View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate
27 September 1978

31^st Parliament · 1^st Session

PETITIONS
- Coolangatta Airport
- Metric System
- South Australia: Country Rail Services
- Telephone Charges
- Pensions: Indexation
- Abortion: Medical Benefits
- Postgraduate Research Awards: Indexation
- Education Funding
- Maternity and Paternity Leave
JURISDICTION OF COURTS (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL 1978
QUESTION
- QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
QUESTION
- ANTARCTIC DIVISION HEADQUARTERS
QUESTION
- WORKS OF ART STORED WITHIN PARLIAMENT HOUSE
QUESTION
- INDUSTRIAL SAFETY
QUESTION
- HEALTH AND NUTRITION
QUESTION
- DISEASE AMONGST DOGS
QUESTION
- STAFFING IN AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY SCHOOLS
QUESTION
- AIRPORT TERMINALS: FACILITIES FOR COMMONWEALTH CAR DRIVERS
QUESTION
- WINE EXPORTS
QUESTION
- DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY: MANAGERIAL COURSES
QUESTION
- FEDERAL ROYAL COMMISSION ON DRUGS
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS
QUESTION
- THE BUDGET
QUESTION
- ARREST AND IMPRISONMENT OF MR JACOB PRAI IN PAPUA NEW GUINEA
QUESTION
- HOUSING INDUSTRY IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA
QUESTION
- REDISTRIBUTION OF ELECTORATES IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA
QUESTION
- AVIATION SAFETY
QUESTION
- ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS: BUDGET ALLOCATION
QUESTION
- COMPULSORY MEMBERSHIP OF STUDENT ORGANISATIONS
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
QUESTION
- SUGAR: INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION REPORT
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT BORROWINGS
QUESTION
- ABORIGINAL EDUCATION
QUESTION
- DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION AND ETHNIC AFFAIRS: STAFF CEILINGS
QUESTION
- RED WINES: HISTAMINES
SENATE COMMITTEES: REFERRAL OF BILLS
QUESTION
- TASMANIAN AIR SERVICES
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION: STAFF CEILINGS
QUESTION
- AUSTRALIAN FISHING INDUSTRY COUNCIL
QUESTION
- PARLIAMENT HOUSE SECURITY
QUESTION
- ALICE SPRINGS TOWN COUNCIL
QUESTION
- CARRYING OF HAND GUNS ON AIRCRAFT
QUESTION
- BUDGET PAPERS
QUESTION
- ARREST AND IMPRISONMENT OF MR JACOB PRAI IN PAPUA NEW GUINEA
QUESTION
- URANIUM MINING IN THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
QUESTION
- UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT CHEQUES
QUESTION
- REDISTRIBUTION OF ELECTORATES IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF AUSTRALIA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE POLISH PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC
REPORT ON STANDARDISATION OF FIRE HOSE COUPLINGS
NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE SYSTEM
GENERAL BUSINESS
BUDGET PAPERS 1978-79
ADJOURNMENT
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
- Solar Energy (Question No. 149)
- Energy Accounting Research (Question No. 165)
- Energy Research (Question No. 167)
- Parliamentary Library (Question No. 463)
- Energy Research (Question No. 585)
- Education: Finance (Question No. 614)
- Antarctica (Question No. 659)
- Royal Visit: Cost (Question No. 669)
- Handicapped Persons: Purchase of Motor Vehicles (Question No. 716)
- Statutory Corporations: Reports to Parliament (Question No. 730)
- Parliamentary Travel Credit Cards (Question No. 786)
- Minister for Primary Industry: Use of Hire Cars (Question No. 853)

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Condor Laucke) took the chair at 2.15 p.m., and read prayers.

page 961

PETITIONS

Coolangatta Airport

Senator MASON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 1 , 520 citizens of Australia:

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

That the terminal facility at Coolangatta Airport is clearly inadequate for the 400,000 people who use it each year. Continual requests for upgrading or replacement of the building have been made over many years by local authorities and organisations from Northern N.S.W. and Queensland ‘s Gold Coast. Many commitments of consideration and action have been made but nothing concrete has emerged.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should review the continued delay in upgrading terminal facilities at Coolangatta Airport and direct an urgent plea to the Minister for Transport for substantial commencement of work during the 1978-79 financial year.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Metric System

Senator LEWIS:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 23 citizens of Australia:

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

South Australia: Country Rail Services

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 26 citizens of Australia:

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

That any downgrading or closures of Country Rail Services in South Australia would have grave consequences for the Railway Industry, Primary Industry, Individual Country Communities and the State as a whole and calls on the Parliament to ensure that the Federal Minister for Transport takes the necessary action to maintain all existing services.

That continued and increased Public Subsidy is fully justified in the long term National Interest.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Telephone Charges

Senator LEWIS:

– I present a petition from 60 citizens of Australia. This makes a total of 6,409 citizens who have signed this sort of petition. The petition reads:

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

Telephone users outside major metropolitan telephone districts, particularly those conducting business outside those districts, suffer an unfair burden for fees charged for calls.

The system of charging fees for calls based on the distance between non-adjoining zones instead of for the time of the call is archaic and unreasonable.

Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should require Telecom Australia to standardise all telephone fees for calls on a time basis so that the fee for calls of equal time be the same throughout Australia.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

The Acting Clerk- Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Pensions: Indexation

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

That whereas the Fraser Government was elected in December 1975 after promising that pensions would be adjusted instantly and automatically in relation to quarterly Consumer Price Index figures; and whereas that Government subsequently announced that pension adjustments should properly be made half yearly each May and November; it is the current intention of the same Government to legislate for pensions to be adjusted only once a year, and this constitutes a serious breach of generally accepted ethics of democratic government and also deprives many needy pensioners of increases that are essential to their subsistence.

The foregoing facts impel the undersigned Petitioners to request the Australian Government to uphold the principle that the trustworthiness of governments should at all times be above question, and to appeal to the Parliament to prevent the imposition of further economic hardship upon Australian pensioners by rejecting any Bill which has for its aim the introduction of annual adjustments of pension rates.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Senator Peter Baume.

Petition received.

Abortion: Medical Benefits

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

That the provision of payments for abortion through items of the Medical Benefits Schedule is an unacceptable endorsement of abortion which has now reached the levels of a national tragedy with at least 60,000 unborn babies being killed in 1977.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will so amend the Medical Benefits Schedule as to preclude the payment of any benefit for abortion.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Senator M issen.

Petition received.

Postgraduate Research Awards: Indexation

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned, members of the Sydney University Postgraduate Representative Association, and like minded people, respectfully showeth that the Government decision to tax Commonwealth Postgraduate Research Awards will result in:

a further serious decline in living standards for postgraduate scholars performing valuable low cost research for the Australian community, and
a reduction in the standard of research at the universities as top scholars will be forced to reject offers of inadequately financed Research Awards.

Your petitioners strongly urge that the Commonwealth Government take appropriate action to revert to the former policy of award adjustments in line with the Consumer Price Index.

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

Petition received.

Education Funding

The Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the Victorian Federation of State School Parents ‘ Clubs respectfully showeth:

That as citizens of Victoria and parents of State School children, we are most concerned that the quality of education available in our school be of the highest possible standard.

We believe that this can only be achieved if adequate Federal funds are provided. The recently announced policy of direct cuts to Government schools for 1979 must have an adverse effect on them.

Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should arrange for:

Withdrawal of the Guidelines to the Schools Commission for 1979 and acceptance of its recommendations for Government schools.
An increase of a minimum of5 per cent in real terms on base level programs for 1 979.
Restoration of the $8m cut from the Capital Grants for Government schools.
Increased recurrent and capital funding to Government schools.

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

Petition received.

Maternity and Paternity Leave

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

That Australian Government employees strenuously oppose the proposal by the Australian Government to abolish Paternity and restrict the provisions relating to Maternity

Leave which are currently contained in the Maternity Leave (Australian Government Employees) Act 1 973.

Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should reject the passage of any legislation which has as its purpose the abolition of Paternity Leave and the restriction of the Maternity Leave provision.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, by Senator Peter Baume and Senator Scott.

Petition received.

page 962

JURISDICTION OF COURTS (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL 1978

Notice of Motion

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I will move:

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the provisions of certain Acts relating to the jurisdiction of courts and of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

page 962

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 962

QUESTION

ANTARCTIC DIVISION HEADQUARTERS

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Science who has shown a general interest in the construction of the Antarctic Division headquarters in Hobart. I ask the Minister: What is the current position in respect of the tenders which have been called for the construction of that base?

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

-Tenders have been called for the construction of the Kingston headquarters of the Antarctic Division and for the laboratories for the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories which also are to be built at Kingston. Tenders closed within the last few days, I understand, and they are currently being evaluated. I am advised by the Department of Construction that the contract is likely to be awarded within the next two weeks and that a physical start on the construction of the base is planned before the end of October 1 978.

The honourable senator will be interested, I know, in those facts. I am anxious to convey to him that I have pressed the Department of Construction with the suggestion that at a site in one of the main stores, banks or some such public facility in Hobart we should put on display for the public of Tasmania an exhibit showing the desires of the Commonwealth Government for the buildings, the general environmental conditions and the type of scientific work that will be conducted when this base is completed. I recognise that the honourable senator has a great interest in this matter because he comes from Tasmania.

Senator WRIEDT:

- Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the Minister aware that in the past the results of tenders of this nature have been known within the trade amongst the tenderers fairly soon, in fact I believe within 24 hours of the close of tenders? In this case I am given to understand that nobody in the trade has had any indication as to what the Government proposes to do. Can the Minister assure the Senate that there has not been any indication given to a mainland contractor that he will be awarded the tender?

Senator WEBSTER:

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-Senator Bonner has a real interest in one particular area of research of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation which is being undertaken in South Australia at present. I refer to the work of the division of human nutrition. As I recall, the division was formed basically from the staff and establishment of the CSIRO division of nutritional biochemistry in 1975. As a consequence, work was reoriented from ruminant animals to humans. When this Government came to office there was a basic change in the direction of the work of that division. Professor Basil Hetzel from Victoria was appointed chief of that division. He has since introduced an element of epidemiological research concerned with health and nutrition in the Australian community. This is particularly important today when a lot of discussion is taking place about the appropriate dietary intake of members of the public and the effect that that may have on disease in humans.

The objective of the division at present, I understand, is to study nutritional processes with a view to identifying the existence and consequences for health of nutritive imbalances and deficiencies in the Australian population. Quite a deal of money is being spent in three areas. In the area of inorganic nutrition about $750,000 is being spent. About the same amount is being spent on research into metabolism and digestion. In the area of nutrition and human ecology, about $300,000 is being spent. Of course, all those programs are relevant to Aboriginals. Research is being undertaken in the nutrition and human ecology program to see what types of foods are being purchased from stores by Aboriginals. An attempt is being made to compare that food with the types of food which are available to the white population and some of the traditional foods that Aboriginals are currently consuming. It is possible that some of the food that Aboriginals are purchasing from stores may not be as good for them as some of their traditional food. I believe that this is important to the Aboriginal community but it should not be seen as being of interest only to the Aboriginal community. It is of importance to the whole of the Australian community that Aboriginals assist us to get a better knowledge of the dietary process than we have at the present time.

page 964

QUESTION

DISEASE AMONGST DOGS

Senator COLSTON:
QUEENSLAND

– I preface my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health by remarking that it has been reported to me that there are rumours of a recent outbreak of rabies amongst dogs in northern Australia. After making an investigation into the matter, I am reasonably certain that the dogs were not rabid but were suffering from distemper. Nevertheless, there is increasing unease about the possible introduction of disease into northern Australia, given the arrival of illegal immigrants. I therefore ask the Minister whether any unusual outbreak of disease amongst dogs has been reported in recent weeks and, if so, what were the results of the subsequent investigations? Finally, can the Minister assure the Senate that if an outbreak of a disease such as rabies does occur in Australia, knowledge of its presence will not be hidden from the Australian people?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I have no knowledge of the matters raised by Senator Colston but I will refer them to the Minister for Health and seek information for the honourable senator. In regard to the last part of the question, which related to knowledge of the presence of this disease in Australia being withheld from the Australian people, I am sure that would not be the intention of the Minister for Health, particularly because of his concern to ensure the health of all Australians. However, I will refer the matter to him and see that Senator Colston is advised accordingly.

page 964

QUESTION

STAFFING IN AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY SCHOOLS

Senator LAJOVIC:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Education. In view of the stopwork meeting scheduled today by the Australian Capital Territory Teachers Federation, will the Minister inform the Senate of the latest situation with respect to Australian Capital Territory school staffing levels and per capita expenditure in schools and secondary colleges?

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

– Can the Minister for Social Security inform the Senate whether the Department of Social Security is conducting departmental managerial courses and whether Professor John Hunt of Macquarie University is receiving a fee of $450 a day in payment for conducting these courses? If this is so, would the Minister obtain for me the total amount paid to Professor Hunt by way of fees and expenses for these departmental managerial courses? Further, will the Minister say whether these courses and these fees, paid at a time of government austerity in community welfare, are likely to be extended to other departments of the Public Service? Finally, as the courses are directed, I understand, to informing departmental managers which officers are ‘self-motivated’ and which are ‘huddlers’, can the Minister give the Senate a description of what is a ‘huddler’ and what proportion of them have been found in her Department?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

- Senator O’Byrne has raised a number of questions. Indeed, he seems to have a lot of information on which he based those questions. I have been asked some specific questions with regard to total amounts that have been paid for fees and expenses and things of that kind. I will seek that information from my Department and advise Senator O’Byrne. As to whether these courses are likely to be extended to other departments, I am unable to comment on that. I have no knowledge of whether they are to be extended or that arrangements would be made through my Department for any other department’s courses.

I am not able to give an off-the-cuff definition of huddlers or of self-starters- or whatever they might be- in my Department- but if there is any information that I can give on the matter that has been raised I will see that Senator O’Byrne is advised.

page 966

QUESTION

FEDERAL ROYAL COMMISSION ON DRUGS

Senator PUPLICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Has the New South Wales Government refused to grant a commission to the Federal Royal Commission on Drugs? Does the lack of such a commission prevent the Federal Royal Commission from issuing summonses in New South Wales to persons who may be able to give evidence relevant to the suspected links between organised crime and drug trafficking which seems to be of considerable dimension? Can the Minister say whether the findings of the Federal Royal Commission may be inconclusive because it cannot interrogate New South Wales witnesses unless such witnesses volunteer to give evidence? Finally, by contrast, have the governments of Queensland, Victoria, Tasmania and Western Australia granted such commissions to the Federal Royal Commission?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Senator Puplick ‘s question, unlike Gaul, is in four parts.

Senator Grimes:

– You got it right this time.

Senator CARRICK:

– Let me clarify the situation: I was not referring to Labor’s gall. With regard to the first part of the question as to whether the New South Wales Government has refused to grant a commission, my understanding is that that is true. However, the New South Wales Government, through the State Crown Solicitor’s Office and the New South Wales Commissioner on Drugs, has provided a means through which all requests from the Australian Royal Commission can be directed. New South Wales has indicated that it would give further consideration to the granting of a concurrent commission only if the Australian Royal Commission encountered difficulties.

As to the second part of Senator Puplick ‘s question, the answer is that whilst the lack of a concurrent commission does not prevent the Federal Royal Commission from issuing summonses in New South Wales, its general position would have been strengthened if a concurrent commission had been granted by the State Government. As to the third part of the question, I reply that at this stage no difficulties are foreseen with regard to the Federal Royal Commission’s findings. As to the fourth part of the question, it is true that the governments of Queensland, Victoria, Tasmania and Western Australia have granted commissions. It seems that New South Wales is the only one in the regiment in step.

page 966

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS

Senator ELSTOB:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. Is it a fact that the operations of the Australian Bureau of Statistics have been severely curtailed as a result of the staffing policies of” the Government and its failure to authorise replacement of obsolete Bureau equipment? Can the Minister tell the Senate what work of the Bureau relating to the State of South Australia has been or will be abandoned or reduced in scope as a consequence?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I understand that the Australian Bureau of Statistics has sustained restraints on staff ceilings, as indeed have all elements of the Public Service. I am not aware that those restraints have been such as to cause any critical damage or restrictions upon the production of work, but I will seek information on that. I suppose that throughout the Public Service, as in the Whitlam era, the equipment of the day moves into obsolescence and there is a need to spend money to upgrade, particularly in the burgeoning computer era. I believe that it is obvious that there is a need for more equipment. I will seek information on that and see what is being done. As to the specific question of what is happening in South Australia, I am unaware of any limitations but I will ask questions to see whether I can elicit any information.

page 967

QUESTION

THE BUDGET

Senator MacGIBBON:
QUEENSLAND

-Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware that the Treasury analysis of this year’s Budget shows that there will be a decrease of 0.3 per cent in the total national return from personal income tax in real terms? Can he comment on the further benefit accruing from the abolition of the compulsory 2¥i percent health levy?

Senator McLaren:

– That is because there are fewer wage earners.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I want to take note of Senator McLaren’s interjection. He said: ‘That is because there are fewer wage earners’. I simply point out how wrong he is so consistently, because for three years in succession the effect of wage indexation, tax indexation and tax cuts has been such that there is now $3,000m extra in the hands of taxpayers than there would have been under the Hayden Labor scheme. Senator McLaren’s assurance that I am wrong only confirms what I have said. It is true, as Senator MacGibbon says, that the effect of this year’s Budget will be that personal income tax payments will decrease by 0.3 per cent. I think that is a great virtue. This Government believes that it is wrong for large government to take money, as the Whitlam Government did, by trebling revenue from income tax, doubling sales tax, doubling customs charges, doubling excise and forcing the States into levying taxation. We believe that reducing the taxes that the public pays, as we have done as from February of this year, is the right thing to do.

The tax indexation and the tax deductions which applied from February of this year will more than offset the 1.5 per cent temporary increase in taxation. It is equally true that the abolition of the compulsory health levy will considerably increase the pay packets of those wage earners throughout Australia who contributed to Medibank Standard. That increase should remain significant even if those people decide to reinsure under Medibank Private. Overall, it is true that the tax reduction policies of the Commonwealth Government have succeeded and have in fact resulted in $3,000m being passed back to the public.

page 967

QUESTION

ARREST AND IMPRISONMENT OF MR JACOB PRAI IN PAPUA NEW GUINEA

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

– My question, which is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, relates to the reported arrest, rapid trial and imprisonment of Mr Jacob Prai in Papua New Guinea this morning and, further, the reported request to the Papua New Guinea Government from Indonesia to have Mr Prai extradited to Indonesia. I ask: Should Mr Prai apply for political asylum in this country would the Australian Government give consideration to any application for residence here? What would be the Australian Government’s attitude should Indonesia apply pressure to Papua New Guinea for Mr Prai’s extradition? Would Australia oppose any such move in the light of Indonesia ‘s poor record on human rights or would Mr Prai be fed to the lions as were the people of East Timor?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Taking out the fruity melodrama of the latter part of Senator Primmer ‘s question, the advice I have is that the Australian High Commission in Port Moresby has confirmed that two senior members of the OPM- the Organisasi Papua Merdeka- the Irianese dissident group which is seeking independence for Irian Jaya from Indonesia, were arrested by Papua New Guinea authorities in Vanimo in the region of the Papua New Guinea-Indonesia border on 29 September. I am further advised that the two OPM members are Jacob Prai and Otto Ondawame. Mr Prai is the self-styled ‘De facto President of West Papua’, and Mr Ondawame is his self-styled ‘Minister for Defence’. I understand that both men have been sentenced to two months imprisonment as illegal immigrants. This is, of course, a matter for the Papua New Guinea Government. I have also been informed that an Australian citizen, Mr Eiserman, who was occupying the house in which the OPM members were arrested, has also been taken into custody and will be charged with harbouring illegal migrants. Senator Primmer went on to ask about extradition and related matters. They are matters to which my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, should respond directly. I will seek information and let the honourable senator have it.

Senator PRIMMER:

page 969

QUESTION

COMPULSORY MEMBERSHIP OF STUDENT ORGANISATIONS

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Education. I refer to the Minister’s statement on compulsory membership of student organisations, which was made in the Senate on 1 June 1978 and which said in part:

There is no doubt that funds subscribed by students as a condition of enrolment have been used for purposes not related to their interests as students.

Is the Minister aware that certain tertiary student organisations and unions in Australia are still making improper use of compulsorily collected fees? In particular, is the Minister aware that the Swinburne College of Technology Student Union, which is controlled by Maoist student groups, recently appropriated $500 of student money to the National Overseas Students Service and $200 to radio station 3CR, both payments being outside the criteria established by Mr Justice Kaye ‘s judgment in the recent Robert Clarke case? In view of this, will the Minister renew his efforts to curtail the misuse of compulsorily collected student fees in this country?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am certainly aware of the statement that I made in those terms in June of this year.

Senator Robertson:

– What date?

Senator CARRICK:

-I am glad that I should be asked that question. I have noted what Senator Missen has said. I indicated in June that there was no doubt that funds subscribed by students as a condition of enrolment had been used for purposes not related to their interests as students. I hope that is ample edification. I am not aware of the specific payments by the Swinburne College of Technology Student

Union to which the honourable senator referred in his question, nor am I aware of other recent payments by tertiary student organisations which might be considered improper uses of compulsorily collected student fees.

It is true that the Government has taken the view- indeed, so have some State governmentsthat it is wrong for student bodies to apply compulsorily collected student fees for purposes that could not be regarded as authentic student purposes. The Government is taking action that is open to it to prevent the misuse of student funds. Legislation as outlined in my statement in June is being prepared with respect to the areas directly within the responsibility of my portfolio, that is, the Australian National University and the Canberra College of Advanced Education.

With regard to the tertiary education institutions of the States, which come under State law and over which the Commonwealth has no power to legislate, the Prime Minister wrote to the Premiers suggesting that they consider introducing similar legislation where they have not already acted along the lines proposed by the Commonwealth. The Victorian Government has legislated with regard to the Melbourne University and the Victorian Premier has indicated in reply to the Prime Minister that his Government has under consideration the general question of extending the legislation, subject to further investigation and discussion with the relevant tertiary institutions. Other States have not indicated that they will introduce legislation as proposed by the Commonwealth. Of course, Western Australia has taken action itself. The main purpose is to adhere to the principle enshrined in the Declaration of Human Rights that there should be freedom of choice and freedom of action and that no one should be compelled to sponsor or to back causes which are obnoxious to him.

page 969

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. I think he would be aware by now of the substance of the representations that have been made by the Union of Postal Clerks and Telegraphists in connection generally with the very heavy increase in the cost of sending lettergrams and telegrams, which approximates a 300 per cent increase, and in particular with its concern about the future of the employment of its trained members in that occupation. Whilst the union has in mind the heavy losses incurred in providing this service, it has made representations to the Australian Telecommunications Commission asking for a review of what seem to be very heavy charges and for some added measures to be taken to publicise renewed services. I ask the Minister whether he would be good enough to request his colleague to consider the representations that have been made by that Union about whether some modest increase might be applied and whether some review of services could be made urgently.

Senator CHANEY:
LP

- Senator Bishop raises a matter about which he, of course, has a good deal of knowledge since I think he piloted through this chamber two Bills which established both the Australian Telecommunications Commission and the Australian Postal Commission. He has had a long-standing interest in this matter. Those Bills, of course, introduced a different basis of financing and put certain obligations on the commissions as against obligations on the Government. Again, Senator Bishop knows more about that than I do. At the same time the Government maintains some responsibility in the area of charging and has, under the relevant legislation, some powers which are also related to its having obligations if it seeks to exercise those powers. I will, however, refer the representations which have been received by Senator Bishop from the union to my colleague and ask him to examine them as Senator Bishop has requested.

page 970

QUESTION

SUGAR: INDUSTRIES ASSISTANCE COMMISSION REPORT

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

-Will the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry inform the chamber whether the report of the Industries Assistance Commission on its inquiry into the price of sugar will eventually be made public, if not before the Queensland and Federal governments have made their decision in this respect, at least following this decision?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am advised that in July the Government set the staff ceiling for the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs at a level consistent with the satisfactory handling of migrant applications in the Department’s offices. Consultations with the Public Service Board are currently proceeding on the staffing required for effective implementation of the departure tax decision. Pending finalisation of permanent staffing arrangements for this additional function, staff in the regional offices of the Department are being re-deployed to the tax collection system, including airport locations. Although the number of staff involved is modest there will be some repercussions on other activities in departmental offices until the departure tax staffing levels have been finalised and recruitment completed. A close watch will be kept to ensure that action on permanent staffing progresses rapidly.

There has been a recent increase in the work load of several regional offices, including Sydney, as a result of the recently announced changes in Government immigration policies and changed arrangements with the States. These developments, which are not expected to be of a continuing nature, have caused a slight lengthening of the time taken to process applications. The Minister has directed his Department to keep him regularly informed on this matter. I am sure that Senator Mulvihill ‘s question will have the attention of the Minister and possibly will be used by him to accelerate discussions with the Public Service Board to implement the staffing requirement for the new policy decision.

page 971

QUESTION

RED WINES: HISTAMINES

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Does the Minister representing the Minister for Health recall my asking a question about the relationship of histamines to Australian red wines and the report of a Dr Forrest who stated that after three years of research his study showed that there were no untoward levels of histamines in Australian red wines. His previous statement was one of the issues which earlier had caused much concern about the level of histamines in Australian red wines. Will the Minister ask the Minister for Health to make a statement clarifying the situation in regard to the level of histamines in Australian red wines to see whether the position of this Australian industry, which was damaged so much by incorrect information being supplied to members of the general public, can be recovered.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

page 973

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT CHEQUES

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– Yesterday Senator Mcintosh asked me a question with regard to the redirection of mail. I undertook to make inquiries for him. As the matter is of some public interest, I would like to inform the honourable senator of the result of the inquiries that I made. Towards the end of last year the Department of Social Security uncovered a number of serious frauds which were facilitated through the postal redirection service. The Department had discussions with Australia Post on possible measures to minimise these frauds. Australia Post stated that it could not assist under its existing by-laws but would consider the matter. Australia Post subsequently advised the Department that to prevent redirection of mail the Postal Commission had amended its by-laws to allow for non-redirection if mail were enclosed in specifically marked envelopes. The special marks were a green border and the name and address of the sender. The Department of Social Security was not consulted about the specific conditions under which redirection was not to be carried out. The Department of Social Security has not made any commitment to participate in the new postal scheme nor has it printed any of the special envelopes which are required under the by-law.

The Department of Social Security is very concerned about aspects of these by-laws because in their current form they do not meet the confidentiality requirements of the Department. The new postal by-laws are provided for all senders of mail and, although the original approach from the Department of Social Security may have been instrumental in the framing of the by-laws, they are not designed specifically for the Department of Social Security. I understand that the bylaws resulted from Amendment No. 4 of 1978 of the postal by-laws and they were approved by the Postal Commission at its August meeting. They were notified in the Commonwealth Gazette of 14 August and were tabled in Parliament on 22 August. If no dissent is recorded by 17 October they will become law. If they become law they are effective from 1 September of this year. I state again that my Department has made no arrangements to participate in this new postal scheme which will certainly not meet the requirements of the confidentiality provisions of the Social Services Act.

page 974

QUESTION

REDISTRIBUTION OF ELECTORATES IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-During Question Time Senator Gietzelt raised a question about whether population change would require a redistribution and I think that he referred specifically to Western Australia. I am able to confirm that my recollection is correct and that, under the Representation Act, it will be some months before the Chief Australian Electoral Officer is required on the basis of the latest available population statistics to make a determination of the entitlement of each State for members in the House of Representatives. On the figures which are most recently available the position is, as I indicated, that the only likely change is in Western Australia which would have the addition of one seat and that it is unlikely that there would be a change in any other State. That matter will be determined in January or February of next year.

page 974

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) For the information of honourable senators I present the annual report of the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs for the year ended 30 June 1978.

page 974

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF AUSTRALIA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE POLISH PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) For the information of honourable senators I present an agreement on trade and industrial and technical co-operation between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Polish People’s Republic.

page 974

REPORT ON STANDARDISATION OF FIRE HOSE COUPLINGS

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– For the information of honourable senators, I present a report on the standardisation of fire hose couplings prepared by the Commonwealth Fire Board. On 3 January 1978 the Prime Minister wrote to State Premiers attaching a copy of the Board’s report for information. I understand that there has been a varied response. Some States have indicated that they are committed to a coupling different from that recommended by the Commonwealth Fire Board. Other States have shown some support for the Board’s findings.

The Commonwealth’s position on this matter is that, since the provision of fire services in the States is a State responsibility, whatever action might follow the Board’s recommendations is a matter for the States and their own fire authorities to determine. It would not be appropriate for the Commonwealth to become financially involved.

page 974

NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE SYSTEM

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– For the information of honourable senators I present a report entitled ‘National Communications Satellite system’ together with the text of a statement by the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley).

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– by leave- I move:

The Opposition welcomes the appearance of this report which we have been awaiting anxiously for some time. However, we have many reservations about the report and about the task force which produced it. Of course, the Opposition will study the report in detail before making any policy statement on it. However, I would like to mention at this stage some of the major reservations which are held by the Opposition and, I believe, by the wide community in respect of the report insofar as we have had time to study it.

First of all, the issue of costs of a communications satellite system has not been dealt with satisfactorily in the report. Of course, the most obvious evidence of that is that the Department of Finance, which was a party to the task force, has brought down a dissenting report. According to the Department of Finance, adequate consideration has not been given to the costing for a national satellite communications system. In the dissenting report put in by the Department of Finance, the view is expressed that there is no evidence that the cost of a satellite system would be justified in terms of the marginal benefits it would bring to the community.

The Opposition’s second area of serious reservation concerns the lack of public and industry involvement in the task force which made the report. The membership of the task force was quite unrepresentative of the industry. This is a matter which I raised from time to time in the Senate but which was never accommodated by the Government. There was no involvement of the Australian broadcasting system in the task force. No member of the Australian Broadcasting Commission was included in the membership of that task force. In our view, that was a major omission. In fact, there were no broadcasters at all on the task force which inquired into this satellite system. That again was a major omission, given that the most radical effect of introducing a satellite communications system would be to change completely the nature of the broadcasting industry in this country. Indeed, I was pleased to see that in the body of the report there is an admission that members of the public have inadequate understanding of the issues involved in setting up a satellite communications system. I point out that the semi-secret nature of the inquiry conducted by the task force did nothing to assist in public understanding of the issues involved. However, as the report calls for more public understanding of the issues, I hope that the Minister will take adequate steps to see that the public has an opportunity to become informed of them and to discuss them.

Another major reservation of the Opposition in regard to the task force report is the role of Telecom Australia. As honourable senators probably know, Telecom spent 1 5 years studying and researching the issue of establishing a satellite communications system for Australia. It presented a report on the results of this research in 1976. In that year Telecom, which had conducted this extensive research, found that there was no case, at that stage, to progress towards establishing a satellite system. It seems to us that the task force in its inquiries did not give adequate weight to the Telecom research.

Another important point which should be considered in regard to Telecom’s involvement in this issue is that at this stage Telecom has $6, 500m invested in the current communications system, which is called the earth system or the terrestrial system. That is a huge public investment. The report does not consider adequately the impact that a satellite system would have on this huge public investment. That is another area in relation to which the Opposition would like to see much greater detail provided, more research and more public discussion. While I am talking about costs, I would like to query the cost efficiency of spending a quarter of a million dollars on this task force report- that is what it cost- when the results of the report do little more than duplicate research that has already been carried out by Telecom.

The other serious reservations that the Opposition has are in the areas of the social and economic implications of introducing a satellite system. The report does not give enough consideration to these matters. The report does not give adequate consideration to the employment implications of setting up an entirely new communications broadcasting system in Australia. A communications satellite system, as recommended by the report, would have a data transmission facility. The use of this facility by bodies such as banks, insurance companies, businesses of various kinds and various sections of the communications industry would drastically reduce the need for manpower in these areas. It would particularly reduce the need for white collar clerical manpower. Of course, this is an area which is already very seriously threatened by unemployment and retrenchments as a result of other unplanned technological change.

The question of consumer services is one which needs much further discussion than is provided in the report. The report describes how a communications satellite service could improve the provision of radio and television broadcasts in rural areas. Of course, it is the case that such services could be improved. However, there is a solid body of opinion to the effect that these services could also be improved simply by an extension of the existing ground systems; that is, they could be improved and the same effect could be achieved without the Government entering into an open-ended financial commitment to a system the cost of which is not known. But at the outset it would cost at least $190m. I would point out on this issue of extending services to rural areas that not so long ago the Leader of the National Country Party, Mr Anthony, made the very same point, that existing services could be improved by an extension of the ground system without entering into this huge financial commitment for a new satellite system. It is very important, I believe, in subsequent debate on this issue that the very real disadvantages suffered by the people living in rural areas in respect of television and radio broadcasts should not be used as an excuse to introduce a very extravagant and technologically radical new system the real advantages of which would go to the business sector.

The question of ownership and control has been raised in the report but again this is not adequately dealt with. As far as the Opposition is concerned, the question of ownership and control of any communications facility is a basic question. The report is quite unsatisfactory in this area. It is the Opposition’s view that all communications and broadcasting facilities are public property, and indeed this has been the case to date. Telecom Australia, the Australian Postal Commission and the airwaves are public property, and indeed the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal made that very same point when it brought down its report on self-regulation. As Mr Gyngell, the Chairman of the Tribunal, said: The airwaves are a public utility’. The system in Australia to date has been that commercial enterprises may lease these public facilities under certain terms and conditions. The Fraser Government and the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, Mr Staley, seem to have maintained this principle in respect of the procedures laid down for the Broadcasting Tribunal. The public airwaves remain a public facility. Licencees will have to apply to the Tribunal to lease the airwaves, and of course they will then have to perform in a certain way in order to retain such licences.

However, I was very disturbed to see in the recommendations concerning ownership and control on page XIV of the report that there seems to be a suggestion of joint ownership by a consortia of users and a proposed national satellite commission. Joint ownership by commercial enterprises of a public facility would be a drastic departure from what has been the practice in Australia to date and indeed what has been the practice of the Fraser Government in respect of television and radio licences.

The report does not appear to be, in summary, an adequate basis for government action with regard to a satellite communications system. There is a need, as is admitted in the report itself, for a full public debate on all the issuestechnological, economic, social and industrial. We believe that the Minister should facilitate such a debate, and we hope to hear some confirmation that he will. There should be debate and discussion outside as well as inside the Parliament. The debate and discussion outside the Parliament must include all of the industry representatives involved- the relevant trade unions, community groups, the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and of course the general public. It is of the utmost importance to Australia that the Government not be precipitated into a commitment to a costly new communications system that would bring only marginal benefits to the community and at the same time provide the opportunity for higher profits and further monopolisation of media ownership for one major media proprietor. Pending an opportunity for the Opposition to consider this report in detail, I conclude my remarks.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-I rise very briefly to support the comments by Senator Ryan. I want to comment on this report in a slightly different context. Senator Ryan has dealt with the communications aspect of the report. I want to say something about it from the point of view of my role as Opposition spokesman in the Senate on legal matters and on matters which, in a sense, relate to the way in which the Government goes about its business in relation to inquiries of this kind. On page 5 of the statement of the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Chaney), as Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley), it is indicated that the Government has established a working group to consider the implications of both the report and its recommendations. The statement mentions also that it will be available to interested members of the public. I take those words to mean that the report will be available to interested members of the public. The Government intends to allow a full three months for public consideration of the report. The Minister then invites the broadest possible public input and comments from interested parties, groups, et cetera.

I would like to emphasise the very real importance of this report at a time when this Parliament is perhaps slowly and reluctantly beginning to consider the implications of technological change in ali areas. I just draw the Senate’s attention to the fact that when one is considering the question of technological change, the communications system of a country lies at the eye of the storm. If we are moving into a period when society will be far more dependent on technology than it has been in the past, when the implications of technology will have far more effect on the lifestyle of citizens, and if we are moving, as it is said, into what will become an information based society- that is to say, information will be the most important resource that any society has available to it- I find that the machinery that has been adopted by the Government to consider a report of such importance as this report is just totally inadequate. The period of three months that has been suggested to allow interested members of the public to consider the implications of this matter is inadequate.

No procedure has been made available for members of the public to participate. It is quite clear that the Government- if I read the statement correctly- has decided that a government working party will be established to deal with this matter. This is totally inadequate because this is not just a question of the Government considering this very important aspect of changed technology in the private area of its Party and getting some input by way of odd contributions from individuals who take the opportunity to make submissions. As Senator Ryan pointed out, it is a matter which should be dealt with in the most public way and it should not be rushed through in three months. Already there is dissatisfaction with this report of the task force because it has been dealt with very quickly compared with the very detailed consideration which the Australian Telecommunications Commission gave to it. It is absolutely essential that public discussion be initiated on the aspects of this report. If that sort of public discussion is not allowed, in two or three years people will be wondering what happened when the recommendations of the report were adopted and why they were not given time to consider it adequately.

I urge the Minister for Administrative Services, as the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, to give consideration to this question because it is not a matter which should be treated as lightly as any other ministerial statement which comes down in the Senate or as any other report which comes forward from a task force or a committee. I hope that much greater time will be given for consideration of the implications of this report and the proper approach which should be made in the interests of society as a whole. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

page 977

GENERAL BUSINESS

Motion (by Senator Georges)- by leaveagreed to:

That General Business, Orders of the Day Nos 2 to 6, relating to a report of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, financial assistance to the States under the States Grants (Schools) Act 1976 and 1972, east-west rail passenger services, and the Sixty-second ( Maritime ) Session of the International Labour Conference, respectively, be discharged from the Notice Paper.

page 977

BUDGET PAPERS 1978-79

Debate resumed from 20 September, on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Senate take note of the papers.

Senator SCOTT:
New South Wales

– When I was interrupted as I was speaking to the Budget Papers last week I was drawing attention to the nature of the free enterprise democratic system which I consider to be basic to the majority belief of Australians and I intended to draw attention to the importance of this belief to the Budget circumstances in which we find ourselves. Our way of life- I believe it is not going too far to call it ‘the Australian way’- has resulted in the development of a socio-economic structure in this country of which the majority of Australians are proud. The development of this socio-economic structure has occurred in an almost frontier-like contest for some 200 years or so with a fairly harsh physiography and with a climate that is equally harsh and unpredictable. We have as Australians developed the view that we see the role of the state as being a social service based institution which is and must remain the servant and not the master of the people.

Further than that, I believe that in the Australian circumstance we have developed in this country something of which we are proud and which is probably rated ahead of the situation in almost any other country. I believe that the Australian society is the most flexible society in the world. The Australian circumstance is one in which people move from one strata to another, horizontally or vertically, with comparative ease. I believe that that sort of flexibility is a real measure of the strength of this society. It is a circumstance and an attitude which we must seek to maintain, to mould and to develop. It is particularly important that we recognise the character of the society and the situation in which we live because it appears to me, and I am sure to many others in this country, that the theories of socialism and communism in the world today are slowly, and in some places not so slowly, on the retreat. They are seen to be failing to satisfy the dictates of human nature. Consequently our own system, adjusted and moulded from time to time as circumstance demands, is a system which we must understand and promote. One of the ways of promoting it surely is by the passage of legislation in the form of a Budget which is responsible and directed towards the maintenance of the community in which we live and which we have developed.

I am aware- and I think all Australians should be aware- of the words of Lord Hailsham when he was in Australia not that many months ago. Among other things, he said that it was the complacency of its supporters rather than the rage of its enemies that was the greatest threat to democracy. I believe Australians would be well served to take heed of those words. I believe it is sad that because of the activities of extremists and because of the irresponsibility in some circumstances of at least sections of the media a situation has developed in which the philosophies of the major political entities in Australia have drifted too far apart for the sake of a solid democratic society. I think we would all benefit if we were made aware constantly of the fact that for various reasons we have allowed far too great a gap to develop between the varying political, economic and social groups within the Australian continent.

Having said that, I go on to say that I believe we should be more careful as a people about our use of words. We live in a society in which words seem to be extraordinarily cheap and totally and absolutely innumerable. I think we should be careful about our use of words because very often they create false impressions. This is particularly so, I suppose, as descriptions become rife of Budgets, of specific pieces of legislation, of education itself, of the problem of unemployment and other matters of this type. The careless use of words very often promotes the wrong attitude and has a negative result for the Australian people as a whole.

I can cite a number of examples of words which are in common usage and which I believe are from time to time abused. Even in the context of this debate I recall having heard intermittently over the last two or three weeks the words ‘ profit ‘ and ‘conservatism’ being used in a derogatory manner, which seems to me to be the normal circumstance in Australia. For instance, I think it is worth while examining the meaning of the word profit’. This word is very often promoted in the media and in some other fields as something of a dirty word, as though it is in some way a villain. Yet profit, provided it is arrived at within a proper legal constraint that has the recognition and backing of the majority of the people, is an absolutely essential ingredient not only to the Australian circumstance–

Senator Walsh:

– Does that include Mr Lynch ‘s land dealings?

Senator SCOTT:

– I mentioned legal restraint, Senator Walsh. I thought that the honourable senator would have gathered my meaning from the use of those words. Profit is just as essential to a totalitarian state as it is to a democracy. Therefore I believe it is unfortunate that it should always be promoted as something to be avoided.

Conservatism’ is another word that seems to be promoted as something which means the maintenance totally and absolutely of what happened in the past. In my view ‘conservatism’, properly defined, is the determination of people to examine what happened in the past and what is happening at present and to take from that history of experience those things that are likely to be valuable in moulding the future. If that is what conservatism means, it has a contribution to make to the total development of our society. As I said earlier, we live in a world of words. They are spoken, written and recorded. I suppose that they provide a medium of exchange and communication which has brought the world much closer together both from the point of view of different nations and the people and groups of people within our country. In the area with which I am perhaps more familiar than other honourable senators- that is, the nonmetropolitan area of Australia- we have seen an extraordinary measure of integration and recognition of interdependence in recent times basically through the improvement in communications. This has occurred mostly by the use of words which are so easily transmitted by the various communication systems. Basically, this sort of communication- this world of wordsshould enable us to look at problems and the solutions available and to come to compromise which enables us to consolidate the position and move into the future with a measure of confidence.

Unfortunately, I believe that in many circumstances this avalanche of words to which the Australian community is subjected does little more than create confusion and distortion, halftruths, false impressions and emphases. These are the things that come from the myriad of words to which members of the community are exposed. This is one of the problems of a free society, one of the penalties and on occasions one of our great strengths. Naturally, I am not in any sense anti-bias. Nobody could assume that any member of society with the capacity to accumulate facts and to analyse them would not develop a measure of bias. But surely the important thing is that in arriving at that measure of bias or that attitude we are not subjected to the sometimes irresponsible zeal of journalists, politicians and other groups of people both inside and outside this country. I believe that words, as we use them in communication, should permit the amassing of a vast array of facts and should encourage a proper measure of analysis. If this is done, the strength of a democracy is ensured and confidence and pride will return to the Australian people. It is interesting and factual to note that only with the return of confidence and pride will we solve the basic problems that confront this community.

In the course of this debate we have already heard mention of matters referable to the unemployment situation. For instance, we have heard about the load that penalty rates place on the community and on the employment situation. I believe that that is an area with which we should all be concerned. This Budget will be better for Australians if the words that are devoted to it contain a measure of constructiveness and not destructive criticism. Of course, the Budget has to be criticised and analysed but this has to be done responsibly and constructively. I am afraid that on the evidence of the past few weeks we have seen an examination of the Budget, which I believe to be a responsible document, that has proved to be virtually irresponsible.

Basically, the Budget continues the policies and practice that were talked about in the 1975 and 1977 elections. It continues policies that for two and a half difficult years have been producing results of which Australians can be proud. Very briefly I want to run through just some of the circumstances that have occurred as a result of the practice and policy of the Government in the last two and a half years. For instance, I am reminded that the inflation rate has been halved in that period. Indeed, it is confidently expected in Australia and throughout the world that the inflation rate will be reduced to 5 per cent by the middle of next year. This will put Australia amongst the three countries with the lowest inflation rates in the world. That is a very significant contribution for every Australian. In fact, the Government has brought about the most dramatic tax reforms and tax cuts that have been implemented in many scores of years. Indeed, as was indicated earlier today, the relief granted to taxpayers in Australia as a result of full indexation of personal income tax already totals about $3 billion. In view of that fact, and in spite of a one and a half per cent increase in tax for 1 2 months only, the average couple in Australia in receipt of average earnings will be still $13 a week better off than they would have been in the circumstances that existed in 1975.

The Government has abolished estate and gift duty. This has released and will continue to release a significant amount of short-term liquid capital into the long-term developmental capital area. In the longer term this will increase job opportunities. The Government has introduced income equalisation deposits. Also, we have reintroduced the superphosphate bounty and the investment allowance. We have seen in the federalist system the circumstance in which States are basically solvent institutions. Local government is in a stronger and more predictable position than it has ever been. Most people involved in local government are prepared to admit that this is the situation. Fuel equalisation has been reintroduced. The beef industry has received $100,000 and beef classification is under intensive study. A higher base price has been set for wool and a first payment scheme for wheat has been implemented. We are three years ahead of the scheduled program of the Schools Commission in primary and secondary education. So it is pretty ridiculous to assume that nothing has been done.

I make these points because it is important that Australians recognise that the Government ‘s actions in the last two years, both in policy and in practice, have produced real and positive results for the Australian people. It has been recognised that what has occurred and what is occurring under this Budget, which continues the policy of controlling the deficit, is that the Australia of today is advancing with a measure of real confidence. It is accepted that these policies and practices have been approved by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, by industry and commerce inside and outside Australia, by member countries of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and by a whole host of organisations both inside and outside this country. The Government has had the strength and courage to take hard decisions in this Budget, lt is the correct Budget and it is up to the people to accept it and make it work.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

– When Senator Scott referred to the Budget as being a responsible document he should have qualified that statement and told us whether the responsible document was the one that was introduced on 15 August, the one that was amended last week, the one that has been further amended this week or what we might finally be left with after the rest of the frightened rabbits on the back bench have hacked it around a bit more. I intended when speaking in the Budget debate to congratulate my fellow West Australian, Senator Chaney, on his selection for the Ministry. The selection surprised me in two ways. Firstly, I was surprised that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) would have had sufficient nous to appoint someone as bright as Senator Chaney to the Ministry. The second surprise was that Senator Chaney accepted a position in a Government so corrupt. I would like to make one fleeting comment on Senator Chaney ‘s remarks last night in which he apparently took exception to some facts, although he did not dispute the factual accuracy of the things I said in some remarks about the President of the Western Australian Liberal Party. I observe in passing that from Senator Chaney ‘s remarks he apparently believes that as long as a person is not actually convicted of a gaoling offence he is fit to hold any public office in Australia, that it is quite acceptable for Mr Lynch to collude with land racketeers for personal gain, and that it is quite acceptable for a person such as Mr CrightonBrowne, who colluded with share market racketeers, to be President of the Western Australian branch of the Liberal Party and to be reappointed after his involvement became known.

Looking to the Budget itself, immediately after the Budget had been presented the Treasurer (Mr Howard), as is customary, delivered a number of speeches to various groups trying to sell the Budget. On 16 Augustthe very next day- he said:

We worked -

This is in preparing the Budget- against the background of an economy that was showing signs of responding positively to our policies of the last two years.

That statement looks rather ludicrous today. It has looked ludicrous ever since the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) started to tell the truth about unemployment in the House of Representatives last Thursday week. The credibility of that remark went out the window with Mr Street’s statement. On that occasion the Treasurer continued:

The economic scene is presently characterised by declining inflation -

That appears to be true- moderately expanding demand and activity and a more settled and predictable environment.

That looks pretty absurd in a week such as this one in which four amendments have been made to the Budget, which was supposed to establish a more settled and predictable environment.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Do you think the left wing has taken over?

Senator WALSH:

– No, I think the frightened rabbits on the back bench have taken over since the Werriwa by-election. On the same day the Treasurer told a different audience:

As a reflection of this -

Apparently the falling trend in the rate of inflation- the savings ratio has been reduced as consumers have become more confident and increased their spending.

I observe that similar sentiments are contained in a passage on page 10 of Statement No. 2 in Budget Paper No. 1. 1 am not sure whether this was written at the direction of the Treasurer or whether it was written by faceless bureaucrats in the Treasury, but it presents the same argument- that as the rate of inflation fell the savings ratio also fell with it. Unfortunately, a table at the top of that very page in Statement No. 2 shows that the savings ratio for the last four half years was 16.4 per cent in the second half of calendar year 1976, 15.1 per cent in the first half of calendar year 1977, 14.6 per cent in the second half of calendar year 1977, and 15.2 per cent in the first half of calendar year 1978. In other words, the savings ratio in the most recent half year is higher than it has been in any period for the previous two years. So the Treasury and/or the Treasurer, but certainly the Treasurer, propound the theory that as the rate of inflation falls the savings ratio falls with it. It just so happens that the facts as presented by the Government demonstrate the opposite. As the rate of inflation has fallen, and it has clearly fallen in the last year or so, in fact the savings ratio has gone up. So that statement bears about as much relationship to reality, to the way the world really is, as most of the economic analyses and conclusions of the Government. But even better was to come. In a speech on 1 7 August the Treasurer said:

The depressed dwelling industry has recently shown a turn for the better.

A few weeks ago the statistics for housing for July came out. They showed that the number of dwellings approved in the month of July fell to an actual figure of 9,400 or a seasonally adjusted figure of 9,200. That was the lowest figure of approvals for a decade, yet the Treasurer said that the depressed dwelling industry has recently shown a turn for the better. If we look at an alternative index of activity in the dwelling industry, the value of houses under construction- in current value dollars, not constant value dollars- was $ 1,340m in the quarter commencing December 1 976, $ 1 ,42 1 m in March 1977, $ 1,413m in June 1977, $ 1,426m in September 1977, $l,289m in December 1977, and $ 1,304m in March 1 978. So even in current value dollars the value of houses under construction is the second lowest it has been at any time in the last 2 1 months and in constant value dollars is likewise lower than it has been at any time in the last 2 1 months. It is some $ 100m lower in current values or $200m in constant values than it was a year ago, and those are the most recently available statistics. So there is no justification whatsoever for the Treasurer’s assertion that the building industry is picking up.

Looking at the figures in the Budget, the National Times of 23 August carried a story headed ‘Deficit Double Talk’ in which it said, in commenting on the Budget figures:

The second disclosure puts at risk the economic credibility of the Prime Minister. The National Times has learnt from a high source that the figure for the Budget deficit for the 1 977 Budget was under-estimated to avoid political embarrassment.

The story went on to say that the estimate for growth in average weekly earnings which the Treasurer had produced showed on the revised estimate that earnings would increase by between 9.8 per cent and 9.9 per cent. I quote again from the article:

But the Prime Minister refused to accept the Treasury figures and probably sought advice from his own department. He finally accepted a figure of 10.S per cent.

What the National Times article did not reveal was the name of the ‘high source’. The high source, of course, as everyone around Parliament House, or at least everyone in the Press Gallery, knows was Senator Withers, who told journalists on the evening of 8 August, the night after he was sacked, that the Prime Minister last year issued instructions that the correct estimates, the honest estimates, for last year’s Budget, were to be changed and more politically acceptable estimates were to be inserted. We saw the final consequence of that falsification of the figures when the Budget deficit came out at 50 per cent or $1,1 15m higher than was estimated. It is interesting to note on the question of deficits and inflation, which unfortunately in a simplistic and highly misleading way this Government has made a major political issue, that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Anthony) said in the House of Representatives on 14 September:

Keeping the Budget deficit down is the only way in which to beat inflation. An increased Budget deficit would inevitably mean a rise in inflation.

Senator Mulvihill:

– Who said that?

Senator WALSH:

- Mr Anthony said that 1 3 days ago- keeping the Budget deficit down is the only way in which to beat inflation and an increased Budget deficit would inevitably mean a rise in the inflation rate. We have just finished a year in which the Budget deficit was $1,1 15m above estimate. It was $500m higher than in the previous year. The Government never ceases telling us that the inflation rate has come down and will continue to come down. Yet the Deputy Prime Minister says that an increased Budget deficit would inevitably mean a rise in the inflation rate. That is a further demonstration of the credibility which can be attached to statements on the economy by senior Ministers in this Government.

The size of the Budget deficit having been made an issue of considerable political importance, it was necessary for the Government to fiddle the deficit in a variety of ways. In the first Budget it presented it instituted some permanent fiddles by shifting out of government accounts capital borrowings for government enterprises like Telecom Australia. The deficit, compared with deficits in the pre- 1976 era, is some $300m higher than figures show. As well as those permanent fiddles by way of changing the basis of government accounting, we have seen a number of secondary fiddles. In this year’s Budget- and this is by no means an exhaustive list- the deficit has been cosmetically reduced by $35m by changing the timing of family allowance payments in a way which effectively deferred the payment of one week’s family allowance from the current financial year until the next financial year. It is clear, on the Treasurer’s own estimate, and as admitted by him at the National Press Club on 16 August, that on average 25,000 more people will receive unemployment benefits this year than last year and that nobody will receive a smaller weekly benefit. Notwithstanding those facts, the Budget Papers estimate that $ 10m less will be paid by way of unemployment benefits this year than last year, even though 25,000 more people will receive those benefits. The effect of that particular fiddle is to cosmetically reduce the stated deficit by another $80m.

Pay-as-you-earn taxation for this financial year is to be 1 lAc per dollar of income higher, not 1.5 per cent higher, than in the previous year.

The increased PA YE deductions do not commence until 1 November this year. The standard practice is that employers do not actually pay the money to the Treasury; they deduct it from employees’ wages a month later. So, given that the Government had to collect 12 months’ contributions in eight months, the l’/ic increase should have been multiplied by a factor of 12/8. But the effect of that would have been to defer the collection of one month of that increased tax until the next financial year instead of this financial year. On page 158 of Budget Paper No. 1 we see that in fact the 1½c increase will be multiplied by a factor not of 12/8 but of 12/7. The effect of that will be that the Government will over-charge to the extent of $77m in the tax it collects to the end of June. But it will get in all of this 12 months’ additional collection by the end of May instead of the end of June. Then it will have to refund in the following financial year the $77m it has overcharged to the year ending June. I know that that is a bit complicated -

Senator Messner:

– It is also wrong.

Senator WALSH:

– It is not wrong. Once again the effect is to transfer to next year’s Budget deficit $77m of this year’s Budget deficit. Again the published figure for this year will be $77m lower than the real figure.

I turn now to the superphosphate bounty on which more than $42m was expended last year. The estimate for this year is $40m. Two months ago the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) was talking about a farm-led economic recovery. That, I presume, is to follow on from the investment-led recovery, the consumer-led recovery and the export-led economic recovery that we have already experienced! Absurd though that statement about a farm-led economic recovery is, it is true that the probabilities are that farm incomes will increase quite significantly this year, even after the Government has hacked them around with its fuel levy increase. The probability is that farm incomes will be 13 per cent or 14 per cent higher in real terms than they were last year.

Senator Peter Baume:

– And you applaud that, do you? You are pleased about that?

Senator WALSH:

– Of course I applaud that. It is the result of higher prices for some products in a pretty good season. Given the probability of a significant increase in farm income, we have an estimate by this Government that purchases of superphosphate are actually going to fall. Who believes that? That figure has obviously been fiddled as well. Then we have the tax on people such as newspaper boys. This was abandoned as from yesterday, but according to the Budget Speech it was going to save the Government $90m. The estimate of the cost of abolishing it, however, is either $21m or $42m according to statements made yesterday by Government Ministers. This is another fiddle. But quantitativelyand the most important fiddle of all- the Budget Papers estimate that the consumer price index will increase by 6 per cent this year. Government rhetoric has been to the effect that unless real wages fell it would be absolutely catastrophic and so on. Government policy is directed very heavily towards getting real wages down- and the Government says that it is going to succeed. If it succeeds, wages will increase by something less than the CPI increase, that is, by something less than 6 per cent. Yet when the Government estimates the salary increases, on average, for its own employees, it uses a figure of 3.9 per cent. But when the Government comes to estimating the revenue, it assumes that PA YE taxation income will increase by 7V4 per cent. The difference between those figures in the over-estimate of revenue is of the order of $400m.

Apart from all that indirect evidence, we now have some empirical evidence to demonstrate that the Budget deficit has been deliberately fiddled and understated again. Expenditure for the first two months of this financial year was about 14 per cent higher than that of the previous year, against an estimated increase for the whole year of 7.7 per cent. When this fact was pointed out, the Treasurer said that that was because there had been an extra pension payment in that period. When the increase is corrected to allow for that extra pension payment, it can be seen that government expenditure increased by 11.1 per cent, which still cannot be reconciled with the 7.7 per cent estimate for the entire financial year.

The Government has quite clearly, and indeed now by its own admission, failed to deliver the economic cargo that it promised. It is a failure to deliver which was informally acknowledged by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Street, in the House of Representatives 13 days ago. When the figures do not work out in the way in which the Government would like them to work out, its response is to falsify them. I note that Henry Kyemba, a one-time Ugandan Health Minister, in his book entitled State of Blood, gives us an insight into similar methods and attitudes which prevail in Uganda. In 1977, Kyemba wrote:

Uganda ‘s deficit ran to three billion shillings. The Ministers are still under orders to blame Obote.

Obote, of course, was the President that Amin deposed in January 1971. Commenting on the Ugandan Budget figures, Kyemba said:

The published figures then and now bear no relation to the realities.

Given the recent happenings in Australia and Kyemba ‘s description of realities in Uganda, it is no wonder that West German officials were recently openly referring to the Australian Prime Minister as ‘the white Idi Amin’.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Walsh, you cannot, by way of quotation, repeat an offensive remark in this place. That is equally as offensive as if you had said it yourself.

Senator WALSH:

-Very well, Mr President.

The PRESIDENT:

– Withdraw it.

Senator WALSH:

-I withdraw, Mr President, in order to be able to complete my speech. The damage that this Government is doing to the economy is not just short-term, as my colleague, the very able shadow Treasurer, Mr Willis, pointed out in the House of Representatives last week. The Government is destroying not only the economy for the present but also the information base upon which any subsequent economic reconstruction must be built. It is doing this, of course, by winding down the activities of the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The Australian Financial Review has taken up this matter in its editorial today. It is very pleasing to note that the Australian Financial Review has done so, although I am a little disappointed that the Australian Financial Review did not have the good grace to mention that these facts were first brought to the public’s notice by my colleague Mr Willis.

The purpose of the figures in the Budget, which are just not credible, is to get the deficit down in the current year and in a very shortsighted way. Many of the devices and subterfuges which the Government has adopted have the effect of pushing the recording of expenditure into the next financial year or of pushing the collection of revenue backwards from the next financial year into this financial year. It makes the cosmetic deficit look better for the present but it stores up even greater problems for the future. So I make the political observation that the Government’s short term thinking has exacerbated its political problem in the long term because its political credibility, given the preconditions which it has established, depends on being able to get the deficit down over the longer term. The way it is behaving it is laying the foundation for not lower but higher deficits in the future. So it has been not only devious and deceptive but rather foolish as well. The Government’s one achievement, about which we hear ad nauseam, is that the rate of inflation is falling. That is not surprising. Nobody, with the possible exception of the Prime Minister, ever doubted that if the economy were driven deep enough into recession inflation rates would not come down. The degree to which the present Budget is anti-inflationary and to which inflation could fall further is entirely dependent upon the economy being driven deeper into depression, as it will be.

Looking to the rural sector, there are basically two views about the effect of government allocations to the agricultural sector on the general level of agricultural prosperity. One maintains that it is vital to the security and prosperity of agriculture. The other says that agriculture ‘s fortunes are largely dependent upon natural or contrived supply-demand relationships and the money actually allocated by governments to the agricultural sector has a peripheral influence only. The latter is usually true and the former is usually believed. The former is normally put by the Liberal and National Country parties and was quite clearly endorsed by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) when addressing the National Country Party conference in Queensland at the end of July. He referred to the 1974 ‘horror’ Budget. So, given that the Minister had identified this in his view as an important issue, it is interesting to note, as can be seen on page 208 of Budget Paper No. 1 , that the net allocation for agriculture in 1 974 was the highest it had ever been and that in fact the net allocation for agriculture this year of $272m- this is in current value dollars again- compares unfavourably with the allocation of $447m in 1974-75. Those figures are net figures and that is a matter of some importance. It is a matter which could be disputed but I note that it cannot be disputed by the present Minister for Primary Industry because on the Australian Broadcasting Commission radio program National Farm Report on 16 August he used the net payment to agriculture figures in support of his claim that the payment to agriculture was $75m higher this year than it had been the previous year.

Without doubt the most important feature of this Budget so far as the agricultural sector is concerned is the massive and totally unnecessary fuel price hike resulting from the increase in the crude oil levy. That it was totally unecessary was clearly stated by the Prime Minister on A M on 1 6 August when he said:

In relation to Bass Strait oil it was never a question of a resources tax or no tax, it was a question of a resoures tax or levy.

So the Prime Minister himself has acknowledged that we have this increased crude oil levy because the Government did not have the fortitude to proceed with the resources tax which it had promised when it introduced its crude oil pricing policy in 1977. The Prime Minister told the truth, as far as he went. Of course, he did not spell out the full implications, the important one being that a resources tax would have been paid from the excessive profits of Esso-BHP and other organisations which receive similar windfall gains. The crude oil levy for which the Government has opted will be paid by the Australian consumers of petroleum products. Other people in the Government have dressed up this particular measure as a conservation policy- as part of a fictional energy policy. The estimates which are attached to the Budget Papers of government revenue from the fuel excise incorporate an assumed 5 per cent increase in the volume of petroleum sales. That is an extrapolation of the long term trend. In other words, the Government itself admitted that the increased price of petroleum products was not going to reduce the consumption of petroleum products.

Finally, 13 days ago in this chamber, Senator Durack, when summing up the debate on one of the Bills connected with the Government’s fuel policy, said:

The prime object of this Bill is to raise revenue in the light of the Government’s need to obtain a major source of revenue.

That was the truth and, of course, the Government does not have an energy policy. This is, as Senator Durack stated on that occasion, purely a device to raise revenue. The direct effects of this decision will push up aggregate farm costs by something between $ 120m and $ 160m- I do not have time to go into the reasons for that possible discrepancy- or, if we look at it on an individual basis, about $1,000 a year on average for Western Australian wheat farmers and something similar for wheat farmers in New South Wales. It will push up the consumer price index by about one per cent which, to say the least, is incongruous in a Budget the stated primary objective of which is getting down inflation and when the imposition of this tax, this crude oil levy, on the Government’s own admission was totally unnecessary. It was an option, an alternative to a resource tax. It will push up the cost of urea by perhaps as much as $14 per tonne and transport costs obviously will be inflated. The Budget phased out the nitrogenous fertiliser bounty notwithstanding the unequivocal guarantee of the present Minister for Primary Industry in April 1974 that a Liberal-National Country Party government would maintain the bounty at double its new figure. Most importantly perhaps, tariffs were pushed up by 12’/i per cent on import cost or by approximately 30 per cent on the rate actually applicable. It was announced that the Primary Industry Bank would have access to income equalisation deposits which, it was said, might make it possible to get interest rates down to 9 per cent or 10 per cent.

The reaction from farmer organisations to this package was certainly mixed. On the one hand, Sir Samuel Burston of the Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers Council issued an apologia, one might say, for the Government’s policy which I have answered in the past and which I would like to answer again but have not time to do. More accurately, particularly in reference to Sir Samuel’s statement, the President of the Australian Wheatgrowers Federation, Mr Shanahan, as reported in the most recent edition of National Farmer, said:

Some rural industry spokesmen should be asking themselves who elected them and why. The inconsistency of the Budget and the lack of criticism of it by Australian rural industry can only set the stage for future onslaughts by the Fraser-Anthony coalition on Australia ‘s rural community.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– It is customary for the front bench of the Opposition to lead in opposition to the Budget but, as we know, on this occasion the advent of a number of new honourable senators on both sides has enabled them to take advantage of the situation to make their maiden speeches. Those of us on the Opposition front bench have seen unveilling from week to week a very strange picture in respect of the Budget as the Government changes its strategy and its tack. In fact, one has had virtually to re-write one ‘s speech and change one’s approach to this Budget because the Government has retreated to a considerable degree in the face of public opinion. It retreated further even as late as yesterday. It is my privilege, on behalf of the Australian Labor Party Opposition, to move as an amendment to the motion: ‘That the Senate take note of the Papers’:

At end of motion, add ‘, but the Senate condemns the Budget as disastrous, dishonest, inequitable and inhumane in that it:

will intensify and prolong the already severe economic depression;

will increase unemployment, official and disguised, by at least 80,000;

represents an abdication by government of its responsibility to attempt to restore full employment;

further depresses the business sector, particularly the small business sector;

indicates the Government’s total disregard of the social destructiveness and economic wastefulness of unemployment; (!) hinders the fight against inflation by adding significantly to the overall level of prices through substantial increases in indirect taxes;

blatantly redistributes income from those in need to the most privileged sections of society;

will increase the degree of economic hardship for the poorest and most disadvantaged groups in our community;

indicates the Government’s cynical disregard for honesty and integrity by reneging on important promises; and

considerably understates the true extent of the Budget deficit’.

A number of those matters have been dealt with by my colleagues in the debate. I shall deal with some aspects of the amendment in the time that is available to me. Firstly, I wish to indicate that the Budgets which have been presented by the Government during its three years in office- we are debating this Government’s third Budgethave so far completely failed to realise the expectations of the Treasurer who presented the Budget on the various occasions. For example, let us look at what Mr Lynch said in 1976-77. Amongst other things, he said that the private sector would grow and that confidence was gradually returning to the economy. He went on to say that part of the Government’s policy was to assist those most in need. He said that to do that the Government would persist in its endeavours to have full personal tax indexation, that it would make improvements in its assistance to families, and that it would retain Medibank. He said further that the Government was confident that private consumer expenditure would continue to grow. In the 1977-78 Budget the same Treasurer said that taxes had taken too much from the community and that real wages were actually higher in 1977 than they had been a year earlier. The Opposition will have something to say about these assessments shortly.

On the occasion of presenting this Budget the present Treasurer (Mr Howard) said that the aim of the Budget was to pursue higher levels of economic activity and to create greater job opportunities. Since there has been somewhat of a somersault by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) who has at long last recognised what the Labor Party and the trade union movement have been asserting consistently- namely, that job opportunities are fast disappearing in this country and that real wages are in fact dropping- it is pleasing to note that Mr Street at least has recognised that there is an element of permanency to the levels of unemployment that we have at the present time. That is something which was not anticipated by the Government.

I suggest that we are faced with the fact that from the outset this Budget has been a deceitful one and that it has sought to convince the Australian people that the strategy which is being followed would be successful in restoring some level of economic growth and would reduce the level of unemployment. Not only do we have a deceitful Budget but also we have a deceitful Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). He is the Prime Minister who has said that he supports wage indexation. We know that he has constantly been before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in an effort to have wage indexation deleted. He has said that he supports tax indexation, but we have seen evidence in this Budget which indicates that that no longer exists. He said that he would retain Medibank but this Budget dismembers Medibank. In fact, this Budget creates real problems for a great many Australian people. He said that the Government’s policy would be to reduce unemployment. Already many prominent members of the Liberal Party, including those honourable senators who engaged in the debate yesterday, have paid some tribute to what they say is the courageous statement of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I do not know why it takes courage to tell the truth. Obviously, the truth falls very easily from the lips of the Prime Minister!

We have heard Government spokesmen, including the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle), stating that the whole purpose of the Budget was to help the disadvantaged. We have seen the Minister very much on the defensive as she has been asked questions as to why there has been a change in the Government’s attitude in respect of taxing children’s income. I suppose we can pay some tribute to the Government for the fact that it has at least paid some heed to public opinion. In fact, it has made four changes to the Budget since it was first brought down. It is small wonder that the Government has asked the Opposition to expedite the passage of the Budget and to try to complete the debate on the Budget today. One wonders how many other policies of the Budget will be changed if the debate continues for much longer. In passing, one can lament the fact that the Government passed up the opportunity to introduce a resources tax or a secondary tax on the international corporations which are taking out so much of the profits from this country. The Government failed to take that action but it set out to introduce into this Budget for the first time the imposition of taxes on disadvantaged sections of the Australian community, whether they be children, those working in sheltered workshops, or disabled people. To the everlasting discredit of this Government, it is now even taxing those in receipt of pensions for total and permanent incapacity and it proposes to means test pensions paid to aged people. The Government has introduced all these taxes in order to make a few lousy million dollars, even though it had the opportunity in this Budget to alter drastically the direction in which taxation has been proceeding in this country.

I was somewhat dismayed to hear Senator Scott’s contribution in this debate today because it is clear that, whilst he makes a plea to us not to use extravagant language and to appreciate and to narrow differences that exist in the political spectrum, he did not properly read the documents which form the basis of this debate. For example, the documents show that under the three Labor Government Budgets taxation per head of population increased by some 35 per cent. That is not something about which we would be ashamed because we were attempting to direct income into important areas of social neglect. By examining the levels of payments that were made to local government and to the States in order to increase the whole infrastructure of public transport and to make some impact upon the housing problems of this country, I think I can say that we succeeded in achieving our aim.

It is interesting to note that as a result of the three Budgets introduced by this Government, taxation per head of population has increased by 37 per cent. Senator Scott said, as did Senator Carrick at Question Time today, that taxation has fallen. That statement is not borne out by the facts. I wish that those honourable senators who want to debate these matters would check the information they have against the information that is freely available in the Government’s own documents. I advise them to do the same in respect of excise duty which is one of the important areas of indirect taxation. In the three years in which Labor was in office indirect taxation and excise duty went up by only 13 per cent. In the three years that the Liberal Party has been in office it has gone up by some 53 per cent.

I would like to refer to other matters in the Budget to try to indicate the way in which government spending is misapplied. I shall refer now to page 203 of Budget Document No. 1. Let us look at what happened to education, for example, in the three years under Labor Government. Outlays on education increased by $994m.

Under the Liberals the outlays on education have risen by $338m. Outlays on health and welfare in three years under the Labor Administration rose by $4,600m. Under the Liberals these outlays rose by $ 1,954m. Under Labor the outlays on housing and urban developmentregional decentralisation- increased by $2,809m but under the Liberals they are down by $329m. Even in an area such as culture and recreation the outlays during the three-year period of Labor increased to $94m but under the Liberals they are only $27m. Payments to the States are an integral part of the system in this country insofar as taxation at the State and local government level is concerned. They are a very high component of taxation. During Labor’s three years in office total payments to the States rose to $9,63 lm but under the Liberals they have gone up to only $4, 747m.

Dealing with one aspect of housing, I was pleased to see the Premier of Victoria, Mr Hamer, draw attention in recent times to the problems facing the building and construction industry. He said:

We all know that the building and construction industry is at a low ebb- it’s up to the Federal Government to stimulate the building industry as far as it can.

What has happened in respect of Budget outlays for housing? Under three years of Labor from 1973 to 1975 housing outlays represented 6 per cent of total Budget outlays. Under three years of Liberal Government, including this year’s Budget, outlays have dropped to 1 .7 per cent of the total Budget outlays, indicating of course a very unsatisfactory position as far as Government efforts are concerned to improve the quality of life of our people. We of the Opposition are concerned that this Government came to power to boost confidence in the private sector of the community, to develop a change of direction in our manufacturing industry, to give incentives to export production and to bring about an increase in consumer spending. In each of those areas the Government has failed miserably to achieve its objectives. I do not have to do anything other than to refer to two reputable sources to prove what I have said. The Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd in its Business Indicators bulletin said:

Features of 1977-78 were subdued growth in real private final consumption expenditure, which was only 2.3 per cent higher than in 1976-77 . . .

It went on to say:

Despite the broad Budget parameters, the economy could expand more rapidly in 1 978-79 than in 1977-78, providing there is an expansion of private sector demand. However, even on the optimistic assumptions of the Budget, economic growth in 1978-79 will be insufficient to prevent unemployment from increasing through the course of 1 978-79.

That statement was published prior to Mr Street’s revelations and prior to the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) coming down from his high horse and accepting the reality of the situation. The ANZ Bank went on to say:

The most important assumptions in this outlook-

It is dealing with its estimates of the economyare that private consumption and capital expenditure will be the major contributing factors … it appears inevitable that the higher indirect taxes and increases in personal income tax (ranging between 4.7 per cent and 2.5 per cent) will tend to dampen other areas of spending. Real household disposable income in 1977-78 was 1.2 per cent higher than in 1976-77.

That proves very conclusively that the Government’s optimistic expectations in the Budget have not been and will not be realised. There is a further indication of this in yesterday’s issue of the Australian Financial Review which states that the latest figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show a depressing position. The article reads:

The production figures show an overall weakness with only eight of the 31 seasonally adjusted production indicators rising . . .

The production results for August follow a similarly poor performance in July when only 14 of the indicators rose, not a good sign for the Federal Government’s economic predictions . . .

Unless the Budget has provided the stimulus necessary for a boost in production, the July and August results are early indications that the Budget predictions will be difficult to meet.

So it is not hard to believe that the ‘she’ll be right’ optimism of this Budget will be severely misplaced. This is a Budget with a changing face, a Budget which obviously is a panic Budget, a Budget which obviously was changed at the very last minute before it was presented to the Parliament, a Budget which showed all the earmarks of change in the Medibank policy and in introducing these new forms of taxation which now have been shown to be so unpallatable that they have had to be changed repeatedly over the last several weeks. It is no wonder that we of the Opposition make the assertion that the Prime Minister is dishonest. Clearly he must be looking at a mirror on the wall when he says that everybody he spoke to accepted the fact that the Budget was a good Budget. If he was not speaking to himself I do not know who he spoke to because he certainly was not taking notice of public opinion in Australia. His statements belie the results of the gallup public opinion poll which was published in the Courier-Mail on 19 September. It is interesting to have a look at the reaction of the people to this Government’s Budgets over the three-year period from 1976 to 1978. Of the persons surveyed only 25 per cent were dissatisfied with the 1976 Budget- its first Budget. The following year this percentage increased to 39 and this year 60 per cent of the people surveyed were dissatisfied with the Budget.

The Budget is characterised by a fundamentally misplaced optimism on the pan of the Government, an optimism- and the Government hangs its hat upon this-that says that if only real wage levels, profit levels, and other economic aggregates and relativities can be returned to what they were before the period 1972 to 1975 then prosperity and full employment will return automatically. I think it is clear from all the assessments that are made by a variety of persons at all levels of economic forecasting that that is not going to happen. This Government believes that by some unknown mechanism consumers will spend, capitalists will invest, people will be employed and everything will be rosy. I think we have to come to the point of view that this is an optimism that is misplaced and that this strategy will fail for two reasons. Firstly, there is evidence to suggest that the relativities may not be out of line as much as Mr Fraser suggests. For instance, take his real wage overhang thesis- the postulation that real wages have risen out of line with productivity and that businesses are therefore shedding labour. A study entitled ‘Real Wages and Unemployment: An Alternative View’ by P. J. Sheehan of the Centre for Applied Economic Research at the University of New South Wales, in Occasional Paper No. 4 put out in March 1978, calculates the series for real wages and productivity in the market sector for the period 1966-67 to 1976-77. His conclusions are very interesting. When a 4. 1 per cent productivity trend is employed there is no wage overhang by the second quarter of 1977, whether the base period chosen is 1967 or 1 972. By the second quarter of 1 977 the excess of real wage cost over trend productivity was minus 3.1 per cent on a 1967 base and minus 0.4 per cent on a 1972 base. If a lower trend rate for productivity is used, such as 3.4 per cent, then there is an overhang of 3.1 per cent in the second quarter of 1977 against a 1972 base and an overhang of 3.7 per cent against a 1967 base. He concluded:

Overall, then, and taking account of the many uncertainties in all of these calculations, it must be very doubtful whether there was by mid- 1977 any excess of real wages cost per hour over trend market sector productivity per hour, and if there was any ‘overhang’ it was almost certainly small.

Yet the Government bases its real prognosis of this problem on the suggestion that the problems lie in the area of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. We have this strange situation where Ministers have the temerity to attack those people who sit in judgment after hearing submissions by governments, employees and their organisations and other interested groups. We had the situation where the Victorian Government disagreed with the submissions of the Federal Government to the court, and after considering the debate and the presentation of viewpoints, the court came to the conclusion that wages ought to be increased. The Government has suggested now that the court is responsible for all the problems associated with the economic downturn in this country, as it has suggested for some time that the trade union movement has been responsible for those problems.

I do not think there is any doubt that the Government does not know where it is going. It is making day-to-day changes in the Budget strategy but it is not prepared to look at the basis of the problem that faces most of the industrialised countries and of course Australia too as part of that international sector. The post-war reconstruction period in which we saw a great development of production and the boom period of the 1950s and 1960s have ended. There have been the changes to economic circumstances occasioned by international factors- the oil price rise, the problems of weakening international trade, the ever-deepening penetration of our economy by major international corporations, the degree of inflation which was triggered off to pay for the involvement of the Western world in wars in the Asian region. I do not think there is any doubt that these factors were not considered by the Government when it drew up its strategy for the Budget.

It may well be that the outlook of economic units has changed. They might not react to the economic signs at the same level or pace that they did prior to 1973. Consumers’ consumption and saving habits may have changed. Similarly, businessmen’s investment habits may have changed. If we try to return to the pre- 1973 levels of economic relativities, we may not get the reaction that we got then. Recovery will not be automatic. Of course that is the problem that faces this Government, that is, the basis upon which it has developed its economic program no longer has any relevance to this country and to the policies pursued by this Government. It has brought down a Budget which can be described only as miserly and mean in its approach to disadvantaged people. It destroys the words of encouragement that the Government tried to set forth in its

Budgets in the previous two years, puts at risk the pensions of a great number of people, and creates a great deal of uncertainty in those disadvantaged sections of the community which the Government claims it wants to assist.

As we look at the taxation proposals, there is no doubt that the Government is reaping even greater funds from the average citizen. In fact it has introduced into the taxing system new areas of taxation which will only weaken the capacity of ordinary people to purchase goods in the market place. Of course we know that the Government is considering the imposition of a retail tax, a turnover tax, which would be disastrous of course if it were to have any particular substance. As one of the Australian Labor Party’s spokesmen on economic matters and matters that are associated with consumers, I think I ought to indicate how much the Government strategy is astray with respect to consumer spending. The Budget is typical of this Government’s contemptuous, disdainful and cynical attitude towards consumers. It has in fact taken $1,1 76m out of the pockets of consumers. We, the community, will pay $676m more for petrol; $ 194m more for beer; $12 lm more for spirits, that is scotch; and $120m more for tobacco. The Government has imposed a duty on imports of $65m which will be passed on to consumers.

All of this means that it has taken out of the hands of the consumers a considerable sum of money, a sum of money which it must surely be obvious to the Government, will not be spent on a consumer-led recovery, which of course was the basis upon which it came to power in 1 975. It just seems to me that no matter what area of this Government ‘s economic policies that one examines, one can come only to the conclusion that the amendment which I have moved on this occasion and which seeks to place its finger on the cynical attitude that this Government takes with respect to all of the parameters upon which a Budget has been based should be supported. In fact the Government has no policy which will create more jobs; it has no policy upon which the Australian community can be encouraged to spend; and it has no policy upon which one can see any development of growth in the private sector of the economy. It is for these reasons that we seek the support of the Senate for the amendment which I have moved.

Of course in recent days there has been a degree of rebellion on the part of Government senators. According to Press reports, a sufficient number of Government senators would have crossed the floor to drastically alter the direction of this Budget with respect to the new areas of taxation which were contemplated in the Budget which was brought down on 1 5 August. It seems to me that those people who have been described in the newspapers as rebels got a great deal of credit for their attitude. I would be the last person to criticise them for their endeavours to change the Budget. But some credit must surely be given to the fact that whatever they wanted to do could not have been achieved without the efforts of honourable senators of the Australian Labor Party. If changes were to be made to this very deceitful and dishonest Budget, they could have been made only with the support of the 26 solid votes of honourable senators of the Australian Labor Party and with a couple of votes from the honourable senators of the Australian Democrats, who, from the way in which they have asked questions and contributed to the discussion, could have been relied upon to support the changes.

If credit is to be given, let us give it where it is due. A substantial majority of honourable senators on three sides of this House would have combined to destroy the inhumane aspects of this Budget which for the first time introduced taxes on sections of the community that have never hitherto been taxed, taxes on the most disadvantaged people in the community. The taxes were designed to raise a paltry $4m here, $2m there and $3m somewhere else. But the Government is letting the big corporations of this country escape their financial obligations. Governments are allowed to carry out their important function of redistributing wealth and are given the opportunity to provide services for the people whom they claim to represent. If the inhumane aspects have been thwarted- I suggest they have been thwarted- let us give credit, firstly, to the Australian Labor Party, and the Australian Council of Trade Unions and all of its affiliated organisations which have indicated from the moment the Budget was presented their disgust with the endeavours of this Government to pursue a Budget which placed misery and hardship on the disadvantaged members of the community and in fact redistributed taxes away from those people to the wealthy and privileged sections of the community. It is for those reasons that I have presented an amendment to the Senate. Those honourable senators who I applaud for taking the steps to change their Government’s policies can at least pay some tribute to the very major grouping in this place that would have brought about the essential changes in a vote on the floor of the Senate.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Scott)- Is the amendment seconded?

Senator McAuliffe:

– Yes, I second the amendment.

Senator ARCHER:
Tasmania

-The Budget is designed to provide a recovery very much through the productive sector. We only have to look not only in Australia but also overseas to see the results of the different actions that have been taken by different governments. I think it is fair to say that around the world today the big spenders are in big trouble while the hard workers are managing to achieve higher prosperity. Australia, therefore, has to decide whether it will spend and be in trouble or work and be prosperous. I very strongly support the comments made yesterday by Senator Hamer. I only regret, as it turned out, that the honourable senator spoke before I did because I had almost identical words to say on most of the subjects he raised. I thought that the honourable senator covered those subjects very well.

I am particularly concerned about the area of juvenile employment which was also referred to by the honourable senator. Industry generally throughout Australia is now short of juvenile workers. There is quite a deal of work substitution, of changes in jobs within industry, but the changes are not taking place in the juvenile area. They are taking place in the senior area, and quite often out of the juvenile area and into the senior area. I have spoken to many employers about this matter. I have also spoken to many employed juniors as well as quite a number of unemployed j juniors

Please do not get me wrong- I have no objection to juveniles earning high rates of pay. I think it is very good for them that they do. But we all have to admit, very openly and very frankly, that high rates for juvenile pay react against employment. Some years ago juniors entered the work force at 15 or 16 years of age which was then the school leaving age. Now, with less jobs available, the tendency is for juveniles to stay at school longer. They are entering the employment market at 17 or 1 8 years of age and in some cases 19 or even 20 years of age. These juveniles have to compete for jobs against senior males or senior females who are also seeking employment. I had a call only a couple of weeks ago from a gentleman who told me that he had sought a junior to do very basic menial tasks. The employment service offered him a lad, aged 17 years, who had left school the day before and for whom the award wage was $ 180.40. This was the wage the employer would have had to pay this lad to perform basic menial work. Of course, the boy did not get the job. It is also interesting to note that the award wage for a shop assistant aged 18 years is now $94.70; for an employee aged 18 years in a vegetable processing factory it is between $137 a week and $147 a week, depending on the actual jobs done; for a bank officer aged 18 years it is now from $1 12 a week to $1 15 a week. Employers have to consider the economics of putting on juveniles at these very high rates.

I believe that the whole system has to be rethought by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, the Australian Council of Trade Unions and other bodies. Juniors have to be economic to be employable. I find it quite inhumane that juniors should be outside the employment sphere. I have spoken to many juniors, some who have work and others who do not, and even those in work generally concede that they are receiving higher wages than can be justified. A very great section of industry hangs on the decision that will have to be made in relation to junior employees. This decision will affect the building, clothing and general manufacturing industries as well as business and retailing.

Generally the industry signs are up. It is quite important to follow the trend that has been publicised in the Press in the last month or two. Even today an article headed ‘Manufacturers expect sales, capacity increases’ appeared in the Australian Financial Review. The article stated:

. the overall level of sales in constant prices increased by 1 2 per cent over the three months.

The article further stated:

The level of orders increased by some 13 per cent in the June quarter . . .

Under no circumstances can anyone say that that is stagnation- it is a very good solid increase. I recently had the opportunity to go through 14 factories in the area in which I live and 1 3 out of the 14 factories advised that their sales for the period had been higher; 13 out of the 14 advised that they were employing more staff than they had employed last year; and 13 out of the 14 also said that they expected further improvement in employment levels before June of next year. An article headed ‘Overtime up despite gloom in the job market’ which appeared in the Australian Financial Review of 1 1 September stated:

While job figures point to a worsening in the labour market, overtime levels have increased for the third consecutive month.

This again is very much one of the straws in the wind. I was interested in the ‘BHP News Review’ of July 1978 in which Sir James McNeill said that the competitiveness of many Australian industries had greatly improved. And so it goes on. AH of these statements are the result of one thing and one thing only- namely, our ability to control the level of inflation in Australia compared with the level of inflation in other trading countries. People such as clothing manufacturers recently have been able to export Australian clothing to countries like Japan. Australian timber is being sold in Europe. Australian manufacturers can sell electronic equipment in Japan and Hong Kong. They are able to do this because we are able to keep our level of inflation on a more reasonable basis than the countries with which we are now dealing. Each day we can hold our inflation in check the more competitive we can become and the more our chances of profitability, employment and everything else will improve. We have to extend our technology. There is no way in which we can avoid technological advances. I do not think anybody in Australia in their right mind would suggest that we should withhold technological advances. We will require a higher level of technology as we compete more on world markets.

I would like to speak for a moment or two about the building industry. First of all I would like to refer to the commercial building sector in which changes just simply will have to be made. The Australian newspaper of 28 June highlighted this problem in an article which was headed: ‘High rise rows cost $533m’. The article stated:

Disputes on building projects in capital cities last year caused delays costing $533m.

The article pointed out:

The secretary of the National Industrial Executive of the Building and Construction Industry, Mr David Diprose . . . said, industrial disputes caused a 22 per cent loss of available working time between January 1975 and March 1977.

From March to June 1977, 35 per cent of available time was lost through industrial action and from July to August 1977, 50 percent.

The article went on to state:

Loss of wages for all construction workers in 1977 totalled $8.2m, but on one job alone -Collins Place- AMP and ANZ lost $ 10m.

There is no way that an industry can be run on the basis of these sorts of costs, unknowns and unnecessary losses. There are no winners in this sort of jungle warfare. There is no way that the building industry can continue with these sorts of problems. People will not continue to erect buildings and there will not be a building industry if we continue on this son of basis.

On the other hand, the housing industry is preparing for some improvement. We are just starting to get out of the complicated maze of artificial factors which were induced in the house building industry in the early pan of the 1970s. This created quite an artificial base. I believe that all levels of the industry and all the people who commented on it worked on a totally artificial grounding. Most of this came about through population predictions. I mention in particular the Borrie reports. I have no complaints about the figures that were produced by Professor Borrie, but it must be admitted that these figures have been revised on at least two occasions. For instance, the Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry used all the Borrie figures in its predictions. The Council has now had to revise its estimates. The building industry, the components industries and other industries also used the figures arrived at by either Professor Borrie or the Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry. I think that we have all come to realise that if we use figures which are shown to be somewhat questionable, we are all working on a false premise.

The industry itself still has to revise the potentials that are offering. Interest rates on housing loans are still far too high. Of course, the falling inflation rate will reduce interest rates. The sheer weight of money will dictate that the price of money comes down. I do not think that there is any shortage of housing money at present. The shortage is in the ability of borrowers to meet the repayments that go with high interest rates. I do not think that there will be any colossal upsurge in the building industry, but I think that there will be an improvement in the position. We have only to look at the sales of blocks of land in the Australian Capital Territory at the last land sale to realise the position. I asked a question on this matter a week or so ago. I was most impressed by the success of the last sale. There have been comments by Mr Ron Cameron of the Australian Bankers Association in respect of lending by banks. Comments also have been made by the Secretary of the Real Estate Institute of Australia on the level of increase in the sales of secondhand houses. All of these things happen before increased building activity commences. Thousands of houses are planned, approved and ready to be built around Australia. I believe that a small reduction in interest rates now will ensure that more of those homes will be commenced. I hope that all government instrumentalitiesFederal, State and local- will study and learn something from the housing costs inquiry and start to do things which will reduce much of the unnecessary and most unpleasant costs involved in housing.

We are facing a situation in the housing industry in which the estimates of a sustainable building quota vary from as low as fewer than 100,000 homes a year to as many as 158,000 homes a year. With a variation, on the best available estimates, of about 50 per cent, it is extremely difficult for the industry and all those people associated with it to be able to make reliable estimates of where the industry is going. Let us consider in particular the position of the timber industry. How can the timber industry cope with a variation of 50 per cent in its likely housing market? A true, reasonable assessment of what is likely to happen simply must be produced. This position applies not only in respect of timber but also in respect of all other materials. It also affects the finance market and the development market. Every section of the industry must know the exact position.

I shall make a couple of comments now about fishing. I suppose that the easiest way to summarise the present position in respect of fishing in Australia is to say that it is a real can of worms. The reason for this is that very little information is available about the fishing industry, which leaves room for too much speculation. We have only to look at the history of commercial fishing in Australian waters, particularly for fin fish, to see the extent of the ups and downs that have occurred. This is most unfortunate. I am sure that these fluctuations will continue in the years to come, but it is up to all of us to see that we ease them as much as possible. As we all know, many proposals are currently under consideration. Some are good, some are bad and some are very bad. We must make sure that the Australian content in all these proposals is as high as we can get it and that there will be residue value for the Australian industry.

Recently Senator Sim spoke at some length about a Taiwanese venture. We should certainly encourage that sort of enterprise. I do not think that we want any of these huge ships exploiting fishing in Australian waters, but we must look at what arrangement will, provide some future for the industry for many years. I see fishing as being a good Australian industry with a great future but before it develops properly it needs a lot of research. It will need to be handled with great caution. Also, it will need assistance in a variety of ways. Many grey areas still require a great deal of work. Today I raised just one of these areas, namely, the differences between various influences in the fishing industry. We will not be able to overcome them quickly. However, we must overcome them if we are to have the industry settled down and knowing where it is going.

It would be remiss of me if I did not make a few remarks about Tasmania. Today Senator Wriedt raised the question of the Antarctic base to be constructed in Tasmania. All Tasmanians welcome the transfer of this base to Tasmania and the expenditure of Sim this year to get the construction under way. In today’s Press it was announced that work on the Australian Maritime College has reached the design stage. This matter has been well discussed in this chamber. An amount of $940,000 has been allocated for recurrent expenses in the first year plus $3.3 15m for various capital expenses, including the provision of training vessels and the commencement of the shore facilities. Also of benefit to the State will be the provision of an amount of $6m towards the construction of the Launceston General Hospital. This work is being financed on a fifty-fifty basis with the Tasmanian Government. Up to $3. 8m is to be made available to the Mount Lyell Mining and Railway Co. Ltd to keep the district of Queenstown afloat for another 2 1 months. This is a tremendous item of expenditure for Tasmania and all Tasmanians certainly appreciate the fact that this money has been made available. Many other items of expenditure for Tasmania are contained in the Budget, including an appropriation of $136,000 for forestry.

Above all, the really big thing for Tasmania in the last few years has been the freight equalisation scheme, without which Tasmania and many Tasmanian industries would have been in terrible trouble by now. I do not know where Tasmania and most of her manufacturing industries would have been had it not been for the freight equalisation scheme. Everything from the manufacture of paper to the production of fish, vegetables, meat and butter are affected by freight costs. These Tasmanian industries have been kept afloat through the advantages that go with freight equalisation.

The Tasmanian Government, as is its right, determines its own priorities as to what money it raises and how it spends it. Those of us who have an interest in industry were a little disappointed that this year only $300,000 was made available for industry development. A new super Industrial Development and Trade Directorate has been set up, but with a budget of only $300,000 its functions will be somewhat limited compared with the more generous contributions that are made to industrial development and industry generally in other States. In that regard, South Australia has come up with a very good industrial plan that I think certainly will pay off there.

In regard to housing, although it is the Tasmanian Government’s own decision, I regret that it has not used the Commonwealth funding to the best advantage. I do not believe that the proposals that have come forward indicate that the Tasmanian Government is going to get anything like as much value from the States Grants Act as it was designed to produce. I hope that the Tasmanian Government will reconsider some of these decisions as the year progresses to see whether it can get better value for its money. There has been quite a bit of improvement in regard to the land. All the things the land produces that we sell overseas are now more competitive and costs have stabilised. Those are the two big things that go with rural production. The lift in beef prices, both domestic and export, has been of help to Tasmanian producers, but it has shown up the fact that we have an excess of processing facilities. I am afraid that over the next year or two this over-capacity is going to create further problems. The dairymen of Tasmania also face a far better year than they have had for many years, but again we must bear in mind that there is a substantial over-capacity in that area that is likely to react against them.

Stud cattle producers look forward to capitalising on their reduced disease stock, which has become known between the Tasmanian Government and the Bureau of Animal Health as Tasmania’s advanced disease-free status. It has been my pleasure to enjoy very full and open cooperation with the Tasmanian Minister and through him with his Department, as well as with the Bureau of Animal Health here in Canberra, on this topic of advanced disease-free status for Tasmania. Tasmania has a most enviable situation in regard to its livestock health, and great credit is due to the Tasmanian Department, the Government and the farmers of Tasmania for the present condition of their livestock. This status has not been achieved quickly. It has not been easy to achieve and it certainly has not been cheap. After many years, Tasmanian stud stock producers now stand a chance of being able to recoup some of the expenses that have gone into getting their livestock to the status that it now enjoys.

The crop farmers are expressing confidence again this year and there are better chances of overseas sales for many of their products. Fishing is likely to improve. The majority of manufacturers have expressed confidence, and the vast majority of mines have produced better figures than for some years. In every one of these cases the improvement has occurred because inflation has been brought under control, which has made products more competitive. Costs are more stable than they have been for some years, and of course that is the story of the Budget. Everything hangs on the productivity of the country.

No one can spend what does not exist. Production that can be sold on world markets has to be the only way in which Australia can trade out of its current position. The Budget provides Australia with the best possible chance of doing that.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

– I want to devote my remarks to the failure of the Government’s industrial relations policy. I must indicate that what I have to say to the Senate was prompted in part by recent events and in part by a thoughtful speech made in the Senate yesterday afternoon by Senator Hamer on a somewhat similar topic. In his speech Senator Hamer referred, amongst other things, to the ineptitude of Government submissions to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, which has been a matter of considerable public comment. More importantly, he referred to the direction of Government intervention before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, indicating intervention has been too frequent and perhaps not directed to the right point. Senator Archer in the remarks he has just made had something to say about the area of industrial relations when he commented on the building industry and the disputes in the building industry in Victoria. I remind Senator Archer that the former Minister for Public Works in Victoria, Mr Roberts Dunstan, had something to say about this only a month or so ago, when he said that the present Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) had done more harm to the construction industry in Victoria in two years than Norm Gallagher, the Secretary of the Builders Labourers Federation, had done in five years. Mr Dunstan went on to make some comments about what the Prime Minister had done to the economy of this country, comments which my natural modesty and sensitivity to the delicate sensibilities of Government senators prevent me from repeating in this chamber.

Senator Mulvihill:

– The man you are quoting is a Liberal, isn’t he?

Senator BUTTON:

-Yes, he is a Liberal, a former Minister in the Liberal Government in Victoria. Some Government senators will recall what Mr Dunstan had to say about what the present Prime Minister had done to the economy of this country, but I will not repeat that here. The area of industrial relations has been one of the areas of most conspicuous failure of the present Government. If at this stage there is an area of conspicuous failure as distinct from general failure, that is surely it. The present Government just does not know how to deal with industrial relations problems. Not only does it not know how to deal with industrial relations problems, it has consistently been guilty of bluster, dishonesty and blatant manipulation of the industrial relations system in this country for political purposes. I remind the Senate that the Minister responsible is called the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I do not need to remind the Senate of the shoddy record of this Government in relation to the employment aspect of the Minister’s role, but I will refer to it briefly.

I ask honourable senators to recall what we were promised in 1975 in terms of a new era of industrial relations in Australia and a new era of employment. We were promised by the Prime Minister that only under a Liberal-National Country Party Government would there be jobs for all who want them. That promise was made in 1975 and again in the early part of 1976. There were numerous promises in 1976 and 1977 about curing unemployment. The cure for unemployment was just around the corner, we were told. All these promises were based on either blatant dishonesty about the real situation or a totally ill-informed analysis of the nature of unemployment in Australia. Late last year and early this year the Prime Minister was promising that unemployment would fall from February. Again, that was a totally wrong analysis of the nature of unemployment in Australia. In 1976 and 1 977 this Government quite cynically and deliberately developed in the community what was known as the dole bludger syndrome. Quite blatantly it accused young people who were unemployed of being dole bludgers. The harm that has done to a generation of young people who have been victims of unemployment is almost incapable of assessment, but I am sure that very great and considerable harm has been done by that cynical political exercise in 1976 and 1977, ignoring the realities of the situation. I am sure that the harm that has been done is quite tremendous. Only after a statement was made last week by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Street, about the true nature of unemployment as he saw it and the likely future for unemployed people in this country- some two days after the Prime Minister had made a totally contrary statement- was there some honest acceptance within the Government ranks of the size and nature of the problem this country is facing.

What Mr Street said, of course, was that we could look to no short-term solutions to the unemployment problem. He said that we could look well into the 1980s to an unemployment level of at least 4.5 per cent. He pointed to the number of jobs that would have to be created every year in order to accommodate school leavers. He pointed to the fact that in the next decade it was likely that one out of every 10 school leavers at least would be unemployed, and possibly permanently unemployed. This is an enormous problem about which the Opposition has been talking in this place for some time. But following the revelations made by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations last week about the nature of unemployment as he saw it, the Government has tended to say: ‘Oh, yes, well we knew that all along. We have really been telling you about it’. The Government just sort of changes its line and goes on with the same sort of rhetoric and sloganeering about a problem in respect of which little has been done. In all this time, in the three years in which this Government has been in office, we have had this totally cynical, political approach to this problem.

Earlier I used the word ‘manipulation’. I cite perhaps the most cynical example of all time, and the most recent, in terms of manipulation. The Victorian Liberal Government, that tottering and dishonest Government in the State of Victoria, last week said that it would make $250,000 available for youth unemployment schemes in the area of Ballarat. Why? It is because there is to be a sensitive by-election in the area of Ballarat in a month’s time. That is why that $250,000 was made available. What is it that makes Ballarat different from every other country town in Australia? What is it that makes Ballarat different from every other country town in Victoria? What is it that makes Ballarat, in terms of the unemployment problem, including the unemployment problems of young people, different from every other major city in Australia? The answer, of course, is nothing.

My main purpose in contributing to this debate is to talk not about the unemployment part of the Government’s record in this area, but rather about the industrial relations part and the record of the Government in this area, which is again an area of most cynical manipulation. If one looks back at the record in this area, one finds that the seeds of the Government’s present policies can be found in an important speech made by the present Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in August 1975 when giving the industrial relations policy of what turned out to be the incoming government. At an industrial relations convention in Perth, Mr Fraser had this to say:

To achieve a more reasoned industrial climate the LiberalNational Country Party believe that rules must be established that carry consequences.

He went on to elaborate on that, and said:

In addition, we propose an Industrial Relations Bureau as a third arm of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. This purpose would be to secure observance of industrial law.

In another part of the same speech he made another very important and, in my view, totally inconsistent statement. He said:

Our view is that satisfactory industrial relations depend ultimately on the attitudes of mind of people in industry. Attitudes of mutual respect, of willingness to listen, to understand, to reason and discuss in an informed way, are essential. These attitudes cannot be created by any party’s industrial relations policies.

There we have the Jekyll and Hyde of this Government’s industrial relations policy spelt out. We have the Jekyll part of the Prime Minister’s speech in which he stresses that satisfactory industrial relations depend upon the attitudes of mind of people in industry and depend very much on a willingness to negotiate, a willingness to listen and to see the other’s point of view. The other section, the Hyde section, is the promise as regards the Industrial Relations Bureau- the third arm of the conciliation and arbitration system.

Let us look at how this has developed since then. The third arm of the conciliation and arbitration system which was promised to the Australian people in 1975 and again in 1976 and 1977 has turned out to be the withered arm of the conciliation and arbitration system. A Bill to set up the Industrial Relations Bureau was introduced late in 1978. The Industrial Relations Bureau has now been set up. Last year, because of all the promise about what it would do for the industrial relations system in this country it cost $1.5m in appropriations voted by this Senate. This year, in this Budget, the Parliament is being asked to appropriate more than $3m for the Industrial Relations Bureau. What has it ever done as regards industrial relations in Australia since the germ of the idea was put forward by the Prime Minister in Perth in August 1975? We know what it has cost, but it has done nothing. The real purpose of my mentioning that is to ask the rhetorical question: Whatever happened to the Industrial Relations Bureau?

As a matter of fact, it is not the Industrial Relations Bureau which is the third arm of this Government’s conciliation and arbitration system; it is Bob Hawke who is the third arm of the industrial relations system in this country. He is unpaid for the work that he does in settling industrial disputes. His negotiating skills have brought to an end almost every major industrial dispute that has occurred since the Fraser Government came to power. This Government, since it came to power, has done nothing to settle industrial disputes; it has been Mr Hawke who has been responsible for the settlement of most of those disputes in the public interest. We have had from the Government a lot of bluster and a lot of action designed to exacerbate disputes and to seek to make cheap political capital out of industrial disputes, but no positive action- and it is ridiculous not to recognise that fact. Again I say that there is this dichotomy, this confusion in the Government between the blustering which is indulged in by Mr Fraser and, in more recent times, the problem-solving-negotiating role towards which the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations is nervously moving, but from which he is always being pulled back into line by his old school mate and leader, Mr Malcolm Fraser. Of course it is one of the facts of political life in this country that political capital can be made out of industrial disputes by an unscrupulous government which is not prepared to make the system work in the best interests of this country, but which is designing all the time to make the system work in the best interests of a particular political party.

Last week, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations announced the setting up of an ad hoc committee of Ministers to supervise the Government’s role in industrial relations. There was some confusion about who was to be the chairman of that committee. Finally it was sorted out that after all it was to be Mr Street. The Minister, in setting up that committee and in making an announcement about it, had this to say:

This Government has done more than any other to improve the standard of industrial relations and to encourage a more positive contribution from all those involved in helping to attain our national objectives.

Let us look at that statement, that high-minded piece of rhetoric from the Minister a week ago and compare it with the situation in this Senate, for example. Some honourable senators who have been here for two or three years but who may have no experience with or no knowledge of industrial relations can look at their own experience regarding this matter. We have worked a lot of overtime in the Senate in the last two yearssomething which has been denied the average Australian worker under the present economic circumstances- passing emergency industrial relations legislation which has never been implemented. Let me remind the Senate of some of that legislation. Honourable senators unfamiliar with this area can judge for themselves in the light of their own experience. Since the Government was elected in 1975 with promises of better things to come in the area of industrial relations, nothing has really happened apart from legislation introduced in this chamber. In 1976, nothing was done. In 1977, in the Autumn session of Parliament, the trade practices legislation was introduced as emergency legislation. It was gagged through the Senate which sat a day late to deal with it. It was introduced as emergency legislation dealing with secondary boycotts.

Senator Walters:

– Don’t tell me that has not worked.

Senator BUTTON:

– It has not worked and I would be delighted to have any information that anybody knew anything about the legislation except that it has been totally inoperative. That was introduced in the Senate by means of a special sitting. Then in June of 1977, at another special sitting of the Senate, the Industrial Relations Bureau legislation was introduced. I said earlier that that has not worked although we have paid a lot of money to set up that body. It has not worked and will not work, and the reason that it has not worked and will not work is that neither the employers nor the employees in Australia want that legislation. None of the people concerned wants that legislation. Some honourable senators will recall that in 1977 one of the justifications for an early election, although now, as a result of a royal commission in Queensland, we begin to hear others, was that the Government wanted additional muscle to stand up to militant unions in Australia. We were told at the time that the Industrial Relations Bureau legislation would be part of this and that if the Government got a big vote in the 1977 election it would be proved to be right. I do not know how the Government now interprets its inactivity since then.

In August 1977 this Senate again sat to consider the Commonwealth employees employment legislation to deal with Public Service disputes. That was introduced coincidentally at the time of the Redfern postal dispute which, of course, was settled by Mr Hawke ultimately by a process of negotiation. That was introduced at that time and there was a lot of huff and puff from the Prime Minister and others about how this legislation was again going to solve our problems with regard to industrial relations. The Senate sat here in continuation, there was a lot of heat and no light, and the legislation has never been proclaimed. That is how we waste the time and money of the Australian taxpayers in the Senate- by sitting here at considerable cost, after coming back from all the States of the Commonwealth, in special sessions to deal with legislation which is never proclaimed. The Industrial Relations Bureau legislation was never used; the Commonwealth employees legislation was never proclaimed; and the trade practices legislation has never been used. As I have said, in terms of a promise of better things to come from this Government, all these things were wasting the time of the Senate and leading us nowhere. Later that year, 1977, there was also the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Bill dealing with deregistration of unions. Again this was a matter of urgency in the Senate but nothing has been done as a result.

All this industrial relations legislation, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing, is the mark of a government which is totally barren in terms of policies in this area. It is prepared to try anything. It is prepared to stoop to any cynical exercise in order to huff and puff about what it is going to do but in fact it does nothing; and the mark of that is right here in the Senate. Members of the Government parties seem to come out like werewolves with the phases of the moon to talk about industrial relations, to give knee-jerk responses to particular situations, and to make a lot of noise. Then they go back to their coffins to wait for the next industrial dispute. This has all the marks of a government which has no policies, which is totally divided, which has a weak Minister who is overshadowed by the Prime Minister, who is full of huff and puff and bluster and noise about what he is going to do, but which in fact has done nothing and is content to leave the settlement of industrial disputes in this country to the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions.

Let us look at some of the major industrial disputes which this Government has had on its hands. In each of them the Prime Minister made a lot of noise. There was a lot of tough talk. It was said that the Prime Minister was a tough man who was going to fix up all these things. But of course that- never happened. First of all, there was the air traffic controllers’ dispute. We were told that the Government was going to bring air traffic control experts from overseas, but those overseas air traffic controllers had a different view about that. Then we were told that the Royal Australian Air Force was going to be sent in but it was found that it had only two air traffic controllers amongst its numbers. We did not hear much more about that idea. There was talk of tough legislation to resolve the dispute and in the end the Government did nothing to resolve it. But it did do something; I say quite frankly that what it did was to intervene in that dispute to prolong it for cynical political gain. I cite as evidence of that a transcript of proceedings in the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission where the employees who were stood down during the course of the air traffic controllers dispute had their case considered. Evidence was given by Mr Fenton, Personnel Director of Trans-Australian Airlines. He explained in his evidence that the airlines and the unions felt that they could settle the dispute but that it went on a lot longer than they hoped for. He was asked:

That required some sort of permission from TAA, did it?

His answer was:

It was political- it had become a matter which required reference to the Minister for Transport.

He goes on to elaborate on that statement. Of course, that was what the Government did in the air traffic controllers’ dispute. Far from trying to settle the dispute and introducing its legislation to affect the situation, to bring light rather than heat into the situation, it intervened to prolong the dispute.

Then we had the Latrobe Valley dispute in Victoria, a long, damaging and difficult industrial dispute. The same pattern was followed- it was ultimately settled by the arbitration process. The same happened with the big postal dispute- it was ultimately settled by the arbitration process. Only a week or two ago there was the waterside workers’ dispute. What did the Government do? At a special, much publicised meeting of the Cabinet- an emergency meeting it was called- the Government said that it was not going to be stood over by the Waterside Workers Federation. It would have done much better to listen to the National Secretary of the Waterside Workers Federation, Charlie FitzGibbon, one of the most respected industrialists in this country, when he pointed out that the problem in the waterside workers’ dispute was that waterside workers were not going to be stood down in their thousands and go without pay because of the activities of 70-odd people in another union. Mr FitzGibbon drew attention to the importance from the unions’ point of view of amalgamations. In this Senate in 1 974 and 1 975 the then Liberal-National Country Party Opposition, which had the numbers, three times threw out legislation which would have enabled unions to amalgamate much more easily than they can now. Between 1975 and 1978 what has this Government done to assist amalgamations by trade unions in a country where we have approximately 300 unions compared with 16 in

West Germany and eight or ten in Sweden? What has this Government done on that question? The answer is nothing. But when in Opposition, with the numbers in the Senate, it was prepared to stop a government which tried to do something about this question. Of course, the issue comes back to haunt the Government parties with the waterside workers’ dispute of a week or two ago.

Senator Sibraa:

– There are 29 unions on the wharves alone.

Senator BUTTON:

– There are 29 unions on the wharves alone, I am told. The Government is not prepared to do anything about that situation because it has no policy. It simply manipulates the industrial relations system for political purposes.

Lastly, let me refer to the Telecom Australia dispute of quite recent vintage. The Senate will recall that that dispute was about the consequences of the introduction of new technology in Telecom. The arbitration commissioner who had to deal with the matter when this Government intervened in the dispute had this to say:

If I might paraphrase some words from a High Court decision, anyone with a ‘modicum of knowledge ‘ or a pretence of expertise in this field would or should have known of the inevitable result of filing an application for a bans clause within 20 minutes or so of my recommendation. It has resulted I think in an inevitable hardening … of views.

He goes on to say that the Government had thrown oil on the flames instead of cooling the situation, which was what he was trying to do. What was the Fraser Government’s role in that dispute? Why did the Fraser Government tell Telecom that the Australian Council of Trade Unions could not enter the dispute two weeks before it in fact did so? The reason is quite simple. The Government did not want the dispute settled for political reasons. This again is an example of precisely the sort of action which the Government takes. Those honourable senators who remember the circumstances of the dispute will recall the Prime Minister saying at the time- again it was a bit of huff and puff to show himself to be a tough guy- ‘The union cannot and will not win. The members will not be paid’. The members were paid and the dispute was settled. But it was not settled by this Government; it was settled again by the intervention of the ACTU and by the processes of the conciliation and arbitration system which this Government sought to subvert by endeavouring to delay negotiations.

What did the Government do in relation to the issue involved in this dispute? It syphoned off that issue of technology to be dealt with by a private committee of Public Service bureaucrats. It did not hold a public inquiry into this matter which is of great concern to the Australian public. What did the Press have to say about this matter? The Australian of 26 August 1978 had this to say:

Sooner or later. Malcolm Fraser will have to put his body where his mouth is . . .

This is in regard to industrial relations. When the Minister did call the meeting of the National Labour Advisory Council, the Melbourne Age of 30 August 1978 said:

But most important, Mr Hawke used his logic and negotiating skill in the presence of senior Telecom executives to extract from Mr Street the undertaking that Telecom was free to negotiate without Government interference.

What a triumph it is for a government to have that said about it. The article went on to say:

Without the constraints and direction of the Government, Telecom executives agreed to throw open for detailed talks all the issues that had prevented any progress until then.

For the benefit of Senator Walters, I shall quote from the Launceston Examiner of 31 August which made a similar comment.

Senator Walters:

– You have not touched on the live sheep dispute yet.

Senator BUTTON:

-No, Senator, I have not touched on the live sheep dispute yet. However, I have a lot of dead sheep sitting opposite and I am trying to wake them up to some realities. The Launceston Examiner had this to say:

It appears that once again the intervention of the President of the ACTU, Mr Hawke, was a vital factor in breaking an industrial log-jam. It is believed that he paved the way for progress by persuading the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Street, to publicly state that Telecom had the right to negotiate a settlement free of Government interference.

As I said earlier, the Government has a long and cynical record of using industrial relations for its own political purposes. It has a record of total failure in relation to legislation which has been brought into this Senate. It has a record of total failure in relation to the settlement of industrial disputes. The important point in all this is evident in Malcolm Fraser’s own original speech. On the one hand, he says that settlements can be achieved only by negotiation. On the other hand, he says: ‘I am a tough guy, and I am going to do it my way’. His way has failed and it has left the Government with an ambivalent policy in this area. That policy will be a failure because we live in a pluralist society and we have to understand the implications of that. We cannot enjoy the luxury of condemning trade unions and not condemning the Australian Medical Association or the Australian Federation of Air Pilots when they take similar action. We cannot indulge ourselves with demonology, if this Government is to be a government for all the people. More importantly, we cannot go into the future in an atmosphere of distrust. We cannot consider all the vital problems in which this country will be involved in the next few years, as the industrial situation changes and as technology advances upon us, in an atmosphere free from negotiation and in an atmosphere of total distrust. I commend the amendment to the Senate.

Sitting suspended from 5.59 to 8 p.m.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

– September 1978 will go down in history as the month of truth for the Fraser Government. The first week of this three-week sitting began with the recognition by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Street, of the grave situation that Australia faces concerning unemployment. On 14 September 1978, in the Parliament, Mr Street said:

By the early 1980s the situation -

That is, the employment situation- could be one where, in addition to the problem of 15 to 19 year olds being unemployed, there will be a growing proportion of people in their early 20s who will have little work experience or prospects of employment. In other words, the social problem could significantly increase. If this situation develops, as it has in a number of other countries, there will be real dangers to the fabric of our society.

This last week of this three-week sitting has been the period in which the Government has recognised that to undermine an allowance such as the family allowance, even by the suggestion of means testing a mother’s family allowance by taking into account the income derived from the personal exertion of children, is an attack on a fundamental institution which, rather than being undermined, needs support to overcome the very problem with which this country is faced- the unemployment problem. Today Mr Street, in answer to a question in the other place, said that much of the attack on the Government over the last few weeks has simply been political pointscoring by the Australian Labor Party. Some of that may be true. But I am not concerned with political point-scoring so far as the Government is concerned. I am concerned with endeavouring to analyse the problems and overcoming them. I am more concerned because during the recent recess I had the opportunity of addressing over 32 factory and shop meetings, of hearing what the working people of Australia are talking about and are concerned about. Most of those people would be doing something more useful than listening to the debates in this place, but they do expect us to apply our minds to the problems that have beset Australia both internally and externally and they do expect the Government to take its fair share of responsibility for ensuring that these problems are overcome. I was pleased to see that Mr Street, in his speech on 14 September, said:

There will also need to be a willingness on the part of everyone to be receptive to new ideas.

Senator Scott pleaded in his address this afternoon that we should not become partisan over this issue. I agree with him. It is my task tonight, with the experience of those meetings behind me and with, I suggest, the experience of the people with whom I still have close contact, the people with whom I have had close contact both in the union sphere and in the employer sphere over a period of 18 years, to make suggestions which I hope the Government will take account of and act quickly to put into effect.

What is the nature of the employment problem that is facing Australia? Simply stated it is that the labour market is over-expanded at a time when the rate of new job creation has been slashed by technological change. That is the problem. It is therefore not only an economic problem but a social problem as well. Why has the labour market become over-expanded? For years this country and countries of similar development have been able to provide full time jobs for 39 per cent of the population. Why is it that 45 per cent of the population of Australia is now seeking employment? The answer lies not only in the economic downturn but also in the fact that between 1963 and 1975 in particular extraordinary pressures were exerted on the mothers of Australia to go out of their homes and into the paid work force. Only 23 per cent of the mothers of Australia were employed in the paid work force in 1 963. That figure is now well over 40 per cent. There is almost a direct correlation between that increase and the increased juvenile unemployment that exists today.

Let me be the first to state quite unequivocalbly that there should not be discrimination against married women in the work force. As I have mentioned in this place previously, I, as a trade union official, was in the forefront of obtaining equal pay for work of equal value. Indeed, I moved the motion on equal pay for work of equal value at the crucial Australian Council of Trade Unions Congress when the communists and the radical feminists were trying to exert pressure to get equal pay for equal work. That would have meant that women would have had to work under the same conditions, lifting the same weights and working in the same dirt as men, to get equal pay. That would have been a travesty of justice. But at the same time in Australia today there is not that true freedom of choice; economic discrimination is experienced by the mothers who stay at home and do the most important job, that is, raising the future citizens of this country.

Why do I say that there is economic discrimination? First of all, let me remind the Senate of the slogans that appeared in the mid 1960s to 1975. Do honourable senators recall the slogans that were published by the department responsible for labour? They were headed ‘Mothers’ Liberation ‘ and urged mothers to leave the home and become part of the paid work force. That pressure was applied by the governments of the day and by the employers in order to recruit mothers into the work force as a source of cheap labour. That occurred before the principle of equal pay for work of equal value was finally adopted. But the rot had set in. Mothers’ liberation indeed! A famous Frenchman said recently that liberation of women is freedom to choose between managing their homes and working in an office or factory. Which is the most dignified job?

That is the problem in our so-called Christian society. Motherhood is being denigrated. It is not recognised for the status that it is worth. Even the economic contribution of the mother who stays at home is not included in the gross domestic product figures of Australia. All sorts of taxation and other pressures are applied on a mother to go out and become part of the paid work force. I submit that I am not alone in finally recognising that this is part of the problem. The Minister for

Employment and Industrial Relations in his speech on 14 September recognised that the influx of married women seeking employment which was to some extent linked with the high level of migrant intake has been a factor of the labour supply from the 1950s onwards. The mothers who stay at home are discriminated against. The Government’s response to that situation has always been to say: ‘Well, in 1976 we instituted the family allowance scheme which provided substantial increases in family allowances. ‘

As Senator Martin pointed out in her speech last week, the family allowance scheme was simply a trade-off for the loss of tax rebate and child endowment scheme. In fact in the year in which family allowances replaced the tax rebate and child endowment scheme, it was estimated that the new system of family allowances would cost an additional $785m a year but that that amount would be balanced by the wiping out of the tax rebate and child endowment scheme. This fact is shown in statistics that have been prepared by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Library statistical service. I would like to have incorporated in Hansard a comparison between the tax rebate and child endowment scheme and the family allowance scheme. Even under the old scheme which was inadequate and when the child endowment had not been indexed, a family with six children would have been $7.43 a week better off than under the new family allowance scheme. I seek leave to have the table incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY

Statistical Group

Family Allowances

Estimated amount of the allowance at each point of time if it had been subject to indexation on the same basis as pensions.

Family Allowance Scheme introduced May 1976. The rates have remained at the same level.
May increases are based on movements in the CP1 during the six months ended the previous December; November based on movements during the six months ended the previous June. Figures used are: November 1 976 5.58 percent; May 1977 8.35 percent; November 1977 4.70 per cent; May 1978 4.36 percent; and November 1978 3.38 per cent. Calculations are rounded to nearest 5 cents, with each subsequent increase based on the relevant rounded figure.

Compiled at request by the Statistics Group of the Legislative Research Service.

Senator HARRADINE:

– I believe that if realistic family allowances and homemakers’ allowances were provided a great many of our social and employment ills would be overcome. Obviously they would not all be overcome by a long chalk.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, the problem has a social aspect as well as an economic aspect. I also said that the economic aspect of the problem arises because the labour market is over expanded with 45 per cent of the population seeking jobs for only 39 per cent at a time when the rate of new job creation has been slashed by technological change. That aspect of the problem has been recognised for a good number of years. I believe it was recognised by the staff of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Mr Kirby, the First Assistant Secretary of the Manpower and Economic Policy Division of the Department, made the sobering comment as far back as August 1976 that youth unemployment ‘can be expected to persist in a greater or lesser degree irrespective of economic recovery and improved labour demand’. This situation has resulted from the dual factors- the social problem and the problem of technological change.

Many people in the trade union movement have recognised and have warned of the problem of unbridled technological change. One of those people was Mr J. P. Maynes, the Federal President of the Federated Clerks Union, who 15 years ago raised this as the key issue. Indeed the union of which I happen to be the State President in Tasmania- the Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association- has also been very well aware of it. The policies that were enunciated by the Federated Clerks Union were in the main accepted by the Australian Council of Trade Unions as far back as 1 967 and before. But what has occurred in the intervening period? The attention of the trade union movement has been diverted from its real purpose by the procommunist forces within that organisation acting on instructions from outside the organisation. Despite the warnings we are only now realising this factor. The resources of my own union- the SDA- have been tied down for a period of approximately 4 years because of an attempted takeover of the union. Fortunately we will see at a meeting of the national council next week the finalisation of the effort by the moderates within the SDA to stop the attempted takeover by those who have tried to subvert the SDA, which is the third largest union in the Commonwealth.

I can only say that the Government in its industrial relations policy has not done what it should have done. It has not assisted the trade union movement in ensuring its attention was directed towards overcoming the real economic and social problems. The Government’s industrial policy has been found wanting. Indeed, on the SDA case alone, had the Government and the Minister adopted a suggestion of a simple amendment to the Act many of the problems that the organisation faced and fought over for more than four years at a cost of over half a million dollars would not have been so great.

I have a suggestion which is contained in the notice of motion which was debated and adjourned in the Senate on 24 August. My notice of motion is as follows:

The Senate is of the opinion that in view of the persistent high levels of unemployment the employment responsibilities of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations should be allocated to a Minister whose sole responsibility is to deal with that subject.

In my view that is where the responsibility lies. We now have the highest unemployment rate since the Great Depression. I believe that in a period of relatively low inflation and low unemployment the crucial dual functions of employment and industrial relations can be looked after by one Minister. But I would prefer to see Mr Street with sole responsibility for the employment aspect of his portfolio. I am concerned at the direction in which Mr Macphee, the Minister for Productivity, would take us. He is making suggestions and noises that one of the ways in which to overcome the problems of unemployment and the problems of the lack of full-time job vacancies is to have work sharing or more part-time work. Anybody with half an ounce of brains would see that that is nonsense and that we would be playing into the hands of the very people who forced the problem on us.

In the two minutes that are left to me I wish to advert to a statement that was made last Monday by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm’ Fraser) to the Rotary Club of Sydney. The Prime Minister said:

Because of the slow growth in world trade we cannot look to resurgence in general overseas trade and markets to lift our economy and thus increase employment.

Thus far, however, we have heard the Government say that this was the way to increase the level of employment- to keep down the rate of inflation in Australia. Nobody is denying that many of the problems in respect of inflation occurred between 1972 and 1975 during the period of the Whitlam Government. But the Government has been saying that the development of world trade will overcome our problems. Now the Prime Minister is saying this will not be the case. I think it is time that Australia realised that we are in an area which is not secured either militarily or economically. I believe it is time for the Government, as part of its examination of the economy and as part of its responsibility to our near South East Asian neighbours, to have research carried out, in Treasury, trade, employment and other areas, into the feasibility of an extended South East Asia Pacific community with common economic, trade and defence policies. In that way Australia could well have a future in the region. Next year is the International Year of the Child. I commend to the Government for its consideration the problems and stresses of families with children. I believe that there is an opportunity for these problems to be tackled and overcome with benefit to all people within the Australian community.

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

– This Budget debate has provided amongst other things, an opportunity for a number of honourable senators to make their maiden speeches. I take the opportunity at the outset of my speech to offer my congratulations to all honourable senators who have made this contribution. I offer those congratulations to honourable senators from both sides of the Senate chamber for sharing their several interests and experiences with us. I suppose that it would be natural if I referred with special interest to my colleagues on both sides of the Senate who come from South Australia. We thank them for their contributions and we wish them well.

The introduction of the Budget every year seems to me to focus attention on and raise questions about the merit of placing so much emphasis upon one given point in a calendar year. Everyone questions the wisdom of crowding 100 or more decisions into one document presented on one night, a document upon which so much in Australian life depends. We ask the question: How can business, industry and social welfare plan programs or even advance if from year to year they are hanging on decisions that are announced in a particular place on a particular night. Of course, one recognises the necessity for organisation and maybe this is the only way that things can be done. But since the presentation of this Budget I have read that a case can be made out for something like a three-year program in which decisions could be phased in from time to time through a calendar year. In this way there may be a greater evenness of decisions that are made not only in relation to business, finance and economics but also in relation to education and social welfare.

Let me turn now to the speech delivered by the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) on behalf of the Treasurer (Mr Howard) when he presented the Budget in the Senate some weeks ago. He stressed the fact that at no time since its election had the present Government pretended that there were quick and easy solutions to Australia’s economic problems. This led the Minister to say that in this Budget it had been necessary to make difficult decisions to achieve our objectives. The objectives of a government are stated frequently by its supporters. As everyone knows, they are stated in a wide variety of ways. There have been a number of interpretations of the objectives of the Government on this occasion. Those interpretations take on an additional interest according to the circumstances in which they are presented. Those of us who support the Government like to think that among our objectives is the aim to create an Australian climate in which incentive will be encouraged, stability will be a feature and government interference will be kept to a minimum. We also acknowledge and proclaim that our objectives include the maxim that thrift and hard work will be rewarded and that our nation should be viewed as a useful and responsible member of the world community. It is equally true that any objectives can be easily stated. We can argue about the worthwhile nature of our objectives and our ability to achieve them. But in the broad range of interests covered by Government members there are varying interpretations of what the Government’s objectives might be. I see nothing wrong with that because similarly in our time we have seen the wide variation of what socialist objectives might be and how the various facets of the Australian Labor Party can argue about the different translations of the party’s objectives.

However, I return to the Budget Speech. The Minister stated the first and second objectives of the Government in very clear terms. When the Minister presented the Budget in the Senate he put the objectives of the Government into two categories. In respect of the first objective he said:

. both for its own sake and as the only real basis for achieving our other objectives, we are determined that Australia will have still lower inflation.

In respect of the second objective he said:

Secondly, and subject to the constraints still upon the economy, we shall pursue higher levels of economic activity and greater job opportunities.

I think it is significant that Senator Carrick went on to point out:

These objectives cannot be achieved without continued fiscal, monetary and wage restraint and an appropriate external policy.

He also said:

For this reason, the Budget delivered tonight further restrains expenditure and reduces the deficit.

He warned us that the Budget would also include tax increases and that there would be significant policy decisions on a number of matters relating to health care and financial arrangements. When a government presents a Budget it is important that there should be some overview of the economy. I responded quite enthusiastically to the fact that the Government, in presenting the Budget, said that the Australian economy was now responding positively to policies directed to the basic problems. The Minister emphasised and underlined this fact by stating:

The economic scene is characterised by declining inflation, moderately expanding demand and activity and a more settled and predictable policy environment.

The Minister reflected what some of us have said in debates on other matters in the Senate. The great success story of 1977-78 has been on the inflation front. The Minister put down the figures in no uncertain terms when he said:

For the year ended June 1976, the rate of inflation, as measured by the Consumer Price Index, was 12.3 per cent; for the year to June 1 978, it had fallen to 7.9 per cent.

Throughout 1977-78, inflation fell much faster than had been predicted in the previous year’s Budget. Reduced inflation, as we all know very well, has relieved pressures and strains throughout the economy. Whilst the Government may be under attack because it has a continued interest in the reduction of inflation, it has been proven that with reduced inflation there are greater opportunities for people and certainly a greater financial stability. These are the claims of the Government as it faced up to the Budget which is the subject of the debate tonight.

It is interesting to look at some of the observations made by various people who are skilled in the world of finance and economics, particularly just prior to the Budget. An interesting observation is contained in the Monthly Summary of the National Bank of Australasia Ltd. It deals with the overall situation in 1977-78. The documents and information available in the Bank indicate that real gross domestic production in Australia rose by 3 per cent during the year, including a rise in the non-farm production area of something like 3V4 per cent. The Bank pointed out: . . The pace of economic activity quickened significantly to a rate in excess of 5 per cent a year in the second half of the year. As a result non-farm production is currently running at a rate about 4 per cent above the level of a year earlier.

In conducting this examination of the economic circumstances, the Bank pointed out that various components of spending highlight the major stimulus provided by business investment during the previous year. It added:

Aggregate fixed capital expenditure by business on plant and equipment and for building and construction grew by an estimated 6.5 per cent in real terms in 1977-78 with growth being particularly strong during the second half of the year.

The Bank also added that Australia’s external sector, that is our transactions with the rest of the world, also made an important contribution to our growth. For the full year exports continued to grow at a modest rate. Australia was able to meet a greater proportion of its requirements from domestic rather than overseas sources. In addition it is very interesting to point out- I think this needs to be underlined- that despite the restraints on Government activity in the previous year, the real level of Government spending by all arms of the Government rose by some 4 per cent in real terms during the year. I think it is important to underline that in the light of the fact that there has been some considerable restraint on government spending.

With the situation that was presented to the Government at the time it was preparing its Budget Papers, it is significant to look at the options that were available to the Government, all of which had to be examined carefully. For example, should the Government lift the restraint, in view of the circumstances I have outlined? The Government might well ask itself whether increased government spending would stimulate the economy and not contribute to inflation. Or should the emphasis continue to be placed on those conditions necessary to bring about a recovery of the private sector? I think it is true to say that the rapid acceleration in costs in Australia and the barriers this rapid acceleration has created to economic growth and higher employment are becoming more widely recognised.

I turn for a moment to studies by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. These show that during the period from 1972 to 1975-1 repeat, 1972 to 1975-the gap that developed between real wages and productivity was greater in this country than for the majority of the OECD nations. There has been an improvement in the last two years, and in those circumstances I think that the Government was wise to continue policies that emphasised the need to restore stability and strengthen the private sector so that recovery was broadly based and, what is more important, could be continually sustained. Any higher level of government spending in a given year ultimately must be funded from somewhere. The money must be found somewhere. There must be either higher taxation or deficit financing, which in turn produces higher interest rates and things of that nature. I put it quite simply that higher levels of government activity, whatever the means used to fund them, represent a cost that must be borne by somebody- by the private individual or the private sector. I strongly suggest that policies which are directed to strengthening the private sector rather than increasing the burden it must be called upon to bear offer the best solution for a return to more rapid growth.

That is the kind of background from which the Government moved as it set out on the preparation of the Budget which is the subject of our discussion this evening. It is important to say and say again that growth is the only thing from which we can adequately fund our public services. Growth in the private sector is the instrumentality which produces the funds within the country from which we can produce public services to meet the many calls that a modern state requires to be serviced by the Government. So the August Budget gave very clear evidence of the Government’s determination to continue to fight against inflation, even though it may suffer some harm from this in the form of electoral unpopularity.

In one of the many areas within the Budget Papers there was a reference to the matter of education. As honourable senators know, the

Budget provides for Commonwealth expenditure of some $2,5O0m on education. It is significant to say to the Senate that this was an increase of some 6 per cent over last year. When tabling the Budget Papers that night the Minister for Education said:

Our decisions in this area will maintain current total intakes of students into universities and colleges of advanced education in 1979 and reflect, in a major way, greater support for technical and further education.

The Budget Paper relating to education are quite extensive and detailed and in places quite complex. We can deal with the various items within those Papers on appropriate occasions when the legislative measures are before the Senate. Provision is made for a wide range of educational services, such as the opening of new schools and the continuation of special programs, and I think particularly of the bilingual programs relating to the Aboriginal sector of our community. Funds are also provided for work preparation programs for unemployed youth, which is a subject that takes on special emphasis at this time. It is not only an educational measure; it becomes an economic measure, and it also becomes a social measure of very real importance. The development of technological services and the arrival upon the scene of great technical development have posed not only problems of an educational nature but also problems with a social content, to which the whole community will be, must be and, I believe, is devoting its attention. There are the usual increases in funds relating to costs, goods, services, salaries, the maintenance of properties, and the development of new institutions. Some of these I have seen in my movements in South Australia in my association with educational institutions. It is on-going work, and I think it is significant to pay tribute to the Commonwealth Government for its financial management, which has been able to arrange for increases in the amounts of money so that the standards and services of education can be maintained.

The Commonwealth education for unemployed youth program is to be extended, largely because of the increased funding announced in the Budget Speech. An amount of $3.2m is to be provided, as opposed to the previous amount of $2m. South Australia and Victoria will be cooperating with the Australian Council for Educational Research in an evaluation of the program, which has been established to help young people up to 24 and 25 years of age to overcome any low educational qualifications they may have, any inadequate educational qualifications they may have. It is designed to remedy deficiencies in the basic skills of literacy and numeracy and, above all, to improve personal confidence and self-confidence. This is related to assisting in the very difficult matter just now of seeking and hopefully gaining employment. The matter of literacy and numeracy, of course, is one of some considerable interest about which a great deal has been said. Those of us associated with people who write letters and work for us are concerned at what I would call certain defects in the literacy area of our education. I hope that in due course these deficiencies will be solved because some of the people involved are going to be in a rather difficult and unfortunate situation in a few years time. I cannot emphasise enough the importance of giving considerable attention to the matter of literacy development.

Many areas of education have received attention in the Budget, including the ones relating to the special or disadvantaged groups in the community. Only last weekend, in Croydon Park in South Australia, I had some association with a school that has received money under the disadvantaged schools plan. This plan is proving to be of considerable advantage to the people in the area, which has a migrant content. There is a group of people in the area surrounding the school which has some problems and the disadvantaged schools program is of the greatest assistance. The Minister for Education drew attention in the Senate recently to the sums of money that have been devoted to Aboriginal education- an increase of $3.1 m, or 1 1 percent, over the 1977-78 program. In addition, under the migrant education program, provision has been made for child migrant education through the Schools Commission. Assistance will be provided to both government and non-government school authorities for teaching materials, salaries and administration in respect of child migrants and adult migrants, and extending to refugees. The program also includes provision for English language tuition for adult migrants and refugees. The expenditure is estimated to be some $ 1 7.2m, which is a considerable increase, being of the order of 38 percent.

The problem of isolated children is one with which the Senate Standing Committee on Education and the Arts has had a great deal of association because of its inquiry into the education of isolated children. An amount of $ 14.6m has been provided this year for education assistance for isolated children, which is an increase of $10.5m over the 1977-78 figure. As a result of this increase some 20,000 children will be assisted. Additional amounts have been provided for the Northern Territory and, as promised in the 1977 policy speech of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser), an additional $ 100 per child is payable under the isolated children’s program to families living in certain tax zones whose children are eligible for basic boarding allowances. All of these things, I would hasten to point out, are part of a program which it has been able to put down before the Senate in spite of the fact that the Gvoernment has maintained a program of financial restraint.

I am interested to endorse and to underline a point made by the Minister for Education in the Senate the other day in answer to a question I put to him in relation to the next phase in educational development and educational programs. He pointed out- and my own experience has led me to confirm this-that there is in the world of educators today a growing volume of support for the idea that the most important area in education is that of the primary school or early childhood. The school and the teacher in these areas assume a strong place in the life of a young child. In the last few years there has been a pre-occupation with secondary and postsecondary education, but today, from my own observations and from my reading, I am of the view that there is growing support for this early childhood sector. Indeed it has been stated from time to time that the school teacher must be not only the school teacher but also the parent and that in the evolution of the child towards adulthood, marriage and parenthood there must be an understanding of the role of education as well as the role and influence of schools and teachers. I hope that the Australian Education Council, which I believe is gathering information on this subject, because of the diversity of responsibility throughout the country and because of the diversity of authorities in the Commonwealth sphere as well as the State sphere, can put together material which will be helpful in reaching some solutions on this area so that governments and the education authorities can go forward with a constructive program. On a personal note, I hope that the Senate Standing Committee on the Education and the Arts, of which I am the chairman, will have the opportunity of doing some work on this subject in due course.

There are many other items in the Budget that are related to the philosophy which I put to honourable senators earlier in my speech. For example, there has been an increase in the government allocation to the arts and to the Australia Council. There has been an increase of over 5 per cent to the Australian Ballet, a similar percentage increase in the allocation to the Australian Opera and a similar percentage increase in the allocation to the Australian Elizabethan Theatre. I mention these by way of contrast with some of the things we deal with when talking about Budget matters, because these are areas which cannot be described as growth areas or productivity areas. They are instrumentalities which affect another side of Australian life. They are caught up in the whole matter of high coststhe high cost of maintenance and the high cost of salaries and wages. Of course they are also caught up in all of the problems relating to unemployment. Nevertheless the Government, even with the restraint and the economic situ? ation that we have today, as a result of its reduction in inflation and its policies in relation to the economic situation in Australia, has been able to maintain these sectors of Australian life so that the Australian community may enjoy a totality of experience. The National Library, with its emphasis on the national collection, has had its allocation increased by some 1 6 per cent. In the Budget there are allocations for the National Gallery, the Australian Film Commission and the Australian Film and Television School. These, as I said earlier, may not be related to productivity or economic growth; nevertheless, in this Budget, the present Government, with all the difficulties it has to face, has been able to maintain this side of our community life.

Whilst we are making these few and isolated references to the Budget- isolated references in a vast and complex Budget of very many items- it is important to point out as I did right at the beginning of my speech tonight, that all these things are available to the Australian community as a result of political philosophies which the Australian Government is following, philosophies which are diametrically opposed to the matter of abundant government spending and public sector spending. I look, for example, if I want to look anywhere, to the situation in South Australia where, in the recent opening of the Parliament, the Governor’s speech was full of one negative after another. The South Australian Government blamed the Federal Government because it did not receive funds from the Federal Government for this, that and the other. Yet the South Australian Government persists with its increase in public sector spending. In South Australia today which, by comparison with some other States, is a small State, there are well over 100 departments and sections within departments. In South Australia there has been the greatest increase in the number of State government employees of any State in

Australia- an increase in the last six or seven years of almost 50 per cent. South Australia has the greatest percentage of employees working for the State Government of any mainland State. Proportionately, South Australia has the greatest number of government employees compared with those in private industry. For every 100 employees in South Australia who are involved in the private sector, over 40 are employed by the government.

The South Australian people are asking, and rightly so: What is our Government doing? It is busy monitoring every radio program. It is busy monitoring every television program. It is busy supporting a whole range of enterprises that cannot run themselves. It is staffing offices and departments which are providing facilities which are not needed, and which, if I may make the assertion, have not been asked for. The voluntary section of the South Australian community- and I speak with some knowledge of this- simply cannot find projects to serve the community because the State Government is doing everything for the people. It is no wonder that rates and taxes in South Australia have risen steeply. It is no wonder that water charges in South Australia have risen by 100 per cent in some four years. It is no wonder that there has been a rise in motor vehicle taxes. It is no wonder that electricity charges have risen twice in two years. It is no wonder that the Premier is not interested in the alleviation of the burden of estate duties. It is no wonder that South Australia has lost its cost advantage over manufacturing industry in other States.

The South Australian Government has no regard for the private sector and it has no regard for private enterprise. When I speak to the Budget tonight, I understand that the Budget is not all things to all men; indeed, it is not all things to me. But I believe it expresses a political philosophy which is good for us all. It has restraints, it has problems and it has difficulties, but if Australia is to grow and advance at all, it must provide the kinds of things that are expressed in a philosophical way in this Budget which is before the Senate tonight.

Senator ROBERTSON:
Northern Territory

– I think the general criticism of the Budget has been adequately handled both here and in the other place by my colleagues. They have made constructive criticisms of the Budget and have come forward with an alternative Budget. I am going to follow the pattern that I usually adopt in this sort of situation and look at the implications of the Budget for the Northern Territory. Then, if time permits, I hope to follow on some of the comments made by my colleague, Senator Button, as to the effect of government policies on education as indicated by the Budget. Let us look then at the reaction in the Northern Territory to the Budget as shown in the newspapers. On Wednesday, 16 August, the Northern Territory News, which is a Murdoch newspaper and certainly not known for its support of Labor, but rather for its strong support ibr the Government, had this to say:

Australia awoke this morning to face what has been described as a ‘brutal budget’ and the toughest in more than a decade.

Let the people pay . . . that was the Treasurer’s message last night when he announced a wide range of cuts and increases which will hit the pockets of almost everyone.

That was the comment on page 1. Further on in the newspaper there was a comment by a man who would have been the Treasurer in the Northern Territory had he not had the misfortune to lose his seat to an excellent Labor candidate. This embryo Treasurer had this to say:

Annual budgets always bring both good news and bad news and this year we’ve got a lot of both in the Federal Budget handed down in Parliament last night.

Tough taxation (both direct and indirect) is going to be paid by each one of us! We are going to feel the pinch.

First, the bad news- we are all going to make big sacrifices out of our pockets.

He was a little vague about the good news. Later on in his article he deteriorated into an exercise of back-slapping in order to keep in sweet with his colleagues who were then in the Assembly. The article on page 4 of the same edition was a little more realistic. Under the heading ‘We’ll pay more for less ‘, it stated:

The Government intends to cut the deficit this financial year by making the taxpayers pay more for less.

Total outlays will increase by 7.7 per cent in money terms, a decrease in real terms taking into account the 9.5 per cent Consumer Price Index increase since the last Budget.

But Government receipts, bolstered by the increased income tax rates, excise on drink and cigarettes and crude oil parity charges, are estimated to rise by 1 1 per cent.

On the same page as that comment was a comment from Mr Hawke who spoke about the massive trick’ whereby the average person in Australia would be charged $7.50 a week by the Budget, and we will see as I proceed through my comments that the people in the Northern Territory will pay much more. In the same issue the Australian Democrats had this to say about the Budget:

The Darwin Branch of the Australian Democrats had described the Federal Budget as dull, unimaginative, and an admission of failure . . . They will increase unemployment and no recognition of how to solve this problem is given . . . The tragic attack on wage indexation is regretted and the threat to further cut staff ceilings in the Public Service is deplorable when no alternatives have been offered to take up this surplus of labour.

Before we look at the implications for the Northern Territory, let me say that we must see the Federal Budget for the Northern Territory in the light of the present situation in the Northern Territory following two years of Federal action, the effect of two previously damaging budgets as far as the Northern Territory is concerned. I have dealt with these issues since I became a member of this place. I have talked about cutbacks in government spending, staff ceilings, acrosstheboard cuts and the lack of stimulus and I have shown that this has resulted in a continued winding down of our economy. I have talked about the massive unemployment in the Northern Territory and the reduction of services offered by the Public Service because of shortages of staff. In fact the Northern Territory was sustained only by the effect of the Darwin Reconstruction Commission spending a legacy of the Labor Government. Of course, this has now finished and things are bound to get worse. I will not dwell on the situation because I have covered it previously. It is interesting that in the Australian Capital Territory we are talking at present, as we have done for three years, about keeping the building industry going. We have talked about building a new and permanent parliament house so that the building industry will not slump. Certainly that is what has happened in the Northern Territory because we have not a sympathetic attitude by the Government towards the problems faced by the building industry in the Northern Territory.

Let me look now at two or three sectors in turn. I look first at education because that is of particular interest to me. I will be fairly brief because I intend to cover a few of these aspects later in the speech. Mr Adermann, the Minister for the Northern Territory, said that the Budget was fair and reasonable in the light of prevailing economic conditions’. Then he went on to say that ‘it further restrains expenditure’. People in the Northern Territory were not quite as confident as Mr Adermann. The General Secretary of the Teachers Federation said that the Federation ‘s worst fears have been realised. The Director of Education said that funds provided for the operation of the Department reflected the no growth or limited growth policies being applied by the Federal Government at the present time. I stress that we must look at the situation in the Northern Territory, as I said previously, in the light of what has happened over the past two years- the problem of staff ceilings and so on.

The Budget does not recognise or appreciate the special problems in the Northern Territory. I give one simple indication of this. A primary school in the Northern Territory in the suburb of Rapid Creek in Darwin has an enrolment of 32 1 students. Let me give a breakdown of that figure of 321: Aboriginals, including part-Aboriginals, 69; English speaking origin, 125; and racial origin other than English, 127. Yet there is the same staff/student ratio in that school as for every other school in the Territory, and this has not changed since 1973. The choice for teachers is quite obviously which group to assist. One group must suffer. The number of aides has been cut and the number of remedial teachers has been cut and so the teacher has to decide what he or she can do with the problems that they face in that multicultural situation. In real terms the education expenditure has been increased by 0.05 per cent, and this is completely inadequate to bring Northern Territory schools up to, for example, ACT standards by July 1979. The Senate will remember that the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) said that he would hand over in the Northern Territory a system which was viable and which was comparable with any in Australia. There is no chance whatsoever in the present situation of handing over an effectively working system, let alone one that can be compared with that in the ACT. In some areas there have been massive cuts in education expenditure. Expenditure on furniture and fittings has been cut from $750,000 to less than $500,000. Expenditure on libraries and the media centre has been cut. In fact there was such a strong feeling about this that a public meeting was held in Darwin to talk about it. This is a comment of a newspaper about this meeting:

. federation members were outraged at the news that the Federal Government proposed cutting funding for school libraries in the NT from $ 1 70,000 to $70,000.

Expenditure for the film library could also be cut from $80,000 to $30,000 . . .

These cuts would drastically affect the quality of education offered in the Territory.

This is a further extension of the Government’s deliberate policy of reducing funding for Government schools in favor of private schools.

The Federation finds the proposed cuts particularly cynical on the part of the Education Minister, Senator Carrick . . .

It goes on to describe what Senator Carrick said about the number of books which students should have. The article moved on to talk about the Aboriginal situation:

Cutbacks in educational spending mean parents will have to dig deeper into their own pockets to provide essential school equipment, Mr Bob Collins . . . said yesterday.

The tragedy will be greatest in those schools where the parents just cannot afford to buy books and films.

The parents of Aboriginal children in my electorate live a subsistence existence and it’s difficult enough for them to provide their children with a nutritious diet, let alone library books and films.

So it goes on. Aboriginal schools in particular need libraries and visual aids, and I was interested to hear Senator Davidson talk about the bilingual situation and the assistance that has been given to it in the Northern Territory. I would hope that he might go up and look at what is really happening in the Northern Territory and the number of bilingual programs which are not working because the staff are not available, because no ancillary staff are available, because money is not available for part time instructors, and so on. Aboriginal students need concrete material and visual aids and the expenditure for both of these have been cut. On 8 May this year I asked the Minister the following question:

1 ) Will the staffing levels in Northern Territory schools be brought up to acceptable standards before the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly accepts responsibility for education.
Will repairs and maintenance to school buildings be increased to ensure that the buildings are in a satisfactory condition to be transferred.

I got this extraordinary reply from the Minister:

Staffing levels for schools in the Northern Territory need to reflect the particular circumstances that exist throughout the Territory. There are problems with repairs and maintenance for schools in the Territory.

He is certainly right there- there are problems involving repairs and maintenance for schools in the Northern Territory and staffing levels for schools need to reflect the particular circumstances that exist, but they patently do not. This is quite obvious if one looks at the situation. He had this additional comment to make:

Discussions are continuing between the Northern Territory administration and the Commonwealth concerning arrangements for the efficient transfer of responsibilities in the education area.

I think that we might term that the off-loading of responsibility for education in the Northern Territory. It is quite right that we need to look at the problems of the Northern Territory and that the policies need to reflect the needs of the community, but they do not.

I want to move quickly now to the area of health. Last year the Department of Health in the Northern Territory spent $2Wm less than was allocated. In other words, money was allocated and the Department spent %2lAm less than that. The reason was the shortage of staff because of the staff ceilings which operate in the Northern Territory. I have constantly been drawing attention to the situation, as have some of my colleagues. Senator Ryan in particular has drawn attention to the Aboriginal communities and the health problems they face because of inadequate staffing. This year the budget will be cut by 2.5 per cent without taking into account the inflation rate, which is nearly 10 per cent. We have a situation in the Northern Territory at present where in the dental clinics one must go on a waiting list to get on the waiting list to be treated. We have a situation where the numbers of trainee nurses have been cut drastically and this just prior to the opening of a large regional hospital. I have raised the point in this chamber previously. I have asked the Minister whether it is a fact that two floors of this new regional hospital will be given over to office space, because we have not got the staff to utilise them. This has been denied but a number of people in the Northern Territory will be looking to see what happens when the Casuarina Hospital opens. This situation would not happen in the other States. I am sure that it does not happen in the ACT where the Federal Government is also responsible. It certainly should not happen in the Northern Territory. We cannot talk about the transfer of power to the Northern Territory. We cannot hide behind the fact that power is to move to the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. We have done that for too long. The situation has existed ever since this Government came to power. I would like to refer to a comment made by Dr Everingham who was probably one of the best Ministers for Health that we have ever seen in the Federal sphere. He said:

Aboriginal health has also been hit by this Government despite promises by the Prime Minister and by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs.

He went on to say how bad the situation is in the Northern Territory. He continued:

The Government cannot afford to break election promises in such a sensitive area, especially in light of the fact that the Aboriginal infant mortality in Australia is as high as 98 per thousand in some areas. It is one of the highest rates in the world and five times greater than that of the white population. About 60 per cent of Aboriginal people in Central Australia over 60 years of age are blind and 30 per cent of Aboriginal children under 1 1 years of age have trachoma. Because of the lack of preventive medical services and health services, on average urban Aboriginal children cost the Government hundreds of dollars a year per child in remedial medical costs.

I shall now deal with the Australian Broadcasting Commission. All over Australia operational funds of the Commission have been cut by 3 per cent. This has led Mr Duckmanton, the General Manager, to make this statement:

We must accept the fact that the year will bring us a fair measure of discomfort.

What an under-statement that is. In no other area is it more clear that we must look at what we have before we look at the cuts. I have already commented on the fact that the transmitter in Darwin has been shipped off to Shepparton. That occurred after the people of Darwin had waited 1 5 years for it. There is virtually no local content in television programs in the Northern Territory. Staff ceilings are critical. There is very little local content in our radio programs. Until recently one talks man was available to do all the programs, including the rural programs. The situation is well illustrated by a request I made that programs televised in Queensland be transmitted to the Northern Territory during the school holidays. Mr Duckmanton replied to my request in these terms:

I refer to your letter . . . requesting the ABC to transmit to the Northern Territory during school holidays there, the special children’s television programs which are being transmitted from ABQ Queensland during the school holidays in that State, and any special radio programs.

. we are mindful of the special needs of children living in the relative isolation of the Northern Territory and gave every consideration to the request for special television programs. I regret however that our facilities and manpower are such that we could not undertake this additional program recording and replaying commitment without seriously eroding our ability to maintain the existing level of local television output from our Darwin studios.

That sounds very good until it is realised that the local content amounts to roughly five minutes a day on week days and nothing on weekends.

Senator Ryan:

– Scandalous.

Senator ROBERTSON:

– It is a scandalous situation. Yet it can be said that that amount of local content could not be eroded. Certainly the local content component could not really be eroded to less than five minutes. There is virtually no coverage of current affairs in the Northern Territory. There is virtually no coverage of local sport. Again that situation exists because of staff shortages. This is another example of broken promises. When members of the Government were campaigning on the election trail they said: ‘We will hook up Adelaide River, Newcastle Waters, Mataranka and Pine Creek’. They explained that that would not be expensive because the masts already existed. According to ABC sources this proposal may be considered in 1979-80. No comment has been made about what will happen to Radio Australia. An article which appeared in the Sunday Times in Perth reads:

Radio Australia is losing its appeal in a number of overseas countries.

Radio Australia has been pushing out a comparatively weak shortwave signal since Cyclone Tracy wrecked Radio Australia’s most powerful shortwave station at Darwin in 1974.

Although the Federal Government earmarked more than $9 million for the repair of the Darwin station, it has been slow in releasing the funds.

I might remind honourable senators that it is only four years since cyclone Tracy hit Darwin. I commend the staff of the Australian Broadcasting Commission for what they are doing in the Northern Territory. They are dedicated and keen, but they are completely frustrated by a shortage of personnel and a shortage of funds. That is what the Budget is doing to the ABC in the Northern Territory.

Let me turn now to the increase in the cost of petrol. When we are looking at this matter we must remember the size of the Territory and the fact that most of the freight for the Northern Territory is brought in by road or by air, both of which means of transport use fuel. It has been agreed for many years that the people in the Northern Territory need to go south for the sake of their health. So what is the effect of the increase? Freight charges will increase by at least 2 per cent, which means that the cost of goods will go up by at least 5 per cent. The situation is bad for town dwellers but it is disastrous for the people in the rural areas in the Territory. Ansett Airlines of Australia anticipates a 5 per cent increase in air fares. The economy air fare from Darwin to Sydney now is $423.80. If such an increase were to apply, the fare would increase to $444.99. For the expenditure of the same amount of money one could go to Bali and return or to Singapore and return. Pensioners will be unable to afford to run their cars. That situation in the Territory has been exacerbated by a massive increase in registration fees and third party insurance fees. I have asked that this matter be looked at but I am still waiting for an answer. The cost of living will rise significantly for those who stay at home and simply eat and watch the sun set. That is forgetting about the few who would like their cigarettes or their beer and who perhaps would like to have water and sewerage connected to their properties.

Let us look at the effect of income tax increases on the Northern Territory. It is recognised, of course, that Territorians receive as a result of higher hourly rates and zone allowances approximately $40 a week more than their counterparts in the southern States. This allows for the differences in the cost of living. You would know, Mr Deputy President, that a three-bedroom house in the Northern Territory costs at least $60,000 and probably more. The rent payable on such a dwelling would be $100 to $150 a week. The rent payable for a two-bedroom flat would be $45 to $60 a week. These rates are amongst the highest in Australia, and so are the rates imposed by the local council, despite what Senator Davidson had to say earlier. A sliced loaf of bread costs 60c, a lettuce costs $1.50, and so on. I make the point that the cost of living in the Northern Territory is high. Other honourable senators have shown that the proposed increase in income tax will mean for the rest of Australia an increase of 8 per cent for those who earn up to $300 a week. It will mean a greater increase for people in the Northern Territory. More people in the Territory will be affected. No indication has been given that zone allowances will be increased to compensate for the higher cost of living. There is no appreciation of the differences between the Northern Territory and other parts of Australia, but that is usual in relation to the across the board decisions on which the Government is so keen.

I would like now to look briefly at the plight of the pensioners in the Northern Territory. My comments would apply also to pensioners throughout Australia. Mr Howard said at the Press club on 16 August:

The Budget does contain some different and unpopular decisions. The Government is conscious of this. In framing those decisions the Government took great care to avoid inequitable treatment of certain sections of the community.

I wonder to which sections of the community he was referring. They certainly did not include the pensioners. It seems that his lack of understanding of life shown in this instance is similar to that shown in relation to the means testing of the earnings of newspaper boys. He just does not know how pensioners in the Northern Territory live. Let me remind him that they do not receive a zone allowance to balance the high cost of living. They receive no assistance in relation to fares. They are subject to a six-monthly indexation of their pensions. Benefits arrive at least six months late and there is a corresponding gap in increases in line with the consumer price index.

I have already referred to the high cost of living. The situation has been made worse by the fact that in the Northern Territory pensioners do not receive the concessions that are made available elsewhere. Let me take one example to illustrate the point. I refer to Housing Commission tenants who are sick or unemployed. In most States the rent payable by such people is reduced by approximately one-fifth. In the Northern Territory there is no rebate. As far as water rates are concerned, in New South Wales pensioners receive a 50 per cent rebate. In South Australia no recovery action is taken and the rates accumulate. In the Australian Capital Territory production of the pension card alone gives a pensioner a 50 per cent rebate. Pensioners in the Northern Territory receive nothing at all. No provision at all is made to look after the pensioner who gets into trouble. I could go on to speak about car registration fees, the renting of houses and so on. However, I would like to refer to a comment made by the Leader of the Opposition in Darwin. He said:

In truth this Budget is a vicious attack on all Australians but it is particularly savage for Territorians.

In the time left to me I wish to look very briefly at the effect of Government policies as demonstrated by the Budget in the field of education. Federal governments, whether they like it or not, play a significant role in shaping the education of our children and, through them, moulding the future of our country. It is not trite to say that the wealth of our country is its children, and the adequacy or otherwise of their preparation determines the sort of life we are to enjoy in the next generation. So Federal governments do determine the future of our country by their policies.

Let us examine the direction of the policies of the present Government. It is not easy to do this because it is not sufficient to read the policies. It is as futile to read its policies as it is to listen to the policy speeches or the promises made on the election trail. Words are cheap and almost anyone can frame what might be called a good educational policy. We cannot confine ourselves only to education. We must look at the statements in other areas. We must look at other policies that have vital bearings.

I would like to look very quickly at the situation in schools, particularly in the Northern Territory because that is the pacesetter, that is the area that Senator Carrick said would set the standard for the rest of Australia and the one which he said would be a viable and effective unit when he handed it over in July of next year. I would like to look at the effects of staff ceilings and at the effects of building programs. In other words, in the few minutes that I have, I would like to do a Freeman Butts on assumptions underlying the policies of the Government as Freeman Butts did on assumptions underlying education in Australia. There will be some comparison with the Labor Government because it was truly a pacesetter in this field.

What then is the direction that we can observe in the present Government? The direction is backwards or what I would call a return; a return to the elitist system, a return to a situation in which public schools, meaning the private schools, give the real education and the Government just gives the rest; a complete rejection of the needs concept in the guidelines given to the Schools Commission, and this, we all know, is the strength of it; a return to the divisiveness part of the elitist system. I have commented before on how Professor Anderson said that one of the strengths of Labor was the fact that it overcame so much of this divisiveness. In his speech to the Australian College of Education he said:

The absence of dogma in the Labor Government’s policy has made it possible to achieve something of a consensus within the community at large. It is remarkable how the educational debate has been depoliticised, with the focus shifting from the long standing controversy over State-aid to unexceptionable issues such as equality and need.

The Government’s policy is a return to government control by the States. As Anderson comments, the lack of dogma is a strength because it puts the decision for education back where it belongs- back in the community, back in the hands of the commissions, back in the hands of the experts and away from the policy that government knows best. We are now back to political decisions, back to making education a political football. A return of education to the States can mean a return to the past, a resistance to change. It is so easy to ‘carry on’ and the consequence of this carrying on is a tendency to what we know as traditional education or academic-type education. It is easier because it is what we are used to doing. We tend to educate those who are responsive to this sort of academic or traditional type of education. The corollary of this is that we tend to ignore those who do not respond; we tend to have less emphasis on counselling.

We will have all this, despite the fact that if we have learned anything over the last few years it is that university oriented education at the primary and the secondary levels, which is what it amounts to, is not appropriate for the bulk of the population. We get a tendency to the sort of rationalisation that we hear so often from the Minister, the sort of rationalisation that says class sizes are not important or are not significant, the quoting of a piece of research which overlooks the fact that the researcher was looking at a number of factors and not just one, and the researcher was looking at the acquisition of skills, not at the development of attitudes or the development of understandings. Good education, if I can use that phrase, is not a matter of facts to be stored or even skills to be acquired, although these are important. Surely it means understandings to be developed and attitudes to be changed.

We get another sort of rationalisation from the Minister that it is the quality of education that counts. Of course it is the quality of education that counts, but what do we mean by the ‘quality of education’? What is the definition of ‘quality of education’? Certainly we do not accept the implication the Minister puts in that money is not important and that resources are not important. The simple fact is that the standard of education, by whatever criteria we want to use, is falling in the poorer non-government schools. Class sizes are increasing, there is a lack of range of educational opportunities available and there is a lack of resources. These things are all related to money, and money also is involved in the nogrowth philosophy of the present Government.

Even if we overlook the increases in numbers which must come each year, even if we overlook the effects of inflation at the present time, there was not enough in the 1976 Budget and there was not enough in the 1977 Budget. The Minister, in one of his usual statements, will say: ‘Ah, yes, but what about Labor in 1975?’ Like his leader, he has a very convenient memory. He forgets 1973 and he forgets 1974. There is no doubt that he would have been critical if Labor had not pulled back on the massive acceleration that it had in the programs in 1973 and 1974. He also conveniently forgets the shocking record prior to 1972. The terrific backlog in buildings and services was not fully met by Labor. It moved the Austraiian Teachers Federation to report on the conditions in many schools and I wish I had time to be able to read that to the Senate.

I would like to speak of the services to migrants, the disadvantaged, adult education and technical and further education but I do not have time to do so in this debate. I just want to refer briefly to staff ceilings in the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory where the subject is fairly topical at the moment. If there are low ceilings, if the ceilings are put on, this means that more professionals and less ancillary staff will be recruited with the obvious result that professionals will be doing non-professional work- a complete and utter waste of resources. Ceilings mean less diagnostic and remedial work. Remedial work is so important in all areas of education. No ancillary staff means that the handicapped cannot be educated adequately. A cut in travelling expenditure means that advisers are not able to get out into the field to do the job that they are supposed to be doing. I have been complaining about this ever since I became a member of this Senate. A cut in building maintenance expenditure means that there is no cyclical maintenance. If we would like to look at some of the Prime Minister’s happy little homilies that he uses, perhaps we should adopt the stitch in time technique so far as building maintenance is concerned.

Finally I would like to refer to the comment of Professor Anderson to the Australian College of Education when he said:

At this point, however, the major achievement of the Labor Government must be seen as the moves in the direction of consensus . . . Needs has been accepted by all major interest groups as the basis for funding. It is accepted that the disadvantaged children- whether defined according to social or psychological criteria- have a special claim . . . It has been accepted that a group of experts, open to public opinion, should be permitted to make judgments and make recommendations to the government accordingly . . . This achievement will, I believe, be judged by history to be a great one.

I submit that the present Government has moved away from this and has attempted to wipe out all the achievements of that time. There has been a regression, a return to the past, despite criticism justly levelled at that philosophy and practice. The Government stands condemned for steering education away from sound movement forward- an action for which the young people will pay now and the country will pay later.

Senator MASON:
New South Wales

– We of the Australian Democrats do not oppose the 1978 Budget, nor could we support Senator Gietzelt ‘s amendment. I might say that that is a decision motivated by our public pledge before the 1977 election that we would never vote against a Supply Bill brought forward by a government elected by a majority of Australians regardless of the political complexion of that government. The Australian Democrats will not then be blockers purely for the sake of blocking and we will honour in this Parliament the pledges that we made before we were elected to it. There are certain aspects of the Budget of which we approve. As Senator Robertson said, such items as the increased tax on petrol are bitter enough pills to swallow, but I think that most responsible Australians know enough about the problems and uncertainties of the near future to see that these items are necessary although unpleasant medicine.

If as a nation we are to meet the very considerable challenges of the next decade I believe that we will have to be a good deal more frugal and a great deal more productive than we have been in the past. I also believe that the easy years, the easy money of the 1960s, will not return to us. This should not be a cause for gloom or despondency. Rather, there should be greater effort and a community of purpose to face up to and meet the problems that we know confront us now. It is, or should be, a fundamental responsibility of government to lead this effort. So we of the Australian Democrats have no patience with doomsayers nor with the prejudices deriving from what we believe to be the 19th century ideologies of the Labor and Liberal Parties. Political action should be inspired by the basic facts of national life.

We of the Australian Democrats are pragmatists and we are proud of it. A basic fact is that we Australians occupy, as a single people, one of the wealthiest and best countries in the world, with an enormous potential. We have the largest, best educated and healthiest generation of young Australians in our history now coming into their responsibilities. It is to our eternal disgrace and shame that so many of them cannot find work when they want to work after being at school for so long. I am not one of those who believe that many people are dole bludgers, but I do believe that if young people are left for any time without the motivation of work, if they are allowed to become cynical and bitter about the possibilities of obtaining work, they may well turn into dole bludgers. It will be we who have made them dole bludgers, not the young unemployed themselves.

I suggest that we are now beginning to feel, as a benefit, the effect of a massive infusion of new ideas and new blood into our society from many other nations. I believe that is something for which, may I say, the old Australians do not give the newcomers to our society nearly enough credit. We have as yet relatively uncrowded and relatively unpolluted cities, a vast countryside which is as yet largely unused- that is to our discredit, too- an enormous treasure of mineral wealth, much of which we are allowing other people to take away from us, and the capacity to grow in some part of the continent almost every useful plant to be found on the face of the earth. We have nearly everything possible going for us but, unfortunately, not everything.

I believe that we have one pervasive disadvantage which needs to be talked about in this place, one vast millstone about our necks which affects virtually every aspect of our national work and lives, that is, the almost manic obsession of the old political parties to play an incessant daily game of confrontation and to visit upon the Australian community, which is surely one of the most homogeneous communities in the world, every possible permutation of the game of divisiveness that fertile imaginations can dream up. It is because of the dangers of this two-party system, of adversaries battling from the two extremes of the economic spectrum, that the Australian Democrats were formed a year or ago by 8,000 ordinary Australians. In 1977, for these very reasons, more than 800,000 Australians voted for us. Whatever our future might be, honourable senators of the Government and Opposition parties might see in that fact something of a portent for the future, some degree of criticism by the Australian people- at least 800,000 of them- of the lack of attention which this Parliament so often gives to the affairs of urgency and necessity of this nation.

Senator Teague:

– For some was it a soft option?

Senator MASON:

– I doubt it. We will wait until 1980 to see that. I am not attacking individual members of parliament or individual senators. I hope I am not so stupid as to believe that these men and women did not achieve public office without some sense of concern and dedication. That is already obvious to me, even in the short time that I have been here. What I am attacking, and I believe validly, is the two-party system. It is because of the two-party system that we could never have any sensible long term planning- the sensible long term planning for which our economy is crying out. It is because of the two-party system that government proceeds on an erratic three-year cycle of stop and go. All honourable senators know that just as well as I do.

The Budget that we are discussing was predictable. It had to be a horror Budget because an election was held last year. There will not be another election until 1980. Next year’s Budget will be slightly better and the 1980 Budget will be a positive delight to everyone. In 1981 there will be a horror Budget again. So much for efficient, continuous national planning. Our planning is dictated by political expediency, not the best interests of the nation. I suggest that the Australian people cannot allow this situation to continue indefinitely. I suggest that that is the reason for the presence of a third party- the Australian Democrats.

The two-party system is also responsible substantially for the pattern of strike action that regularly eats away at the economic flesh and blood of this country. I will not accept that we can blame solely the Australian Labor Party or the trade unions for this situation. Every dispute in this country has to become a political football; every strike has to become a battle between the opposed and confrontative political forces. We saw a tragic and unnecessary situation like that in the strike in the Latrobe Valley. Already the political scientists are looking at this matter. They realise that it was the political ingredient of that strike which caused the damage, agony, suffering and divisiveness in that society. There are many other strikes like that one. I suggest that this nation can no longer afford that rivaltype response which, with respect to honourable senators, I say is typical of two gangs of eightyearolds on the playground.

The industrial relations policy of the Australian Democrats is based on taking the heat out of this confrontation, getting it out of the political field, getting it out of the legal field, getting the disputes away from publicity and at a place where the parties, together with a team of conciliators on whom they can mutually agree, can discuss their problems until a solution is reached. This is being done overseas. It is not a new idea. It comes from the Canadian Liberal Party. It is Trudeau’s idea of industrial task forces.

I would like honourable Government senators now to tell me why they and their colleagues appear at least to be insisting on governing this country as if it will no longer exist in another five years? That is my first comment on the Budget because that is the reality of the Budget. It offers no new initiatives of any importance. It does not seek any bold new ventures from our society. The Budget does not sponsor any new or important rural industry of several that are possible. On the contrary, it is somehow contrived to destroy initiative, to cripple enterprise and to abort any new and valuable ideas before they even reach the full light of day.

Typical of the counter-productive measures contained in the Budget is the taxation of allowances to post-graduate scholars. This comes about after a lengthy period- since 1970- during which these allowances have been allowed to lag behind inflation. Now we have a situation in which a post-graduate scholar with a familysome 40 per cent of such scholars are married- is earning very little more than a man with similar family responsibilities who is on the dole. These people, while they are studying, are also involved in the nuts and bolts of virtually every major research program that is carried out in this country. They are indeed grossly underpaid research assistants. Every scientist will tell you that. I predict that they have now been reduced to the stage where many of them will have no option but to get out of that research work and seek full time jobs which, in view of the high intellectual calibre of most of them, being post-graduate people, they will probably get easily enough. In this case the loser will be the Australian nation.

What of the saving as a result of this measure in the Budget? Once again I would like to refer to the sloppy thinking and accounting in this Budget. It was stated in the Budget Papers that this measure would save $lm. That is a good round figure. I suppose that there are some people up there who do not think in terms of anything less than that. If one looks at the number of post-graduate scholars and their circumstances one will see that the saving probably will be about $350,000. For this saving we are tossing aside research which may have tremendous portent to the future of this country. In other respects also- in the interests of an alleged economy- money for essential and often overdue research has been cut back. A result of this action already I suggest is one that should have been predictable, that is, that existing programs that are likely to produce short term and superficial results naturally will be favoured and very little money will be left over for new or innovative research, which we need for a future that will present us with many problems and the need for change.

I suggest that it is no economy to cut back on necessary investments in one’s future. It is in this area that I believe the Government has made one of its most fatal miscalculations on behalf of this society. Indeed, I fear that we are now stuck with perhaps the most dangerous thing that we could possibly have in Australia now- a thoroughly conservative government, in the worst sense of that term, leading us into a decade of great and possibly dangerous change. I admit that the situation could change and I know that there is probably feeling within the Government that there is a problem in that direction. Government senators should get out and see that something is done in this society for a change and not just sit pat talking about inflation as if it were some great achievement merely to have halted it and let everything else go to hell.

In this decade, we as a nation will need to be as flexible, innovative and creative as possible if we are not to end up, as I have mentioned here before, as the poor white trash of Asia by the year 2000. The warnings are clearly before us. They have been given by our academics, by almost everybody of knowledge in our society. They have been disregarded. But ordinary Australians increasingly are understanding this point. Last Saturday’s result in the Werriwa byelection I suggest was not so much an indication of support for the Labor Party as a censure of the Government.

Senator O’Byrne:

– What was the swing?

Senator MASON:

-I will come to that point in a few minutes. The Government, I suggest, has an immediate responsibility to get this country moving again in a creative and constructive manner. I assure the Senate that any criticism I make is directed to that end. I am trying to get this thought through. While it is about it the Government might also recollect that it has a duty to Australian businessmen and women, thousands of whom have gone to the wall in bankruptcy over the last couple of years, a duty which I suggest the Government has been neglecting most seriously and for far too long. I am beginning to wonder who it is that the Liberal Party really represents.

One must ask: Can the Australian people look to the Australian Labor Party for creative and effective alternative leadership? I believe on present showing, while the Labor Party sits bemused apparently by its ideology and fails to do the necessary job the Australian people are waiting for it to do, that the answer is no. That job the Australian people are waiting for the Labor Party to do relates to the trade union movement and its place in Australian society. We have many good trade unionists in the Australian Democrats and every day we welcome more as members. Nothing pleases me more than to see ex-activists of the Liberal Party and Labor Party working together amicably and constructively in so many Democrat branches because in that process we have a microcosm of a future Australia which operates through the politics of cooperation rather than the present politics which in spite of words to the contrary continue in practice to be confrontative

We hear much talk these days about consensus and the desirability of consulting people, but we do not see any signs of it in practice, nor do we see or hear of” much consultation with the Australian people. The Australian Democrats believe fundamentally in the necessity for a strong, honest and healthy trade union movement which benefits all workers- and I stress the words, ‘all workers’. We would like to see such a trade union movement exist because it certainly does not exist now. Instead, the industrial trade union movement of this country benefits a few unions to the detriment of many others. Which unions does it benefit? It benefits those few which because of the nature of their occupation have the power to blackmail people and they rarely pass up the opportunity to do so.

The Australian people, I suggest from the feedback we in the Australian Democrats are getting, are fed up to the back teeth with this situation and they will not tolerate it any further. They ask, as I would do, what right these minorities have to blackmail us all. I would say that they have none. I believe it is time that the Labor Party came out and said that too. It is a crying shame that the majority of the trade union movement which is useful, reasonable and decent, should be continually given the tag of association of these few people. How many men would be associated with this group? Honourable senators in this chamber could sit down and list 20 or 30 men- only that number- who are responsible for this dangerous and divisive tendency, this deliberate campaign of blackmail of society to get short term gains, usually money gains. So while the Labor Party continues in the public mind to be associated with these extremist groups, and believe me it is associated with them in the public mind, it will not get the confidence of the majority of the Australian people.

There are very many things about the Labor Party’s policies that are constructive- indeed, we in the Australian Democrats share so many of them- but which will never come to fruition. Here are some of the points that the Australian Democrats would like to see the Labor Party take up with the union movement. Why do the unions continue to obstruct a sane and well planned system of industrial democracy in Australia? I do not mean by that what Mr Dunstan is doing in South Australia. What I mean are the successful schemes that add so much to the prosperity of places like the Scandinavian nations and West Germany. I am talking about workers on boards, worker ownership of shares, profit sharing, self-contained worker groups which are permitted to use their initiative and enterprise. I think that point is very important. I am talking about the possibility of even area ownership of whole new industries by their workers. This is what the Australian Democrats mean by industrial democracy.

I would like to take up the point of area ownership a little further because I believe it is a fundamentally new idea which has come from Australian Democrat policy. Like all of our policies it has come from the grassroots of our party. The idea is basically that there should be a third element in our economy. There should be the public sector and the private sector as we understand them and especially in depressed areas the opportunity should be given by government to as many workers who wish to specialise and unemployed people in the society to start a new industry. This industry should be given low interest loans by government. Also government should provide expertise. Further, government planners should ride herd on that industry for a few years until it gets off the ground. Once it has it will then be an industry which is owned by its workers. I suggest that this is an ideal solution because unlike so many State enterprises the motivation is there for people to want to work for themselves. I suggest this is a new thing for our society that we might consider.

Another point that might be clarified with the unions- and here again I know I am speaking in the same way as many other people, but in fact the Australian Democrats I believe seven or eight months ago were among the first to bring up this point- is their apparent determination to keep tens of thousands of unemployed people permanently out of work by not reconsidering union attitudes towards permanent part time work and the abolition of weekend penalty rates. These penalty rates have already crippled our tourist and entertainment industries. That has been proved beyond doubt. Beyond that they are actually and actively cutting down on employment opportunities. There are many people in our society now unemployed who would like to work three or four days a week, or maybe two days a week, but they are not being given the opportunity. It is their fellow workers, for apparently purely selfish motives, who appear to me to be keeping them out of it. I suggest they will pay dearly to the Australian community before they are much older because this situation is clearly understood in the community now.

While I am on this subject I would like to refer to two more points and I should lower my voice while I put the first one. Should it be necessary for any organisation that is giving its members a useful service to insist that its membership should be compulsory? I know the objection that workers not in unions have no moral right to share the benefits that union work and union solidarity have achieved. We in the Australian Democrats agree absolutely with that. Our policy, which again has been formed by secret national ballot of all our members, states that where workers object on grounds of principle to union membership they should not have to belong to that union but they should pay a fee for service to the union and so contribute to its expenses. This is a kind of compromise solution that we would like to see in this area as in others. My final point about unions is this: Can there be any serious disagreement that the only fair and honest way for a group of people in consultation to reach decisions is by a secret written ballot?

I leave those thoughts with Labor Party senators. I return to the Liberal and National Country parties which make up the Government and which after all bear an immediate responsibility to the Australian people. I suggest the

Government already knows that its Budget strategy will not work. If the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) still thinks he is controlling inflation I suggest he go and talk to some Australian businessmen and women as I have done recently- to a great number of them.

Senator Teague:

– They support the Budget.

Senator MASON:

– I know they do not. The present control on prices is due only to the harsh reining in of the economy. It is like a driver who persistently slows down his car by the savage use of his brakes instead of using his accelerator sensibly. The moment restraints are lifted there will be renewed inflation. Why it is that in Sydney now there are no home units on the market? It is because the people who own them are keeping them until the restraints are lifted and then the prices will go up. This is the case almost everywhere throughout the whole of the economy. Yet, if the restraints are kept on- and this is the Catch 22 situation- every month and every year our basic problems are increased and we are less able to contend with our international competitors, especially those in Asia and South America.

The Australian Democrats agree with Mr Bob Hawke that the initial answer must be a conference of all elements in our economic and political scene. People must sit down and work together co-operatively to try to find the answers to our problems. These answers, I suggest, might include a dramatic and selective improvement in Australia’s productivity based on a realistic assessment of what the world will be like and what the world will need in 10 years time. An attempt must be made to find out what are the things that will give us steam to make progress in the intensely competitive world in the future.

It is not possible in the time I have to discuss all of the new and exciting initiatives that are actually present in the society which the Government does not appear to have seen and for which the ground work already exists. I might mention the laser industry, Mr Ralph Sarich ‘s orbital engines works in Perth and some fascinating new initiatives in small shipbuilding. I will turn for an example in some detail to what the Australian Democrats regard as an important possibility in view of the rapidly oncoming crisis in respect of our supplies of petrol. I think that few thinking Australians will doubt that this is one of the major problems that lies immediately ahead of us, and one which Australia, least of all among the developed nations, can solve easily. Unlike other developed nations, Australia does not have very large railroad mileages. We do not have canal systems. We have vast distances to be covered. This is the point made by Senator Robertson. Without petrol or a motor spirit as our lifeblood in this country in the future Australia will be in a very bad way.

Some honourable senators may recall that the matter of fuel alcohol or ethanol as a substitute for petrol was raised in evidence before the Standing Committee on National Resources in its solar energy inquiry in August 1976, now more than two years ago. Ethanol is in most respects a better motor spirit than petrol. That is why it has been used as a fuel for decades by Indianapolis racing cars. It has a higher octane rating and even when it is used at an additive to petrol, which is what the Australian Democrats suggest should be researched first, it can reduce the need for lead additives and hence also the need for vehicle emission controls. Since August 1 976, some very exciting research has been going on into this subject. For instance, we know now from some trial plantations, which I might say have been organised by private industry, not by government, that a plant named cassava, which is basically the Asian tapioca plant, grows very well even on marginal country in tropical Australia. Cassava, which is already being grown in Brazil as a source of ethanol, may well prove to be a major breakthrough as the cheapest and most easily produced source of the starch from which fuel ethanol can be made. Meanwhile, at the School of Chemical Engineering at the Sydney University, research has been going on that also promises to provide a major breakthrough in the actual production of ethanol. Strangely enough- or is it so strange- this most promising field of research has been almost entirely neglected by government. Yet, the work has gone on through the efforts of a few dedicated academics and private enterprise. It is suggested that further research might open up some dramatic new horizons for Australian agriculture and contribute greatly towards our future selfsufficiency in motor spirit. That self-sufficiency is now under threat. Whilst two States have devoted considerable funding, or propose to do so, for coal to oil research, lead times, costs, pollution factors and actual final cost per litre all appear much greater than is the case with ethanol.

Based on the South African SASOL plant, the final cost of a coal to oil system would be about one and a half thousand million dollars. The lead time would be at least 12 years, by which time we would be well into our crisis. The cost of the product would be about 35c to 40c a litre. Ultimately, of course, such a plant would exhaust even our vast coal reserves. A time factor of 70 years has been mentioned if we relied on this source solely for our motor spirit. One coal to oil conversion plant might provide about 7 per cent of our current needs for motor spirit. Eighty regional ethanol complexes which would cost in total the same amount as one coal to oil conversion plant- they cost about $20m each- would produce 20 per cent of our requirements as opposed to 7 per cent of our requirements under the other alternative. Lead times would be much shorter- perhaps as little as 8 years- and final cost a litre would be about 20c to 25c. Whilst that sounds a lot now, I predict that that cost will be competitive with petrol prices in a few years’ time.

There are some other big pluses in this process. One is that these ethanol agro-industrial complexes can be built one at a time as we can afford them. They would be regionally situated. They would provide new industries and work in country areas that need this assistance so much. By using cassava in tropical regions and sugar beet in temperate climates, a wide geographic dispersion would be possible. Such a dispersion also has strategic importance as well as being a useful factor in the decentralisation that Australia needs so badly. The modern technology is also based on the return of all plant nutrients to the soil, the return of proteins in the form of a valuable stock feed and the actual powering of the fermenters through methane gas produced as a by-product. It is not oversimplifying the position to say that this process aims at achieving and has largely achieved the objective of using growing plants to turn sunlight into motor fuel. Hence, theoretically the fuel can be produced in perpetuity. It is a permanently renewable energy source. Unacceptable areas of monoculture are not necessary. Twenty per cent of all our motor spirit needs could be produced from an area comparable with the total area of the Queensland sugar canefields. But, of course, not only would the culture be much more dispersed; in many cases, it would be in the form of rotation crops which would improve the soil rather than deplete it. This concept lies behind the first active support for an experimental ethanol plant which would be situated in Northern Tasmania and based on sugar beet.

The Australian Democrats are great believers in consulting people. I went to Tasmania some months ago at the invitation of the local sugar beet association. In effect, it is composed of local farmers now using that very rich soil for growing vegetables, for dairying and even in some cases for growing opium poppies. Their main interest in beet growing is because, as a rotation crop, it will improve the soil and save it from inevitable depletion in 10 or 15 years. These growers are right behind a plan for the first pilot plant which is now necessary to test modern fermenting techniques for ethanol in actual operation. The cost of the first three years of research, which would be applicable not only to Tasmania but also to many other areas of Australia, is a modest $500,000, of which the Tasmanian Government has already told me it would provide half. This matter is now before the Standing Committee on Technology of Synthetic Fuels of the National Energy Research Development and Demonstration Council. I hope that we see its recommendations reasonably promptly.

I make an appeal to the older political parties to get going on things like this ethanol question. I say to honourable senators: For heaven’s sake, do not let things slide. We cannot afford to do this. We appeal to the Government to consider some of the things that we consider to be necessary and urgent. We should be setting aside money in sufficiently large quantities to foster active and useful research into new industries, new hopes and new investment in Australia’s future. We should be taking the heat out of industrial confrontation. We should be giving active encouragement to Australian industriesAustralian private enterprises- to develop export markets in particular which are something more than a simple rape of our national resources which most of our export industries seem to be doing now. I might say also that they seem to be in the hands of foreigners. We should be doing something effective about our outmoded Constitution and political system so that members of this Parliament are elected on a basis of representing all Australians, not just half of them, and so that the Australian people are consulted more adequately and more honestly about their own affairs.

– A Liberal government?

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Jessop)- Order, Senator McLaren. I suggest that you address your remarks to the Chair.

Senator McLAREN:

-That is right. I told this Parliament some years ago what was on the cards, and everything I said has come true. If anyone would like a copy of the speech I made then, I have a copy of it here. I made that speech on 30 September 1975. 1 repeated it in this Parliament 1 1 months to the day after I happened to overhear a conversation between the present Prime Minister and the present Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I sat on what I had overheard; I did not make it public for 1 1 months. I was prompted to make it public when the present Prime Minister tabled in the other place a document which was stolen from the office of the then Treasurer, Mr Hayden. I thought that if it was good enough for Mr Fraser to table stolen goods in the Parliament to try to ridicule the then Labor Government, it was good enough for me to tell what he was doing. When honourable senators read my speech and look at what has happened they will know that what I said was exactly true. It all took place.

Why has the Prime Minister fallen out with Mr Street? Because there is one thing that Mr Street will not do. He is not prepared to adhere to instructions from the Prime Minister to take on the trade union movement head on. He wants to be conciliatory. He wants to sit down and talk with the trade union movement about the problems that face the movement. But the Prime Minister does not want him to do that. So what has the Prime Minister done to overcome that? He has set up a small group of Ministers- five of them, I think- to look over Mr Street’s shoulder, to keep him in tow, to see that he does not step out of line, and to see that he takes a really hard line with the trade union movement. Time and time again we have asked the Government to sit down and talk with employers and the trade union movement to solve some of the problems that we know are about. But what does Mr Fraser say? According to the headline on page 3 of the Melbourne Herald, which I quoted here yesterday, Fraser says no. He does not want any consultation; he wants confrontation. That is why there is all this industrial trouble. The Government is not prepared to sit down and talk to the trade union movement.

Senator Teague:

– Nonsense!

Senator McLAREN:

– It is not nonsense. The proof is there. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Senator Teague:

– Well, why didn’t the people support you in the last election?

Senator McLAREN:

– I have just explained that to Senator Teague. How thick in the head is he? I have just explained to him that it was because of all the false promises that were made in the document which I have before me. Senator Teague has a copy of it. I refer to the Prime Minister’s policy speech. What promises has the Prime Minister repudiated? What did he say about taxation? Perhaps Senator Teague would like a reminder of what the Prime Minister said about taxation. He said:

From 1 February further tax cuts will come in for every Australian wage and salary earner. This year alone, the person on average earnings will be saving $6 a week from these two reforms.

I mentioned yesterday the full page advertisements the Government placed in all the daily newspapers which showed a hand holding a fist full of $5 notes. When those $5 notes were counted they added up to $70. 1 had people come to me after the election and say: ‘We voted for this man. How are we going to get $70 when our wages are only $130?’ They were conned. After making the promise that the Government would reduce taxation, what does it say at page 19 of the Budget Speech. With regard to the income tax standard rate it states:

As foreshadowed earlier -

Of course, it was not foreshadowed earlier because the Government told the people that they were going to get a reduction in taxation- the Government has decided that as a temporary measure for 1978-79 only, the standard rate of personal income tax will be increased by 1% per cent, from 32 to 3314 per cent; there will be corresponding increases, to 47V5 per cent and 6 1 ‘A per cent, at higher levels of income.

Of course, the whole significance of this statement will not become evident to the taxpayers until they get their first pay packet after 1 November. Then they are going to have a rude awakening. They are going to be paying more tax- those, of course, who have a job and are therefore paying income tax, but with the rapid rate of unemployment, a lot more people will not have a job.

Senator Teague:

– What about the abolition of the health levy? There is an overall decrease in taxation.

Senator McLAREN:

Senator Teague:

– Chaffey was represented.

Senator McLAREN:

– I am saying that one State member was there. Two or three State members are involved in the grape growing industry but they did not turn up. In the few moments left to me I want to remind honourable senators opposite of a letter which they would have received from the Secretary of the South Australian Trades and Labour Council, Mr Bob Gregory, pointing out to them all the ramifications of this Budget and enclosing a copy of a letter which Mr Gregory sent to Mr Fraser setting out all the areas in the Budget which would cause many problems. The South Australian Trades and Labour Council wrote this letter to Mr Fraser on 2 1 August and its context proves that the trade union movement was well aware just a week after the Budget was brought down of the problems which it was going to create. We wrote to Mr Fraser asking that some remedies be taken. But he turned a deaf ear. It has taken a massive public protest, such as the one that I mentioned took place here yesterday, to bring this lot around to some sane thinking. I doubt that that protest would have been successful if it had not been for the electors of Werriwa on Saturday. That has brought up the Government with a severe jolt.

After the Bass by-election was held, which the Labor Party lost and in which the Government had a massive win, honourable senators used to complain every day that we should resign. Hansard shows that honourable senators stood up in this place and said: ‘Resign, resign, you have lost the confidence of the electors’. I am saying that to honourable senators opposite because they did not get the result in Bass that we got in Werriwa. If they are consistent they will resign and go out and test the feelings of the electors. If the electors return the Government I will be the first to get up and congratulate honourable senators opposite and say that they know what they are about. But they are not prepared to do so. They know that the Government has another 2Vi years, if it can survive that long, in view of the turmoil which is brewing amongst those backbenchers in the House of Representatives who are in borderline seats and who are getting itchy feet. We will see what we know as another mushroom Cabinet set-up. All these eager beavers are going to be working to get rid of Mr Fraser. I conclude by making the further plea to the rebels opposite: do not sack Mr Fraser during the next 12 months because he is helping us no end in the electorate. That was proved on Saturday in the Werriwa by-election and it will be proved again as soon as we can get another opportunity for the people to go to the polls.

Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania)-I seek leave to make a statement following the statements made by Senator McLaren.

The PRESIDENT:

– You have been misrepresented, senator?

Senator HARRADINE:

– Yes, Mr President. During Senator McLaren ‘s speech he suggested that I was not accurate in a response to an interjection by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt) when I said that Senator Ryan is on record as not supporting indexation of family allowances. It was not part of my speech; it was a result of an interjection. I have in my file a note that that fact had been adverted to in a letter dated 28 January 1978 in the Sydney Morning Herald. The letter reads:

Sir, Though we deserve a break from the pre-election indepth interviews, Lenore Nicklin ‘s cosy chat with Senator Susan Ryan deserves some comment.

I am a constituent of Senator Ryan and can only hope that she, a self-avowed socialist and feminist, remains a shadow minister. Senator Ryan ‘fights hard for a woman’s right to a job in time of high unemployment ‘.

Senator McLaren:

– On a point of order, Mr President, Senator Harradine is not proving that his statement was correct. He is quoting from a newspaper a letter which was written by a second person. We have no proof that the author of that letter has a fair mind with regard to what she is saying. I suggest that you, Mr President, rule him out of order.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Harradine wishes to reply to what he regards as a misrepresentation of what he has said. You will keep to that, Senator Harradine.

Senator HARRADINE:

– The letter continues:

While Senator Ryan is fighting hard for the minority of women, the majority of women (and not only those in her electorate) are hoping for a better deal for single-income families so that they will not have to leave their families and seek work outside the home for economic reasons.

The Canberra branch of the Women’s Action Alliance (a national body of concerned women) sent a questionnaire to all ACT election candidates, seeking their views on indexation of family allowances . . .

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Harradine, you must confine your remarks to those areas in relation to which you personally have been misrepresented. You do not have leave to do more than that.

Senator HARRADINE:

-Unfortunately, when this incident occurred the Acting Deputy President was in the Chair. Senator McLaren- I ask him to deny it- asked me to prove the statement that I had made. I am doing that.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Harradine, you must restrict your remarks to the area in which you were misrepresented.

Senator HARRADINE:

– The letter continues:

Senator Ryan replied no to our question: ‘Do you support removing the present economic discrimination against single-income families by (1) indexation of family allowances?’

She replied no to that question.

Senator Georges:

– I raise a point of order, Mr President. I must insist that your ruling was correct.

Senator HARRADINE:

– You read in Hansard tomorrow what he said.

Senator Georges:

– He may have challenged you, but that does not mean that you have been misrepresented. He challenged you to do something about something. You can do that on another occasion, but you cannot claim to have been misrepresented and take up the time of the Senate.

The PRESIDENT:

– I call Senator Kilgariff.

Senator KILGARIFF:
Northern Territory

- Mr President, it is a pleasure to welcome you once again as President of this Senate. I am sure that the people of South Australia are very proud of you, as I am sure that the people of New South Wales are proud of our new Chairman of Committees, Senator Scott. In the last two weeks we have heard many speeches on the Budget. I must say that I have found many of those speeches to be very interesting, particularly those from our new senators. I especially congratulate Senator Puplick, who is the youngest senator, on the most interesting speech that he made. During the last two weeks there has been much shouting and raving and I believe that much of the shouting and raving has been in an endeavour to confuse the people of Australia. There is no doubt that there is no excuse for it.

The Budget which has been presented on this occasion is a firm Budget. It is a Budget which is designed to cure a situation which was born and bred when Labor was in office. On many occasions mention has been made of the Labor Government’s record, its lack of financial control, its inability to control expenditure, and the fact that it changed Treasurers often in a very brief period. During its period in office we had galloping inflation to the extent that we finished up with an inflation rate of about 1 8 per cent.

Even if some honourable senators do not remember these things, the people of Australia well remember the intense rate of inflation which we experienced. They remember that period when prices increased by the week and when the workers of this country were endeavouring to keep up with prices. Although they may have received an increase in wages, the taxation system in those days was such that they moved into a higher tax bracket and thus paid more out of their wages in tax and bought fewer goods for their money. Australia was on the brink of economic chaos. It has been said during the last three years that we cannot expect a miracle to happen in a few years. We have now moved away from that period when we had an inflation rate of some 18 per cent, and Australia is now recognised as having an inflation rate of about 7.9 per cent. In the last two weeks it has even been said by an overseas authority that that rate could be overstated and that it is quite likely that the actual inflation rate in Australia is 6.9 per cent.

Senator Walsh:

– Who said that?

Senator KILGARIFF:

– An overseas authority who has been mentioned before in this chamber. This reduction in the inflation rate will bring about stability in prices and stability in wages. Out of this stability we will see a decrease in interest rates. Our current high interest rates were bred, of course, out of the high rate of inflation. These high interest rates have caused much havoc and hardship to the ordinary people of Australia who wish to build houses, buy cars or buy something for their homes. Those people have to pay as much as 12 per cent, 13 per cent, 14 per cent, 15 per cent and 16 per cent interest on the money they borrow.

Senator Cavanagh:

– How can they on unemployment relief?

Senator KILGARIFF:

- Senator Cavanagh is trying by way of interjection to bring in a red herring. What will happen now is that interest rates will come down and that will be most beneficial to the man in the street. By this lowering of interest rates- I hope that within a year they will be reduced to, say, 8 per cent- the people in the community will be encouraged to buy goods and that in turn will stimulate production. It will have the effect of assisting the worker because the price of houses and the price of goods will be much lower.

Senator Cavanagh:

– What about jobs?

Senator KILGARIFF:

– The honourable senator asks: ‘What about jobs?’ That is a very interesting subject. We have a very high rate of unemployment. No one denies that. It appears that many people in Australia, including those honourable senators sitting opposite tonight, expect that the problem of unemployment will be overcome purely by government action alone.

We all know that it the unemployment problem is to be overcome that result will be achieved by genuine team work throughout Australia. When I refer to team work I mean that the effort has to be made not only by the Government but also by the Opposition, the unions, the man in the street, the employer and employee. We are faced with a national problem and the way in which it can be overcome is by team work. I often wonder whether honourable senators opposite really want to overcome the unemployment problem. Do they wish to retain their dog-in-the-manger attitude and say: ‘To hell with everybody else. I have got a job. I have got money. Forget about the unemployed’. Frankly, I doubt their honesty.

As I said before, the unemployment problem will be eased by the lowering of interest rates. That will have the effect of stimulating production and stimulating industry. It has been reported in news broadcasts today that a review of some 700 industries indicates that the employment situation is picking up. I believe that if we dealt with the problem as a team we could begin to make inroads into this dreadful unemployment situation. If honourable senators opposite wish to assist I suggest that they do so from within the union system, because I believe that it is most necessary that certain action be taken in that area. I have a few suggestions which, if adopted, would create employment. It is up to these people to look at some of those suggestions if they wish to assist their mates. Firstly, let me deal with penalty rates. Penalty rates, as honourable senators know, have killed many positions and much employment in Australia. The cutting of penalty rates will create more work opportunities, reduce prices and provide more services for the Australian community.

It is usual for Senator Harradine to bring up many interesting points. Tonight he discussed the position of married women in the work force. There is no doubt that there are married women in the work force because they need the money for various reasons, such as to bring up their families and so on. I would say, too, that there are in the work force married women who do not need to be there at all. Some of them work in industry out of sheer boredom. They occupy positions which could be filled by young girls who want work. There has to be a balance in this situation. One of the things that have killed employment and increased unemployment is the rat baggery wild cat strikes that have taken place. We know full well that when a small group of people go on strike it brings hardship on their mates who are stood down. All that these strikes do is increase unemployment. I suggest that the people in the union system who wish to create more employment opportunities should at least consider their mates and not take part in wild cat, rat baggery strikes that give no benefit to them or to their families.

There are one or two other things that can be done to reduce unemployment. One of the problems we face is youth unemployment. This is a serious situation. I suggest that there should be introduced a means whereby a reasonable amount of wages is given to youth in employment. I do not suggest that the wage for youth should be cut to the bone because that would impose a hardship on them; but I suggest that the level of award wages these days is too high in some respects and it does not give the employer any incentive to employ young people. I think there is a sad situation in respect of youth education. These days we see teachers going on strike. This has occurred in the last few days. Quite frankly, I suggest that the teachers who go out on strike these days- they are only a minority- do so because they forget about their responsibilities. I suggest that in going on strike they do not have due regard for the youth who are under their charge. I think that in many instances there is clear evidence that the youth coming out of our schools these days are poorly equipped- I emphasise the words ‘poorly equipped’- to battle in life.

Senator Cavanagh:

– So you cut down the education vote.

Senator KILGARIFF:

– The education vote has not been cut down. My time in this debate is limited. There has been much said about the Australian scene, but in the few minutes remaining to me in this debate I wish to speak about the Northern Territory. As I have said before, this year is a gigantic and important milestone for the Northern Territory. I refer to the single line appropriation budget in respect of the Northern Territory assuming responsible self-government. Many knockers have said that responsible selfgovernment will bring about hardship for the people of the Northern Territory. This is utter nonsense. I refer to the Press release issued by the Minister for the Northern Territory (Mr Adermann) at about the time of the changeover, in which he said:

During the transitional period and until the Commonwealth Grants Commission has reported on an application by the Northern Territory for special assistance, the Commonwealth Government will ensure that Commonwealth assistance to the Northern Territory is sufficient to maintain standards of service at an overall level equivalent to that presently provided.

The amount provided by the Federal Government in this single line is $280m. Despite this, that gloomy person, Mr Hawke, the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, in Darwin, in September 1978, said:

The 1978-79 Budget is a tragedy . . . The Northern Territory is more dependent on Government expenditure than any other part of the country. Restrictions in this area of expenditure will create problems in the Northern Territory.

I do not know whether that is wishful thinking by Mr Hawke, but the fact is that he is completely wrong in his forecast. I have in my hands a very interesting document. I would like to read from it extensively, but time does not permit me to do so. It is the second reading speech of the Treasurer of the Northern Territory, Mr Marshall Bruce Perron, delivered on the day he introduced Appropriation Bill (No. 1) in the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory. I will read just a few quotes from the document.

Senator McLaren:

– Does he say anything in there about Willeroo?

Senator KILGARIFF:

– That has been covered too. He said:

. Those who forecast that self-determination would bring disaster will know their charges ring hollow.

He goes on to say:

The Budget provides incentives for economic development and confidence for the future. It is a document which expresses the Government’s concern to motivate greater private sector growth, and lessen the dependency of the Territory’s economy on government sponsored activities.

This, and succeeding budgets, will reflect that policy. By way of example, the Government recognises the dependency Territorians have on transportation, and this Budget provides in excess of $ 1 8m for new roadworks and $ 1 2. 126m for maintenance works. The construction industry can look to competing for contracts involving almost $22m in Government buildings alone.

He said that an amount of $8. 4m is to be provided for primary industry. Fishery development will get $1.2m, and the Territory Development Corporation will get $4.2m. The Tourist Board will get $ 1.1m, and $8. 9m is to be provided for the development and control of Territory parks and wildlife. An amount of $4.2m is allocated for mines and energy. He went on to say:

Even though actual mining will not commence for some time, the development of the support, communication and service facilities in the uranium province will result in a significant injection of capital resources in the Territory.

Senator Bishop:

– What about the Stuart Highway?

Senator KILGARIFF:

– As the honourable senator well knows, the Stuart Highway is sealed in the Northern Territory to the South Australian border. The fact of the matter is that an amount of Sim has been made available to the South Australian Government for the commencement of the sealing of the south road, and one wonders whether it will be commenced. This road has quite a long history, as the honourable senator knows, and it would be my wish to go into this matter in much more depth at some time in the very near future.

Senator Georges:

– You are not prepared to do it now, are you?

Senator KILGARIFF:

– When one has only 10 minutes remaining in which to speak one can hardly tell the people of Australia the true facts of the situation. I continue to indicate to the people of Australia the deal that the people of the Northern Territory are getting. Health services will be supported and maintained by the provision of $43m. The provision of essential services to Aboriginal communities is a very important function and responsibility of the Northern Territory Government. By agreement with the Federal Government, $ 13.4m has been set aside for the provision of these services. I think a question was raised tonight about the lack of money in the Northern Territory for housing maintenance, et cetera, but $46.6m has been provided for the construction and restoration of dwelling units by the Housing Commission. The Government will provide $ 17.2m for community development, including $3. 8m on corrective services and $8.7m for local government activities. Fire services will receive $2.9m and $ 13.7m will be provided for police services. Last year $2. 3m and $ 10.4m respectively were provided for those services which come under the control of the Legislative Assembly. Once again I will quote from the Northern Territory Budget. It states:

Funds provided in this Budget for health and essential services to Aboriginal communities will be carefully monitored in association with the respective Commonwealth Departments, to ensure that between us -

– They would get the living wage from money being provided for construction. For Government and mission sponsored communities, $4.96m will be provided. That amount was previously provided for in the appropriations of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. So it goes on and on. This indicates very clearly that the Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory are getting a very fair deal from the Federal Government. Some criticisms have been made by the Opposition regarding education in the Northern Territory. The Minister for Education, Senator Carrick, has stated that recurrent expenditure on government schools in the

Northern Territory will be increased by $4.7m in 1978-79. Funds for repairs and maintenance will be increased by $ 1.68m, a 104 per cent increase on the previous year’s expenditure. Work preparation programs for unemployed youth in the Territory will begin with an allocation of $60,000. It is interesting to note that the Darwin Community College has received an increase of $594,000 over the figure for the previous financial year. In fact the Darwin Community College will get $6. 66m this year. There will also be other major projects carried out in the Northern Territory which will run into many millions of dollars. They include the construction of the new Nhulunbuy high school, a curriculum and media centre, the Darwin Special School, art and craft facilities for Darwin High School, upgrading programs for Milingimbi, Umbakumba, Yuendumu and Ludmilla, and transportable schools for Willowra and Maryvale. The Government’s program for providing assistance for mission schools in the Northern Territory is being continued with an allocation of $2. 06m. This clearly indicates that in the area of education -

Debate interrupted.

page 1029

ADJOURNMENT

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! It being 1 1 p.m., under sessional order I put the question:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 11 p.m.

page 1030

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Solar Energy (Question No. 149)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 2 March 1 978:

Does the Minister recall recent statements made by Professor Stuart Butler of the University of Sydney where he stated that recent breakthroughs in solar energy research in Australia could mean the end of nuclear power needs in 25 years.
If Professor Butler’s statements are correct, what economic benefit is Australia then likely to receive by mining and developing uranium if other countries are likely to see the end of nuclear power within 25 years.
What effect would such solar energy research breakthroughs have on the predicted nuclear capacity of the world.
What are these solar energy research breakthroughs, who is involved in the research, and what level of funding have they been receiving for each of the past five years.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

1 ) I am not aware of any recent statements by Professor Butler on this matter. Professor Butler presently holds the position of Director, Australian Atomic Energy Research Establishment at Lucas Heights. I do recall seeing some press reporting of a statement made by Professor Butler in March 1977 concerning the role of solar energy in Australia.
to (4) On all the advice I have received, it does not appear that there will be any diminution in the development of nuclear power over the next 25 years or longer. This view is supported by the Joint Report by the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency and the International Atomic Energy Agency. The Report estimates that the annual demand in the year 2000 would be 178,000-338,000 tonnes uranium which represents a significant increase in demand over the next 25 years. See also answer to question No. 544, Hansard, 1 4 September 1977, page 825 and answer to question No. 143, Hansard, 13 September 1978, page 589.

Energy Accounting Research (Question No. 165)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 2 March 1978:

1 ) Are any officers of the Minister’s Department engaged in any energy accounting research; if so, who are these officers and what energy accounting projects are being researched; if not, why not.
Is the Minister’s Department aware of any other scientists and researchers in Australia who are engaged in energy accounting work; if so, who are these people and what projects are being researched.

Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for National Development has supplied the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

1 ) None of my officers is presently engaged in energy accounting research.
My Department is not aware of any energy accounting work being carried out in Australia at this time. The Australian Atomic Energy Commission has been involved in the past in some energy accounting work in relation to various types of power stations. The work was completed in 1 976.

Energy Research (Question No. 167)

Senator Keeffe:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 1 March 1978:

1 ) Is the Minister responsible for energy and energy related matters in Australia; if so, why is almost all energy research funded by the Federal Government being carried out by another Department, as stated by the Minister in his answer to Senate Question No. 741 (Hansard, 24 August 1976, page 265).
What control, or degree of co-ordination and cooperation, does the Minister have with the Department and its relevant Minister.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

1 ) Yes. The Minister for National Development has responsibility for national energy planning and research. I refer the honourable senator to the Administrative Arrangement Orders of 23 February 1978. The Minister’s responsibilities for energy research and development relate to:
1. overall co-ordination (see (2) below)
2. the undertaking of energy research and development programs by instrumentalities within his Ministry, for example, the Australian Atomic Energy Commission; and
3. the encouragement of expanded energy research, development and demonstration in Australia through the disbursement of funds on the advice of the National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Council (NERDDC).
The Minister for National Development is responsible for the co-ordination of all energy research, development and demonstration. In this role he is advised by NERDDC. The Council consists of 12 members, who have been carefully selected with a view to providing a wide range of expertise in the field of energy research and development. The Permanent Heads of the Departments of National Development, Productivity and Science are members of the Council.

Parliamentary Library (Question No. 463)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 25 May 1978:

What are the ‘large tenders for sophisticated units’ which are emerging’ in the Parliamentary Library referred to in the article ‘New-generation typewriters outsmart the old electrics’, the Financial Review, 1 May 1978.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

Responsibility for the administration of the Parliamentary Library rests jointly with the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Accordingly, I suggest that the honourable senator’s inquiries should more properly be directed to either the President or the Speaker.

Energy Research (Question No. 585)

Senator Lewis:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 9 June 1978:

Will the Minister give consideration to a substantial increase in research and development grants into alternative energy sources in the financial year 1978-79, in view of the International Energy Agency prediction that in 198S demand for oil from the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries will exceed supply by between four and twelve million barrels a day.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

I refer the honourable senator to my press statement of 1 7 August which states that about $ 15m would be available in 1978-79 to encourage a major expansion of energy research and development.

The recent Budget made a cash provision of $4m for research grants expenditure in 1978-79 and, to cater for longer term projects, the Government is prepared to commit a further S5m against expenditure in future years. In addition about $6m, representing accruals and reserves in the Coal Research Trust Account, will be available for coal research.

These funds will be allocated on advice from the National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Council and will enable the Commonwealth Government to greatly expand its support for energy research, development and demonstration projects.

These additional funds would supplement funds available to CSIRO and other bodies for research in this field.

Education: Finance (Question No. 614)

Senator Button:

asked the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 15 August 1978:

1 ) What was: (a) the total value of Commonwealth support; and (b) the value of such support per student, for (i) universities; (ii) colleges of advanced education; and (iti) technical colleges, for each of the financial years 1974-75, 1975-76 and 1976-77.
What was the total level of State government support and the per head student level, for the same years.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

1 refer the honourable senator to my answer to Question No. 456 (Hansard, 1 6 August 1 978, page 117).
From 1 January 1974 the Commonwealth assumed full funding for universities and colleges of advanced education. The actual expenditure by the States from State funds on TAFE is set out in my reply to Question No. 456 (Hansard, 16 August, page 1 17).

Antarctica (Question No. 659)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister for Science, upon notice, on 23 August 1978:

1 ) How many women applied to join the Australian Antarctic program for:
1. the 1975-76 season;
2. the 1976-77 season; and
3. the 1977-78 season.
What were their qualifications, for what positions did they apply and at which bases were these positions located.
How many women have travelled to Antarctic bases in each year since 1975.
To which bases were they attached.
What positions did they hold in Antarctica.
At which Antarctic bases are there suitable quarters for women to complete a summer or winter program.
Will facilities be upgraded at the other Antarctic bases to enable women to participate in a summer or winter program; if so, when will these facilities be upgraded.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

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

1 ) The number of women who applied to join the Australian Antarctic program for the following periods are as follows:

1975-76-24; 1976-77-12; 1977-78-27.

The applications received did not relate to particular stations since the advertisements are for positions and do not nominate specific stations. Qualifications and positions applied for are as follows:

The following shows how many women travelled to the Antarctic stations since 1975.
and (5) Stations wintered at and positions held:

Macquarie Island- Medical Officers, Cook and Radio Officer.

Summer relief voyages Macquarie Island and the Continent:

Biologists, Botanist, Medical Officer, Photographer and Administrative Personnel.

At present Macquarie Island is the only station having quarters specifically designed to accommodate women participating in summer or winter programs.
Facilities are being upgraded at our stations on the Antarctic Continent under an approved nine-year rebuilding program. As far as accommodation is concerned, design flexibility is incorporated to provide for either male or female accommodation as required. This would enable women to participate in programs on the Continent. The accommodation will become available on a progressive basis during this period.

Royal Visit: Cost (Question No. 669)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 23 August 1978:

What has been the cost of each official and unofficial visit to Australia by members of the Royal Family since November 1975.

Senator Carrick:
LP

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

Costs of visits by Members of the Royal Family since this date are identified in Appropriation Acts (No. 1) 1976-77, 1977-78 and Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1978-79.

Handicapped Persons: Purchase of Motor Vehicles (Question No. 716)

Senator Knight:
ACT

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 12 September 1978:

What action will be taken to overcome the situation indicated in the statement of the National Advisory Council for the Handicapped (second report) that ‘sales tax exemption has proved restrictive and inequitable because it benefits a very restricted group of handicapped people, and then only members of that group who can afford to buy a new motor vehicle’.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

I refer the honourable senator to the information provided in answer to Senate question No. 713 page 734. Senate Hansard 1 9 September 1978.

Statutory Corporations: Reports to Parliament (Question No. 730)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 13 September 1978:

1 ) What statutory corporations have a responsibility to report through the Minister to Parliament.
What are the statutory requirements for those corporations to present annual audited accounts and reports to the Parliament.
When were the audited accounts of the annual report presented to the Minister for tabling.
When were the audited accounts and annual report tabled in the Parliament.
What are the names of the corporations the reports of which were not tabled within four months of the closing of accounts for the 1976-77 financial year or within four months of the date at which the annual accounts were finalised.
What reasons were given by each corporation which did not present an annual report and audited accounts within four months of 1 976-77.

Senator Guilfoyle:
LP

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

Nil.
to (6) Not applicable.

Parliamentary Travel Credit Cards (Question No. 786)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 14 September 1978:

1 ) Which Ministers have access to the lists of persons entitled to travel on the Parliamentary credit cards.
Which Government Departments are provided with this list.
Which organisations outside the Government are provided with this list.
Does the Office of Government Ceremonial and Hospitality in the Prime Minister’s Department maintain such a list.
Is it compiled by the Office of Government Ceremonial and Hospitality or is it provided by the Department of Administrative Services.

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

There are no lists of persons entitled to travel on the airline credit cards issued to senators and members. Remuneration Tribunal Determination No. 1978/9 prescribes the air travel entitlements of senators and members and their families and nominees for which travel warrants and TAA and Ansett credit cards may be used. A list of the nominees of senators and members was made available by my Department to these two airlines only. That list has now been withdrawn.

Minister for Primary Industry: Use of Hire Cars (Question No. 853)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 27 September 1978:

Did the Minister personally pay all or pan of any accounts received by the Government for debts incurred by him for the use of hire cars between 2 December 1972 and 11 November 1975.
Is he aware of any other individual or commercial or political organisation paying any such accounts on his behalf.

Senator Webster:
NCP/NP

– The Minister for Primary Industry has forwarded me the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

1 ) $1,265.90 was paid personally by the Minister with respect to accounts received from Avis Rent-A-Car System Pty Ltd and under dispute as to responsibility in the period mentioned.
No.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 27 September 1978, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1978/19780927_senate_31_s78/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant

Senate27 September 1978

PETITIONS

Coolangatta Airport

Senator MASON:NEW SOUTH WALES

Metric System

Senator LEWIS:VICTORIA

South Australia: Country Rail Services

Senator McLAREN:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Telephone Charges

Senator LEWIS:

Pensions: Indexation

Abortion: Medical Benefits

Postgraduate Research Awards: Indexation

Education Funding

Maternity and Paternity Leave

JURISDICTION OF COURTS (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL 1978

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

QUESTION

ANTARCTIC DIVISION HEADQUARTERS

Senator WRIEDT:TASMANIA

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

Senator WRIEDT:

Senator WEBSTER:

QUESTION

WORKS OF ART STORED WITHIN PARLIAMENT HOUSE

Senator PETER BAUME:NEW SOUTH WALES

The PRESIDENT:

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL SAFETY

Senator BUTTON:VICTORIA

Senator DURACK:Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

QUESTION

HEALTH AND NUTRITION

Senator BONNER:QUEENSLAND

Senator WEBSTER:NCP/NP

QUESTION

DISEASE AMONGST DOGS

Senator COLSTON:QUEENSLAND

Senator GUILFOYLE:Minister for Social Security · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

QUESTION

STAFFING IN AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY SCHOOLS

Senator LAJOVIC:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator CARRICK:Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

QUESTION

AIRPORT TERMINALS: FACILITIES FOR COMMONWEALTH CAR DRIVERS

Senator ROBERTSON:NORTHERN TERRITORY

Senator CHANEY:Minister Assisting the Minister for Education · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

QUESTION

WINE EXPORTS

Senator MESSNER:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator DURACK:LP

QUESTION

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY: MANAGERIAL COURSES

Senator O’BYRNE:TASMANIA

Senator GUILFOYLE:LP

QUESTION

FEDERAL ROYAL COMMISSION ON DRUGS

Senator PUPLICK:NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator CARRICK:LP

Senator Grimes:

Senator CARRICK:

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS

Senator ELSTOB:SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator CARRICK:LP

QUESTION

THE BUDGET

Senator MacGIBBON:QUEENSLAND

Senator McLaren:

Senator CARRICK:LP

QUESTION

ARREST AND IMPRISONMENT OF MR JACOB PRAI IN PAPUA NEW GUINEA

Senator PRIMMER:VICTORIA

Senator CARRICK:LP

Senator PRIMMER:

Senator CARRICK:

Senator Georges:

Senator CARRICK:

QUESTION

Senate
27 September 1978

Senator MASON:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator LEWIS:
VICTORIA

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

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

Senator PETER BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

Senator COLSTON:
QUEENSLAND

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

Senator LAJOVIC:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator CARRICK:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

Senator ROBERTSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

Senator CHANEY:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Education · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator DURACK:
LP

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

Senator PUPLICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator CARRICK:
LP

Senator ELSTOB:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator CARRICK:
LP

Senator MacGIBBON:
QUEENSLAND

Senator CARRICK:
LP

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

Senator CARRICK:
LP

Senator ROCHER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Senator CHANEY:
LP

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator CHANEY:
LP

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

Senator CHANEY:
LP

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

Senator CARRICK:
LP

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator CHANEY:
LP

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

Senator CARRICK:
LP

Senator TEAGUE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator CARRICK:
LP

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Senator WATSON:
TASMANIA

Senator CHANEY:
LP

Senator CHANEY:
LP

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP