight and exchange rate problems. There is no evidence to suggest that, over the longer term, returns from pear exports to Europe will increase in real terms. A somewhat similar situation exists in respect of the North American market. The main consideration is Australia’s competitive disadvantage, relative to South Africa, as a supplier of fresh apples and pears to Northern Hemisphere markets. Freight rates are considerably lower from South Africa to Europe than they are from Australia to Europe. South Africa also has a slight advantage in regard to freight to North America. In addition South Africa enjoys lower production costs than Australia, particularly in regard to wage rates. Production in South

Africa is likely to continue to expand from increased plantings which are taking place in response to the generally high profitability of apple and pear growing. The long term prospect is, therefore, for a contraction rather than an expansion of Australia’s Northern Hemisphere markets.

Alternative markets to those in Europe have been sought in North America, the Middle East and South East Asia. With the exception of increases in exports of pears to North America in the late 1960s and early 1970s and very recently of some apples to the Middle East, little success has been achieved. The main immediate restriction on the development of these markets appears to be the limited availability of suitable varieties of apples such as the Red Delicious variety for South East Asian markets. However, the availability of locally grown low cost tropical fruits is likely to limit the development of markets in South East Asia for expensive imported temperate fruit. Furthermore, the requirement in these markets is for shipments to be spread over a longer period than is the case for Northern Hemisphere off-season markets thus placing additional strain on storage facilities and increasing marketing costs. To the present time, however, prices received for exports to the area have been acceptable to the Australian industry.

The major competition for Australia in South East Asia is from New Zealand and South African fruit. Hong Kong is South Africa’s major market outside Europe and North America and, in 1973. South African supplies accounted for 22 per cent of total Southern Hemisphere supplies to this market, both for apples and for pears. Australia and New Zealand held 55 per cent and 23 per cent respectively of the apple market, while Australia accounted for almost all pear imports other than those from South Africa. In some South East Asian and Middle Eastern countries, South Africa at present faces trade embargoes which result in the apple market being shared by Australia and New Zealand while Australia alone supplies pears. Singapore is a case in point.

Australia and New Zealand have slight advantages over South Africa in freight rates to most South East Asian and Middle Eastern markets as opposed to large disadvantages in freight rates to Europe. South Africa’s production of Starking (a Red Delicious variety) is expected to increase following heavy plantings. There would, therefore, be potential for South Africa to expand into the South East Asian market although, at the present time, returns from Europe and North America appear to be more attractive for South African exports than are returns from other markets.

New Zealand does not export significant quantities of pears but is an important competitor with Australia in relation to apples. New Zealand faces similar problems to Australia in Europe and is also attempting to diversify into other markets, particularly the Middle East and South East Asia. Planting trends indicate that a considerable expansion in New Zealand shipments of Red Delicious apples can be expected.

The Commission considers that in attempting to maintain or expand exports of apples to South East Asia and the Middle East, Australia will meet active competition from New Zealand. Over the longer term, comparative cost movements and a declining market in Europe (where South Africa faces considerable competition from Argentina), are considered likely to produce an expansion of South African interest in the areas. The future prospects for apple and pear exports to these markets must, therefore, be viewed with considerable caution.

The Commission’s assessment of the domestic market for fresh apples and pears does not suggest any scope for significant expansion in consumption. However, with some relaxation of interstate quarantine controls there may be opportunities for certain areas to expand production while other areas reduce.

The prospects for apple processing suggest lower levels of production in the immediate future than existed before the withdrawal of the sales tax concession on soft drinks, but the long term outlook is for continued growth. However the processing industry is at present, and is likely to remain, an outlet for lower quality fruit and its value to growers is as an offset to production costs rather than as a profitable outlet in its own right.

Senator GIETZELT:

– Thank you, Mr President. One other matter worth noting was the insistence of the old Apple and Pear Board upon forward selling terms when competitors were offering alternative terms which were more acceptable to the importers. This, of course, is one example of the difficulties which must be overcome.

The Opposition is pleased to note that the Apple and Pear Growers Association has proposed, and the Government has accepted, that it is in the interests of an equity to all growers that they contribute financially to assist the activities of the Corporation. It is quite unreasonable that growers who are favourably placed to domestic markets receive the benefits of high domestic prices and are not required to bear some part of the burden of the development and promotion of the industry from which they derive their livelihood. Of course, honourable senators from those States where the fruit industry is in dire circumstances appreciate the need for equity in that area. The Minister stated in his second reading speech:

These Bills are designed to ensure a firm financial base for the Apple and Pear Corporation, which has a vital role to play in assisting the industry in the face of problems which nave developed in recent years, resulting in a severe cut-back in the volume of apples moving to export markets. The additional funds to be placed at the disposal of the Corporation from the new levy arrangements will enable it to make a more positive contribution towards market development, particularly on the domestic scene.

Of course we agree with the views of the Minister as stated in his second reading speech, because obviously if we have difficulties in our export market then much more time and energy need to be applied to the promotion of sales on the domestic market. In view of the reasons for the cutback in the volume of apples moving to the export markets, we are entitled to ask: What does the Minister propose should be done to improve the situation? He does not seem to know, because his speech seems to indicate that he is prepared to abdicate his responsibility and delegate it to the Apple and Pear Corporation.

As we well know, on the domestic side the picture is not much better. I did speak recently on the introduction of the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme. Again I emphasise that I make no comment about the equity of that scheme, other than to say that we perhaps did not take into consideration the influences which the marketing of Tamanian apples may have on other sectors of the industry on the mainland. The Apple and Pear Corporation will be placed in a difficult position when the Government makes a decision relating to a specific freight matter. The Corporation will have to take into consideration that the Government is giving one sort of assistance that will affect the industry in another place. So the Corporation cannot be expected to plan for the industry unless the Government in fact sets the guidelines for it and gives it not only the financial assistance but also the legislative authority. It seems to me that some examination needs to be made of the final statement by the Minister in his second reading speech on the Apple and Pear Levy Bill 1976. The Minister makes some of the most disturbing admissions which confirms that he is completely unaware of the direction in which the industry is heading, the policies needed to arrest the industry’s declining fortunes or the way in which such policies can be put into operation. The Minister says:

I am confident that there is a place in Australian horticulture for a viable apple and pear industry, and I believe that the Corporation will become more significant as a focal point for the industry’s re-organisation and adjustment. It is imperative, however, that its financial support be assured if it is to fulfil its objective.

That seems to be a little insincere because really it does not take into consideration the nature of the problem for the apple and pear growers in the Huon district in Tasmania, or those at Stanthorpe in Queensland or at Manjimup in Western Australia. They have waited for a full year for some legislation and policy considerations to overcome the decline which has taken place steadily over the years and which has manifested itself even more markedly in 1976. 1 do not think it is any wonder that more and more growers, as is indicated in the publications of the grower organisations, are becoming impatient and no longer have trust in the Government. Of course one can understand this when so many sectors of agriculture look at the statements that are made by the Minister from time to time. We are waiting for some new policies, new vigour and some degree of stability to come into the various sectors of agriculture.

The Government has had before it since 16 January this year 2 Industries Assistance Commission reports dealing with the fruit industry and its reconstruction, but it has not taken any steps to implement or adopt the reports or to amend them, or to adjust to the problem facing the industry. These reports, entitled ‘Fruitgrowing Part A’ and ‘Fruitgrowing Reconstruction and Fruitgrowing Part B: Apples and Pears’, have made very worthy suggestions to improve the well-being of fruitgrowers and their families. At times I wonder whether the Minister has any knowledge of the subject at all. If he did, he would not make the wild promises he has made at election times and repeat ad nauseum some of the statements he makes about beef contracts, nor would he deliver a second reading speech on the apple and pear industry without giving some indication of the matters of concern to the industry and a solution to the problems facing the industry. In his second reading speech he failed to deal adequately with the problems facing the industry. Perhaps a quick refresher course on the critical position faced by the industry would serve the Minister well.

The Australian Labor Party believes that alternative measures designed to facilitate adjustment could provide more help to fruitgrowers, to their families and to the communities which depend on them, at much less cost to the nation. Such measures could also benefit those who remain in fruit growing and facilitate their adjustment to subsequent change. It is up to the Government to take initiatives in this area. The Minister and the Corporation should be aware that fruit growing is concentrated in specific areas. Any decline or downturn has a tremendous social implication in those regions which are mainly export orientated. Other regions rely primarily on domestic market outlets. Of course, it is clear that there is a relationship between what happens in one section and in the other section. Although many problems facing fruitgrowers have their origins m the industry’s dependence on export markets, welfare problems and reconstruction needs are not restricted to the export sector.

The Corporation should look to the following matters. It should give attention to interstate quarantine regulations and other restrictions on interstate trade with a view to obtaining agreement with appropriate States to eliminate unnecessary restraints on trade. It should look at liberalising its restrictions on methods of sale in export markets, other than Europe and North America. It should take some initiative, perhaps, as I have seen South Africa do in recent times in relation to markets in the Far East. A maximum exporter’s commission should be fixed in terms of a percentage of the f.o.b. value and there should be a liberalising of the requirements for the issue of new exporters licences. Many representations have been made to me by those who want to participate in a more liberalised scheme. I suggest that the Minister examine the recommendations in the Industries Assistance Commission report on Fruitgrowing Reconstruction and give serious consideration to introducing the structural adjustment measures mentioned there. With the assistance of the Senate, and having regard to the pressures under which the Senate is operating at the moment, I ask for leave to have incorporated in Hansard that section of the IAC report titled Assistance for Reconstruction of Fruit Growing Industries. We are prepared to consider a more fundamental approach to the fruitgrowing industry, but in the meantime, we will give our support and assent to these 4 Bills.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is leave granted for the incorporation of the material as sought by the honourable senator? There being no objection, leave is granted.

The document read as follows-

  1. Assistance for Reconstruction of Fruitgrowing Industries 3.1 New Measures

In the previous section the need for measures which encourage and facilitate adjustment in fruitgrowing industries was outlined. If market trends continue and (as the Commission recommends) product-based price support for fruit is phased out, industry and region specific reconstruction measures would be required to supplement those recommended for rural industries generally. Acceptable levels of government price support would only delay these inevitable changes.

The Commission considers the provision of adjustment assistance to be important for all rural industries and in the separate report on Rural Reconstruction it has recommended that: 1 financial assistance in the form of credit be made available to eligible farmers in all rural industries who are assessed to be ‘viable’ in the long term; 2 household support for periods up to twelve months be provided for farmers with no long term prospect in agriculture; 3 increased rehabilitation assistance be made available; and 4 an independent national authority be established which would co-ordinate, monitor, and evaluate rural adjustment policy and initiatives.

In that report it has also been suggested that there could be circumstances in which particular adjustment problems should be tackled by regional bodies. Although the four general measures outlined above are essential for the efficient and equitable on-farm adjustment of the fruitgrowing industries, the Commission considers that they do not fully cover the specific needs of many fruitgrowing regions and industries.

The Commission recommends, therefore, the introduction of additional measures for prescribed fruitgrowing industries or regions. These are designed to encourage adjustment and offset as much as possible the personal hardship which otherwise would accompany the inevitable changes facing parts of these industries.

The recommended additional measures are: 1 establishment of ARAs in specified fruitgrowing regions; 2 establishment of an adjustment counselling service to operate in these areas; and 3 provision of adjustment finance on concessional terms, for use either within agriculture or where appropriate outside it, in cases where commercial credit cannot be obtained but the loan can be serviced under the concessional arrangements.

Senator WALTERS:
Tasmania

– I rise to support these Bills which carry out the recommendations of the Australian Apple and Pear Growers Association. The recommendations put forward by the apple and pear growers prove once again that they are prepared to support their own industry. They prove, again, the independence of the man on the land. Even though apple and pear growers who export are going through perhaps the most difficult times the industry has experienced, they are prepared to pay their share, in the interests of equity. They have recommended that they share the cost to enable the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation, which is lacking in finance, to have the financial resources necesssary to promote and develop the potentially larger domestic market. The levy, in line with the apple and pear growers’ recommendation, is to be based on the quantity of fruit marketed both in Australia and overseas.

During last week we heard from Senator Walsh, in his usually destructive way, that devaluation will not help the fruit industry, the dairy industry, or the beef industry. I guess the honourable senator does not know much about the economics of our export industries, so perhaps he can be forgiven for such stupid statements. But many people, including 2 of his colleagues, disagree with him. They are members of the Senate Select Committee on Mount Lyell Mining Operations of which Senator Wright is Chairman. They agree that in that export industry alone the general devaluation will save the jobs of those 400 men who have been threatened with dismissal. Regarding the rural industry I shall quote some remarks to show the feelings of men associated with that industry. The chairman of the Tasmanian State Fruit Board, Mr R. B. Walker, stated:

It will put the apple industry back in business. It is a great decision and will give us the opportunity to compete for markets especially on the continent and in the Persian Gulf.

The State President of the Tasmanian Farmers Federation, Mr Stewart Ferguson, claimed it was a shot in the arm for farming as a whole. Mr John Bennett, Chairman of the Dairy Farmers Federation, was delighted with the decision and he said:

It is something in the order of what is needed to help dairy farmers.

Similar statements have come from all round the industry. Mr Max Nicholson on behalf of the meat industry said that 45 per cent of the locally

E reduced meat was exported and now there was better opportunity to get into overseas markets. So it would appear that Senator Walsh has a fair bit of learning to do about our export markets. Senator Gietzelt was not quite so dogmatic about the effects of devaluation. He claimed there was just no certainty that the market situation could be expected to improve following devaluation. He claimed it was not the price of the article but access to the markets that represented the greatest threat to the apple industry. There would not be one apple grower who would say that given equal competition and favourable financial terms the growers could not win those markets. We have quality fruit. All we need is favourable financial terms, and this devaluation must help.

There are extraordinarily uninformed comments coming from honourable senators opposite. The depressed rural sector has been given the biggest boost in years and it is jubilant but because honourable senators opposite cannot bear to see this sector joyous even at this time of the year they have to pour cold water on its enthusiasm and cry doom. We heard Senator McLaren objecting to the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme, saying that it would ruin the mainland markets. Of course the mainland States will have to look to their laurels regarding the quality of their fruit because for the first time Tasmanian growers are now on an equal footing and can transport their fruit to the larger cities at the same cost as growers situated at an equal distance from that lucrative market. As I say, it will make the mainland growers strive to improve the quality of their fruit because the quality of Tasmanian fruit is world famous.

Senator Georges:

– You are just going to dump Tasmanian apples on us. What is fair about sending Tasmanian apples up to Brisbane to cut off the Stanthorpe growers?

Senator WALTERS:

-Nobody objects to fair competition. I am sure it is not the mainland growers who are objecting. It is only the members of the Opposition who are trying to make cheap political capital out of the situation that does nothing more than give simple justice to the Tasmanian fruit growers. I am sure Senator Wriedt will agree with this when he speaks later.

Senator Georges:

– Just keep going, Senator.

Senator WALTERS:

-Well, we shall see whether Senator Wriedt disagrees with his colleagues. Senator Gietzelt said that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) did not know the apple industry at all. The honourable senator obviously agrees with Senator McLaren who assured us that his Party does know the industry. Senator McLaren spoke last week and he assured us that the Labor Government knows the apple industry and it would have acted on the Industries Assistance Commission reports which of course would have destroyed the apple industry. The honourable senator asked why this Government had not accepted the recommendations made by the IAC. In fact, he challenged me to reply. Well, I am only too happy to answer his question. The IAC report recommended the phasing out of the apple and pear industry. It recommended that ‘the apple and pear statutory scheme be terminated after an interim 2-year period’. It went on to suggest that the scheme be extended to cover only the 1976 and 1977 crops. This Government will not be party to the termination of the scheme. The Government has confidence in the industry, as have the growers. Just because Senator McLaren says that a Labor government would terminate the industry, there is no reason for this Government to agree with that.

These Bills provide for a levy not exceeding 6c per box for apples and pears for either the home market or the export market sold fresh, not exceeding 60c per tonne for juice fruit and not exceeding $1.40 per tonne for processing fruit, the only exemption being for the canning fruit industry which already pays a levy under the terms of its Act. However, while the Bills provide for these maximum figures, in the regulations accompanying the Act the Government is entitled to set the figures, following consideration of the recommendations of the Apple and Pear Growers Association. The Government has accepted these latest recommendations and they will apply from 1 January next year. They are: 5c per box for fresh apples and pears for both the Australian market and the export market, 50c per tonne for juice fruit and $ 1 per tonne for processing fruit. So that administrative costs will be kept to a minimum, the collecting points of the levy will be left to the selling agents, processors, quality purchasers and exporters.

Certain exemptions also will minimise these costs. These exemptions are for fruit sold direct by growers from orchards or by the roadside. That custom is well appreciated by all Tasmanians. Many people go for a picnic in the beautiful Huon Valley and buy cases of tree ripened apples. Another exemption is for juicing or processing that is carried out by the grower himself, as long as the quantity does not exceed 500 boxes a year. The levy thus paid is expected to provide the Corporation with an income of $850,000 a year, compared with its present income of $250,000. It will enable the Corporation to carry out the marketing developments that the industry considers necessary. This Bill typifies the desire of the apple and pear growers for independence, and I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– I enter this debate very briefly and in a very impartial way. I have no interest here; so I can speak as an Australian as well as a Tasmanian. I rejected the invitation of Senator Walters to respond to her reference to me, because I find myself in something of a dilemma when my colleague from Queensland, Senator Georges, is defending Queensland and I as a Tasmanian would be expected to defend Tasmania. If Tasmanians can export fruit to Queensland and market it there, they are entitled to do so. I say that with great respect to Senator Georges. The quality of Tasmanian fruit is well known. I think it would do the Queensland Premier a great deal of good if he stopped eating Queensland apples and ate some Tasmanian apples. He might then be a much more amenable fellow than he is at the moment.

The other point I want to emphasise is that this is the first time these Bills have come before the Senate over the years that I have been here when there has not been a slanging match. I can recall on several occasions crossing swords with my good friend Senator Wright, who is glaring at me from over there even now. Over the 3 years of Labor government the same broad approach to the industry was taken as was taken before.

Senator Wright:

– Downwards.

Senator WRIEDT:

-I ask Senator Wright not to provoke me. This Government is continuing the support schemes that were carried on by the Labor Government. I believe that all of us here, perhaps with the exception of Senator Wright, would agree that the industry needs that support. One thing that ought to be said not only about apple growers in Tasmania but also farmers generally is that they do not seek subsidies all the time. The Australian farmer is not a grabber after subsidies. What he is entitled to and what he mainly wants is assistance when his industry is in difficulties. That is being recognised more and more by all governments as time goes by. All rural industries will benefit by that more sensible approach of assisting them by means of support schemes when that assistance is needed.

But the built in subsidy system is not wanted by the Australian farmers. They do not want it because of the inequity of it. They do not want it because inefficient farmers are helped at the expense of efficient farmers; and the great majority of farmers are efficient. They object, and I believe rightly so, at public moneys being paid out to those who are not prepared to keep themselves abreast of modern farming technology. So we ought not to make any apologies for the assistance that is provided, especially to an industry such as the apple and pear industry in southern Tasmania.

There can be no question that the industry has declined in recent years. I believe that every effort has been made by both Federal and State governments to arrest that decline and, particularly in the last two or three years, to attempt to diversify the form in which the products of the industry are offered for sale, rather than simply selling them on the market as fresh products. The legislation which finances the activities of the Corporation obviously must be supported by the whole of the Parliament. Even though a State election is to be held in Tasmania tomorrow, I repeat that I am pleased that, at least till now, the contributions made in the debate have been devoid of politicking for the State election tomorrow. If Senator Wright speaks in the debate, I hope that his contribution will be in the same vain.

Senator WRIGHT:
Tasmania

-We are debating 3 Bills which deal with the apple and pear industry of Australia. It is notable that when it is dealing with a primary industry such as this the Government expects that the industry will finance itself, unlike other industries such as the tertiary industries and the city industries of Australia. Senator Wriedt ‘s contribution to the debate was in line with the contribution he made when he was Minister for Agriculture under the Labor Government. His contribution consisted of generalities and it was completely superficial.

We have before us the second annual report on this industry presented by the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation. I do not give the Corporation full responsibility for the poor results, but it reports the poorest results ever achieved in the industry. It states that the quality of the fruit that has been offered on the market was lower than was desired, the quantity has been reduced and the return has been most disappointing. Those people who have confidence in a government corporation seeking out new markets and improving realisations should not count me among their number.

The export industry for apples is doomed by the increasing freight rates from Tasmania to

Europe, which this year are threatened to increase by $1 a case to the inordinate cost of about $5.50 or $5.40 a case, whereas the cost should be no more than $2 a case. If the transport component of this industry, which has been destroyed by the inflation which Senator Wriedt and Mr Whitlam brought upon the country in unique measures, were assisted as are other transport industries, such as the Canberra bus service which receives a subsidy of $5m, the metropolitan bus service of Tasmania which receives a subsidy of $5.5m and train services throughout the country which cost millions of dollars, the industry, with the assistance of the devaluation which was announced the other day, would be on the move again. Let me read just one section from the annual report of the Corporation:

A major influence on the level of freight rates is the high cost of loading and the slow turn round of ships at Australian ports. Hobart, for example, is regarded as the most costly fruit loading port in the world . . .

That is the key port from which is exported the majority of the produce of this unique export apple industry that has been maintained now for some 80 years or more. It has become the most costly fruit loading port in the world.

I rose to point out one or two facts. One is the advantage accruing to the industry for the purpose of interstate trade from the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme. That, of course, should be recognised by mainland growers as a necessary concomitant of the destruction of our export trade. On looking at the figures we see that New South Wales in 1966 produced 2.9 million cases of apples and in 1 976 she produced 3.8 million cases. In 1966 she produced 0.57 million cases of pears; in 1976 she produced 1.2 million cases. Tasmania, on the other hand, instead of increasing production in each of those respects as was the case in New South Wales, reduced production from 8.3 million cases of apples in 1966 down to 4.6 million cases in 1976. In pears the reduction has been much more calamitious: In 1966 she produced 650 000 cases and in 1976 she produced 137 000 cases.

It is therefore necessary for mainland growers now to accept their proportion of this levy because they will be maintaining their industry by access to the metropolitan markets, chiefly of Melbourne and Sydney and, to a lesser extent, Brisbane. But, as this report points out, it is of vital interest to all mainland growers that they realise that any support for the export industry, although directly and specifically it is received by

Tasmanian and to some extent Western Australian growers, is nevertheless an assistance to the industry on behalf of all growers.

I come now to the real point of my rising. Senator Gietzelt was quite wrong in saying that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) has done nothing this year. Senator Gietzelt ought to know that the maximum price for stabilisation was increased above the $1 a case that was recommended by the Industries Assistance Commission to $2 a case and that this has been adjusted by 53c on the basis of an adjustment by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. But, when the IAC recommends that our apple and pear industry should fall into the vulturous hands of social welfare or the ‘people oriented assistance approach’, I am completely in agreement with the Corporation when it states that that would be essentially a negative and ultimately more costly method of sustaining people in this industry than would be real industry support. Referring to the product of the industry, the report states:

Virtually all of this would be lost, at a great deal of cost to the taxpayer, under the IAC recommendations.

Therefore, I want the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Cotton) to hear me say that at the beginning of next year I shall be moving very strongly for an acceptance by the Government of the Corporation’s proposals for the stabilisation of this industry. It is significant that neither of the socialist speakers on the other side from the Australian Labor Party referred to the proposals of the Corporation the body that was specifically designed to advance the industry and which can be presumed to have a much more intimate knowledge of the industry’s requirements than the IAC which is a remote, academic, bureaucratic object that I do not believe, from reading its reports, has the slightest understanding of the verities of the fresh fruit exporting industry. I refer briefly to what the Corporation has asked the Government to do; that is, not to accept the welfare proposals of the IAC but to continue the new stabilisation scheme for 3 years-1977, 1978 and 1979. Senator Wriedt said- I made a note in passing- that I supported the scheme. I was in Cabinet when the scheme was introduced and gave the strongest assistance to the Minister for Primary Industry of the day. That scheme was produced over a period of years by the former honourable memer for Franklin, C. W. J. Falkinder, me and other Tasmanians who laboured for five or seven years to get it accepted. We want it to continue until at least 1979 and not to be destroyed as is the policy of Labor. We want the maximum support under the scheme to be $3 a case and we want it to be indexed. If defence force retirement benefits payments for superannuants from the defence forces can be indexed in full, the cost to a producer can be indexed in full for 1978 and 1979 to take account of inflation. Then the maximum quantities could be tapered off. If we have not obtained access to Japan for our apples we will be in a hopeless plight with regard to maintaining this export industry.

The returns from Europe, Singapore, America and all the other export markets this year are most disappointing. We have to reach a basis where, for the moment, the industry will be sustained so that it will survive the destructive high rising costs, particularly in Hobart, the costliest fruit loading port in the world. If we make the industry survive by entering the Japanese market, this country will need to double the quantity of apples and pears that it is producing now. I was at a luncheon the other day where about 12 important growers were assembled. At least half of them were planting out new acreages of apples. They had done this last year. So do not let the dismal Jimmies on the other side think that those who have lived on apples and know the trade are prepared to accept their doom.

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

– in reply- This legislation is not opposed. As is stated in the second reading speech this combination of Bills is designed to ensure a firm financial basis for the Apple and Pear Corporation. As Senator Wright and other honourable senators have said, the Corporation has a vital role to play in assisting the industry to overcome the problems of recent years and the cutback in the movement of apples to export markets. It is hoped that this legislation will help the industry to develop a policy for improved marketing in the domestic scene and enable the industry to do better in the export markets when the opportunities occur. Senator Wright asked me the other day a question about the problem of entering the Japanese markets. It is a problem with which I am slightly familiar. I agree with him that it would be an important market to penetrate. It would make a big difference to the industry in the whole of Australia. I do not intend to cover any matter in great detail. It should not be thought- I am sure Senator Gietzelt will agree with me- that the only apple producing States in Australia are Queensland and Tasmania. I hesitate to do so, but I remind Senator Gietzelt that the central districts of New South Wales, where I come from, are also fairly notable for apple and pear production.

Senator Chaney:

– There will be a Donnybrook about apples soon.

Senator COTTON:

-Senator Chaney says that there will be a Donnybrook about this matter fairly soon so I had better stop and go no further. Senator Gietzelt spoke of strengthening of the role of the Apple and Pear Corporation. He believes that only one measure has been advanced and that other measures will be needed but he has not brought them forward. The debate is proceeding on the basis that the legislation is supported. Senator Wright mentioned that in the New Year he will be looking for more initiatives in the stabilisation area. Those general approaches and support will be welcomed when they come. The Government is aware of the problems. This Government and the previous Government have been conscious of the problems. Not much more needs to be said. The matters have been covered in the second reading debate. There are no questions of very great consequences to answer; there are no amendments to be dealt with. In view of the lateness of the day and the need for people to be kind to each other as we approach Christmas, I shall resume my seat.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 3058

STATES GRANTS (RURAL ADJUSTMENT) BILL 1976

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 9 December, on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

-The States Grants (Rural Adjustment) Bill 1 976 now before the Parliament is probably the most significant piece of rural legislation considered this year. It sets the framework in which assistance for adjustment purposes will be provided by the Commonwealth and administered by the relevant States. To the degree that it measures some part of the problem and goes some way along the road, the Opposition is prepared to support the legislation. The Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Cotton) in his second reading speech stated that the legislation seeks to rationalise the various forms of rural adjustment presently operating under separate legislation- the rural reconstruction scheme, the dairy assistance program and the beef carry-on finance scheme- into one comprehensive scheme which covers all rural producers. In supporting the amalgamation of these various forms of rural adjustment, the Opposition believes that there should be one comprehensive scheme. We support the additional provisions included in the legislation relating to farm improvement carryon finance, household support and an increase in the rehabilitation loan to selected applicants from $3,000 to $5,000.

The Opposition wishes to state clearly, however, that it does not consider that the legislation goes far enough in establishing structural adjustment assistance as a future tool of agricultural policy. Hence the Opposition intends to move some amendments, but in particular an amendment to the schedule of the Bill at page 13 to set up a National Rural Adjustment Board to monitor the administration of the provisions of this very important form of assistance to the rural sector. The Opposition proposes also that this form of assistance should be made available to the fishing industry, which to date appears to be excluded from access to adjustment assistance. We will be moving amendments to have these producers brought within the ambit of the present scheme.

Before examining the provisions of the Bill in detail, it would be appropriate to examine some of the quite significant structural changes which have occurred in agriculture in recent years, the factors which have produced these changes and how the rural sector has responded to changes in the economic environment. It is important to do this if we are to come to some understanding of the role that government can and should play in facilitating the process of structural adjustment.

Senator Wright from time to time has spoken at great length about what he believes are the problems of adjustment in the rural sector. But it has to be pointed out to him that in the decade 1965 to 1975, for example, Commonwealth funds to the degree of $2,258m were paid out in form of direct subsidies and bounties to the rural sector. Because they were across-the-board types of subsidies there came about an imbalance within various sectors of agriculture as resources flowed into those sectors in which assistance produced a higher than average rate of income. Even within the period of the Labor Government $843m was paid out in those 3 years for the purpose of assistance to the rural sector. So when resources flow incorrectly from one sector to another, we get an imbalance. Then, subsequently, we are faced with problems associated with export markets such as the access to markets which is now denied to Australian agricultural producers. Clearly structural difficulties are involved also. I have heard Ministers of this

Government in recent dmes, not only in the Parliament but also in the media generally, referring to the strutural difficulties that exist in agriculture and in manufacturing industry in Australia. That is where we are at. That is why these sorts of Bills are essential. That is why it is necessary to have the Industries Assistance Commission carrying out an objective analysis of the situation, industry by industry, so that we may understand the changes that take place, sector by sector.

Since the mid- 1930s the percentage of the population living in rural areas has declined significantly. According to the IAC, as well as to statistics generally, the male rural work force has declined from 26 per cent of the total employed males in 1921 to 8 per cent in 1971. The latest figures show an even more significant decline in the work force in rural sectors down to 6.3 per cent. I say to Senator Wright, who is trying to interject, that all that has taken place in the period in which the conservative governments were in office. It was not the result of a Whitlam Government, or a Curtin Government or a Chifley Government; it was part of the inevitable evolution that has been taking place in agriculture in all the developing countries in the West. We have seen a gradual reduction in the number of farms, an increase in their average size and in their productivity, and considerable diversification in production. As the crisis on the land had deepend we have seen the farmer and his family turn to off-farm sources of income in an endeavour to stay on their properties. Surely no honourable senator could disagree that that is the objective reality of today.

The factors which have brought about these adjustments in the industry structure are numerous. They include the general level of economic activity at home and abroad which affects the demand for rural produce. I refer, for example, to the decline in consumption of beef in the United States and Japan after the oil crisis in 1973 as the domestic levels of inflation increased in those countries. Then there is the denial of access to our products to overseas markets. I refer also to the increasing availability and application of new farm technology, climatic conditions, assistance policies pursued often in different directions by governments, Commonwealth and State, and of course fluctuations in the exchange rate. All these things have tremendous influences on and implications to the farmer.

It is on this last aspect that the Government’s credibility has been destroyed. Quite apart from the untold damage brought to our international financial reputation by the Government’s rather embarrassing inability to reach a decision on the value of the Australian dollar, the Government has carefully and quite deceitfully disguised the long term impact of this devaluation on the cost structure of primary production. Senator Walters, in making her contribution to the debate on the apple and pear legislation, showed how she fails to understand the effect devaluation will have ultimately on the whole rural scene. It may well be that farmer leaders believe that the decision will be beneficial to them, but I gather than very shortly they will have a different point of view.

The Opposition is aware of the immediate cash benefit to certain rural producers as a result of devaluation. It is also acutely aware of the long term costs which the rural producer will be forced to face as a consequence of devaluation. I agree with the remarks of Senator Wright about freight costs. Senator Cotton will agree that the invisibles play a significant part in our balance of trade situation. That factor will be a minus in respect of devaluation. It will have a significant effect on both those rural producers who have shared in the short term gains of devaluation and those who have not shared at all. Many sectors of the economy rely on access to markets and therefore devaluation will be of very little assistance.

The farmer faces a long term loss situation if the dollar is revalued significantly. He faces the prospect of a confirmed high rate of domestic inflation if the inflow of capital expected after this devaluation materialises, and that will take place for sure. He cannot be insulated forever against the economic realities of a rise in interest rates which apply to the community generally, no matter what action this Government may take to try to insulate the rural sector from interest rates. The farmer also faces the prospect of a long term squeeze on his income from a rising domestic cost structure and because of the high level of protection now afforded many of the manufactured inputs he consumes and the rising costs of inputs he imports. If considerable pressure had not been brought to bear on the Government it would have been prepared to let the sleeping dog lie in the tariff front. In the long term the rural producers would have been worse off. As it is many of the selective tariff cuts announced in the last few days do not apply to inputs consumed by the farmer. The Opposition can see only troubled waters ahead for the rural sector and a continuation of considerable pressure on this sector to adjust. I am not suggesting that every recommendation that comes out of the Industries Assistance Commission needs implementation or that the recommendations are necessarily correct, but they at least provide the basis for an active government to react and to legislate.

The Government promised the rural sector producer domestic stability. All it has delivered is the prospect of long term domestic instability The Government promised sound economic management, and all the farmer has received is chaos in domestic economic policy. The Government ‘s failure in economic management- that is what is being said in all the newspapers today and by all the commentators- makes the establishment of an effective structural adjustment policy even now more imperative than in the past. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics in its comments on the Australian farm situation in 1975-76 states:

A feature of the rural sectors in Australia has been the speed and the magnitude of the changes in the economic environment affecting different rural industries and the capacity they have shown to adjust autonomously.

Given these quite dramatic changes which have occurred in the structure of the rural sector in recent years, the challenge for government is to establish and maintain a constructive assistance policy aimed at improving the mobility and the productivity of resources employed in agriculture. By adopting such an approach government is not being intrusive. I disagree fundamentally with Senator Wright that government should stay out of agriculture as much as possible. The Government needs to move in. We need more government not less government in agriculture if agriculture is to have any future at all in the next 20 years. By adopting such a policy it acknowledges that it has an important role to play where the process of adjustment is impeded by certain factors.

It is quite a feature of this Government that on the last day of every session of Parliament since this Government came to office we have dealt with rural matters. For example, at the end of the Autumn session in June last, I spoke 5 times on 5 rural Bills. The same process has been followed yesterday and today. That illustrates where priorities lie with this Government.

Governments have an important role to play where the process of adjustment is impeded by certain factors, where considerable social and economic costs are involved, and for individuals and society in general because of the need to adjust. These impediments include the immobility of some rural capital, imperfections in the capital market, the limited off-farm occupational opportunities in rural areas and a natural reluctance and often inability for farmers to relocate.

It is obvious from the advances which have been made under this legislation that the Government has based its consideration on the form of structural adjustment assistance appropriate to the rural sector on the recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission in its rural report of 1 January 1976. The Opposition asks: Why has the Government chosen to implement only half of the recommendations in that report? We are prepared to give legislative support to a concerted effort which, we feel, should be made now to establish the necessary administrative machinery at the national level to cope with the continued need that will exist for rural adjustment measures as a natural consequence of this Government’s ill-conceived economic policies.

Broadly, the IAC has made 2 recommendations relating to the future direction and administration of government adjustment assistance policy. It has recommended the amalgamation of industry-oriented schemes into one rural adjustment scheme covering all farmers in the rural sector. How important and imperative that proposal is- if a farmer is to be encouraged to move from one sector, obviously he needs assistance to know to which other sector he should movewith the inclusion of certain new provisions relating to farm improvement in this legislation, carry on finance and household support in the scheme. This part of the Commission’s recommendations has fortunately been incorporated in the new adjustment measures proposed by the Government and supported by the Opposition.

In its report, the Commission has mounted some very persuasive considerations for the construction of a single adjustment scheme, many of which relate directly to the defects now evident in all of the previous schemes. The Commission has recommended the creation of the national rural adjustment scheme to co-ordinate, evaluate and plan rural adjustment assistance. It is the creation of such a board which is the substance of the main amendment proposed by the Opposition. The Opposition takes the view that there is little benefit in attempting to rectify the deficiencies existing in previous rural adjustment schemes and to amalgamate the various schemes into one scheme without providing adequate machinery at the national level to ensure that the administration of the scheme is equitable and effectively administered.

It is no good leaving this to the nuances and the influences of one State against another. A national initiative is required. In these processes, no State should be disadvantaged. The desired policy objectives of Government should be achieved in this way. Therefore, in Une with the recommendations of the IAC, the Opposition proposes that a national rural adjustment board be created with a full executive chairman, 2 part time members from rural industry and 2 members drawn from the various State rural reconstruction authorities and selected on a rotational basis for a term of not more than 2 years. This would give the essential co-ordination that is necessary to implement such a scheme. The important feature of the proposal is that it will give primary producers direct access to policy making machinery at the national level through the 2 rural representatives who will sit on the board.

The IAC also outlined many constructive considerations in its report on the various functions that such a board could perform. The Opposition has included these considerations in its amendment as a guideline to the proposed method of operation for such a board. Among the functions proposed for the board are that it should consult with State reconstruction authorities and federal and State departments on the annual fund requirements of the national rural adjustment scheme and arrange consultation between State reconstruction authorities and the Australian Government concerning emergency short term credit requirements when farm incomes are substantially reduced by a sudden market collapse or other severe situation. As a producer, Mr Deputy President, you would know that this constantly happens. It should discuss and liaise with State reconstruction authorities and agencies concerned with monitoring market prospects, such as the various commodity boards and the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, to ensure that viability assessments are based on the most up to date information available.

What appals me is the lack of farm intelligence information. There is very little of it available to enable farmers to make an assessment based on market trends and influences. We also need to monitor the progress of reconstruction clients including those assessed not to have sound prospects of long-term commercial viability. We need to evaluate the rural adjustment schemes in terms of explicit policy objectives and guidelines. We need research into the relative effects of various assistance measures in anticipation of responding to continuing adjustment pressures. We need to conduct feasibility studies and to evaluate areas with specific problems in adjustment and redevelopment proposals suggested by interested parties and other government agencies, and to liaise at the national level with management of banks and other sources of farm credit.

The Opposition calls upon the Government to demonstrate its sincerity with regard to this form of assistance to the rural sector and to accept the Opposition’s amendments. Considering this legislation in detail, the Opposition supports the farm build-up, debt reconstruction and rehabilitation provisions which have been taken from previous reconstruction legislation, and supports the various additional provisions such as farm improvement, carry-on finance and, with one amendment, the household support scheme contained in the Bill.

Having some regard to the time factor, I move on to that section of the Bill which seeks to look at the rehabilitation provisions. The Opposition supports the Government’s proposals to increase the level of assistance from $3000 to $5000 but the Opposition is concerned that the Government in its haste to pass this legislation- and let us bear in mind that it is a hastily prepared piece of legislation which was introduced into the House of Representatives less than a week ago, not giving the Opposition adequate time to consider the implications, and introduced into this chamber several days ago to be passed todayhas ignored many important issues relating to the scope of adjustment assistance measures and the financial terms on which moneys will be made available to prospective farmer clients.

The Industries Assistance Commission report was concerned that adequate counselling services be provided to inform farm families of the various provisions of the scheme, and that is an integral part of any readjustment scheme. The report also referred to the need to extend the counselling services available to applicants who receive assistance under the scheme to include management advice, and for those assessed as non-viable in agriculture, adequate counselling to alert those farm families to the options available to them outside the sector. As Senator Wright said in his speech on another Bill a few moments ago, there are farmers planting more fruit trees although we have a tree-pull scheme under which they are being pulled out elsewhere. This shows the absurdity of lack of direction by the national government.

The Australian Labor Party supports this important part of the adjustment assistance with special purpose grants to improve the scope of state extension services to cater for the counselling needs of viable and non-viable farmers and the Opposition requests the Government to give similar consideration to this important aspect of adjustment assistance. With regard to the rate of interest at which loans will be made available to recipients under the various provisions of the legislation, the Opposition seeks clarification on whether the Government has or has not accepted the IAC recommendation that the long-term bond rate be the basic rate of interest for loans made for rural adjustment purposes. The Opposition is concerned that concessions may be built into the notion of longterm viability and that such a course of action may militate against the long-term effectiveness of the scheme. In seeking this clarification the Opposition notes that in the existing provisions of the legislation considerable discretion is given to the State administrative authority in dealing with individual farmers in that scope exists to schedule repayments and to defer repayments in accordance with the farmer’s financial capacity to meet early commitments. The Opposition considers that procedures for review of this scheme are inadequate and, therefore, should be strengthened in the legislation. This would occur if the Opposition’s amendment pertaining to the proposed national Rural Reconstruction Board were accepted. We regard regular reviews as being an essential part of the flexible operation of the scheme.

The Opposition is concerned also that the legislation does not go far enough in its consideration of special assistance to selected industries and the need for area adjustment measures. The carry-on finance provisions in the Bill can be implemented when a particular industry faces a severe economic down-turn. The Opposition is concerned at the impact that such an event could have on the economics of a regional area predominantly dependent upon a rural industry. The Opposition sees the situation arising where adjustment assistance beyond the farm gate would be necessary. It believes that the proposed national rural readjustment board could play a valuable role in identifying such situations and advising the Government on appropriate policy measures.

The options facing Government policy makers with regard to the more general question of assistance to the rural sector are perfectly clear to the Opposition. If we can see them, the Government, with all the economic advisers it has at its elbow, should be able to see them. We have the choice of continuing the protective forms of assistance which have been the hallmark of the present Government’s assistance policy- a policy commonly referred to as a policy of subsidy and concession, regressive in its operation, inward-looking and not applying itself to the basic problems of readjustment- or of devising new assistance policies which are rational in their conception and dynamic in their operation and which afford the rural producer the prospect of long-term viability with a minimum of government assistance.

The rural producers’ attitude is clear. The rural sector wants to reduce its dependence on government assistance in the long term. It demands that the Government pursue rational assistance measures with regard to manufacturing industry and it demands that the Government pursue rational policies in relation to itself. That as been made abundantly clear to me in recent months. The Labor Party believes that the resources of a responsible government, through its assistance policy, should be employed in facilitating the process of structural adjustment where the costs to individuals and to society of those changes are deemed to be excessive. An important opportunity exists, therefore, for the Government to move away from its past assistance policies, which have encouraged farmers to move into areas of production which are now proven to be uneconomic, and to pursue more rational policies aimed at improving the mobility and productivity of resources employed in the rural sector. That is the Labor Party’s approach and that is the only approach which will secure long-term growth and efficiency in the rural sector.

Senator TEHAN:
VICTORIA · NCP

– I rise to support the Bill. In an endeavour to save a little time later, I want to deal at once with the proposed amendments. I can do so very briefly. The amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 will upset the delicate structure of this scheme which now draws into one comprehensive piece of legislation all the various schemes which have been available to primary producers in recent times. For that reason alone, amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 should be rejected. So far as amendment No. 4 is concerned, the primary producers in Australia are sick of bureaucrats and boards. All that this amendment does is set up yet another Federal authority- a national rural adjustment board- when, at the moment, we have complete co-operation between the State governments and the Federal Minister in the administration of the existing proposals. That can continue. There is absolutely no necessity for another bureaucratic board to be set up under this legislation. I say that that amendment should be rejected.

This Bill will give parliamentary approval for the execution of a new agreement by the Commonwealth and the States relating to rural adjustment. We will now have under one umbrella the previous rural reconstruction scheme, the dairy adjustment program and the carry-on finance scheme for beef producers. An entirely new form of assistance has been introduced- it is a very important one- known as household support. It will extend to those who have the greatest need for assistance, namely, those who are forced out of farming, in many cases due to circumstances beyond their control, and who have exhausted their cash and credit and have to make a final decision whether or not to leave the industry. It is important to note that all agricultural, horticultural and pastoral industries are included in this comprehensive legislation. As stated in the agreement Schedule to the Bill, the general principle to be applied is to distribute the available resources as widely as practicable. The overriding objective is to restore to economic viability those farms and farmers with a capacity to maintain viability once that object is achieved.

I should like to deal very briefly with the various forms of assistance which are provided in the legislation. The first of these is debt reconstruction assistance, which is already provided for in the existing legislation. It is designed to help the applicant who has sound long term prospects but who is unable to obtain finance to carry on and thus puts his whole property and assets in jeopardy. The assistance may be provided for rearrangement or composition of debts to allow more time for repayment. Finance will be available for a wide range of assistance, including repayment of all or part of the debts secured on the property, and for carry-on expenses, livestock and further property development.

The next form of assistance, and a very important one, is known as farm build-up. In relation to this type of legislation, since it was introduced 2 or 3 years ago it has proved very useful to the dairy industry in Victoria. It has a double effect in that in the first place it allows the farmer whose property is too small and no longer viable, having regard to the depressed market conditions for the product, to retire from the industry with some dignity and with the cash value of his equity in the property. In the second place, the farmer who buys the property becomes a more viable unit. The terms and conditions on which money is supplied to him are very generous both as to interest and repayment. The practice in Victoria has been to lend the whole of the purchase money to the farmer staying in the industry to enable him to take over the other property. Thus there is a reduction in the number of farmers, the people staying in become viable, and the nonviable people get out. It is a very useful piece of legislation.

A further form of assistance is the extension of the dairy adjustment program to the whole of the primary producing sector. The purpose of this type of assistance is to restore an existing farm to economic viability without adding to its areaand that is slightly different from the previous provision. Before it is available, the applicant will have to demonstrate that his existing farm has been a viable proposition and that the purpose for which the assistance is being given will with some degree of certainty restore the property to long term viability. I should add that in relation to all the finance provided under these schemes there is a common factor. If the applicant can get finance elsewhere, it is not provided by the Government. That is the test, and it is a very useful test which will mean that the deserving cases will get assistance.

The next type of assistance to which I wish to refer is that known as rehabilitation. The purpose, as set out in the agreement, is to provide limited assistance to those obliged to leave the industry where in the opinion of the authority administering the scheme it is necessary to alleviate conditions of personal hardship. In order to qualify an applicant must have sold his property to a purchaser under the farm build-up provisions which I mentioned earlier- that is the small man getting out. The second condition is that he will suffer financial hardship after his property has been sold, having regard to his financial position at that stage. For instance, the assistance will cover a small farmer who has very little equity in his property. He may have a heavy mortgage on it, and this provision will enable him to receive assistance. The nature of the assistance is a loan to a maximum of $5,000. The Authority has a discretion not only to fix the interest rate in terms of repayment but also a very valuable additional discretion to convert the loan to a grant. Undoubtedly this will materially assist non-viable people wishing to retire from the dairy industry m Victoria.

The next type of assistance provided by the legislation is what is termed carry-on finance. It covers the situation where the States agree that an industry has real short term problems because of a severe market downturn or something else. It is a short term arrangement. When there is a problem such as drought or over supply assistance can be given, by agreement, to help people in the short term.

I do not want to delay the Senate any longer than necessary but I want to say a little about household support. This is a new and very worthwhile provision which, in the terms of the agreement, will provide assistance for up to one year to non-viable farmers having insufficient resources to meet living expenses and who are in need of assistance to alleviate conditions of personal and family hardship while they decide whether to adjust out of farming. I took that statement from the agreement. The test of eligibility in this case, as provided by the agreement, is that the applicant must be assessed as nonviable in the long term, must be unable to obtain financial assistance from any normal source, as I mentioned earlier, and will suffer personal or family hardship. These provisions will alleviate that situation. There is an important limitation in that the amount of assistance which can be obtained is geared to the amount of unemployment benefits. Some of the proposed amendments to this Bill would cut across this principle which I think is a very basic one. I do not think any primary producer in Australia wants to finish up better off by means of government assistance than an employee who happens to be getting unemployment benefits.

I do not want to go into all the details of this new household support scheme because there are 13 paragraphs relating to it, but I do want to say that considerable elasticity and discretion are vested in the State authority which will administer it in order that there is a range of assistance available for a particular case. That is a very valuable feature of the legislation because it is not until schemes of this type are put into operation that the hard cases emerge. Occasionally there is necessity for an administrative discretion to be exercised in favour of a person who might not qualify otherwise. That is a very valuable provision. Likewise, there is provision for a lump sum payment where a person eligible for household support wishes to adjust out of farming. At the discretion of the authority that person can receive a lump sum payment in lieu of household support.

Finally, I want to say a few words about the basis of financing this legislation. Funding of the household support scheme will be the complete responsibility of the Commonwealth. The other forms of assistance will be met by an advance by the Commonwealth to the States, 85 per cent in the form of loan and 15 per cent in the form of grant. The rate of interest on the loan component will be 7 per cent but this will be subject to adjustment to the long term bond rate of interest. Provision is made for the sharing of the cost of administration. For the 6 months from 1 January to 30 June 1977 the Commonwealth is making available $20m. The details of the split-up of that sum are set out in the second reading speech made in the other place by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair). It was pleasing to note that in that speech he indicated that the rural bank concept and the young farmers’ establishment scheme are under consideration by the Government. The legislation we are now discussing may require some adjustment when those matters are brought before the Parliament, hopefully next year. I commend the Bill to the Senate. It is a very worthwhile initiative on the part of the Government to assist all those persons in the primary industry sector who at present are suffering distress.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

-I support the States Grants (Rural Adjustment) Bill and the proposed amendments which will be subsequently moved by my colleague, Senator Gietzelt. The action which will be taken pursuant to this Bill is outlined in the schedule attached to it. I think the Bill actually states that the agreements under it must be made substantially in accordance with the schedule appended to the Bill. The schedule provides an outline of the purposes for which assistance will be provided and the approximate terms and conditions under which it will be provided. They have been outlined fairly comprehensively by previous speakers.

Senator Tehan mentioned interest rates. I make one point about interest rates. It is a popular notion in agricultural areas that finance ought to be made available for agriculture at concessional rates of interest. This Bill provides for finance at concessional rates of interest. While there may sometimes be a case for this, I make the point that when funds are provided on a long term basis at concessional rates of interest there is absolutely no incentive- indeed there is a positive disincentive- to repay those funds. Farmers who in 1970 and 1971 received loans at rates of interest as low as 4 per cent a year and who, because of the subsequent boom in both wheat and wool industries, are now quite affluent, still have money loaned to them in 1970 and 1971 at an interest rate of 4 per cent a year. The point I am making is that if these people were forced to pay the commercial rate of interest- given the current financial situation of many of them there is no reason on welfare grounds why they should not be forced to pay commercial rates of interest- there would be some incentive to repay the loans. Therefore more funds would be available to lend to some other farmers whose needs are greater, both as individuals and because of the subsequent adjustments which those other loans would promote within agriculture.

I regret that when introducing this Bill the Government did not see fit to make any provisions for the fishing industry, which in some parts of Australia faces problems which are similar- problems of surplus capacities- to those which affect many sectors of agriculture. The Commonwealth Development Bank, until 7 months ago, used to make funds available for the purchase of fishing boats- this has a role to play in the reconstruction of the fishing industry- at interest rates between per cent and 1 Vh per cent a year, which approximated the overdraft rate. But about 7 months ago the Government, although it increased the limit of these loans from $200,000 to $300,000, increased the interest rate to 13 per cent. There seems to be a good deal of inconsistency in the treatment by the Government of different sectors with similar problems. On the one hand funds are being made available to agriculture at a concessional rate of interest and to the other sector, the fishing industry, at a rate of interest which is above the current overdraft rate. I suggest that in both instances the case is much stronger for the interest charge to be set at approximately the overdraft rate.

The problems with which this Bill is concerned, as the word ‘reconstruction’ implies, are principally the problems of structural adjustment in agriculture. Sometimes the provisions of the Bill will be used to overcome short term declines in farm income caused by agricultural problems on the production side or by short term problems on the marketing side. But in the main it is concerned with the structural problems which are deep-seated, the causes of which are unlikely to go away. Those industries which have structural problems display certain common attributes: Their comparative advantages, if they ever possessed any, are rapidly deteriorating; they nave surplus capacity; they are generally labour intensive and they are also characterised by very low marginal returns. In some instances the problems are further compounded by an excessive number of farms which are too small to be viable. When the problems of the deteriorating comparative advantage, low marginal returns and so on interact with the small farm problem, the problems become very significant.

It is at least equally important for farmers to be informed adequately of the realities of the industries in which they are placed as it is to provide funds under legislation of this nature. It is in this area that the present Government and the parties which comprise it, both when in Government and when in Opposition, ought to be severely chastised. Many sectors of the fruit growing industry, of the dairy industry, of the canned fruit industry and of other industries have deep seated structural problems which have not been caused by ephemeral influences. Yet spokesmen for the Government say that this is the case. They present directly opposite conclusions. On 20 November, at a National Party rally at Roma, the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) attempted, as he and his colleagues normally do, to blame all the agricultural problems on the previous Labor Government. He went on with the usual rhetoric about the changes wrought on the farming community by the Whitlam Government with its spendthrift policies and its desire to take all that it could from the rural sector, etc. He said:

Whitlam inflation crippled the ability of the rural sector to compete profitably on international markets.

And the things taken away from the rural sector, that had been assumed for so long, had a devastating effect during the 3 years Labor were in office.

He did not specify the things which were taken away, but I presume that he meant, among other things, those taxation dodges which were deliberately and explicitly designed to encourage new investment in agriculture or to provide the incentive to what our opponents in 1973 called an urgent need to increase production. In 1973 the then Opposition severely criticised the Labor Government for removing these tax concessions which were deliberately designed to encourage new investment and greater production in agriculture. Yet in a very short time we saw the wisdom of this decision. I refer to the fact that so many sectors of agriculture already had surplus capacity, the most dramatic of these being the beef industry. It had been in trouble for more than 2 years. According to Mr Anthony in 1973, it faced a very favourable future. He said that demand for beef would increase so fast that we would be flat out trying to keep up with it. It did not take very long to show how grossly in error he was on that point. In a statement, which is numbered 153A by the Parliamentary Library, the Minister said:

Things have come to such a pass that the question as to whether Australia needs a rural sector, and whether it can survive, has been posed throughout the community- not in a jocular fashion, nor without serious consideration.

I suggest that that is alarmist clap-trap. Of course the rural sector will survive with or without assistance from this Government. Its structural composition and its size are certainly open to dispute and to revision, but its survival per se is not in doubt. For the Minister to suggest that it is in doubt or that it ever has been in doubt is the epitome of irresponsibility. He also said:

Let me assure you that the National Country Party and the coalition Government are totally committed, not just to the survival of agriculture, but to a stage where adequate profits can be earned from investing in the land . . .

It is an interesting notion that the Government should underwrite the earning of adequate profits from investing in the land. Among other things, it incorporates the notion that the Government should guarantee a specific or predetermined return on capital used to buy land which, if adopted, locks us into a vicious circlethe higher the return on investment in land, the higher the level at which the Government guarantees, inevitably the higher the price of land becomes. To meet this commitment to provide a minimum return on capital the Government has then to increase again in some way the prices of the commodities produced on the land. So we start off on the next round. It incorporates the sort of economic thinking which led to the injustices and the distortions of the corn laws in England which were repealed more than 100 years ago. I suppose that is where the Country Party and the present Minister for Primary Industry really belong- about 100 years ago. In statement No. 117, which was delivered about July- I do not have the precise date- the Minister said:

If you have the resources for agricultural development, then develop them without wasting them.

The Government has a mindless commitment to development per se. The application of that belief as government policy and the implementation of that belief as government policy is the direct cause of the problems in many of the industries which are the subject of this piece of legislation. The mindless expansion of irrigation schemes is an example. The Goulburn Valley is perhaps the most recent and most demonstrably foolish example in that respect. Throughout the 1960s a massive program of orchard planting and expansion of irrigation was undertaken which almost doubled the capacity of the Australian canned fruit industry. It, of course, is one of the major problem industries with which this Bill is concerned. This sort of thing might be good rah-rah stuff at Country Party rallies. But, whether deliberately or otherwise, to mislead the farmers of Australia about the actual conditions in their industries and the true realities they face is the epitome of irresponsibility.

As recently as 15 November the Minister repeated the line that large increases in costs caused by inflation under the Whitlam Government were largely responsible for reducing the living standards of those in the farming community. At Rockhampton only last Saturday he said:

Labor saw inflation as a means of paying for its spending sprees. But what Whitlam ‘s rural rip-off really did was to cripple the ability of the rural sector to compete profitably on international markets. Four and a half million dollars of agricultural exports and the way of life of rural communities all around Australia were placed in jeopardy.

Senator McLaren:

– Who said that?

Senator WALSH:

– The Minister for Primary Industry. The facts of the situation are very different. The fruit growing, dairying and canned fruit industries have been problem industries since way back into the 1 960s. As I said at the beginning of my speech, their problems, though they may be marginally exacerbated by inflation and a few other things, are deep-seated and structural. They are found in the simple fact that these industries are labour intensive in a high labour cost country, that they face quantitative restrictions at the marketing end, that the marginal returns are extremely low, that they have surplus capacity and that whatever comparative advantage they may have had is either steadily or rapidly being eroded. These problems are all compounded by the fact that in many instances the farms are too small.

Before closing I must pass some comment on Senator Walters’ remarks this afternoon. Firstly, she misquoted what I had said about the effects of devaluation on Australia ‘s problem industries. I did not say that devaluation would provide no assistance for the dairying industry or for beef production. What I did say was that the greatest assistance- the greatest benefits- would flow to those sectors which were already relatively well off, particularly wheat and wool and perhaps, to a slightly lesser extent, sugar, that the beef producers would get some value, that the dairy farmers would get very little and that in the very specific case of apple producers the increases in freight costs could well be great enough completely to offset the price gains. I wanted to put the records straight on that.

Senator Walters then developed her argument that devaluation would provide massive assistance to Tasmanian apple exporters. With the superb logic for which her Party and its coalition partner are noted she tried to prove her point by saying that Mt Lyell would remain open because of devaluation. As far as I know, nothing much grows around Mt Lyell at all. I think that I have the right place. There are certainly no apple orchards. I think that that area produces copper. What the price of copper has to do with the price of apples Senator Walters failed to explain.

But since she raises the point it is obvious that the Bureau of Agricultural Economics does not share her optimism about the effects of devaluation on farm incomes. Despite having tried on 2 occasions in the last fortnight by way of question to the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Cotton), who represents the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) in this place, I have not been able to get the Government’s or the Treasury’s official estimates of the effect of devaluation on farm incomes or the export prices of agricultural commodities. But one forecast from the BAE has been published and that forecast estimated that net farm income would increase by some $1 50m in the remaining 7 months of this financial year as a direct result of devaluation. That figure cannot be reconciled with the $700m a year increase in agricultural export prices which the Treasurer claimed in a speech last week.

I would like to see the Government give some clarification as to how $150m in 7 months can suddenly be transformed into $700m over a full year. The point is that if the full benefits of devaluation flowed on into agricultural prices, as Senator Walters seemed to believe they would, the aggregate income received by Australian agricultural exporters would increase by something like $900m. The Treasurer says $700m. Not even he shares Senator Walters’ optimism. Of course, that is a nonsense figure, as the BAE estimate shows. The true figure for the increase in agricultural prices will probably be around $300m to $350m. I remind Senator Walters once again that the overwhelming majority of that benefit, both proportionally and in aggregate, will accrue to the relatively well-off wool and wheat producers. When the second round effects of devaluation are taken into account- and by that, of course, I mean the inflation which even the Government acknowledges will be generatedthe Tasmanian apple producers could well be, on balance, disadvantaged by devaluation.

The weakness of this Bill introduced by the Government is that it is directed only at farmers, that there is no provision for the national rural adjustment board of the type recommended by the Industries Assistance Commission which could have taken action on a broader front than would be possible under any scheme which is oriented only to farmers. There are people other than farmers who are affected by the structural problems and the long term decline of agricultural industries. People who are directly employed in agriculture without being farmers themselves have been completely ignored by this legislation. This has also been the case with people who are employed in or who are proprietors of the service industries in the rural towns. This legislation provides nothing for these people. To some extent and to some degree the Opposition proposes to try to remedy that defect with an amendment which will be moved by Senator Gietzelt during the Committee stage.

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

– in reply- As I listened to the debate I reached the conclusion that Opposition members support the measure in the broad principle but have some amendments which they wish to put. So why not let them do so?

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

The Schedule.

Interpretation 3. ( 1 ) In this agreement, unless the contrary intention appears- financial year’ means a period of twelve months ending on the 30th day of June; the Authority’ means the authority or authorities of a State that has or have the administration of the Scheme on behalf of the State and, in a case where there is more than one authority, refers, where the context requires reference to one authority, to the relevant authority of the State; the Scheme’ means the scheme to be established and operated by a State in accordance with clause 4; the Treasurer’ means the Treasurer of the Commonwealth.

page 3068

THE SCHEDULE

page 3068

RURAL ADJUSTMENT- OUTLINE OF SCHEME

Pan 1- General Principles

  1. All agricultural, horticultural and pastoral industries are included in the Scheme. It is recognised that in particular circumstances some industries may need additional special consideration.

    1. 1 ) A farmer who is eligible for household support and who is prepared to adjust out of farming may, at the discretion of the Authority, receive in lieu of household support assistance a lump sum payment of $3,000 less any household support assistance paid to him prior to adjusting out of farming. Such payment is additional to any other payments that might be available to him under the Scheme.
Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– By agreement with the Government, I shall move a number of amendments together so that we may debate them conjointly and save some of the time which seems to be taken in dealing with these matters.

The CHAIRMAN (Senator DrakeBrockman) Is it the wish of the Committee to take all the amendments together? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.

Senator GIETZELT:

– I move:

  1. In the Schedule, clause (3), sub-clause (1), at end of sub-clause, add the following definition: “ ‘rural producers’ means any person engaged in the pastoral, horticultural, agricultural or fishing industries, or any one or more of these industries. “.
  2. In the Schedule, Part 1- General Principles, para- graph (a), leave out ‘and pastoral’, insert ‘.pastoral and fishing’.
  3. In the Schedule, Pan 7- Household Support, clause (3), paragraph ( 1 ), leave out the words ‘less any household support assistance paid to him prior to adjusting out of farming’.
  4. In the Schedule, at end of schedule, add the following new Pan: ‘Part 8-

page 3068

NATIONAL RURAL ADJUSTMENT BOARD

That a National Rural Adjustment Board be established.

The amendments propose that the definition of rural producers’ in clause (3), sub-clause ( 1) of the Schedule include any person involved in the pastoral, horticultural, agricultural or fishing industries and that reference to fishing be included in Part I of the Schedule. The purpose of this is to recognise that fishing comes within the general descriptive definition of a primary industry. I suppose that in many respects we could say that fishing was the first industry not only on the world scene but also in Australia. We are prompted to move these amendments because we believe that the fishing industry is at a stage in its development, because of the recent extension of the fishing zone to 200 miles off shore, when it requires government assistance in order to carry out its responsibilities as an income earner and employer. There are some 16 000 fishermen in the industry. The industry’s returns now exceed $100m, so it is not an insignificant industry. Yet so far no attempts have been made by governments at the national level to include fishing as part of their responsibilities. Clearly structural problems are involved.

I would hope that the Committee would give some serious consideration to the amendments we propose. The tendency when you have the numbers is not to give any consideration to amendments but I genuinely believe that the Government ought to look at the amendments quite seriously. The Department of Primary Industry gave evidence to the Industry’s Assistance Commission in April this year, when the Commission was considering reconstruction of the fishing industry, that this was in line with a pre-election commitment that was made by the Federal coalition Government. The Department said in its submission that the issues it was canvassing in its study of the possibility of reconstruction included the identification of fisheries needing reconstruction, the feasibility of extending existing rural reconstruction programs to the fishing industry and the feasibility of reducing the number of boats in over-exploited fisheries by means of a buy-back scheme. A lot of other things were said, but I will not weary the Committee with them at this late stage.

I had to do some research in respect of the fishing industry, because when the Opposition attempted to move these amendments in the other place the Clerk gave advice to my colleagues there that fisheries would not come within the Bill. We then had to establish whether in fact there was a relationship between fisheries and primary industry. Lo and behold, we turned up an Act passed by the national Parliament in 1907 which clearly established fishing as an industry which had received Commonwealth assistance. Bill No. 12 of 1907 was a Bill to provide bounties and financial assistance in relation to cotton, fibres, linseed oil, rice, coffee, tobacco leaf, fish, fruits and wool tops and so on. So the Government can be assured that by including the fishing industry as one of the industries capable of receiving assistance under the rural adjustment scheme it is following a practice that the Parliament has already adopted.

Notwithstanding that, we take the view that it is not up to the bureaucracy to determine what Bills the Parliament should deal with but it is up to the Parliament itself.

In relation to the household support scheme, I hope that I will have the vocal support of Senator Wright. I draw attention to Part 7, paragraph (1), in the Schedule, which states:

A farmer who is eligible for household support and who is prepared to adjust out of farming may, at the discretion of the Authority, receive in lieu of household support assistance a lump sum payment of $3,000 less any household support assistance paid to him prior to adjusting out of farming . . .

As was pointed out by the Minister in his second reading speech, the proposal to pay benefits to farmers under the household support scheme is limited to social security benefits. So, if a farmer received approximately $40 a week over a couple of years he would receive no payment if, finally, he decided to leave the industry. It seems to me that, when we have established the principle of severance pay in relation to adjustments in the manufacturing industry, that principle ought to be established in relation to the rural sector. We propose that the following words be left out of paragraph (1):

. less any household support assistance paid to him prior to adjusting out of farming.

So, he would receive a lump sum of $3,000 plus any adjustment assistance given to him in the period in which he was making the decision to leave the industry.

I know that the Government’s advisers will talk about Part 5 of the Schedule, which deals with rehabilitation. There, under certain conditions, it is possible for a person to be paid a maximum of $5,000 in any one case by the Authority. But I put it to the Senate that at that stage, when a farmer has finally concluded that he has to leave the industry, he may well find that he is unable to sell his property because of the general decline within the region. He will find himself not attracted to the scheme in terms of a loan. He will have employment difficulties. He will have difficulties in establishing himself in another home if he is going to leave the district. He may well be faced with those sorts of problems if he opts out of the industry. Obviously he and his wife and family would have to leave if he were to get employment elsewhere. In those circumstances we do not believe that the assistance should be regarded as being the basic amount. He should receive his severance pay of $3,000, and good luck to him if he has been able to receive other assistance.

I spoke on the proposed national rural adjustment board. We adopt, in their entirety, the recommendations of the Industries Assistance Commission in relation to the establishment of such a board, with a full time executive chairman and part-time members from rural industry and the various State reconstruction schemes. We urge the Government to give serious consideration to our amendments. Only in the interests of brevity and of getting home for Christmas am I prepared to conclude my remarks.

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

– I shall direct myself briefly to the observations made by Senator Gietzelt. Amendments Nos 1 and 2 are directed towards providing for the fishing industry to be included in the legislation. The following details are relevant to this matter: This general idea was floated in the Industries Assistance Commission report on rural reconstruction, but no mention was made by the IAC of the fishing industry. This Bill is about rural adjustment, not primary industry adjustment. In the Schedule, Part 1, General Principles, it is provided that all agricultural, horticultural and pastoral industries are included in the scheme. In principle there is no reason why the fishing industry should not have a similar scheme. The basic differences between rural industries and the fishing industry are such that separate schemes would be far more appropriate.

Senator Georges:

– When will we get that?

Senator COTTON:

-When is Christmas? It was an election promise to establish a reconstruction scheme for the fishing industry similar to the present rural reconstruction scheme. However, a reference is presently before the IAC on the fishing industry and a report is expected early in 1977. Following that report we could be looking at the situation again in more detail and at alternative schemes. In reply to the third amendment, the intention of paragraph (a) of clause 3 of Part 7 of the Schedule is to provide immediate assistance to a farmer who desires to adjust out of farming quickly and to encourage him to make this decision without undue delay. The effect of the amendment would be to frustrate this intention. Attention is drawn to the fact that applicants are eligible for rehabilitation loans of $5,000 notwithstanding any assistance received under household support.

The Industries Assistance Commission talk about administration of the scheme at Federal level might be achieved by either of 2 alternatives. One alternative is a commissioner approach within the Department of Primary Industry and the other is an approach to a statutory board. The amendment is in line with the second alternative. I refer to paragraph 9.2 of the IAC report at pages 65 to 68. The idea of this board was discussed with the States. No State authority wanted to be involved in it in spite of the fact they would have had representation on it, so therefore it fell down on the basis that they did not want to be a part of it. Analysis of the proposal shows it would be far more costly and would achieve no better results. These matters can be done quite comfortably within the Department of Primary Industry. In view of the time limitations upon us I think those answers should provide a satisfactory explanation of the reason the Government does not feel the amendments add anything to the Bill.

Amendments negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 3070

FOREIGN PROCEEDINGS (PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN EVIDENCE) AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Second Reading

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

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-The Opposition does not oppose this Bill. It has been brought into this place in great haste on 2 occasions and it will be dealt with in great haste here today. The honourable Lionel Bowen made an excellent speech about it in the House of Representatives and I commend it to honourable senators to read during the Christmas holidays.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– in reply- I thank honourable senators for supporting the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

In Committee

The Bill.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

– I propose an amendment to insert a new clause 2a relating to the expiration of the Bill on 30 June 1977.I move:

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– in replyThe Government is opposed to the amendment moved by Senator Button. The Government believes that the amendments it has made to the principal Act by this Bill are adequate to meet all the objections that have been raised and there is no reason why a time limit should be put on the Act.

Amendment negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading

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

page 3071

CUSTOMS TARIFF VALIDATION BILL (No. 2) 1976

Second Readings

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

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-The Opposition does not oppose either of these Bills. I think that I can almost say that we agree with most of the reasons for these Bills as stated in the second reading speech of the Minister for Veterans ‘ Affairs (Senator Durack).

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

– I thank the Senate for its support of the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 3071

INCOME TAX (COMPANIES AND SUPERANNUATION FUNDS) BILL 1976

First Reading

Debate resumed from 7 December, on motion by Senator Cotton:

That the Bill be now read a first time.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

– I intend to use the first reading stage of this Bill to raise 3 matters. They are minor matters inasmuch as they will not take much time, but they are important matters. I originally intended to raise them during the adjournment debate on Wednesday but because I would have delayed the Senate I arranged to speak on the first reading of this Bill, which I anticipated would have taken place yesterday. By the time I realised that the Bill would not come on yesterday I had decided not to speak in the adjournment debate last night in order not to keep the Senate here late in the evening. I find that it is almost adjournment time now, but I intend to speak on these matters.

The first matter I wish to raise concerns answers to some questions that I placed on notice. The answers are not satisfactory in the information that they provide and they do not explain why that information could not be provided. On 2 1 September I received an answer to a question which I placed on notice. The question asked:

  1. 1 ) What is (a) the name, (b) designation and (c) salary and entitlements, of each member of the GovernorGeneral ‘s personal staff.
  2. Have there been any resignations or departures from the Governor-General’s personal staff since 11 November 1 975. If so, for what reasons have the resignations or departures concerned taken place.

I received an answer which gave details of the name, designation, salary and entitlements of 7 members of the Governor-General’s staff. The answer then went on as follows:

  1. There have been no resignations from the GovernorGeneral’s personal staff.

That is, since 1 1 November 1975. The answer continued:

Departures have consisted of defence force officers returning to their Services at the completion of their normal periods of duty.

Personal staff has been interpreted to mean those staff normally selected personally by the Governor-General. Domestic staff and office staff have not been included.

Because of the latter part of that reply to my question, I placed several further questions on notice in relation to the personal, domestic and office staff of the Governor-General so that I could obtain a complete answer to the original question I asked. On 8 December I received replies to those questions which I placed on notice. But I contend that the replies provided are not at all satisfactory. One of my questions read as follows:

  1. What is (a) the name, (b) designation, and (c) salary and entitlements of each present and past member of the Governor-General’s personal, domestic and office staff who took up duty after 11 November 1975. (2) What position was held by each member referred to in ( 1 ) prior to his or her joining the Governor-General’s staff.

The answer I received was as follows:

  1. 1 ) and (2) Since 1 1 November 1975, five domestic personnel and eight office personnel have joined the GovernorGeneral’s staff, including replacements and new staff for the Australian Honours Secretariat.

In other words, my question was not answered, because my question sought the name, designation and salary and entitlements of each present and past member of the Governor-General’s staff. The reply I received did not answer that question. I suggest that if the answer to that question could not be provided for some reasons of security, that should have been stated in the answer to the question. In other words, the Minister should have replied: ‘The answer to ( 1) and (2) cannot be provided because of national security’.

I asked 2 other similar questions based on the original question that I asked. They were questions No. 1115 and No. 1116. Although they are worded slightly differently, they both ask for the name, designation and salary and entitlements of personnel on the Governor-General’s staff. In each case that first part of the question was not answered. I intend to follow up this matter. I could follow it up in 2 ways. I do not wish to telegraph my punches, so I will not say the way in which I intend to follow it up. I believe it is an unsatisfactory state of affairs that when members of this national Parliament request more complete answers to questions previously asked those questions are not answered at all or they are answered in an offhand manner. The questions to which I have been referring are questions No. 1115, No. 1116 and No. 1117. I believe that none of those questions was answered in the way that a member of this Parliament should be able to expect them to be answered.

The second matter I raise is separate from that matter. It is related to price increases which have occurred since devaluation. This matter has been mentioned in the Parliament before, but I wish to put on record another instance of how a firm has increased prices following the announcement of the devaluation but, I would think, before it had to pay increased prices for goods coming from overseas. I shall read a letter dated 1 December 1976 which a constituent who is in the photographic business received from a photographic firm named Agfa-Gevaert Ltd. The letter reads as follows:

Dear Customer,

It is with great disappointment that we must announce that due to the recent devaluation of the Australian Dollar, we are forced to increase our prices.

The price increase will become effective as from Wednesday, 8 December, 1976.

The price increases have been notified to our respective Branch Offices and Salesmen. We recommend that you check prices with us before ordering, for our official price list will not be in your possession before the New Year.

All goods ordered up to the close of business on Tuesday, 7th December and which can be immediately delivered will be charged at current prices.

I believe that this represents a deliberate rip-off of customers on the pretext that devaluation has increased prices. The person who wrote to me suggested that it takes about 3 months to obtain from overseas the type of photographic equipment which this company supplies. Yet on 1 December- very shortly after devaluation- this firm advised that as from 8 December prices would be increased. I am not sure whether anything can be done with regard to this, but I think it is important that the people of Australia know that some firms are taking undue advantage of devaluation to increase prices to their consumers.

I said that I wished to mention 3 matters. I mention this third matter because I believe it outlines a serious situation which prevails in Queensland. I refer to the Medical Benefits Fund of Queensland. I have been in touch with this Fund to check out certain details. I told the person with whom I spoke that I thought his explanation of the situation which I brought to his attention was not satisfactory and told him that I would probably raise the matter in this chamber. So the Fund is aware of the possibility of my raising this matter here. The matter refers to what I consider to be a double payment for medical insurance.

I cite 2 cases which have been brought to my attention, not by the persons involved but by a pharmacist who enrolled these people in the Medical Benefits Fund after they had been paying the Medibank levy. These people had paid the Medibank levy from 1 October. As far as I can ascertain, the pharmacist enrolled these 2 people in the Medical Benefits Fund on about 26 October. The pharmacist concluded and his clients concluded that these people’s membership with the Medical Benefits Fund, in lieu of paying the Medibank levy, should have prevailed from the date on which they made application to join the Medical Benefits Fund. However, when their membership book was returned they found that their membership had been back dated to 1

October and therefore subsequent payments had to be made from 1 October. In the case of at least one of these people, monthly payments are payable on the first day of each month thereafter. This has meant that for a period of about 3 or 4 weeks in October these people paid not only the Medibank levy but also the amount charged by the medical benefits organisation.

I telephoned the Medical Benefits Fund after I received this information from the pharmacist. I believe that there are often two sides to a story and I wanted to hear what the Medical Benefits Fund had to say about this situation. I was told that the Fund presumed that people who enrolled some time in October wanted their medical coverage through the Fund from 1 October. The fund said it would amend any document if it had been started at the right date and, in fact, these two memberships were amended. The Fund also told me that it could leave the membership as it was and the person could obtain a refund of his Medibank levy after he had lodged his tax return next year. That is all right for a person who can afford to have $30 or so lying idle with the Australian Government earning no interest- $30 which he could probably use effectively. In other words, it is not satisfactory to wait to have one ‘s Medibank levy refunded in circumstances like this. The person I spoke to from the Medical Benefits Fund stated that he could not read people’s minds. I do not think this is good enough. We would not expect anybody to read a person’s mind with regard to when he wanted to start his membership of a particular fund, but surely there could have been a place on the application form which would have indicated a starting date. If that had happened, the two people to whom I have referred would not have been in this situation.

I can well understand some of the problems of the medical benefit funds. There was a great deal of confusion prior to 1 October with people wondering whether they should pay the Medibank levy or take out medical coverage with a fund. It would seem to me that there is also fault with the fund in not providing sufficient safeguards so that people would not be placed in this sort of situation. Two cases have been brought to my attention. I would not be surprised if there were more. I would advise people who find themselves in similar situations to contact the medical benefits fund concerned so that they can have their membership altered accordingly and will not have to contribute to the fund and pay the levy at the same time.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– I regret that I had to wait so long to raise this matter but because of the re-arrangement of Government Business I find myself in the same situation as Senator Colston. There are 2 matters I wish to raise. I will be as quick as I can. Senator Colston complained that he was given no answers to questions on notice. I have had to wait a very long time for an answer to a question I had on notice. When I received the answer today I had to do a paper chase around the Parliament to find out where the answer ended up. In answer to my question the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Withers) said:

The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (4)-See my answer to House of Representatives Question No. 854. (3), (5) and (6)- See my answer to Senate Question No. 432.

The answer to Question No. 432 was given to my colleague Senator Walsh sometime during the day at about the same time that I received my answer. The answer to the early part of my question was given to Mr Hayden in the other place some days ago. As I said, I had a paper chase trying to find the answers.

I do not know whether it was by design or by default that I had to wait so long but had I received the answer some weeks ago I would have made an issue of it. I was seeking details of the nature of facilities provided to retired Prime Ministers, the names of the retired Prime Ministers, the total cost of each Prime Minister for the past 5 years and so on. Because of the lateness of the hour I will refer to only a few parts of the answer that I received. This Parliament has been told all this year that the ordinary person in Australia should be prepared to take a cut in income. Yet when we look at the amounts of money being paid to Mr Menzies and Mr McEwen, who was Prime Minister for only a short time between the death of Prime Minister Holt and the installation of Mr Gorton as Prime Minister, we find that Mr McEwen receives nearly as much for his efforts as Mr Menzies receives for all the years that he was Prime Minister for this country. The amount of money which these people are receiving will be recorded in Hansard. I recommend to interested persons, particularly the members of the Press, that they should read today’s Senate Hansard so that they can make some comment on the amount of money which the Australian taxpayer is at present contributing to Mr Menzies and Mr McEwen, quite apart from the parliamentary pensions to which they are entitled.

The cost of official car transport for Mr Menzies was $14,774 in 1971; $18,235 in 1972; $18,846 in 1973; $19,140 in 1974; $19,837 in 1975; and $13,823 from January to June this year. The total expenditure, including office expenditure and car transport, for Mr Menzies was $30,378 in 1971; $25,294 in 1972; $25,868 in 1973; $48,123 in 1974; and $67,071 in 1975.

Senator Walsh:

– What?

Senator McLAREN:

– It was $67,071. As I said, that is apart from the parliamentary pension to which he is entitled as an ex-Prime Minister under the superannuation scheme. From January to June this year the cost was $29,224. The cost of official car transport for Mr McEwen was $12,391 in 1971; $15,424 in 1972; $14,625 in 1973; $14,611 in 1974; $12,188 in 1975; and $ 1 8,544 from January to June this year. This was for car transport alone. The total cost, including other expenditure, for Mr McEwen was $17,353 in 1971; $22,660 in 1972; $28,567 in 1973; $37,489 in 1974; $48,660 in 1975; and $29,077 from January to June this year. What has Mr McEwen done to deserve that amount of entitlement out of the pockets of the taxpayers of this country?

To make the matter worse, I refer to an answer to a further question concerning the overtime paid to car drivers for both these persons. The base salary of a car driver for Mr Menzies in 1971 was $3,727. The amount of overtime paid in that year was $7,293. In 1972 the base salary was $3,875 and the amount of overtime paid was $8,525. In 1973 the base salary was $4,766 and the amount of overtime paid was $9,950. In 1 974 the base salary was $5,929 and the amount of overtime paid was $12,062. In 1975 the base salary was $7,075 and the amount of overtime paid was $11,153. For the period January to June this year the base salary was $3,860 and the overtime paid amounted to $2,095.

Those figures relate to transport costs for Mr Menzies. His car driver is receiving in overtime just about double the base salary. In answer to a question asked by Mr Hayden, it has been revealed that Mr Menzies is now supplied with a part-time medical orderly to look after him. What is he doing with a car and a car driver running up this amount of overtime? Surely Mr Menzies is not driving around in the car, because he is so ill that Mr Fraser has had to provide him with a part-time medical orderly.

Now let us have a look at the situation with regard to Sir John McEwen ‘s car driver. In 1971 his base salary was $3,584. His overtime for that year was $2,518. In 1972 his base salary was $3,730 and his overtime amounted to $2,445. In 1973 his base salary was $4,575 and his overtime amounted to $2,1 12. In 1974 his base salary was $5,608 and his overtime amounted to $3,789. In 1 975 his base salary was $6,770 and his overtime amounted to $4,217. From January to June of this year his base salary was $3,537 and his overtime amounted to $1,507. 1 think it is a scandal that 2 drivers of 2 ex-Prime Ministers are receiving that kind of money in overtime. But if we look at the situation with regard to ex-Prime Minister Forde- a Labor Prime Minister- in nearly every category he has no entitlement except for some office staff. The cost amounts only to a few thousand dollars. I shall not go into that now. I think I have explained the point. I hope that the public at large takes notice of it. I shall have a lot more to say about that matter when we come back in the autumn session.

The other matter I wish to raise again relates to a matter which I raised in the Senate during the adjournment debate on 2 December 1976. It relates to community health centres and a screed that was put out by the present Minister for Health, Mr Hunt. Mr Hunt wrote to me concerning the matter I raised on 2 December. He said:

In the Senate adjournment debate on 2 December 1976 you referred to my letter of 18 November 1976 regarding 1976-77 Commonwealth grants under the Community Health Program. You asked the Minister representing me in the Senate, to obtain from me as soon as possible an answer as to whether my letter was a misleading document.

My letter was in no way misleading as evidenced by the sentence contained therein which you quoted in the debate-

He then referred to a portion of his letter quoted by me during the debate in connection with the $70m being allocated for the community health program. He went on to say:

It is clear that the list of projects attached to my letter was not described as a list of projects for new health program funding as you implied, but rather a list of previously approved projects which make up the total South Australian Program, and in respect of which continuation funding was made available by the Commonwealth through a block grant of $5. 1 million to the State.

He went on to make further comment about a letter which I had received from Dr Cass and which I had read to the Senate. The Minister disclaimed the comments of Dr Cass. I shall not refer to that now. In the last paragraph of the previous letter to which I referred during the adjournment debate- the letter from Mr Hunt dated 18 November- he states:

Attached to this letter is a list of the projects in your State which have been approved for Commonwealth purposes in relation to the $5. 1 m block grant to your State.

Mr Hunt said that that $5.1m had been given in this fiinancial year. Yet he accuses me of not being on the ball when I ask for some clarification as to whether his document was a misleading one. He said that it was not misleading.

Yet in that letter he talks about a $5.1m block grant to my State, that is, South Australia.

I refer now to the appendices which he attached to that correspondence, and in particular, to the attachment relating to South Australia. It is set out in 2 columns. One column is headed Name and Location of Project’ and underneath is listed all the projects for the various Federal divisions. The other column is headed ‘Description of Project as Approved for Community Health Program Funding in 1976-77’. It is clearly set out there that Mr Hunt was implying to the people at large and to the Press, as is evident from the Press releases that were put out, that this funding which he announced, this $5.1m for South Australia, was for the 1976-77 program. Yet he stated in his last letter to me that I was completely wrong in assuming that that is what he meant. He said:

It is clear that the list of projects attached to my letter was not described as a list of projects for new health funding as you implied.

What else could I assume when looking at those appendices which he circulated to all members and which definitely state in the description of the projects that they are projects approved for community health funding in 1976-77? He went on to say to me in his letter of 7 December that he did not say that. I must have a very poor grasp of English if he is right and I am wrong. However, I checked with the South Australian Department of Health concerning the projects listed for funding in the 1976-77 program. Part of a telex which I received from my colleagues in South Australia stated:

PROJECT COMMENCEMENT DATES

All community health projects have an official project number, part of which identifies the year in which the project was approved for commencement. A check of the departmental records shows that of the present total of continuing projects 26 were approved to commence at July 1973, 24 at July 1974 and 25 at July 1975. No new projects have been approved since the latter date.

I emphasise that no new projects have been approved since July 1975. Yet Mr Hunt wrote to all South Australian members of Parliament that he had funded all the projects that he listed. On a check with the Department I found that most of the projects had been commenced under grants given by Dr Everingham, the then Minister for Health. In that period buildings were commenced, completed and occupied. Some have been operating for many months. Yet Mr Hunt claimed that this Government was funding the projects in this financial year.

I ask the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) who represents the Minister for Health in the Senate to obtain for me during the recess information concerning the date of announcement of funds for each of the projects listed for South Australia, the date of commencement of construction, the date of completion of construction and the date of occupation of the facility. I would like this information so that I can refer to the matter next session. I suggest that whenever projects of this nature are announced in the future, dates should be shown alongside the listed projects, together with all of the details so that others do not have to go to all the trouble that I have had to go to. I would have been embarrassed if I had made a Press statement that I had been advised by the Federal Minister for Health that a certain project had been funded for a certain district. After releasing such a Press statement I might have been asked whether an identical project was to be built in the same place. We would have run that risk had we not been vigilant enough to examine the letter which Mr Hunt put out and the appendices to it.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– The matter which I wish to raise briefly on the first reading of this tax Bill arises from a series of questions asked by Senator McLaren and me and a letter from the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt). It concerns quarantine precautions applied when persons who visited President Suharto’s farm with the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) returned to Australia. I seek leave to incorporate the relevant documents.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The documents read as follows-

PRIME MINISTER’S VISIT TO INDONESIAN FARM

Senator McLAREN:

-I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. The Minister is no doubt aware of the great publicity given in the media and in particular in the film shots on television news services to the Prime Minister’s visit in recent days to a cattle property in Indonesia. In view of the fact that a large number of Australian journalists and others accompanied the Prime Minister to this property, can the Minister assure the Senate that every possible precaution was taken to prevent the introduction into Australia of any exotic disease that could bring disaster to Australian primary industries?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I understand that precautions were taken at the time of the visit, that shoes were encased in plastic and that fumigation was undertaken. I will refer the question to the Minister for Health to see whether there is further detail which I can provide for the honourable senator.

PRIME MINISTER’S VISIT TO INDONESIAN FARM

Senator WALSH:

-My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. In her answer to a question by Senator McLaren yesterday concerning precautions against the entry into Australia of, among other things, foot and mouth disease following the Prime Minister’s visit to General Suharto’s farm she said:

I understand that precautions were taken at the time of the visit, that shoes were encased in plastic . . .

Does she know that a journalist who was there has stated that he was not wearing plastic covers and as far as he knows no other member of the party, including the Prime Minister, was wearing them.

Senator Cavanagh:

-On their feet?

Senator WALSH:

– Yes, on their feet. Clearly this information directly contradicts her understanding as stated yesterday. Will she reinvestigate the matter to determine whether Australia’s livestock industry has been exposed to the unnecessary danger of foot and mouth disease?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I have no information other than that which I expressed yesterday as an understanding of what precautions had been taken. I understand that the Leader of the Government has information on this matter and that he would be prepared to answer further the question that was directed to me.

Senator WITHERS:
LP

– I am sorry that my colleague Senator Guilfoyle may have inadvertently given wrong information yesterday as a result of what I was trying to whisper to her while the question was being put. The only direct knowledge that I have is that I saw the Prime Minister’s movement sheet for his arrival at Fairbairn airport and amongst the instructions I recall reading- that was on Monday nightthat all shoes used during that visit had to be placed or kept in the plastic bags in which they had been placed and given to Customs, or perhaps it is the Department of Health, for fumigation. I tried to whisper this information to my colleague Senator Guilfoyle but she quite understandably misunderstood me and thought that these people were wearing some sort of plastic overshoes. All I can say- we both probably need more detailed information-is that, as I recall the list of instructions for those travelling in the party, precautions had been instituted and I assume they were taken.

PRIME MINISTER’S VISIT TO INDONESIAN FARM

Senator WALSH:

-My question is directed to the Minster representing the Minister for Health. It follows questions asked by Senator McLaren and me last week regarding possible dangers to Australia’s livestock industry following the visit by the Prime Ministerial party to President Suharto’s farm in Indonesia. Last week Senator Withers stated the precautions relevant to the Prime Minister’s return, but journalists who had accompanied the Prime Minister returned to Australia by various direct and indirect routes over a period of several days and serious doubts remain as to whether adequate precautions were taken. To clear the matter up I ask whether the Minister will obtain for the Senate details as to the number of Australians who visited the farm and information on when and how these people returned to Australia. Can the Minister guarantee that the clothing of these people was correctly quarantined and fumigated?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

-I undertake to refer to the Minister for Health the matter of adequate precautions in regard to the recent visit to the farm and obtain for the honourable senator details of the number of Australians involved, when and how they returned to Australia and the way in which their footwear and clothing were dealt with as a precaution against the entry of disease into Australia. I will ensure that the information is made available to the honourable senator as soon as possible.

MINISTER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY

Parliament House, CANBERRA. 2600 2 November 1976.

Dear Senator Walsh,

You will recall asking me a Question Without Notice in the Senate on 14 October, concerning the Prime Minister’s recent visit to Indonesia.

I undertook to seek further advice from our colleague the Minister for Health, and I attach the Acting Minister’ s reply for your information.

Yours sincerely, MARGARET GUILFOYLE

Senator P. Walsh, Parliament House, CANBERRA. 2600

ACTING MINISTER FOR HEALTH

Parliament House, CANBERRA, A.C.T. 2600 1 November 1976

My dear Minister,

I refer to the question on 12 October, 1976 from Senator McLaren and to a further question from Senator Walsh on 14 October, 1976 concerning quarantine precautions taken in relation to the footwear of the Prime Minister and his party on their return to Australia from Indonesia.

To clarify the matter, all shoes worn by members of the party during their visit to overseas agricultural areas were handled on arrival in Australia by the Australian quarantine staff who received the footwear concerned in plastic bags for inspection and treatment where required. This procedure was in accordance with the arrangements made well prior to the party’s return to Australia.

Kind regards, JOHN HOWARD

Senator The Hon. Margaret Guilfoyle, Minister for Social Security, Parliament House, CANBERRA, A.C.T. 2600

Minister for Health Parliament House Canberra. A.C.T. 2600 10 November 1976

My dear Senator,

I refer to your question without notice on 1 9 October 1 976, to my colleague the Minister for Social Security on quarantine arrangements relating to the Prime Minister’s recent visit to farms in Indonesia.

In line with normal practice adopted for senior dignitaries arriving in Australia, entry procedures to apply for the return of the Prime Minister and his party were discussed in detail at an interdepartmental committee meeting prior to the Prime Minister’s return. The purpose of such meetings is to ensure that necessary regulatory procedures are known to all parties involved and that protocol and ceremonial can be adjusted where necessary to meet essential regulatory requirements.

From a quarantine viewpoint any special arrangements made on such occasions are developed against the overriding requirement that there can be no relaxation of quarantine surveillance. This approach has of course, the full support of the Prime Minister himself who has made this clear to all his Ministers.

In the present case, in accordance with prior arrangements, all shoes worn by the Prime Minister and his accompanying party on agricultural farms in China, Hong Kong or Manila were collected before arrival in Australia and placed in plastic bags for examination and disinfection where examination indicated this was necessary. The Prime Minister and the accompanying party of twenty returned to Australia via Darwin on Monday 1 1 October. The shoes concerned were in plastic bags as arranged and following examination in Darwin, eight pairs of footwear were cleaned and disinfected. Also as arranged, all quarantinable items of animal or plant origin including gifts accompanying the pany were segregated and subsequently examined by quarantine personnel in Canberra.

These arrangements applied to the Prime Minister and his accompanying party only. It is understood that a number of Australians including journalists, who travelled as private citizens and not as members of the official party, also visited the farms covered by the Prime Minister. The number and identity of these persons would not be known to quarantine officials. However, on their return to Australia, these people would be subject to the normal Customs/Quarantine surveillance measures applying to all persons entering this country.

I trust that this information clarifies the matter and provides the assurance that you have sought that all necessary quarantine precautions were undertaken.

Kind regards, RALPH J. HUNT

Senator P. A. Walsh, Parliament House, Canberra. A.C.T. 2600

Senator WALSH:

– During the Prime Minister’s absence in Indonesia photographs were published in Australian newspapers accompanied by reports which showed that the Prime Minister and some members of his staff, journalists and other Australians, were visiting and walking through an intensive cattle feed lot on President Suharto’s farm in Java, an area in which, among other things foot, and mouth disease is endemic. After a good deal of confusion and some evasion which is revealed in the documents which have been incorporated, it became clear that although the footwear worn on the farm by people on the Prime Minister’s staff was adequately disinfected, the other persons who were also on the farm could not even be identified. That is made very clear in the final couple of paragraphs of the letter of the Minister for Health of 10 November. It reads:

It is understood that a number of Australians including journalists who travelled as private citizens and not as members of the official party, also visited the farms covered by the Prime Minister. The number and identity of these persons would not be known to quarantine officials. However, on their return to Australia, these people would be subject to the normal Customs/Quarantine surveillance measures applying to all persons entering this country.

He concluded:

I trust that this information clarifies the matter and provides the assurance that you have sought that all necessary quarantine precautions were undertaken.

It does not provide that assurance. I have spoken to some of the journalists who visited President Suharto’s farm on Java. Normal procedures may have been followed when they returned to Australia; but I do not know whether the procedures followed were ‘normal’. What happended was that those returning were asked whether they had been on a farm abroad. They replied: ‘Yes’. They were asked whether their shoes were clean. Some of them were wearing the shoes that they had worn on the farm. A visual inspection showed that they looked pretty clean. The virus that causes foot and mouth disease, of course, is not visible to the naked eye. No other precautions were taken. The footwear which was worn by these people when they returned to Australia was not fumigated.

We face conflicting objectives with quarantine procedures. If we want to have absolute security, we ban anyone or anything coming into Australia. Some adjustment or some sort of trade-off has to be made between the security objective and the convenience objective. Precisely how much emphasis ought to be placed on either of those conflicting objectives is arguable, I suppose. I submit that, in these circumstances, the procedures applied were not adequate and revealed considerable negligence. The circumstances were that people who had visited an extremely high risk area re-entered Australia with only a visual examination of the footwear that they were wearing in that high risk area.

I think that the present Prime Minister, more so than a typical Australian Prime Minister because he has an agricultural background, ought to have been especially aware of the potential dangers and ought to have insisted on or taken some special precautions to see that all of the people who visited that farm in Indonesia were examined adequately when they came back to Australia, as the members of his own party were. The Prime Minister, of all people, ought to have been aware of this requirement and ought to have seen that adequate precautions were taken. Perhaps we have been lucky. Perhaps foot and mouth disease was not introduced into Australia through this event. But there was a considerable and a greater than normal risk that it could have been introduced. I trust that, if in future the Prime Minister is to make visits abroad and for reasons of publicity or whatever he visits farms owned by leaders of other countries and takes parties of officials and Australian journalists to those farms, he will ensure that more adequate precautions are taken to protect Australia from exotic diseases than were taken in this instance.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

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

– I move:

I ask for leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

The PRESIDENT:

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

The speech read as follows-

This Bill will impose income tax for the 1976-77 financial year, at the rates declared in the Bill, on the 1975-76 incomes of companies and the 1976-77 incomes of superannuation funds. The rates of tax payable by individuals and trustees for the 1976-77 financial year were, of course, enacted earlier this year when personal income tax indexation was introduced. The rates of tax declared by this Bill do not vary from those declared for the 1975-76 financial year. For companies and for superannuation funds that are taxable only because of a failure to observe the 30/20 investment rules, the rate is again 42.5 per cent. For superannuation funds that fail to comply with other exemption requirements, the rate is again 50 per cent. So too, is the rate of additional tax payable by private companies that do not make a sufficient distribution of profits. Notes on the Bill are included in an explanatory memorandum being made available to honourable senators and I do not think that there is any need for me to go into further detail at this introductory stage. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Senator COTTON:

-Mr President, I suggest that it may suit the convenience of the Senate to have a cognate debate on this Bill and the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1976, the Loan (Income Equalization Deposits) Bill 1976 and the Loan (Drought Bonds) Amendment Bill 1976.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is that the wish of the Senate? There being no objection, I will allow the 4 Bills to be debated cognately.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

- Mr President, at this late stage in the session, it is extremely difficult to consider seriously some of the complexities and implications arising from the 4 Bills that the Senate is now debating, especially the Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1976 and the Income Tax (Companies and Superannuation Funds) Bill 1976, which deal with substantial changes relating to the write-off of certain mining investments and associated aspects. The Opposition has mixed reactions to the measures. We have no objection to the deductibility of expenditure on railway transport facilities, harbour surveys, additional dredging, navigational aids and breakwaters, but we do have reservations about the shortening of the write-off period from 25 years to 10 years for other assets. There is a series of policy aspects involved with this matter and they have been best covered by the Opposition’s earlier statements on minerals and energy policies. The Income Tax (Companies and Superannuation Funds) Bill 1976 which increases the retention allowance for undistributed income from 50 per cent to 60 per cent will have some advantages. It will allow some smaller businesses, particularly those which are privately owned and are in industries where cash is needed, to have stock accumulation on a short term basis. However, like all tax measures, it does leave the opportunity for abuse and I hope that the Taxation Office will closely scrutinise the operation of this measure and report to the Parliament if there are abuses.

I specifically address myself more to the proposed new division of the Income Tax Amendment Bill (No. 3) which deals with the Government’s income equalisation deposit scheme. The Loan (Drought Bonds) Amendment Bill permits the conversion of stock under the drought bounds scheme into an income equalisation deposit on application and is supported by the Opposition. The income equalisation deposit scheme, or perhaps more popularly known as the IED scheme, as legislated for in the 3 Bills before the Senate, is different in operation from that envisaged and described by the Minister at the time of the last Budget. Reductions under the scheme are to be limited to taxable income other than income from property and are not to exceed 40 per cent of gross primary production income for the particular year of income. Thus income from gross primary production only can be deposited, not non-farm income as previously announced. I am sure that it was the public comment which arose out of the proposals that were announced in the Budget and the reaction that came from that announcement which has caused the Government to reassess the scheme and to amend its earlier proposal.

However, the Government has continued to refuse the advice from the Industries Assistance Commission in relation to the payment of interest. It has insisted that interest be paid on the full amount deposited. The IAC in its earlier consideration of these proposals, rather than just the legislation, was critical of this solution. In its report entitled Rural Income Fluctuations- Certain Taxation Measures published on 30 June 1 975, at page 9 it stated:

The payment of interest on the full face value of the I.E.D. would be unsatisfactory. Depositors would thus receive interest on the deferred tax component of the deposit Taxpayers should not receive any benefit from the actual deferral of tax. Moreover, the payment of interest on the tax component gives greatest advantage to taxpayers with high incomes. The Commission considers it unsatisfactory that a scheme intended to allow all taxpayers to smooth their taxable incomes should unduly favour persons on high incomes.

The Opposition believes that there is a need to alleviate the problems with which persons on fluctuating incomes are faced. The inequities of our present tax system are well known to the community, the Opposition, the Government and its advisers. There is a real need to research and fundamentally alter the tax system so that no undue burden falls on producers and the work force.

The reason the Opposition is supporting the IED scheme in general principle, although we have some misgivings about the precise nature of this legislation, is that the Australian Labor Party in its updating of its rural policy decided to support this as a very desirable amendment to the existing taxation system. Schemes of this nature are to be applauded as they are directed to alleviating the tax burden falling on persons for no other reason than that they have large fluctuating incomes. The real concern of the Opposition is that the scheme does not achieve in full what it should be designed to achieve and the Government seems to be adopting the attitude that once legislation for income equalisation is passed it will relieve the Government of its responsibilities to rural producers, particularly those producers suffering a drastic drop in real farm income from last year’s low level, a drop which has not been substantially improved by the Government’s manipulation of the exchange rate. In fact, this scheme does not give any short term relief to producers in genuine need and we believe, therefore, that those farmers who have little or no income- the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) has referred to this himself on many occasions- will not be interested in placing money in the IED scheme because they do not have the money to do so. The long term implications of the scheme are to be applauded to the extent that it mitigates against the detrimental tax burden falling on farmers with fluctuating incomes. If, as I think, it purports to be a scheme to achieve equity between taxpayers it is only fair that the operation of the scheme is placed under close scrutiny to determine to what extent it is equitable.

The IAC, as I have indicated, has criticised inequitable situations which the payment of interest on full term deposits would achieve. If such a scheme is put into operation to do equity it should not have this inbuilt inequitable provision which unduly favours persons on higher incomes. The Government has not answered this charge in the other place or generally. Nor has it indicated in the second reading speech the reasons it ignored the recommendations of the IAC. I am not suggesting that the IAC is necessarily correct in all of its conclusions or recommendations, but I think that when it does make recommendations in matters of this nature, the Government should indicate why it sets them aside. No one denies the right of the Government to go against the IAC recommendations. But as a Parliament we are surely entitled, as the Australian people are also entitled, to know what the reasons are for ignoring the advice.

In introducing a worthwhile scheme such as this, the Government is spoiling it in order to obtain an additional benefit for that minority of wealthy farmers- I stress a minority- which may consider it worthwhile to place large sums into the scheme. In my discussions with farm leaders, they indicated that they can see some advantages to them but if they are able to have a levelling out of their income, from a tax point of view, they may be able to ride out the bumps that are encountered in rural production and in market changes. In those circumstances, of course, the scheme has some validity and needs some support. The primary producer members of the Cabinet, for example, who do not rely on farm incomes to survive and who, because of their other activities have a high tax liability, can place up to 40 per cent of gross primary production income of any year into the scheme and receive the 5 per cent interest on the full sum lodged. As I had indicated in my speech on the Budget, people on high incomes gain quite considerably under the scheme and are not the sort of people who need assistance. A taxpayer with income above $28,250, who pays 65 cents tax on every dollar, will be able to deposit the excess for 12 months, provided it is derived from primary production, and does not exceed 40 per cent of the income from that production, and receive an effective interest rate on it of 14.3 per cent, and that is inequitable.

I feel sure no more encouragement need be given to those sorts of persons. The Government has to be condemned for not accepting the criticism and removing this inequity. By contrast, most genuine farmers will not be receiving such benefits under the scheme. The thrifty smallscale farmer, for example, who is able in a good year to save a couple of thousand dollars and has a much smaller tax liability because, for example, his income is from $6,000 to $ 10,000 a year, does not have a large deferred tax component on the sum deposited under the scheme. It is true that he is also obtaining5 per cent on the full sum deposited, but he would be doing much better if he paid the tax, and invested the balance of the sum at a much higher commercial rate of interest. At lease he would keep ahead of inflation.

It would have been more equitable for small farmers if the Government had followed the IAC report and had decided to raise the rate of interest payable closer to a commercial rate of interest on that sum deposited which was not a deferred tax component. In a sense, by not accepting this recommendation, the Government is playing a cynical confidence trick on genuine farmers, who are hoping that the scheme will assist them, when in fact, it will only have a limited effect. It would appear that if the Government had not decided to pay interest on the full sum deposited there would have been no need to restrict the scheme to primary producers, and income derived from primary production. Surely it is not beyond the capabilities of our draftsmen to formulate a non-exploitable scheme which would cover all persons who have undue tax burdens placed on them because they have large fluctuations in their incomes from year to year.

I believe rural producers do not want to be singled out for special treatment. I believe they would have no objection if the scheme was made available to all taxpayers whether they are artists, architects or rural producers. This view is supported by the IAC which, in its recommendations, indicated that it could see no reason why the IED scheme should not be made available to all taxpayers. Of course, that is an equitable position and one which should have been reached by the Government. Instead, the scheme is confined to rural producers and to rural incomes, primarily because the Government-

Senator Cotton:

- Mr President, might I ask you for assistance. I have been exceedingly patient while Senator Gietzelt has consistently read into Hansard speeches prepared by somebody, perhaps not himself. How much longer is this speech reading going to go on?

Senator GIETZELT:

– I am reading from notes; I am not reading a speech. I am reading from notes which have been prepared. After all,

Senator Cotton avails himself of second reading speeches.

Senator Cotton:

– Have I your assurance that you are reading from notes?

Senator GIETZELT:

– Yes. I believe that consideration of taxation legislation, which is highly technical, requires the use of a considerable amount of notes. It is the Opposition’s concern that these benefits, which should be available to all taxpayers, in fact are benefiting one particular section of the community. That arises from the complicated and clumsy way in which the legislation has been drafted. I seek the Minister’s advice as to whether a person who has deposited a sum under the scheme can use that deposit, whether directly or indirectly, as security for obtaining on the open market a sum of money equivalent to the sum deposited. The Opposition would like some assurance as to whether in fact there will be restrictions on those who deposit their money in the IED scheme then being able to take it on to the money market and seek certain advantages there. There is ambiguity in the legislation in respect of that matter. The legislation provides that sums cannot be transferred from persons to persons, but can they be transferred from persons to companies? That is the sort of complexity in the legislation which we would like answered by the Government. In his second reading speech Senator Cotton stated:

The total accumulated deductions at any one time, allowable to a depositor in respect of amounts lodged under the scheme or as drought bonds, will be subject to an upper limit of $100,000.

That upper limit of $100,000, however, can be easily sidestepped- implicit recognition of that fact is found in the legislation- by a depositor who creates partnerships, nominal or otherwise, in companies in order to split his or her income. By doing so, each partner or company created is entitled to deductions up to $100,000, even though only one enterprise is involved. It is those sorts of anomalies which we believe ought to be answered by the Government.

A number of members of the Opposition wanted to discuss this legislation, but in the interests of trying to complete the session they have surrendered their rights to rise and discuss these matters and have sought the opportunity for me to raise them with the Government. We are concerned with the income averaging scheme, which is not provided for in any legislation. It seems to me that there ought to be some explanation from the Minister as to why the Government has not implemented the IAC recommendation to abolish the $16,000 limit on incomes eligible for averaging and so institute a transition provision comparable with those provided in 1966 for the removal of the $16,000 limit. There are a number of matters which need to be raised, but the Government knows that the Bills have the support of the Opposition. It knows that even if the Opposition had moved any amendments which might have sought to iron out some of the difficulties and anomalies that we believe exist in this legislation, there would be little chance of the Senate agreeing to them. While the Opposition does not oppose the legislation, it rebukes the Government for not providing Australians with a fluctuating income, a non-discriminatory, non-exploitable tax planning system which would be of benefit to all Australians.

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

-in reply- It is always possible in income tax legislation to read the explanatory memoranda and to arrange a conference with officers of the Department. I have done that myself on many occasions and Opposition members have done it also. There would have been no problem had Senator Gietzelt sought a conference on this matter with officers of the Department. That could have been arranged. Equally, when this debate is over and the speeches have been read, if matters are not covered adequately they will be covered in correspondence. The Opposition knows that that is the situation and it has been the situation for as long as I have been involved.

Senator Gietzelt:

– I take a point of order. I addressed a memorandum to the Treasurer (Mr Lynch) some 6 weeks ago in which I requested a discussion with Treasury officials on this and a number of other matters. I have not had the courtesy of a reply. Similarly I addressed correspondence to the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) with respect to a local matter concerning nursing homes in my electorate, but again I have not had the satisfaction of a reply. So I do not think the Minister for Industry and Commerce should be permitted to state that I have not sought discussions with departmental officers.

The PRESIDENT:

– There is no substance to the point of order.

Senator COTTON:

-I am happy to pick up that statement. I referred to what I do here. I said specificially that I would have helped Senator Gietzelt arrange it. I would have done so. If he wishes me to do so after this day is over I shall try to do it. I cannot answer for the fact that somebody else might have done so. If what the honourable senator said is the case then I regret that it is so. Turning to the Bill, whether a deposit can be used as security is entirely a matter for the depositor to arrange with his would be creditor. Deposits, however, are not transferable from one person to another because of the tax deductions. In relation to the payment of interest on income equalisation deposits, interest is to be payable initially at 5 per cent a year on the full amount of the deposit. It would have added a fairly unnecessary complication to pay interest, possibly at higher rates, on the amount deposited less tax savings. The income equalisation deposit scheme is as simple as it can be made, according to my information. Of course, its operations will be kept under review.

Criticisms were made that the minimum 20 per .cent write-off of allowable capital expenditure was too generous. The Treasurer mentioned in his Budget Speech the intention to promote a healthy and efficient minerals sector. It was decided that the 20 per cent minimum write-off on a diminishing value basis would best meet that objective, and would better meet the cash flow requirements of a mining operation in the early years of the life of a mine. The Government s proposal would mean that for mines with lives greater than 5 years, about 67 per cent of the allowable capital expenditure in the first year would be deductible in the first 5 years. I will have inquiries made as to why the request for information by Senator Geitzelt was not met.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 3081

INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL (No. 3) 1976

Consideration resumed.

Bills read a second time.

In Committee

The Bills.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table I have prepared which demonstrates how clause 4 of the Loan (Income Equalisation Deposits) Bill has a regressive effect in paying interest on the enure deposit instead of the aftertax component.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Bonner:
QUEENSLAND

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

The document read as follows-

Bills agreed to.

Bills reported without amendments; report adopted.

Third Readings

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

page 3082

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Customs Tariff(Coal Export Duty) Amendment Bill 1976.

Asian Development Fund Bill 1976.

Asian Development Bank (Special Funds Contributions) Amendment Bill 1976.

Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1976.

States Grants (Fruit-Growing Reconstruction) Bill 1976.

States Grants ( Beef Industry) Amendment Bill 1 976.

Nauru(High Court Appeals)Bill 1976.

Nitrogenous Fertilizers Subsidy Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1976.

Queensland Grant (Special Assistance) Bill 1976.

States Grants (Nature Conservation) Amendment Bill 1976.

Softwood Forestry Agreements Bill 1976.

page 3082

MARRIAGE AMENDMENT BILL 1976

Second Reading

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

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

-The Marriage Amendment Bill is a Bill to amend the Marriage Act of 1961-1973 and for related purposes. The Opposition does not object to the amendments to the Act. Under normal circumstances we would have taken the opportunity to discuss a whole range of the clauses of the Bill. It is possible that out of such a debate in the chamber minor alterations might have been made to the Bill. But in the circumstances and owing to the lateness in the session at which the Bill has been brought on for debate we shall allow the Bill to pass without opposition.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaMinister for Veterans’ Affairs · LP

-in reply- I thank the Senate for supporting the Bill.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

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

page 3082

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Senator Withers) agreed to:

That leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the termination of the sitting this day to the day on which the Senate next meets.

page 3082

SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT

Motion (by Senator Withers) agreed to:

That the Senate at its rising adjourn till Tuesday,15 February 1 977, at 2.30 p.m., unless sooner called together by the President, or, in the event of the President being unavailable owing to illness or other cause, by the Chairman of Committees.

page 3082

ADJOURNMENT

Valedictory

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

– I move:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

I take this opportunity, first, to thank my ministerial colleagues for the support I have had during this session. I thank my Whip who has tolerated my wrath, my bad temper and my sulkiness at times. I thank my colleagues who sit behind me for putting up with all my sins of omission and commission. I thank my friend and colleague Senator Wriedt and all those who sit behind him, especially Senator Douglas McClelland, for their help and co-operation in running the House. I extend to you, Mr President, to Mrs Laucke, to all senators and their families, all the best wishes for Christmas and the New Year. I ask you to make certain that those remarks are sent on to the heads of the 3 parliamentary departments which serve the Senate.

The PRESIDENT:

– It will give me great pleasure so to do. I tender to all honourable senators and all those ladies and gentlemen who serve us so well in their various capacities within the parliamentary structure my thanks for their splendid co-operation and my best wishes to all for a happy festive season.

Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland

– Probably for the first time this session I am supporting remarks made by the Leader of the

Government in the Senate (Senator Withers). I extend seasonal greetings to the people whom he mentioned and to everyone else who assisted our side during the year. On behalf of Senator Wriedt I particularly thank those advisers and Government officials who have been of assistance to us in Opposition. I take this opportunity of wishing everybody a happy Christmas. I hope honourable senators opposite do not do anything reckless before IS February. We promise them a torrid session from then until 2 June, which is the date the Government has scheduled as the end of that session. It will be an interesting session.

Senator SCOTT:
New South Wales

– In the unavoidable absence of my leader (Senator Webster), on behalf of the National Country Party I wish a very happy Christmas and a healthy and prosperous New Year to all senators and to all who serve in this chamber and enable it to do its duty. The tolerance and goodwill so evident in the last few days and hours must surely augur well for a happy Christmas and an excellent 1977.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 6.3 p.m. till Tuesday, 15 February 1977 at 2.30 p.m., or such other day and hour to be fixed in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day, which time of meeting shall be notified to each Senator by telegram or letter.

page 3084

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Nuclear Energy: Fast Breeder Reactors (Question No. 905)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is one of the main problems confronting the nuclear energy industry at the moment the inefficiency of the fast breeder reactors.
  2. ) Are fast breeder reactors used to multiply the available

U235 by a factor of 50 to 100 times.

  1. What are the present multiplication factors for the majority of the fast breeder reactors, and is the figure low. If so, why.
  2. What research is at present being undertaken in this area.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. No. Fast breeder reactors (FBRs) have inherently a higher nuclear efficiency or breeding potential, and a higher thermal efficiency than current thermal nuclear reactors.
  2. In a way, yes. By using plutonium bred from uranium-238 in present day thermal reactors, which rely on uranium-235 for their operation, FBRs will generate about 1.1 to 1.3 times more plutonium at each pass of fuel elements through the reactor. This number is called the fuel breeding ratio.

When the irradiated fuel is reprocessed, plutonium and uranium are separated and recycled into new fuel elements. If recycled often enough through FBRs, natural uranium can give up about 70 per cent of its stored energy instead of about 1 per cent as in present thermal reactors. In this sense and over a period of time, FBRs will ‘multiply’ the energy available from the original uranium-235 by a factor of about 70.

  1. There are no commercial FBRs in operation. The U.K., France and the U.S.S.R. have prototype FBRs in operation. The breeding capability of an individual FBR is defined by its breeding ratio, i.e. the quantity of fuel it produces divided by that which it uses. The breeding ratio is determined by a number of factors such as the type and physical form of the fuel used, the physical size and shape of the reactor core and its surrounding material, and the distribution of the breeding material (uranium-238) in the reactor. In the prototype FBRs no attempt has been made to maximise breeding ratios and as yet no measurements of the actual breeding ratio have been made. Earlier experiments, projected to a commercial reactor size of above 1000 megawatts electrical output, suggest breeding ratios of about 1.1 to 1.3 using uranium oxide fuel. For a given breeding ratio, the power rating for given reactor core loading determines the rate at which new fuel is generated and a low value is being used at present. At these ratings, fuel doubling times should be in the range 12 to 25 years.
  2. Research on an international basis aims to improve present breeding ratios through the use of fuel forms such as uranium metal or uranium carbide instead of uranium oxide; use of these alternative fuel forms would increase breeding ratios and decrease fuel doubling times. Better transfer of heat from the fuel elements to the sodium coolant would allow increased power rating for a given reactor core size and so decreased doubling times. Such improvements should ensure fuel doubling times in the region of 12 to 15 years. In addition, consideration is being given to the use of thorium, a fertile material which can breed uranium-233 another nuclear fuel with properties roughly equivalent to uranium-235.

Australian Mineral Development Laboratories (Question No. 1093)

Senator Jessop:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is the Minister acquainted with the operation of the Australian Mineral Development Laboratories Act of South Australia.
  2. Is the Minister conversant with the Australian Government’s responsibility and obligations under the agreement provided in section 2 (2) of the Act.
  3. Does a problem normally exist in the research field in bridging the gap between the researcher and the technologists and does the Australian Mineral Development Laboratories (known as AMDEL) fulfil this function.
  4. Is the Minister informed of the financial problems confronting the organistion resulting from a shortfall of work coming to AMDEL from the guarantors. If not, will he investigate the shortfall in the Australian Government’s financial undertaking, which has not been upgraded since 1964, and is consequently reduced by approximately two-thirds of the original money value.
  5. Is the Australian Government’s contribution to AMDEL made direct to AMDEL or through other Departments. If so, through which Departments and in what proportions.
  6. Would the Australian Atomic Energy Commission be able to utilise the specialist knowledge in AMDEL in connection with the exploration for uranium, and the development for production of yellow cake, from any fund.
  7. Is the Australian Atomic Energy Commission establishing a new section to service their exploration arm. If so, can this work be undertaken by using facilities at AMDEL.
  8. Can the Department of Environment, Housing and Community Development utilise the existing facilities of AMDEL, particularly in regard to water resources.
  9. Will consideration be given by the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs to using AMDEL in developing consumer product standards.
  10. Is the Department of Foreign Affairs being encouraged to use the available facilities when the Australian Government is invited to participate or assist in developing countries particularly in Asia.
  11. Will the Minister draw to the attention of all Departments the Organisation and its objects which employs approximately 184 persons.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. to (5) The Commonwealth Government has supported the Australian Mineral Development Laboratories since their establishment in 1959 through work guarantees. The main users of AMDEL ‘s services under these arrangements have been the CSIRO, the Bureau of Mineral Resources and the Australian Atomic Energy Commission; the Commonwealth Government guarantee has been allocated between these parties in the proportion 6:5:1 respectively. The Government has recently given consideration to the future funding arrangements for AMDEL. As stated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate in his answer to a Question Without Notice from the honourable senator on 10 November 1976, arrangements are in hand for discussions among the three co-sponsors of AMDEL; the Commonwealth is to be represented by the Minister for National Resources.
  2. and (7) In line with the Government’s announced policy, the Australian Atomic Energy Commission is withdrawing from exploration for uranium. Hitherto, however, the Commission has made use of AMDEL ‘s expertise in connection with the Commission’s uranium exploration program and studies relating to the development of deposits including production of yellowcake. The Commission will continue to utilise the services of AMDEL in relation to the Commission ‘s general research program.
  3. to (11) I doubt that it would be productive to approach all Departments about AMDEL and the services it provides, but I shall bring the honourable senator’s question to the notice of my ministerial colleagues who are responsible for those Departments cited in the question.

Pay-As- You-Earn Taxation Collections (Question No. 1102)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

What assumptions in regard to:

increases in aggregate income received by payasyouearn taxpayers in 1976-77;

increases in the number of pay-as-you-earn taxable employees;

Medibank levy collections from pay-as-you-earn employees;

net revenue increases accruing from changes in personal and dependent spouse tax rebates and cancellation of other dependants rebates; or

any other relevant variable.

Underpin the forecast increase of $ 1,755.3m (or 25 per cent) in net pay-as-you-earn tax collections set out in Budget Paper No. 1 at page 115.

Senator Cotton:
LP

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

The assumptions on which the net PA YE estimate for 1976-77 relied were:

an increase in average earnings (in male units) of 12 percent;

an increase in the average number of employees (in male units) of 1 . 5 per cent;

an estimate of $208m for health insurance levy collections;

and (e) estimates of $1,011m for the cost of indexation and the additional increases in the rebates for spouses and sole parents, $428m for the gain from the withdrawal of child rebates, and an estimate of $ 1,100m for total PA YE refunds.

Hospital Beds: Availability in Brisbane (Question No. 1187)

Senator Colston:

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

Is the Queensland State President of the Australian Medical Association, Dr Donald Watson, correct in stating as quoted in the Courier-Mail dated 2 October 1976, that there is a shortage of private and intermediate beds in Brisbane public hospitals. If so (a) what are the details, (b) are the new Medibank arrangements likely to affect the current situation regarding hospital beds, as was suggested by Dr Arthur Crawford, M.L.A., in the same article, and (c) what steps are being taken to remedy any shortage of hospital beds in Brisbane.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

It is considered that the matters raised in the honourable senator’s question are essentially State Government responsibilities. Accordingly, the issues involved have been taken up with the Queensland hospital authorities, who have provided the following information:

There has been on occasions some difficulty in obtaining a private bed for immediate admission in Brisbane. However, beds are always available for emergency admissions in the public sector and no patient is denied treatment in such instances.

The new Wesley hospital which is to open soon will have 301 private beds. A new block at Royal Brisbane Hospital will have an additional 60 intermediate beds.

It is too soon to assess the effect of Medibank on hospital beds. It is believed that the changes in Queensland will be less than in other States ‘.

The Commonwealth’s view would be that the new Medibank arrangements will only have a minimal effect on hospital bed utilization.

Australian Capital Territory: Rapid Transit System (Question No. 1208)

Senator Knight:
ACT

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Will the Minister outline the plans, if any, for the future development of a rapid transit system in the Capital Territory.
  2. What action has been taken until now to establish a rapid transit system.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) A major Intertown Public Transport Study was initiated late in 1974 by the National Capital Development Commission and the Department of the Capital Territory to investigate and report on a transport system which might be suitable for an intertown public transport system for Canberra. Two categories of public transport systems were consideredconventional (bus, light/heavy rail) and nonconventional (automatic rail systems orginating overseas).

The latter is taken to cover the term ‘rapid transit system’ used in your question.

After analysis and evaluation of systems in both categories, three of the main conclusions reached were: no non-conventional public transport system could be recommended for installation in Canberra in the near future; a conventional priority bus system is the preferred system for Canberra for at least the next 5- 10 years; changes in Canberra’s present public transport service and the improvement of the existing intertown link should take place gradually. The Department of the Capital Territory is currently re-examining its operational strategy (e.g. routes, scheduling and timetables) and there will be amendments made early in 1977. The Department of the Capital Territory and the National Capital Development Commission are planning the establishment of convenient and efficient interchanges at Belconnen and at City and these improvements, coupled with priority for buses and the development of further bus services where the need becomes apparent, are in keeping with the overall public transport objectives.

  1. Action is being taken to implement the recommendations of this study.

The operation of local feeder and express services have been improved progressively to meet demand. Since 1973 the bus fleet has expanded significantly and this can be shown by considering the number of passengers carried. (In 1973 8 400 000 passengers and in 1976 14 500 000 passengers.) This represents a 72 per cent increase over a period when the population only increased by 17 per cent. The addition of off-street bus stations and interchanges will be a further attraction.

A major step has been taken with the identification of an intertown corridor, which is capable of being developed for both bus and rail based transport systems. This links the town centres and will progressively be developed as a separate transport road, initially for express buses, but allowing provision for the introduction of a newer form of transport technology, perhaps rapid transit, when the use of public transport reaches a sufficiently high level. It is expected that the first stages of the separate route will be in operation as an efficient priority bus way within three years.

Australian Capital Territory: Tourist Promotion (Question No. 1211)

Senator Knight:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice:

  1. To what extent is the Australian Capital Territory being publicised and promoted as a tourist centre (a) in each State of Australia, and (b) internationally.
  2. What budget has been established to provide for these activities.
  3. How is such publicity organised, promoted and administered (a) in each State, and (b) internationally.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) The Austraiian Capital Territory is publicised and promoted within Australia as a tourist centre by accommodation, transport and other sectors of the tourist industry as well as the Austraiian Capital Territory Tourist Bureau of the Department of the Capital Territory.

The tourist industry in the Australian Capital Territory has been estimated as spending over $500,000 a year on publicising Australian Capital Territory facilities and features (Austraiian Capital Territory Tourist Advisory Board survey). The Tourist Bureau’s 1976-77 total publicity and printing budget is $87,000, most of which will be spent on visitor information material for use within the Austraiian Capital Territory.

International promotion of the Australian Capital Territory, as well as other places in Australia, is carried out by the Australian Tourist Commission which promotes Australia overseas with a variety of emphases, depending on the particular market.

Separate expenditure figures on a State by State basis are not available for either industry or Government expenditures.

  1. (a) Government tourism publicity of the Austraiian Capital Territory is administered by the Australian Capital Territory Tourist Bureau which concentrates the major part of its information and promotion activity towards achieving visitor satisfaction, with a consequential word-of-mouth publicity through the 2 million visitors each year.

The Bureau mails samples of promotional and information literature twice a year to about 1000 travel offices in Australia. It also provides literature to the Australian Tourist Commission for distribution overseas. It endeavours to keep more active agencies well supplied.

Travel posters on the Australian Capital Territory are produced and distributed for display in such places as interstate travel offices, airports, railway stations and retail stores.

A two-monthly newsletter is distributed to 1200 travel and media addresses in Australia and abroad, with consequent flow-on publicity.

The Bureau also organises familiarisation visits to the Australian Capital Territory by travel agents and publicists, either independently or in association with the Australian Tourist Commission, as a further means of promotion.

  1. Responsibility for administering Australia’s international tourism publicity program rests with the Australian Tourist Commission.

World ‘Uranium Club’ (Question No. 1229)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What action has the Minister taken to investigate the possible existence and implications of a World ‘Uranium Club’ as outlined in the article ‘Joh Bjelke-Petersen and the Uranium Sheiks’, which appeared in Nation Review on 17 September 1976.

  2. If an investigation has been undertaken by the Minister or his Department:

    1. a ) what was the result of the investigation;
    2. b) does the Minister intend taking any further action;
    3. what information can the Minister provide relating to the involvement of the Queensland Premier, either direct or indirectly, in this matter; and
    4. what contact has the Minister, or officers of his Department, had with representatives of the United States Federal Grand Jury and the Senate and Congressional Committees of the United States Congress named in the Nation Review article.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. and (2) My Department has kept itself informed in relation to the matters mentioned in the article. Attempts that were being made by United States authorities to procure evidence for the purposes of proceedings in the United States of America caused the Government to introduce the Foreign Proceedings (Prohibition of Certain Evidence) Bill 1976. The United States proceedings which led to the introduction of that Bill and the considerations involved were indicated in the second reading speech of the Minister representing the Attorney-General (Hansard, 18 November 1976, page 2186). The Attorney-General has made two Orders under the Foreign Proceedings (Prohibition of Certain Evidence) Act 1976 (Australian Government Gazette No. S214 dated 29 November 1976).

Queensland Sewerage Works: Additional Funds (Question No. 1275)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

Did the Minister Assisting the Treasurer meet with the Queensland Minister for Local Government and Main Roads, Mr Hinze, on 15 October 1976 to discuss the urgent need for additional funds for sewerage works in Queensland. If so, (a) what are the details of the meeting; (b) has the Queensland Government made a formal submission requesting additional funds for sewerage works. If so, what are the details; and (c) what was the outcome of the discussion held on 1 5 October 1976.

Senator Cotton:
LP

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

The Minister Assisting the Treasurer has advised me that he did attend a meeting on 15 October 1976 at which the Queensland Minister for Local Government and Main Roads was present. The meeting did discuss, inter alia, the question of Queensland’s 1976-77 allocation under the National Sewerage Program.

The meeting was convened by a number of local authorities within the Minister’s electorate of McPherson. The Minister, as the local Federal Member, was invited to attend the meeting.

The Queensland Minister for Local Government and Main Roads, Mr Hinze, was also invited to attend as he is also 1 of 6 members of the Queensland Legislative Assembly whose electorates are included in the Federal electorate of McPherson.

Any request for information in this regard should be addressed to the Prime Minister.

The Minister Assisting the Treasurer has advised me that he has brought the views expressed at the meeting concerning the sewerage program to the notice of the Prime Minister and the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development.

Energy Conservation (Question No. 1283)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice:

What efforts are being made by the Federal Government and the relevant State bodies to (a) investigate the potential for energy conservation in Australia, and (b) encourage industrial, commercial and domestic power consumers to conserve energy.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. and (b) It is Government policy to encourage economy in the use of energy, especially in regard to the conservation of our dwindling domestic oil reserves. An effective national program of energy conservation is, of course, an objective which could only be realised through willing co-operation between the Federal and State Governments. Responsibility for the generation of electric power within each State, for instance, generally rests with the relevant State Electricity Commission, and many of the energy conservation measures which might be contemplated could be introduced only by the States.

Since the Government gained office, the Federal and State Governments have established the Australian Minerals and Energy Council to serve as a forum for consultation between the Federal Minister for National Resources and the State Ministers for Mines and Energy. I expect that co-operation between the Commonwealth and the States on energy conservation is a matter which the Ministers who make up the Council will wish to discuss in the near future.

Nuclear Power: Use in United States of America (Question No. 1284)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice:

What percentage of nuclear power currently generated in the United States of America is used for (a) electrical generation, and (b) transportation.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 100 per cent of commercial nulcear power currently being generated in the United States is fed into the electricity systems of various utilities.
  2. The transportation sector consumes about 0.25 per cent of all utility electricity distributed in the United States. It is not possible to distinguish between the various sources of utility power but it could be assumed that a similar percentage would be drawn from nuclear sources.

Racial Discrimination: Queensland (Question No. 1304)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice:

Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to comments by the Queensland Minister for Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement, reported in the Brisbane Courier-Mail on 16 July 1976, that the team which produced the report alleging racial discrimination in Queensland had ‘only made contact with malcontents’. If so, (a) have Mr Wharton’s criticisms of the basis and contents of the report any foundation and (b) what action has the Minister taken as a result of (i) the report itself and (ii) Mr Wharton’s criticisms.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

The particular comments referred to by the honourable senator had not come to my attention previously. After reading the report I wrote to the Commissioner for Community Relations concerning aspects of its contents and the way in which it was prepared. My concern primarily was that the report contained assertions that the Queensland population was racist without providing any specific evidence to substantiate the assertions.

In his reply the Commissioner for Community Relations indicated that evidence of discrimination against Aboriginals in Queensland was being incorporated into a more detailed report which would be made available to me shortly. A further report from the Commissioner has not been received.

The situation, therefore, is that a report was received in June which asserted the existence of widespread racial discrimination in Queensland and I am still awaiting the report which the Commissioner for Community Relations has advised me will substantiate the assertions.

Cedar Bay Police Raid (Question No. 1311)

Senator Colston:

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

Did the Queensland Minister for Police, Mr Newbery, in the Queensland Parliament on 8 September 1976, state, in relation to the police raid on Cedar Bay on 19 August 1976, that the attendance of the naval patrol vessel HMAS Bayonet during the raid was considered necessary because of the unusually large number of trawlers reported to be in the area, some of which were suspected of drug trafficking. If so, (a) is the reason advanced by the Queensland Police Minister for the presence of HMAS Bayonet correct; (b) how many vessels were searched during the tour of the area by HMAS Bayonet; (c) were any charges laid as a result of investigations made by the crew of HMAS Bayonet. If so, what are the details; and (d) was there evidence of drugs on any of the vessels searched. If so, what are the details; and (e) did any of the vessels flee the patrol boat, necessitating a chase by HMAS Bayonet before a search could take place. If so, what are the details.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

The statement attributed to Mr Newbery, Queensland Minister for Police, is substantially correct vide Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) Legislative Assembly Queensland State Parliament No. 3 1 976-77.

It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the reasons advanced by the Queensland Minister for Police for requesting naval assistance; the request for naval assistance was considered reasonable having regard to the fact that such assistance would be confined to activities occurring outside State jurisdiction.

None.

See (b) above.

See (b) above.

Not applicable.

Darwin Port Facilities (Question No. 1317)

Senator Kilgariff:

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

What action is being taken to implement the Bureau of Transport Economics Paper on the development of facilities at the Port of Darwin.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

Discussions are still taking place between the Department of the Northern Territory, the Northern Territory Port Authority, the Department of Construction and the Bureau of Transport Economics.

The expenditure of $5,000 to cover site investigations for dredging needs at the proposed new wharf has been approved. These investigations will commence in January 1 977 and take approximately 3 months.

Northern Territory: Educational Disadvantages (Question No. 1318)

Senator Robertson:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

Does the Government, in view of the very disturbing comments made in the Neal/Hird Report on staffing of schools in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory regarding the serious educational disadvantages faced by both students and teachers in the Northern Territory, intend to implement the recommendations of the Report as a matter of urgency.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The Government is aware of and sympathetic to the educational problems of the Northern Territory. Serious consideration is being given to the recommendations contained in the Report. I have asked my Department, Territorial school authorities and the Commonwealth Teaching Service to assess the Report and advise me on its implications.

Northern Territory: Underground Power Lines (Question No. 1320)

Senator Kilgariff:

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

  1. 1 ) Will the Government ensure that in all future subdivisions in the Northern Territory power lines be placed underground.
  2. Has the Government explored the possibility of obtaining up-to-date earth digging equipment from overseas, particularly designed for placing power lines underground.
  3. Has Government encouraged private enterprise to obtain this equipment with the possibility of economically doing away with overhead power lines for all future subdivisions in the Northern Territory.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. I ) The economic practicability of undergrounding electricity power lines in all future sub-divisions in the Northern

Territory is under consideration, including the relative costs of such installations and the possible impact on power charges.

  1. The Department of Construction is responsible for public works initiated by the Department of the Northern Territory and projects such as undergrounding of power lines would normally be done under contract. In these circumstances the initiative would remain with potential tenderers and/or contractors to arrange to have the most efficient trenching equipment.
  2. No.

Northern Territory: Financial Arrangements (Question No. 1321)

Senator Robertson:

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

Will the Minister outline the results of talks held by the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly’s Executive Member for Finance and Community Development with Treasury Officials, concerning financial arrangements connected with the transfer of powers to the Assembly, and, in particular, give details of (a) the level of revenue that the Territory will be expected to collect; (b) details of tax sharing arrangements; (c) whether consideration has been given to the provision of specific purpose grants; and (d) the level of funding which it is estimated that will be needed to support a Northern Territory Public Service for the first 5 years of the new arrangements.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

Talks have been held between the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly Executive Member for Finance and Community Development and officers of the Department of the Northern Territory and Treasury. The talks were of an exploratory nature only and were primarily concerned with the machinery arrangements which will apply to the funding of functions to be transferred from 1 January 1977. Particular financial arrangements to apply in relation to the initial transfer of functions are the subject of consultation between the Treasurer and myself.

The matters listed in the honourable senator’s question were not discussed. As indicated in my press statement of 24 September 1976, the Government has established an interdepartmental committee to advise it on the long-term financial arrangements for the Northern Territory.

Northern Territory: Referendum on Statehood (Question No. 1322)

Senator Robertson:

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

Will the Minister, in view of Senator Robertson’s consistent calls for a referendum in the Northern Territory on the question of statehood for the Territory, give an assurance that a referendum will be held when it has been decided how the Joint Committee on the Northern Territory’s recommendation that ‘The Executive makes a broadly similar effort to the States in raising revenue and controlling expenditures’ will be implemented.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

The Government has taken no decision on whether or not a referendum will be conducted on the question of statehood for the Northern Territory. I would remind the honourable senator, however, that the Joint Committee on the Northern Territory did not consider it necessary to suggest that the implementation of any of its recommendations should be subject to a referendum.

Mr J. Gaul: Consultant to Minister for Health (Question No. 1339)

Senator Walsh:

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

  1. 1 ) Has a Mr J. Gaul been appointed a consultant to either the Minister, or his Department. If so, is this the same Mr Gaul who was employed on the staffs of Messrs McMahon, Snedden and Fraser at times when those gentlemen occupied the positions of Leader of the Parliamentary Liberal Party.
  2. What duties is Mr Gaul engaged to perform.
  3. 3 ) On what date did the consultancy commence and what is its intended duration.
  4. Is the consultancy part-time and, if so, what fraction of full-time service is expected during its course.
  5. What fee is to be paid, and is this fee calculated on a time (e.g. hourly or daily) basis or is it a single overall sum for the service.
  6. Apart from the fee what other costs such as travel, subsistence, secretarial, communications and printing are associated with this consultancy.
  7. If the answer to (1) is affirmative, will the Minister ensure that Mr Gaul is not placed in a conflict of interest situation, and require him to cease publication of his confidential newsletter Objective during the period of his consultancy.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Mr Gaul was appointed a consultant to the Minister for Health. He was previously employed on the staffs of the Rt. Hon. W. McMahon and the Rt. Hon. B. M. Snedden, as Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition respectively.
  2. Hoquara Pty Ltd was engaged to provide consulting services, through Mr Gaul, covering advice relating to the preparation and dissemination of information material for the introduction of the revised Medibank scheme.
  3. The consultancy commenced on 1 July 1976 and was to terminate on 30 September 1976. The period has since been extended to 3 1 December 1 976.
  4. Under the terms of the agreement with Hoquara Pty Ltd, Mr Gaul was to make himself directly available for 2 hours each day and, in addition, was to attend any meetings concerning Medibank. He agreed further to be continuously available for telephone contact and spend the necessary time required for researching and preparing material and providing advice.
  5. It was agreed and approved that Hoquara Pty Ltd would be paid $3,300 in equal monthly instalments of $1,100 for each of the months of July, August and September. Due to substantial increases in time involved, the contract was renegotiated in August 1976 to the extent that the period was extended to 31 December 1976 at a monthly remuneration of $2,000 payable from 1 August 1976, the total cost being $1 1,100.
  6. Mr Gaul has received economy class airfares from the Department of Health for travel between Canberra and Sydney on 2 occasions when it was necessary for him to attend meetings at the office of the Australian Government Advertising Service.
  7. I am satisfied that there has been no conflict of interest in this matter.

Legal Fees of Former Senator (Question No. 1340)

Senator Cavanagh:

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

  1. 1 ) Did the Attorney-General receive from the President of the Senate on 6 February 1976 a letter which enclosed a letter from former Senator A. Field asking for the Government to pay his legal fees in a High Court case which challenged his right to sit as a Senator.
  2. Did the Attorney-General seek and obtain by letter on 1 8 March 1 976 an opinion from the Crown Solicitor.
  3. Was it advised that payment should not be made.
  4. Did the Attorney-General receive a further letter dated 17 May 1976 from another Minister requesting him to review the opinion of the Crown Solicitor and stating ‘The actions against Mr Field were Party Political inspired and brought by an individual closely associated with the then Labor Government’.
  5. Did this letter enclose a Minute from the Department of Administrative Services advising that the Minister refuse any payment on the basis of poverty as the person seeking payment had been on a salary of $20,000 per annum and $4,100 from 3 September until 12 December.
  6. 6 ) Is any Court action which is thought to be ‘ Party Political inspired’ and brought by an individual closely associated with the Labor Party sufficient to establish special circumstances justifying the Government paying the legal costs of the person charged, even when such payment is contrary to Crown Solicitor and departmental advisers ‘ opinions.
  7. Did the legal account, which the Government paid, include a charge for the discussion of the matter by Mr Field ‘s firm of Solicitors and Mr Wentworth, M.H.R.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Attorney-General has provided the following reply:

On 2 November 1976 the honourable senator addressed a question on this matter to the honourable Minister for Administrative Services, Senator Withers, who stated:

What passes between Ministers is something I do not intend to disclose in the Senate’

I endorse this reply and add that it is not customary to disclose the content of any advice given by the Crown Solicitor to a client department. However for the information of the honourable senator I did consider this case and formed the view that there were circumstances which could justify the Treasurer in the exercise of his discretion in making an ex gratia payment to Senator Field.

Farm Machinery Costs (Question No. 1361)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice:

With reference to the Minister’s reply to the Member for Mallee concerning farm machinery costs (House of Representatives’ Hansard, page 2633): (a) what were the findings of the Minister’s ‘further investigations’, and (b) what action does the Minister intend taking as a result of his investigations.

Senator Durack:
LP

– The following information is provided in answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. The advice I received following those investigations was that, although an officer of the Prices Justification Tribunal discussed farm machinery prices informally with a member of the State Council of the Queensland Graingrowers’ Association, no request had been made at that stage to the Tribunal by any farming organisation that it investigate those prices.

The Tribunal did examine several matters dealing with farm machinery prices largely as a result of Press reports to the effect that some manufacturers were increasing prices before applying to the Tribunal. Following examination of the situation at manufacturer level, the Tribunal was satisfied that manufacturers were fully aware of their obligations under the Prices Justification Act and that they had applied only approved prices.

  1. In the light of the above findings by the Tribunal, no further action is intended at this stage. However, following representations from farming organisations in relation to parts for farm machinery, the Tribunal recently investigated costs and prices of farm machinery parts and it is pursuing further inquiries in this area.

Department of Productivity: Budget Allocation for 1976-77 (Question No. 1387)

Senator Colston:

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

What is the Budget allocation for the Department of Productivity for 1976-77.

Senator Durack:
LP

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

A number of appropriations made to the Departments of Industry and Commerce, Business and Consumer Affairs and Employment and Industrial Relations have been identified as directly representing the functions and activities of the new Department of Productivity and have been transferred to the Department with effect as from 1 December 1976. These appropriations total $81,724,500 for 1976-77.

New appropriations will be necessary for expenditures such as salaries and administrative expenses. Pending the passing of the Additional Estimates these expenditures, estimated at $10,841,000 for the balance of the financial year, will be funded from the Advance to the Treasurer.

Department of Productivity: Staffing (Question No. 1389)

Senator Colston:

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

  1. 1 ) What is the current staffing establishment in the Department of Productivity?
  2. How many divisions are included within the establishment of the Department and what is the title of each division, and the function ascribed to each division?
  3. How many (a) First Division officers, (b) Second Division officers, (c) Third Division officers, (d) Fourth Division officers, are there in each division named in (2)?
  4. What is the role and aims of the Department of Productivity?
  5. When was the Department of Productivity created and what are the details?
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Productivity has provided the following answers to the honourable senator’s questions:

  1. 1 ) Action is in hand to create approximately 4850 staff positions in the Department of Productivity.
  2. There are four major Divisions within the Department:

Munitions Supply Division- Control of munitions production in departmental establishments and in industry; co-ordination of the management of the munitions establishments; arranging related design and development in collaboration with the Defence Scientific Service and other Government organisations.

Aircraft, Guided Weapons and Electronic Supply Division- Control of aircraft, guided weapons and electronics production in departmental establishments and in industry; co-ordination of the management of the aircraft factories; arranging related design and development in collaboration with the Defence Scientific Service and other Government organisations.

Finance and Management Services Division- Control of policy, procedures and practices in relation to finance and management services generally; provide overall coordination and support in the fields of automatic data processing, finance, personnel and industrial matters, technical services and security; co-ordinate building and property requirements.

Working Environment Division-Conduct research into problems of industrial safety and physical working environment, develop recommendations on standards and codes of practice for safe working and on standards of physical working conditions. Oversight implementation Code of General Principles- occupational safety and health in Australian Government employment. Conduct research and experiments in the areas of employee welfare, personnel policies and practices, and application of behavioural science concepts in the fields of job design, job satisafaction, personal and organisational development and worker participation in industrial, commercial and government establishments. In collaboration with the Productivity Group Movement and the Productivity Promotion Council of Australia, develop and implement policies and programs to increase productivity in Australia. Provide an information and advisory service to the community generally on the above matters.

  1. 3 ) Departmental staffing is as follows:

Areas of the Department such as Regional Offices, Industry Efficiency Branch, Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board, Patent Office and National Materials Handling Bureau which are not included within a divisional organisation have been included within a separate line item in the above table.

(4)-

Productivity of industry

Industrial training policy

Patents of inventions and designs, and trade marks

Manufacture of goods and provision of services for defence purposes.

The Prime Minister’s press statement dated 7 November 1976 provides further elaboration of the purposes in establishing the new Department.

8 November 1976, by Executive Council Minute No. PSB 1976-52 published in Gazette No. S1 99, dated 8 November 1976.

Statutory Authorities under Control of Minister for Productivity (Question No. 1390)

Senator Colston:

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

  1. What statutory authorities come under the control of the Minister.
  2. What is the name, occupation, date and term of appointment, and remuneration of each holder of public office in each authority.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Productivity has provided the following answer to the honourable senator ‘s question:

  1. 1 ) The following statutory authorities are the responsibility of the Minister for Productivity:

Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board

Board of Examiners of Patent Attorneys.

  1. Details of the Public Office holders of each authority are set out in the following tables. Details of the remuneration paid to each public office holder who is not a full-time public servant, are contained in the 1976 Review of the Remuneration Tribunal.

Level of Bank Deposits (Question No. 1404)

Senator Georges:

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is the Minister aware that savings in trading and savings bank deposits have soared in recent months to all time highs.
  2. Is the Minister aware of reports which suggest that these record savings are inhibiting an economic recovery and are preventing industry from increasing production and investing.
  3. 3 ) Is the Government taking steps to change this trend.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

  1. Yes. Banking statistics published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that, in September 1976, savings bank depositors balances were a record $15.5 billion and trading bank deposits were a record $ 1 8.2 billion.
  2. The savings ratio, defined as the ratio of household savings to household disposable income, has in recent years shown a close correlation to the rate of inflation. Like inflation it is now falling, although it remains higher than in earlier years.

It is a tautology that if households are saving more they must be spending less. If the savings ratio were lower, private consumption expenditure would be higher.

  1. As noted above the savings ratio is closely correlated with the rate of inflation. The reduction of inflation is, of course, the Government ‘s prime economic policy objective.

Production Statistics: Decline (Question No. 1405)

Senator Georges:

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is the Minister aware of falls in production registered in the September figures, announced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
  2. Were the items to decline in production pig iron, consumer durables, textiles and a maintenance of low car registrations.
  3. Does the Minister concede that lower real wages resulting from the failure to effect a full flow-on from cost price index increases has added to this decline in consumer spending.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and ( 2 ) In the most recent Australian Bureau of Statistics’ production bulletin declines were recorded in production of the following items in September in seasonally adjusted terms: pig iron; blooms and slabs; tinplate; clay bricks; domestic refrigerators; domestic clothes washing machines; electric motors; confectionery.

Textiles and motor vehicle production increased.

  1. 3 ) Partial wage indexation is an important element of the Government’s policy to control inflation. As the rate of inflation falls the savings ratio is expected to fall and hence consumption expenditure to recover.

Australian Economy (Question No. 1406)

Senator Georges:

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is the Minister aware of a metal trades industry report which states that the prospects of an investment-led recovery are remote due to falling business confidence in the Government’s policies.
  2. Did the report say in referring to business confidence much of this confidence is now eroded, and hence manufacturers are not responding to the Government call for an investment-led recovery’.
  3. In view of this statement, and many other indicators, will the Minister agree that an essential premise upon which the budget for 1976-77 is based is erroneous.
  4. Will the Government take steps to ensure that a consumer based recovery is implemented.
  5. Is it the Government’s intention to introduce a mini budget early in 1977 to offset the economic consequences of false premises in the 1976-77 budget.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The sentence quoted at (2) appears on page 77 of a report entitled ‘Tariffs and Subsidies- Safeguards for the Australian Community’ prepared by the Metal Trades Industry Association.

However, the paragraph immediately preceding the one quoted makes it quite clear that the confidence referred to is confidence that despite economic fluctuations there was consensus that for Australia to meet its national objectives, a stable and diversified manufacturing sector was a basic requirement’. Thus the quotation refers neither to business confidence in general, nor specifically to confidence in the Government’s economic policies.

The report does not state that prospects of an investment led recovery are remote due to railing business confidence in the Government ‘s policies. (3 ), (4) and (5) See answer to ( 1 ) and (2) above.

Interdepartmental Committee on Freedom of Information (Question No. 1426)

Senator Colston:

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

  1. 1 ) Why has law lecturer Mr John McMillan been denied access to material relating to the interdepartmental committee deliberations on a proposed Freedom of Information Act, as was stated in the television program Four Comers, screened on 13 November 1 976.
  2. Why has Mr McMillan not received replies to two letters written to the Attorney-General’s Department relating to his request for information.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Attorney-General has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) The reference made by Mr McMillan in the Four Comers program to having sought access to files prepared by the Interdepartmental Committee on Freedom of Information set up by the Whitlam Government was not to a request directed to my Department. It was a reference to a request made to the Public Service Board. I am informed that the Public Service Board has now written to Mr McMillan in answer to that request.
  2. Mr McMillan wrote to my Department on 1 1 October 1976 seeking access to the report of the further Interdepartmental Committee convened earlier this year and to certain files and other material relating to that Committee and to the earlier Committee. The present Committee presented its report on 30 November 1976, and my Department is now giving a substantive reply to Mr McMillan.

Alice Springs: Municipal Depot (Question No. 1431)

Senator Robertson:

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

Can the Minister confirm that money has been set aside in the 1976-77 Budget to construct a depot at Alice Springs for the use of the City Corporation. If so, when will construction begin.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

Funds were not made available for this purpose in the current Budget. However, the need for a new municipal depot is fully recognised and work will commence when funds can be made available.

Northern Territory Fire Brigade (Question No. 1432)

Senator Robertson:

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

  1. 1 ) Have sections 9 and 10 of the Northern Territory Fire Brigade Ordinance been amended to allow the Chief Fire Officer, or a Station Officer, to delegate men of a lower rank to take control of fire fighting operations. If so, does this mean that the Northern Territory will be the only Force in Australia where this administrative procedure operates.
  2. Is the Minister satisfied that the people of the Northern Territory have adequate fire prevention services.
  3. Will the Minister indicate when a review of manning scales for the Fire Brigade, now being carried out by the Department of the Northern Territory, will be completed and if the report produced will be made public
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Sections 9 and 10 of the Northern Territory Fire Brigade Ordinance have been amended to allow the Chief Fire Officer or the Station Officer to delegate the responsibility of being in charge at the site of a fire.

This action will not reduce the standard of fire fighting in the Territory, but in actual fact will provide for more efficient utilisation of the senior men on more important duties. Other fire brigades in Australia, such as those in Queensland, have this same provision.

The amendment was introduced as a result of the obvious need to allow the Chief Fire Officer to delegate when a fire call was received in answer to a request to attend a small or even insignificant grass or rubbish fire.

  1. The Fire Prevention Service of the Northern Territory Fire Service currently consists of two specially trained officers, employed full time on these duties. The staffing of this section is being reviewed by my department and the result of this study should indicate the need, or otherwise, for an increase in personnel.
  2. The review of the manning scales for the Fire Brigade should be completed by early January but as the document is being prepared for management, it will not be made available to the public.

International Atomic Energy Commission: Annual Expenditure (Question No. 1449)

Senator Keeffe:

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

  1. 1 ) What has been the total annual expenditure of the International Atomic Energy Commission over each of the past ten years?
  2. What proportion of these expenditures was allocated for (a) promotion of nuclear power, (b) safeguards, and (c) other purposes?
Senator Withers:
LP

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

Since the IAEA budgets do not tabulate the Agency’s promotional expenditures in the specific terms of the honourable member’s question, it is not possible to provide a precise answer. Figures are, however, available for the expenditures of the Nuclear Power and Reactors Division of the Agency. The objective of this Division is ‘to disseminate information on the technology and economics of nuclear power, reactors, nuclear fuels and materials, to provide assistance and advice to member States in the application of nuclear power for generating electricity and for water desalination, and to facilitate the use of research reactors for research and training’.

Although the Nuclear Power and Reactors Division’s activities extend beyond the promotion of nuclear power to activities such as nuclear safety, environmental protection and information and technical services, its total expenditures have been listed in the following table. This table provides the available figures most relevant to the question.

Crude Oil Imports (Question No. 1450)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How much (a) light crude oil and (b) heavy crude oil has been imported into Australia for each of the past 20 years to meet Australia’s requirements for (i) heavy crude by-products, (ii) lubricants, and (iii) petroleum.
  2. What percentage of Australia’s total requirements for each of these 20 years do these figures represent.
  3. What is the predicted annual requirements for both heavy and light crude oils that will need to be imported for each of the next15 years.
  4. What is the likely cost of these annual imports for the next 15 years.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) ‘Light’ and ‘heavy’ are relative terms applied to crude oil. Statistical records of Australian imports of crude oil do not distinguish between light and heavy grades. It is also impossible to allocate the production of any product to a particular crude as every crude oil, whether light or heavy, gives rise to a wide range of products depending upon the plant installed and the market demand. (2), (3) and (4) See answer to ( 1 ).

Supervised Slaughter: Livestock (Question No. 1452)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice:

What number of (a) cattle, (b) calves, (c) sheep, (d) lambs, and (e) pigs have been slaughtered in each State, under the supervision of Health Inspectors employed by the Department of Primary Industry, for each of the past 10 years.

Senator Cotton:
LP

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

The Department of Primary Industry does not employ Health Inspectors to supervise slaughter of animals. Inspection at slaughtering is carried out by Meat Inspectors working under the supervision of Veterinary Officers.

Insofar as records are now available the number of (a) cattle, (b) calves, (c) sheep, (d) lambs, and (e) pigs slaughtered under such supervision in each State for each of the past 10 years is:

Uranium Marketing Board (Question No. 1459)

Senator Georges:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Can the Minister confirm reports of current planning by the Government to establish a uranium marketing board to manage the mining and sale of uranium as well as export quotas for producers.
  2. Can the Minister state when such a proposal to establish a uranium marketing board was commenced.
  3. Does such planning pre-empt a wide public debate on uranium mining and the tabling of the second report of the Ranger Inquiry.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) In evidence to the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry on 8 April 1976, the Government indicated that there had been discussions between potential producers of Australian uranium and the Department of National Resources on future uranium marketing arrangements. A variety of possible options were canvassed in these discussions. The options included:

    1. a central marketing board which would allocate sales of uranium among producers;
    1. the sequential entry of producers into the market ;
    2. allocation by the Government of sales among all potential producers on a pro rata basis; and
    3. iv) minimum Government intervention in marketing.

  2. No. Apart from the measures announced on 11 November 1976 by the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development, the Government’s attitude is that policy decisions in relation to the further development of the Australian uranium industry will have to await the outcome of the Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry.

Thai Applicants for Resident Status (Question No. 1464)

Senator Georges:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice:

  1. Have any applications for residency status been received from citizens of Thailand following the recent military coup. If so, how many.
  2. What is the Government’s attitude to such applications.
  3. Will the Government apply the same criteria to those applications, as it applied to applications from Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and East Timor refugees.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The only applications which might be related to recent events in Thailand involve 3 applications from private students and 3 from Government sponsored students.
  2. and (3) In line with my statement in the House of 13 October 1976 (Hansard, page 1826), all applications will be considered sympathetically.

Cedar Bay Police Raid (Question No. 1471)

Senator Colston:

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

Is the Minister aware of claims, reported in an article by Adrian McGregor entitled ‘Why Whitrod Gave Up $130,000’, which appeared in the National Times dated 22-27 November 1 976, that a report on the Cedar Bay police raid on 29 August 1976 was made available to the then Queensland Police Commissioner, Mr Whitrod, the day following the raid. If so, and if the Minister has received a copy of the report in question, (a) when did the Minister receive the report, (b) from whom did the Minister receive the report, and (c) what action did the Minister take on receiving the report.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

page 3096

No

Aboriginal Reserves: Entry Permits (Question No. 1482)

Senator Colston:

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

Does the Department of the Northern Territory actively police the unauthorised entry of Europeans into Aboriginal reserves in the Northern Territory. If so, what are the details.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

No. The responsibility for issuing permits to enter into Aboriginal Reserves, by consent, rests with the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. This arrangement was made in 1974 when certain functions authorised by the Social Development Ordinance were distributed amongst the Departments of Health, Education, Aboriginal Affairs and the Northern Territory.

Office Buildings: Energy Demand (Question No. 1498)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources, upon notice:

Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the First Report of the British House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology on Energy Conservation (Session 1974-7S), in which it is stated that Australia is introducing a two-part tariff specifically designed to reduce the energy demand of office buildings, and that under this scheme, the constraint would penalise heavy consumers, i.e., they would pay one rate up to an established norm and consumption over this would be charged at a premium rate’. If so, (a) does this scheme currently exist, (b) how long has the scheme been in existence, (c) how does the scheme operate, and (d) has the scheme proved to be effective.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

My attention has been drawn to the reference in the report. No such tariff has been introduced in Australia.

Guam: United States Military Installations (Question No. 1512)

Senator Colston:

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

Is Australia currently a member of the United Nations General Assembly Trusteeship Committee. If so, (a) how did the Australian delegation vote on the recent decision by the Committee to censure the United States of America for maintaining military installations in Guam and to reaffirm the right of the preople of Guam to self-determination and independence, and (b) what were the reasons for the Australian delegation adopting the line it did.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

Yes. Australia is a member of the Trusteeship Committee (the Fourth Committee) which is a Committee of the whole of the United Nations General Assembly.

A draft resolution on Guam was adopted in the Fourth Committee of the General Assembly on 25 November by a vote of 60 in favour, 21 against and with 42 abstentions, and in a plenary meeting of the General Assembly by a vote of 6 1 in favour, 22 against with 42 abstentions. Both in the Assembly and in the Fourth Committee Australia voted against the resolution.

It did so because the emphasis of the resolution was on condemning the presence of the United States military installations on the island of Guam rather than on reflecting the situation in the territory and the aspirations of the people of the territory as to their future. The resolution also failed to take account of the the inherent right, recognised in the Charter of individual or collective self-defence and of the consideration that the military presence of an administering power may well be justified by obligations relating to the maintenance of international peace and security as well as local defence.

South Pacific Regional Civil Aviation (Question No. 1572)

Senator Knight:

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

  1. 1 ) What action has so far been taken to investigate proposals made by the South Pacific Regional Civil Aviation Council, including matters outlined in the communique issued after the South Pacific Forum meeting in July relating to (a) regional requirements for air services; (b) rationalisation of routes and schedules within the region as a means to meeting these requirements; (c) identification of impediments to proposed services to achieve a better regional co-ordination of routes and schedules; and (d) eligibility of the region as a group for membership of the International Civil Aviation Organisation and the possibilities and advantages of such membership.
  2. What part has Australia played in these considerations.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The South Pacific Regional Civil Aviation Council at its initial meeting in Suva in July 1976 directed its Advisory Committee of government officials to meet and report back to the Council on the matters referred to in the question. The Advisory Committee met in Apia from 22-24 September, but its report on these matters will not be considered again by the council until its next meets. This is expected to take place in Honiara during February 1977.
  2. Australia has been represented at these meetings and has taken an active part in their deliberations.

South Pacific Regional Shipping Line (Question No. 1573)

Senator Knight:

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

  1. What action has been taken to establish a South Pacific regional shipping line as recommended recently by the South Pacific Forum.
  2. What part has Australia taken in this.
  3. What role is foreseen for Australia in the proposed regional shipping project.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Following the Forum Meeting held in Nauru during July, a meeting of the South Pacific Regional Shipping Advisory Board was held in Apia from 27-28 September 1976 to consider the draft constitution for the Pacific Forum Line and other matters associated with the setting up of the Line. Subsequently a meeting of the Ministerial South Pacific Regional Snipping Council was held in Suva from 16-18 November 1976 at which a large measure of agreement was reached on the draft constiution for the establishment of the Line. The draft constitution will now be the subject of further consultation prior to its ratification by countries wishing to join the Line.
  2. Since the inception of the proposal Australia has been actively involved and has provided substantial technical and financial assistance. Australia was represented at both of the above meetings.
  3. Australia will not directly participate in the proposed Line. The question of further Australian assistance is under consideration by the Government.

Ambassador to Belgrade (Question No. 1595)

Senator Mulvihill:

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

In view of the Departmental impasse over the future posting of Ambassador Booker, when will Ambassador-elect Mr Barry Dexter, be posted to Belgrade.

Senator Withers:
LP

-The Foreign Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

A successor to Mr Booker in Belgrade has not yet been announced. However, the timing of the arrival in Belgrade of a successor will not be affected by current deliberations about Mr Booker’s own future.

Petro-Chemical Plant: Redcliffs

Senator Withers:
LP

– On 2 December Senator Messner asked the following question, without notice:

Is the Minister representing the Minister for National Resources aware that Dow Chemical (Australia) Ltd has expressed significant interest in proceeding with the development of a petro-chemical works at Redcliffs in South

Australia and that the South Australian Minister for Energy, Mr Hudson, has claimed that unspecified ‘support’ is required from the Federal Government? Can the Minister indicate whether any approach has been received from the South Australian Government in this connection?

The Acting Minister for National Resources has now provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

I am aware of the interest shown by Dow Chemical (Australia) Ltd in the development of a petro-chemical plant at Redcliffs in South Australia and the Department of National Resources has had discussions with officers of the Company in regard to their plans. No specific requests have been received from the South Australian Government.

Facilities for Ex-Prime Ministers (Question No. 432)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What was the cost in each of the last five years of the special privileges provided for each former Prime Minister of Australia.
  2. What was the basic salary and overtime paid to each car driver assigned to each former Prime Minister in each of the last five years.
  3. What is the cost of providing offices and associated facilities, including staff, for each former Prime Minister in each ofthe last five years.
Senator Withers:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) My Department has provided the details shown in Tables 1, 2 and 3 below. The data has had to be collected from a number of Government departments and is based on available records of processed accounts.

No decision has been taken by the Government on any special privileges which might be granted Mr Whitlam as a former Prime Minister nor have any been sought. Nevertheless, for completeness I have included in the tables expenditure for Mr Whitlam as Leader of the Opposition for the period 1 January to 30 June 1976.

Where possible, expenditures shown for Mr McMahon, Mr Whitlam and Mr Gorton when he was a sitting member of Parliament, do not include expenditures on entitlements as members of Parliament. The Tables indicate where this has not been possible.

Expenditures on entitlements to travel, other than by staff, are not included. These entitlements derive in some cases from privileges attaching to the Life Gold Pass which does not form part of the special privileges of a former Prime Minister. Mr Whitlam and Mr McMahon are entitled to certain travel privileges as members of Parliament.

Facilities for Ex-Prime Ministers (Question No. 796)

Senator McLaren:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What is the nature of facilities provided for retired Prime Ministers.
  2. What is the name of each retired Prime Minister making use of these facilities.
  3. What has been the total cost of each retired Prime Minister, year by year, for the past 5 years.
  4. How many ex-Prime Ministers have a full-time car driver provided at the Government ‘s expense.
  5. 5 ) What is the cost of this service.
  6. What has been the total cost of overtime payments to ex-Prime Ministers’ car drivers for the past5 years.
Senator Withers:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: ( 1 ), (2) and (4)- See my answer to House or Representatives Question No. 854. (3), (5) and (6)- See my answer to Senate Question No. 432.

Transport of Official Cars (Question No. 1080)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

Has any official car been transported by air, either by commercial or Royal Australian Air Force aircraft, to any place since 1 1 November 1975 in order that it be available for use by the Governor-General. If so, what are the details and what was the total cost incurred, and why was the said transportation necessary.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

There have been two occasions since 11 November 1975 when official cars for use by the Governor-General have been transported by air.

On 25 June 1976, a vehicle was delivered to RAAF Base, Richmond, for transportation by RAAF Hercules aircraft to Townsville. The vehicle was returned to Sydney on 12 July 1976. The charges for hire of the Commonwealth vehicle, ferrying the vehicle to and from RAAF Base, Richmond, and the drivers’ travelling costs were $572.75. No air freight charge was made by the RAAF, because the vehicle was transported on a ‘space available’ basis on scheduled flights.

A vehicle was also transported to Townsville by RAAF Hercules aircraft on 1 3 September 1 976 and returned to Sydney on 24 September 1 976. The cost was $674.25.

On each occasion the Governor-General was attending a ceremonial parade at Laverack Barracks, Townsville, to present new Queen’s and Regimental Colours to battalions ofthe Royal Australian Regiment on behalf of The Queen. A vehicle was transported from Sydney in each case because of the special nature of the occasion and because no suitable vehicle was available in Townsville for use by the GovernorGeneral.

Television Translator Station, Injune (Question No. 1082)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

Has the Minister received representations from organisations or individuals living in the Injune area of Queensland seeking the establishment of a television translator station to service that region; if so:

from whom have representations been received;

what is the estimated cost of establishing a television translator station to serve the Injune area;

when is it likely the project will proceed; and

what is the current extent of television reception in the Injune area.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. In recent years, representations in respect of television services at Injune have been received from:

The Injune Chamber of Commerce and Industry;

The Right Honourable the Prime Minister on behalf ofthe Injune Chamber of Commerce and Industry;

The Member for Maranoa on behalf of the Maranoa Graziers’ Association; and

The Roma Branch of the National Party of Australia.

  1. The Australian Broadcasting Control Board has advised that it is not able to provide an accurate estimate of the costs involved in establishing a television translator at Injune without firstly conducting an engineering field survey. However, based on preliminary investigations, it appears unlikely that the costs would be less than $100,000 and they could possibly be substantially higher. These costs relate to a service radius of no more than about 10 kilometres and would escalate rapidly as coverage increased.
  2. At this stage, no prospect can be offered of the Government funding the provision of a television translator station to serve the Injune area, having regard to the high cost in relation to the number of people who might benefit. Consistent with present policy as applied to remote areas, the Government could not consider the extension of national television service to Injune unless the cost of establishing and operating the service were funded privately.
  3. A poor standard of television reception currently exists at Injune.

Assistance to Industry: Western Australia (Question No. 1134)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Treasury, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What was the total amount of industry assistance paid to firms in Western Australia in 1975-76, including imputed assistance from the investment allowance.
  2. What amount was paid to each ofthe 50 firms which received the greatest amount of assistance or, alternatively, what amount was paid to each of the following sectors: agriculture, mining, transport, food processing, metal industries, other manufacturing.
  3. What are the estimated payments for 1976-77.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

Information on net direct industry assistance on an Australia-wide basis is set out on pages 76-78 of Statement No. 3 attached to the 1976-77 Budget Speech. For reasons indicated below, information on the amount of such assistance paid to firms in a particular State is in many cases either not available, or subject to qualification.

For many schemes of assistance, records are not maintained on a State basis, and in some cases it would not be practicable to extract the information sought in view of the large number of claims processed or because the assistance does not take the form of payments to individual firms. It should also be noted that, as many firms operate across State boundaries, assistance paid to a firm in one State may be applied in another. Similarly, the Commonwealth’s contribution to wool promotion would be largely expended overseas; but, while it could be expected to benefit wool producers in all States, nevertheless it could not be dissected on a State basis.

Some assistance to industry is provided through the States. A dissection of the amounts involved, by State, is shown in the document ‘Payments to or for the States and Local Government Authorities 1 976-77 ‘, Budget Paper No. 7.

The Western Australian component for these items is summarised below. As indicated in Budget Paper No. 7 the State dissections for some items for 1976-77 are estimated and do not represent a commitment to provide the stated amounts:

Note: Since the Budget the Minister for Primary Industry has announced details of a new Rural Adjustment Scheme to operate from 1 January 1977. The Commonwealth has indicated that it will support an approvals program of $3.25m for Western Australia for the first six months of the Scheme. Most of the expenditure in respect of these approvals is expected to be incurred in 1 977-78.

Available information on assistance paid direct to firms in Western Australia, or in respect of activities undertaken in Western Australia, corresponding to the information set out on pages 76-78 of Statement No. 3 attached to the 1976-77 Budget Speech, is as follows:

Similar information for 1975-76 for export development grants should be available shortly when the report on the activities of the Export Development Grants Board for 1975-76 is presented in Parliament.

For reasons which have been indicated above, it is not practicable to identify accurately the fifty firms which received the greatest amount of assistance, as would be necessary to answer one part of the honourable senator’s question, or to give a complete dissection of the amounts paid to the various sectors for which total outlays are shown at pages 76-78 of the Statement referred to.

In regard to the part of the question concerning investment allowance, an estimate has been made of the amount of assistance to Western Australian firms afforded in 1975-76 through the operation of the investment allowance. The income tax revenue involved in respect of assessments issued by the Western Austraiian office of the Australian Taxation Office is put at about $lm in terms of revenue foregone in 1975-76. It should be noted however that this estimate does not take account of investment allowance for expenditure in Western Australia that may have been incurred by companies having their central management and control outside Western Australia, the income tax returns of which would have been assessed in other offices.

Opening of Canberra Music School (Question No. 1162)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many (a) Commonwealth, and (b) Australian Capital Territory police officers, uniformd and ‘plainclothed’, were in attendance at the opening of the Canberra Music School on 24 September 1976.
  2. How many officers were deployed en route to and from the Music School to protect the Governor-General.
  3. Who ereected the barricades at the Music School; to whom did such barricades belong; at what cost were they hired; what did it cost to (a) erect, and (b) dismantle such barricades.
  4. What was the total number of work hours and the cost involved under ( 1 ) (a), (2) (b), and (3) (c).
  5. What other costs were incurred in protecting the Governor-General in connection with the opening of the Music School.
  6. Which Departments are responsible for such costs or any amount thereof and for what specific amount is each Department responsible.
  7. Were special arrangements made to ensure the people of Canberra were receiving the normal amount of police protection in view of the number of Australian Capital Territory Police employed protecting the Governor-General on that day; if not, why not.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) The numbers of police involved on particular occasions in the protection of official figures, including the Governor-General, vary according to the assessment of the specific circumstances by the responsible authorities. The Government considers essential the proper protection of official figures and will devote appropriate manpower and cost resources to that end. It is not the intention of this Government to give specific details of numbers of police and costs involved.

  2. –

    1. The barricades were erected by workmen from the Department of Construction.
    2. These barricades are the property of the A.C.T. Police Force.
    3. There was no hiring cost involved.
    4. The cost of erecting, dismantling and transporting the barricades was $ 1 , 10 1 .52.
  3. and (5) See answer to ( 1 ) and (2) above.
  4. Most of the costs, including the costs of barricades were the responsibility of the A.C.T. Police Force with a small amount incurred by the Commonwealth Police.
  5. All normal Police patrols were maintained on 24 September 1976, regardless of those Police directed to the School of Music. There was no lessening in the normal number of patrols. The only additional cost incurred in maintaining normal Police services to the Canberra community on 24 September 1976 was a relatively small amount of overtime.

Telephones: Cost of Installation and Rental (Question No. 1191)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon nonce:

  1. 1 ) What is the current cost of installation and rental of four-bell and six-bell telephones usually required by persons suffering from some degree of deafness.
  2. Has these hase been any increase in the cost listed in ( 1 ) since 1970. If so, what are the details.
  3. Is the cost of installation and rental of four-bell and six-bell telephones greater than that for the standard twobell telephone. If so, (a) what is the difference, (b) why is the additional cost necessary and (c) in view of the fact that four-bell and six-bell telephones are in many cases vital equipment for persons suffering acute hearing loss, will the Minister give consideration to asking Telecom to reduce the cost of installation and rental.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Four and six inch extension bell sets are offered by Telecom Australia as an additional facility for association with a normal telephone service. The current installation fee is $20 and the annual rental $2.50. The facility is not only useful to people who suffer from a hearing disability but also to those people who are frequently called upon to be located some distance away from their telephone.
  2. Yes. The increase in charges since 1970 has been as follows:
  1. ) Yes (a) Additional installation and rental fees are payable for extension bell sets as indicated above (b) The charges are necessary to recoup the cost of the equipment and the additional work involved (c) There are a number of facilities developed by Telecom Australia which are available individually or in any combination. These consist of a gliding tone caller, a hearing aid coupler and a volume control device. The charges for these facilities are kept at a low level and are not sufficient to meet the recurring costs incurred by Telecom Australia. If payment of these charges causes hardship in particular cases it may be more appropriate for any assistance to be given by programs designed to help those in the community with special needs.

Pecuniary Interests of Ministerial Staff (Question No. 1306)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is the Minister aware that, in the House of Representatives on 1 8 February 1 976, the Prime Minister, in answer to a question without notice from the Leader of the Opposition, said that all staffs of Ministers had made or were in the process of making declarations of their pecuniary interests to the Minister for Administrative Services.
  2. Have all current members of ministerial staffs made such a declaration to the Minister, and what form did the declaration take.
  3. Is the Government in the process of adopting all the recommendations relating to ministerial staff contained in the Report of the Joint Committee on Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. As the honourable senator would be aware, new appointments are made from time to time as vacancies occur. All current members of ministerial staffs have either submitted a declaration of their pecuniary interests or are in the process of doing so. Declarations are required to be in a form which takes into account the recommendations of the Report of the Joint Committee on Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament.
  3. See the answer provided by the Prime Minister to Question 1305.

Subscriber Trunk Dialling (Question No. 1310)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) When and where was subscriber trunk dialling first introduced to Australia.
  2. When was subscriber trunk dialling extended to areas beyond the initial area of introduction.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. Subscriber to subscriber trunk dialling was first introduced on a trial basis for calls from St Marys to Sydney in August 1956 and Dandenong to Melbourne in October 1956. Two more trial installations, Penrith-Sydney and Newcastle-Sydney, were brought into service in March 1959.
  2. Initially, STD facilities were provided on a pointtopoint basis only and the first extension of the facility following Ministerial approval ofthe Community Telephone Plan (announced in August 1959) was in May 1960 for calls from Windsor to Sydney. Between 1967 and 1969, automatic trunk exchanges were installed in all capital cities and most major centres in all States, forming the framework for the present day national STD service. Today almost 94 per cent of all telephone services have access to STD and 94 per cent of all calls that can use STD are subscriber dialled.

Social Security Appeals Tribunal (Question No. 1347)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. How many appeals relating to (a) unemployment benefit, (b) sickness benefit, (c) age pension, (d) invalid pension, and (e) supporting mothers’ benefit were referred in each State by Social Security Appeals Tribunals to the Department of Social Security before a recommendation was made on those appeals by the Social Security Appeals Tribunals in (i) the March quarter 1976, (ii) the June quarter 1976 and (Hi) the September quarter 1 976.
  2. In each of these categories what was the number and percentage of these referred appeals which were upheld by the Department of Social Security.
  3. Were there categories of benefits other than those mentioned in ( 1 ) referred by the Social Security Appeals Tribunals in each State to the Department of Social Security before a recommendation was made on those appeals by the Social Security Appeals Tribunals in the three quarters mentioned in ( 1 ). If so, what were those benefits and what are the details for each benefit as asked for in ( 1 ).
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) The information sought by the honourable senator is shown in the tables below. The tables, which relate to March, June and September quarters 1 976, also show the number and percentage of referred appeals upheld by the Department of Social Security and the number of undetermined appeals with the Department at the end of each quarter.

Other categories of benefits handled by Social Security Appeals Tribunals are special benefit, widow’s pension and child endowment and these are included in the tables.

Radio Education Programs (Question No. 1372)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What cuts have been made in Australian Broadcasting Commission radio education programs in the past 6 months.
  2. How many and what programs have been abandoned.
  3. What further reductions in education programs have been foreshadowed by the Commission.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. Some series have been shortened and their style modified in order to reduce expenditure.
  2. None.
  3. None.

Government Offices, Shepparton (Question No. 1414)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

  1. Did the Attorney-General’s Department on 1 April 1975 lease an office at 2 Fire Street, Shepparton, at an annual rental of $7,750 for a period of five years.
  2. Was the office to house a branch of the Australian Legal Aid Office and, as a result of Government policies, is it a fact that the office has never been used and remains vacant.
  3. 3 ) Is this an example of Government economies.
  4. Would the Government be prepared to sub-let the premises at a lower rental to the Goulburn Valley Community Care Centre, a social organisation.
  5. Will the Minister consult with the Minister for Social Security regarding the possibility of a suitable arrangement being entered into with regard to these premises.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. The office has not opened due to a policy decision regarding the provision of legal aid in Victoria.
  4. The premises have been offered to that organisation on a monthly tenancy at a reduced rental.
  5. See (4).

Broadcasting (Question No. 1415)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) What legislation is proposed by the Government to establish the public broadcasting sector.
  2. If legislation is proposed, when is it intended to introduce such legislation.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) Part IV a of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 now covers public broadcasting services and public television services.

Public Broadcasting Licences (Question No. 1416)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

  1. How many applications for licences for public radio has the Minister received.
  2. What progress has been made in determining when such licences shall be issued.
  3. Is it the Government’s intention to have all such licence applications dealt with by the proposed Broadcasting Tribunal, notwithstanding the delays which have already occurred.
  4. Has the Minister made any decision regarding the issue of a licence to the Melbourne University Radio Project.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) My Department has on record 62 individual inquiries concerning public broadcasting licences. Since ‘applications’ under the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 can only be made after the Minister calls for them, strictly speaking there are no applications on file in the Department.
  2. The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal will deal with applications for licences referred to it by the Minister. The Tribunal will be established as from 1 January 1977.
  3. Yes.
  4. No.

Questionnaire on Stations 3EA and 3ZZ (Question No. 1417)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

  1. Has a questionnaire been distributed and disseminated to various migrant groups relating to stations 3EA and 3ZZ in Melbourne.
  2. Was a Government Department responsible for the preparation and distribution of this questionnaire; if not, was the Australian Broadcasting Commission responsible for the preparation and distribution of this questionnaire.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The questionnaire was commissioned by the Australian Broadcasting Commission.

Australian Broadcasting Commission: Station 3ZZ (Question No. 1418)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has the Government considered the future of Station 3ZZ in Melbourne and has it determined any policy in relation to the future of 3ZZ.
  2. Has any recommendation been made to the Australian Broadcasting Commission regarding 3ZZ.
  3. Has the Government recommended to the Australian Broadcasting Commission, or its Chairman, that Station 3ZZ be closed down or amalgamated with Station 3EA.
  4. If an amalgamation has been proposed, what steps are to be taken for the continuance of community involvement and access for a multi-lingual character in the proposed amalgamated station.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) No policy has been determined since it is a matter for the Australian Broadcasting Commission.
  2. The Government has requested the Commission to consider how foreign language broadcasting might be rationalised if it accepts the invitation to set up a permanent ethnic broadcasting service in Sydney and Melbourne.
  3. No. See (2).
  4. See (2).

Australian Telecommunications Commission (Question No. 1422)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

  1. Did the Managing Director of the Australian Telecommunications Commission, Mr J. H. Curtis, in a foreword to the report Telecom 2000, invite public response to the report by 30 September 1976.
  2. When does the Commission intend making final decisions and recommendations as a result of detailed study of the report by the Commissioners and within the Telecom organisation.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Post and Telecommunications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator ‘s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. Approximately 200 responses were made to the invitation for public response to Telecom 2000. Currently, these responses are being evaluated. At the same time the various recommendations are being examined within Telecom Australia. The Commission will be considering the outcome of the various studies progressively over the next twelve months.

Television (Question No. 1424)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:

Has the Minister any evidence that will confirm the claim made by the Roman Catholic Bishop of Sale, Victoria, Bishop Fox, reported in the Courier-Mail dated 15 November 1976, that ‘Australian Broadcasting Commission television was ruining the morals of a lot of people’.

Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Post and Telecommunications has provided the following answer to the honourable senators ‘s question:

page 3112

No

Pension Rates (Question No. 1434)

Senator Missen:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) With reference to the recent increases in pension payments where, at the new levels, the maximum combined married rate is only 66.7 per cent higher than the maximum standard (single) rate, upon what cost of living rata or other sources is the relationship between these two rates based.
  2. Is this relationship constantly adjusted according to established criteria.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The differential in rates of pension for single and married pensioners was introduced by the Liberal/Country Party Coalition Government in November 1963 and differential rates for single and married pensioners have been paid since that date. When the differential was introduced the single rate was about 55 per cent of the combined married rate; by August 1974, due to the relative level of increases in the single and married rates of pension, the ratio had increased to approximately 60 per cent, and this ratio has been maintained since.

Estimates vary of the relative needs of a single person and a married couple and there is no reliable Australian evidence available. Studies in the United States have indicated that to maintain the same standard of living an aged single person would require about 67 per cent of the combined income of an aged married couple. The Report of the Canadian Special Senate Committee on Poverty in 1 972 recommended a ‘ basic guarantee level ‘ for a single person set at 60 per cent of that for a married couple. The Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Social Security in New Zealand in 1972 also considered that 60 per cent was an appropriate ratio of single to married rates. The ratio of ‘at least 60 per cent’ was also favoured by Professor R. F. Henderson and his team from the Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research at Melbourne University in their report of the 1966 study of poverty in Melbourne ‘People in Poverty- Melbourne Survey’. In the First Main Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty, Professor Henderson recommended pension rates that would result in a 6 1 per cent relationship between the standard and combined married rates of pension.

  1. No. The recent introduction of automatic adjustment provisions for pensions and benefits has effectively embodied in legislation the current ratio of standard to married rates.

Government Documents: Leakage (Question No. 1436)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

  1. How many investigations into leaked Government documents have been conducted by the Commonwealth Police since 13 December 1975.
  2. Of these investigations how many documents supposedly leaked from (a) Departmene of Prime Minister and Cabinet; (b) Department of Defence; (c) Department of Treasury; (d) Depanment of Foreign Affairs; (e) Department of Social Security; (f) Depanment of Health; (g) Attorney-General’s Department; (h) Department of Consumer Affairs.
  3. As a result of such investigations have any persons been charged with offences and have any Public Servants been disciplined in any way.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. One.
  2. The investigation involved a document which a lecturer at a technical college produced to his class claiming it to be a document from the official records of the Depanment of Social Security. On investigation by members of the Commonwealth Police Force it was shown conclusively that the paper produced had not been obtained from confidential Government records but was an extract from a publication on sale to the public.
  3. No.

Company Taxation (Question No. 1438)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) During each of the last five years, which companies have made calls on shareholders which have attracted taxation concessions because they were for afforestation purposes.
  2. In the case of each company, what was the sum raised from each individual call.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

Because of the secrecy provisions of the income tax law the Commissioner of Taxation is unable to supply this information.

Clunies Ross Estate: Commonwealth Contracts (Question No. 1441)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

What was the total value of all Commonwealth contracts let to the Clunies Ross Estate in the last six months of the financial year 1975-76.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

$54,691.

Cocos (Keeling) Islands (Question No. 1442)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many Cocos Malay workers have been employed on work performed under contract in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands for the Commonwealth Government.
  2. ) What has been the average weekly earnings for people so employed in the last six months of the financial year 1975-76.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. Contracts involving Cocos Malay labour are negotiated with the Clunies Ross Estate and it is for that body to determine the number of persons required. The Government does not maintain records of the number of persons engaged by the Estate on particular contracts.
  2. General information on the earnings of Cocos Malay workers employed by the Estate is contained in the 1975 Annual Report for the Territory.

Australian Territories: Trade Stores (Question No. 1443)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

Are there any stores operated by employers in any Australian territory that are regarded as trade stores. If so, who are the employers and where are the trade stores situated.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

Yes. Details of trade stores operated by employers for the convenience of their employees are as follows:

Cocos (Keeling) Islands (Question No. 1444)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many Australian, British and other nationalities were resident in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands at 30 June 1976.
  2. Under which category or categories do the Cocos Malay citizens come for statistical purposes.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) At 30 June 1 976 the population of the Islands was, by nationality:

    1. Australian 300;
    2. British 12;
    3. Other 236.

The majority of residents under ‘other ‘ are British subjects but there is some doubt as to the status of some persons resident in the Territory at the time that Australia assumed responsibility for it.

  1. The Australian Census does not extend to Australia’s external territories. In the Annual Reports of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, details of the Cocos Malay population appear in the ‘Home Island’ category (see page 33 of the 1975 Annual Report).

Compulsory Education (Question No. 1446)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

What action, if any, has been taken to provide for compulsory education until the age of 14 years in each ofthe Australian territories.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) In Norfolk Isalnd, Island, of the three inhabited Island Territories whose administration falls within my portfolio, education is compulsory for children between the ages of six and fifteen years.
  2. While education is not compulsory in either Christmas or the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, the majority of children do in fact attend school. Certainly in recent years there have been no cases of non-attendance by school-age children on either Christmas Island or West Island, Cocos.
  3. On Home Island, Cocos, which is inhabited by the Cocos Malay community, there is less than full attendance of school-age children at the local primary school. In consideration of community attitudes it must be noted, however, that no formal schooling was available on Home Island until 1966, and that a trained, Australian teacher has been provided on the Island only since 1973. The increasing desire amongst parents for their children to be educated is reflected in the fact that, with one exception, all children born since 1 967 have attended school.
  4. The United Nations International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which came into force for Australia in March, 1976, requires the Australian Government, within two years and wherever compulsory primary education has not been secured, to work out and adopt a plan for its progressive implementation within a reasonable period. I am confident that this commitment will be met in relation to both Christmas Island and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands.

Social Welfare Grants (Question No. 1474)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the statement by Professor R. H. Henderson, Director of the Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research at the University of Melbourne and formerly Chairman of the Inquiry into Poverty in Australia, reported in the Sydney Morning Herald dated 22 November 1976, that local authorities instead of State Governments should control grants for social welfare in Australia. If so, has the Minister taken any action to further investigate Professor Henderson’s proposal.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

My attention has been drawn to Professor Henderson’s statement. The following programs make grants to Local Government:

Children ‘s Services Program.

  1. Recurrent and capital grants approved under the Children’s Services program include grants for programs and services operated by local government. Some of the approved grants are paid directly to the local government bodies concerned. Other grants are paid by State authorities to local government bodies from grants made available to the States under this program.
  2. State Grants (Home Care) Act. Payments are made to State Governments in respect of senior citizens’ centres, welfare officers and home care services and a portion of such funds are disbursed to local governments. The legislation does not permit payments to be made direct to local governments.
  3. Handicapped Persons Assistance Act. Homeless Persons Assistance Act. Aged Persons Homes Act. Local government bodies are eligible organisations under these Acts if they are conducting approved prescribed services.

Under these programs, local government bodies receive grants as ‘consumer organisations’. The question of local governing bodies controlling grants for social welfare within their own areas is a question for State Governments.

Ministerial Press Releases (Question No. 1483)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

With respect to the Minister’s reply to Senate Question No. 1231 (Senate Hansard, 4 November 1976, page 1699) relating to Ministerial Press Releases, is it a fact that at one stage early in 1 976, the daily compilation of Ministerial Press Releases was dispatched both to the Parliament House office and the Electorate office of Queensland Members and Senators; if so, (a) what was the period concerned and (b) why was the service discontinued.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

I am informed that early in 1976, a few weekly dispatches of Ministers’ press statements were inadvertently made to some Queensland Members and Senators at their electoral office addresses only by the now discontinued Australian Government Liaison Service. The daily distribution to Parliamentarians was introduced on 1 March 1976 with the establishment of the Ministerial Document Service.

Working Party on the Transition from Secondary Education to Employment (Question No. 1491)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

  1. Is the Government in agreement with the eleven recommendations made by the Working Party on the Transition from Secondary Education to Employment
  2. What steps are being taken by the Government to implement the recommendations.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The Working Party on the Transition from Secondary Education to Employment was established by the Australian Education Council (the Commonwealth and State Ministers for Education), with the agreement of the Commonwealth and State Ministers for Labour. Action arising from recommendations of the Working Party will therefore be considered initially by the Education Council.

The Report of the Working Party was tabled at the September meeting of the Standing Committee of the Council, which has appointed a sub-committee to study the Report and bring forward proposals for the consideration of the Council, which next meets in February 1977.

World Grain Reserve (Question No. 1492)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Overseas Trade, upon notice:

  1. Has the Australian Government officially supported the proposal made by the United States Secretary of State, Dr Henry Kissinger, at the World Food Congress in Rome, 1974, that a world grain reserve bank be created. If so, what are the details.
  2. Was Australia represented at the meeting of the International Wheat Council held in London, 29 November 1976; if so, (a) what was the composition of the Australian delegation, and (b) did the Australian delegation actively support the proposal referred to in ( 1 ).
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) At the World Food Conference in Rome in November 1974, the United States Secretary of State proposed that a Reserves Co-ordinating Group be established to negotiate an agreement on an international system of nationally held grain reserves.

Australia did not support the proposal by Dr Kissinger that a Reserve Co-ordinating Group be established. However, Australia had previously participated actively in discussions in FAO which encompassed the concept of an international system of nationally held grains reserves and resulted in an International Undertaking on World Food Security.

Australia supported and subsequently adopted World Food Conference Resolutions XVI and XVII which relate to a Global Information and Early Warning System on Food and Agriculture and the FAO Undertaking referred to above.

Australia, while in principle supporting the proposal for an international system of nationally held grain reserves, has consistently stated that any such system should adequately safeguard normal commercial trade and that the costs of holding reserves should be shared equitably by exporters and importers, including those developing countries in a position to do so. Australia has taken the position, especially in the International Wheat Council, that an internationally coordinated system of national grain reserves should not be considered in isolation but should be dealt with in negotiations for a new International Wheat Agreement containing economic provisions.

Discussions are still taking place in the International Wheat Council on possible bases for a new International Wheat Agreement (including provisions for grain reserves).

  1. (a) Australia was represented at the 79th Session of the International Wheat Council held in London from 29 November-2 December by Mr A. L. Paltridge, Minister (Commercial), London, supported by officials of the Australian High Commission and the Australian Wheat Committee in London.

    1. The International Wheat Council did not discuss the proposal for a grains reserve system but noted that there still is a need to clarify the objectives of any reserve stocks provisions in a new International Wheat Agreement, particularly whether they would be for buffer or food security purposes.

Radioactive Waste (Question No. 1517)

Senator Gietzelt:

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

  1. 1 ) Did the then Minister for Supply, Mr Garland, state on 14 September 1972 ‘All radio-active waste buried at three places in Australia, Monte Bello, Emu and Maralinga resulted from experiments conducted at those places’.
  2. What radio-active material is buried there and what is the life span of such material and ofthe containers in which this material was buried.
  3. Has the maintenance of this area been brought to the attention of the Government.
  4. What precautions have been taken in the past, or are proposed to be taken in the future to ensure that the radioactive waste is not interfered with or exposed to the atmosphere.
  5. What measures have been taken to ensure that the full knowledge of the existence of the material is passed from Government to Government and from generation to generation.
  6. In view of the Government’s decision on the Fox Inquiry and the potential danger to the Australian people from the lethal legacy of the past, will the Minister treat these matters as urgent.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

The Minister for Defence has directed that an inquiry be conducted into all aspects of the material buried at Maralinga as a consequence ofthe tests conducted under the auspices of the Memorandum of Arrangements between the United Kingdom and Australian Governments.

Government Publications (Question No. 1518)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) With regard to the Minister’s answer to Senate question No. 1376, what were the ‘other similar types of publications ‘ which were referred to in the answer.
  2. 2 ) Ho w many copies of those publications were printed.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. The Australian Government Publishing Service publishes more than 2500 titles each year, among them many reports prepared for the Government similar to the report on the Radford Scheme. It has been AGPS experience that sales levels sometimes fall short of expectations despite considerable public debate and promotions conducted with regard to their sale.
  2. Quantities of the publications obtained vary considerably, but they come generally in the range 500 to 5000 copies.

Report on Public libraries (Question No. 1519)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

With regard to the Minister’s answer to Senate question No. 1375, what decision has now been made with relation to reprinting the Report on Public Libraries.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

A decision has been made to reprint the Report Public Libraries in Australia. Copies of the reprint are expected to be available to the public prior to the end of this month, through the AGPS Bookshops in state capitals and the Mail Order Service.

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (Question No. 1522)

Senator Missen:

asked the Minister for Science, upon notice:

Will the Federal Government Committee set up to examine the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, be investigating the effectiveness of marketoriented research into the dairy industry and the potential benefits to be gained by primary producers and consumers.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

I acknowledge the honourable senator’s interest in the Committee’s investigations. He refers to an independent inquiry and I am therefore unable to inform him whether the particular investigation will be undertaken.

The terms of reference of the Committee which the Government has set up to inquire into the objectives, structure and programs of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation are as follows:

The Committee of Inquiry shall examine, and report and make recommendations on:

1 ) The objectives of the Organisation and the relevance to the present and future requirements of Australia of its functions as set out in the Science and Industry Research Act.

The extent to which the current research program objectives and the emphasis given them accord with the objectives recommended for the Organisation.

Existing arrangements and procedures for meeting recommended objectives and discharging recommended functions, with particular emphasis on:

The size and diversity of the organisation, its organisational and management structure, policies for the employment of staff, and the role of consultative and advisory machinery.

The relationship of the Organisation with Government agencies, industry, tertiary institutions, research institutes, and with users of research results.

The methods for selecting, reviewing, reporting on, and re-ordering research programs, including the effect of the differing sources of funds.

The assessment of results achieved in the light of resources employed.

The processes involved in the implementation of research results.

The role of the Organisation in Australia ‘s internation scientific relationships.

The extent to which and the means by which programs of the Organisation could attract revenue both to support the conduct of on-going or intended research and also in return for results achieved in research’.

Members of the Committee are:

Chairman: Professor A. J. Birch, Professor of Organic Chemistry, Australian National University

Members: Sir Cecil Looker, former president of the Australian Associated Stock Exchanges; Mr R. T. Madigan, Chairman of Hamersley Holdings Ltd, and IOL Petroleum.

The Committee has publicly advertised for submissions from persons, organisations or bodies wishing to place evidence before it

The closing date for such submissions has now passed, and as it would be inappropriate for me to attempt to influence the outcome of this independent inquiry in any way, I suggest that the honourable senator direct his questions, or make any representations, to the Secretary, Committee of Inquiry into CSIRO, Box 1 544, Canberra City, A.C.T. 260 1 .

Department of Northern Territory: Studies, Reviews, etc. (Question No. 1530)

Senator Robertson:

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

  1. Will the Minister give details of (a) all studies, reviews, inquiries, investigations and reports being undertaken by the Department of the Northern Territory; (b) the terms of reference or purpose of the research; and (c) when they will be completed.
  2. Will the Minister also give details of studies, reviews, inquiries, investigations and reports carried out and completed in the past twelve months, including a list of those reports that have been made public
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) An answer to these questions would involve an exercise of monumental proportions covering the whole range of activities undertaken by the department in the Northern Territory. It is regretted that resources cannot be allocated for this purpose but information will be provided on specific studies, reviews, inquiries, investigations or reports which may be of interest to the honourable senator.

Alice Springs: Water Resources (Question No. 1532)

Senator Robertson:

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

When will a report by the Water Resources Branch of the Department of the Northern Territory entitled ‘Alice Springs Town Area-Management of Water Resources’ be made available to the public.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

The report entitled ‘Alice Springs Town AreaManagement of Water Resources’ was prepared by my department’s Water Resources Branch as a working document to assist in planning the management of the area’s water resources.

Reports of this nature are not usually produced in large numbers for wide public distribution as they are thought to be of somewhat limited interest In this case a number of copies were distributed outside the department to members of the public who are known to be interested or involved in the subject. A further small number of copies will be made available on request and the report may be perused by any member of the public at the Alice Springs ana Darwin offices of the Water Resources Branch.

New South Wales Social Security Appeals Tribunal (Question No. 1546)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How often in the past 12 months has the New South Wales Social Security Appeals Tribunal met
  2. What was the attendance recorded at such meetings by each member of the Tribunal
Senator GUILFOYLE:
VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. The New South Wales Social Security Appeals Tribunal met on 198 occasions during the year ended 30 November 1976.
  2. Ms J. Moore, the Chairman of the Tribunal, attended 148 meetings.

Ms C. Baker, the other parttime member of the Tribunal, attended 139 meetings.

Mr E. Franklin, the fulltime member of the Tribunal, attended 190 meetings.

South Pacific Aid Program (Question No. 1570)

Senator Knight:

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

Following the announcement of the new aid program for the South Pacific can the Minister give further details of the role to be played by non-Government organisations in the future of Australia’s aid programs in the South Pacific area.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1) The announcement of the new aid program for the South Pacific included ‘a special provision of$A500,000 for the three years beginning in 1976-77 to assist nonGovernment organisations with the cost of development programs in the South Pacific. These funds will be additional to those presently allocated to NGOs under our Project Subsidy Scheme’.
  2. The special provision will be administered in a similar way to the exisiting NGO Project Subsidy Scheme through Australian voluntary aid organisations and other professional or technical groups.

Toose Committee Report (Question No. 1592)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister for Veterans ‘ Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1) Is the Government intending to take any action concerning recommendation 93 of the Toose Inquiry into the Repatriation System, namely, that ‘Section 72 of the Act Should be amended to permit legal representation before a Tribunal . . .*
  2. If no action is to be taken, will the Minister explain why this recommendation is not considered appropriate.
  3. If action is intended, how long will it be before an amendment is introduced.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

I refer the honourable senator to my answer to a question without notice on the same matter by Senator Melzer on 8 December 1976 (Hansard, page 2776).

Toose Committee Report (Question No. 1593)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is the Government intending to take any action concerning recommendation 83 of the Toose Inquiry into the Repatriation System, namely that ‘The Act should be amended to provide that the relevant personal flies should be available to a claimant, or his authorised representative, for inspection at any stage ofthe claim . . .’
  2. If no action is to be taken, will the Minister explain why this recommendation is not considered appropriate.
  3. If action is intended, how long will it be before such an amendment is introduced.
Senator Durack:
LP

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

I refer the honourable senator to my answer to Question No. 1592.

Prime Minister (Question No. 1614)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice:

When will the Minister answer Senate Question No. 432 which was placed on notice on 1 April 1 976.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

Senate Question No. 432 has been answered.

Ethnic Radio

Senator Carrick:
LP

-On 10 November 1976 Senator Davidson asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications the following question, without notice:

My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, relates to ethnic radio. Can the Minister give details of the South Australian Advisory Committee on Ethnic Radio, and in particular details relating to its authenticity? Is he aware that already some fifteen to twenty ethnic groups are using radio station 5UV in Adelaide? Has the Minister received any representations from the Ethnic Communities Council in South Australia, which claims to represent some 25 000 to 30 000 people, relating to ethnic radio and its programs? Will he arrange for me to receive information concerning the current position of ethnic radio in South Australia?

The Minister for Post and Telecommunications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

I regret that I am unable to provide any information about the South Australian Advisory Committee on Ethnic Radio.

I understand that there are 1 1 regular ethnic contributors to 5UV. They are all members of an organisation called Ethnic Broadcasters Incorporated.

I have not received any representations from the Ethnic Communities Council in South Australia. 1 have instructed the officer of my Department responsible for ethnic radio to send Senator Davidson any information available on ethnic radio in South Australia.

Beef Exports to the United States of America

Senator O’Byrne:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Overseas Trade the following question on 1 December 1976, without notice:

I draw the Minister’s attention to an article in the Australian Financial Review by Robert Haupt which refers to the export of beef to the United States. The article states that in American eyes Australia ‘beat the system’ of meat import restrictions next year, so next year will be different. It goes on to say that the American Administration wants to deal with an official who can negotiate on Australia’s behalf and wants to have the matter of beating the system resolved by the end of December. Three things rankle with the American Administration: They are Australia’s use of the loophole of the Puerto Rico free trade zone under virtually false labelling, Australia’s reluctance to deal with the problem of low priced Australian beef going into Canada and the influence this in turn has on the American market. I ask: Why did the Minister’s advisers, in a recent letter to me, deny that some Australian exporters are trying to beat the system and are disadvantaging the legitimate exporters of Australian beef to the United States? Will the Minister re-examine my request and warn these exporters who are using roughhouse tactics that their questionable conduct will not be tolerated and, if necessary, withdraw their export licences?

Senator Cotton:
LP

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

I am informed by the Acting Minister for Overseas Trade that the suggestion made in the article by Robert Haupt that Australian exporters had ‘beaten the system’ of United States import controls is misleading. Trade with United States Foreign Trade Zones is lawful and outside the terms of any agreement with the United States. Indeed, trade with the foreign trade zones is encouraged by U.S. legislation. I am not aware of any evidence of improprieties in Australia ‘s meat trade with Canada.

Costs of Ministerial Travel (Question No. 1185)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did the Government of Iran meet any of the expenses incurred by the recent visit to Iran by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. If so, what are the details.
  2. Have foreign Governments met any of the costs associated with overseas visits by Ministers of the Australian Government since 11 November 1975. If so, what are the details.
  3. ) Has the Australian Government met any of the costs of visits by Ministers of foreign governments to Australia since 1 1 November 1 975. If so, what are the details.
Senator Withers:
LP

-The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) It is standard practice for the host Government of the Conference of Asian Labor Ministers to meet the living expenses and internal transport costs of all leaders of delegations to these conferences.

This practice was followed in April 1975 when Australia hosted the 5th Conference of Asian Labor Ministers, and also applied in Iran for the 6th Conference in September 1976, which the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations attended.

An examination of the records since 11 November 1975 shows that accommodation and car hire costs, and in some cases the cost of internal fares, were met by the following Governments in respect of the following overseas visits by Ministers:

  1. (i) The following Ministers visited Australia officially as guests of the Government and their living expenses and internal transport costs were met:

Women’s Film Fund (Question No. 1268)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. By what authority and procedures were the funds allocated by the National Advisory Committee for International Women’s Year for investment in the television series The Story of Human Reproduction directed by Dr Germaine Greer retained by the Australian Film Commission.
  2. At what date was this substantial allocation of $100,000 absorbed into the Women’s Film Fund which is administered by the Australian Film Commission.
  3. Since that date, has any part of this allocation been used to sponsor any specific project or projects.
  4. As the Director of Projects for the Australian Film Commission, Mr John Daniell, has informed members of the advisory panel on the Women ‘s Film Fund that they have no decision-making powers regarding sponsorship of projects by the Fund, by what means will the original objective of the Fund, i.e., assistance for production of worthwhile women’s films that have no alternative source of assistance, be safeguarded.
  5. Will the Prime Minister undertake to consult with the Australian Film Commission regarding the Commission’s guidelines for the Women’s Film Fund, in order to ensure that the $100,000 absorbed from the cancellation of the Greer investment grant and the rest of the funds in the Women’s Film Fund are used solely to sponsor projects in keeping with the stated objectives of the International Women’s Year Program and not merely to supplement the general allocation ofthe Australian Film Commission.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) to (5) The matters raised in the honourable senator’s question were canvassed by the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Women ‘s Affairs in a repiy to a question without notice in the House of Representatives on 9 December 1976. The honourable senator will also be aware that an investment of$ 100,000 was proposed in June 1975 for a series The Story of Human Reproduction to be directed by Dr Germaine Greer. As Dr Greer was unable to comply with requirements of the Australian Film Commission Act, this Government has agreed that the funds be made available to the Women’s Film Fund. All decisions to allocate money will be in accordance with the Australian Film Commission Act and guidelines agreed to after discussions between the Australian Film Commission, the National Advisory Committee for International Women’s Year and the Women’s Affairs Branch of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

United States State-Local Fiscal Assistance Act 1972 (Question No. 1278)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is it correct that, in relation to the United States StateLocal Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972, the United States Congress rejected the proposed concept of the automatic tie-in of general revenue-sharing payments as a fixed percentage of either the annual federal personal income tax base or of annual federal personal income tax revenue. If so, can the Minister provide any details.
  2. Is it correct that the United States State-Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 makes possible a system of federal collection of State personal income taxes through the machinery of the Federal Internal Revenue Service similar to the proposal that the present Australian Government has made. If so, (a) can the Minister provide any details of the United States system concerned; (b) can the Minister explain why, as at the end of 1974, no State personal income tax in the United States was being collected by the Internal Revenue Service; (c) does the same situation exist today, and, if so, why; and (d) what ramifications does the United States experience have for the present Australian Government’s federalism proposals.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The matters raised by the honourable senator are not within the scope of responsibility of the Australian Government. However, information on this subject has been sought and I shall arrange to make that information available to the honourable senator.

Priorities Review Staff: Reports (Question No. 1363)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

What are the titles of all reports produced to date by the Priorities Review Staff, and which of the reports are available to the public.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

The following is a list of all reports produced by the Priorities Review Staff:

Goals and Strategies (December 1973)

Early Childhood Services (August 1 974)

Report on Radio (August 1974)

Possibilities for Social Welfare in Australia (July 1975)

Assistance for Structural Adjustment, Income Maintenance etc. (August 1975)

Report on Housing (August 1 975 )

Report on the Borrie Report (August 1 976)

All these reports are available to the public.

Public Service: Fourth Division Staff Reductions

Departmental Staff Ceilings (Question No. 1365)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Are current Australian Public Service Staff ceilings causing staff reductions in the Fourth Division six times greater than in the Third Division, as has been claimed by the Federal Secretary of the Australian Public Service Association, Mr V. B. McMullan, as reported in the Courier-Mail of 5 November 1976. If so (a) what are the relevant details of staff reductions; ( b) what effect is this situation having on the operating efficiency of each Department of State; and (c) what action has the Government taken to investigate the suggestion by the Association that the Public Service Board should apply divisional as well as departmental staff ceilings.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

The Public Service Board has advised me:

During the financial year 1975-76, staff numbers reduced by 1 1 1 1 in the Third Division ( 1 . 8 per cent) and by 5849 in the Fourth Division (5.8 per cent) after allowance is made for transfers of staff into and out of the Public Service Act coverage.

In conformity with Government directives, reductions due to staff ceilings have been achieved by the non-replacement of wastage and by redeployment. The higher wastage rate in the Fourth Division arises from the particular designations and the high proportion of short term temporary employees it contains. However, the effect of the differing wastage rates should be kept in perspective; for instance, at 30 June 1975, the Fourth Division constituted 61 per cent of the Service, while at 30 June 1 976 it made up 60 per cent.

The reduction in the Fourth Division has caused some difficulties, particularly in areas such as registries and typing pools. The Public Service Board is continuously monitoring the situation and directing essential recruitment to ensure that imbalances (in both the Third and Fourth Divisions) are redressed and that the overall efficiency of departments is maintained.

The Public Service Board has considered the suggestion that divisional as well as departmental staff constraints be applied. In addition, other ceiling alternatives have been explored, e.g. ceilings by categories of staff or by geographic locations. However, such ceilings would only introduce inflexibilities into departmental management as well as generating an increased management workload in departments. The appropriate mix of staff by divisions, classifications, category, and location can already be controlled by establishment and recruitment procedures. Staff ceilings provide the additional control necessary to ensure that Government objectives of containing the overall levels of Government employment are achieved.

Regional Employment Development Scheme (Question No. 1391)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice:

With respect to the Minister’s reply to Senate Question No. 928 (Senate Hansard, page 800), how many persons have been employed under the Regional Employment

Development scheme in each local government area in Queensland since the inception ofthe scheme.

Senator Durack:
LP

-The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following information in answer to the honourable senator’s question:

There is no specific information available which shows the total number of persons who obtained employment under the Regional Employment Development scheme in each local government area in Queensland. The following table shows the total number of placements confirmed by the Commonwealth Employment Service (CES) under the scheme up to February 1976 when collection of data ceased. For the most part, a confirmed placement represents one person placed in one vacancy created under the RED scheme. However, it would include an unknown, but probably small, proportion of persons who were, in fact, employed on more than one individual RED project during the currency of the scheme. The figures do not include those persons who performed supervisory roles and were made available by local councils.

Registered Unemployed: Division of Bowman (Question No. 1397)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many persons in the Federal electoral division of Bowman were registered as unemployed on 1 July in each of the years 1972 to 1976.
  2. What proportion of the persons was (a) under 21 years of age and (6)21 years of age and over.
  3. What proportion was (a) male and (b) female.
  4. How many dependants were claimed by these persons.
  5. What were the principal work categories stated as being those of the persons unemployed.
  6. How many of those persons (a) were engaged in apprenticeships, or traineeships when retrenched, and (b) had completed apprenticeships or traineeships.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) Statistics of unemployed persons registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service are normally compiled according to individual Employment Office areas. They are not usually available in respect of parliamentary electorates.

However, the Federal Electoral Division of Bowman as presently constituted, comprises approximately 70 per cent of the Employment Office area of Wynnum, 60 per cent of the Employment Office area of Woolloongabba and approximately 5 per cent of the Employment Office area of Mt Gravatt which was opened in April 1975. The numbers of persons registered for employment at these offices at 1 July in the years requested were as follows:

  1. The proportions of (a) males and (b) females were:
  2. No information is available.
  3. The principal work categories of persons registered as unemployed were:
  1. 6 ) This information is not available at the dates required.

Registered Unemployed: Division of Brisbane (Question No. 1398)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many persons in the Federal electoral division of Brisbane were registered as unemployed on 1 July in each of the years 1972 to 1976.
  2. What proportion ofthe persons was (a) under 21 years of age and ( b) 2 1 years of age and over.
  3. What proportion was (a) male and (b) female.
  4. How many dependants were claimed by these persons.
  5. What were the principal work categories stated as being those of the persons unemployed.
  6. How many of those persons (a) were engaged in apprenticeships, or traineeships when retrenched and, (b) had completed apprenticeships or traineeships.
Senator Durack:
LP

-The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Statistics of unemployed persons registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service are normally compiled according to individual Employment Office areas. They are not usually available in respect of parliamentary electorates.

However, the Federal Electoral Division of Brisbane, as presently constituted, comprises approximately 20 per cent of the Employment Office area of Brisbane, approximately 15 per cent of the Employment Office area of Fortitude Valley and approximately 5 per cent of the Employment Office area of Alderley which was opened in April 1975. The numbers of persons registered for employment at these offices at 1 July in the years requested were as follows:

  1. ) The proportion of persons aged under 2 1 years and 2 1 years of age and over were:
  1. The proportions of (a) males and (b) females were:
  1. This information is not available.
  2. The principal work categories of persons registered as unemployed were:
  1. Information is not available at the dates requested.

Registered Unemployed: Division of Petrie (Question No. 1399)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many persons in the Federal electoral division of Petrie were registered as unemployed on 1 July in each of the years 1972 to 1976.
  2. What proportion of the persons was (a) under 2 1 years of age and ( b) 2 1 years of age and over.
  3. What proportion was (a) male and (b) female.
  4. How many dependants were claimed by these persons.
  5. What were the principal work categories stated as being those of the persons unemployed.
  6. How many of those persons (a) were engaged in apprenticeships or traineeships when retrenched and, (b) had completed apprenticeships or traineeships.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) Statistics of unemployed persons registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service are normally compiled according to individual Employment Office areas. They are not usually available in respect of parliamentary electorates.

However, the Federal Electoral Division of Petrie, as presently constituted, comprises all of the employment Office area of Redcliffe, approximately 60 per cent of the Employment Office area of Chermside which opened in August 1973 and approximately 10 per cent of the Employment Office area of Alderley which opened in April 1975. The numbers of persons registered for employment at these offices at 1 July in the years requested were as follows:

  1. ) The proportions of persons aged (a) under 2 1 years and ( b) 2 1 years of age and over were:
  2. The proportions of (a) males and (b) females were:
  3. This information is not available.
  4. The principal work categories of persons registered as unemployed were:
  1. This information is not available at the dates requested.

Registered Unemployed: Division of Ryan (Question No. 1400)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many persons in the Federal electoral division of Ryan were registered as unemployed on 1 July in each of the years 1972 to 1976.
  2. ) What proportion of the persons was (a) under 2 1 years of age and ( b ) 2 1 years of age and over.
  3. What proportion was (a) male and (b) female.
  4. How many dependants were claimed by these persons.
  5. What were the principal work categories stated as being those of the persons unemployed.
  6. How many of these persons (a) were engaged in apprenticeships or traineeships when retrenched and, (b) had completed apprenticeships or traineeships.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) Statistics of unemployed persons registered with the Commonwealth Employment Service are normally compiled according to individual Employment Office areas. They are not usually available in respect of parliamentary electorates.

However, the Federal Electoral Division of Ryan, as presently constituted, comprises approximately 80 per cent of the Employment Office area of Brisbane and approximately 40 per cent of the Employment Office area of Alderley which was opened in April 1975. The numbers of persons registered for employment at these offices at 1 July in the years requested were as follows:

  1. The proportions of (a) males and (b) females were:
  1. This information is not available.
  2. The principal work categories of persons registered as unemployed were:
  1. Information is not available at the dates requested.

Concessionaires: Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport (Question No. 1411)

Senator Mulvihill:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many times in the past 3 years have Commonwealth Arbitration inspectors visited concessionaires at the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) International Air Terminal and examined time sheets and award observances generally.
  2. What were the actual dates and who were the inspectors that undertook such assignments.
  3. Did such visits include the duty free gift shop at the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) International Air Terminal and what breaches, if any, were observed on each of the visits in the past three years.
  4. What is the name of the operator of such concessions referred to in (3).
  5. Did such Commonwealth Arbitration operations synchronise with operations at Melbourne and Perth Airports, assuming the Sydney concessionaire also operates these concessions, and could be committing the same award breaches.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) Eight visits have been made by the Commonwealth Arbitration Inspectorate in the past three years to various concessionaires at the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) International Air Terminal.
  2. The actual dates of the visits and the inspectors who undertook them were:
  1. There have been 5 visits over this period to the duty free gift shop at the Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) International Air Terminal and certain breaches have been detected, one of which has been finalised.
  2. James Richardson Pty Ltd.
  3. No. The concessionaire began operating in Melbourne and Perth subsequent to the commencement of the investigations currently being conducted by the Sydney Inspectorate.

Cedar Bay Police Raid (Question No. 1479)

Senator Colston:

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

  1. 1 ) Has the Minister received a copy of the report on the Cedar Bay police raid on 29 August 1976 prepared by Chief Superintendent Becker and Inspector Atkinson for the Queensland Government. If so, (a) when was the report received, and from whom, (b) does the report make mention of Commonwealth involvement in the raid and, if so, what are the details, (c) does the Minister intend taking any further action as a result of detailed study of the Report; if so, what are the details, and (d) will the Minister agree to table the report in Federal Parliament, consequent to permission to do so being granted by the Queensland Government.
  2. If the Minister has not yet received a copy of the report in question, will he request the Queensland Government to provide him with a copy.
Senator Withers:
LP

– The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s questions: (1)and(2)No.

Revenue Sharing Legislation (Question No.1486)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs, upon notice:

Has the Premier of Queensland raised objections to certain aspects of the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Bill 1976 and the States (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Bill 1976, as was stated by the Queensland Treasurer in answer to a Question Upon Notice in the Queensland Parliament on 28 October 1976; if so (a) what are the objections, (b) in what form were they presented to the Prime Minister by the Premier, and (c) what further action does the Prime Minister intend taking.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

During the current year at Premiers Conferences, by correspondence, and officers’ meetings and reports, the Commonwealth and State Governments had reached general agreement on the procedures and principals for implementing the Commonwealth Government s revenue sharing proposals.

All Premiers were then sent copies of the Government’s revenue sharing legislation and further views were received in writing, including those from the Queensland Premier concerning the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Bill.

After considering all these views the Government decided to amend the Bill as foreshadowed by the Prime Minister in answer to a question without notice from the Leader of the Opposition ( House of Representatives Hansard 2 November 1976, page 2 180-1).

Liberal Party Policy Statement- Implementation (Question No. 1494)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Which undertakings contained in the the ‘Liberal Policy Statement’ published in the Australian dated 28 November 1975 have not been implemented to date, and why has each of them not been implemented.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

The Statement to which the honourable senator refers properly emphasised that the proposed reforms would be introduced over the next three years as economic circumstances allow.

Notwithstanding that caveat nearly all of the undertakings given in the Statement have been or are being implemented in our first year of office.

The major reforms referred to in the Statement, which have been introduced this year, include the indexation of personal income tax, a new and improved home savings grant scheme, investment and accelerated depreciation allowances for taxation purposes, the re-introduction of the superphosphate bounty and an incomes test for pensions replacing the means test. Under our federalism policy new tax sharing arrangements giving the States and local government a guaranteed proportion of personal income tax revenue also have been introduced.

Productivity Commission (Question No. 1502)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Did the Prime Minister, in his policy speech for the 1975 Federal election, undertake on behalf of his Government to form a Productivity Council in Australia. If so, what effect will the creation of the Department of Productivity have on this undertaking.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

I did not undertake, in my policy speech for the 1 975 Federal elections, to form a Productivity Council in Australia.

However, the Liberal-National Country Party Employment and Industrial Relations Policy did undertake to establish a Productivity Commission, using existing departmental resources. The creation of the Department of Productivity is intended to give effect to the aims expressed in the employment and industrial relations policy speech of building on and integrating public and private sector machinery directed at productivity improvement.

Fraser Island (Question No. 1514)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Has the Premier of Queensland discussed the possibility of a High Court challenge to the ban on sand mining on Fraser Island with the Prime Minister or any of his Ministers. If so, what are the details.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

It is in accordance with usual practice that the nature of communications which may or may not have passed between governments should be treated as confidential.

Unemployment: Maryborough Region (Question No. 1515)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

Has the Queensland Government made any formal submission seeking Federal Government assistance for projects in the Maryborough region to help alleviate unemployment directly resulting from the decision to ban sand mining on Fraser Island. If so, what are the details.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

The Queensland Premier wrote to the Prime Minister on 1 December with a number of proposals. These are being studied as a matter of urgency and it would not be appropriate to go into details until that study is complete.

ILO Convention on Indigenous and Tribal Populations (Question No. 1528)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

With relation to Senate question No. 1 308 about the International Labour Organisation’s Convention on Indigenous and Tribal Populations, is the Prime Minister willing to release the full text of his advice to the Queensland Government, referred to in the Queensland Premier’s reply to a question in the Queensland Parliament on 20 October 1976. If so, what is the text. If not, would the Prime Minister inform the Senate why the text cannot be released.

Senator Withers:
LP

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

The information I have provided to the Queensland Premier in relation to International Labour Organisation Convention No. 107 on Indigenous and Tribal Populations is under consideration by the Queensland Government, which has submitted the information for legal advice.

It would not be proper for me to release the full text of any correspondence with the Queensland Government before any necessary further discussions have been held and the position has been resolved.

Australian Apple and Pear Corporation (Question No. 1550)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

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

  1. 1 ) Who are the members of the Australian Apple and Pear Corporation, and what is their background or association with the industry.
  2. Which members of the Corporation have had experience in or access to the field of international marketing.
  3. What criteria is used to determine the export pricing and the method of marketing apples and pears overseas.
  4. What effect does this have on pricing to the consumer within Australia.
  5. If it appears to the Corporation that there will be a surplus of production in relation to overseas orders and estimated local requirements in any one year, what plans are made by the Corporation to deal with the surplus.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

  1. (a) Chairman:

Mr L. G. Leckie, OBE, ASA. Until his recent retirement, Mr Leckie was Deputy General Manager of the Gas and Fuel Corporation of Victoria. He is Vice-President of the Australian Society of Accountants and Honorary Treasurer and member of the Council of the Melbourne Women’s Hospital.

  1. Members to represent growers (on the nomination of the Australian Apple and Pear Growers Association ):

Mr R. B. Walker, fruitgrower, Launceston, Tasmania. Chairman of the Tasmanian State Fruit Board. Extensive background in industry affairs.

Mr H. C. Gubler, fruitgrower, Mullalyup, Western Austarlia. Extensive background in industry affairs.

Mr R. Morey, fruitgrower, Grahamvale, Victoria. Extensive background in industry affairs and in local government in the Shepparton district.

Mr B. Williams, fruitgrower, Orange, New South Wales. Extensive background in industry affairs.

  1. Members with special qualifications:

Mr G. R. Muir, General Manager, Ardmona Fruit Products Co-op Co. Ltd, Mooroopna, Victoria, a company engaged in fruit canning and fruit juicing operations.

Mr R. W. Bain, Tasmanian businessman with a wide experience in the apple and pear industry, a Director of Clements and Marshall, a Tasmanian company engaged in fruit exporting.

Mr A. G. English, General Manager of the Committee of Direction of Fruit Marketing, Brisbane, Queensland.

  1. Government member

Mr R. B. Coombs, Officer of the Department of Primary Industry, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory.

  1. Messrs Bain, English, Morey, Muir, Walker, Williams and Gubler.
  2. Export pricing is determined by the Corporation in consultation with exporter and grower bodies in each State and after assessment of prospects in particular markets.
  3. The Corporation’s export price determinations could be expected to have only a minimal effect, if any, on consumer prices in the main domestic markets as the export trade is largely confined to Western Australia and Tasmania for apples and to Victoria for pears with an established exportable surplus in excess of local demand.
  4. 5 ) The Corporation does not acquire and market the Australian apple and pear crop. It has only limited functions in respect of marketing in Australia and in the export field it acts as a regulatory body supervising the activities of private exporters. The Corporation makes its contribution to the disposal or surplus production by the industry through its activities in promotion, research, advice of market trends, industry communication and co-ordination.

Fraser Island (Question No. 1554)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. What is the full text of the letter written by the Queensland Premier to the Prime Minister, referred to in an article in the Courier-Mail dated 4 December 1976, in which the Queensland Government apparently submits a request for a non-repayable grant of $77,800,000 over the next 10 years to help offset the effects of the shutdown of the sandmining operations on Fraser Island.
  2. When does the Prime Minister expect to be able to reply to the Premier’s submission.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The details of correspondence between the Premier and Prime Minister are normally regarded as confidential and for this reason I do not intend to provide details.
  2. 2 ) See answer to ( 1 ) above.

Dairy Research (Question No. 1564)

Senator Archer:
TASMANIA

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

  1. 1 ) What funds have been spent on dairy research over the past 10 years.
  2. At what institution were the funds spent, and on what project.
  3. 3 ) What was the amount.
  4. Who was the person in charge.
  5. What has been the result of or progress to date of the research.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

The Industries Assistance Commission, as part of its investigations into the financing of rural research, conducted a survey of some 230 authorities and enterprises (State and Federal departments, agencies, commissions, private businesses, universities, agricultural colleges, industry associations, co-operatives and councils) identified as undertaking research which is wholly or significantly rural in application. The IAC study related to the 3 years ending June 1974. In respect of dairy research, it appears that total expenditure was of the order of:

Details of expenditure by major groupings of rural research agencies are set out in the table. The Commission has certain reservations about deficiencies in the results of the survey, in particular with regard to its coverage of the private sector enterprises, leading probably to underestimation of total expenditure on rural research (including dairy research).

The dairy industry would have benefited also from research findings in other rural industries, where these findings have relevance to the dairy industry a share of ‘multi-industry’ research expenditure, i.e., expenditure which benefited more than one industry group and which could not be allocated. The IAC study reported over 20 per cent of total expenditure on rural research as ‘ multi-industry ‘.

The main avenue in the funding of dairy research for which the Minister for Primary Industry has responsibility is through the Dairying Research Trust Account. This Account is funded by a levy on wholemilk and butterfat; expenditure from the Account for dairy research purposes is matched by contributions from the Commonwealth.

Information about the program of dairy research supported by this Trust Account appears in:

Report of the Dairy Produce Research Committee 1966-72, and

Annual Reports of the Dairying Research Committee for the years ended 30 June, 1973, 1974, 1975 and 1976.

These reports provide the detail sought, other than the names of the persons in charge of each project. Between forty and sixty projects have been conducted annually.

  1. The documents mentioned carry progress reports of the projects supported under the dairy research program and, as available, summaries of completed work. The research workers are also under an obligation to publish their results in professional journals.

Some indication of the progress in dairy research and in the application of research can be gauged by the continued advance in productivity per cow, per farm, per man and per processing plant that the dairy industry has been able to achieve despite difficult economic conditions. Milk yield per cow, for example, rose by 20 per cent over the past decade (1964-65-1973-74). There have also been major gains made in the range, throughput and quality of dairy manufacturers. A large part of these advances in technology can be attributed to the research work conducted by State Departments of Agriculture, CSIRO, universities and other bodies, including projects funded through the joint IndustryCommonwealth Dairy Research Trust Account.

Queensland Government Submissions for Assistance (Question No. 1575)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) With reference to the Prime Minister’s reply to Senate Question No. 1270 on 6 December 1976, concerning Queensland Government submissions for assistance, will the Prime Minister seek the Queensland Premier’s agreement to publicly release details of the submissions concerned, similar to the Premier’s recent release of the text of the letter he wrote to the Prime Minister seeking a non-repayable grant of $77m relating to the suspension of sandmining on Fraser Island.
  2. Has the Queensland Government received replies to any of the submissions concerned. If so, what are the details. If not, when can replies be expected to each of the submissions.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. No.
  2. Replies have been sent in respect of each of the submissions. In my reply to Question No. 1270 on 6 December 1976(Hansard, page 2675) I pointed out that the details of correspondence between a Premier and Prime Minister are normally regarded as confidential. For this reason I do not intend to provide details of the replies.

East Timor Refugees

Senator Withers:
LP

-On 17 November 1976 (Hansard, page 2026-7) Senator Mcintosh asked me, as Minister representing the Prime Minister, a question without notice concerning East Timor evacuees. The Prime Minister has now supplied the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question.

Inquiries made through the Australian Embassy in Lisbon indicate that virtually all the Timorese evacuees went to Portugal voluntarily. This resulted from an approach by Portugese General M. E. Silva to the Indonesian authorities to negotiate the release of 23 Portugese military persons and arrange the evacuation of approximately 1000 Timorese civilians who did not wish to remain in Timor in the changed circumstances.

These people would not be regarded as refugees and it would be inappropriate to consider their claims for migrant entry to Australia as being different from those of many others desiring to settle here.

The immigration program operates on a global basis and Australia’s involvement at the present time is limited to the normal family reunion or occupational criteria. In those instances where sponsorships have been lodged already by relatives in Australia, the applications are being considered in the normal manner.

Arrangements were recently made to interview in Portugal some 205 persons who are believed to have immediate family in Australia. Applications involving a further 832 persons have been received from persons with possible relatives in Australia and 474 people who have no relatives in Australia.

There can be no question that any of the $250,000 allocated by the Government for relief and assistance for the people of East Timor could be directed to assist evacuees presently in Portugal.

Mount Lyell Copper Mine

Senator Withers:
LP

-On 1 December 1976 (Hansard page 2296) Senator Wriedt asked me, as Leader of the Government in the Senate, a question without notice concerning the Government’s attitude towards assistance for the Mt Lyell Mining and Railway Co. Ltd, in the light of the 17.5 per cent devaluation. The Prime Minister has now supplied the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question.

It is the Government’s hope that, as a result of the increased returns in terms of Australian dollars being earned by Mt Lyell, the company will reconsider its position and its decision in relation to its employees, taking into account the dependence of the Queenstown community upon the company’s operations.

The honourable senator’s attention is drawn to the report of the Senate Select Committee on this matter which found that as a result of the devaluation the company is now in a financial position very close to that which it had expected to achieve by means of contraction of its operations and reduction of its work force.

The Senate Select Committee reported that

  1. The devaluation decision and
  2. the availability of government guarantees should ensure the continuance of the mining operations and development, on the unreduced scale, without retrenchments’.’

It ought to be noted that in respect of this particular matter senators from the Government side and from the Labor side, together with Senator Harradine, came to a common conclusion.

Public Service: Apprentices and Trainees (Question No. 989)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many places for apprentices, trainee technical officers, and trainee draftsmen, will be available in Government departments in the 1 976-77 financial year.
  2. How many places were available in 1975-76 and 1974-75.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Apprentices, trainee technical officers and trainee draftsmen are employed in Commonwealth departments under the Public Service Act Apprentices are also employed under the Supply and Development and Naval Defence Acts, and also under the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations Group Scheme of Apprentice Training, which is a project to encourage more apprentice training within industry.

Prior to 1976-77, trainee technical officers and trainee draftsmen were also employed under the Naval Defence Act, but these have now been transferred to Public Service Act employment.

The terms ‘places’ and ‘available’ as used in the question have been taken to mean the number of places available for recruitment or promotion to apprentice, trainee technical officer or trainee draftsman.

The number of places available under the Public Service Act for these three categories of staff for 1976-77 are now being determined in the light of departmental staffing and budgetary allocations. The Public Service Board has asked departments to give specific priority to the longer term needs of the Service for skilled and quality staff, through appropriate intakes of trainees. 300 places are available for apprentices in the 1976-77 financial year under the Supply and Development and Naval Defence Acts. In addition, places are available for apprentices under the Group Scheme of Apprentice Training.

  1. The table below shows places available for these three categories of staff under the above Acts for the financial years 1974-75 and 1975-76:
  1. (excludes staff in these three categories transferred from the Postmaster-General’s Department to the Postal and Telecommunications Commissions on 1 July 1975).

In addition, 100 places were available in 1974-75, and 50 places in 1975-76, under the Group Scheme of Apprentice Training.

Pensions: Liability to Income Tax (Question No. 1216)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

Which pensions payable by the Commonwealth Government are subject to tax and which are not subject to tax.

Senator Cotton:
LP

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

Pensions and like payments of income that are paid by the Commonwealth Government are liable to tax, except where they are, by the income tax law, specifically exempted from tax. Payments that are so exempted from tax are:

Amounts paid under the Social Services Act 1947: (i) an invalid pension paid to a person who has not attained age pension age;

a wife’s pension paid to the wife of an invalid pensioner where neither has attained age pension age;

a pension that is paid under section 135U of the Social Services Act (to a widow or widower for 12 weeks following the death of her or his spouse) where the recipient has not attained age pension age;

supplementary assistance (which is paid subject to a special income test to certain pensioners who pay rent or lodging charges), but not the supplementary allowance that may be paid with a sickness benefit;

that part of a payment (other than a payment under the unemployment and sickness benefits provisions of the Social Services Act) that represents mother’s or guardian’s allowance or additional pension for children;

family allowances (child endowment);

maternity allowance;

funeral benefit;

sheltered employment allowance (including incentive allowance);

double orphan’s pension;

handicapped child ‘s allowance;

training allowance under the Rehabilitation Service where the allowance is paid in lieu of a pension, etc., that would, if it were paid to the person, be exempt from tax; and

living away from home allowance paid to a person receiving training under the Rehabilitation Service.

Amounts paid under the Repatriation Acts- the Repatriation Act 1920, the Repatriation (Far East Strategic Reserve) Act 1956, the Repatriation (Special Overseas Service) Act 1962 and the Seamen’s War Pensions and Allowances Act 1940.

All pensions, attendants’ allowances and like payments (including disability or war pensions and war widows’ pensions and that part of the following payments representing supplementary assistance, mother’s or guardian’s allowance or additional pension for children) except:

a service pension paid other than by reason that the person is permanently unemployable or suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis, a wife’s service pension paid to the wife of such a person;

a service pension paid by reason that the person is permanently unemployable or suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis where the person is of age pension age, and a wife’s service pension paid to the wife of such a person, or to the wife of age pension age of a person (not of age pension age) in receipt of such a pension;

that part of a pension paid to the mother of a deceased ex-serviceman or ex-servicewoman that represents an alternative to a widow’s pension; and

that part of a pension paid to a parent of a deceased ex-serviceman or ex-servicewoman that is alternative to a social service pension, in cases where the parent is of age pension age.

Allowances paid under the Tuberculosis Act 1948:

i ) an allowance paid to a sufferer from tuberculosis where the person has not attained age pension age;

an allowance paid to the wife of a sufferer from tuberculosis where neither has attained age pension age; and

that part of a payment that represents supplementary assistance, mother’s or guardian’s allowance, housekeeper allowance or additional pension for children.

Other Pensions, etc.

domiciliary nursing care benefit;

pensions that in the opinion of the Commissioner of Taxation are of a similar nature to those payments under the Repatriation Acts that are exempt from tax; and

certain wounds and disability pensions.

Pre-Schools: Australian Capital Territory (Question No. 1299)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many pre-schools in the Australian Capital Territory are not operating the full 8 sessions each week.
  2. Does the Minister intend to leave these pre-schools under-utilised or will some be made available for other forms of child care or other community use.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Most Australian Capital Territory pre-schools operate eight sessions per week accommodating 90 children. In addition, eight double unit pre-schools provide an extra 2 sessions involving a further 20 children. This was made possible by redeploying 8 teaching teams from older pre-schools where the 8 session program was reduced to 6. This was achieved without reducing pre-school education for all 4- year-olds requiring it in the areas served by these older preschools. This means that a few double unit pre-schools have not been operating to full capacity but nevertheless all 4- year-olds whose parents desire it, are receiving the normal pre-school education program. All pre-schools during 1976 have been available for at least one session per week for implementation of community programs. There are 42 playgroups currently operating in Australian Capital Territory pre-schools.
  2. In 1977 the resources available will be so utilised to ensure that every 4-year-old, whose parents so desire it, will have the normal pre-school education. The special preschool program will also continue.

The policy of community based programs will be actively encouraged and supported by the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority.

Education Commissions: Expenditure Programs (Question No. 1354)

Senator Georges:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

Can the Minister provide the figures for Education Commissions expenditure programs in December 1975 prices, for 1972, 1973, 1974 and 1975, along the lines of those presented for 1976 and 1977 in the Senate by the Minister on 4 November.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. Of the present four education Commissions only the Universities Commission and the Commission on Advanced Education existed in 1972 and 1973. The figures shown for those years are the actual amounts paid from both Commonwealth and State sources; the Commonwealth assumed full responsibility for financing tertiary education from 1 January 1974.
  2. Cost supplementation of the tertiary Commissions’ programs on an index basis commenced in 1974; the figures shown for that year, including those for schools are in December 1975 prices, while the figures for the tertiary Commissions’ programs for 1972 and 1973 represent the actual amounts paid in respect of those years.
  3. Government teachers colleges were brought under advanced education funding arrangements in July 1973 and a number of non-government teachers colleges were brought under these arrangements from 1974.

The technical and further education expenditure program did not commence until towards the end of 1974. Consequently 1975 was the first full calendar year in which this program operated.

For details of the expenditure programs of all the education Commissions in 1975 I refer the honourable senator to the table incorporated in the Senate Hansard of 3 November 1976, on pages 1528 and 1529.

Public Service: Classification and Remuneration (Question No. 1393)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Minister assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters, upon notice:

Is it usual practice within the Australian Public Service that classification and remuneration for public servants occupying positions based in Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra to be in excess of those for public servants occupying positions with similar duties and responsibilities in other capital cities. If so, with relation to the Housing Allowance Voucher Experiment, (a) does the Government s decision to allocate the new positions of Site Office Director to a Class 8 public servant in Sydney and Melbourne and in Hobart denote a change in that policy, and (b) will public servants in future not be disadvantaged in classification or remuneration because their position happens to be based outside of Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra.

Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

I have been advised by the Public Service Board that positions with the same duties and responsibilities are awarded the same classification, regardless of location, and that the classifications of positions associated with the Housing Allowance Voucher Experiment are consistent with this policy.

Public Service: Seniority Lists (Question No. 1439)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) When were the seniority lists for officers of the Third and Fourth Divisions of the Commonwealth Public Service last published.
  2. Is it intended to publish updated versions of these lists.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Public Service Board has informed me:

1 ) The seniority lists for officers of the Third and Fourth Divisions of the Commonwealth Public Service as at December 1972 were published in June 1973.

Yes.

Research Grants (Question No. 1455)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister for Science, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Have grants for research been made to organisations and /or individuals from moneys appropriated to the Minister’s Department or appropriated for commissions, agencies or bodies for which the Minister is responsible. If so, to what organisations and/or individuals have such grants been made in each of the past rive financial years, including 1976-77.
  2. What information as to the nature of the research to be undertaken and the qualification of the applicants was required from all applicants.
  3. What information was supplied by each applicant (a) who received a grant and ( b) who did not receive a grant.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

  1. (a) For information relating to the financial years 1972-73 and 1973-74 I refer the honourable senator to the answers to questions on Notice Nos 95 (House of Representatives Hansard 5 December 1974, pages 48S7-4862) and 1570 (House of Representatives Hansard 8 April 1974 pages 1322-24).

    1. In respect of the financial years 1974-75 and 1975-76 1 refer the honourable senator to the following documents published by the Australian Government Publishing Service. Details published in these documents relate to grants provided under the States Grants (Research) Act 1965-1966, for Queen Elizabeth II Fellowships, Queens Fellowships, the Australian Biological Survey and Research into the crown of thorns starfish.

Depanment of Science and Consumer Affairs 1974-75 Annual Report

Depanment of Science Annual Report 1975-76

ARGC Report 1973-75

ARGC Grants approved for 1 976

  1. Information relating to grants made in the financial year 1976-77 under the States Grants (Research) Act 1965-1966; for research into the crown of thorns starfish; and for Queen Elizabeth II Fellowships is as follows:
  2. States Grants (Research) Act 1965-1966

Details of these grants are only available at this stage as a roneoed list. As the information is too detailed to incorporate in Hansard a copy of the roneoed list has been made available to the honourable Senator.

  1. Research into the Crown of Thorns Starfish
  1. Queen Elizabeth II Fellowships
  1. Details relating to grants made under other programs during the financial years 1972-73 to 1976-77 are as follows:
  2. Antarctic Research

Payments have been made in each of the financial years to the Hobart and Melbourne Universities for the provision of research facilities for Depanment of Science (Antarctic Division) personnel and to the Hobart University in support of the Division’s cosmic ray program.

In addition an annual giam is paid to the Scott Polar Research Institute, Cambridge, U.K.., for details of articles of interest and for consultation and advice on a number of subjects of mutual scientific interest.

  1. Meteorological Research

Up to the financial year 1 974-75 an annual grant was made by the Department of Science (Bureau of Meteorology) to the University of Melbourne, Department of Meteorology, for undergraduate training in, and postgraduate research into, such fields as agricultural, Antarctic and aeronautical meteorology.

  1. United States/Australia Agreement for Scientific and Technical Co-operation

Payments under the United States/Australia Agreement for each financial year have been made as follows:

  1. India/Australia Science and Technology Agreement The following details relate to activities supported in 1975-76 and 1976-77. No payments were made prior to 1975-76.
  1. Association for Science Co-operation in Asia (ASCA)
  1. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)

The following programs administered by CSIRO eable groups or individuals to apply for grants for a specific purpose:

  1. Grants to research associations, e.g. Sugar Research Institute, Bread Research Institute of Australia
  2. Grants to other national bodies where support by the Commonwealth Government is administered through CSIRO, i.e.

Standards Association of Australia

National Association of Testing Authorities

  1. Extra-mural grants to universities and similar bodies.

Details relating to each of these programs are as follows: (i) Grants to research associations

During each of the financial years 1972-73 to 1976-77 grants have been made to the research associations or institutes listed below,

Bread Research Institute

Australian Wine Research Institute

Leather Industry Research Association

Australian Welding Research Association

Sugar Research Institute

Grants have also been made to the Brick Development Research Institute in each financial year since, and including, 1973-74.

The purpose of these grants is to support national associations which have been formed to foater and encourage into the problems of a particular industry.

  1. Grants to other national bodies

During each of the financial years 1972-73 to 1976-77 grants have been made to the Standards Association of Australia and the National Association of Testing Authorities.

The purpose of these grants is to assist in the upkeep of associations whose operations have been accepted by the Commonwealth Government as being in the national interest.

  1. Extra Mural Grants for Scientific Research

During the financial years 1972-73 to 1976-77 grants have been made to Universities and similar bodies as follows:

The purpose of these grants is to support a specific research project in a University department or in similar institutions when that research is of interest to CSIRO and can more profitably, both for CSIRO and the recipient body, be pursued by taking advantage of the staff and facilities available in that university etc

  1. and (3)-

    1. Information as to the nature of research and qualifications of applicants was requested from all applicants by the completion of application forms appropriate to the schemes under consideration. The information required is that determined by the committees which advise me on the several granting programs. Application forms are available from the Secretary, Department of Science, Canberra.
    2. In relation to the bilateral and multilateral science arrangements referred to in ( 1 ) ( d ) above, the information requested is designed to meet the requirements of the countries concerned as indicated by their executive agencies or co-ordinating bodies for these arrangements.
    3. In regard to grants to the research associations and the national associations referred to in ( 1) (e) above, no applications as such are made or required. In respect of extra-mural grants to universities and similar bodies referred to in ( 1 ) (e) above a research proposal and budget is put forward by the University or similar body seeking the grant.

Airline Productivity: Staffing (Question No. 1509)

Senator Baume:

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

Is the comparative table appearing in the Bulletin of 27 November 1976 at page 4, showing the comparative staff per aeroplane for various airlines a substantially accurate one. If so, can the Minister identify why Qantas Airways Limited ‘s staffing should apparently be so much greater than that of its competitors.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

It is not for me to confirm the accuracy or otherwise of the figures quoted by the honourable senator.

However, I am sure honourable senators will be interested to know that the accepted measure of productivity in the airline industry is the available tonne kilometres (ATKs) per employee which is the aircraft space available for passengers, cargo and mail multiplied by the distance flown.

As will be seen from the following table, Qantas performance, even without taking into account the number of its staff involved in outside contract work, fares well by international standards:

Polling Booth Clerks: Tax Deductions (Question No. 1511)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

Will casual staff working as polling booth clerks in Federal elections in future have tax deducted from their earnings. If so:

what are the details;

when was the decision taken, and by whom; and

why was the decision taken.

Senator Cotton:
LP

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

Earnings of casual staff employed as polling booth clerks in Federal elections have always constituted income that is subject to income tax. Such earnings also fall within the scope of the PAYE system applicable to salaries and wages. Deduction of tax through that system is designed to ensure that, as the law requires, tax is borne on salary and wage income, broadly, at the time the income is derived.

The Commissioner of Taxation, who is responsible for the administration of the income tax law, recently drew the attention of electoral authorities to the requirements of the PAYE provisions of the income tax law. The personal tax system currently in operation requires that tax deductions should be made from the earnings of a person employed as a casual polling booth clerk according to whether or not a rebate declaration is lodged with the electoral authorities. Where a declaration is not lodged (for example, because the person has lodged a declaration in respect of earnings from his or her regular employment) tax deductions should generally be made at the minimum rate of 3 5 cents. That is the rate of tax applicable to the slice of taxable income between $5,650 and $11,300

Air Safety (Question No. 1513)

Senator Colston:

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

Has the Minister received a submission from the Air Pilots Guild of Australia requesting that, as a safety measure, the mandatory period between drinking alcohol and flying, for pilots, be increased from 8 hours to 1 2 hours. If so,

when was the submission received,

what was the Minister’s decision on the request,

when was the decision taken, and

for what reasons was the decision taken.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

A submission has been received from the Air Pilots Guild of Australia and the answers to the specific questions are:

3 December 1976

that there should be no change to the existing requirements

9 December 1976

there is no demonstrated requirement for a change and Australian experience does not support a need for change.

Investment Allowance: Hire Plant Industry (Question No. 1527)

Senator Kilgariff:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

Has the hire industry which provides short term use of equipment to construction, manufacturing, and other service industries been excluded from the investment allowance scheme. If so, why.

Senator Cotton:
LP

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

The investment allowance is not available on plant let out to users on short term hire because to do so would change the underlying concept of the investment allowance scheme.

The investment allowance, which provides a strong encouragement to business to re-equip and expand by investing in new productive plant, is designed to assist industry to become more efficient and productive, thereby lifting the level of activity in the economy and creating more jobs.

It seeks to achieve this by reducing the cost of investing in new business plant and, consistent with its objective, is directed to the actual productive user of plant, whether an owner-user, a hire purchaser or a long term lessee.

If the allowance were extended to plant owned by hire firms the benefits of the allowance would go to the owner of hired plant and not the productive user who, as a short term hirer, could not be treated as having invested in new plant. Further, the allowance would be available for plant used other than wholly for business purposes for much hire plant is, in fact, used by casual and short-term hirers for private, domestic or pleasure purposes.

Teacher Accommodation, Nhulunbuy (Question No. 1533)

Senator Robertson:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Would the Minister indicate what his attitude is to the proposition of single teachers in Nhulunbuy being given Department of Northern Territory houses instead of single accommodation in the Commonwealth Hostel.
  2. Will the Minister undertake to investigate the possibility of suitable alternative accommodation for single teachers at Nhulunbuy.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: (1)I believe that single teachers should be offered accommodation on a sharedbasis in Department of the Northern Territory houses at Nhulunbuy should these be available after providing for married officers. My Department has written to the Department of the Northern Territory to ask if this could be arranged next year.

  1. My Department also asked the Department of the Northern Territory if two Commonwealth Hostel rooms (preferably with connecting doors) could be made available to each single teacher next year at no increase in tariff.

I have recently written to my colleague, the Minister for the Northern Territory to endorse the above proposals and also to suggest that modifications might be made to Gove House in order to provide self-contained flats for long-term residents.

Australian National Line: Losses Incurred by Vessels (Question No. 1534)

Senator Robertson:

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

Will the Minister provide a comparison of losses incurred by the Darwin Trader with those incurred by other coastal vessels operated by the Australian National Line, taking into account operational differences such as time, distance and capacity.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The honourable senator will appreciate that an answer to this question will require detailed analysis of relevant information on vessels operated by the Australian National Line.

It has not been possible to provide an answer prior to the parliamentary adjournment. The information sought will be conveyed in writing to the honourable senator as soon as possible.

Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme (Question No. 1540)

Senator Sibraa:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice:

Is the Government considering reducing allowances under the tertiary education assistance scheme by an amount corresponding to that money earned by a student during vacations.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The Government does not intend to reduce students’ living allowances under the tertiary education assistance scheme by an amount corresponding to that earned by the student during vacations. Students may earn up to $1,500 in 1977, including earnings from vacation employment, before their entitlements are reduced. Earnings in excess of $1,500 will reduce a student’s entitlement by $1 for every $2 in excess. Previously the abatement rate was $1 for $1 for dependent students and $1 for every $1.50 for independent students and earnings from vacation employment were not included in the total earnings for the year.

Revenue Sharing Arrangements (Question No. 1553)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has the Prime Minister’s Department carried out any research into the effects of the revenue sharing program on local government. If so, what are the details.
  2. Has the Prime Minister’s Department investigated the feasibility of developing research, along the lines of the Southern Governmental Monitoring Project carried out by the Southern Regional Council in Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America, in 1 973. If so, ( a) what are the details, and (b) do the results of the United States research have any application to Australia.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) No. The Government considers it would be premature to conduct any investigations or research at this early stage. However, a substantial number of local government authorities have indicated they welcome the new revenue-sharing arrangements.
  2. No. At the appropriate time relevant comparative studies will be considered.

Revenue Sharing Arrangements (Question No. 1558)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Why does the Federal Government not give greater recognition to the overall income-earning capacity of States such as Queensland and Western Australia when determining the share of personal income tax distribution to each State, as was suggested by the former Queensland Treasurer, Sir Gordon Chalk, in an article in the Courier-Mail, dated 23 November 1976.
  2. ) If greater recognition were given to this fact, would the Federal Government have avoided the need for the recent amendments to the basis of income tax sharing between the Commonwealth and the States, as was also suggested by Sir Gordon Chalk.
  3. Does the Treasurer agree with Sir Gordon Chalk that the current system, whereby if a State does not receive sufficient funds from the Commonwealth for its essential needs, the State concerned will need to apply a surcharge to personal income tax payments, ‘can only lead to the taxation chaos which existed between States before uniform Australian personal taxation ‘.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. and (2) Queensland and Western Australia already receive a relatively high per capita share of the personal income tax entitlement of the States. The 1976-77 estimates are: Queensland $317.62 per head and Western Australia $380.79 per head compared with $234.77 per head for New South Wales and $228.20 per head for Victoria. Moreover, the four less populous States remain free to apply for grants on the recommendation of the Commonwealth Grants Commission in addition to their basic entitlements and Queensland has availed itself of this arrangement. The Grants Commission assesses the overall needs of the claimant States relative to the standard States taking full account of all relevant factors including the relatively small capacity of the claimant States to raise taxation revenue.
  2. I am not aware of the Treasurer’s views on Sir Gordon ‘s comments.

Regionalisation Programs (Question No. 1562)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs, upon notice:

Has the Government now abandoned the former Labor Government’s regionalisation program. If so,

what steps does the Government plan to take to reduce these disparities;

if these programs have not been abandoned, will the Minister outline in detail what steps the Government is taking in this area; and

if the Minister considers that under the new federalism policy these programs are a matter for State Governments, will he outline what initiating and coordinating role he sees for the national Government in such programs.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The Commonwealth Government considers State Governments to be the proper arm of government to coordinate regionalisation programs. The Commonwealth believes local knowledge is a vital ingredient for the successful implementation of such programs.

The Government’s policy statement on Federalism states Artificial regions will not be forced on local authorities from Canberra. Local bodies will be free to establish formal or informal groupings from time to time for particular functional purposes, but regions will not be used by the Commonwealth as centralist instruments to by-pass the States, to amalgamate areas or to impose Commonwealth policies ‘.

The Commonwealth Government reaffirms its commitment to this statement. The Government is not opposed to the spontaneous development of regions from the local level but is entirely opposed to the compulsory imposition of regions from Canberra or enforced amalgamations.

Electric Energy: Use of Ocean Waves (Question No. 1571)

Senator Knight:

asked the Minister for Science, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Is the Minister aware that it has been reported that, in theory, up to half Britain’s total requirement for electricity could be met from the energy provided by ocean waves through special devices covering a stretch of ocean 600 miles long and that the British Government is supporting research into this form of energy conversion.
  2. What research is being done on this subject in Australia.
  3. What government funds have been made available for such research.
  4. What further action is proposed to explore this alternative energy source.
Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

– The answers to the questions are:

  1. 1 ) Yes. The British Government recently announced the provision of £lm over two years for a feasibility study on obtaining electricity from ocean waves.
  2. Apart from a watching brief maintained by the CSIRO Division of Mechanical Engineering on such overseas developments, no research into this form of energy conversion is being carried out in Australia at the present time.
  3. As far as I am aware, no Government moneys have been allocated specifically for research in this area.
  4. Electricity generation cannot be regarded as Australia’s most urgent energy problem as we are so well endowed with coal deposits which can be used to fire conventional power stations. However, as a maritime nation with the largest ice-free coastline in the world, it is important that Australian scientists and engineers should develop the expertise to evaluate the British work on ocean waves as well as other studies in the field of coastal and ocean engineering that are planned or under way in other countries. I have requested CSIRO to prepare a background paper on the British project and the problems involved in obtaining energy from ocean waves which will be forwarded to the honourable senator in due course.

Queensland Regional Councils for Social Development (Question No. 1584)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. What is the total funding granted to Queensland under the Australian Assistance Plan since the inception of that scheme.
  2. What is the total funding granted to each Regional Council for Social Development in Queensland under the Australian Assistance Plan since the inception of that scheme.
  3. What is the current postal address of each Regional Council for Social Development in Queensland.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. $1,771,378.
  2. –
  1. Far North P.O. Box 678 Cairns Qld 4870; Wide BayBurnett P.O. Box 400 Bundaberg 4670; Mackay P.O. Box 984 Mackay Qld 4740; Fitzroy P.O. Box 1355 Rockhampton Qld 4700; Brisbane G.P.O. Box 178 Brisbane Qld 4001; Northern P.O. Box 1 502 Townsville Qld 48 10.

Unemployment Benefit (Question No. 1590)

Senator Grimes:
NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

For the areas of Nunawading, Doncaster and Templestowe, what were the November 1976 figures of persons who (a) sought unemployment benefit, and (b) received unemployment benefit.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. Statistics of persons who seek unemployment benefit, in the areas you requested, are not kept by my Department.
  2. Statistics of unemployment benefit recipients, by postcode districts, are available from the periodic surveys conducted by my Department. In 1 976 surveys of unemployment beneficiaries were conducted on 13 August and 5 November. The following table shows the number of unemployment benefit recipients in the relevant postcode districts ibr both surveys:

Government Rates: Revenue Sharing Arrangements (Question No. 1611)

Senator COLSTON:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Did the Prime Minister recently criticise local authorities for increasing rates after they had allegedly received such a ‘ good deal from the Grants Commission.
  2. Under the revenue sharing program, should funds received by local authorities be used to increase services or to reduce taxes.
Senator Carrick:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) No. The Prime Minister has stated that the increased funds made available to local government this year created an opportunity for local government to relieve the burden on their own constituents. However, the Prime Minister has also stated that within the concepts of responsibility sharing that we embrace, this must be a decision for local government itself. The evaluation of the choices made by local authorities will ultimately and properly be in the hands of ratepayers.
  2. Local government receives revenue assistance from two sources. First from the State and secondly from the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has acted to increase the level of general purpose funds available to both the States and to local government. It is up to each of those spheres of Government to decide how these funds shall be employed. It is up to local government to decide whether the funds they receive from their State, and the additional untied funds they have received from the Commonwealth, are employed to reduce the rate of increase in rates or spent in other directions.

The Government believes that expenditure decisions of local authorities properly rest with the local authorities concerned.

Public Service: Flexible Working Hours

Senator Durack:
LP

-On 23 September 1976 (Hansard, page 885) Senator Sheil asked me a question without notice concerning flexible working hours in the Commonwealth Public Service.

The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

I refer Senator Sheil to my reply to his previous question on this matter (Hansard, 1 7 August 1 976, page 83 ).

The Public Service Board has advised that it has now completed its analysis of departmental reports on flexible working hours. In general, the information obtained in the evaluation process indicated that flexible working hours schemes were providing benefits to staff without reducing departmental productivity or operating efficiency and only three departments, in their evaluations, saw any difficulties in staff working outside normal hours.

The Public Service Board has continued to draw to the attention of departments the need under any scheme of flexible hours for effective supervision of the scheme including the particular aspect raised by Senator Sheil.

Ministerial Visits Overseas (Question No. 968)

Senator Primmer:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. How many Ministers of the Australian Parliament travelled overseas between 2 December 1972 and 1 August 1973.
  2. How many persons accompanied them and what were the total costs.
  3. How many Ministers of the Australian Parliament travelled overseas between 13 December 197S and 1 August 1976.
  4. How many persons accompanied them and what were the total costs.
Senator Withers:
LP

-The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Between 2 December 1972 and 1 August 1973 Ministers completed 32 overseas visits.
  2. The total costs were $42 1,080. Details ofthe visits are shown in Table 1 below.
  3. Between 13 December 1975 and 1 August 1976 Ministers completed 24 overseas visits.
  4. The total costs were $233,998-over $187,000 less than those incurred by the former Government, despite the cost increases that have occurred since 1973. Details of the visits are shown in Table 2 below.

Numbers given for persons accompanying Ministers are in respect of family and personal staff only.

Full costs incurred by overseas posts in respect ofthe more recent visits may not yet be available. Expenditure shown is at 31 October 1976.

Public Service: Surplus Staff (Question No. 1437)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many surplus officers are currently attached to each Government department who are awaiting relocation in the Public Service.
  2. How many of these are (a) Fourth Division; (b) Third Division; and (c) Second Division Officers.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Public Service Board has advised me that the Board is still collating the information sought. I shall arrange for this information to be provided to the honourable senator as soon as it is available.

Currency Act (Question No. 1440)

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Does section 22 of the Currency Act state that a person shall not make or issue a piece of gold, silver, copper, nickel, bronze, or of any other material, whether metal or otherwise, of any value, other than a coin made or issued under the repealed Acts or under this Act or a British coin as defined by the repealed Acts, as a token for money or as purporting that the holder is entitled to demand any value denoted on it.
  2. Does the Currency Act, by section 5, extend to certain Australian territories.
  3. Are there any coins, tokens or notes in circulation in any part of Australia or the territories that could be in breach of the Currency Act.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes.
  3. Under Standing Orders it is not the practice to answer questions involving the provision of legal opinions.

Overseas Travel by Public Servants (Question No. 1453)

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND · ALP

asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How many officers in each Commonwealth department have travelled abroad since 1 1 November 1973.
  2. ) What was the purpose of each of these visits.
  3. What was the total cost for such travel for each Department.
Senator Durack:
LP

-The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question: (1), (2) and (3) I am advised that the information requested by the honourable senator is not centrally recorded and maintained.

To obtain this information would require considerable effort and man hours which I am not prepared to authorise.

State Trading Bank, Queensland (Question No. 1504)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

Has the Queensland Government sought advice or assistance from the Australian Government with relation to the Queensland Government’s current investigation, referred to in an article by the Queensland Premier which appeared in the Warwick Daily News dated 1 7 November 1 976, into the proposed establishment of a State Trading Bank in Queensland. If so, what are the details.

Senator Cotton:
LP

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

I am unaware of any approach by the Queensland Government to the Commonwealth Government on the matter or of any such investigation by the State Government.

Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Bill 1976 (Question No. 1539)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) To what extent have the relevant trade unions been consulted by the Government concerning its proposed legislation for management initiated retirement of Commonwealth public servants at 33 years of age or over.
  2. ) Has the Government conducted any surveys into Commonwealth Public Service employees in the 33-63 years of age group, to determine the numbers, working capacity and their wishes regarding retirement. If not, what is the basis for the Government’s assumption that sacking the over 55 ‘s would lead to an increase in efficiency and a national reduction in staff numbers in the Service.
Senator Durack:
LP

-The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Public Service Board has advised me:

That question of management initiated early retirement was discussed between the Prime Minister and staff organisation representatives in September this year, and again between representatives of the Public Service Board and staff organisations in November. As indicated when the Bill was introduced, those consultations are to continue.

The honourable senator’s assumptions are incorrect. The purposes of the legislation were described when it was introduced. (House of Representatives Hansard, 8 December 1976, page 3529.)

Katoomba-Leura Senior Citizens and Community Centre (Question No. 1544)

Senator Sibraa:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) When will funds be provided for the construction of the Katoomba-Leura Senior Citizens and Community Centre.
  2. What amount of funds is the Government considering allocating for this project.
  3. Which projects have a higher priority than the Katoomba-Leura Centre.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: ( 1 ), (2 ) and ( 3 ) The honourable senator will recall that on 17 August 1976 I announced that my Department would be introducing a 3 year plan to fund senior citizens ‘ centres.

The State Governments have been requested to provide information in regard to the priority of individual projects which will enable the final funding program to be determined.

As soon as this information has been received from all the State Governments, I will be in a position to make an announcement about the order of priority for funding.

Aged Persons Houses (Question No. 1566)

Senator Archer:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Under which Acts are funds provided for housing of aged persons.
  2. How many units have been provided under each Act for the past 5 years by States and what is the amount of funds involved.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Funds to provide housing for the aged are made available under the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act and the Aged Persons Hostels Act.
  2. The number of persons housed and the amount of grants approved under the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act for the past 5 years and under the Aged Persons Hostels

Act since its inception in September 1972 are shown in the following table:

Artists Overseas: Financial Assistance (Question No. 1586)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Has the Prime Minister’s attention been drawn to the article entitled ‘Howzat Australian Rock Scores a World Hit’ in the Bulletin dated 4 December 1976, which details the current success being experienced overseas by several Australian pop groups, including the Sydney band Sherbet. If so, can the Prime Minister advise what assistance the Federal Government currently provides to Australian entertainers seeking to enter the international market.
  2. Has the Prime Minister’s attention been drawn to the article entitled ‘Uncle Sam Lends Musicians a Hand’ in Rolling Stone magazine dated 2 December 1976, which gives details of the work of the United States Advisory Panel on Folk Music and Jazz, a body that evaluates the eligibility of United States musicians who have applied for State Department assistance while travelling overseas. If so, will the Prime Minister consider establishing a service for Australian entertainers travelling overseas similar to that offered by the United States Government, which apparently includes advice and assistance through United States Embassies and Consulates abroad, and direct financial assistance.
Senator Withers:
LP

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

  1. My attention has been drawn to the article in the Bulletin of 4 December 1976.

The Department of Foreign Affairs supports tours overseas by performing groups as part of its ongoing cultural exchange program. During 1975-76, for instance, the Department made a major financial contribution to the tour to the U.S.S.R. by the Daly Wilson Big Band.

During the current financial year, the Department is providing funds for good-will tours by 2 jazz groups. The Col Nolan jazz quartet is scheduled to tour Thailand, the Philippines, Japan and Korea. The Bob Barnard jazz quintet is scheduled to tour Indonesia, Malaysia, India and Sri Lanka. Limited assistance has also been given through the Australian Exhibitions Organisation to some Australian musicians in the pop field to enable them to visit the U.S.A. as part of Australia’s contribution to the United States Bicentennial celebrations.

Some assistance is also provided by the Australia Council, but in the present circumstances this is necessarily limited.

  1. Australian posts abroad are involved with arrangements, advice and assistance in respect of all overseas official tours. It is not practicable, as matters stand, to provide a special service for Australian entertainers travelling abroad, but they do, of course, have available to them the services open to any Australian citizen travelling overseas in his own right.

Social Security Benefits (Question No. 1588)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) In the period 1 January 1 976 to 30 June 1 976, (a) how many unemployment beneficiaries had their benefit postponed, suspended or terminated by the Department of Social Security; (b) what were the reasons given for withholding benefit in each of these cases; and (c) how many of such persons lodged an appeal against the Department of Social Security’s decision to postpone, suspend or terminate their benefits.
  2. In the period 1 January 1976 to 30 June 1976, (a) how many appeals were upheld by the Depanment of Socia Security as a result of Departmental reconsideration, without referral to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal for final determination of the appeals; (b) are any such instances incorporated in the table supplied by the Minister for Social Security to the Senate on 21 September 1976 and reported on page 797 of Hansard. If so, what proportion are thus recorded and under which heading are they represented.
  3. Of those appeals that were upheld in the first 6 months of 1976, whether through Departmental reconsideration or determination by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, what were the reasons given for reversing the original decisions to postpone, suspend or terminate benefit.
  4. What is the statistical breakdown of all persons whose benefit was postponed, suspended or terminated by the Depanment of Soda Security in the first 6 months of 1976, according to age, sex, ethnicity, marital status, number of dependents and length of time in receipt of benefit
  5. Using the above time-scale and dimensions, what is the statistical breakdown of those persons who lodged an appeal against postponement, suspension or termination of benefit.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. (a) Records to supply this information are not available.

    1. Statistics are not kept, but the reasons for withholding benefit would have included failure to satisfy the work test, failure to report return to work and so on.
    2. No separate statistics are kept of persons who lodged appeals against postponements, suspensions or terminations.

  2. (a) 4340 unemployment benefit appeals were upheld by the Depanment.

    1. No.

  3. , (4) and (5) There is no readily available information from which these questions can be answered. To provide answers it would be necessary to search some thousands of files.

Social Security: Special Benefit (Question No. 1589)

Senator Grimes:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. How many of all appellants to the Department of Social Security in the first 6 months of 1976 applied for special benefit.
  2. How many of those applications for special benefit were granted.
  3. What was the average waiting period between application for special benefit and the determination of eligibility for same during the above period.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

– The answer to the honourable senator’s question is as follows: (1), (2) and (3) There is no specific provision for an appellant to apply for, or to be granted, special benefit pending the outcome of an appeal against the rejection or termination of another category of benefit. There may have been isolated cases where an appellant in those circumstances has applied for, and been granted, special benefit as a person in need, but separate statistics for such cases are not kept.

Revenue Sharing: United States of America (Question No. 1610)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs, upon notice:

Has research into revenue sharing in the United States of America shown that Federal money has been used by local authorities to reduce taxes; it has reduced the pressure on local governments to explain what they have been doing; and has also dampened citizen interest in local government.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

The matters raised by the honourable senator are dealt with in a report to the United States Congress on 25 April 1974 by the Controller-General of the Department of the Treasury entitled ‘Revenue Sharing: Its use and impact on Local Government’.

Arrangements will be made for a copy to be obtained and placed in the Parliamentary Library.

Chinese Archaeological Exhibition (Question No. 1616)

Senator Knight:

asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in the Arts, upon notice:

  1. Will a Chinese archaeological exhibition tour Australia early in 1977.
  2. In what cities will the collection be displayed.
  3. For how long will the collection be displayed in each place.
Senator Withers:
LP

– The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. Yes.
  2. Melbourne and Sydney.
  3. At the National Gallery of Victoria in Melbourne from 19 January to 6 March 1977; and at the Art Gallery of New South Wales in Sydney from 25 March to 8 May 1 977.

Little Athletics Association: Australian Capital Territory (Question No. 1640)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) Does the Little Athletics Association in the Australian Capital Territory pay a 15 per cent tax on all equipment at purchase.
  2. Is the Association a non-profit making organisation that does not sell secondhand sporting equipment.
  3. Will the Treasurer investigate the possibility of exempting this organisation from sales tax.
Senator Cotton:
LP

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

  1. The Little Athletics Association in the Australian Capital Territory, like other sporting bodies in Australia, would be obliged to bear sales tax on purchases of taxable equipment. Sporting equipment, other than clothing and footwear, is taxable at 15 per cent, the tax ordinarily being levied on the wholesale price. Clothing and footwear (including sports clothing and footwear but not protective head wear, pads, guards, gloves and mittens) are exempt from tax.
  2. 1 understand that the Association is a non-profit making organisation, but I am unable to say whether or not it sells secondhand sporting equipment.
  3. It is customary to examine tl.c many requests that are received each year for further taxation concessions and exemptions during the framing of the Annual Budget when they can be brought together and considered in the budgetary context. I shall see that the question of exempting the Little Athletics Association is considered along with the many other sporting bodies in connection with the preparation of the next Budget.

Discrimination Against Women (Question No. 1641)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Women’s Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) When will anti-discrimination legislation be introduced in the Federal Parliament to protect women from discrimination in such areas as home buying, house rental, employment, education, job training, credit, and superannuation.
  2. What positive steps can a woman take when confronted with this form of economic discrimination, until legislation is introduced.
Senator Durack:
LP

-The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Women’s Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) The question of anti-sex discrimination legislation is currently under active consideration. The matter is a complex one and I shall arrange for further information to be provided to the honourable senator as soon as it is available.
  2. Individual cases of discrimination under Federal jurisdiction can be raised with the Women ‘s Affairs Branch of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Complaints of employment discrimination can be lodged with the Committees on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation which operate in each State. There are also women’s units being established in various Government departments and agencies which are charged with the task of monitoring policies and programs to identify discriminatory aspects.

Public Service: Surplus Staff (Question No. 1642)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters, upon notice:

Following the imposition of staff ceilings, do Permanent Heads of departments have to inform all staff who are declared to be surplus as to their position. If so, how many public servants have been told that they have been declared to be surplus and in which Departments.

Senator Durack:
LP

-The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Public Service Board has advised that the information requested will take some time to compile. I shall arrange for this information to be provided to the honourable senator as soon as it is available.

Pre-School Staff Salaries (Question No. 1643)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice:

  1. Will the Federal Government continue to pay 75 per cent of salaries of agreed staff in all pre-schools up to 30 June 1 977 in New South Wales. If not, what percentage of salaries of agreed staff in pre-schools up to 30 June 1977 will the Federal Government undertake to pay.
  2. Will the Minister provide a breakdown of the $27m allocated for child care services showing how and where this money is to be spent, who is to administer the spending, and what consultative arrangements have been made to allow for the expression of community needs.
Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Commonwealth recurrent assistance to non-profit preschools in New South Wales will be on the basis of 75 per cent of award salaries of agreed staff until 31 December 1 976. A fixed grant funding basis as distinct from the present percentage of salary basis is to be used from I January 1977. This change was advised in my press release of 3 November 1976. Decisions on the details of the basis of the disbursement of these Commonwealth fixed grant moneys and the arrangements for the payment of these moneys to preschools is a matter for decision by the relevant State authority or authorities.
  2. Please see my answer to House of Representatives Question No. 1032 (pages 3278 and 3279 of House of Representatives Hansard ot 3 December 1976).

For the most part, grants for approved child care projects and services are paid directly to community groups and local government bodies, although some of the estimated expenditure is being and will be paid to and for the States in respect of child care services conducted by State authorities and/or for onpassing by the States to community groups and local government authorities undertaking approved projects and child care services.

The Prime Minister wrote on 3 November 1976 to Premiers to advise the States of pre-school funding and seeking their thoughts on the form of consultative arrangements that could operate between the Commonwealth and their respective States in the light of the new administrative arrangements at the Commonwealth level.

Papua New Guinea: Auditor-General’s Report

Senator Withers:
LP

– On 3 November (Hansard, page 2214) Senator Sir Magnus Cormack asked me, as Minister representing the Prime Minister, a question without notice concerning the report of the Auditor-General of Papua New Guinea. The Prime Minister has supplied the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The report of the Auditor-General of Papua New Guinea has been brought to my attention. Papua New Guinea is now an independent country and it is not for the Australian Government to take any action on the issues raised by the report other than at the request of the Papua New Guinea Government. However, I have directed that the Australian Development Assistance Agency make it known to the Papua New Guinea Government that scope exists for a training program to meet the needs mentioned by the Auditor-General, if requested. With regard to the honourable senator’s suggestion that Australian administrative specialists be sent to assist the Papua New Guinea AuditorGeneral, it continues to be the policy of the Australian Government to make available to Papua New Guinea qualified officers to staff specialist Governmental agencies such as the Auditor-General ‘s office.

East Timor

Senator Withers:
LP

-On 11 November 1976 (Hansard, page 1851) Senator Georges asked me, as Minister representing the Prime Minister, a question without notice about Timorese refugees seeking to enter Australia. The Prime Minister has now supplied the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question:

During my visit to Indonesia, President Suharto and I agreed that Australian and Indonesian officials should meet to resolve the problems of the refugees who had come to Australia from East Timor without their families. These meetings have now begun.

Public Service: Graduate Employment

Senator Durack:
LP

– On 2 December 1976 (Hansard, page 2385) Senator Brown asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister a question without notice concerning graduate employment. The Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Public Service Matters has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

I understand that the report to which you refer is an article in the Australian National University publication ANU Reporter. This article discusses the results of a survey carried out by Mr S. Rawling of that University’s careers and appointments office, of the first destinations of graduates of full dme Bachelor Degree courses at the Australian National University. The survey does not purport to reflect the national graduate employment situation.

I am informed by the Public Service Board that Servicewide recruitment programs for the remainder of the 1976-77 financial year are currently being determined in the light of departmental budgetary allocations and the capacity of the Service to absorb within overall approved ceilings. I understand that in approving recruitment programs, the Board is giving specific priority to the longer-term needs of the Service through provisions for appropriate intakes of high quality graduates.

East Timor

Senator Withers:
LP

-On 7 December 1976 (Hansard, page 269S) Senator Mcintosh asked me, as Minister representing the Prime Minister, a question without notice concerning a letter from the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace about the return of international aid organisations to East Timor. The Prime Minister has supplied the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The Minister for Foreign Affairs received the letter mentioned by the honourable senator. The Government had hoped to be able to send humanitarian aid through the International Committee ofthe Red Cross (ICRC). When it became clear that the ICRC would not be able to resume its activities in Timor, the Government decided to channel assistance through the Indonesian Red Cross. Details ofthe aid given have already been made public It is having a direct and tangible impact in helping to alleviate the suffering which has resulted from the fighting in East Timor.

Mt Lyell Mining Operations

Senator Withers:
LP

-On 8 December 1976 (Hansard, page 2778) Senator Devitt asked me, as Minister representing the Prime Minister, a question without notice concerning correspondence between Mt Lyell Mining and Railway Co. Ltd and the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has now supplied the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question:

No direct correspondence has passed between the Prime Minister and the Mt Lyell Mining and Railway Co. Ltd, concerning the matters raised by the honourable senator. It is noted, however, that on 13 December 1976 the company announced that it will reduce its planned retrenchments from 400 to 200 and lift its copper production target for this year from 15 000 tonnes to 17S00 tonnes. This decision was taken in the light of the Government’s devaluation of the Australian dollar.

Vietnamese Refugee Study

Senator Withers:
LP

-On 8 December 1976 (Hansard, page 2782) Senator Primmer asked me, as Minister representing the Prime Minister, a question without notice concerning the possibility of the longitudinal study of Vietnamese refugees in Australia commenced by Dr J. Martin, being resumed. The Prime Minister has now supplied the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question:

I understand that approaches have been made to private organisations for financial support for this study.

So far as the Commonwealth Government is concerned, at the appropriate dme next year it will be giving consideration to those research projects to which it may wish to give financial assistance. Any request for assistance with a longitudinal study of Vietnamese refugees in Australia would be included in the Government’s general consideration.

Mt Lyell Mining and Railway Co. Ltd

Senator Withers:
LP

-On 9 December 1976 (Hansard, page 2886) Senator Harradine asked me, as Leader of the Government in the Senate, a question without notice requesting that the Prime Minister seek an urgent response from the Mt Lyell Mining and Railway Co. Ltd concerning the Senate Select Committee’s report that, following the recent devaluation, the company could continue without retrenchments. The Prime Minister has now supplied the following information for answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The honourable senator’s attention is drawn to the company’s announcement on 13 December 1976 that it has reduced its planned retrenchments from 400 to 200 and that it was lifting its copper production for the year from 15 000 tonnes to 1 7 500 tonnes.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 10 December 1976, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1976/19761210_senate_30_s70/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant