Senate
7 November 1979

31st Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 31st Parliament
  3. 1979

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

page 1957

PRECEDENCE OF GOVERNMENT BUSINESS

Notice of Motion

Senator CARRICK:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate · LP

– I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:

That, unless otherwise ordered, Government Business take precedence over General Business after 8 p.m. on Thursdays for the remainder of the present period of sittings.

page 1957

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDER 68

Notice of Motion

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate · LP

– I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move:

That, unless otherwise ordered, Standing Order 68 be suspended for the remainder of this period of sittings.

page 1957

PETITIONS

Alice Springs to Darwin Railway

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

-I present the following petition from 25 citizens of Australia:

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

The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:

That in order to: facilitate the development of the North of Australia; provide an all-weather rapid land transport system from north to south and vice versa; facilitate better defence of Northern Australia; provide improved transport for primary and mining products to southern markets; boost tourism;

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

Urge that the Federal Government give favourable consideration to proceeding forthwith with the completion of the construction of the North-South railway from Alice Springs to Darwin as a matter of priority.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Detention of Mr Igor Ogurtsov

Senator CHIPP:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 75 1 citizens of Australia:

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

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the Federal Government exert Diplomatic pressure on the Soviet Authorities to secure release from detention of a Soviet citizen Mr Igor Ogurtsov, a Graduate of the University of Leningrad, who was sentenced to seven years goal, eight years hard labour and five years internal exile- a total of twenty years, in accordance with Articles 64a and 72 of the USSR Criminal Code.

Mr Ogurtsov, now age 40, has already served eleven years of his sentence and is currently held in Concentration Camp No. VS 389.35-Permskaya Oblast, Stanitsa Vsekhsviatskaya.

His health has deteriorated to the extent, that he is not expected to live long enough to fee his release from detention.

Mr Ogurtsov ‘s only ‘crime’ is, that he is a Christian, and has participated in a discussion group on the future of a Christian-Democratic System in Russia.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

National Women’s Advisory Council

Senator LEWIS:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 14 citizens of Australia:

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

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the National Women’s Advisory Council has not been democratically elected by the women of Australia;

That the National Women’s Advisory Council is not representative of the women of Australia;

That the National Women’s Advisory Council is a discriminatory and sexist imposition on Australian women as Australian men do not have a National Men’s Advisory Council imposed on them.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

That the National Women’s Advisory Council be abolished to ensure that Australian women have equal opportunity with Australian men of having issues of concern to them considered, debated and voted on by their Parliamentary representatives without intervention and interference by an unrepresentative ‘Advisory Council ‘.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Code of Ethics for Radio and Television

Senator TATE:
TASMANIA

– I present the following petition from 800 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 we, the undersigned citizens of Australia believe there are conflicting community standards prevailing relating to offensive language. Citizens are frequently charged and convicted by law for the use of offensive language in public whereas obscene and profane language canbe beamed into the privacy of the home and heard by people of all ages by way of Television and Radio and offended citizens have no redress.

The petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should take all possible steps to ensure all personnel associated with the transmission and broadcasting of Television and Radio be required to adhere to an acceptable code of ethics relating to language thus giving community members confidence that breaches of common decency codes will not occur.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Gambling Casino in Canberra

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

-I present the following petition from 4,4 1 4 citizens of Australia:

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

That the establishment of a gambling casino in Canberra would debase the National Capital and increase crime in Canberra.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should seek to preserve the dignity of the National Capital by disallowing any ordinance to authorise the establishment of a gambling casino in Canberra.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Indo-Chinese Refugees

Senator LAJOVIC:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 18 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:

Thata grave threat to the life of refugees from the various States of Indo-China arises from the policies of the Government of Vietnam.

That, as a result of these policies, many thousands of refugees are fleeing their homes and risking starvation and drowning. Because of the failure of the rich nations of the world to provide more than token assistance, the resources of the nations of first refuge, especially Malaysia and Thailand, are being stretched beyond reasonable limits.

As a wealthy nation within the region most affected, Australia is able to play a major part in the rescue as well as resettlement of these refugees.

It should be possible for Australia to: - establish and maintain on the Australian mainland basic transit camps for the housing and processing of 200,000 refugees each year; - mobilise the Defence Force to search for, rescue and transport to Australia those refugees who have been able to leave the Indo-China States; - accept the offer of those church groups which propose to resettle some thousands of refugees in Australia.

The adoption of such a humane policy would have a marked effect on Australia ‘s standing within the region.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Tertiary Education Institutions in the Australian Capital Territory

Senator RYAN:
ACT

– I present the following petition from 276 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 freedom of learning and teaching cannot be maintained unless tertiary institutions can operate autonomously, free from the threat of government control.

That the proposed Bill to amend the Australian National University Act and Bill to amend the Canberra College of Advanced Education Act force the governing Councils of those institutions to implement the government’s wishes regarding student organisations, despite those Councils’ opposition to the government on this question.

That the Bills’ main intent is to prohibit payments to the Australian Union of Students from students General Service Fee monies, despite the student organisations affiliation with AUS and majority student support for that affiliation.

That the Bills therefore attack a legitimate student union, apparently in order to stifle its political opposition to the present government.

Your petitioners therefore strongly urge their legislators to oppose the Bill to amend the ANU Act and the Bill to amend theCCAEAct.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

National Women’s Advisory Council

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

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

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

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the National Women’s Advisory Council has not been democratically elected by the women of Australia;

That the National Women’s Advisory Council is not representative of the women of Australia;

That the National Women’s Advisory Council is a discriminatory and sexist imposition on Australian women as Australian men do not have a National Men’s Advisory Council imposed on them.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the National Women’s Advisory Council be abolished to ensure that Australian women have equal opportunity with Australian men of having issues of concern to them considered, debated and voted on by their Parliamentary representatives without intervention and interference by an unrepresentative “Advisory Council”.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Metric System

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

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

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Chipp and Sheil.

Petitions received.

National Women’s Advisory Council

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 National Women’s Advisory Council has not been democratically elected by the women of Australia;

That the National Women’s Advisory Council is not representative of the women of Australia;

That the National Women’s Advisory Council is a discriminatory and sexist imposition on Australian women as Australian men do not have a National Men’s Advisory Council imposed on them.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

That the National Women’s Advisory Council be abolished to ensure that Australian women have equal opportunity with Australian men of having issues of concern to them considered, debated and voted on by their Parliamentary representatives without intervention and interference by an unrepresentative ‘Advisory Council ‘.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senators Hamer and Missen.

Petitions received.

page 1959

PUBLIC SERVICE

Notice of Motion

Senator KNIGHT:
Australian Capital Territory

– I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:

That the Senate requests the Government to-

Take action in relation to the requirement under section 34(a) of the Public Service Act 1922 that permanent public servants be British subjects, because it adversely affects the rights of many members of Australia’s ethnic communities and limits the number of people in the workforce available to enter the Public Service as permanent employees; and

b ) Implement the recommendation in the Report of the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration (paragraph 8.2.14) that all nationality requirements for permanent appointment to the Australian Public Service be abolished except where the Governor-General in Council prescribes Australian citizenship by regulation as a qualification (not a condition of eligibility) for particular positions.

page 1959

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1959

QUESTION

ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO DRUG TRAFFICKING IN NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

-I refer the AttorneyGeneral to the report of Mr Justice Woodward’s Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking in New South Wales in which the Commissioner noted that he had been assured of co-operation in the usual way from the then Attorney-General, Mr Ellicott. The Commissioner went on to express his dissatisfaction with the nature of this co-operation from Federal authorities. 1 ask the Minister whether he recalls the Commissioner saying:

Despite many requests, I was never shown a single file nor did I interview a single Commonwealth officer.

I ask the Attorney-General: Were any of these requests ever received by his Department? If so, what efforts did the Attorney-General make to ensure that full, or at least effective, co-operation was given by Federal authorities to assist Mr Justice Woodward in his inquiry into this matter of national concern?

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I have not seen the actual terms of the report of Mr Justice Woodward, in particular the section to which Senator Wriedt refers. Letters were exchanged between the Prime Minister and the Premier of New South Wales and there were discussions between officers attached to the two royal commissionsthe Australian royal commission presided over by Mr Justice Williams and the New South Wales royal commission presided over by Mr Justice Woodward- which were designed to endeavour to achieve co-operation. I will certainly consider the comments Mr Justice Woodward has made in respect of the complaints about the lack of co-operation that he felt there was; but at this stage I am not able to answer in any more than general terms. I will provide a specific answer to Senator Wriedt ‘s question at a later date.

page 1959

QUESTION

HEGEMONISM

Senator ROCHER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Does the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs welcome the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics ‘ recent proposal for a discussion in the United Nations on ‘the impermissibility of hegemonism’? Do the policies of the USSR in Eastern Europe and Afghanistan constitute hegemonism?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-In ‘hegemonism’ I think we have an in-word. I had heard of hegemony, but ‘hegemonism’ is a term which, as I understand it, has gained particular meaning as a pejorative term in the context of the rivalry between the Soviet Union and China. Except insofar as Australia shares with almost all other states a desire to see a world free of domination and spheres of influence, the term has little relevance to Australian foreign policy attitudes.

The Soviet initiative in placing on the agenda of the current session of the United Nations General Assembly an item entitled the ‘inadmissibility of the policy of hegemonism in international relations’ cannot be seen by Australia as anything but a propaganda activity related to the rivalry with China. I understand that it has led China to consider whether it should respond to the Soviet draft resolution with one which would, amongst other things, specifically condemn policies such as the policy of limited sovereignty. A draft resolution on this point would obviously be aimed at Soviet policies towards states regarded as being in the Soviet sphere of influence. The Soviet item is being considered in the General Assembly’s First Committee, the committee which ordinarily concentrates on disarmament items and items related to the maintenance of international peace and security. Australia’s hope is that the Soviet item will not generate such controversy as to disrupt the important work of the Committee on issues of particular concern such as the comprehensive test ban treaty and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.

page 1960

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO DRUGS

Senator WRIEDT:

-I refer the AttorneyGeneral to the open transcript of evidence given before Mr Justice Williams’s royal commission of inquiry into the Narcotics Bureau. Mr Besley, the Secretary to the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs, gave evidence in that inquiry. He said that the Attorney-General had not provided a copy of the open transcript of proceedings to his Department on an ex gratia basis as, in fact, was done with the Cannabis Research Foundation. I ask the Minister whether he is aware that Mr Justice Williams expressed his amazement at that state of affairs and said:

  1. . but I have enough troubles looking after my own little place without looking at the Attorney-General.

I ask the Minister: Can he explain what would cause Mr Justice Williams to make that comment? If he is not able to do so now, can he give me a written reply in due course?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-I will take note of the question and give a written reply as requested.

page 1960

QUESTION

RADIO AND TELEVISION: STANDARDS OF LANGUAGE

Senator WALTERS:

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications satisfied that both the radio and television media are conforming to a satisfactory standard of language during programming, or is he of the view that these media are, by their very programs, supporting a lowering of acceptable standards of language?

Senator CHANEY:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

-My personal satisfaction is fairly complete because I hear mainly news items on radio and television and they seem to have a quite satisfactory standard of language. But there are certainly complaints from time to time about the standard of language used on other programs-both Australian Broadcasting Commission programs and commercial television programs. I think that all honourable senators would be aware that language standards- as are other standards- on commercial radio and television are the responsibility of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, and the Australian Broadcasting Commission has responsibility for its programs. Both these organisations are statutorily independent of the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. If the Minister receives representations with respect to the use of what might be regarded as bad language on the media, his policy is to refer those matters for consideration to the organisations which are responsible.

This is an area of some difficulty because the acceptability or otherwise of particular types of language or expressions within the community varies within different sections of the community. Hence, making overall judgments is difficult. Objections will no doubt be raised from time to time and it is the responsibility of those statutory bodies to try to ensure that standards meet the general requirements of the community.

page 1960

QUESTION

STEAMING COAL EXPORTS

Senator McINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources. In a media release dated 25 October 1979 the Minister for Trade and Resources stated:

The Government has decided to introduce a further basis of exemption from duty for coals which in current market constraints can only be used as steaming coal.

Is the Minister for Trade and Resources of the opinion that his statement prompted an immediate response from UBE Industries Ltd of Japan, because on 30 October 1979 it doubled its order for steaming coal from Coal and Allied Industries Ltd? The contract calls for the delivery of 47 million tonnes over 20 years. Is the Minister aware that steaming coal is about to become the most highly prized energy source now that the generation of nuclear power has proved to be too dangerous and too costly? Is it the intention of the Government to deplete this country’s energy resources as rapidly as possible by offering bargain basement prices when the only beneficiaries are the purchaser and the oil companies which now seem to own most of our coal, gas and oil?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-I will refer that question to the Minister for Trade and Resources.

page 1960

QUESTION

ADELAIDE-CRYSTAL BROOK RAILWAY

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– The Minister representing the Minister for Transport will be aware that the standardised railway line from Tarcoola to Alice Springs is expected to be completed next year and that a crossing the border ceremony will be attended by the Minister for Transport this coming Saturday. Does the Minister realise the importance of standardising the line from Crystal Brook to Adelaide, particularly as this will assist the Australian National Railways in its corporate undertaking to reach profitability by 1989? Can the Minister say whether the Government has received a submission on the project? If so, when will it be in a position to make a firm decision on this proposal?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-I acknowledge the honourable senator’s continued interest in the Tarcoola to Alice Springs railway project. I record with satisfaction the facts that he has just put before the Senate; namely, that the project is nearing completion and that there is to be a ceremony next week with respect to it. The Adelaide to Crystal Brook railway, which is related to the overall profitability of the railway system, is a matter on which the Government has received a submission from the Australian National Railways. The Government has that question under consideration at present with a view to reaching a decision as soon as possible.

page 1961

QUESTION

FUEL PRICES

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Has the Leader of the Government in the Senate seen reports which state that the National Country Party conference last weekend carried a motion urging the introduction of stage 2 of the fuel freight subsidy scheme- which is often misleadingly and inaccurately referred to as the fuel price equalisation scheme- to offset rocketing fuel prices in country areas? Is it correct that stage 2 would reduce prices by a maximum of 0.44c- less than half a cent- a litre, or about one-tenth of the July 1 979 price increase caused by the Government’s import parity pricing policy for domestic crude oil, and also about one-tenth of the likely 1 January increase if the Government sticks to its import parity pricing policy?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have not seen the reports of the conference to which Senator Walsh refers. I am not aware of the arithmetic in that regard. I will seek information for him from the relevant Minister. I am aware that Australian fuel oil is about the second or third cheapest in the world today and that the import pricing policy, which incidentally was foreshadowed by the Whitlam Government in its last year of office and is suddenly run away from now -

Senator Wriedt:

– Not in one year.

Senator CARRICK:

– Let us get it clear that Senator Wriedt has acknowledged that import parity pricing was the policy of the Whitlam

Government. He is now saying: ‘Oh, yes, but not in one year’. This is a valuable admission. The fact is that already the effect of that policy has been to make available resources from the Bass Strait area- wells which were sub-economic before and now can give us several years more of guaranteed oil supply. As honourable senators will know, there has been a very considerable expansion in oil search in Australia. Therefore, demonstrably the policy has already been highly successful. Indeed, the Americans acknowledge that they wish they had acted faster along the same lines.

Senator WALSH:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question. In view of Senator Carrick ‘s answer, can I take it that he is giving an absolute guarantee that the Government will stick to its import parity pricing policy next year?

Senator CARRICK:

– What Senator Walsh can take for certain is that that was not a supplementary question. Only he could believe that he could derive such a conclusion from my answer.

page 1961

QUESTION

FAMILY COURT JUDGE FOR TOWNSVILLE

Senator MAUNSELL:
QUEENSLAND

– I ask the Attorney-General whether a decision has been made to appoint a Family Court judge who will be permanently based in Townsville. If so, when is the appointment likely to be made?

Senator DURACK:
LP

-No decision has been made to appoint a Family Court judge who would be permanently resident in Townsville. The Government has made a decision to increase the number of Family Court judges by two. Regulations enabling this to be done have been made and tabled. Of course, no steps to that end can be taken until a certain period has elapsed after tabling, to permit disallowance to be moved. I am not sure whether that period has yet expired, but, if disallowance has not been moved, the Government would, I believe, now be in a position to make two such appointments. What I have said is that an additional judge will be appointed to Victoria and one to Queensland, that the Queensland judge would be located at the Brisbane registry and that would permit added assistance to be given to the Townsville registry and thus effect some improvement in disposing of the backlog of cases in that centre. I am aware of the concern in north Queensland regarding the matter and of the tradition, in the case of State courts, of having resident judges in Townsville. I gave very close consideration to the question whether the appointment of an additional Family Court judge to Townsville could be made but in the end was persuaded that the additional costs involved and the demands of the Brisbane registry, and indeed other circuit areas related to Brisbane, were such that it would be a more efficient use of the additional judge if he or she were based in Brisbane. However, I am very conscious of the tradition in Queensland for there to be a Northern Judge resident in Townsville. I hope that in due course an appointment will be made to the Family Court in Townsville.

page 1962

QUESTION

OIL PRICING POLICY

Senator WRIEDT:

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and follows the answer he gave earlier to Senator Walsh. In view of the Minister’s stated support for the import parity pricing policy of the Government, can he give the Senate an assurance that the Government intends to maintain that policy?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– That is a policy matter and I will refer it to the Minister concerned.

Senator Walsh:

– Running away from your own policy.

Senator CARRICK:

– May I add that, if that were so, Senator Walsh would agree that I was running away from his policy, because, on the statement made, import parity pricing is Labor policy.

page 1962

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN RESEARCH GRANTS COMMITTEE

Senator PUPLICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, which is directed to the Minister for Science and the Environment, arises out of the report of the Australian Research Grants Committee which he tabled yesterday. Does the report indicate that applications for grants in 1 980 were 8.5 per cent higher than in 1979; that the Australian Research Grants Committee expresses considerable dissatisfaction with the fact that it does not have the funds to increase available grants or expand the scheme; that it draws attention to the fact that the average grant in real terms has been forced down to $8,503 compared with an average of $13,500 in the late 1960s; that it had to decline to fund 1 12 good quality projects next year; and that it makes an appeal to the Government for an increase in its funding of $3. 5m in line with the recommendations in the report of the Australian Science and Technology Council? What chance does the ARGC have of getting the funds that it is requesting?

Senator WEBSTER:
Minister for Science and the Environment · VICTORIA · NCP/NP

-The honourable senator asks a series of questions. Generally the point that he mentioned in the early part of his question would be correct, that is, applications for

Australian Research Grants Committee funds have increased in the past year. I do not think that is uncommon. My recollection is that they have been increasing nearly every year, certainly while I have been the responsible Minister. Of course, it is quite reasonable that that should be so. I think a corresponding point is that the number of research grants which have been funded by the Government has also been increasing every year. If I remember correctly- I have not the report in front of me the number of projects which the ARGC is funding this year is 1,542. The Senate will forgive me if that is not quite accurate, but it is about that number. That number is something of a record, so I imagine that we can all take satisfaction from that point.

It is a fact that the Committee has expressed a wish that it receive more funds. In any area of allocation of government funds I have not experienced a year in which no group or body, whether or not it be a research group in the community particularly in relation to universities, has expressed some dissatisfaction in its desire that more funds be made available to it. Amongst those who are competent to assess the availability of the taxpayers’ money for various areas of Commonwealth expenditure there is an acceptance that the figure cannot go beyond a reasonable level. I think I have expressed in a letter to Senator Puplick that the figure since this Government came to office is close to 100 per cent above the dollar figure that was available in the year in which we assumed office. I think that is a fairly sound record that may be acknowledged.

The honourable senator asked what chance there is of the ARGC receiving the funds that it wishes to receive. In the last three years the money available to the ARGC has gone up from $11. Im to about $12.1m and then to $12.975m in this year. Those advances were not mean by any means. A great deal of interest is shown in the figures which demonstrate the various categories for which applications have been made. Indeed, one notices that requests from the social sciences area are growing considerably. That may be considered reasonable. It is regrettable that some other classifications are falling back in their applications and therefore in their take of the resource that is available from the ARGC. If we look over the whole sphere of grants for research which this Government has made over past years we see that there has been an enhancement of funds made available for research overall. I think that can be readily taken up and I will attempt to do so later with the honourable senator.

page 1963

QUESTION

WOOL

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry. Are Press reports that the Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Nixon, has repudiated a commitment given by his predecessor, Mr Sinclair, to establish a revolving wool market support fund in 1981 correct? If so, does the Government intend to suspend collection of the 5 per cent levy after 1981? If this is not the Government’s intention, what does it propose to do with the money now being raised by the levy?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I have no knowledge of the statement or of the Press reports. I am unaware of what the situation is at this time. I will seek advice from the Minister for Primary Industry, whom I represent, and bring a written response to Senator McLaren.

page 1963

QUESTION

SALE OF NOMAD AIRCRAFT

Senator MacGIBBON:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Did the Government receive serious inquiries from South Africa for the purchase of Nomad aircraft? What are the guidelines applied by the Government for sales to other countries? Could aircraft be sold to Taiwan, communist China or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, to instance three different political regimes?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– There are in fact three sections to the question. I do not have all details available. I will seek the information from the relevant Minister and let Senator MacGibbon have an answer.

page 1963

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO DRUGS

Senator CHIPP:

– I ask the Attorney-General a question concerning the Australian Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs, headed by Mr Justice Williams, which was appointed in October 1977. The Minister would agree that that was well before any allegations against the Federal Narcotics Bureau had surfaced from anyone. Is it true that when the Commission was established certain Commonwealth officers were seconded, as is normal, to assist the Commission in its inquiries? Is it true also that officers were seconded to that Commission from the Commonwealth Department of Health, the Minister’s Department, and the Commonwealth Police? Is it true also that the offer by the Federal Narcotics Bureau of assistance to the Commission through the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs was declined by the Commission? I ask the Attorney-General a question in two parts: Was he present at any discussion of

Ministers which discussed the staffing of the Commission? If he was, or even if he was not, can he give me any idea of the reason for this rather strange omission from staff assisting the Commission of staff from an agency which at that time was- it still is- the only Federal Government agency dealing with drug trafficking?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I certainly was aware that an officer or officers from my Department- I am not sure which- were seconded to the Commission. The administration of a royal commission is under the general control of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. It was not my responsibility to staff the Commission or to deal with decisions of that kind. I do not recall specifically being at any meeting of Ministers that discussed the matter, but at some time in the past there may have been some discussion. I can recall nothing specific, but I will check. General questions concerning the policy on staffing for the Commission, the offer of officers of the Narcotics Bureau and so on are matters that I need to refer particularly to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs and also to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. I shall do so and provide an answer in due course.

page 1963

QUESTION

AUTISTIC CHILDREN’S ASSOCIATION OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator PETER BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I remind the Minister for Social Security of her response to the inquiry of the Autistic Children’s Association of New South Wales about funding assistance for a hostel. She said:

Government has indicated its intention to the continuance of the triennium program into the next financial year i.e. 1979-80. Your proposal has been listed for consideration for funding.

Is the Minister able to say whether it has yet been possible to identify new projects for funding for the 1979-80 year? Is she able to advise the kinds of delays which organisations may expect because of the size of the waiting list for grants?

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

– An amount of $39. 3m has been allocated for the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act in this year. Most of these funds will provide continuing support for existing facilities. I have been able to approve 55 grants totalling $2.75m for new projects this year. In selecting those projects care was taken to ensure that the funds were distributed as widely as possible to assist the greatest number of handicapped people throughout Australia. Many extensions and alterations to existing centres and new major building programs are involved. We have included a number of centres which are to be rented by organisations. Grants cover both capital equipment and recurrent expenditure.

Within a short time I will be approving additional projects for funding in 1980-81. 1 expect that I will be making an announcement within the next few weeks about those projects. Hundreds of applications are outstanding. I am unable to give any particular indication with regard to one project or another. The Department is at present looking at the priorities of the applications that are held. I hope to announce very soon some further approvals and at a later time I hope to make an announcement about the future of the program itself.

page 1964

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION: SPORTING TELECASTS

Senator MCAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I am prompted to ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications following the numerous questions and answers of the past few weeks regarding the Australian Broadcasting Commission not taking up replays of major sporting events, including yesterday’s Melbourne Cup, for the outback areas of Queensland. Does the Minister agree with answers that there is not a financial problem and that the commercial stations have offered the replays to the ABC free of charge? Does he agree that the programming or technical difficulties are not insurmountable? Is it the ABC’s policy not to take up replays of major sporting events when it has been an unsuccessful tenderer for the exclusive rights to coverage? If so, when will the Government ask the ABC, which is the people’s station, to change its policy and allow the people in the outback areas to have the same viewing opportunities as the people in the cities?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I think it is quite obvious that there is a strong feeling on both sides of the chamber that people would like to see major sporting events broadcast throughout Australia so that all Australians are able to see them. I do not think it is true to say, however, that some problems do not exist when a body which has insufficient facilities to provide coverage all round Australia has exclusive rights. This problem is not solely a financial one. My advice is that there are real engineering and programming difficulties for the Australian Broadcasting Commission if it has to provide different programs in different parts of its network. In any event, the Minister has asked the Australian Broadcasting Commission to consider carefully its role in this general area of televised sporting coverage. It is certainly acknowledged that it is not just a matter of funds. There are questions of co-operation between the sporting bodies concerned, the commercial networks and the ABC. It is certainly Mr Staley ‘s hope that progress can be made in the near future.

page 1964

QUESTION

ICEBERGS FROM ANTARCTICA

Senator HAMER:
VICTORIA

-Has the Minister for Science and the Environment noted repeated proposals for the harvesting of icebergs from Antarctica? Is it a fact that 85 per cent of the fresh water reserves of the world are in Antarctica? Has the Minister’s Department carried out any investigation of whether such a scheme is economically feasible now or in the foreseeable future? If such a scheme is possible, should we not be a leader in it, both because of our proximity to Antarctica and particularly because we are the most water-short continent in the world?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– I acknowledge the interest of Senator Hamer in a particularly important subject. It is a subject that will become important not only to this country but internationally between now and the end of the century. Senator Hamer is correct in indicating that a very large proportion of the earth’s fresh water is locked up in Antarctica. It is by no means clear that icebergs can be utilised either as a source of fresh water or basically as a source of energy. It may be feasible to tow icebergs from Antarctica to certain locations. In South Australia, there is a prospect of this occurring. How to move the massive volume of ice, melt it and reticulate the resultant water are questions that have not yet been resolved. The costs of towing icebergs to a desired location and the costs of developing and implementing solutions to these other problems must be taken into account in any assessment of whether the cost of obtaining fresh water from icebergs can compete with the cost of obtaining fresh water from other sources. Information is being tabulated on these matters by the Flinders University and by a number of other interested bodies throughout the world. Senator Hamer raises an important matter. Areas within my Department have taken an interest in international conferences on this matter. I think that it would be appropriate if Senator Hamer kept in touch with my Department and with me to see whether it is a scientific problem which can be pursued.

page 1964

QUESTION

FOREIGN AFFAIRS MEETINGS

Senator O’BYRNE:
TASMANIA

-My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate both in that capacity and as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to socalled town meetings recently held by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in Townsville, Albury and Bunbury. The Sydney Morning Herald stated that these meetings were organised by the Department of Foreign Affairs. The Australian of the same day described the build-up in the following way:

For weeks before the town was flooded with propaganda about the highlight of October 31- a speech and question time by Andrew Peacock. . . Posters of a smiling Mr Peacock were plastered around the town and there were spot ads on radio and promotion on television.

I therefore ask the Minister: Who paid for this personal promotion campaign for the Minister? Was the advertising paid for by the Department of Foreign Affairs or by some other Government body, or was it the responsibility of the local branches of the Liberal Party to fund the Foreign Minister’s attempt to foil the leadership ambitions of the Treasurer?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I will refer the questions of Senator O ‘Byrne to the Minister concerned and invite a reply.

page 1965

QUESTION

FLAG FALL COMPONENT IN AIR FARES

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. I preface it by saying that no doubt the Minister is aware that air fares are based upon a flag fall component of some $ 1 7 and then a certain rate per kilometre flown. If someone flies from, say, Hobart to Sydney in one day he has to pay only one flag fall even though his journey is in two segments. Is the Minister aware that if somebody flies from, say, Hobart to Melbourne and returns in one day he has to pay two flag falls? Will the Minister examine the possibility of having this anomaly removed?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-I am a little puzzled by the question, because it does not appear to me to be particularly anomalous to have two flag falls in the circumstances outlined by the honourable senator. For example, if he were to take a taxi from here to his home and later were to take a taxi from his home to here he would similarly be loaded with two flag falls. This matter is one of considerable debate and one in relation to which the interests of the States tend to differ; that is, the weighting between the flag fall component and the rate per kilometre, which was mentioned by the honourable senator in his question. I think that a deal of information was put before the Senate quite recently on those matters. I will refer the matter to Mr Nixon who may have a more subtle mind than I. He may be able to see that there is some distinction which should be drawn in regard to this matter.

page 1965

QUESTION

QUARANTINE: INSPECTION OF TAIWANESE FISHING BOATS

Senator ROBERTSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

-I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. It refers to the quarantine inspection of Taiwanese fishing boats licensed to fish in Australian waters. I understand that approximately 160 boats will require inspection in the near future. Will the Minister indicate what additional staff have been recruited for this purpose to ensure that levels of other inspections are not lowered?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I have no information on this matter. I will need to refer the question to the Minister for Health for a response.

page 1965

QUESTION

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– I draw the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Productivity to a media release of 22 October 1979 by Mr Ian Spicer, Executive Director of the Victorian Employers Federation. Is the Minister aware of this report and Mr Spicer’s claim that Australia’s industrial safety costs are now over $3,600m a year or about 40 times higher than the costs of industrial disputes and strikes? Will the Minister comment on these claims and, in doing so, inform the Senate whether the Government considers that this is an area which ought to receive much greater attention and remedial action? Is the Minister aware also of the conclusions of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs in 1975 following its investigation into national compensation, which were based on substantial evidence from a number of expert witnesses and which indicated that accident prevention could be influenced by economic incentives such as differential premiums which encourage positive safety programs? Does the Minister see important areas of initiative by the Government to deal with this serious problem?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I have heard of the report referred to by the honourable senator in his question. Industrial accidents and injuries are acknowledged as being very costly; indeed, more costly to Australia than are industrial disputes. The estimated cost given by Mr Spicer and the honourable senator of about $3, 600m is, I understand, a quite conservative estimate. The loss of working time is about six million man days per annum. I understand that the Minister for Productivity will be providing an answer to a question on notice in the House of Representatives today. That will give more detail on the actual facts and figures raised by the question. As far as the attitude of the Government is concerned, it agrees that this is an area which needs attention, but occupational safety and health is primarily the constitutional responsibility of the States. The Commonwealth is responsible for its own employees and in this respect has issued a code of general principles and some 30 codes of practice. The Minister for Productivity meets regularly with the responsible State Ministers. Following a recent meeting of those Ministers a review body is being established to consider national machinery to promote occupational safety and health. The Commonwealth also contributes to the work of the National Safety Council of Australia.

The honourable senator also asked whether I am aware of the conclusions of the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee in 1975. He and I were members of that Committee at that time, when it reported on national compensation. Therefore I am certainly familiar with the recommendations which it made. I will refer the specific suggestion about the use of economic incentives to the Minister for further consideration. I could add that Mr Macphee ‘s Department has initiated a pilot promotional campaign. A consortium of consultants led by the industrial psychologists Chandler and Macleod has been commissioned to carry out the campaign, which began in August this year and will last approximately 12 months. That campaign aims at working out the most effective methods of selling safety so that awareness of the need for better safety and health at work is increased. I have a little detail on that campaign. Rather than answer this question at greater length than might be thought proper, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard that single page of information.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

The campaign comprises three stages:

Research-both field research and a search of literature.

Development and preliminary testing, as a result of the research, of a strategy which could consist of different communications/messages to be aimed at various levels of industrial people- for example management, supervisors and employees may each require a different message.

Testing and evaluation of the strategies and communications developed in stage 2 in selected geographical areas.

The assistance of State Governments and safety organisations has been requested, and their response has been encouraging. The Consortium have completed Stage 1 and are now analysing results obtained chiefly from Victoria and New South Wales.

Mr Macphee ‘s Department is also involved in research on improving the physical working environment in Australian industry and issues publications for use in industry. There are also some specific programs and services designed for migrants. Audio visual programs designed to educate ethnic workers in job safety and health have been produced. The Department of Productivity also works with the Productivity Promotion Council of Australia and the Productivity Groups, and occupational safety programs are being implemented by these bodies.

Senator CHANEY:

-With respect to the last part of the question, what I have given in the answer previously indicates the Commonwealth concern about this serious problem. I am advised by the Minister for Productivity that he places a high priority on reducing the incidence of occupational accidents and on improving the physical working environment. It is believed that there is great scope for work in this area and for improvement in standards of things such as ventilation, heating, lighting, sunlight penetration and design of work places.

page 1966

QUESTION

BREACHES OF INDUSTRIAL AWARDS

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations. It refers to breaches of industrial awards by employers. I ask the Minister whether he has seen a statement in this morning’s Press by the Director of the Industrial Relations Bureau, Mr Linehan, stating:

What can be said is that from the Bureau experience there would appear to be a very high incidence of breaches and maybe employee rights are not as secure as may be thought.

Has the Minister noted that the figures indicate a continuing situation where many breaches of awards by employers are not being effectively prosecuted? The Minister will know that from discussions we have had in this place. I ask the Minister: How can the Government justify this continuing situation while it brings into the Parliament very drastic regulations and provisions in relation to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act which restrict the rights of employees? What does the Government propose to do about this report?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I have not seen the state-; ment to which Senator Bishop refers. I will refer his question to the Minister for Industrial Relations. Obviously there are breaches of industrial laws and they are breaches on both the employer side and the employee side. The object of the Industrial Relations Bureau was to provide a body which would try to ensure, as far as humanly possible, the observance of industrial laws in an even-handed way. It assumed the role that was previously performed by the Arbitration Inspectorate in relation to enforcement of awards against employers. That is one of its major tasks. As I understand it, it is carrying out that task. But whether it is having any particular difficulty in that regard no doubt is something that the Minister for Industrial Relations will consider. I will draw the matter to his attention.

page 1967

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS: COMPUTER EQUIPMENT

Senator WATSON:
TASMANIA

-I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services whether it is a fact that consideration is being given to tendering for computer equipment for the Australian Bureau of Statistics for a third time? If so, will the Government ensure that a system is built which can be utilised in the shortest time-span considering current problems as to obsolescence and inadequacy of the present computer?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– My advice on that matter is that the answer is no; that the tender evaluation which is now in an advanced stage is proceeding normally.

page 1967

QUESTION

JABIRU

Senator MELZER:
VICTORIA

– Will the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources advise whether the land on which the township of Jabiru is being built adjacent to the Ranger mine project site is land excised from the Kakadu National Park and subject to Federal administration? If this is so, why is the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly assuming a planning role over the area? Will this mean a change in the size and nature of the township? What action is the Government taking in this matter?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I think that question is probably more within the area of concern of Ministers other than the Minister for Trade and Resources; but, as he has a general interest in the whole question, I will refer it to him and to any other Ministers, as required. At the present moment there is some assertion of power by the Northern Territory in respect of land in the township. That is a matter which is under consideration by the Government. I have some knowledge of it myself. I think there will be some statement made in relation to that quite shortly.

page 1967

QUESTION

TELECOM AUSTRALIA

Senator LEWIS:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications and is about Telecom Australia, which is not only Australia’s largest quasi-autonomous national government organisation but also Australia’s largest employer. Is Telecom about to enter into an agreement with all 27 unions covering its employees to offset jobs displaced by automation? Is it true that the agreement has been designed to open the way for ‘improvement’ in pay and conditions of Telecom staff? Does the agreement require ministerial approval of variations in pay and hours of work? If not, can the Minister tell us what protection there will be for both the economy and the Australian public against sweetheart deals?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I will refer that question to Mr Staley for consideration and reply.

page 1967

QUESTION

QANTAS AIRWAYS LTD

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Transport aware that Qantas Airways Ltd recorded a $773,000 consolidated operating profit after tax of $ 17.5m for the year to 31 March 1979? Is he further aware that exchange losses of $23.1 m were due to the fact that Qantas was required to borrow in Swiss francs to finance aircraft purchases? As this is the second substantial loss suffered by Qantas because of exchange variations, will the Government consider changing its policy to allow Qantas to borrow in Australian dollars in Australia to finance further aircraft purchases?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-I will refer that question to Mr Nixon for reply.

page 1967

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL JUSTICES OF THE PEACE

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I draw the Minister’s attention to a report I have received which suggests that there has been a decrease in lawlessness at the One Arm Point and La Grange missions in Western Australia since the appointment of Aboriginal justices of the peace in these two missions. Can the Minister confirm this report and advise the Senate whether further justices will be appointed at other communities?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I have had reports which are in the terms mentioned by the honourable senator in his question. The initiative is an initiative of the State Government of Western Australia, which has, on an experimental basis, appointed Aboriginal justices of the peace at the two places mentioned by the honourable senator in his question. It has also extended by-law making powers to those two communities. This has been done expressly as an experiment. My understanding is that it has had some beneficial effect and that the State Government is now considering extending it to other similar communities which request it.

In addition, I think the first two communities are to have added to the system some Aboriginal policemen who will, it is hoped, further aid the working of the system. I have not seen any detailed assessment of what is being done by the State Government, although of course it is a matter of great interest to me and to my Department. I know that the Aboriginal Legal Service of Western Australia is closely involved as adviser in the scheme, which however has been put together principally by a magistrate, Mr Syddal. As I understand it, he is leaving and it will be continuing under the supervision of another magistrate, Dr Howard. I think that experiments of this sort are most constructive and useful. At the same time, they need to be watched very carefully to ensure that the rights of individual Aboriginals are protected so that they have the normal rights which are afforded to people when they are taken before courts and so that they know what laws are being imposed in the Aboriginal communities. Subject to those sorts of qualifications, I think what is being done is most worth while and I hope it will succeed and will spread.

page 1968

QUESTION

ROYAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO DRUG TRAFFICKING IN NEW SOUTH WALES

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Following what seems to have been a successful procedure yesterday, I ask a question of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, although the subject of the question could come within the concern of any one of three other Ministers represented in this place. Has the Leader of the Government seen the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking, presented to the New South Wales Parliament, in which Mr Justice Woodward mentions the lack of representation by Australia in the Golden Triangle area of South East Asia and complains that he was not able to evaluate Australia’s efforts in Thailand because the Federal Narcotics Bureau agent there was instructed not to give information to the Royal Commission? Who instructed the agent in Thailand not to give information to the Commission, and why? Following Senator Wriedt ‘s two questions, who was responsible for a conscious decision by a Federal agency or the Federal Government to give no co-operation to this important New South Wales Commission?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I think that in common with all Australians, except the Premier of New South Wales, I have not seen the report of the Royal Commission. I think that as yet it is not available. I have seen newspaper reports in which I believe it was stated that we had one operative inside the Golden Triangle. I do not know whether what has been suggested is a true reflection of Mr Justice Woodward ‘s report or whether it is factual because I have not either the report or the substantiation. I am not aware of any allegation of lack of co-operation. The great difficulty is that both Senator Cavanagh and I are relying on newspaper reports. Neither of us, as I take it, has seen Mr Justice Woodward ’s report. Assuming that the basis of the newspaper reports is correct, I will refer the questions to the Minister or Ministers concerned and endeavour to obtain a response.

page 1968

QUESTION

DISPOSAL OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL

Senator KNIGHT:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. What is the present position in regard to the proposed ordinance concerning the handling and disposal of radioactive material in the Australian Capital Territory? As such laws apply, as I understand it, in the States and the Northern Territory, will the Government now give this matter priority with respect to the Capital Territory?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I understand that a draft Australian Capital Territory radiation ordinance was prepared in 1973 but this draft was not settled due to the complex technical problems involved. It was considered that the making of the ordinance would be expedited by the adaptation to the Australian Capital Territory of legislation in force elsewhere. Accordingly, an additional draft modelled on the Radiation Safety Control Ordinance 1978 of the Northern Territory was prepared earlier this year. This latest draft is currently being reviewed by officers of the Capital Territory Health Commission. Advice has been received from the Department of Science and the Environment and from the Australian Radiation Laboratory. In addition, the Australian Atomic Energy Commission has been requested to comment. The matter is being treated by the Commission with the utmost priority in an effort to expedite the making of this legislation which is expected to be made law early in 1980.

page 1968

QUESTION

YARRABAH ABORIGINAL COMMUNITY

Senator RYAN:

– My question is directed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and follows a question I asked him yesterday, and his answer, in respect of the intention of the Government to make a declaration under section 5 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Reserves and Communities Self-management) Act 1975 to enable the Yarrabah Council to manage and control its community. In answer to my question Senator Chaney informed the Senate:

  1. . a series of negotiations has been held between the two governments.

That is the Federal Government and the Queensland Government. Senator Chaney further said:

It is expected that at least one Queensland Minister and I will visit Yarrabah later this month to discuss the matters -

I draw the Minister’s attention to the following comments from the Queensland Minister for Aboriginal and Island Affairs, Mr Porter. In a letter to Senator Chaney dated 4 July 1979, he stated:

  1. . I am forced to believe that further Ministerial . . talks would be inimical to the accord we would hope our Governments should aim at achieving, both in the interests of the Aboriginal people (not only at Yarrabah) and of your Government’s electoral credibility in this State.

In an article in volume 4 of the Aboriginal newspaper Messagestick of September 1979, Mr Porter is reported as saying:

Yarrabah is the only reserve that is against the State Government and I know the Federal Department of Aboriginal Affairs is stirring up this trouble, we have the times and dates of every Federal officer who has visited Yarrabah.

In the light of those comments by Mr Porter, can the Minister explain the nature of the negotiations between the Federal Government and the Queensland Government to which he has referred? Which Minister does he expect to accompany him, as he mentioned in his answer yesterday? What are the prospects of reaching an agreement when there has been such a declaration of war against the Federal Government by the Queensland Minister for Aboriginal and Island Affairs?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– That question, or statement, was really notable for the fact that it involved such selective quotations. There has been quite a lot of talk about Yarrabah over the last 24 hours in both the Senate and the House of Representatives and, if one looks at the material that has been quoted, it becomes quite clear that one can readily find the answer to the question that has been asked by Senator Ryan. The letter from Mr Porter from which she quoted is dated July- I forget which day but it does not matter- of this year and most honourable senators will recall that in September, which was a couple of months afterwards, a Press release was issued following discussions in Canberra between Dr Edwards, myself and all of the councillors of Yarrabah. So certainly there have been negotiations subsequent to the writing of the letter by Mr Porter. To assist the honourable senator further I suggest that, having read Mr

Porter’s letter, she should also read my reply, quoted in the Senate yesterday and appearing in the same Hansard, in the course of which I expressed the wish- which it subsequently transpired was accurate- that talks would continue. The negotiations have related to the land tenure and management of the Yarrabah Reserve. Which Queensland Government Minister will go to Yarrabah in November is a matter for decision by that Government, not me. As far as the prospects of success are concerned, I can only say that I believe it is in the best interests of the Aboriginal people of Yarrabah, and elsewhere in Queensland, that agreement should be reached between the two governments. It has been my consistent aim and endeavour to achieve agreement between the two governments and I am proceeding on the basis that it is possible to attain.

Senator RYAN:

– I ask a supplementary question. Has the Minister spoken to Mr Porter about Yarrabah since the July letter?

Senator CHANEY:

– I cannot immediately recall whether I have had discussions with Mr Porter since that letter was written. I have certainly not had recent discussions with him. He is overseas.

page 1969

QUESTION

AIR TRAVEL INSURANCE

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Transport whether he has seen reports of many Australian travellers losing payments made for the new low price advance purchase excursion tickets for overseas travel? Is he aware that, because of the refusal of some insurance companies to reimburse them, many of these unfortunate people forfeit their payments even though they have taken out such insurance to cover themselves against any unforeseen circumstance that may prevent their making their trip, or even cause them to change the proposed flight dates? Will the Government have discussions with both the airlines and, in particular, the insurance companies involved to ensure that the conditions of insurance are made fairer for genuine travellers so that they can be better protected against circumstances and mishaps which are beyond their control and which in many cases at present mean a loss of life savings and of an overseas trip to which they have looked forward for many years? Will the Government make public the names of insurance companies which are not prepared to respond and give better protection to people who take out such insurance?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I have some information from the Minister for Transport on this matter.

He has advised that he is aware that, of the many travellers who take advantage of the new advance purchase excursion fares, there will be some who in certain circumstances will be liable to forfeit payments. Of course, if one allows lower fares for very early bookings and subject to certain conditions, it is obvious that if those conditions are breached such forfeiture will occur. An example of that is provided by travellers who change their travel date within the 45-day prepayment period.

Mr Nixon is also aware of reports that some intending travellers have been unable to obtain reimbursement from their insurance company when, for one reason or another, they have been prevented from travelling. I understand that this situation arises most commonly when the insurance company considers that the traveller had a pre-existing illness. The Minister is concerned about the matter that has been raised by Senator Young, particularly as it affects people who plainly thought that they were covered by insurance. Although it is necessary, in order to achieve and maintain the new low fare levels, that certain conditions be imposed, the Department of Transport will review those conditions in the light of the operation of the fares over time. The review will include an examination of the relationships between insurance and fare conditions. That would cover the matter that has been raised by Senator Young.

page 1970

QUESTION

SALE OF NOMAD AIRCRAFT

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-Earlier today at Question Time Senator MacGibbon asked me for some information on Nomad aircraft and South Africa. I have that information. Briefly, I confirm that in August this year a Paris-based agent approached the Australian Trade Commission in Paris concerning a possible sale of 100 Nomad aircraft to an unidentified purchaser in South Africa. The invitation to tender involved the Nomad in its civilian configuration. It was stated that the aircraft would be used primarily for agricultural spraying and dusting and light freight work. The terms of reference set out by the company, however, also referred to possible coastal surveillance and police work.

Australia adheres to the United Nations Security Council Resolution 418 of 1977 which requires states not to provide arms or military or para-military equipment to South Africa. In fact for over a decade before the adoption of this Resolution Australia had operated an effective embargo on arms supplies to South Africa. The sale to South Africa of an aircraft manufactured by a government-owned company would have been inconsistent with the whole spirit of the Government’s policy towards South Africa. In addition, the potential for using the aircraft for internal security purposes would have been inconsistent with our implementation of Security Council Resolution 418. Accordingly, the Government decided that the invitation to tender should not be taken up.

page 1970

QUESTION

EXCLUSIVE TELEVISION RIGHTS

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-Yesterday Senator Maunsell asked a question without notice concerning the grant by sporting bodies throughout Australia of exclusive television rights, and the matter was raised again in Question Time today by Senator McAuliffe. Mr Staley has provided me with further information, some of which parallels the answer I gave today. In view of the interest in the matter I would like to put the answer before the Senate. In response to the question yesterday I indicated that the Government was concerned that a large number of Australians were unable to view a direct telecast of yesterday’s Melbourne Cup and in recent times a range of sporting events.

It is true, as Mr Staley mentioned in answer to a similar question in the House of Representatives yesterday, that there are still too many Australians who are beyond the reach of any television signal or are solely dependent upon the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s television signal. Senator Maunsell and other honourable senators on this side of the chamber know that it is only through satellite transmission that we will be able to overcome the gravest problems of people in remote and rural areas of Australia.

It is also true that commercial television networks have in recent years become more conscious of the commercial advantage in securing exclusive television rights to major sporting events. This is a relatively recent development. However, it is obviously one which in the future is expected to pick up momentum. It is, therefore, a matter of concern, as I have already mentioned, that the immediate effect is that a number of Australians, particularly those in some rural or remoter communities, are denied access to these events.

The Government is not convinced, however, that the problem is necessarily one of funds and it is a simplistic solution which has been put forward by Senator Ryan and others that the ABC be provided with limitless funds in an attempt to out-bid the commercial networks for the coverage of certain events. This in no way comes to the heart of the problem. Mr Staley has previously indicated that he is committed to the view that all parties to these arrangements should review their role in this general area of televised sporting coverage. It requires co-operation between the organisations which grant the rights, the commercial networks which secure the rights and, of course, the Australian Broadcasting Commission. It is this co-operative effort which will ensure the solutions which Senator Maunsell is seeking.

page 1971

QUESTION

ANTI-POLLUTION DEVICES

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-On 23 October Senator Rocher asked me a question relating to possible adverse effects of highly charged electrical particles emitted to the atmosphere from smoke stacks equipped with anti-pollution devices. I now have the following answer for him: In order to conform with atmospheric pollution control requirements, the gaseous products of combustion in coal-fired power stations in Australia are passed through either electrostatic precipitators or, less frequently, fabric filters which remove coal dust and fine ash particles before these emissions enter the chimney stack and escape to the atmosphere. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation advises me that electrostatic precipitators have been used for this purpose around the world for over 70 years and that no adverse effects on climate, plant, animal or human life have ever been attributed to the use of this equipment. Indeed, the only hazard appears to be the high voltages used for electrostatic precipitation although strict safety regulations are observed to ensure that no danger results to personnel. The total amount of electrical charge contributed to the atmosphere by particles from electrostatic precipitators would be very small and would be greatly outweighed by the charges associated with natural phenomena such as electrical storms and thunderstorms. Indeed, most of the particles would lose their charge while passing through the chimney stack.

The CSIRO is not aware of any studies being undertaken in Australia aimed at determining whether the electric charges on particles emitted from chimney stacks have any effects in the immediate environment of coal-fired power stations but has good reason to believe that such effects will be minimal. To add to this information, I can report that the CSIRO is studying the composition of the particles emitted from some smoke-stacks and their subsequent chemical interaction in the atmosphere. However, there appears to be no evidence that the chemical nature of these particles produces any adverse environmental effects which should cause concern.

page 1971

PRICES JUSTIFICATION TRIBUNAL

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received a letter from Senator Gietzelt proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely:

The failure of the Government to use the Prices Justification Tribunal to control rising prices.

I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places-

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– I think it is appropriate for the Senate to discuss the matter of rising prices in our country and the failure of the Federal Government to utilise one of the machinery arms available to it for the purpose of controlling the inflationary spiral of prices for consumer goods. The problem of price rises should be the concern of the Government. It certainly is the concern of the Opposition and the general community. There is mounting evidence to support the claim that public concern ought to be accommodated by the Parliament because we have witnessed in recent times- I am talking now of the last 20 or 30 years- a regular and relentless rise in prices generally in the Australian community. That did not start in December 1972 and stop in December 1975. It is a feature of the period in which we live; it is part of a world wide phenomenon and part of an economic factor in our country.

We have to look at what determines prices and not just seek- as so often happens in the Parliament and in Government parties- to examine all of the features that go to make up the price of goods. We have to examine not just the cost of labour but the costs of materials, overheads and, of course, profit margins. We also have to ask whether, in fact, we are living in a period in which competition or market forces play the significant role they once played in trying to determine a reasonable price. This Government’s policy has been only to control the cost of labour. We have seen time and time again, in all of the national wage cases heard before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, substantial submissions by the Government seeking to control the price of labour, as if that were the only component in rising prices. This Government is not concerned with rents. I have not seen one public statement about the cost of rents, whether it be for the tenant, for small shopkeepers, or, for that matter, for the large factories or commercial centres. I have not seen any evidence of concern by the Government about the cost of materials, yet it is substantial. I have not seen any analysis or attempt to establish the cost of transportation. There has never been one statement by any government spokesman expressing concern about excessive profiteering. In fact, the only area with which this Government has concerned itself has been the cost of labour.

When the Australian Labor Party came to office in 1972, in the first few months in the Autumn session it brought in legislation to provide for the establishment of the Prices Justification Tribunal. It was established for the purpose of, firstly, analysing the forces that operate in the market place and, secondly, considering the part that capital and labour play in the whole price structure. The purpose of the setting up of the Prices Justification Tribunal was to share the burden of any economic difficulties that we were faced with at that time. As the original legislation suggested, we were concerned that at that time some 350 big corporations in our country were involved in a price rise process without having regard to the cost factors to which I have referred.

It is interesting to look back at the debate that took place in the Senate when it was dealing with the formation of the Prices Justification Tribunal. Senator Webster rightly made this comment:

This Bill is of immense importance to the Australian community. I should imagine that the general aim by the Government to control rising prices would achieve the full support of not only members of Parliament but also the business community, particularly those who are being severely affected by the escalation that is occurring daily in the cost of goods and services. Although rising prices over the past years -

I emphasise that point- have done some harm to this country, we have not reached the rate of inflation that has affected other countries.

So it was apparent even then that we were faced with a rising cost factor and that inflation was having its impact in the market place. Senator Jessop in the same debate said:

That is, the conservative parties which at that time were in opposition- must support the Bill because we believe that something has to be done in an attempt to arrest the tide of inflation. Even if the course proposed is to introduce legislation which is intimidatory up to a point we will go along with it.

It would be absurd to suggest that inflation started from the moment that the Whitlam Government came into office, and the Government’s own members have testified to that.

Why did we take the steps of establishing the PJT? We did so in recognition of changed economic circumstances. We recognised even then that we were starting to move into a post-market economy where competition was no longer adequate to keep prices down. Most markets were dominated by a few big corporations, many of them foreign, which had pricing policies which were determined overseas and which had a flow-on effect on our national economy. The PJT was designed to monitor the price changes taking place in that corporate sector of the Australian economy and not in every small shop or business. These major companies generally do not compete through prices. In succeeding years we have seen abundant evidence of that. The companies rather concern themselves with product differentiation, packaging and advertising in order to increase their market share. We have a lot of evidence to show that through product differentiation and massive advertising campaigns these big companies seek to win a share of the market by competing against their own products. If demand falls these companies do not need to reduce prices; they can put them up. This goes a long way towards explaining stagflationprice rises while output and employment fall.

It is worth just reminding the Senate that this contemporary development in the United States of America, in Australia and in all of the Western countries was identified in a decision of the United States Congress. In October 1976 it set up the Joint Economic Committee, which looked at the effect of market concentration and pricing policies and found that the cost of labour was not the significant factor in price. The United States Committee in its report described the process of price mark-ups as the cause of inflation in a period of recession and unemployment in the following way:

During a recession when sales fall, firms operating in concentrated markets with substantial economic power will increase their prices to offset revenue losses from declining sales, thereby charging a higher markup per unit sales in order to attain their desired target rate of profits.

My conclusion from that remark is that in this country we are now living in a period which can generally be described as one of market concentration.

Let us have a look at some of the objective analyses that have been developed in recent times to see whether our assumptions and conclusions are correct. In Australia, there have been a number of reports on industries by various and different bodies which indicate that the correct conclusions of the Congress decision which was made in the United States were borne out in the

Australian practice. FirstlY, let us look at the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Prices which met in 1 974. The Committee had representatives from both sides of the Parliament, from the Senate and the House of Representatives.

The Committee found that in the soap industry there was no substantial price competition in the market, that what competition there was was aimed to enlarge market shares and that it had led to excessive advertising, unnecessary proliferation of similar products under different brand names, higher costs and prices with little benefit to the consumers. These conclusions arrived at by the Parliamentary Committee were confirmed by an Industries Assistance Commission report on soaps and detergents. It confirmed another report which was made in the United Kingdom on monopolies which found that the Unilever Company and the Proctor and Gamble Organisation, the two major soap and detergent manufacturers in that country, spent almost 20 per cent of their total turnover on advertising because they were involved in the same process of product differentiation and of competition between their own brands.

In the confectionery industry, the Industries Assistance Commission found that the market was dominated by the five largest producers, that profitability was well above average, that there was an obvious price leader, that manufacturers compete on the basis of product differentiation rather than price, and that advertising costs to launch a new product can be up to 30 per cent of the total costs in the first year.

The Industries Assistance Commission, in examining the cosmetics industry, concluded that price competition was absent with success depending mainly on product innovation, promotional skill and imports. One company stated that there was very little difference in the functional quality of high and low priced products. The Commission said:

The industry uses packaging, advertising and promotion and pricing to create, in the mind of the consumer, distinctions between basically similar goods . . . Under these conditions, suppliers experience a high degree of freedom in price setting and manufacturing costs do not appear to be a significant factor determining a company ‘s competitiveness.

These examples that I have given could be multiplied many times over. The fact is that in many cases the consumer is being over-charged or ripped off by these high prices where profits are excessive, whatever criteria is applied. It is interesting that the report of the Industries Assistance Commission on cosmetics, pointed out that the mark-up price was up to 2,000 per cent on imported goods coming from the Asian region. So, an article is imported, put in a nice fancy package that makes it look like something out of the box- something different, perhaps printed in gold- and one is able to put on a mark-up price, as the IAC established in that report, of something like 2,000 per cent.

Governments have shown some concern. The New South Wales Government is one in particular that has shown concern about rising costs and rising prices. After a Sydney newspaper printed the telephone number of the New South Wales Consumer Affairs Bureau and told its readers that they could report price rises to Mr Einfeld ‘s Department, the Bureau received more than 1,100 calls in two days. Let us not have any illusions. There is considerable public concern about what is happening in the market place. There is an abuse of corporate power; there is a market concentration; and there is excessive profit making. There is a need, therefore, for a public authority to require those top echelon companies in our country to justify price rises in a public forum.

Might I remind those honourable senators who often express some misgivings about these sons of matters that they should have a look at the recent report of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development committee on fiscal affairs entitled ‘Transfer Pricing and Multinational Enterprises’. The report recommendation is for government action in respect of pricing and taxing policies in the international market. Australia is in a situation now where imports represent about 40 per cent of goods that are sold in the market place. We are in a position where more than 60 per cent of our companies are now, if not foreign controlled, very strongly foreign influenced. The OECD has found this to be a factor that governments have to take into consideration because prices are being manipulated in that area of our economy. The market structure itself has changed. We witness this every day. We only have to read the articles that appear in the financial columns of our newspapers to realise the take-over bids that are taking place, and the diversifying of companies by taking over other companies. The purpose of this activity is to strengthen the corporate sector of the economy and to make competition less of an influence over prices.

When the Government came to power, it took several steps to weaken the legislative effect of the Prices Justification Tribunal, lt took steps to reduce the number of companies that could be examined by the Prices Justification Tribunal. It then removed the surveillance and investigative role of the Prices Justification Tribunal. It gave to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs the power to decide what activities the Tribunal should examine. It took steps to limit the effectiveness of the organisation by reducing the number of its staff. If my memory serves me correctly, some 160 persons were employed on the staff of the Tribunal. The number is down to 82, according to the latest report which I have seen. That indicates that, by removing the Tribunal’s effectiveness as a resource centre and by removing the powers to investigate, it is left to the States to play some small but ineffective role in the whole area of prices. One only has to examine the profitability of the manufacturing sector in the last decade from 1966-67 to 1 976-77 to see what the operating profits on funds employed are and how- the last figures available in the IAC annual report were for 1977-78 - manufacturing profits have increased from 10.6 per cent of funds employed up to the highest they have been in the decade at 13.4 per cent in 1976-77.

Time will not permit me to say very much about the problems of transfer pricing other than to refer to what is happening in the petroleum industry and how the Prices Justification Tribunal, in its limited power; sought to do something in 1979 about the rising price of petroleum products. Then, of course, we had the first inquiry into the Shell Oil Co. in 1974. The PJT looked at the Caltex case in 1 974 also. In the Esso case of 1 977 we see that the Tribunal said:

  1. . In two particular areas we found Esso’s invoiced costs to be unacceptable for pricing purposes.
Senator Archer:

– Which government did that?

Senator GIETZELT:

– The Fraser Government. It has failed to act upon the advice that was given by the Tribunal. It has failed to act upon the Collins Royal Commission on Petroleum. The Government has left it to the Prices Commission of the New South Wales Government to try to obtain the sorts of transfer pricing arrangements in which all the petroleum countries involve themselves for the purpose of trying to establish an equitable price for this very important commodity. It is true that the Government accepts the fact that it has raised $2, 000m from the special tax that it placed on petrol in the last Budget. In addition to that, I think it is an unsatisfactory state of affairs that the New South Wales Prices Commission is forced to perform at a State level a role which is rightly the jurisdiction of the Prices Justification Tribunal at a national level. This Government ought to be forced to reinstate the PJT legislation so that the

Tribunal can be effective as a resource and surveillance centre in the monitoring of price rises that are taking place in our country. To that extent the Government should take steps to see that we have some effective control of price rises at the top echelons of industry in our country.

Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP

– We heard from Senator Gietzelt what was, if I may say so, a typically socialist speech. He said that the solution to the problem of controlling inflation in the community is simply one of attacking the profitability of companies. From beginning to end his speech was simply an attack on the profits and profitability of companies. He said that we need to have the Prices Justification Tribunal to control prices in Australia. This matter of public importance raises the following matter:

The failure of the Government to use the Prices Justification Tribunal to control rising prices.

Senator Gietzelt did not seem to consider the fact that the problem of rising pricesinflation is one which requires a whole battery of sound economic policies. He believes that all one really needs to do- it does not matter what policies are pursued by government in other directions- is just to attack profits. That is why I said, when I commenced my response to his remarks that his contribution contained the typically old and tired socialist attitude to and remedy of the problem.

The Government of which Senator Gietzelt was a supporter pursued that remedy. Presumably, if the Labor Opposition were in government again now that is the remedy it would pursue. It would not concern itself, and it did not concern itself, with the causes of inflation.

When in government the Labor Party believed that it could not only encourage restraint but also discourage excessive increases in wages. It believed that it could go on a spending spree, raise large amounts in taxes and create large deficits. Despite that and the effect that that had on inflation, it believed that the way of controlling inflation would be to set up a price controlling body to fix it all up. It is true that the Labor Government set up the Prices Justification Tribunal. Even by the Labor Government the Tribunal was set up on a very limited scale. It was a body to which notification of price increases was required to be given only by companies with an annual turnover exceeding $20m. The Labor Government’s approach to the Tribunal was very far from making it a body to control prices, which Senator Gietzelt has said that the Tribunal should be. Even under the legislation of the

Labor Government the Tribunal could not control prices. It only demanded that the companies with annual turnovers exceeding $20m notify the Tribunal of price increases and that they not actually impose such increases until there had been an opportunity for the Tribunal to consider them. There was a maximum period of about three months after which the obligation on the company was finished. So, the Tribunal was never a price controlling body in the sense in which Senator Gietzelt seems to suggest that it should now be used.

Even the Labor Government recognised that the Tribunal was not a solution to its problems. The Prime Minister of the day, Mr Whitlam, in fact wrote to the Tribunal drawing its attention to the need for business to generate new investment capital and therefore the need for profits, as well as the fact that the Tribunal would have to have regard to that matter. In fact, the PJT in those days did have regard to that and placed great stress on the need for profitability of companies to be improved or at least maintained. When the present Government came into power at the end of 1975 it conducted discussions with the unions and the employers. We decided to maintain the Prices Justification Tribunal although we had grave doubts about its effectiveness. Due to the inflation rate during the years that the Labor Government was in office we decided to increase from $20m to $30m the level of turnover which companies had to reach before being required to notify the Tribunal of price increases.

At that stage notifications of price increases were running at about 7,000 a year. Ninety per cent of them were being approved without any alteration. In fact, the Tribunal was simply providing employment for a large number of public servants- I think Senator Gietzelt cited the figure- who had to process all the paper work and information. All of this additional cost was borne not only by the companies that were required to provide the information but also of course by the Government which provided the public servants who virtually just had to move the paper around. As I said, the effectiveness of the Tribunal was revealed by the fact that there was this large number of notifications, of which 90 per cent were being approved. There was no way in which the Tribunal could possibly cope with that flood of material and perform an effective role as a prices justification body, particularly with the limited powers it was given when the Labor Government established it. The present Government decided to try to make the

Tribunal a more effective body- a body concerned not with the justification of 7,000 notifications of price rises per annum- that is the rate at which they were running- but as an expert and efficient price surveillance organisation which could carry out special inquiries into special areas of importance and to operate in the form of a spot audit prices body.

Let us just turn for a moment to see the effectiveness of the Tribunal- even on that limited scale on which the Labor Government created it- in controlling prices. Let us remember that the Labor Government set up not only the Tribunal but also the Joint Committee on Prices. I think Senator Gietzelt was a member of that Committee. Certainly other honourable senators now present in the chamber were on that Committee. The Committee was to be another way in which prices were to be controlled. We had the Prices Justification Tribunal and we had a parliamentary committee to try to control prices. What happened to prices during the years 1973, 1974 and 1975? The solution that Senator Gietzelt now presents to the Parliament is that the Prices Justification Tribunal is the body which should control prices today. But what happened? The Prices Justification Tribunal was set up in 1973. In the year 1971-72 we had an inflation rate of 6.8 percent. In 1972-73, that is the year when the Prices Justification Tribunal was set up, we had an inflation rate of 6 per cent. In the first year the Tribunal was in operation, 1 973-74, we had an inflation rate of 12.9 per cent.

Senator Gietzelt:

– We did not.

Senator DURACK:

– These are the official figures. In 1974-75 we had an inflation rate of 16.7 per cent over the year. In 1975-76 the inflation rate was 13 per cent; in the following year, 1976, and even in 1977, it was still running at 13 per cent. In 1977-78 it was down to 9.5 per cent, and in 1 978-79 it is down to 8.2 per cent. So let us look at the years when we had a Prices Justification Tribunal, and we had this marvellous parliamentary committee which was also stopping rises in prices! The first year in which these bodies operated inflation increased - it doubled- from 6 per cent to 12.9 per cent, and in the three years of the Labor Government it was maintained at some of the highest levels that we have ever had in Australia. The level was maintained not just over a short period of time, but over a period of years.

What is the value of a Prices Justification Tribunal which Senator Gietzelt now says this Government should use to control prices? What is the use of a body such as that, and of parliamentary committees to control prices when that is the sort of inflation rate which developed when those bodies were in their heyday? That shows clearly that prices cannot be controlled, and inflation cannot be controlled by simply imposing that sort of control on profitability and on prices, which Senator Gietzelt now says is the solution. That suggestion is completely disproved by the experience that we have had. lt is quite clear that the only way to tackle these problems is by sound economic policies which must be pursued by governments. We cannot have governments pursuing policies of high deficits, high taxation, vast government expenditure, encouragement of high wage increases and, as I say, no sense of restraint on all these activities, and then solve the problem by controlling prices and controlling profitability. That just does not work.

As I have said, the Labor Government soon discovered, even with its own prices justification powers, when it introduced the body, that it had to direct the attention of that body to the need to generate new investment and to the need for maintaining company profitability. Without that, the whole system would collapse. The Labor Government had discovered that factor. As I said, the figures that I have already referred to relating to the increase in inflation during the time that this body operated- in a way that Senator Gietzelt apparently approves, because he is criticising the present Government for having weakened the Tribunal and weakened its functions- clearly establishes that that body is not the solution to the problem. Maybe some of the matter that Senator Gietzelt raised in relation to the operations of large companies today and maybe the problems that he mentioned in his speech, are better and more properly tackled by trade practices machinery. If he were talking about the Trade Practices Act I would be more inclined to agree with his arguments. Certainly this Government has maintained the policy of anti-trade practices and it does believe that we must have laws which do prevent combinations and price rigging and other practices which are designed to maintain, keep up or increase prices. That it the whole object of trade practices legislation and policies. But policies of setting up a price control body which is working against market forces is completely doomed to failure, and that is not the way this Government believes that inflation can be controlled.

What we have done with the Prices Justification Tribunal is that we have kept it as a small expert body which can be used to deal with cases where there seems to be a particular problem. It may be a problem of inefficiency in many ways in a particular industry, or it may be an industry where there is a particular scarcity, and therefore a particular tendency to unjustifiably increase prices to take advantage of that scarcity. But that is the role and the only role which the Government sees for a prices justification body or a prices surveillance body. The body has been retained now in that form. It has conducted some special and very important inquiries into certain industries. One of its most important roles is in petroleum products, where it has had an inquiry and it now has the power to require notification to it of price increases in that area. That is one of the most sensitive areas today, and one on which the Government believes it is necessary to keep a close watch, because of the scarcity problem which exists, the need for companies to be making spot purchases, and so on, and to ensure that the rises in prices that are made in the industry are vetted and surveyed. (Quorum formed).

The Opposition of course had to call a quorum. It brought forward this matter of public importance but apparently not even sufficient of its members were prepared to come in and keep the quorum in the House. But I was just on a finishing note when the quorum was called. It has interrupted me, but I think I have time to make my final point which is that the Government has in fact initiated 10 inquiries of this kind since 1977. I might say that the previous Government, the Labor Government, did not itself initiate in this way any such inquiries of this character. It left the situation to this notification process which we have been discussing. So the Government has not neglected the Prices Justification Tribunal by any means. It has converted it into a small expert body and I think a more efficient body to tackle areas of key importance. It has committed itself to that policy by initiating inquiries of great importance in areas of great sensitivity in the economy and to large numbers of members of the community. That is the policy the Government will pursue in relation to this matter.

Senator COLEMAN:
Western Australia

– I think it is important that I go over a few of the points my colleague from Western Australia, the Attorney-General (Senator Durack), has just made. One would have expected that with his legal background he would have known the difference between a price control body and a prices justification body. One is to assess and control and the other one is to assess and force people into justification of an increase in prices. He also seemed a little unaware of why the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Prices was established. It was not to control prices; it was to investigate price increases for specific manufactured goods. He criticised the fact that we set a level of $20m as the income for companies to which the Prices Justification Act would apply and then said it was necessary because of the inflation rates experienced under the Labor Government to increase this to $30m. I would defy anybody to assess the inflation rate under the Whitlam Government at 50 per cent. Senator Durack then tried to blame the PJT for the increase in the rate of inflation. I am sure it would be delighted to think it had that power. He said: ‘We had to maintain company profitability’. I intend producing figures in a moment to prove that, in fact, company profitability has been maintained.

When the Labor Government introduced the Prices Justification Tribunal, it was seen not only by the government of the day but also by consumers, consumer organisations, the trade union movement and even the Press as being perhaps the only means of monitoring prices and having some form of control over unwarranted prices, particularly for essential goods. The $20m was, we believed, a fairly reasonable amount. It certainly was not strict enough to prevent any profitability levels being maintained. I recall as a member of that Joint Parliamentary Committee on Prices, together with Senator Gietzelt, expressing concern and a feeling of alarm at the amounts of time that were being spent by legal eagles who were employed by very large corporations purely and simply to make application to the Prices Justification Tribunal. Even before one application had been heard by the Tribunal lawyers were already working on their next application. Senator Gietzelt will recall our discussions with Mr Williams at that time.

I remind honourable senators- if they need any reminding; we certainly do not on this side of the House-that 1975 was the year of the Liberal-Country Party coup. Immediately prior to the forced election in December of that year the present Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, was already threatening to abolish the PJT on the very grounds that I mentioned earlier- that insufficient profitability levels were being maintained. So it is important to look at the profitability levels. Figures for the operating profits for funds employed for each of the years 1 966-67 to 1976-77 are given in the Industries Assistance Commission annual report. If members on the Government side like to dispute them I suggest they take them up with that body. The figures are as follows: 1966-67, 10.6 per cent; 1967-68, 11.4 percent; 1968-69, 12.6 per cent; 1969-70, 13 per cent; 1970-71, 12.1 percent; 1971-72, 11.5 per cent; 1972-73, 13 per cent; 1973-74- this is the very interesting figure because this is the first year the PJT is supposed to be forcing profitability levels down- 12.6 per cent as against 13 per cent the year before; 1974-75, 12.1 per cent; 1975-76, 13.1 percent; 1976-77, 13.4 per cent. What is this silly nonsense that we have heard today from this Government about the lack of profitability levels available to manufacturers?

From the outset the Fraser Government has had great ideological objections to the PJT because of the pressure of big business. In 1975 the Prime Minister threatened the Australian people that he would abolish the PJT. Obviously he had second thoughts. Whilst the Government has amended the legislation fairly dramatically it certainly has not done what it threatened to do. The 1976 amendments, which extracted most of the teeth of the PJT, did a number of things. They raised the exemption level from $20m to $30m. They excluded companies not considered in a ‘dominant position’ from having to notify the PJT of intending increases. They placed greater emphasis on profit restoration. This is what the new legislation said:

In exercising its functions under sub-section ( 1 ), the Tribunal shall have due regard to the need for the company or companies concerned to achieve a level of profitability that is sufficient to enable the company or companies to maintain an adequate level of investment and employment.

I have already shown that the increases following the introduction of the PJT were up by something like 3 per cent on 1966-67 prior to its introduction. There can be no doubt that levels of profitability have increased and have been maintained. Following those amendments we saw the PJT in perhaps more of a surveillance role than the role of an effective body to limit excessive price rises. In October last year the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife) announced even further changes in an endeavour to emasculate the Tribunal. Those amendments limited even further the number of companies required to notify price rises to the Tribunal. They provided that in future PJT inquiries must have the Minister’s approval. Only he could order a public inquiry into any company. No longer could the Prices Justification Tribunal, of its own accord, institute a public inquiry. The price freeze provisions of the Act were modified to allow the PJT to approve interim price increases in the course of a public inquiry. The Minister at that time said that the purpose of the changes was to minimise the regulatory effects of the Prices Justification Tribunal’s operation. Honourable senators will remember that those amendments elicited a great deal of condemnation from the trade union movement and from the Press. In fact, the Australian Financial Review of 19 October 1978 under the heading PJT Powers are Stripped ‘ says, in part:

The Prices Justification Tribunal will lose its powers to initiate public inquiries on its own account under major amendments to the Prices Justification Act . . .

Mr Fife announced that the Government had decided that the tribunal could not initiate inquiries without first receiving its approval.

Of course, what he meant was the Minister’s approval. He did not mean the Government’s approval but purely and simply his own. The Adelaide Advertiser on 1 9 October under the editorial heading ‘A risky hand ‘ said:

Two simple but nonetheless important questions arise from the Federal Government’s latest changes to the Prices Justification Tribunal. The first is why? and the second is why now?

The Age on 19 October 1978 in a comment by Nigel Wilson under the heading ‘Fife calls tune in tribunal charade ‘ said:

And in the process Mr Fife appears to have totally forgotten that the tribunal had an important consumer protection facet- one which his new guidelines seem to ignore.

Also in the Age of 19 October 1978, appears the heading ‘Government has slapped union movement in face, Hawke says: PJT loses its teeth: Price rise wave is feared’. Once again, a comment by Nigel Wilson reads:

The Federal Government has scrapped the price monitoring capacity of the Prices Justification Tribunal, opening the way for a wave of price rises.

We have seen them increasing not only at the rate of once a week, but also at the rate of two and sometimes three times in the one week on the same article.

Senator Archer:

– Which article?

Senator COLEMAN:

– Does the honourable senator not ever do the weekly housekeeping? He should go to the supermarket and talk to the people who have to make their money go round.

Senator Archer:

– Name me one item.

Senator COLEMAN:

– I can name any number of items. Has the honourable senator looked at the price of eggs or the price of salt. In fact, according to surveys that have been done by consumer organisations the one item that has not increased over six months is pepper. How many times a year would anyone buy a container of pepper?

Senator Archer:

– Name one item that went up three times in a week.

Senator COLEMAN:

– I am telling the honourable senator that there are items that go up three times in a week. If he speaks to the retailers they will tell him that when their dockets come in they see that sometimes there has been a price change between the time they order the item and the time it arrives in their stores. If the honourable senator does not get out to talk to those -

Senator Robertson:

– Beef. That is one.

Senator COLEMAN:

– Let us look at the price of beef.

Senator Maunsell:

– You did not say much when the price was down.

Senator COLEMAN:

-Yes we did, Senator. We said quite a deal about it. At that time we said that the producers of that product were the people who were getting least of the consumer’s dollar and that is still the attitude maintained by the Australian Labor Party. The Canberra Times on 21 October 1978 published an interesting article headed ‘Neither Fish Nor Fowl’ but unfortunately I will not have time to read it. I suggest to honourable senators that they read it. Not only has this Government drastically limited the powers of the PJT but it has also severely limited its effectiveness by halving its staff. In 1974- 75 it had a total of 160 people employed. In the first full year of this Government ‘s reign in 1975- 76 the number of its employees was reduced to 138; in 1976-77 to 116; in 1977-78 1973- 74, 99 and in 1978-79 the PJT is down to a staff of 82 people which is almost half of the 1974- 75 figure. The Budget cuts to the Tribunal have continued each year. In the latest Budget cut the allocation for salaries was reduced in real terms by approximately 1 5. 1 per cent.

Funds for its computer services have been reduced by up to 53 per cent. Since 1975-76 the notices of price rises processed by the PJT have naturally fallen. If it has not the staff to process them and the guidelines are increased that is a natural extension. In 1973-74, 3,859 notifications were processed. That was the first year of its operation. In 1974-75, 7,502 were processed. In 1975- 76 the figure peaked at 7,739. After the amendments were introduced the figure fell to 4,696 in 1976. After the further amendments it reduced in 1977-78 to 2,244. We have seen the interference not only by this Government but also by a Minister with the the actual workings of the Tribunal.

If honourable senators look at what happened in the Colgate-Palmolive case- which was a scandal and was designated as such by the members on this side of the House- they will see that the Minister attempted to instruct, perhaps I should say order, the Tribunal not to consider advertising costs as a factor in approving price rises. That is a condemnation of the Minister and a condemnation of the Government of which he is a Minister. (Quorum formed). In the short time that is left to me I have time only to thank Senator Knight, on behalf of the Labor Party, for making sure that I did not complete my speech! However, I have made all the effective points and I defy the Government to refute them.

Senator ARCHER:
Tasmania

– Today we have another extraordinary matter for discussion, which reads:

The failure of the Government to use the Prices Justification Tribunal to control rising prices.

Having listened to Senator Gietzelt go over the reasons why the Tribunal was expected to do just that, Senator Coleman followed by saying that that is not what it is for. I do not think that we should be debating this matter here if we are not sure what the purpose of the Prices Justification Tribunal is. Senator Coleman spoke at some length of profitability. Profitability was never one of the factors relating to the formation or operation of the Prices Justification Tribunal. The wording of the matter we have before us today implies two things: Firstly, that had the Government used the Prices Justification Tribunal more, prices could have been controlled; secondly, had we done what the Australian Labor Party did when in government, prices would now be lower. We do not support either of those points of view. How wrong can one be?

For a start, the PJT was never established as a price control body. I was not a senator in the days of the introduction of the PJT legislation so I found it necessary to refer to Hansard. I found that Mr Crean was the Minister who introduced the legislation. He said:

Before explaining the measures provided for in the Bill, I want to say something about the problem that these measures, among others, are designed to help overcome- the problem of inflation. For many years inflation has been a world-wide phenomenon. A large number of governments believe that it has now become the most formidable and most intractable problem of economic policy.

That was the reason for the establishment of the Tribunal. Therefore we do not have to discuss any of the other odds and ends as to why the PJT was initially introduced. Mr Crean then enlarged on the legislation in an economic dissertation on inflation. I think we all agree that we should note what Mr Crean said about inflation because after all he was the expert. In introducing this Bill, as recorded on page 1888 of Hansard of 9 May 1973, Mr Crean said:

In introducing this Bill the Government is certainly not pretending that some simple solution has been revealed to it.

We have, it is true, learnt a good deal from experience elsewhere, and one of the most obvious lessons is that policies to contain inflation must be broad and multi-pronged. It is in this context that the present Bill must be viewed. It alone does not constitute a policy for the control of inflation. It is but one element- a very important element- in a broader strategy.

The Government has already taken, or has foreshadowed, a number of measures to counter inflationary pressures- the revaluation of the Australian dollar, restraints on overseas borrowings, domestic monetary measures including the call to statutory reserve deposits by the Reserve Bank, and the establishment of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Prices. In the longer-term, policies in other fields- for example, on tariffs, restrictive trade practices and consumer protection- will also have a favourable impact.

They had an impact all right.

The Government appreciates fully, from experience here and in other countries, that a central and essential element of an overall or anti-inflationary strategy must be effective demand management. In the longer haul the responsibility obviously is to avoid the emergence of overall excess demand, and to aim by budgetary and credit policies to hold total expenditure within the capacity of the economy.

That is what Mr Crean said. It is interesting to note, of course, that from that point inflation rose from about 7 per cent to about 1 7 per cent.

Senator Gietzelt:

– Come on, keep to the truth.

Senator ARCHER:

-Mr Crean clearly stated the purpose of the legislation. Senator Gietzelt must have missed what I read from page 1888. Senator Gietzelt places importance on the function of the Tribunal. I read the debates on the legislation to see what was said. I was somewhat surprised to read in the House of Representatives Hansard that the legislation was guillotined through with five other Bills. Not one word concerning it was said by a Government supporter. Nor was the Opposition given the opportunity to speak to it. That is how important it was: It did not even merit one word of debate on the part of even a Government or Opposition supporter. That being so, I had to refer to the Senate Hansard. I found that in this chamber it was extensively debated, for virtually a full day. Senators. Cotton, Webster, Guilfoyle, Hannan, Jessop, Carrick, Laucke and Kane had all spoken to it. The only thing that was extraordinary was that not one then Government supporter had anything to say in defence, justification or promulgation of the legislation either in this chamber or in the other place. That is significant. At the time Senator Gietzelt was a member of the Parliament. I repeat: Not one then Government supporter other than those who proposed the measure had anything to say about it.

What we are not sure of now is whether the Australian Labor Party wants price control or not. If it is price control that it wants, I ask it please to say so- and not try to use undercover methods to get what it is after.

Senator Gietzelt:

– No undercover method is being used at all.

Senator ARCHER:

-The Australian Labor Party wants price control; is that right?

Senator Gietzelt:

– No, it wants companies to justify increases in prices.

Senator ARCHER:

– If the honourable senator will read the motion, he will find that his Party is trying to get price control by some devious method. That is what it says.

Senator Gietzelt:

– You can’t even read the English language. That is why you are going down the drain.

Senator ARCHER:

– If it is price control that Labor wants, or some effort at price control, I suggest that it considers where that got us in South Australia, where it got the Dunstan Government. Price control does not work, has not worked and will not work. All that it does is create artificial sets of circumstances that no one can live with. What we really come back to is the fact that the situation now so far as high prices are concerned probably is no different from what it was in 1973. Senator Gietzelt read from page 1961 of the Senate Hansard of 29 May 1973. I regret that he omitted to read the important preceding paragraph, which records that Senator Webster said:

It is apparent from the fact that I am following another Opposition senator in speaking to the Prices Justification Bill that the supporters of the Government are not anxious to speak about this important matter. That is probably indicative of the fact that honourable senators opposite are experiencing great difficulty in advancing any reasonable comment on the Bill. I have no knowledge of any commercial expertise which exists within the ranks of the supporters of the Government- I am not being critical of them for this- which would enable them to make a reasonable comment on the Prices Justification Bill.

The situation is probably very much the same now. Let us consider the stage that we have reached. I have great respect for many of the things that Mr Crean did and stood for, but in regard to some of these economic matters it is hard to rationalise. I ask: How was this Government able between, say, 1975 and 1978, to get inflation rates down and stability back into the economy?

Senator Gietzelt:

– By increasing unemployment.

Senator ARCHER:

– How will this proposal of the Labor Party solve anything? I remind the honourable senator that his Party created the Prices Justification Tribunal, presumably with a view to controlling prices at a time when the inflation rate was rising very quickly. When the present Government came to office the inflation rate was very high. I do not intend to become academic and quote rates with which the honourable senator might not agree, but the fact that this Government reduced the inflation rate during the period to 1 978 is obvious to anyone in Australia.

Senator Gietzelt:

– Inflation is rising.

Senator ARCHER:

– You have had your turn. You made a miserable mess of it.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Young)- Order! I suggest that the honourable senator direct his remarks through the Chair.

Senator ARCHER:

-Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. This Government has used the PJT and has used it well. The matters that have been referred to it by the Government, including those that are under discussion at the moment, clearly demonstrate that. The PJT is thus performing a valid function, but it can do much more by keeping an eye on trends in industry generally and in particular those which relate to the cornering of markets, than it can by chasing up the price of a box of matches or seeing whether- to use the hyperbole employed by Senator Coleman- the price of something rises three times in a week.

Let me return to a consideration of the nature of the Opposition’s complaint. I am not sure whether Senator Gietzelt means to imply that the farmers, the manufacturers or the retailers are making too much, but obviously the accusation of participating in rip-offs and so on is being directed at one or all of them. However, at no stage did the honourable senator name anyone. I want to know who is doing this. I want the honourable senator to tell me. My reading of the financial pages has not revealed that anyone has suddenly begun making unreasonable profits. I have not seen any such happening reported regularly. The people who write our financial columns are not backward in drawing attention to the fact that someone is obviously skinning the public in some direction. I ask the honourable senator to name the trades, the people and the products that are concerned. It is all very well to speak in generalities, as did Senator Coleman, but I ask honourable members opposite to provide us with the odd fact. That is all I ask.

Costs are high. I am not trying to deny that. For a variety of reasons, they will become higher. Those reasons include taxation, rents, insurance, wages and overheads generally. Nor am I saying that wages should or should not be treated differently from any other aspect, and I certainly will not indulge in a discussion of it; but they are all factors of importance. What I can tell honourable senators opposite is that about 15 years ago it was common in many areas of retailing for the mark-up as between the producer’s price and that to the customer to amount to about 100 per cent. In many cases now that figure is between 200 and 250 per cent. This has resulted from the influence exerted by a variety of overheads. No one that I am aware of is indulging in a rip-off. In most cases business people are struggling like the devil to stay alive. Costs are high but there is no point in trying to put one’s finger on a single area and say: ‘That is where the profit is going.’ It is not. The profit is being spread a lot more thinly. Manufacturing has expanded. Retailing has expanded. No amount of investigation by the PJT will enable it to say: ‘That is where the big profit lies’- and honourable senators opposite know that.

Almost universally the best system in operation is that of supply and demand. The retailer is getting what he can. The manufacturer is making what he can. This is exactly what Mr Crean proposed when he said in his concluding remarks as recorded at page 1888 of House of Representatives Hansard of 9 May:

In no sense is the rationale of this Bill the wholesale replacement of the market by controls. On the contrary, it is in an important sense directed at improving the functioning of the market.

The market is governed by supply and demand; that is what we are talking about. Not only is competition at home keeping business going. Also we now have become competitive enough to begin to sell overseas once again. If the market were subject to the whole host of mystical ripoffs of which the Opposition- without substantiation- speaks so glibly Australia would not be able to do that. When one summarises the history of the matter, one finds that the PJT is not now and has never been a price fixing organisation. The Government has used the PJT to assist it and the performance of the PJT has been good. The amendments of 1 979 have improved its capacity to move freely.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Young)- Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Senator ROBERTSON:
Northern Territory

– In the second reading speech introducing the Prices Justification Bill in 1 973 the then Treasurer, Mr Crean, said:

It will be apparent that the scheme provided for in this Bill is one of price justification, as distinct from a scheme of price control. Companies will be required to justify their prices and price increases in the eyes of the public.

I was very pleased to hear Senator Archer, when speaking from the other side of the chamber, also mention what Mr Crean had said at that time, but unfortunately in mentioning it he forgot to read it. Certainly, he then went on to say: If you want price control, do so and so’, assuming that Mr Crean in those times and we at present want this price control. The Bill sought price justification, and price justification is being spoken about at present. Earlier in his speech Mr Crean said:

In introducing this Bill the Government is certainly not pretending that some simple solution has been revealed to it. We have, it is true, learned a good deal from experiences elsewhere, and one of the most obvious lessons is that policies to contain inflation must be broad and multi-pronged. It is in this context that the present Bill must be viewed. It alone does not constitute a policy for the control of inflation. It is but one element- a very important element- in a broader strategy.

The Bill was designed to assist in the control of inflation. That was a problem then and it is a problem now; and the PJT could be effective now if it were used in the right way. I repeat: Despite what the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) had to say, the Treasurer at that time made it clear and we at this time make it clear that the PJT is one element in the strategy working to this end. It is part of a total approach and it cannot be seen in isolation.

Let us ask then whether the PJT was effective. We can answer this question only in very general terms. We can use those general terms almost as a sort of argument in favour of the PJT at present. From an equity viewpoint the PJT has provided the necessary institutional complement to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. If we want wages justification, we would see a natural corollary in prices justification. The PJT has contributed to reducing inflation by reducing inflationary expectations and thereby moderating the wage-price cycle. Economists speak of this psychological approach, these psychological factors, which affect the behaviour of the market. To the extent that inflation is worsened by firms exploiting market power, the PJT has reduced inflation by checking this. It is a brake on firms which have a virtual monopoly or which, by reason of size, can control the market. It has been effective also in moderating union attitudes. It was a key element in the successful introduction of wage indexation.

One cannot help but ask whether that is perhaps one of the reasons that the Government is opposed to the PJT’s operating effectively. To the extent that prices have been reduced in certain key industries which are traditional wage leaders, the overall level of wages is lower than it would otherwise have been. The PJT has contributed to an increased awareness by companies of the need to monitor costs. It has induced companies to raise productivity rather than to raise prices. Combined with the Trade Practices Commission and the Industries Assistance Commission, it provides a technique for controlling problems associated with market imperfections.

What has been the Government’s attitude to the PJT? This has been hinted at in some way by the brief legislative history referred to by my colleague. My colleague also referred earlier to the much publicised promise made by the present Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) while in Opposition that he was going to abolish the Tribunal. Of course, this promise went the way of all other promises. The attitude of the Government can be described only as a series of deliberate attempts to wind down the full time and continuous price justification role of the Tribunal. What evidence have we got of this? We must look at the. action government has taken because, after all. governments will be judged not by what they say they do but by what they do. There is no doubt that the 1976 amendments substantially modified the nature of the Tribunal’s role and considerably reduced the number of firms subject u> the surveillance of the Tribunal. This was di,ne by lifting the turnover limit and making it easier for companies to avoid it, to work through subsidiaries and to use other techniques.

The staff cuts have also been referred to by an earlier speaker. The Attorney-General said that the staff cuts were meant to reduce the PJT to an elitist, specialist body. One wonders whether that wits really the effect. It would seem that the effect was to render the PJT ineffective. When Mr Justice Williams retired it took 16 months for a replacement to be put in as chairman. Of course, this brought about staff uncertainty. There was further staff uncertainty over whether the Tribunal was to be located in Melbourne or in Canberra. Obviously staff uncertainty in this situation ie«ds to lower morale and lower efficiency. Obviously if one wishes to demolish an institution one cuts its staff to the point where it is no longer effective and then simply says: ‘It is not effective; we must get rid of it’. If we look around we will see that the present Government has used that technique in a number of areas.

Attention has been drawn to the undermining of the morale of the Tribunal’s members by the PJT bashing in the Colgate-Palmolive case. One might also look at the situation of the Elder

Smith Goldsbrough Mort Ltd challenge over woolbroking charges last year. For the first time in the PJT’s history a firm failed to comply with the finding of a PJT inquiry. For a long time Australian wool growing organisations had been discontented at the inefficient and inequitable charges levied on them by wool brokers. Despite the clear recommendations of the Tribunal, the responsible Minister did nothing to try to get the Elder Smith company to lower its charges.

We claim that the emasculation of the PJT has rendered it ineffective and my colleagues who have spoken already have given examples of this. We find further evidence of this in the large increases in the consumer price index this year. In the June quarter there was a large increase. In commenting on this Mr Chris Hurford, the shadow Minister for Industry and Commerce, said:

Not only has the Fraser Government fuelled inflation with its oil and health policies, it has also failed to take action to moderate food price increases. The effectiveness of the current PJT inquiry into processed food prices has been undermined, and the recommendations of the PJT’s report into beef marketing have been shelved. The Government has prevented the PJT from undertaking a comprehensive probe unto food prices. The Tribunal has been obliged to concentrate mainly on food processing- that is, manufacturingrather than being permitted to undertake a wider inquiry into all aspects of food production and marketing, from farm gate to final consumer.

Because we are often asked, when we make some comments in so-called criticism of the Government, to say what we will do, let me indicate quite clearly in the time left to me what the Australian Labor Party’s attitude will be towards the PJT as shown in our policy. I will then go through some of the actions which a Labor government will take. I say initially that the attitude towards the PJT will be based on the need for price justification. This has been outlined already. The policy of the Australian Labor Party says, inter alia:

  1. On the basis of the consumer goods inquiry, further strengthen, co-ordinate and standardise the workings of the Prices Justification Tribunal and the Trade Practices Commission to best serve the interests of the consumers.

  2. Re-organise the Prices Justification Tribunal in the interests of consumers and encourage it to-

    1. a ) initiate investigations;
    2. b ) establish its role as a prices monitor and regulator;
    3. investigate excessive retail prices; and
    4. regulate the inclusion of excessive packaging or advertising costs in prices.

There is the policy. Briefly, what would we do? Firstly, we would restore notification procedures for all companies with a turnover greater than $30m. This is the comment referred to by the Attorney-General. This will have two effects. Firstly, it will give valuable information to the

Government and to its advisers on price structuring. In the longer term there will be a dampening down of price rises as companies see that they must justify price rises on reasonable grounds. The second action that we will take for the Prices Justification Tribunal is to restore immediately the staffing to the level necessary to enable the Tribunal to function effectively. That may not be as high as it was previously; it may be higher than it was previously. But certainly we will look at the situation and give the Tribunal the staff necessary to carry out its job and not cut its staff, as has been done at present, to render it ineffective and to lower morale.

We will revise all the legislative measures enacted by the Fraser Government, with the exception of the surveillance role to which attention was drawn in the 1976 amendments. In other words, we will look at the measures designed to protect business and which will render the PJT ineffective. We will put special emphasis on requiring companies to justify the price rises they seek, due to packaging and advertising costs and the wasteful use of resources. My colleague, Senator Gietzelt, spoke of a firm putting out the same product, or a variation of the same product, with different brand names. Without mentioning the name of the company, he referred to the soap industry. We will use the PJT, in conjunction with the Industries Assistance Commission and the Trade Practices Commission, as a tool for influencing industrial structure. At the same time, we will increase the consumer protection aspects of the PJT.

In the time at our disposal we have looked at the history of the PJT, indicating the role envisaged for it by the Australian Labor Party. We have looked at attempts made by the Fraser Government to emasculate the PJT. We have looked at the effects of that emasculation on the economy, and we have looked at the action which Labor will take when returned to office to revitalise the PJT to enable it to function effectively. Before I conclude my speech, I am pleased to have the opportunity to comment on one or two of the points raised by the Attorney-General. He opened his remarks by saying that Senator Gietzelt had made a socialist speech. I would find it rather extraordinary if Senator Gietzelt, sitting as he does on this side of the chamber, were to make anything but a socialist speech. We got what we expected. By the same token, we got what we expected from the other side of the chamber. We got the tired old arguments from the Attorney-General, with the most extraordinary logic for a man who has been trained in the legal profession.

I have to make the point also, although it has been made in the speech, that Labor never suggested that the PJT would be the only measure; it was part of a total policy, part of an economic strategy introduced by Labor to control inflation. The Attorney-General talked also about the number of cases brought before the PJT, but he did not suggest to us that one-third of those cases were withdrawn because the companies concerned felt at the time that they could not justify their prices, so they left their prices at the existing level. Then we heard a most extraordinary piece of logic and argument, namely, that in some unusual way the high inflation rates had been caused by the PJT. A great deal of evidence was brought forward to show that, simply because the inflation rate grew at a particular time and the PJT was operating at that time, ipso facto, one caused the other. I think that the AttorneyGeneral ought to go back to his first lesson in logic.

We ought to look also at some of the comments made by the Government when trying to explain away the present situation of increasing inflation. We might look to the Prime Minister, who said to us: ‘But we must remember that factors overseas affect our inflation rate’. We can go back now and assure the Prime Minister, on the logic given to us by the Attorney-General today, that this is not a fact, that the only thing that affects the inflation rate is the existence of the PJT. The Attorney-General sees a role for the Prices Justification Tribunal. He does not make it clear what that role is. I do not know whether he has told the members of the Tribunal what their role is. But the Attorney-General sees a minor role for the PJT and it will be staffed by experts. Perhaps the final speaker in this debate will elucidate for us what that role is and which of the people who are there at the present time will be regarded as specialists and who will be redundant.

Senator Archer said that he wondered why we were discussing this matter when we knew so little about it. He offered to sit down, but he did not carry out that offer. He went on to say that he had studied the works of Mr Crean and felt himself to be an authority; so he went ahead and made some statements. He gave us a history lesson on what happened in the days of the Labor Government. He pointed out that at that time there were not many Government supporters in the Senate. As my colleague, Senator Gietzelt, commented, when the Government wants a measure to be pushed through the Parliament it does not put up many Government members to speak in the debate, just as, if we had the numbers that the Government parties have, we would put up all the speakers we could to try to disturb the Government’s legislative program- a process at which the Government parties became very adept. Senator Archer finished with the rather extaordinary statement: If it is price control you want . . .’, which showed that he had not gained a great deal from his study of Mr Crean ‘s work. I think we have clearly demonstrated the failure of the Government to use the Prices Justification Tribunal to control rising prices.

Senator MAUNSELL:
Queensland

– As the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) said when commencing his speech, the whole of the Opposition’s argument is based on its hatred of profits and its obsession with price control. Senator Robertson said that they are all socialists on that side of the House, so I suppose that explains it. Despite what Senator Robertson and other speakers on the Opposition side have said about justification of price rises, this matter of public importance concerns: ‘The failure of the Government to use the Prices Justification Tribunal to control rising prices’. There is no question as to what is the Opposition’s view of” the Prices Justification Tribunal or of some other tribunal. As I said earlier, it is quite obvious, on listening to the previous speakers, that the Opposition’s obsession with price control and its hatred of profits is behind the whole of its argument.

It is interesting to note that Senator Robertson got a little confused when he talked about what Senator Durack had said earlier. He said that Senator Durack blamed the Tribunal for rising inflation. The fact of the matter is that prior to the Whitlam Government coming to power the consumer price index increased at an average annual rate of about 6 per cent. But once the policies of the Labor Government took off- that was when the Prices Justification Tribunal was supposed to have all the teeth which the Australian Labor Party wants to see returned to it- the CPI rose on average in 1 973-74 by nearly 1 3 per cent and in 1 974-75 by 1 6 per cent.

Senator Coleman:

– What was it last year?

Senator MAUNSELL:

- Senator Coleman had her time to speak. In 1975-76 the increase was coming back towards 1 3 per cent. Now that the Government has extracted all the teeth from the Prices Justification Tribunal, what has happened to the CPI? In 1977-78 the increase dropped back to 9.5 per cent and in 1978-79 it dropped back to 8.2 percent.

Senator Gietzelt:

– It is going to be 10 per cent.

Senator MAUNSELL:

-The honourable senator is blaming the PJT and claiming that because it has no teeth there has been an increase in the CPI. Let us get back to the argument that the Opposition is always putting forward in its hatred of the profit motive. There is no question that under the free enterprise system it is necessary to have high profits because, to start with, a profitable organisation will bring down costs.

Senator Coleman:

– How about equitable profits?

Senator MAUNSELL:

-The honourable senator talks about equitable profits. I ask her to let me finish my speech. (Quorum formed). It is unfortunate that Senator Coleman, who called for a quorum, could not entice any more of her colleagues into the House. As Senator Robertson said, they are all socialists. Certainly they would not want to be listening to what I have to say.

Let me get back to what I was saying earlier about the Opposition’s hatred of the profit motive. Efficient business enterprises require high profits. Let us face it; capital increases and expansion in industry require profits. At least the profits have to exceed what can be obtained by shareholders or other people in the ordinary money markets and the revenue-earning avenues such as interest paid by financial institutions. Competition in the market place is the best means of halting rising prices; there is no question about it. Highly profitable businesses using modern and efficient equipment and techniques bring down prices. In order to increase turnover, these successful businesses reduce prices. Competitors who want to stay in business have to become efficient themselves.

Price fixing is the worst means of controlling prices. The tendency is that businesses which have to justify their profits or prices allow inefficiency to take over. The Opposition always wants a ceiling on prices to push profits down, but it adopts the opposite view in its attitude towards labour. It insists on a fixed wage irrespective of the work performed. Piece-work, which is one of the best means of getting efficiency into industry, is completely frowned upon by the Opposition except in those industries where it cannot do anything about it. Piece-work has been very effective in keeping down prices. The remuneration is based on the work performed. The Labor Party is also possessed with dargs. It wants to restrict what anyone can do but never wants to put restrictions on wages. In other words, the difference between the value of the work performed and the wages received is never taken into consideration.

The Prices Justification Tribunal, in its present role, is not chasing every price increase of every business, as it was before. In its first year of operation I think it had to make 7,000 investigations. We are now ensuring that the Tribunal inquiries into price increases which may not be justified. The Tribunal is not now making 7,000 inquiries or chasing up, as Senator Archer said, the price of a box of matches. As far as I am concerned, this debate has been a waste of time. As was said earlier, the debate has been introduced purely because of the Opposition’s obsession with price control and its obsession against profits. It has not brought forward any argument whatsoever to dismiss the fact that the consumer price index increased during the time that the Tribunal had teeth. The fact that the CPI rose in those early days and has come down when the Tribunal supposedly has lost its teeth more or less negates the complete argument put forward by the Opposition. I move:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 1985

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

National Labour Consultative Council Amendment Bill 1979.

Coal Industry Amendment Bill 1979.

page 1985

SENATE ESTIMATES COMMITTEE A

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– by leave- I table additional information received by Senate Estimates Committee A and seek leave to have it incorporated in the Hansard record of the Committee’s proceedings.

Leave granted.

page 1985

PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION TO EUROPE

Report

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

– by leave- I lay on the table a report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to France, the European Parliament and the Commission of the European Communities in May and June of 1979.

page 1985

APPROPRIATION BILL (No. 2) 1979-80

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator WEBSTER:
Minister for Science and the Environment · Victoria · NCP/NP

– I move:

As the second reading speech is short I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

This Bill seeks appropriations of the Consolidated Revenue Fund in 1979-80 totalling $1,552,486,000. The Bill provides for proposed expenditure on the construction of public works and buildings, the acquisition of sites and buildings, advances and loans, items of plant and equipment which are clearly definable as capital expenditure, grants to the States under section 96 of the Constitution and new policy initiatives not previously authorised by special legislation.

Details of these proposed expenditures totalling $1,452,486,000 are set out in Schedule 2 to the Bill. An amount of $100,000,000 is also included for the Advance to the Minister for Finance. Of this total, $754,718,000 was authorised by Supply Act (No. 2) 1979-80, the balance of $797,768,000 being authorised by this Bill. The main features of the proposed expenditure for 1979-80, of which this Bill will authorise part, were outlined in the Treasurer’s Budget Speech. I commend the Bill to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned.

page 1985

QUEENSLAND GRANT (SPECIAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1979

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator CARRICK:
Minister for Education · New South Wales · LP

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

The main purpose of this Bill is to authorise the payment to Queensland of $ 12.4m in 1979-80 as a special grant. The payment of this amount is in accordance with the recommendations of the Commonwealth Grants Commission contained in its forty-sixth report oh special assistance for the States which was tabled recently together with the Commission’s first report 1979 on special assistance for the Northern Territory.

In accordance with normal practice, the Bill also seeks authority for payment of advances to Queensland in the early months of 1980-81, pending receipt of the Commission’s recommendations for that year and enactment of necessary legislation to provide for any special grant that may be payable to the State in that year.

The Commonwealth Grants Commission has also recommended a special grant of $ 10m for the Northern Territory in 1979-80. However, in this regard no amount has been included in the Bill because, under arrangements agreed between the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory governments, the Territory will receive an additional assistance grant of $20m in 1979-80 in lieu of the special grant of $10m. The financial arrangements agreed between the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory are set out in a memorandum of understanding, which is reproduced at appendix A of the Commission ‘s first report on special assistance for the Northern Territory. The memorandum of understanding provides phase-in arrangements under which the Northern Territory will receive, in addition to other payments, an additional assistance grant or a special grant, whichever is the greater. The level of the additional assistance grant is $20m for each of the three years 1979-80 to 1 98 1 -82. It will be phased out over the following three years. Provision for the 1979-80 additional assistance payment of $20m to the Northern Territory is made in Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1979-80.

It has been the practice of the Commonwealth Government from time to time on the recommendation of the Commonwealth Grants Commission and following applications by States, to make special grants to the less populous States to compensate them for such factors as lower capacity to raise revenue from their own sources and higher costs of providing government services of a standard comparable to that provided by the financially stronger States. The Northern Territory has now also been given access to the Commonwealth Grants Commission on the same basis as a claimant State subject to the arrangements already outlined regarding the additional assistance grant. When such special grants were first paid they constituted the only regular form of general revenue assistance to the financially weaker States for this purpose. However, for many years now, the main way in which special compensatory assistance has been provided to these States has been through the payment of higher per capita amounts of other general revenue funds. This situation is reflected today in the fact that personal income tax sharing entitlements paid to Queensland, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania are higher, in per capita terms, than the entitlements paid to New South Wales and Victoria.

Under the personal income tax sharing arrangements, the less populous States continue to be free to apply for special financial assistance on the recommendation of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. This is one of the explicit understandings between the Commonwealth and State governments in relation to the tax sharing arrangements. Such special grants supplement a State’s entitlement under the tax sharing arrangements in the same way as they formerly supplemented the financial assistance grants. Queensland has been the only claimant State in recent years. Tasmania made an application on 30 June 1978 for special assistance in respect of 1977-78, but subsequently withdrew the application. Queensland’s estimated entitlement in respect of 1979-80 under the personal income tax sharing arrangements is $947. 8m, representing approximately $431 per head of population compared with an estimated average of approximately $323 per head for New South Wales and Victoria. Accordingly, the assistance provided by way of the special grant should be seen as supplementing the special compensatory assistance of $109 per head, or some $239m, provided to Queensland by way of its tax sharing entitlement.

The Commonwealth Grants Commission, in arriving at its recommendations in relation to claims for special assistance, makes an assessment of the financial needs of a claimant State or the Northern Territory. In making such assessments, the Commission compares in detail the finances of the claimant State or the Northern Territory with those of New South Wales and Victoria, taking into account differences in revenue-raising capacity and differences in the cost of providing comparable services. Normally special grants recommended by the Commission consist of two parts. One part is based on a preliminary estimate of the financial need of the claimant State or the Northern Territory in the current financial year, and is treated as an advance payment subject to adjustment two years later when the Commission has compared in detail the finances of the claimant State or Northern Territory and standard States for that year. The other part represents the final adjustment to the advance payment made two years earlier and is known as the completion payment. This adjustment may be positive or negative and therefore may result in the final grant in respect of the year being higher or lower than the advance payment for that year.

The payment to Queensland in 1979-80 of $12. 4m provided for by this Bill comprises an advance payment of $ 1 1 m in respect of 1 979-80. The completion payment in respect of 1977-78, when added to the $14m advance grant paid to Queensland in that year, brings the final grant in respect of 1977-78 to $ 15.4m, which is $8.3m below the corresponding figure for 1976-77. The advance grant for 1979-80 will, in accordance with normal practice, be subject to adjustment in two years time. The Commission’s recommendations in relation to the special grants arrangements have been adopted by the Parliament each year since the Commission’s inception and the Government considers that they should be accepted on this occasion. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned.

page 1987

REMUNERATION AND ALLOWANCES BILL 1979

Bills received from the House of Representatives.

Motion (by Senator Webster) agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of such Bills together in the Committee of the Whole.

Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay.

Bills (on motion by Senator Webster) read a first time.

Second Readings

Senator WEBSTER:
Minister for Science and the Environment · Victoria · NCP/NP

– I move:

I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speeches read as follows-

Remuneration and Allowances Bill 1979

When announcing the release of the Remuneration Tribunal’s 1979 review on 20 June 1979, the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr

John McLeay) indicated that the Government would not be accepting some of the determinations and reports contained in the review. The purpose of this Bill and the Ministers of State Amendment Bill is to give effect to new salary and allowances for members of Parliament, Ministers, parliamentary officer holders and judges.

The Bill provides for certain changes to determinations 6, 7, 8 and 9 of 1 979 of the Remuneration Tribunal. The modifications to these determinations are contained in Part II of the Bill. These modifications give effect to the Government’s wish to restrict increases to those which result from the application of the national wage case decisions of 2 1 December 1 978 and 27 June 1979. It also removes the provision for automatic application of national wage case decisions during the period the determination is in force. The modifications also retain a limitation of 40 overnight stays on the payment of travelling allowances to shadow Ministers when travelling in that capacity.

There are a few special cases when the indexation principle has not been applied. In the case of Deputy Chairman of Committees in the Senate and House of Representatives, the rate of additional salary payable in respect of the office has been raised to equate it with that payable to Deputy Whips, other than the Deputy Government Whip in the House of Representatives. In the case of the Government or Opposition Whips in the House or Senate and the Chairman, Public Works or Public Accounts Committee a special allowance was determined for the first time. The allowance proposed in the Bill has been calculated by presuming that the Whips would have been receiving an allowance of $1,100 and the Chairman $550 and applying the indexation principle to those amounts.

As the salaries and allowances in the Remuneration Tribunal’s 1979 review were set by determination they have been in effect since 1 July 1979. They will continue until the date this Bill receives royal assent at which time the salaries and allowances specified in the Bill shall take effect.

Part III of the Bill gives effect to the salaries and allowances of holders of judicial offices as recommended by the Tribunal in Report No. 2 of 1979. The Bill provides for these salaries and allowances to be applied retrospectively from 1 July 1979.

Ministers of State Amendment Bill 1979

This Bill provides for an increase in the sum payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the salaries of Ministers of State, pursuant to Section 66 of the Constitution. In calculating the amount required the Government has not accepted the ministerial salaries recommended in the Tribunal’s Report No. 1 of 1979. It has instead decided to limit the increase to the indexation principles referred to earlier.

The general principle which has been applied in Part II of the Remuneration and Allowances Bill and in the Ministers of State Amendment Bill is to limit increases to national wage case decisions. The Government recognises that Ministers have not had an increase since 1976 and office holders since 1977 and recognises that the objective of the Tribunal was to effect some readjustment of relativities in this field.

However, the increases recommended by the Tribunal have gone well beyond what indexation would have yielded and to accept the recommendation would have had the effect of granting proportionate increases greater than those received by the majority of Australian income earners. The Government feels that the Parliament should be setting an example to the rest of the community by declining increases outside those which indexation would have yielded. I commend the Bills to honourable senators.

Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned.

page 1988

AIR NAVIGATION (CHARGES) AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

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

Second Reading

Senator WEBSTER:
Minister for Science and the Environment · Victoria · NCP/NP

– I move:

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

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

This Bill is a machinery Bill to amend the Air Navigation (Charges) Act 1952, which imposes charges on aircraft for the use of aerodromes, airways facilities, meteorological services, and search and rescue services provided, operated and maintained by the Commonwealth. The purpose of the Bill is:

  1. to increase, with effect from 1 December 1979, the rates of air navigation chargesANCs payable by the domestic airline operators by 25 per cent;
  2. to increase, with effect from a date to be fixed by proclamation, the rates of ANCs payable by general aviation operators by 20 per cent;
  3. to align the assessment of rates of ANCs payable by international charter operators to those payable by international airline operators;
  4. to amend the rate of interest payable, in respect of those ANCs which are unpaid after 45 days from the date on which they fall due, from 10 per cent per annum to 1 per cent for each month or part of month, of the amount unpaid;
  5. to increase the rate of weekly ANCs for foreign private and aerial work aircraft; and, (0 to correct an inequity in relation to the payment of refunds of ANCs associated with changes in ownership of aircraft.

Honourable senators will be aware that the Government has long been concerned to ensure that there is an adequate level of cost recovery in the aviation field, as was first enunciated in 1961. Initially no target date was set for the achievement of this objective. But, with the increasing gap between costs and revenues and against the background of our economic strategy, the Government has decided that the burden of these costs in the major sectors of operation should be transferred from the general taxpayer to the users of the infrastructure. In 1977-78 the cost of facilities and services provided for the industry as a whole exceeded revenue by $84.8m whilst in 1978-79 the deficit increased to $96.8m and the recovery rate was 60.2 per cent. As the costs of the international sector of the industry are presently fully recovered, the deficit is entirely due to the domestic sectors made up of trunk, rural airlines and general aviation operations. The airlines agreement under which the two major domestic airlines operate limits the rate of increase in any year on ANCs payable to 10 percent.

Honourable senators will recall that a similar situation obtained last year when Air Navigation Charges were increased and the two airlines agreed to waive their rights under clause 8 of the 1961 Agreement and to permit a 15 per cent increase in ANCs for that year. I am pleased to say that the two major airlines have again agreed to waive their rights to permit the 25 per cent increase proposed by the Government this year.

Honourable senators will also be interested to learn that the criteria for the allocation of costs and revenues to the various sectors of the industry for the purpose of cost recovery are being reviewed by the Department and the industry under the auspices of the Aviation Industry Advisory Council. This review is aimed at ensuring that costs and revenues are allocated equitably and reflect the use of facilities by operators in each industry sector.

Provision is made in the Bill also for a 20 per cent increase in the rate of ANCs for the commuter and other general aviation sectors of the industry. This proposed increase in no way preempts the current general aviation study. Rather, the decision recognises the deficit between costs and revenue in these sectors, of over $70m in 1978- 79 and expected to be about $80m in 1979- 80. Honourable senators will appreciate the magnitude of this burden when it is realised that in 1976-77 when the deficit was $55.8m, this represented an average subsidy of about $44 an hour for each hour flown by general aviation aircraft or about $12,000 a year for each general aviation aircraft that was registered as at 30 June 1977.

These average figures, of course, distort the true situation and I have no doubt that the general aviation study will show many operators, especially those in remote areas, are at near full cost recovery. The Government is also very conscious of the pressures which have been placed on this part of the industry as a result of world wide shortages of Avgas and has indicated that, when the cost recovery matters flowing from the general aviation study are being examined, close consideration will also be given to the ability of the operators to pay. The effect of the increases in the rates of ANCs for the domestic sectors will be to increase revenue by $4.1m which, with increased revenue as a result of growth, will result in a total increase of ANC revenue of $ 11.6m.

The Bill also includes some other matters aimed at a more equitable payment for the cost of provision of facilities. The alignment of the rates of ANCs payable by international charter operators with those payable by international airline operators will more directly relate to charges to the usage made of facilities and services. The increase in the interest rate for unpaid

ANCs brings this charge more into line with similar charges in the commercial sphere. The increase in the rate of ANCs for foreign private and aerial work aircraft is designed to bring these charges into line with those faced by equivalent Australian aircraft. It thus facilitates the prompt registration of aircraft imported for permanent use in Australia by removing any possible benefit for aircraft owners in continuing foreign registration and thus paying lower ANCs.

Finally, the Act presently provides for any refund of ANCs for general aviation aircraft to be made to the person who paid them. This is inequitable in a situation where an aircraft has been sold and a refund is subsequently sought but cannot be paid to the existing owner of the aircraft. The amendment proposed rectifies this inequity. I commend the Bill.

Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned.

page 1989

CANNED FRUITS MARKETING BILL 1979

Bills received from the House of Representatives.

Motion (by Senator Webster) agreed to:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the questions with regard to the several stages for the passage through the Senate of all or several of the Bills being put in one motion at each stage and the consideration of all or several of the Bills together in the Committee of the Whole.

Ordered that the Bills may be taken through all their stages without delay.

First Readings

Motion (by Senator Webster) proposed:

That the Bills be now read a first time.

Senator WALSH:
Western Australia

-I wish to speak on the first reading stage on the Canned Fruits Levy Bill 1 979.I am prompted to do so partly by the record of an interview with the present Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Nixon, which was printed in the issue of the National Farmer dated 1 November. This issue was just released this afternoon. Mr Nixon was questioned on a matter upon which he had previously been questioned in the Parliament by the honourable member for Grey, Mr Wallis. The matter is the question of air freighted exports of lamb carcasses from Western Australia to the Middle East. The Western Australian Lamb Marketing Board has for some time been attempting to obtain approval from the Department of Transport for a charter operator who has agreed to transport lamb from Western Australia to the Middle East to secure back-loading. The air freighting operation is not economical unless back-loading can be secured. The Lamb Board claims that the value of sales from this exercise, if approval for back-loading could be achieved, is in the vicinity of $26m a year.

I might add also that the export of lamb carcasses is something that generates employment in Australian abattoirs and might well make a considerable contribution towards easing the lamentable tensions which have developed in the last couple of years between the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union and various farmer organisations. Normally one would expect a Minister for Primary Industry, particularly one who claims to have particular empathy with the fanning community, to react favourably to this proposition. Mr Nixon not only has failed to react favourably to the proposition in refusing the grant that approval for back-loading for the Western Australian Lamb Board ‘s charter operator but also has, in fact, stood truth on its head.

In a question- I am quoting from the National Farmer- a journalist asked:

There has been some suggestion that your two portfolios are in conflict, expecially in the area of meat and the backloading restrictions placed on lamb airfreighted to the Middle East.

That question was prompted by the earlier question which was put to the Minister in the House of Representatives by the honourable member for Grey, Mr Wallis. Mr Nixon’s extraordinary reply was:

There’s a simple answer on that. The fact is that these people are seeking to subsidise the freight on lamb by increasing the cost of passenger tickets. It’s as simple as that.

That is according to Mr Nixon. In fact, what the Western Australian Lamb Board ‘s charter operator is seeking to do is to gain permission from an ostensibly free enterprise Government to compete in the market place for freight back to Australia. It is not a question of passengers subsidising freight. It is a question of being granted the opportunity by an ostensibly free enterprise Government to compete for business in the market place.

The action which the responsible Minister of this Government has taken is to deny the operator the opportunity to compete for business in the market place for whatever reason the Minister might have. That is the decision that he has taken. He then has the audacity to stand truth on its head by saying that some people seek to subsidise the freight on lamb at the cost of passenger tickets. If there is any validity at all in the points that he is raising, what he is clearly trying to do is to force freight to subsidise passenger tickets. The truth is in fact the reverse of that which Mr Nixon claims it to be. I do not know whether that extraordinary incapacity for logical thought has anything to do with the workload he is currently carrying.

The fact that he holds two jobs, both of which have, I understand, quite substantial or very significant administrative responsibilities, ought to be in itself a matter that concerns the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser). The fact that he holds two jobs in which a blatant conflict of interest arises ought to concern everyone in the country, particularly the agricultural sector. It ought to concern Mr Nixon’s Party if it wants to have any credibility at all as the party which claims to represent the agricultural sector. If he is not over worked in those two portfolios, if he can quite easily handle the workload of them, it must flow logically that the arrangement of the combination of those two departments under one Minister ought to be made permanent. I would like to know what is the view of Mr Nixon on the matter of whether those two departments ought to be permanently combined.

I think I can anticipate what the view of Senator Wriedt would be on that matter having been for two and a half years Minister for Primary Industry- or Minister for Agriculture as he was called- under the Labor Government. I think he would know very well that it is not possible for any person, let alone someone who has such a demonstrable incapacity for logical thinking as Mr Nixon has shown he has in the National Farmer, adequately to discharge on a continuing basis the workload of the Department of Transport in addition to that of the Department of Primary Industry. Senator Wriedt has just nodded his assent to that proposition. He knows what the workload is for the Minister for Primary Industry. He knows that that portfolio is a full time job for anyone. It is disgraceful that the Prime Minister allows this present situationthis present hiatus- to continue.

It is well known that whatever the outcome might be of legal proceedings at present in train against the former Minister for Primary Industry, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), will not be completed before the middle of next year at the very earliest. Yet the Prime Minister is apparently quite happy to allow this present situation to drift. To Senator Webster and to Senator Carrick as the Minister representing the Prime Minister- I hope he later returns to the chamber- I again put the question: Is the Government satisfied that Mr Nixon can handle adequately those two portfolios? If the Government is so satisfied, will it make an announcement that the amalgamation of those portfolios will be permanent? If the Government does not intend to make that announcement, when can we expect the Prime Minister to accept his duties as the leader of this Government and make an acceptable ministerial arrangement for the Department of Primary Industry, and, of course, for the Department of Transport.

I want to raise one other matter. On 27 September a report of an investigation into irregularities concerning the administration of a number of companies was tabled in the New South Wales Parliament. There was nothing either unprecedented or wrong with the tabling of that report. Indeed, there have been at least a dozen precedents in the New South Wales Parliament for such a practice to be followed. The best known precedent is probably the investigation conducted by Mr Spender- if he is not the Vice-President of the New South Wales branch of the Liberal Party he is a very prominent member of it- into Gollin Holdings Ltd, as a result of which some 12 months later Mr Gale, the Chief Executive of that company, was charged with various offences and ultimately sentenced to 13 years imprisonment. I stress the point that there was nothing irregular, improper or unprecedented about the action that was taken in the New South Wales Parliament on 27 September when the Finnane report was tabled. However, that was not the view of a number of other people. For example, the Leader of the National Country Party, Mr Anthony, said:

This is the most grave injustice, the most complete perversion of natural justice, that I have ever seen in this country.

Senator Webster:

– Hear, hear!

Senator WALSH:

- Senator Webster has just indicated his total agreement with that judgment. I wonder how Senator Webster would react to such as situation. Indeed, I welcome the release of a Press statement from Senator Webster today on the tabling of another report in the New South Wales Parliament yesterday. I point to the Sydney Daily Telegraph for Senator Webster’s edification. An article in that newspaper states:

These persons were influential members of … an organisation responsible for the disappearance and murder of Donald Mackay.

The headline is: ‘Murder Inc.’. It carries the photographs and names of five people who were alleged in this report to have been associated with the disappearance and murder of Donald Mackay. I have no intention of passing judgment on the validity or otherwise of those allegations. The plain fact is that they were contained in a report tabled yesterday in the New South Wales Parliament to which not one whimper of objection has been evoked from the National Country Party or the Liberal Party. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition in the New South Wales Parliament, who is a member of the Liberal Party, appeared on a current affairs program last night and applauded the tabling of that report. Senator Webster intimated that he agrees with Mr Anthony. On 28 September when a report of an investigation was tabled- it was with respect to someone else, of course- Mr Anthony said:

This is the most grave injustice, the most complete perversion of natural justice, that I have ever seen in this country.

Senator Webster has just aligned himself with those sentiments. Why then has not Senator Webster issued a statement protesting about the naming of these five people and, indeed, three or four other people, in another report tabled yesterday in the New South Wales Parliament? I guess that the real reason is that one is allowed to do anything to a few people of Italian descent who live in Leeton, but that one should not do anything to members of the Sydney White Anglo-Saxon Protestant establishment. To show that the Liberal Party and the National Country Party have no monopoly on humbug and hyprocrisy I will quote from the Sydney Sunday Telegraph of 30 September. Amongst other things its editorial stated:

Then, without charges being laid, the findings were tabled in Parliament . . .

It went on to say:

It may very well be that the New South Wales Government will find that instead of Mr Sinclair it is itself on trial . . .

The Sydney Sunday Telegraph said that without charges being laid the findings were tabled in Parliament. Its stable mate, the Daily Telegraph found nothing objectionable in the recent tabling of a report. Indeed, there is nothing objectionable in its tabling because it is a well established practice which has been followed for years in the State of New South Wales and to which there had been no objection until a member of the WASP establishment was involved in the tabling of one of these reports. But the humbug and hypocrisy of that newspaper is demonstrated by the fact that in one instance it said that the tabling of a report was a grave injustice, but then in another instance its stable mate actually printed on its front page:

These persons were influential members of … an organisation responsible for the disappearance and murder of Donald Mackay.

It then showed the photographs and names of those people. Underneath that it had a headline in three inch block letters: ‘Murder Inc.’. Basically the same newspaper, the Sunday Telegraph, said in a different context that the New South Wales Government should have been on trial and that it was highly irresponsible in naming in a parliamentary report a person who then could not possibly obtain a fair trial in the State of New South Wales. How then will these five Italians obtain a fair trial in the State of New South Wales if that assertion is correct?

Senator Webster:

– You had better ask Mr Wran, hadn’t you?

Senator WALSH:

-Why has Senator Webster not objected to the present report? Why has there been highly selective indignation by Senator Webster and the National Country Party?

Senator Lajovic:

– Have you objected to it?

Senator WALSH:

– I am not objecting to it; it is a practice that has been followed in New South Wales for many years. In both cases the following of that practice was quite proper. The reason that I raise the matter in the Senate this afternoon is to demonstrate the selective indignation, the humbug and the hypocrisy of the Liberal and Country Parties and of” substantial sections of the Australia media.

Senator Lajovic:

– Who is talking about humbug and hypocrisy?

Senator WALSH:

– Yes, humbug and hypocrisy. I do not suppose the honourable senator cares about some of his fellow ethnics either. Perhaps they are not members of the Liberal Party, so I would suggest that he does not have to protect them. That might be his view. Mr Anthony, of course, was not the only member of this Parliament who feigned outrage at the- I stress again- completely normal procedures followed with respect to the tabling of the Finnane report. In his electorate talk on 30 September the Prime Minister said: no prosecution has yet been launched. No official charges have been made by the law authorities in New South Wales, but a most damaging report has been published, and widely publicised.

Is it reasonable for such a report to be published in these circumstances?

I suppose the answer to that question is, to some degree, a matter of opinion. It is quite clear that in the circumstances of Mr Sinclair the Prime Minister thinks it is not reasonable that it should have been published prior to charges being laid. The Prime Minister, however, has not expressed a view on whether it is reasonable that the findings against these five men, whose photographs appear in the Daily Telegraph, and a number of other men, should have been tabled in the New South Wales Parliament yesterday, much less expressed his outrage that it should have been done.

Is it reasonable for a report to be published in those circumstances? Is it reasonable for a government to undertake actions of that kind, to publish such a report when it has not yet made up its mind whether it intends to prosecute? That was the Prime Minister’s view in one instance. What is his view in the instance of the report tabled yesterday? What was his view when the Gollin report was first tabled 12 months before charges were finally laid? What was the Prime Minister’s view on that? In other words, the Prime Minister’s indignation is as highly selective as Senator Webster’s and Mr Anthony’s. The Minister for Defence (Mr Killen)- well known as the froth and bubble man of the Government- was even more outraged in the debate in Parliament on 27 September when he said:

We are on trial and, yes, the fourth estate is on trial.

Mr Killen said that the Press was on trial. But what has Mr Killen had to say about this Sydney newspaper, this copy of the Daily Telegraph that I hold in my hand with the photographs of five Italians appearing over the headline:

Murder Inc.

These persons were influential members of … an organisation responsible for the disappearance and murder of Donald Mackay.

Again, the same highly selective indignation. Mr Killen continued:

  1. . because one must remember the great occasions in the past when men and women fought for great rights. Now, what is the case? I have complained about this miserable proceeding in the past. I will continue to complain about it.

He has not complained about that. He has not complained about what happened yesterday. He continued:

I believe that a very great disservice has been done and is being done to our history.

That was his view on 27 September. His view today is that it is quite acceptable for an identical procedure to be followed. Then we have the

Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Ellicott), who is best remembered as the man who spent six hours poring over Khemlani ‘s suitcases in Sydney on or about 13 October 1975 and who, before departing from Sydney airport, told journalists that the documents in the cases did not incriminate Mr Whitlam. He then arrived in Canberra half an hour later and was immediately summoned to the office of the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Fraser. He emerged from that office half an hour later saying, yes, they did incriminate Mr Whitlam. That is the sort of consistency one can expect from him! He has not let us down in this instance, either, because on 27 September in Parliament he said:

Anyone who may be selected to serve on a jury in New South Wales to try this matter will have his mind poisoned by what has happened in the newspapers.

I interpolate ‘Anyone would have their minds poisoned’, said Mr Ellicott, ‘by what was in the newspapers today’. Is he suggesting that it is less likely that anyone would have their mind poisoned by the headline ‘Murder lnc’ which appeared in today’s Daily Telegraph”! Yet where has Mr Ellicott ‘s voice of protest been in the last 24 hours? Why have we not heard from him? Why has not Mr Ellicott been as outraged by the proceedings and the Press reaction to the matter today as he was on 27 September? Again I can only come to the same conclusion with respect to Mr Ellicott that I did with respect to Senator Webster, and that is that if a person is of Italian extraction living in Leeton, he is fair game, anything can be done to him and there is no need to protest. On the other hand, if one is a member of the Sydney White Anglo-Saxon Protestant establishment, one is supposed to be protected by that establishment. That appears to be their judgment. Mr Ellicott continued:

The document was brought down yesterday -

Senator Peter Baume:

- Mr President, I raise a point of order. That is an improper imputation against a member in another place.

The PRESIDENT:

– I am listening very carefully, I can assure you, Senator Baume. We are well aware in this place of the non-acceptability of any imputations or inferences which are detrimental to a member of Parliament in this or another place.

Senator WALSH:

– I would welcome from either Senator Baume or Mr Ellicott or the Prime Minister or Senator Webster or Mr Anthony the reason why they were so indignant about a particular proceeding being followed six weeks ago and a particular Press reaction to it, and why they are quite oblivious to the situation today. I would welcome an explanation of that double standard. Mr Ellicott continued:

The document was brought down yesterday; unfortunately it has been made public. The right honourable member has been deprived of a fair trial . . .

In Parliament the Prime Minister himself said:

What has been going on in New South Wales has been no judicial process at all. There is no finding, no judgment of guilt or of innocence, no opportunity for the ordinary processes of law to apply- of innocence until guilt is proved. Indeed, the whole process of this parliamentary Opposition and, it would seem, the inquiry itself, is to establish a circumstance in which people will assume guilt . . .

Although he purported to be outraged by the procedures which had been followed on 27 September, he was notably not outraged by identical procedures before 27 September, and he is not outraged by identical procedures followed yesterday.

Senator Lajovic:

– They are not identical. They are quite different. It is a royal commission. Special investigations, Senator -

Senator WALSH:

– With a special investigation or a royal commission the practice for many years in New South Wales has been that the reports are tabled in Parliament. They have certain findings, and some of the findings of that report which was tabled yesterday have appeared in today’s Press. Some of the findings of the Finnane report also appeared in the Press. There were findings that certain people had committed unlawful acts and no charges were laid.

Senator Lajovic:

– If that is so, Mr Wran is guilty.

Senator WALSH:

- Senator Lajovic’s indignation is just as selective as that of the Prime Minister, of Mr Anthony, of Senator Webster, of Mr Killen and of Mr Ellicott. He does not care what happens to anyone under these circumstances unless they happen to be members of the establishment, in particular members of the Government parties in this Parliament.

Senator Lajovic:

– That is not true. I am defending the Italians whom Mr Wran put in the box.

Senator WALSH:

– It took a while to prick the honourable senator’s conscience. He has not complained about the Daily Telegraph, I notice. He was quite willing to follow the Daily Telegraph a few weeks ago, but he has not complained about its behaviour today. There are numerous other examples which I could quote. From the same Press group as the Daily Telegraph, that is the paper which prints Murder lnc’ under the photograph of five people mentioned in the report, the Australian states:

Secret society killed anti-drug campaigner.

The Australian has found these people guilty. What did the Australian say on 29 September with respect to the tabling in Parliament initially and then the publication of extracts from another report? It stated:

The findings of these inquiries should not be tabled in Parliament. Either they establish a case, and the AttorneyGeneral institutes legal proceedings, or they fail to establish a case and he drops the matter. There are no in betweens. To table allegations in Parliament is to create an entirely new plane of ‘justice’- the smear from behind a protective cloak of parliamentary privilege.

I ask honourable senators to contrast that sanctimony from an Australian editorial five or six weeks ago with its finding today on the front page under the heading:

Secret society killed anti-drug campaigner.

It is quite willing to hide behind a protective cloak of parliamentary privilege and not only make allegations against people, but also find them guilty. I say again in mitigation, however miniscule the mitigation might be, of the offences of the inconsistencies of the Liberal and Country Parties, that they have no monopoly of double standards, humbug and hypocrisy. In fact, I think they are worthy competitors with the Murdoch Press in those areas. Warren Beeby in the Sunday Telegraph of 30 September, the same issue of the paper from which I have already quoted, said this:

Inquiries are held in camera and deny the person under investigation the right granted to those who are tried before courts to cross-examine and challenge the credibility of witnesses. The inquiry is informal and of a very loose legal nature.

Dropped in Parliament under privilege, the reports give an ‘outsider’ little chance of adequately refuting the socalled evidence.

His complaint there is that those who were examined in the case of the earlier report had no opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. Exactly that same procedure was followed with respect to the report tabled yesterday. I will be interested to see whether Warren Beeby is equally outraged by the procedures followed yesterday and whether the Sydney Sunday Telegraph next Sunday reports the event in the same manner that it reported the earlier Finnane report.

Judging from the examples set by its stablemate, by its brother or sister paper, by the daily version of the Sunday Telegraph today, these persons were influential members of an organisation responsible for the disappearance and murder of Donald Mackay. Their names and photographs appear and directly underneath is the three-inch headline ‘Murder Inc.’. I think it highly unlikely.

I notice also that the National Council of the National Country Party passed a motion last Sunday. The Age quoted Mr Sparkes as declaring that Mr Sinclair was the victim of a conspiracy. I think that statement perhaps is arguably in contempt of court si:;ce the matter is now before the court. I wonder whether the next Council of the National Country Party will be as eager to go into bat for the five Italians whose photographs appear in today’s newspaper and the four other people who were named in a report tabled yesterday as being associated with them in a particular matter. Somehow I do not think it will. Somehow I think that to the National Country Party, even though all people might be equal, a Minister in a Liberal-Country Party coalition government is more equal than half a dozen Italians from Griffith.

Senator Webster:

– What a lot of rubbish!

Senator WALSH:

- Senator Webster tells me it is a lot of rubbish. As Senator Wriedt said a while ago, Senator Webster is entitled to rise when I have finished. I hope he does and explains why he was so outraged by the events in the New South Wales Parliament on 26 September and the Press reaction to them; why Mr Anthony was so outraged by them; why the National Country Party was outraged by them; why Mr Killen was outraged; why Mr Ellicott was outraged; why the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) was outraged, when none of them have uttered a word of protest about what happened in the New South Wales Parliament yesterday. Senator Webster is not equal to the task of explaining why all those other people were outraged in the earlier instance and not outraged by either the Gollin case, which preceded the Finnane report by nearly two years, or by the one that came after it. Why is it that they are outraged by the one in the middle, but the 12 or 13 that came before and the one that came after do not move them at all? Senator Webster perhaps cannot answer for the Prime Minister and all those other people. I look forward to his explaining on his own behalf why he was so outraged by that one isolated case and not outraged by anything either before or afterwards.

In closing- I have said this before, but this speech is being broadcast and some people might have just tuned in- I stress that I am not suggesting that there was anything improper about the procedures followed in the New South Wales Parliament on 26 September or the procedures followed in the New South Wales Parliament yesterday or, indeed, the procedures followed in the New South Wales Parliament for some five or six years, or the procedures recommended by the Eggleston committee of inquiry.

Senator Rae:

– Certainly Mr McCaw when he was Attorney-General refused to table them.

Senator WALSH:

- Senator Rae has a particular interest in legal matters. He should be aware of this. The procedures -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Debate (on motion by Senator Peter Baume) adjourned.

page 1995

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (PERSONAL INCOME TAX SHARING) AMENDMENT BILL 1979

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 16 October, on motion by Senator Carrick:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

-The Bill before the Parliament, the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill, is the first of two Bills which will be dealt with in the chamber tonight, the other one being the States Grants (Capital Assistance) Bill 1979. Both these Bills are examples of the legislation which has come about under the policies of the present Government which is commonly known as the Fraser federalism, or new federalism, as the Government prefers to call it. As this Senate will recall, it was during the period of the previous Labor Government that the first efforts were made, in fact the first action was taken, by a Federal Government since Federation to enable the Federal Government to fund local government in Australia directly. It was evident up until that time that local government had always been treated as some fourth rate or at best second rate level of government in Australia. The funding of local government had been largely done by the States and the raising of rates in the various municipalities. That initial step by the Commonwealth to fund local government directly was in itself a major step forward.

In this legislation we would welcome the fact that the Government has at last increased the share of personal income tax going to local government. Under the federalism policy of the past three years there has been unquestionably a reduction in funds going to local government. The Government made an undertaking during the last election campaign that it would increase local government’s share of personal income tax collections to 2 per cent in the next Budget. This is partly an effort to keep faith with the Australian electorate. To give an indication of the history of this legislation it is interesting to make the comparison between what obtained under the previous Administration and what obtains under the present Government. It is important to realise that one of the major initiatives of the previous Government was the making of local government something important in the Australian governmental sphere.

The previous Government introduced the notion of untied grants to local government and it made substantial grants during its three years of office. It also extended the powers of the Grants Commission to enable it directly to assist local government. It went further in making local government virtually a third and equal partner amongst the three tiers of government in Australia. In addition to introducing untied grants the previous Government also introduced a number of other schemes which were designed to up grade the quality of services provided by local government. These schemes were backed by substantial funds such as those provided under the Area Improvement Program. The net effect of this was greatly to increase local government funds and to give that level of government a significant boost not only in terms of resources but also in relation to the position it occupied relative to other levels of government.

Since the present Government came into office there has been a reversion to the old ways of neglecting local government. I will deal with how the new system has been painted up in more detail as I go along. One of the first things that the present Government did when it came to office was to reduce the powers of the Grants Commission by preventing it from dealing directly with local government throughout Australia. Many of the schemes which were introduced by the Labor Government were dropped or at least curtailed. Notwithstanding the linking of funds for local government to the level of personal income tax collections, funds available to local government fell. The net effect was that the resources available to local government declined and the positive links which had been established by the previous Administration were reduced to almost nothing.

Let us look at the figures to substantiate what I have said. This will be the first year under this Government in which funds available to local government in Australia will actually exceed those provided by the Labor Government in its last Budget- 1975-76. In that Budget the funds made available by the Federal Government to local government throughout Australia, including funds available for roads, totalled $346m. In the first year of Mr Fraser ‘s administration that amount was reduced to $277m. Even last year the amount was still only $333m. Although the actual figures are not yet available funds for local government this year should be around $383m, thus making it the first year in which funds exceed those provided under the last Budget of the Labor Government.

The Government’s response to the cutting of these funds to local government is to ignore the fact that total funds to local government have declined and merely to concentrate on increases in the untied funds; that is, general revenue payments. As the Prime Minister recently showed in a letter to the Tasmanian Premier, this is an attempt to persuade us to believe that local government is now getting a more generous deal. I do not think it has fooled anyone. It certainly has not fooled anybody who has been connected with local government and had the task of financing local government projects. The allocation this year in real terms is 20 per cent less than the amount that was provided under the 1975-76 Budget. Part of the reason why local government has suffered is that the new federalism policy- the Fraser federalism- has never worked. Surely everyone must know that that policy has never been fully implemented. Every year since the Fraser Government was elected it has changed that federalism policy to try to make it work but on every occasion it has been unsuccessful. Next month there will be another Premiers Conference to try to sort out the federalism mess that has been created over the past four years.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m.

Senator WRIEDT:

-The Senate has before it the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill 1979. Earlier I referred to the fact that local government, in the first four years of the Fraser federalism policy, has actually received less money than it received prior to 1975. I gave the example that, in the financial year 1975-76, the funds available to local government, including those for roads, amounted to nearly $346m, and that in the first year of this Government’s term of office, they declined to $277m. Even under this legislation, which provides for an increase, in money terms, to $383m or thereabouts, there will still have been a decline in real terms since the 1975 budget of 20 per cent. I went on to indicate that everyone involved in local government throughout Australia realises that local government now has less funding available to it from

Federal sources than it had in the past; and that part of the reason for this has been the Government’s tinkering with the federalism policy in an endeavour to make Fraser federalism work.

It is true to say that there have been fewer changes in the method of making payments to local government, but this has been only because local government has not had the political power to put sufficient pressure on the Federal Government in reponse to the treatment that it has received. In 1976, when the changes in the method of making payments to local governments were made, 1 .52 per cent of personal income tax was allocated. That percentage has continued to operate but will be changed under the provisions of this Bill. The States also were allocated a certain percentage of personal income tax. This was at first set at 33.6. When, after two years, it had become apparent that that was totally inadequate to provide the requirements of the States, the percentage was increased to 39.87. Even that was not adequate. It was apparent that the system was still not working. The formula that had been introduced by the previous government in order to underpin the general revenue payments has been the only means by which the States have been able to maintain the relative position that they enjoyed in 1975. In no other case, in the whole area of Commonwealth payments to the States, have they been able to maintain the same relative position.

No such guarantee operates in respect of local government, which has been stuck with this fixed percentage of personal income tax collections. As a result of that formula, the total payments to local government as a proportion of” income tax receipts in the previous year have been much less than they were under the Labor Government. Including funding for roads, the total payments to local government in 1975-76 amounted to 4.5 per cent of income tax received in the previous year. It is important to remember that in the financial year 1975-76 the percentage was 4.5 and that since the Fraser Government has been in office it has never exceeded 3- which indicates clearly just how badly local government is doing under this tax sharing formula. Even this year, with the increase in actual money terms that is effected by this Bill, the figure will still not exceed 3 per cent. Compare that with the 4.5 per cent which applied under Labor. The difference may not seem large in percentage terms, but represents a great deal of money which, under this new arrangement, local government is not receiving.

As I have mentioned, part of the problem has been that the Federal Government has tinkered with the system and with methods of taxation. That tinkering has gone on in other major policy areas as well. The effect has been that there has been a substantial increase in indirect taxes, in which local government does not share. Even the increase that will be conferred by this legislation will be insufficient to restore local government to the position that it occupied in the financial year 1975-76. The figures to which I have referred indicate how necessary it is that local government’s share, which it was promised originally would be 2 per cent, be increased to that amount. That commitment was given and certainly should have been put into effect by now. Until it has been there is no basis on which it can be claimed that local government is doing as well as it was four or five years ago.

The second part of the Bill deals with the question of a review by the Grants Commission of the allocation made to each State for distribution to local government. It is really a machinery amendment, which the Opposition will certainly not oppose. However, it highlights the fact that the Government is quite uncertain as to how to handle the distribution of the funds to local government. In the past, the Opposition has pointed to the inherent problems of having a multi-layered system of distributing these funds- firstly by having the Grants Commission determine how much each State gets, then having State grants commissions determine the distribution of funds within particular States. For this reason, the Opposition opposed the changes introduced by the Government not only because they would produce undesirable results, but also because the machinery for distributing the grants was being made far too complex.

Earlier this year the Commonwealth Grants Commission recommended that the distribution of funds for local government between the various States should be on a population basis. The Commission did this on the grounds of simplicity and predictability. Indeed, in making this recommendation, the Commission was aware that any other course would have made the distribution of these funds so complicated that it probably would have been unworkable and certainly would have placed a great work load on the Commission itself without yielding any worthwhile results. Quite clearly, the present system is unworkable. The Commonwealth Grants Commission makes recommendations on one basis and the States’ grants commissions make recommendations on an entirely different basis. The system does need to be changed. We of the Opposition would restore the powers of the

Commonwealth Grants Commission to deal directly with local government and thus avoid the need for duplication of the activities of that Commission at the State level. That course is obviously not acceptable to the present Government which has created this multi-layered system, which is proving unworkable. So the Government continues to cast about, seeking a solution of the problem which it created, despite the warnings which had been expressed consistently in this Parliament by the Opposition that the system would not work.

I might add that that sentiment was shared by many senior members of the Liberal Party in 1975 when in Opposition and this policy was originally argued within the ranks of that Party. I know that certain senior members of it then opposed the creation and implementation of this so-called Fraser federalism scheme. Their main concern was that it would prove to be unworkable. After four years they are undoubtedly being proved correct. I will certainly be saying more about that in the debate on the Bill that follows the consideration of this measure tonight. As yet the Commonwealth has not made up its mind what to do about the most recent recommendations of the Grants Commission. The amendment contained in this Bill is just a further example of this process of tinkering with legislation without having a very clear view of what to do about the position of local government. Although the measures introduced by the Bill are, I suppose, unobjectionable in themselves, they fall far short of what is necessary to restore the position of local government. Unless this Government adopts a far more positive attitude towards its responsibility for local government, the position of municipalities will decline again, as it did during the 1960s. There are no grounds to suggest that it has adopted such an attitude under the present policy.

It is important to realise that the Bill we are debating’ here tonight is part and parcel of the Fraser federalism policy. One might say that that policy is moving slowly, but it is moving most definitely towards the introduction of State income taxes whereby the burden of imposing personal income tax paid by all wage and salary earners in this country will be moved from the Federal level to the State level. In no way should it be interpreted that we have seen the full implementation of this policy. This legislation is part and parcel of the policy under which the Fraser Government is saying to the States: ‘If you want roads, hospitals, schools and all these other things which are normally the role of State governments, you will have to raise your own taxes and pay for them. We are not going to do that at the Federal level. We are going to make good fellows of ourselves. We are going to create the impression that we are reducing income tax, but what we are really doing is simply passing that burden over to the State governments and you, the taxpayer, will still be paying just as much as you ever did ‘. That is at the heart of the federalism policy. This legislation is part of it. After four years it is evident that neither the Government’s federalism policy in the whole sense nor its policy in respect of local government is working.

Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia

– The Senate is debating the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill and the second reading debate has been led by the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Wriedt). During his remarks he endeavoured to persuade the Senate that local government was suffering from what he called a reversion to the old ways, with particular reference to funding. I think it is important to point out that, with the arrival on the scene of the present Administration, local government is enjoying a much better position with far greater opportunities and certainly a much greater ability to plan for the future. The ex gratia system of payment employed chiefly by the previous Administration provided for a degree of administrative uncertainty and certainly did not compare well with this much more orderly and much better program of projected rates of allocation of funds from the Commonwealth which provides the opportunity for local government to engage in planning and to work into the future with a considerable degree of certainty.

In relation to the amount of funding and local government’s regard for funding, the Leader of the Opposition might have consulted the special report of the executive of the Australian Council of Local Government Associations which was prepared immediately following the last Budget. It is headed ‘Local government’s position’. I quote as follows:

In summary, the Budget confirms the decisions on general revenue sharing and road funding previously announced and indicates that some $30m is to flow to authorities by way of specific purpose payments.

Overall the funds to flow to Local Government in 1979-80 are as follows:

It then lists them under these four headings: General revenue share, roads, payments direct and payments through States. The document goes on to point out that these total an amount of $382.9m, or nearly $383m, for 1979-80 compared with $332m for 1978-79, which is an increase of some 15 per cent. The report of the executive of the Australian Council of Local Government Associations adds that local government’s general revenue share for 1979-80 has been increased by 24 per cent over the 1978-79 level and that it is up by $42m. The reoort refers further to the economic strategy and to the Government’s wish to contain the domestic Budget deficit and adds that as a consequence of this local government’s position in the loan market will be improved. This is the general tone right through the report which points out that local government throughout Australia has benefited from the financial and economic plans of the present Government and is enjoying a period of independence and flexibility under the Government’s federalism policy.

Local government has always been described as of very great value but, as everybody knows, the increasing cost of services has meant that local government has been put in some difficulty to meet the increased demands that have been placed upon it. This Bill before the Senate tonight seeks to understand that situation by amending the principle Act for two purposes. In the first instance, it will increase the annual net personal income tax collections allocated to local government from 1.52 per cent to 1.75 per cent. In the second instance, it will permit periodic reviews by the Commonwealth Grants Commission of the relative State shares of total funds allocated to local government. This is done under the tax sharing arrangement. In the second reading speech delivered by the Minister for Education (Senator Carrick) it was pointed out that the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in his election policy speech in November 1977 referred to the fact that the share of net personal income tax collections allocated to local government would be increased to 2 per cent by 1 980-8 1 . The 1 .75 per cent increase proposed in this Bill is a major step to fulfilling that object.

One of the aims and objects of the Government’s federalism policy, as I said earlier, is that State governments and local authorities should have the maximum independence and the maximum flexibility in determining their programs and their priorities and in carrying out the various functions which are assigned to them. The Government has placed considerable emphasis on the allocation of untied funds to local government authorities. It has done this by giving them access to a share of personal income tax revenue. As a result of these arrangements, which were introduced in 1976 and 1977, untied funds which have been made available to local government have increased very substantially. Honourable senators will recall that the Minister in his second reading speech mentioned the figure of 125 per cent in the three years leading up to 1978-79.

This increase to 1.75 per cent is, of course, very welcome and today between 950 and 1,000 councils, corporations and local government authorities throughout Australia will benefit. I suggest that the news has come at an opportune time as preliminary plans are being made; and councils and municipalities will now be able to plan on a secure basis and follow through the program which the present Government has initiated and carried through since its election to office. Local government authorities will be in a much better position to take up the extra responsibilities that they are called upon to carry. In looking forward to increased revenue in the following year, they will be able to devote further attention to planning and development, because gone are the days when the role of local government was limited to small domestic matters. Today aldermen, councillors, wardens and others work on the provision of a wide range of community matters, including community centres, public health facilities, sporting and recreational facilities, libraries and cultural and artistic establishments. They also are involved in social welfare, nursing and other services, all of which have a relationship with local government. The next Budget will provide additional funds to carry all this burden as the share of personal income tax will increase to 2 per cent.

It is important to emphasise that the additional percentage will mean a great deal to local government. This increase in the percentage share of income tax revenue will mean that local government entitlement in 1979-80 will be $22 1 m. As I said earlier, that represents an increase of 23.6 per cent on last year’s amount. That is a substantial percentage increase. I think we should underline the fact that, in spite of the economic and budgetary difficulties which are facing the Government today, it has seen fit to make such a major increase. Next year, with the increase to 2 per cent of personal income tax collections, I am advised that the share will reach some $300m and the increase will be of the order of 36 per cent. In addition to increasing the percentage share of net personal income tax collections which will be allocated to local government, the Bill has another purpose. It is intended to permit reviews to be undertaken from time to time of- I quote from the Minister’s speech: the relative State shares of the funds provided for local government under the tax sharing arrangements. (Quorum formed). Mr President, before your attention was drawn to the state of the House I had commenced a discussion on the second purpose of the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill 1 979, which is before the Senate, and was about to point out that part of the present Act states that the Minister shall: . . before 30 June 1981, arrange for the question of whether any change is desirable in the percentage distribution . . . to be referred to the Commonwealth Grants Commission for inquiry.

The Minister’s speech continued:

This sub-section may be read as providing for one review only, and as one such review has taken place, an amendment is proposed to make it clear that the matter may be referred to the Commonwealth Grants Commission on future occasions.

The matter of principles and procedures which are followed in relation to future reviews and the matter of whether any of the principles and procedures should be included in the legislation were referred to the Commonwealth Grants Commission for inquiry and report. As honourable senators very well know, the outcome of that was the Commission’s special report on financial assistance to local government, which was tabled in the Senate in August. Subsequently, copies of this report and related material were sent to the States and their views on the recommendations set out in the report were sought. There are indications that a number of responses have been received and these have varied widely, in particular the response to what is called option A of the distribution of funds on a population basis. When agreement is reached further legislation may be required to deal with it. In the meantime and irrespective of the outcome of these processes, the Government has considered that it is appropriate and proper to take the opportunity to widen the provisions in the sub-section to which I have referred so that reviews of the States’ percentage shares can take place from time to time.

The special report, which was prepared by the Commonwealth Grants Commission, was prepared in co-operation with a wide range of organisations which made their representations and submissions. In addition to Commonwealth departments there were various local government commissions, local government departments and local government officers from all of the States. The Australian Council of Local Government Associations was presented in a consultative status and that Council is now playing a leading part in the consultative process in relation to the ongoing results that will emerge in relation to the Commonwealth Grants Commission report. The Council of Local Government Associations, which is based here in Canberra, will hold its annual conference in Perth next week. One of the early and major addresses at the conference will be given by the Chairman of the Commonwealth Grants Commission, Mr Justice Rae Else-Mitchell. The matter of the States’ responses to the report and to the recommendations which are set out in it will, of course, be an important item for discussion and deliberation. The discussion will eventually be directed to that section of the report which relates to the appropriate method for the distribution of funds from the Commonwealth to local government and may well lead to the further amendments to which the Minister referred in his speech.

The Council, at its meeting in Perth next week, will look also at all of the ramifications of the increase to 2 per cent of personal income tax collections in 1980. That increase will be most welcome and will provide additional funds for the range of services which local government is called upon to provide. But I would point out that in the matter of local government financing attention must be given to the situation which goes beyond 1980 and into the next decade of the 1980s. There could very well be a change in the revenue base, that is, a change from personal income tax sharing which is described as- which I think in reality it is- a declining tax instrument. It seems to me that in the 1980s local government will be required to have a closer involvement in decision making as far as the financial base and the financing arrangements are concerned. Local government will also have to have close consultation with other levels of government. I suggest that that is very important if the autonomy, independence and flexibility of local government is to be preserved. The establishment of a local government office here within the government structure will help in that recognition.

In that consultation and co-operation, the increase to 2 per cent of personal income tax raises the question of a change in the revenue base from sharing personal income tax revenue to sharing total taxation. If personal income tax is a declining tax instrument then local government may be disadvantaged. The Council of Local Government Associations is working on that matter. We hope that when the matter of local government financing comes before the Parliament next year it will have received some attention and that the Minister in charge of the relevant legislation at the time will indicate plans for future financing of local government. Mr Deputy President, I welcome the Bill and give it my support.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– The Opposition is pleased to support the legislation not because we believe that it will meet the requirements of local government but rather because it will continue the policies which were begun by the Whitlam Labor Government in its first Budget in 1973. 1 am somewhat disappointed with the rather glib and superficial way in which Senator Davidson dealt with this very vexed problem. However I must admit that towards the end of his contribution he at least paid some attention to the need to change the tax base if we are to recognise our federal responsibilities in regard to funding local government.

The objective, it seems to me, of a national Parliament should be to see local government in its proper relationship to the other two arms of government. The objective should be to see local government as a just, equitable, efficient and adequate system of democratic government. To do that properly local government needs adequate funds. Local government’s mere reliance upon the property tax which has been its substantial revenue base since local government was established almost a century ago has finally been recognised to be inadequate. Why is it inadequate? It is inadequate because property improvement is not now just the simple area of responsibility of local government. Because of the changing environment, the rising standard of living and the tremendous population growth that was brought about substantially by Federal Government migration programs in the post-war years, we need to recognise that local government cannot be expected to provide all of the funds to create a reasonable environment in which people may live.

Local government needs to be recognised as an active, responsible and effective form of government at the grass roots level. It has an important role to play in improving the environment in which people live and in providing a range of facilities which perhaps were not even dreamt of when local government first established its franchise. Local government has an increasing role to play in the provision of public facilities. lt is interesting that Government senators who have spoken on this Bill have ignored the fact that for some 25 years the pleadings of local government were completely ignored by the conservative governments in Canberra. For example, in 1949, when the Menzies Administration was first elected, the Australian Council of Local Government Associations first adopted the principle that local government funds should be augmented by revenue from the national Government. In the bleak post-war years of the 1950s and the 1960s when development was taking place and migration was increasing the hazards and problems of population congestion in our cities and suburbs and when a natural increase caused our population almost to double, governments of the present Government’s philosophy turned a blind eye to the problem and answered no to the pleadings of local government to be recognised. Even as late as 1970 and 1971 when the Australian Council of Local Government Associations asked that a deputation meet the Prime Minister to discuss this very vexed and major problem of funding for local government, the McMahon Government refused even to meet the delegation; but in 1973 all that changed. For the first time since Federation the national Parliament accepted financial responsibility for some of the areas of funding for local government. In the subsequent Budgets of the Labor Administration substantial sums were made available. These sums were in excess of the amounts that have been suggested by Senator Davidson tonight as representing a plus for local government.

We saw logic and justice finally overcoming the backward attitudes of conservative governments. They finally came to the party. This is one issue that the conservative government did not attempt to change when it came into office at the end of 1975. I challenge Senator Davidson to examine more carefully the money that has been made available as a result of the first and subsequent Fraser Budgets and the amount of money that is proposed to be made available as a result of this piece of legislation. Such an examination will show not an increase in real terms. It might show an increase in money terms, but when the degree of inflation is taken into account the amount of money that was made available to local government in the Whitlam period has not been increased.

Let me refer the Senate to the tables which were incorporated in the House of Representatives Hansard on 1 1 October by my colleague, Mr Uren. They show very clearly that as a result of changes in the value of money local government is in fact receiving less funds for its ever widening range of responsibilities. I do not think any honourable senator, whatever his political affiliations, would disagree with me that road construction still represents a major portion of local government’s areas of responsibility. Let us look at the amount of money that is made available in general purpose assistance. We must have regard also to the money that is made available in road allocations to local governments, which, of course, are made in a separate piece of legislation and in a separate arrangement with the States. Thus we find an even more alarming drop in the total allocation of funds to local government. Let us look at what the position was in 1975-76 when the Hayden Budget was brought down. Federal Government payments in real terms for general purpose assistance, specific purpose grants, road allocations and payments under the Regional Employment Development Scheme totalled $476.4m. What amount does this Budget allocate four years later? In real terms the payments amount to $382. 7m, which is $94m less in real terms than was paid to local government in 1975-76.

If we examine the total payments to the States for local government on a proportional basis and relate them to individual income tax revenue collection in previous years we find a somewhat similar reduction. In 1975-76, for example, total payments- including road allocations- to the States for local government as a proportion of total individual income tax revenue collections by the Commonwealth amounted to 4.5 per cent. What is the figure in the current Budget? It is 2.9 per cent. If we exclude payments for roads the figure amounted to 2.2 per cent in the Hayden Budget and is 1.9 per cent in this Budget. These figures show an actual reduction in money terms of approximately 33 per cent. From the way one reads the figures and understands what is available to local government one comes very clearly to the conclusion that there has been an overall drop in payments other than for roads from $37 lm in 1975-76 to $248m in 1979-80. That represents a considerable reduction in the amount of funds paid to local government. Local government on a national basis has been forced to increase its rates by 27.5 per cent in that same four-year period.

What is the purpose of Commonwealth funding to local government? Is it to prevent increases in rates? Is it to increase and to improve the environment? Is it to increase the range of facilities to local government for the people who live within a local government boundary? Is it just to catch up or top up? Is it just a holding operation or is it an operation designed to improve the environment in which all of our people live? All of our people live, in one way or another, in a municipal or shire area.

What this Government has done- it was emphasised by what Senator Davidson had to say- is to delete specific purpose grants entirely from the funding of local government. Senator Davidson and other Government speakers have stressed that local government ought to have a flexible position; it ought to be able to determine how it spends its own money and, therefore, ought to be given general purpose assistance. I submit to the Senate and to those Government members whose minds are not closed on this issue that that is a very fine principle, but it only goes so far down that road to meeting the deficiencies that exist within local government. We have to expect- and of course we know- that there is a great variety of forms of local government in Australia. For example, one local government area has only 67 people. Another local government area has 696,000 people. In size, one local government has an area of 1.04 square kilometres. Another has 330,429 square kilometres. In local government areas, we have an age situation. We have a social make-up, a geography, a geology, a demography, and a density feature all of which are different from others. We have a revenue capacity in some local government areas which are different from others. In fact, we have revenue capacities which we have to recognise vary very much from area to area. We have much change from State to State, depending upon the degree of development in a particular State. This is probably related to the historical development of our States, based on the early days of colonialism in our own country.

If a national government was really about understanding local government, if it was really about wanting to help local government in its allsided areas of responsibility, it would be setting out to talk to local government, to develop cooperation, to be involved in experimental programs, promoting some equity, developing better guidelines in respect of what ought to be strategies and objectives for local government. Surely, it ought to be about establishing the principles that will equalise public facilities in all local government areas. Surely that is an objective which no self-respecting honourable senator would not want to support. To reach that objective we of course, need specific purpose grants. No one in his or her right mind is going to tell me that in my own State of New South Wales, for example, local government is the same in Kuringgai as it is in Marrickville or Blacktown, that the problems in my own area of Sutherland are the same as the problems in Woollahra, or that there is not a difference in the capacity of people in those regions to pay rates. We all know that there are places in our cities and suburbs where rates exceed $500 a year. There are other places where rates are about half that amount.

Rating differences exist because of the capacity of various communities to pay different rates. I would imagine that in the State of Tasmania where, for example, there is a degree of stagnation as a result of economic factors arising from changes in world trade- it has nothing to do with State governments or political partiesthere would be less capacity to pay a high rate as there would be in the municipality of Woollahra in my own State. Most of the people who live there have incomes in excess of average weekly earnings. There is a difference in local government. The Whitlam Government recognised this fact when it set about increasing the amount of money in the form of specific purpose grants in order that we would finally reach some equality in local government areas. It wanted every person in Australia to have access to local government loans and perhaps to olympic swimming pools and to have decent roads, footpaths, drainage systems and sufficient open space, whether it be passive or active to meet the recreational facilities needs of the people in the region or municipality.

Surely these are matters that ought to be the responsibility of the national parliament. They are matters that have nothing to do with property improvement. If a local library, playing fields or a road system are built to facilitate the movement of traffic, they are not really related to improving the value of property which is the purpose for which the rating system has been developed. They are matters which relate more to State and national considerations. Yet this Government has deleted specific purpose grants from local government. In their contributions, Government senators have suggested that this is a fair and equitable way that local government should be financed.

If that is what we are really about- as the second reading speeches suggest- in improving the lot of local government, I cannot understand the reluctance of Government senators and the Government generally to recognise their responsibilities, in addition to the general purpose grants which give everybody equal allocations, to make additional sums available to bring local government up to some reasonably high level so far as facilities are concerned. If the Federal Government is interested only in containing and just supplementing the rate in order to stop rates increasing, perhaps this legislation reaches its objective. In New South Wales, the State Government has seen fit to move to put a ceiling of 10 per cent per annum on rate increases without the approval of the Minister for Local Government, particularly in view of that large increase which I referred to which had taken place in most local government areas in recent times.

Let us examine the Liberal Party’s policy. Here I have to refer to what Senator Davidson said regarding income tax receipts. At least he has recognised the need to change the tax base if local government funding is to be in some way close to the current general purpose grants. We know that political parties, including the Government parties, have committed themselves to reducing income tax in one way or another. The federalism policy is designed to have some sort of relationship- it is of course an unsatisfactory one- to tax indexation. The Government is on record as saying that it supports the system of tax indexation, which has the effect of reducing the tax base for local government in this piece of income tax sharing legislation. Surely, when one thinks of what this Government has done in the current Budget- it has put a tax on petrol and therefore increased its tax revenue by more than $2000m- it is equitable that that ought to be a factor in determining the allocation of funds to local government, because it could well decide to have more indirect taxation principles in its next Budget, thus allowing the income tax base to decline further.

This has to be recognised by the Government. It is certainly recognised by the Labor Party because in our policy and in our first Budget we said that we would maintain the real value of tax revenue to local government at 2 per cent. Of course, that level of tax revenue is completely unacceptable to local government because local government believes it should get more than that. It has suggested that, because of the ever increasing range of responsibilities that are placed upon it and as a result of Federal and State Government policies, it is forced to carry the bag, as it were, and that it ought to have access to an even greater percentage of national revenue and not be tied to the income tax sharing propositions which have been suggested by this Government. In addition to the submission that Senator Davidson referred to in his selective presentation of what the Australian Council of Local Government Associations has said, he ignored the fact that the Council has specifically suggested that it is incumbent upon the national Parliament to recognise that there is a possibility that local government can in fact contribute to easing of the unemployment problem. It has drawn the Government’s attention particularly to the needs of the adult unemployed. Of course, in referring to that matter it in no way was playing down the problems of youth unemployment. The Council stated:

Without in any way wishing to play down the especially urgent and worrying aspects of the significant numbers of unemployed juniors, Local Government believes that Governments must take concrete steps to improve work prospects for the 54 per cent of total unemployed who fall into the adult range. Many of these unemployed adults are financially responsible for an entire household. Consequently, the impact of being without work for the adult breadwinner would be greater than for many juniors especially those young people with the financial and emotional support of their own families.

The Council ‘s proposal then went on to note: . . that in most communities throughout Australia, there are pressing needs for public works programs and community services which are unlikely to be met in the foreseeable future from the resources of local councils or voluntary service groups.

The Council went on to say that the funding of these special unemployment programs should be financed as follows: Fifty per cent from the Commonwealth, 30 per cent from the States and 20 per cent from the sponsoring local authority. There is no way that the funds that will be allocated under this legislation will go towards solving that sort of problem. The amount of money which Senator Davidson rather superficially referred to as being some sort of a great handout in fact only holds the line so far as local government work and activity is concerned. For example, the Council recently put forward a scheme to the Government. In addition to that scheme for which it received no support from the Commonwealth Government last week it put forward to the Government a scheme that would provide 25,000 extra jobs on useful work. What reception did it get?

Let us look at local government in Australia. As at June 1975 it employed 141,000 people. Solely as a result of the decline in the amount of federal funds made available, in spite of a desire to maintain the rate of funding, the local government work force in Australia, as at June 1979, stood at 127,500, which is 13,500 less than the number employed when the last Hayden Budget was presented. The Labor Government gave substantial assistance both by way of general purpose grants and by way of specific purpose grants. In a special article by an economist, H. W. Herbert, which appeared in the Sunday Mail of 4 November 1 979 it stated: the Local Authorities Association put forward a scheme to the Government last week, offering to help by providing 25,000 extra jobs on useful work, what reception did it get?

No money can be spared for it, said Federal Ministers.

Mr Viner, Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs (advised by Mr Howard and Mr Robinson) said that the benefits to those who would be employed ‘are illusory in the end ‘, and ‘ could hinder overall economic recovery ‘.

If the Ministers have been properly reported, what sort of balderdash and hogwash is the sort of comment that to employ 25,000 people in local government as a result of giving local government extra funds would hinder overall economic recovery? The economist went on to say:

Those reasons are hard to follow.

Unemployment is so damaging to those who suffer it that the benefit of work even for six months as proposed can hardly be called ‘illusory’.

The argument that more council jobs could hinder economic recovery rests on the monetarist theory (quite unproven) that the increase in the Budget deficit needed to finance the jobs would increase ‘inflationary expectations’ and discourage business from expanding.

It is pretty hard to believe that the $200m the councils asked for would have any appreciable effect on inflation. The domestic deficit would still be cut severely, from $2,258m last year, down to $ 1 , 075m this year (instead of $875m).

So, when we examine what local government wants to do to make a contribution towards solving the unemployment problem, of course, we are told that its proposals cannot be carried out. Of course, State and local government expenditure on goods and services as a percentage of gross domestic product in the period 1972-73 to 1 978-79 has risen by only a little less than 4 per cent. That is an indication that in this area of government activity unemployment can be shown to be related to the funds that are spent in the State and local government areas. Whilst there has been a small drop in Commonwealth revenue, there has been an increase in State and local government revenue. I seek leave to have two tables incorporated in Hansard. They were compiled by the Statistics Group of the Legislative Research Service from figures published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Leave granted.

The tables read as follows-

Compiled at request by the Statistics Group of the Legislative Research Service from Public Authority Finance: Public Authority Estimates, 1 978-79, published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Compiled at request by the Statistics Group of the Legislative Research Service from Australian National Accounts: National Income and Expenditure, 1977-78 and Quarterly Estimates of National Income and Expenditure, June Quarter 1979, published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. {: #subdebate-47-0-s3 .speaker-KBY} ##### Senator YOUNG:
South Australia -l rise this evening to support this legislation which is an amending Bill to the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act. The main purpose of this Bill, as has been said tonight by both Senators Gietzelt and Davidson, is to increase the annual percentage of the net personal income tax collections which the Federal Government collects generally in revenue and which is allocated to local governments. This percentage has been increased this year from 1.52 per cent to 1.75 per cent. This has carried out a Government promise. The Government said when it came to office that by 1980-81 we would be up to two per cent of this tax sharing arrangement for local government. I have noted tonight that the Opposition has supported this legislation. Nevertheless, at the same time, it has been critical of many aspects of the present system of sharing and funding local government. I say with great respect that I accept and understand the criticism of the Opposition tonight, because our philosophy is different from its philosophy. Tonight **Senator Gietzelt** has spoken at quite some length about the benefits of section 96 which directs grants and which the Whitlam Government, when in office, applied to the State governments and particularly to local governments. I personally did not agree with this, and I shall go on in a moment to explain the reasons why. Our Government believes in the three tiers of government, that is the federal sphere, the State governments and of course the local governments and authorities. At the same time that belief also supports the policies as well as the philosophy that both State governments and local authorities should have maximum independence and flexibility. We believe that nobody better than local government knows the local problem, and as such it should be allowed to be in the position whereby it can make its allocation and direct its funding according to the priorities as it sees them in its local region. This is where there is a great difference between our policies and attitudes and those of the Labor Government when it was in power, and even today in opposition. The Australian Labor Party tended more towards a centralist policy whereas, as has been described tonight, we tend more towards a federalist policy believing, as I have said, that there are areas of responsibility in the three tiers of government. As I have said many times before, nobody knows the local problems better than the local people. Canberra is too far away from the local problems and the local people, and I think this is the crux of the difference between our two attitudes. Comment and criticism have been passed tonight with regard to the Fraser federalism policy. **Senator Gietzelt** did this earlier this evening. But here again I think it spells out many aspects, two of the major ones being, firstly, responsibility to local regions and, secondly, flexibility for the administration within those local regions. Basically there are five essential elements in the federal policy. I will just quote them for the Senate. The first is that there be: >A permanent and guaranteed share of personal income tax collections to the States. This of course is something which was agreed to by the States with the Prime Minister **(Mr Malcolm Fraser).** Here we have a growth factor which floats along with inflation. This has been gradually introduced. Whilst there has been criticism, again basically on political lines generally, I think it has been accepted that there have been benefits to the States. I appreciate that members of the Senate on the other side of the chamber do not agree with that statement, nevertheless if we go out in the field we will find that the great majority of people do agree with it. Another one, of course, is that there be: >A permanent and guaranteed share of personal income tax collections to local government. This basically is what this amending Bill is about. Also that there shall be an: >Establishment of a State Grants Commission in each State to determine the allocation within each State of local government 's share of personal income tax. Here again the position is becoming more localised. Canberra is not directing. We are getting down to a State commission to look at the State scene and after discussion in relation to the local scene, allocations are made accordingly. Of course, as I mentioned earlier, there was a reduction of the Commonwealth centralist control over payments to the States. This, to me, is extremely important. There is always a danger with centralism that, divorced from the local area and combined with bureaucracy it tends to become insular. Canberra today is no longer a city of expatriots. It is a city that now basically has a Public Service of indigenes. The public servants have been born, educated and live in Canberra. These people, with justification, see Australia through the eyes of Canberra. They no longer see it as an ex-Victorian, ex-New South Welshman, exQueenslander, ex-Tasmanian, ex-South Australian or ex- Western Australian. They do not see Australia as a State man. They see Australia as a Canberra man, and there is no doubt that I would do the same if I were born, educated and lived in Canberra. This is one of the risks of centralism. Here again I emphasise that we as a Government have moved away from centralism in order to get authority and responsibility more localised in the areas where the locals themselves know their greatest needs and can assess their priorities accordingly. Finally- I deal with the federalism policy, with those five essential elements- that there be: >Establishment of an Advisory Council for Inter-Government Relations, including representatives of the Commonwealth, the States, local government and the community. I repeat that: >Establishment of an Advisory Council for Inter-Government Relations, including representatives of the Commonwealth, the States, local government and the community. That to me is an absolutely balanced mix whereby through this Advisory Council, all those involved in the local side, the regional side and right up through to the central side, can sit down and discuss things together in a far more fruitful way than, quite frankly, happened during the Whitlam era. Section 96 grants were mentioned at length by **Senator Gietzelt** tonight. Section 96 grants, of course, are those that are referred to as tied grants. The money is given, but also a direction is given that that money will be spent according to the directions of the giver. In other words, the Federal Government would direct a grant under section 96, but it would say to those local governments how that money was to be spent. Basically we had a farcical situation a few years ago when this applied, when great emphasis was placed on section 96 grants and where local councils in the country virtually had to apply to Canberra to get a new tyre for a grader. This was how farcical the situation was becoming. Those are facts of life and it is no good honourable senators on the other side shaking their heads. These were the facts of life. The control from the centralist government was such that it would say: 'X amount of money will be allocated but on the basis that you will spend it in such and such a way'. It was direction from Canberra rather than recommendation from the local scene. These are some of the strong criticisms that I have with the centralist policy which was adopted during the Whitlam era. I say again, with great respect to the Opposition, that our philosophies are different and our policies accordingly are different. They tend to be more towards centralism, and we tend to be more towards federalism. It is a difference in philosophy and in view that no doubt will always continue. Criticism has also been made tonight about the actual funding under this tax-sharing arrangement with local government. I should like to go back through the figures myself. If we take 1975-76 as a base, which was the last year of the Whitlam Labor Government, we find that in the first year of the Fraser Government, in 1976- 77, there was an increase of some 75 per cent in funding. I want to emphasise this. There was a 75 per cent increase in funding. But in 1977- 78 it went up by a further 18.1 per cent. That was an 18.1 per cent increase on the previous year when there had been a 75 per cent increase. We jumped 75 per cent in the first year of government. Granted, inflation was running pretty rife at that stage but it certainly was not running at 75 per cent. I think this increase showed the recognition by the Fraser Federal Government of the need for local government funding. As I say, in 1977-78 local government funds went up by 18 per cent; in 1978-79 they went up by a further 8.5 per cent; and this year, because of the increase to 1 . 75 per cent in income tax collections going to local government, there will be an increase of some 23.5 per cent. It has been estimated that next year, when the Government meets its commitment of bringing the local government share of income tax collections to two per cent, the increase in funds could be as much as 36 per cent. If we relate these increases to the inflationary trends, I think we can show that in real terms local government is receiving increased funding from the Federal Government, although perhaps not in quantities that the local government would like to see. But let us face it; nobody would be satisfied no matter how much you gave him. Everybody would like to get a far larger slice of the cake if he could, but there are limits on the size of the budgetary cake. Nevertheless, within those limits the Fraser Government has virtually given the opportunity to both the States and local government to have an escalation factor applying to their funding under present tax sharing arrangements. So as revenue goes up the States, and particularly local government, benefit. I support this legislation. I look forward to the Government increasing local governments' share of income tax collections to two per cent next year. I wish the economy had been such that the Government could have increased it to two per cent this year. I am certain the Government wishes it was able to do that. I hope that we, as a government, will always continue to leave responsibilities where responsibility should be, that is, with the locals, who know their local problems and are better judges of how money should be allocated and spent than we in Canberra, who see things only from a long distance. {: #subdebate-47-0-s4 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator COLSTON:
Queensland -The Senate this evening is debating the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill. There are two amendments which the Bill puts before the Senate. The first amendment is to increase the annual percentage of net personal income tax collections allocated to local government from 1.52 per cent to 1.75 per cent. The second amendment is to enable periodic review by the Commonwealth Grants Commission of the relative State shares of the total funds allocated under the Act we are amending this evening. Ten years ago such a Bill as we have before us tonight would not have been presented to the Parliament. Ten years ago the Commonwealth did not make general purpose funds available to local government. Indeed, it was not until the Whitlam Government amended the Commonwealth Grants Commission Act that it was possible for the Commonwealth to make equalisation grants to local government throughout Australia. When we are debating this amendment Bill tonight we should remember that it was during those years, from 1973 to 1975, that the changes were made that allowed the Commonwealth to become directly involved in helping the third tier of government, local authorities throughout Australia. Sometimes we probably take it for granted that Commonwealth funds of some size go to local authorities, but this really started only after the election of 1972, which, as we all know, was towards the end of the year. It was during the period from 1973 to 1975 that this principle of the central government helping to fund local government bodies throughout Australia really began. In those days the funds were passed through the States, as they still have to be. We still do not have the power as a Commonwealth Government to make funds directly available to local authorities. There are some minor exceptions, but these minor exceptions rely on other Acts which allow certain moneys to go to local authorities because they are carrying out certain functions such as welfare functions. After 1975 the system changed. After the Fraser Government came into power it continued to provide untied funds although the format by which it provided them became different. The principal differences included a fixed percentage of personal income tax being made available. The funds were basically intended for two purposes. There was a per capita grant for local authorities and there was an equilisation grant. After the Fraser Government came into power funds were no longer distributed by the Commonwealth Grants Commission, but were distributed by individual State Grants Commissions. I point out to the Senate that the second reading speech made in the House of Representatives contained a significant error in relation to funding. I point this out because I have some criticisms about the comments that have been made this evening in relation to the so-called extra funds this Government is providing to local authorities. I shall show, as I go on, that this Government is really not providing extra funds. In real terms it is providing less funds than were provided in 1 975. May I point out the error in the second reading speech in the House of Representatives. Because of the comments I will make later, this error is a pertinent one. When this Bill was introduced in the House of Representatives **Mr Howard** said: >As a result of the tax sharing arrangements which were introduced in 1976-77, general revenue or 'untied' funds made available to local authorities have increased very substantially- by 1 45 per cent in the three years to 1 978-79. The percentage was not 145; it should have been 125. I will give figures which illustrate that this was so. The untied or general purpose grants which were provided from this Government to local authorities in 1975-76 totalled $79.9m. In 1978-79, they amounted to $ 179.4m. If one takes the difference between those two figures and calculates the percentage increase, one finds that it is 125 per cent. The figure given by **Mr Howard** was changed by the time the Bill came before this place, and in the second reading speech in the Senate it appeared not as 145 per cent but as 125 per cent. I believe this occurred because the error was highlighted by one of the members of the Opposition in the House of Representatives. We all know that errors can occur in calculations, but it is unforgivable when in a second reading speech wrong statistics are used in a boastful sort of way to illustrate how much extra funds the Government might be providing in a particular area. {: .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator Wriedt: -- Inexcusable. {: .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator COLSTON: **-As Senator Wriedt** says, it is inexcusable. It certainly is. The 125 per cent, however, camouflages what is a really sorry record. Let us look at the funds that were provided in 1975-76 by the Whitlam Government under the last Hayden Budget and the amounts that were provided in 1978-79. In 1975-76 $263.5m was provided by the Commonwealth in tied funds to local government. But in 1978-79 $153. 1m in tied funds was provided, which is a 42 percent decrease in funds. I now refer to the total funds provided by the Commonwealth to local government authorities throughout Australia over those two periods. In the last Hayden Budget in 1975-76, $343.4m was provided. But in 1978-79 less was provided- $332.5m, a 3 per cent decrease. If one talks in real terms and bases the 1978-79 figures on 1975-76 dollars it is not a 3 per cent decrease, it is a 26 per cent decrease. It is totally wrong for the Government in the second reading speech to say that it is allocating 125 per cent more to local government. Perhaps it is in one area but one cannot take that area alone. One must look at the totality of funds provided to local government. Local government is now 26 per cent worse off in real terms than it was in 1975-76. That is a sizeable percentage for local government to absorb by providing less to ratepayers or by charging extra in rates as **Senator Gietzelt** said only a short time ago. I think that the Government should have been more realistic and should have stated that there were cuts in this area. I will compare what was stated in the second reading speech with **Senator Chaney** 's attitude when the States Grants (Roads) Amendment Bill 1979 was recently before us. His attitude was quite refreshing. He admitted that less funds were made available. I quote from Senate *Hansard* of 16 October 1979. **Senator Chaney** replied to criticism about the Bill, and said: >In this area, as in other areas, the position of the Government is that its allocation of funds is one which is made in the light of the Government's overall approach to the economic management of Australia. We came into Government and were re-elected to Government on the basis that we believed that restraint in expenditure was necessary. It is therefore obvious that in debates such as this restraint can be pointed to. It would be a little odd if one could not do so. I make no apology for that. That was a refreshingly honest comment about the fact that less funds were made available. I think that we could have had such a refreshingly honest comment about the lesser amounts of funds being made available from the Commonwealth to local government when this Bill was introduced. I refer now to the figures presented by the previous **speaker, Senator Young.** I did not do this immediately I started my speech because I wanted to leave it until I spoke about the amounts of funds which this Government is providing to local government. **Senator Young** said that from 1975-76 to 1976-77, from the last year of the Labor Government to the first year of the Fraser Government, there was a 75 per cent increase in funds made available to local government. Again he is hiding the facts. These are the facts: There was an increase in general purpose assistance to local government from $79.9m in 1975-76 to $140m in 1976-77. That represents an increase of approximately 75 per cent, which is the figure **Senator Young** mentioned. But he did not mention that in other payments by the Commonwealth to local government there was a sizeable decrease. In 1975-76 other payments amounted to $263. 5m but by 1976-77 those payments had been reduced to $135. lm. This is a reduction of approximately $ 130m. Local authorities really were not better off in the following year. If one looks at the total story one can see that less funds were made available. There are some other matters apart from funding that I want to discuss in relation to this Bill. It is all very well to pass funds to the States and to tell them to allocate the funds amongst their local authorities. In theory this sounds quite reasonable, but I have some misgivings about what is happening in Queensland, the State that I represent. The funds that we are passing over to the States have been collected by the Federal Government. Therefore, I think that the Federal Government should have some concern that this money is wisely allocated. At the moment there is deep and significant concern in Queensland that the funds that have been provided for local government are not being wisely spent. I will quote from a speech made by the President of the Local Government Association in Queensland on 5 September 1 979 in Mount Isa. Councillor Rogers, in a presidential address before the Local Government Association, said: >The recent announcement by the Local Government Grants Commission of the distribution of Commonwealth funds to local authorities, is in my opinion, nothing short of a disaster - What a comment for the Chairman of the Queensland Local Government Association to make in a presidential address, that the allocation of funds by the Local Government Grants Commission in Queensland was nothing short of a disaster. He continued: {: type="i" start="1"} 0. . in no way will the Commission's recommendations instil in local authorities any confidence in the Commission. He was not talking about the Commonwealth Government or the amount of money that the Commonwealth had provided to the Queensland Government to be distributed amongst local authorities; he was talking about the way in which this money had been distributed. It is interesting to note that when Councillor Rogers made these comments- I will read more of them later- the Chairman of the Queensland Grants Commission was on the stage with him. I wonder how the Chairman winced when these comments were made. I think other comments made by Councillor Rogers are worth while reporting to the Senate. He said: >There is no doubt in my mind that with the level of funds for distribution in Queensland being up by some 23.48 per cent on the 1978-79 year, local authorities could reasonably have expected an average type of increased grant across the board- something of the order of 20 per cent. The figures reveal that excluding Albert Shire which was a special case, 62 local authorities were granted increases of less than 20 per cent, and of those, 23 received increases of 5 per cent or less while 1 4 had increases of less than 6 per cent. Councillor Rogers goes on to quote local authorities which received percentages that were quite low despite the fact that the actual increase in the funds available, was as he said, about 23 per cent. He went on: >In relation to the remaining Councils which received increases ranging from 20 per cent to 107.9 per cent and therefore enjoyed something of a bonanza when the mean average was of the order of 27 per cent, one Shire Chairman in the 50 percent bracket told me he was embarrassed. This is what I mean when I say that in Queensland there is significant concern that the funds that the Commonwealth is allocating are not, in turn, being wisely allocated among local authorities there. Recently, as do most Queensland senators from time to time, I travelled into the far north west of Queensland. Councillor Rogers spoke about this area and said: >Having twice travelled extensively in far Western Queensland, both in the North and South firstly in 1977 and again in July of this year, I very much appreciated the extreme privations and difficulties experienced by the people who live there, and their justification for support. It was therefore with considerable satisfaction I noted the substantial increases to Diamantina (64.2 per cent) and Barcoo (75 percent). I might just mention that Diamantina is in the western area of Queensland and has Bedourie as its principal centre. Barcoo is not quite so far west and has Jundah as its principal centre. Councillor Rogers was speaking of increases of 64 per cent to Diamantina and 75 per cent to Barcoo but he went on: >I was equally appalled at the level of grants to Burke (4 per cent) and Carpentaria ( 1 8 per cent). Those honourable senators who know Queensland well will know that Burke is a local authority centred on Burketown and that Carpentaria is a local authority that is centred on Normanton. If we in this Parliament are to allocate funds to a State government and say to it, 'It is your responsibility to allocate them to the local authorities in your State', we should have some concern whether those funds are being wisely allocated. I mention Councillor Rogers' comments on that occasion in referring to the report of Queensland's Local Government Grants Commission. Those honourable senators who follow the Commonwealth Grants Commission's reports will know that, when special assistance is given to a State, the Commission produces a fairly weighty and detailed report. One such report was presented to this Parliament not too long ago. It comprised six chapters and more than 200 pages. That is totally different from the report that is put out by the Grants Commission in Queensland. Councillor Rogers said: >To date I am not aware of the Local Government Grants Commission ever publishing the methods or formulae used by the Commission in arriving at its conclusions. If that is so, how are local governments to know that they have received the correct allocation? How are they to know that their submission was properly made if this information is not provided. Councillor Rogers continued: >At least the Commonwealth Grants Commission saw fit to justify its decisions. Apparently the State Grants Commission sees no necessity to offer any comment in justification of its actions! This is a matter which really cannot be brushed aside. We are the initial custodians of the taxpayers' funds and it is necessary that we ensure that they are spent wisely. I urge the Commonwealth to discuss these matters, which initially were raised by Councillor Rogers, with the Queensland Government so that some confidence can be engendered in the Grants Commission of Queensland. If local authorities themselves do not have such confidence, it will not augur well for the future allocation of funds under this scheme. I wish to raise one further matter that is pertinent to the State that I represent. The Commonwealth Grants Commission, in is special report in 1979 on 'Financial Assistance for Local Government', discussed possible ways in which funds could be distributed amongst the States. **Senator Davidson** mentioned that report earlier this evening. On pages 10 and 1 1, the report sets out five possible options- that is, ways in which the Commonwealth could allocate funds between the States. Option A would be to distribute in proportion to the respective unweighted populations of the States. In other words, the populations would be determined and the funds would be allocated according to that ratio. Option B was somewhat similar but proposed a distribution in proportion to State populations, weighted on a prescribed basis. Options C, D and E were a little more complicated. At page 15, the report states: >The Commission recommends that the Government give consideration to the adoption of Option A- distribution on a population basis- on the grounds of its simplicity and predictability. I imagine that to allocate the total funds that we have available for local authorities amongst the States on a population basis would indeed be simple and predictable but that does not mean that it would be the best method to adopt. I really doubt that that option would be accepted by a majority of the States. The share of personal income tax that would be payable to local government by four States- New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmaniawould be reduced if option A were used. I refer those honourable senators who are interested in the way in which that reduction would occur, to a table which is set out at page 1950 of the House of Representatives *Hansard* of 1 1 October 1 979. That table, which was incorporated by the honourable member for Reid, **Mr Uren,** shows that Queensland would receive 7.5 per cent less, New South Wales 1.3 per cent less, Western Australia 6.2 per cent less and Tasmania 7.5 per cent less. I doubt that those four States would allow that type of sharing arrangement to proceed without first making firm representations concerning it. Earlier, I mentioned the speech made by Councillor Rogers to the Local Government Association of Queensland. The Councillor referred during that speech to the Commonwealth Grants Commission's recommendation that option A, which I have just been discussing, be adopted on the basis of its simplicity and predictability. He described it as very disturbing and reported to the conference that he had requested the Premier of Queensland to register that State's objections with the Prime Minister **(Mr Malcolm Fraser)** to option A's being used for the distribution of funds to the States under the personal income tax sharing legislation. Councillor Rogers and the members of his association in Queensland can be assured that senators from Queensland will object if option A is adopted. I should imagine that Councillor Roger's counterparts in other States will also find senators from those States objecting if this change is made- a change which would result, in less being received for distribution to local government. Some of the comments that have been made by previous speakers have suggested that there has been criticism of the Bill from this side. The Opposition does not oppose the measure. I have offered some criticism of the amounts which Government supporters claimed were now being allocated to local authorities. I believe that that was fair criticism. However, I made some other criticism which I hope that the Government will take not as criticism of it but as constructive criticism so that when we are allocating funds to local authorities, the third tier of government which is regarded traditionally as being the closest to the people, we allocate them on an equitable basis. I trust that these criticisms, which I regard as being constructive, will be looked at by the Government. I hope that when we look at a similar Bill in the future- I assume that we will be doing so because the Government has indicated that it will increase the share of personal income tax from 1.75 per cent to 2 per cent- we will not have to offer these constructive criticisms because some of the anomalies which are currently present will have been ironed out. {: #subdebate-47-0-s5 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP -- in reply- The Senate is debating a simple Bill entitled the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill 1979. I thank all honourable senators for their contributions. As I said, the Bill is simple. It has only two operative clauses. The first of those clauses enables the percentage share of income tax for the year under review to be raised from 1 .52 per cent to 1.75 per cent as an intermediary step to reaching 2 per cent in 1980-81 under the Government's policy. The second of those clauses relates to the arrangement whereby reviews of the formula for the sharing amongst the States can be done from time to time. To understand the background of this Bill one must look to its antecedents for a comparison. It is true that the Whitlam Government during its term of office introduced a system whereby the Commonwealth Grants Commission recommended to the Government certain so-called equalisation payments to a certain number of local government bodies. Not all local government bodies received the grants. In fact about 100 of the 900 bodies got no money at all. They took the view that they were punished for being efficient, and there was a considerable element of truth in that. Equally, there was no certainty that in the next year or in the year after those local government bodies receiving grants would have any predictable increase in their revenue or would get anything like the same grants. In that regard the Whitlam Government disbursed some $79.9m, from memory, in its last year of office. Great play was made by **Senator Wriedt** about the policies of his day. He said that he opposes the method of the present Government's policies. I take it, therefore, in the absence of any other understanding, that Labor would revert to the old style. The fact is that in the years of the Whitlam Government local government received money but inflation was so high that many bodies were forced to put up their rates by as much as 30 per cent or more in a year and then had to restrict the ordinary services they provided. So the test of whether the policy was working is that local government with all the money it had was forced to put up its rates and yet could not deliver the same quantity of services as before. By comparison, in recent years local government has been able to abate its rate increases very considerably and has been able to restore its services very largely. The Fraser Government introduced a system whereby every local government body would get a basic amount of money which would be tied to a percentage of personal income tax, that percentage being 1.52 per cent until the passage of this Bill. In its first year that percentage yielded $140m by comparison with the $79.9m; that is, the amount nearly doubled in the first year. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- That is untied grants. {: .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK: -- We will come to **Senator Cavanagh** 's interjection in a moment. Against the background of the argument that local government bodies were better off in the past, I want to repeat and to stress that in that period they were so much worse off that they had to increase their rates enormously- in the order of 28 per cent to 33 per cent in a year- and still reduce their services. That was the picture throughout the length and breadth of the country. Incidentally, it is fair to say that the policy of the present Government with regard to income tax sharing for local government is precisely the policy of the Australian Council of Local Government Associations. I take it from what I have heard tonight that the Labor Party rejects the policy of that Association. The system is such that the Commonwealth Government said that all bodies shall get the same amount by way of grant so that there will not be punishment for being efficient. We took the view that it was not a good thing for one central body sitting in Canberra to have the job of looking at 900-odd local government bodies in Australia. The Commonwealth Grants Commission was founded in, I think, 1 934. It is one of the great institutions of our time. It was founded by a government of our philosophy. Since that time none of its recommendations has ever been rejected or amended. It is busy doing its job of looking at State equalisations, at vital situations such as that of the Northern Territory and at a wide range of matters. It is inconceivable that a body that has these precious things to do should be sitting in Canberra and caught up with the minute details of 900 different local government bodies in Australia. How can Canberra look at Bunbury or at Murray Bridge? It is beyond thought that this should be so. It cannot do so and it did not do so. The fact is that the Fraser Government said: 'We will invite the States to set up State Grants Commissions'. This was not new. The New South Wales Liberal Government had already been the pace-setter in this regard and its system had worked perfectly. We as a government took the view that the States were nearer to the people and could do these things. They could make a decision as to whether 30 per cent or more of local government bodies should get a basic grant and how much the percentage for equalisation grants should be. Inevitably in the development of such an imaginative policy there will be some difficulties. I am grateful for the matters which have been raised tonight in the debate. It is a healthy thing. It may well be that one can say that a particular Grants Commission did things wrongly. It is fair to say that there was a volume of criticism of the Commonwealth Grants Commission, particularly by the 100-odd bodies which got nothing at all. So it is not to be thought that the Commonwealth body, which I acknowledge as a great body, escaped criticism whereas the State bodies did not. The reverse is true. It has been said tonight that more money was given to local government under the Whitlam Government than under this Government. There is a tendency for the Opposition to keep adding in the money for the Regional Employment Development Scheme, that oncer which it ultimately rejected but which it added in for arithmetic's sake. For the sake of the record I should point out that if one excludes the employment creating schemes, the total payments to or for local government authorities from the Commonwealth in 1975-76 were $234.9m; in 1976-77 they were $274.7m-up 16.9 percent; in 1977-78 they were $3 17.1m- up 15.4 per cent; and in 1978-79 they were $332.5m-up 4.9 per cent. The fact of the matter is that if one were to exclude the RED Scheme- the Australian Labor Party did, but not tonight- those figures would be arrived at. Local government has said that this is a good scheme. The Australian Council of Local Government Associations has commended it; indeed, it has written the scheme in as its own policy. The test of the goodness of the scheme is that local government has been able to predict its future income and to abate rate increases. The test is very real. There will always be problems and, quite properly, arguments about the correct breakup between the States. There will always be arguments as to whether the Grants Commission has done its job properly as between one local government body and another. I repeat that the Commonwealth Grants Commission certainly did not escape that. It attracted very considerable criticisms. I simply say that this particular innovation is one which has given stability to local government and is widely acclaimed. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. In Committee The Bill. {: #subdebate-47-0-s6 .speaker-5V4} ##### Senator COLEMAN:
Western Australia -- I raise just one issue in the Committee stage of the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill. I believe it is a very important issue and one which should have been brought before honourable senators at a much earlier time. It relates, in part, to the actual time of the year when funds are paid to local government authorities. Last weekend I had the opportunity to visit the Shire of Carnarvon in Western Australia. For the information of honourable senators who may not be aware of this, Carnarvon is 610 miles from Perth and 300 miles from its nearest neighbour. On the weekend of 3 and 4 November I was informed that the Shire had not yet received any of its funding. I suggest that that is not a unique position. I anticipate that I am speaking on behalf of all the shires and councils in Western Australia which are finding themselves in equally difficult circumstances. I met the Shire President and a number of his councillors and staff. They were all concerned that as each year goes by the payment of funds gets progressively later. I believe that last year it was October and the year before it was late September, early October. We cannot anticipate that shires or local authorities will be able to do the work on the projects that are so vital in those remote areas of Australia, any more than we can anticipate that they can do the work in the more densely populated areas, if we do not ensure that their funding is received at a much earlier time in the year. We are now well into November. The shires are anticipating that it could be at least the end of this month before any funding is received. That simply means that projects have to be halted, or money which is ear-marked for other projects has to be used for particular works, or work has to be done on credit. That is not a perfect situation for any shire. When people live in a State such as Western Australia, where most of the country centres consider themselves isolated, I think we have a responsibility to ensure that their funding is made at a proper and due time so that they can budget correctly for their entire term and so that they know and their constituencies know exactly what can be done, what it is expected will be done and when it can be done. {: #subdebate-47-0-s7 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP -- This has always been a problem and is one to which I will certainly direct the attention of the Treasurer **(Mr Howard).** One of the basic qualities of this scheme is that it does permit local government at the very least to make a good guess at what it will have for the future because all bodies will get the funding. That is an improvement on the past. But I will direct the attention of the Minister to the matter. {: #subdebate-47-0-s8 .speaker-JTT} ##### Senator DAVIDSON:
South Australia -- I would like to direct a couple of matters to the Minister for Education **(Senator Carrick)** in the Committee stage of the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill. We referred earlier to the report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. My information is that copies of that report have been sent to the various States for their responses. I have seen a variety of reactions. Has the Minister any information in relation to that? If not, is there a closing date by which responses from the various States should be received? Is there a progress report on the matter? How soon might the Minister and the Government find themselves in a situation in which some decisions might be made as a result of their conference with the States on the report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission? {: .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick: -- Is that the Commonwealth Grants Commission? {: .speaker-JTT} ##### Senator DAVIDSON: -I am referring to the Commonwealth Grants Commission special report on financial assistance to local government, which outlines, as the Minister may know, the various options regarding funding for local government. I also refer to the Minister some observations which I and others made during the second reading debate regarding what is considered in some circles as the need for a change in the revenue base for funding local government after we have reached the point of increasing to 2 per cent the States' share of income tax revenue. That is looking a little distance into the futureinto the 1 980s. On the other hand, I feel that our present program of funding for local government is set down in an orderly way and some research ought to be conducted into the matter of whether the PIT sharing is sufficient for the years of the 1980s. But, if PIT is described as a declining tax instrument, will the Government do any research into whether that is sufficient or will it seek some other base from which to fund local government? I would be grateful for the Minister's response to those two matters. {: #subdebate-47-0-s9 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP -- I am advised that so far four States have replied; we are waiting on two other States. I am not aware that we have fixed a cut-off date, but I have no doubt prodding will go on. It is proposed that a meeting of Commonwealth and State officers will be held to consider the report. As to the second part of **Senator Davidson's** remarks, when the overall policy on federalism was introduced it was made clear that personal income tax was the tax base selected as the commencement of revenue sharing. A number of commitments were made with regard to variations of it, but it is understood that the commitment of the Commonwealth and States to personal income tax sharing is not immutable in itself. They may well, if trends change in taxation, need to revise the basic idea, but there is no intention of doing that now; that is something which could be considered for the future. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. {:#subdebate-47-1} #### Third Reading Motion (by **Senator Carrick)** proposed: >That the Bill be now read a third time. *(Quorum formed).* Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. {: .page-start } page 2013 {:#debate-48} ### STATES GRANTS (CAPITAL ASSISTANCE) BILL 1979 {:#subdebate-48-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 24 October, on motion by **Senator Guilfoyle:** >That the Bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-48-0-s0 .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania -This Bill is not dissimilar to the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill, with which we have just been dealing and which was, of course, restricted to Commonwealth payments to local government. This Bill deals with the payments which will be made to the States for the current financial year and is, of course, an integral part of the Fraser federalism policy. The present Government has done something which no previous conservative government has done. I include the governments of **Sir Robert** Menzies, **Mr Holt, Mr Gorton** and **Mr McMahon.** I believe that they never would have considered doing what this Government is doing. This Government is cutting Loan Council payments to the States. This Government has not only cut those Loan Council funds but also reduced them by no less than 13.2 per cent, which is really a quite unprecedented move. This Bill is the instrument for carrying out what can be described only as an extraordinary policy decision. I will have some comments to make later about what the Premiers and State Treasurers think of this move. Cutting funds to this extent is bad enough but this cut comes on top of three very lean years for the States. In 1976-77 and 1977-78 Loan Council funds were substantially reduced in real terms even though there were minor increases in money amounts. In 1978-79 there was no increase in funds for these purposes. This year the funds, as I have mentioned, are being cut by 13.2 percent. As a result, funds for Loan Council purposes are now less than they were in 1 975-76. When one takes into account that specific purpose payments for capital purposes have been cut in every year under Fraser federalism, the enormity of the decline in Commonwealth support for the country's basic infrastructure becomes very clear. I seek leave to incorporate in *Hansard* that portion of table No. 3 from Budget Paper No. 7 which sets out the funds made available to the States for capital works over the past five years. I wish to incorporate only that section dealing with general purpose capital funds, specific purpose payments and the total funds for capital works. Leave granted. {: .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator WRIEDT: -This table shows that total funds for capital purposes have declined in every year under the present Government to the degree that they are now less than those provided in 1974-75. Assuming a rate of inflation of, say, 10 per cent over that period, payments for capital purposes should now be running at about $4,600m. As table No. 3 shows, the amount provided this year is $2, 600m, which is an effective cut of $2,000m in State funds for capital works. These figures are extracted from the table provided by the Treasurer **(Mr Howard)** in his Budget Speech. What are the consequences of this drastic reduction in funds for capital works? There is no doubt that one effect will be a further deterioration of essential services, thus increasing inefficiency and reducing the efficiency of the private sector. Another effect will be to retard seriously the already depressed building and construction industry. This will increase unemployment in the industry and reduce the economic activity and employment in the industries which supply the materials and subsidiary services to the building and construction industry. None of this is new. We have put this view to the Government in each of the four years that similar legislation has been brought before the Parliament, but this is not just the view of the Opposition. The stand we have taken in the past four years has been shared by eminent people in this country. I will come to that in a moment. Every year I have referred to the views of the States on the effect of these cuts. The States ' views are consistent with the views of the Opposition. On each occasion the response of the Fraser Government has been to ignore the warnings it has received. The dire predictions are becoming increasingly true. As I have indicated, we are not the only ones who have been critical of this policy from the beginning. AH of the State Treasurers, be they Liberal or Labor, have been critical of Fraser federalism. These criticisms should not be taken lightly by the Government. In a number of instances the criticisms have come from Premiers, and Liberal Premiers at that. One has to look only at the comments made in the Budget speeches of each of the State governments this year to get a picture of the strength of the criticism which has been directed at these policies. Before referring to the criticisms I make the point that the remarks were not made in off-the-cuff political speeches. The comments were made carefully in prepared statements in State Budget papers. We will start firstly with the Budget Speech of the Victorian Liberal Treasurer, **Mr Thompson.** He said: >The reduction in general capital funds by the Commonwealth has imposed great strains on State resources because the demands for essential new buildings and maintenance have to be met. **Mr Thompson** then drew attention to the fact that the Commonwealth's expenditure on its own activities is budgeted to increase nearly twice as fast as the Commonwealth is allowing the States to increase their expenditures. The New South Wales Treasurer, **Mr Renshaw,** in his speech on 27 September spelt it out in a little more detail. He said: >Again this year, despite strong protests from all Premiers, the Federal Government has cut States capital programs It is wrong for the Federal Government to suggest that the States are better off financially as a result of the Fraser Government's 'new federalism' policy. These past three years have seen a systematic reduction of a large number of federally funding capital programs to New South Wales ... I would not be doing my duty to the people of New South Wales if I failed to point out the inevitable consequences of the Federal Government's policies; there will eventually be a significant increase in unemployment in Australia- unless there is a change in the Federal Government's economic strategy. This is the background- the background of stringency imposed by the Federal Government, unparalleled in the post-war years- against which this year's capital works program has been framed. They were the words of the New South Wales State Treasurer, **Mr Renshaw.** That was exactly the point I made at the beginning of my own remarks. In the past, this Government's response to these criticisms has been to argue that cuts in funds for capital works can be substituted by funds coming out of allegedly greatly increased general purpose revenue. That is the section of the total Commonwealth funding which constitutes about 50 per cent of total payments to the States and which is paid to the States for them to use their own discretion as to how they spend it. I will make some comments on this aspect a little later. Again I want to look at a section of the speech which was made by **Mr Renshaw.** He said: >There are certain basic facts that should be put on record about the extent of the financial stringency imposed by the Federal Government. In the period from 1975-76 to 1979-80, prices have risen by 45 per cent and all Commonwealth Budget outlays have also risen by 45 per cent. Total Commonwealth payments to New South Wales have risen by only 35 per cent in the same period. Thus, if total Federal payments to New South Wales had kept pace with inflation and with the Federal Government's own total spending, New South Wales would have received over $300m more this year. **Mr Renshaw** 's comments were particularly strong. No doubt members of the Government will argue that it was only to be expected coming from a State Labor Treasurer. One of the great supporters of this Government's federalism policy in the past has been the Liberal Premier of Western Australia, **Sir Charles** Court. Even he is now in disagreement with the attitude of the present Fraser Government. In his loan estimate speech on 18 September this year he said: >Despite strong opposition from the Premiers, the Prime Minister and the Federal Treasurer would not budge in their attitude, for reasons related to the size of the Commonwealth deficit and the difficulties they foresaw in raising any greater sum on the domestic capital market. Although I acknowledge the tightness of the market, I consider that we should aim at raising an increased amount and pressed this point of view strongly. My concern, and that of all other Premiers, was for the impact the cut would have on our works program and, as a consequence, on employment. In our case, we faced an overall reduction of 6 per cent in funds available to finance works this year, which in real terms, meant a reduction of about 15 per cent in the physical volume of work which could be undertaken. This Government has done all in its power - He was speaking of the Western Australian Government: >To alleviate unemployment and the obdurate attitude of the Commonwealth was a bitter blow. It could only have the effect of worsening an already difficult unemployment problem. So said **Sir Charles.** The point that he was making is one we in the Opposition have made in this chamber from time to time over the past four years. In the past, State governments have attempted to counteract Federal Government policies to maintain reasonable levels of employment, but due to consistent Commonwealth restrictions of funds to the States, they now have very little feasibility left in this regard. As a result, the States are no longer able to generate employment from their own funds and this must contribute to a general rise in the level of unemployment throughout the country. It is often argued that these funds must be cut back in the fight against inflation. This view certainly does not commend itself to the Liberal Treasurer of Queensland, **Dr Edwards.** In his financial statement on the Queensland Budget on 20 September, he said: >I repeat what I have said on many occasions that while I agree that inflation must be contained, we do not agree that cut-back in capital works programs are necessary to achieve this important aim. I believe that full employment is not inconsistent with containing inflation. I am certain that an increased public capital works program can quickly generate additional activity in the economy. Expenditure in the building and construction industry results in additional demand also in all the industries servicing it. A total effect several times the value of the initial expenditure is thus produced by these flow-on effects. This is exactly what the Opposition has maintained ever since this policy was introduced. I have reiterated it today. It is clear from **Dr Edwards'** comments that the Opposition's objections to the proposals in this Bill are not just objections which have been raised by the Labor Opposition but, in fact, commend themselves to a wide section of the community, including significant members of the Liberal Party. {: .speaker-KSY} ##### Senator McAuliffe: -- Hear, hear! **Sir Gordon** Chalk before him, too. {: .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator WRIEDT: -That is quite correct. Under those circumstances one would not expect the Tasmanian Government to be out of step with the rest of the States. This was reflected in the speech of the Tasmanian Treasurer, **Mr Batt,** again on 1 8 September, in which he said: >When I delivered my first budget speech just over 12 months ago I expressed concern at the deterioration that had occurred in the state of Tasmania's finances since the advent of the Commonwealth 'new federalism' policy on 1 July 1 976. 1 discussed at some length the effect upon Tasmania of the deliberate Commonwealth policy to curtail the financial influence of the public sector in the economy and to restrict the purchasing power of moneys available to the States. It is with deep regret that I record a continuation of this short sighted Commonwealth attitude, with its consequential rising of unemployment, and human suffering. One of my greatest frustrations as a State Treasurer has been my inability to allocate sufficient funds for the relief of the unemployed, because of the financial strait-jacket imposed upon me by the Commonwealth. A disturbing trend that has become evident under 'new federalism' is the deterioration in the Federal funds allocated to Tasmania, relative to the sums allocated to other States. **Mr Batt** went on to say: >Because of the severe cutback in Federal funding, it has been obliged - That is the Tasmanian Government: >To make significant economies in some areas and it is has had to defer or postpone a number of highly desirable new services and projects. From that broad cross-section of views held by the various Treasurers and Premiers of the six States, it is possible to identify the consequences of the Federal Government's policy of cutting back on capital works. That there will be an increase in unemployment is not denied by the government. That is a most unsatisfactory position, given the current unemployment position in this country. It means that this Government's savage and inhumane treatment of people out of work is going to continue into the 1980s. There will be a reduction in essential services by State Governments as these Governments try to juggle between their various programs, doing so on an ever dwindling supply of money in real terms. Important infrastructure necessary for the continued development of this country will not be brought into existence. This will delay the progress that the Federal Government consistently says that it is seeking. Ultimately this will add to inflationary pressures because during times of economic recovery there will be increased competition for resources to carry out the things that we should be doing now. If these are the consequences of the policy, why is the Commonwealth persisting? Its basic argument is that it must cut back on these activities in the fight against inflation. As I have already indicated, the Liberal Treasurer of Queensland completely disagrees with this view. Surely the point is that these policies under Fraser federalism are no longer assisting the fight against inflation because, as we know, inflation is rising again. Although inflation did come down during the early stages of this Government there is no recent sign of any continued progress in this direction. As I have indicated, it is quite obvious that inflation is on the way up again. That was acknowledged in the recent Budget Speech made by the Federal Treasurer. It is now well known that the Fraser Government's policies are adding to inflation due to its tinkering with various policy measures- the health scheme is, I suppose, the best and first example that comes to mind- and its raising of very substantial indirect taxes. The most obvious example which comes to mind in that regard is the petrol tax which this year will net the Government something like $2,500m. There are now signs that the Government's antiinflationary policies are just not working at all and that some other measures must be taken to stimulate the economy and to restore it to a more healthy position. The Government said that when inflation came down unemployment would come down. It was wrong. Unemployment has continued to rise throughout the Government's term in office. The Government said that the investment allowance would encourage investment, thus leading to further jobs. Again it was wrong. The only real effect of the investment allowance was to substitute labour with machines, thus reducing the number of jobs that were available. Then the Government said that cutting back on the public sector would create room for the private sector, thus causing it to expand. Once again that has been shown to be wrong. The contraction in the public sector, particularly via these public works programs, has had a flow-on effect causing even greater contraction in the private sector. Another response of the Federal Government in defending its policy of reducing funds for capital works is to say that the States are well off. The Government uses two arguments to justify this proposition: Firstly, that the general purpose revenue payments have continued to rise rapidly; secondly, that all the States have been able to balance their budgets and cut taxes. Both of these arguments are false. Treasurer Renshaw in New South Wales demonstrated in a speech how the States are getting less in real terms under this Fraser federalism, even taking all of the payments into account. In fact, that is obvious just by looking at Budget Paper No. 7. Increases in total funds provided to the States over the past four years have been 6.9 per cent in the first year, 1 1.8 per cent in the second year, 4.8 per cent in the third year and 6.6 per cent in the fourth year- the present financial year. In each of those years the increases were less than the rate of inflation and constituted a substantial cut in real terms. Assertions that the Government has been generous with specific purpose revenue payments are irrelevant if the overall payments to the States show a reduction, which of course they do. The irony is that even the general purpose revenue payments are being propped up only by a guarantee that was introduced by the former Labor Government. Had this Government's federalism policy operated the States would have got a certain percentage of income tax receipts which would have yielded them considerably less than they have in fact received, because in each of the four years under this Government's program that figure has been below the figure mentioned in the guarantee arrangements introduced by that previous Government. This factor is very important this financial year because this is the financial year in which the guarantee finishes; it finishes on 30 June 1980. Inevitably, unless some adjustments are made, State revenues will fall quite dramatically from the next financial year as they will no longer be sustained by the guarantee. It is for this reason that the States have demanded a special Premiers Conference to consider this issue. This conference will be held next month but to date the Prime Minister **(Mr Malcolm Fraser)** has refused to make any concessions to the States. At the official level at which discussions have taken place the Government has made it quite clear that it has no intention of relenting on the policy that it has adopted; that is, that the guarantee will go out on 30 June next year with all the consequences that will flow from that. But, of course, next year is election year. I suppose it is possible that the Prime Minister will change his mind by the time the Premiers Conference is held. Of course, that will not affect the longer term position. Before I turn to the longer term position I want to deal with the second argument raised by the Commonwealth, and that is the argument that the States now have to balance their budgets and cut taxes. That statement is quite misleading. State tax collections have continued to rise quite sharply. It is true that in many cases the States have not been forced to increase the rate of taxation, but this is because the amount that they are collecting in taxes has been more than they expected. This has come about because of the underestimation of the inflation rate in each Federal Budget. Of course, the States have made their projections on the basis of Commonwealth projections of inflation. Since inflation has risen, therefore State tax collections have continued to rise. The minor tax concessions which are being made on such things as gift duty do not really have any significant effect on the total tax collections. In fact, the statement is quite false. The rates of some taxes and charges in various States have gone up to replace the concessions that have been made in other areas. So what we are finding is that as we aproach this crucial year of 1980- crucial in the sense of the federalism policy- we find that all State Premiers are now very concerned as to what will happen to the guarantee. As we know, the Prime Minister has written to the Premiers about this guarantee. Of course, the letter to the Tasmanian Premier was made public just prior to the last Tasmanian State election. We ought to remind ourselves of what was said in that letter. The Prime Minister wrote: >I must reiterate that the Commonwealth considers that the current guarantee formula is too generous, and make the obvious point that any proposal for continuation in its present form would not be acceptable. I would also wish to reiterate that an important aspect of the tax sharing arrangements is the emphasis on the responsibility for the States, including responsibility for raising revenue themselves in line with their own priorities. That paragraph sums up the position. Two important points are made there. Firstly, **Mr Fraser** is saying to the States: 'From here on, as from 30 June 1 980, we will make it tougher for you than we have already made it. We have been too generous with you. We admit that the total payments we have made to you in the past four years do not even keep up with the rate of inflation '. That is the first point that is made. He is saying: We have made it tough but we will make it tougher'. The second point is the more ominous when he says: >I would also wish to reiterate that an important aspect of the tax sharing arrangements is the emphasis on responsibility for the States, including responsibility for raising revenue themselves in line with their own priorities. That, of course, is the State income tax message. He is saying to the States: 'If you want these things then you will pay for them. You will have to raise your own revenue. You will introduce Stage 2 of federalism. You will introduce a State income tax. ' If this Government is allowed to go on with this Fraser federalism policy- no matter what any State Premier may say- nothing is more sure than that the States will be facing State income tax within the lifetime of the next Parliament. On behalf of the Opposition I move the following amendment: >At the end of the motion, add ', but the Senate is of the opinion that the Bill, by decimating Commonwealth grants for State capital works: > >causes deterioration in the supply and quality of essential services, increasing inefficiency, and reduced productive capacity; > >severely retards recovery of the depressed building and construction industry; > >3 ) increases unemployment, and > >shows 'new Federalism' to be a deceptive means of reducing Commonwealth payments to the States so as to force them to introduce a second income tax '. {: #subdebate-48-0-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP -- I think it is very necessary to remind the Senate and those who are listening that, believe it or not, we are debating a Bill, called the States Grants (Capital Assistance) Bill 1979. 1 take it that the principle in this Bill is rejected by the Opposition. The principle in this Bill, of course, is that in 1 970 a Liberal Federal Government decided that it would want to reduce the debt servicing of the States and to help them. This I take it is what the Labor Party is opposing, because otherwise there can be no sense to it. This Bill in fact says that in order to help the States the Liberal Federal Government believes that the Commonwealth should take away the total burden of one-third of the States' loan raisings and that they will get it as a straight payment which they will not have to repay, nor will they have to service the interest rate. This is what the Bill is about. It is a Bill to give $41 5m to the States without any repayment conditions. Somehow or other the Leader of the Opposition **(Senator Wriedt)** has escaped a knowledge of the Bill. What he has done is what he did in the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill 1979. He has taken a flight of fancy and he has said: 'Here is our chance to show that the amount of moneys being made available to the States is not enough, and what we need is to give more. Do you not know that that is what the Labor Party's policy is? We have always maintained this. More money should be given to create expansions'. But has the Labor Party always maintained that, because I believe that the Federal Leader of the Opposition **(Mr Hayden)** maintained exactly the opposite, and I have never heard him say otherwise. Let us listen to what **Mr Hayden** said, and he has never said otherwise. He stated: >We are no longer operating in that simple Keynesian world in which some reduction in unemployment could, apparently, always be purchased at the cost of some more inflation. Today, it is inflation itself which is the central policy problem. More inflation simply leads to more unemployment. So here is the situation. This is not what **Mr Hayden** said the principles were, and incidentally which was correct to say. **Senator Wriedt** is saying that there ought to be more capacity for the States. Presumably the States should be given more money both by way of straight grant and by way of borrowing capacity. Of course **Mr Hayden** said: 'Watch it. If you increase the volume of money and you do this you can force up interest rates, you can force up inflation, and you do not in fact increase employment, In fact, you create unemployment'. So we have straight away a very large conflict of interest between the Federal Leader of the Opposition and **Senator Wriedt.** But it is demonstrable in this world today that the control of inflation is the primary situation, and that what I read out from **Mr Hayden** 's statement is fundamentally right, and what **Senator Wriedt** said is fundamentally wrong. Let me demonstrate it. In 1974-75 the then Labor Government made the largest expansion of public expenditure I think ever on record. What happened? Was there more employment? On the contrary. In a year there was the greatest flood of unemployment that has ever happened, with 100,000 or more people out of jobs straight away, inflation going up and a shrinking of production. So we now have quite clearly demonstrated, in a crucible, what happens if we decide simply on the process of expanding money to create employment. In fact the reverse happened in 1974-75. What **Mr Hayden** said would happen did happen, and it would happen in the future. Today it is inflation itself which is the central policy problem. More inflation simply leads to more unemployment. That is **Mr Hayden** 's statement, and that in fact happened under Labor policies. There is a very simple situation which I have stated here repeatedly. Five years ago this country had gone from being the lowest inflation country in the world into the top quarter of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. We were costed out of world markets. By the proper application of the control of money supply in Australia we have now gone to the lowest quarter of inflation countries, and we are back in a situation of favourable conditions in world trade. This is better than we have had for some 10 years. Indeed if one wants to call further witness, may I call the member elect for Wills in his role as a member of the Crawford Study Group on Structural Adjustment. It says, in effect, that in a country where our real wealth comes from mining and agriculture, which are non-labour intensive, if we want to employ people we have to employ them in manufacturing and manufacturing for export. The only way we will employ people is to get costs down. I am bound to say that a man named Hawke, in his capacity as a member of the Board of the Reserve Bank of Australia said this, and a man named Hawke, in his capacity as a member of the Crawford Study Group said this. It is right, as it happens, and **Mr Hayden** had said it before. In other words, the basic situation in this country is to get inflation and interest rates under control. If we want to look at the world at this moment let us look at the interest rate level which is running at 1 5 per cent in America. Look at the rate it is running at in England. It is demonstrably dangerous for us to press upon interest rates at a time when world pressure is pressing on our interest rates. If we go into an active borrowing in this country to force up interest rates, we are disemploying people. If, instead of doing that, we simply print currency, we are inflating with irresponsibility. This is the simple situation. We have had this situation demonstrably, that this Bill is one of the very many great reforms of Liberal governments. It is a Bill to lift and ease the burden of States - that was not mentioned- by relieving them of debt servicing and interest servicing. The States themselves, despite what **Senator Wriedt** has said, have demonstrated that whereas in previous years under the Labor Government they had to increase taxes and cut services, they are now having a track record of balancing Budgets. It is true that the revenue, the tax disbursements to the States this year will be up 1 3.2 per cent. It is possible for the States to use revenue if they want to back their capital works. If we look at the demonstrated Budgets of the States we will see that, one by one, they have produced Budgets which are relatively balanced, and which have enabled tax cuts as such. They have got on with the job. By using the thesis that **Senator Wriedt** has announced tonight, that is, simply by generating more money, the Labor Party demonstrated that that created unemployment. **Mr Hayden** says it does. The Hawke and Crawford thesis is that the only way to employ people is to get costs down, particularly in manufacturing industries, and make industries competitive on world markets. We are in fact achieving this kind of objective, I can only say to those honourable senators who are trying to interject that they forget that in 1 974, because of inflation, 1 10,000 people were shed from manufacturing industry in one go. So demonstrably inflation created unemployment. On all the authorities I have given the amendment is demonstrably wrong. The Government rejects the amendment and commends the Bill to the Senate. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. In Committee The Bill. {: #subdebate-48-0-s2 .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania -- I refer again to a letter by the Prime Minister **(Mr Malcolm Fraser)** to which I referred during the second reading debate. I take issue with the Minister for Education **(Senator Carrick)** on one point in particular about this letter. I do not wish to rehash the arguments but so much of what the Minister said was demonstrably false. These arguments have been restated in this chamber for four years and have been demonstrably false for four years. During my remarks I quoted statements in State Budget speeches by State Treasurers, who ought to know the position the States are in. Labor and Liberal Treasurers demonstrate quite clearly the difficult and parlous financial position which the States are now in as a result of this policy. This is the policy that **Senator Carrick** and the Fraser Government claim has been generous; in fact they claim the policy has been too generous to the States. I notice that during his remarks he did not quote one Premier, one State Treasurer, Labor or Liberal, to support this policy and to support the remarks which he has been making here year after year for the last four years. All we get every time are generalised statements that the States are better off. Honourable senators can throw a thousand quotes at him from the Premiers and the State Treasurers. As I say, they are the people who know, and they are the ones who have to balance the Budgets. Honourable senators could quote a thousand of them and he would ignore every one and could not come back with one counter quote because not one counter quote exists. I challenge him to stand up now and give us a quote by one State Premier or one State Treasurer in the last four years who says that he is getting a great deal out of Fraser federalism. I challenge him to do it. I refer again to page 7 of Budget Paper No. 7. The Minister referred to the 13 per cent increase in general revenue payments. Page 7 of Budget Paper No. 7 presented by the Treasurer **(Mr** Howard) shows the increases in total payments to the States under the Fraser federalism policy. The Treasurer says: >In the first year of this policy we increased total payments to the States by5.6 per cent. We know, of course, that inflation was running at twice that rate in that financial year. **Mr Howard** says: >In the next year we increased those total payments by 1 1.9 percent. That was still below the then inflation rate. He states: >In the third year we increased them by 4.8 per cent. That was half the inflation rate. He goes on: >This year there will be an increase of 6.6 per cent. That is still a little over half the inflation rate. One would not need any knowledge at all of inflation or what money policy means not to know that that means in real terms the States are getting less and less money every year. This is one of the cardinal reasons why the economy remains stagnant. In the light of those figures, I ask the Minister: Is that the Government's version of a generous deal for the States? I come again to the letter that the Prime Minister wrote to the States. In this letter to the Premier of Tasmania dated 12 July he said: >I must reiterate that the Commonwealth considers that the current guarantee formula is too generous, and make the obvious point that any proposal for continuation in its present form would not be acceptable. I ask the Minister: Is he prepared to state tonight that the Commonwealth is to give the States a deal at least as good as the poor one they have had over the past four years, or will he admit here and now that the Commonwealth is to make it worse for the States after 30 June 1 980? {: #subdebate-48-0-s3 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP -- I leave most of the question and answer rhetoric to **Senator Wriedt.** He is very good at that. He knows that the Premiers and the Prime Minister will come together at a Premiers Conference and from that Conference will come the results for the future. The basis of his speech was to challenge me to state the success of the Premiers' story. I am happy to do so. I now state the position of State Budgets for this year against a background of inflation running at between 8 per cent and 9 per cent. In Tasmania total Budget expenditure is up 1 1.9 per cent, against an 8 per cent or 9 per cent inflation rate. In other words, Tasmania has been able to increase its total expenditure in real money. {: .speaker-VD4} ##### Senator Evans: -- Stop being so shifty; answer the question. {: .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK: -In Victoria expenditure is up 13.8 percent. {: .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator Wriedt: -- He will never answer it if he is here for a thousand years. {: .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK: -I am glad the woodpeckers are pecking away. It has been alleged that the States do not have sufficient money. I am referring to the 1979-80 Budget of each of the States and the capacity of the States to increase their money over the last year. Against an inflation rate of 8 per cent to 9 per cent, what have they been able to do regarding revenue and capital? Tasmania is up 1 1.9 per cent; Victoria is up 13.8 per cent; Queensland is up 11.6 per cent; Western Australia is up 12.1 per cent; South Australia is up 9.5 per cent. These are the Premiers' statements on this. For instance, in Victoria payroll tax exemption level has been raised by 27 per cent, and will bring in $8m. The gift duty exemption level has been increased by 50 per cent. The land tax exemption level has been raised for principal residents so that there will be no tax on the first $40,000. There will be complete exemption of estates from probate duty. In Queensland payroll tax exemption levels have been raised; land tax exemption levels have been raised; and stamp duty on purchase has been reduced. In Western Australia death duties have been abolished, and payroll tax exemption levels have been raised. Do we need to go on? {: .speaker-VD4} ##### Senator Evans: -- We need to produce one quote from one happy Premier. {: .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK: -- Every State has shown one thing quite clearly- that is that it has been able to cut its taxes. This shows that the States had revenue they could have used for other things. At the same time the States have increased their total revenue and capital expenditure for the current year in real values by more than the inflation rate. The Premiers have spoken. The State Budgets have made that clear. I commend the Bill. {: #subdebate-48-0-s4 .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania -- After that performance it astonishes me- that I should be accused of rhetoric. I ask the Minister for Education **(Senator Carrick)** to produce a statement by any Premier, ' Labor or Liberal, supporting the new Fraser federalism policy. Of course **Senator Carrick** cannot produce one because one does not exist. He knows that as well as I do. So he raised the argument of there being increases in State Budgets, which I dealt with during the course of my speech in the second reading debate. If the States have been able to increase their revenues by 1 1 or 12 per cent- whatever figures he quoted; and there have been those increases- the fact is that it is not due to what the Government has done for them. It has squeezed them. As I have indicated in the figures I have given, the Government has deliberately contracted in real terms the money it is giving the States. The States make up the difference by increasing charges and through the effect of increasing inflation. In every Federal Budget the Government tries to create the impression that inflation is coming down. Therefore it gives a false picture of inflation. In the ensuing financial year the inflation rate increases and the States make their calculations on the basis of the inflation rate that is recorded in the Federal Budget. That is the explanation of the figures that **Senator Carrick** has just given and he knows it. I come back to the original point. Do not let any of us lose sight of the reason why the States are being squeezed. They are being squeezed to put them into a position in which they will have to introduce State income taxes. It is in the Government's policy which was spelt out in 1975. It was spelt out again in the letter of the Prime Minister **(Mr Malcolm Fraser).** He referred to the States having the responsibility for raising revenue themselves in line with their own priorities. What does that mean? Anyone who takes an interest in this subject knows what it means. The Prime Minister is as determined today as he was four years ago that he will put the States in a position in which they will introduce State income tax. The necessary legislation as we know passed through this Parliament in 1978. It was scheduled to come into effect on 1 July 1977 and because he had an election in mind for 1977 he was not game to force the issue. During the 1977 election campaign he refused, as did **Senator Carrick,** to accept the challenge which I, and probably others, issued on this point. I will not speak for the Minister but the Prime Minister certainly was directly challenged on this issue. He did not open his mouth on it because he did not want the Australian people alerted to the real intention of the Fraser federalism policy. That is not to reduce the taxation burden on taxpayers. That is not what the Government is all about. It says that it will reduce taxation at the federal level. It will transfer income tax from the Commonwealth to the States so that taxpayers will be no better off. The payments will be just passed over to the States. The Government claims to have the interests of the States at heart. I can only sound the warning again that at the end of this financial year that guarantee obviously will be discontinued. The Prime Minister will say: 'I have been too generous to you'. Just think of the implications of that. He is not exactly a generous person, as we all know. When he says: 'I have been too generous,' we must accept the consequences of what that means. That simply means that the screws will really go on after June 1980. The effects will not be felt until the financial year commencing 1981-82 because payments for the States are calculated on the previous financial year. {: .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator Mulvihill: -- He did say that life was not meant to be easy. {: .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator WRIEDT: -He certainly did, and he means it. Let the Australian people realise- the State Premiers already do- the significance and implications if this man is returned after the next election and allowed to continue with his policy of Fraser federalism. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. {:#subdebate-48-1} #### Third Reading Bill (on motion by **Senator Carrick)** read a third time. {: .page-start } page 2021 {:#debate-49} ### BILLS RETURNED FROM HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES The following Bills were returned from the House of Representatives without amendment: Homeless Persons Assistance Amendment Bill 1979. Crimes (Aircraft) Amendment Bill 1979. {: .page-start } page 2021 {:#debate-50} ### ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL AMENDMENT BILL 1979 {:#subdebate-50-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 25 October, on motion by **Senator Durack:** >That the Bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-50-0-s0 .speaker-VD4} ##### Senator EVANS:
Victoria -The Opposition does not oppose the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Amendment Bill. We have supported, both while in Opposition and when in government, the whole package of legislation which constitutes the new Federal administrative law- the Ombudsman Act, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act and the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. Of course, we will be supporting, in I hope its new and burnished form, the Freedom of Information Bill when it comes again before this Parliament. We are happy to assist the process of making the new administrative law more flexible and more efficient. By and large we see this Bill as having that effect so far as the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is concerned. Nonetheless, we approach the Bill with some reservations. The first of those reservations goes to the source of the various proposed changes which the Bill contains. The Attorney-General **(Senator Durack),** in his second reading speech, said that the propositions in the Bill principally stem from recommendations made to the Government by the Administrative Review Council. But the Minister in turn acknowledged that the recommendations contained in this legislation, the new legislative provisions, are by no means wholly the subject matter of recommendations from the Administrative Review Council. As yet he has not done the Senate the courtesy of telling us which of the provisions in the Bill are the subject of recommendation from the Council and which are the subject of the Government's initiative. If the provisions in question are from the Administrative Review Council the Opposition's position is that, subject perhaps to better explanation in some areas, the Opposition will accept them because we are satisfied with the credibility and the stature of that advisory body which is headed by the three ex officio members- **Mr Justice** Brennan, President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal; Professor Richardson, the Ombudsman; and **Mr Justice** Michael Kirby, Chairman of the Australian Law Reform Commission. If we can be persuaded and satisfied that the provisions in this Bill all come as a result of reasoned recommendations from the Administrative Review Council we will accept them with unanimity. But if they do not come from that source we will scrutinise them much more closely because we want to know precisely what departmental and governmental reasoning is behind such provisions. In particular, our task in distinguishing between what it is that we might be prepared to accept on that basis and what we may not is made more difficult by the fact that we do not know precisely what it is that the Administrative Review Council has recommended. I am led to understand that to the extent that the Council's recommendations do lie behind this Bill they are contained in its third annual report which is due to be tabled quite soon- within the next week, I understand- in this Parliament. Debate interrupted. {: .page-start } page 2022 {:#debate-51} ### ADJOURNMENT {:#subdebate-51-0} #### Aboriginal Affairs-Country Rail Services {: #subdebate-51-0-s0 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! In conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I formally put the question: >That the Senate do now adjourn. {: #subdebate-51-0-s1 .speaker-0V4} ##### Senator BONNER:
Queensland -- Tonight I raise a matter that concerns a young Aboriginal man named Eric Kyle, who is the Project Officer for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs in Queensland. I refer to an attack that was made on **Mr Kyle** by **Mr Bertoni,** the National Party member for Mount Isa. It is relevant that I mention tonight that I have known Eric Kyle since he was a very small child. I lived in the Aboriginal community of Palm Island for quite a number of years. I knew Eric Kyle's parents. His father was Andrew Kyle and his mother was Rose Kyle. They raised a fairly large family on Palm Island. Andrew Kyle was held in high esteem by not only the Aboriginal community of the island but also departmental officers, including the then Director of Aboriginal Affairs, **Mr Con** O'Leary, and the then Deputy Director, **Mr Percy** Richards. Andrew and his wife were accorded great respect by not only the departmental officers but also the whole of the Aboriginal community. They raised their family in much the same way as many Australian families are raised- to respect law and authority and all those things that most Australians hold dear. Eric Kyle was raised in that kind of family environment. His father died some years ago and Eric, in common with many other young Aboriginal people, moved away from Palm Island to take his place in the general Australian community. Eric settled perchance in the city of Mount Isa. Because young Eric Kyle's father and mother had been very much involved in community affairs on Palm Island and the advancement of the Aboriginal people he learnt from his parents that he should take an interest in such matters and do whatever he could to forward the cause of Aboriginals wherever he decided to live. Because he chose to live in Mount Isa, he decided to assist in that regard there and became a member of a number of organisations in that city. **Mr Eric** Kyle was attacked, viciously I believe, under privilege in the State Parliament of Queensland by the member for Mount Isa, **Mr Bertoni.** Despite the fact that **Mr Bertoni** was given a complete and absolute assurance by the federal Department of Aboriginal Affairs in Queensland that the allegations that he proposed to raise under privilege in the State House were without foundation, he went ahead and castigated **Mr Eric** Kyle in that Parliament. He was not satisfied with that. He made sure that the *North-West Star,* which is the paper that is distributed throughout Mount Isa, the city in which he and **Mr Kyle** live, printed extracts from Hansard in which he castigated and made those accusations against not only **Mr Kyle** but also another officer of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. The Department of Aboriginal Affairs not only has regional offices throughout the State of Queensland, but also has a central office situated in Brisbane. I am sure that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs **(Senator Chaney)** will have something to say later when I have finished what I have to say concerning the vicious attack by **Mr Bertoni** on both **Mr Kyle** and the other officer of the Department. In the course of his speech in the State Parliament **Mr Bertoni,** amongst other things, said: >There is always a danger that the public, who are concerned, understandably, with equally pressing and often more immediate problems, will confuse the Queensland programme for the assistance of Aboriginal and Islander citizens with the spendthrift policies initiated approximately six years ago by the Whitlam Government and continued, in large part, by the present Commonwealth Government. The policies of the Federal Government in relation to aboriginal affairs have been expounded by the Prime Minister **(Mr Malcolm Fraser)** and Ministers for Aboriginal Affairs. In the interim period of office of the present Government **Mr Bob** Ellicott introduced the policies of the Federal Government. They were pursued and carried on by the person who became the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, **Mr Ian** Viner, and then by the Honourable Fred Chaney when he became Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. The policy of the Federal Government is one of assisting Aboriginal and Islander people throughout this nation to take their place in the general Australian community as respected and responsible citizens having the right to determine and manage their own affairs. **Mr Bertoni,** the Queensland Government and the Department of Aboriginal and Islander Advancement in Queensland seem to differ substantially from what the Federal Government is endeavouring to do. As I said, the allegations that were made by **Mr Bertoni** could not be substantiated. As I understand it, on 8 August 1979 **Mr Bertoni** was advised by telephone that the Department could go no further regarding his oral allegations without a letter from him and facts supporting his complaints. The matters that were investigated on 17 September 1979 prove that **Mr Bertoni** was written to and advised that the complaints were not able to be substantiated but that the Department would be quite happy to discuss with him any of the problems that he mentioned. He took no advantage of the Department's offer to discuss these matters with him. On 2 October 1979 **Mr Bertoni** called at the office of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and stated that he was not happy with the departmental investigation. He said that he would not be prepared to accept the evidence. He said that he would attempt at a later date to say the denigrating things that he said in State Parliament. I do not quite understand the ways of the State *Hansard,* but it shows that in turn 29, after making the remarks I quoted earlier, **Mr Bertoni** went on to say: >There is a need for Queensland to put as much distance as possible between its policies and programmes, which are oriented towards practical goals, and the wildly experimental, wasteful and open-ended projects supported by the Commonwealth. I say this because the majority of Queenslanders and Australians are becoming increasingly fed up with the 'sit down' money paid by the Commonwealth to Aborigines, particularly in the Northern Territory, and the wasteful pouring of torrents of public funds into the bottomless pits of impracticalities and failed projects. If **Mr Bertoni** is referring to the unemployment benefit paid to Aboriginal people as sit down money, I would say that there are a substantial number of non-Aboriginal people in this nation who are also in receipt of what **Mr Bertoni** regards as sit down money. They also find themselves unemployed and unable to obtain a job and are in receipt of social security or unemployment benefits. I think it is quite unfair of **Mr Bertoni** to pick out the Aboriginal section of the Austraiian community and to regard the unemployment benefit that they receive as sit down money when there are about 300,000 Australians today in receipt of unemployment benefit. Why is he not saying that about the rest of the community? Why does he relate it just to Aboriginal people? **Mr Bertoni** made some very strong criticisms of the officers connected with the office of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs in Mt Isa. He read a letter which he alleged was sent to him by an Aboriginal person living in the Mt Isa area. But when he was challenged by a member of the Opposition to table that letter he was not prepared to do so. My information from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs in Queensland is that he has not made that letter available to the Department so that it can conduct a further and detailed investigation into the allegations he has made against **Mr Eric** Kyle. I have a copy of the Mt Isa newspaper, the *North- West Star,* which devotes almost half a page to **Mr Bertoni** 's speech in the State Parliament in which he made some very critical and, I would say, denigrating remarks against **Mr Eric** Kyle. In the article which appeared in the newspaper he was reported to have stated: >There is another gentleman in my area named **Mr Eric** Kyle. He is a project officer for the DAA. He is also a member of the executive of the ALP in Mt Isa. I do not care whether a man is a member of the Australian Labor Party, of the National Country Party or of whatever party he wants to belong to. If he is an officer of a department, is carrying out his duty according to the provisions laid down by the Government and is following the policy of the Government, I do not care what party he belongs to provided he is doing his job; and, as far as I am concerned, **Mr Eric** Kyle is doing his job. Fortunately, **Mr Kyle** was given the opportunity by the newspaper to reply to some of the allegations that were made by **Mr Bertoni.** In the article that appeared in that newspaper he said: >I have here a comment- Referring to **Mr Bertoni,** of course- from somebody who works for that "Balyanna" society. She writes.' This document - This is referring to **Mr Kyle's** comments in relation to the allegations by **Mr Bertoni-** was not tabled by **Mr Bertoni** and I am informed the writer was an Aboriginal man who is well known amongst the Aboriginal community and those who know the community. It appears to me that whilst **Mr Bertoni** was prepared to read this document into the State *Hansard* he was not prepared to table it, nor was he prepared to make it available to the Department of Aboriginal Affairs in Queensland so that an investigation could be carried out by the Department into the allegation made by this person. It appears as though **Mr Bertoni,** who is a member of the National Party, has taken it upon himself to castigate and denigrate a very responsible and respected member of the Mount Isa community because he is endeavouring to do something for his own people to promote their welfare and lift them out of the doldrums in which they find themselves at the moment. **Mr Kyle** has worked diligently for the Federal Department of Aboriginal Affairs to assist his own people. Because of his background and his upbringing, as I understand it, he has the confidence of the majority of the Aboriginal people in the Mount Isa community. He also has the confidence of a number of very responsible people in that community. I think it is a very low act when a member of a State parliament, under the privilege of parliament, takes to task a person without being able to substantiate any of the things that the member mentions in his speech in the State parliament. I have with me a number of telegrams. I think it is important that I read out at least two of the telegrams I have received from a number of people who support **Mr Kyle** and who have asked me to do something in relation to taking up the matter which was raised by **Mr Bertoni** in relation to **Mr Eric** Kyle. One of the telegrams comes from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Legal Service in Cairns. The telegram sent to me reads: >The *North West Star* Mount Isa has published an account on Eric Kyle by **Mr Bertoni** MLA in State Parliament. Legal Service is disgusted that this sort of biased attack can be made on respected black leaders. Could you approach **Senator Chaney** to make public rebuttal on Bertoni 's attack. {:#subdebate-51-1} #### Len Watson, Executive Officer, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Legal Service The other telegram reads: >On behalf of Far North Queensland Branch of Aboriginal Legal Service I seek your support in condemning Bertoni 's attack on Eric Kyle as published by *North-west Star.* We feel that this sort of muckraking done under privilege in State Parliament must not be condoned. {:#subdebate-51-2} #### Tom Brown, Chairman, Far North Queensland Branch, Aboriginal Legal Service I have quite a number of those types of telegrams, which I did not bring into the chamber tonight. I think it was important to read at least the telegrams I did read, showing the great amount of support which exists for Eric Kyle and the condemnation which people feel for **Mr Bertoni** for his vicious and unsubstantiated attack on an Aboriginal person who is trying to do the best he can for an Aboriginal community in a part of Queensland which certainly needs a lot of support from all sections of the community. The other matter I raised tonight concerns the report of the Director of the Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement in Queensland to the Hon. Charles Porter, M.L.A., the Minister for Aboriginal and Island Affairs in Brisbane. The report contains some very strong criticisms by the Director, who happens to be a member of the Queensland Public Service. If I recall correctly, some years ago when the Whitlam Government was in power- I think **Senator Cavanagh** will recall this matter quite vividly- a member of the Commonwealth Public Service, namely, Charles Perkins, was quite critical of the then Whitlam Government and particularly the then Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, **Senator Cavanagh.** Because **Mr Charles** Perkins was a public servant, many people raised a hue and cry that a public servant should have dared to criticise a Minister and a government in relation to Aboriginal affairs. As a matter of fact, as I recall, **Mr Charles** Perkins was suspended from the Public Service for a short period because of his criticism of the Government and the Minister of the day. He was a Federal or Commonwealth public servant- whichever one wishes to call it- but he was criticised. I recall quite vividly that many of my colleagues who were then in opposition were saying: 'What right has a public servant to criticise the Government or to criticise a Minister?' Many of my colleagues who were then in opposition were critical of that public servant because he dared to speak out against a government and a Minister of the Crown on Aboriginal affairs. Now a State public servant, the head of a department in Queensland, **Mr Paddy** Killoran has done exactly the same. I am sure that many honourable senators in the chamber tonightperhaps I should not say tonight because very few honourable senators are in the chamber tonight- from both sides will have read or could have read the report of the Director of the Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement in Queensland. But I hear no comment whatsoever from either side of the chamber in condemnation of a Queensland public servant who has dared to criticise the Federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the Hon. Fred Chaney, and the Federal Government for their policies in relation to Aboriginal affairs. Let me go through the report. I think it is very important that I do so and inform honourable senators of the comments made by that Queensland public servant, who seems to be completely above the law because he seems to be able to say what he likes about the Federal Government. Not the Queensland Minister, not the Queensland Government, but a Queensland public servant said those things about the policies of the Federal Government. He has condemned the attitude of the Federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and what he is trying to do to bring about self-determination and selfmanagement of Aborigines and the channelling of funds into Aboriginal affairs so that Aboriginal people, the indigenous people of this country, can take their place in society as respected and responsible citizens. Let me read from this report. It states: >At a time when it is apparently fashionable to attack the Public Service infrastructure which provides the administration and essential services of communities it is important to record that no council has accepted the financial and administrative responsibility for the running of community affairs to the extent for which provision has been made. Councils are legally able to carry out many of the functions provided by the Public Service administration and establish a greater degree of independence and self-management by raising the known revenues, receiving other public monies and accepting responsibility for the provision of services. **Mr Deputy President,** you as a Queenslander surely would not accept that as part of the Queensland Government's policies in relation to Aboriginal affairs. I ask honourable senators to have a look at some of the communities in Queensland. Have a look at Palm Island, Yarrabah, Cherbourg, Doomadgee, Aurukun, Mornington Island, Kowanyomo Mitchell River and all the other communities. As far as the Director in Queensland is concerned that is an absolute untruth. He goes on to say: >The present level of participation by community councils ranges across a broad spectrum with the most experienced and responsible forming a partnership in decision-making with the State Public Service administration. The mutual confidence points to the next step when councils accept sole responsibility for the provision of elected essential services. What a lot of nonsense. I know what is happening and I am sure that **Senator Keeffe** and **Senator Chaney** would categorically deny that this is happening in Aboriginal communities, except where the Federal Government has intervened in the case of Mornington Island and Aurukun. It has set them up as local governments, where at long last the Aboriginal people have some responsibilities for the administration of their own communities. The report continues: >Queensland policies which discourage handouts or sitdown style assistance, encourage council decision making powers to be matched by a responsibility for the performance of the functions over which it exercises authority to stand as acceptable to the broad society. What a lot of nonsense. What is the Director talking about when he refers to 'sit down money'? Again we have a director who is referring to Aboriginal people who are unable to gain employment. If they cannot be fully and adequately employed they are entitled to receive social security or unemployment benefits. A director, who is responsible for Aboriginal affairs, has called it sit down money. In Australia today there are some 300,000 people who are in receipt of what this man is calling sit down money. As a matter of fact, it is more than just sit down money. At the Gold Coast one can see the young people out surfing who are in receipt of social security or unemployment benefits. What do we call those payments then? Are they called surfing money? But because the Aborigines are in receipt of unemployment benefits it is referred to as sit down money by people like Bertoni and Paddy Killoran. The final part of the report from which I want to read is where in summary the Director says: >Councils have been consulted by the Public Service administration for over a decade. A number are partners in decision making and have launched their own projects. Nonprovision exists, and encouragement is given for councils to become independent local bodies responsible for the delivery of essential services. That only came about because of the intervention by the previous Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, **Mr Viner,** and the Federal Government in the case of Aurukun and Mornington Island. This was pursued later- I believe that more is to happen- by the present Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Aboriginal communities will eventually become self-determining bodies and will be able to manage their own affairs. This may be done through a form of local government or through the State Government's admitting that Aboriginal people are entitled to land rights and that their lands will be made available to them so that they can run their own communities as they see fit with encouragement by and consultation with a number of non- Aboriginal people who are prepared to give their advice and their counsel. In this way the Aboriginal communities will be able to manage and be responsible for their own affairs. I firmly believe that the Director of the Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement has overstepped the mark and should be taken to task for his criticism of the Federal Government and of its policies on Aboriginal affairs. I believe that the Federal Government has the policies that will ultimately determine not only the future of the Aboriginal people but also their intermingling, interaction and integration into the broader Australian community in the best way possible. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has worked diligently towards bringing these things about. I congratulate him and the Government for the way that they have endeavoured to bring about consultation with all of the State governments so that the policies of the Federal Government and the promises made by the Prime Minister **(Mr Malcolm Fraser)** on Aboriginal affairs will finally come to fruition. They are the policies and the ideals that I believe all Australians want for the indigenous people of this country. I strongly condemn the attitudes adopted and the things attempted by the member for Mount Isa, **Mr Bertoni,** and the Director of the Department of Aboriginal and Islander Advancement in Queensland. Their attitudes and the views that they espouse will do nothing but retard the advancement of the Aboriginal and Island people of this nation. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has a genuine feeling of empathy with the Aboriginal people and wants to bring about negotiation and not confrontation between the States and between people. We could then sit down around the table and sort out our problems and endeavour through a genuine concern for a people to bring about a solution to the many problems that we face at this time. The many problems facing the Aboriginal people must be sorted out through proper negotiation. We must sit down around the table and work out these problems not only to the advantage of the indigenous people but to the advantage of all the people of Australia. We could then set an example to the rest of the world in racial harmony. We would then be able to say to the rest of the world that this nation Wad done the right thing by its indigenous people. This can be brought about by men such as Fred Chaney, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. {: #subdebate-51-2-s0 .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLAREN:
South Australia -- I wish to raise a matter tonight which I have raised on many occasions in the Senate before. I refer to the curtailment and in some cases to the closure of country rail services in South Australia. I spoke at length on this matter as did my colleagues, **Senator Bishop, Senator Cavanagh** and **Senator Elstob,** during the debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1 ) in this chamber on 16 November last year. During that debate I reminded the Senate of a very large meeting which was held at Tailem Bend, which is in the heart of the railway services in the Murray lands of South Australia. I want to quote a statement made there by **Mr Dyason,** the general manager of the Australian National Railways, to put my remarks tonight in their proper perspective. At a meeting held at Tailem Bend on 28 August 1 978, **Mr Dyason** said: >The ANR was given the South Australian Railways to operate- not to destroy, and it gives us no pleasure to close lines or reduce services, and we will not undertake any such action before careful consideration and except under pressure. > >But present losses on the railway system are unacceptable to the Federal Government and it is the responsibility of the ANR to carry out the policies of that government. Whilst many people are now suffering because of closures and the curtailment of services and are criticising the ANR, it is only carrying out the bidding of this present Government which has the responsibility under the agreement transferring the South Australian country railways to the ANR. This agreement was enacted when we were in Federal Government. As **Mr Dyason** said, the ANR has to do the bidding of this present Government. On 23 October last I put a question to **Senator Chaney,** representing the Minister for Transport **(Mr Nixon),** about the closure of railway lines and particularly about a memorandum, which was circulating in the Riverland, instructing station masters not to initiate any business through their country rail stations. In reply, in talking about the arrangements that were made for the transfer, **Senator Chaney** said: >Those arrangements include the requirement of consultation when lines are being closed. I assume that both governments in consultation are concerned with the sorts of issues which are concerning the honourable senator and by the economics of the operation. On 3 1 October I received a letter from a **Mr R.** G. Evans of Mantung in South Australia. That is in the Murray lands. This letter was signed by 24 other persons who, in the main, are farmers, but a couple of them run the local store. I think one of them is the postmaster. I want to read that letter to the Senate. It was addressed to me, care of Federal Parliament, Canberra. It states: {:#subdebate-51-3} #### Dear Sir, We, the undersigned, wish to protest against the proposed closure of the Mantung Railway Station on the WaikerieKaroonda Railway Line. We ask you to use your influence- I do not know if I have any influence with this Government- to have the proposed closure deferred until possible alternatives can be investigated. We are fully aware that the railways must be made viable but believe that there is a lack of communication between the users of the railway system and the A.N.R. We request that representatives from the A.N.R., Federal and State Parliaments and the Railway Union, meet with Landowners and Business people on the WaikerieKaroonda line to discuss methods of decreasing costs and increasing freight revenue. The proposed regional freight centre to be established in the Riverland has some merit but we believe that this centre must be firstly established before the closing of railway stations. The proposed closing of four stations on the Waikerie-Karoonda line will close the entire railway system to SO per cent of residents living between these two towns. We do not oppose the reduction of train services. One regular weekly train service, stopping only when freight is to be delivered or picked up, would be sufficient. Special trains could handle all excess freight. We maintain, because of the energy crisis and the rising demand for firewood, that a greater volume of heavy freight will be sent to and from the Mantung Station in the future and ask you to arrange discussions between all parties concerned before closing the station. That letter was sent not only to me but also to the Federal member of Parliament for Barker **(Mr Porter)-** it is in his electorate- to the State member for Mallee, to **Senator Jessop,** to the State and Federal Ministers for Transport, the leader of the State Opposition and the Australian Railways Union. In this letter these 25 signatories ask for a meeting between the Federal and State members of Parliament, the Railways Union, landowners and business people and the ANR. I assure the Senate that the Australian Railways Union, as was the previous Minister for Transport for South Australia, **Mr Virgo,** who fought tooth and nail to prevent any of these lines being closed - {: #subdebate-51-3-s0 .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLAREN: -- The Minister who represents **Mr Nixon** in transport matters says that the State Government handed the railways over. That was an agreement. The Tasmanian Government did the same. They were not handed over. They were sold. {: .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator Bishop: -- Subject to certain conditions. {: .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLAREN: -- Yes, subject to certain conditions. What we are concerned about, as are these landholders, is that the conditions are not being complied with. All they are asking for is a consultation between all of the parties. Before the Minister said that the railways were handed over, I was saying that the previous Minister for Transport in South Australia, **Mr Virgo,** and the Australian Railways Union were quite prepared to consult with the landholders. That is detailed in a speech that I made here on 16 November. The *Hansard* record at page 2139 contains the names of all the persons who attended that large meeting in Tailem Bend to discuss with the people concerned the possible closure of lines in that area. When I made that speech my main thrust was on behalf of the members of the Australian Railways Union who were very concerned at their possible loss of jobs and probable transfer from Tailem Bend to other centres in South Australia. I also made mention of the fact that, if these lines were closed, an extra burden would be placed on the farming community and on people who lived in country centres. A reading of my speech will show that I said that if we closed these lines we would hand over transport services to private enterprise which would not care whether it gave a service at a reasonable cost to farmers. It wants to make a dollar. This Government- a great supporter of private enterprise- does not care whether we get a service as long as private enterprise is making a profit. I dare say that if we close more of these lines and we hand them over to private enterprise, it will only provide a service where it can make a profit. I do not suppose one could expect it to run where it cannot make a profit. That is only logical. The railway lines were put down in the first place to give a service to the country people. We ought to be seeing to it that that service is maintained. If the service is taken away, the Government will be faced next- I have said this beforewith a great demand from the private hauliers to upgrade the roads in the area so that they can run their great trucks on them. Again, this will be false economy by the Government. There is talk about losses incurred by country railways. It certainly is not costing the taxpayer as much money to subsidise the losses of railways as it costs the taxpayer to provide the heavy duty roads to carry the mammoth vehicles which now operate transport services. I make a plea to the Minister tonight to see that consultation is carried out with these people. Although his colleague has a copy of it, I will give him the letter. I will not incorporate it. On behalf of the people who signed it, I ask that some further effort be made to talk to these people. It may be that perhaps some of these people do not use the railway service. They might use private transport. I do not know. We have to maintain these country services. I have put the plea in this Parliament on many occasions. No doubt I will do the same again when we come to the transport section of the Appropriation Bills. So I will not be going into that aspect tonight. I do make the plea to the Minister to take this case up with his colleague, the Minister for Transport, and his officials in the Australian National Railways to see whether something can be done to maintain these services. Probably I do not agree with the second last paragraph of this leter. The farmers and the business people say that they do not oppose the reduction of train services. They say that one regular train service stopping only when freight is delivered or picked up would be sufficient. What these people fail to realise is that, if country railway services are cut to once a week, the ANR will not do maintenance work on the track. Eventually- I have said this before- after two or three years the track will become unusable. They will lose the service altogether. Quite apart from that, if a service is to be run only occasionally we will lose the crews from Tailem Bend where they operate from. They will be transfered and there will not be a crew there to man the train when it is required, particularly in the harvest season. This year there is a bumper grain crop again. Fruit comes down from the Waikerie line. When that fruit is ready to be shipped out by rail we will not be able to find a train crew to run a train, if the track is workable. If the maintenance work has not been kept up, a train will be unable to run on the track. The minutes of a meeting of the Tailem Bend branch of the railways union which was held in Tailem Bend on 27 August of this year when officers of the Australian National Railways were present point out that trains to Pinnaroo had been curtailed because of the state of the track and it cannot take a full train now. The number of wagons has to be cut down because the line will not take it. This is what we are going to find right throughout the Murray land if people falsely believe that one train a week will service them, because it will not. The track will not be maintained and they are going to be in desperate trouble. I ask the Minister to take this up on an urgent basis. I hope that some satisfaction can be given to the people in the country areas. {: #subdebate-51-3-s1 .speaker-K1Y} ##### Senator BISHOP:
South Australia -I want to add my support to what **Senator McLaren** said and to request the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs **(Senator Chaney)** to ask the Minister for Transport **(Mr Nixon)** at this stage to do something which he promised to do. In respect of the imminent closure of lines policy he said that he would, at an appropriate stage, confer with community interests and other interests about lines to be closed. The burden imposed on the Australian National Railways of cuts of $60m in this financial year has caused very heavy rationalisation policies. In addition to the matter which **Senator McLaren** mentioned there have been some very drastic reductions in the metropolitan services. I have in mind services to the Christie Downs area which is generally a profitable area for passengers, and the Port Pirie services. But more particularly, there is one case I would mention in the industrial area of Port Adelaide. The Australian National Railways administration has announced that it intends to almost cut out the activities of the Port Adelaide freight station which presently employs about 50 skilled workers. They are not required to accept, from November until February, the usual goods which would be accepted at that station. Finally the staff will be transferred to Mile End. The business people of Port Adelaide, the union, the railway staff and the community generally have protested about the cutting down of the Port Adelaide freight section. This resembles a case where a railway line might have to be closed. Upon that basis the Minister, in a deputation at which I was present, said he agreed that he has to consider community representations. I think that in those circumstances the Minister might well consider an appropriate meeting with the South Australian Minister for Transport and with the community and the railway unions. I think the Government's rationalisation policies, the policies to secure that saving which might be desirable, are imposing very heavy burdens on the railways administration. I can see a great merit in leaving the Port Adelaide freight section as it has always been as it serves a busy industrial centre, and caters for goods traffic which is generally profitable. Because of possible savings it might be transferred to a location 12 miles away at the Mile End station. If it is finally closed down the local Port Adelaide people will not have a facility. In addition the railway staff to keep their jobs will have to travel out of their district to an Adelaide metropolitan site some 12 miles away. I do not think the answers which have been given by the Minister previously really answer the questions we are putting up. It was agreed, of course, that with the transfer such problems would arise. But it has also been agreed by the Minister for Transport, **Mr Nixon,** that if there are community interests he will consider them. I suggest that it is also a matter for the State Minister for Transport. In those circumstances I support what **Senator McLaren** asked for, that at this stage the Minister might well consider a stay in the virtual closure of many lines and in the cutting out of passenger goods services, a step which might be avoided with better planning. {: #subdebate-51-3-s2 .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP -- I respond briefly to the comments made by **Senator McLaren** and **Senator Bishop** by saying that I will direct the attention of the Minister for Transport **(Mr Nixon)** to the remarks they made in the Senate this evening and to the contents of the letter which was referred to by **Senator McLaren** and which he has since handed me. I understand from what he said that the Minister will have in fact seen this letter, as it was sent to a number of parliamentarians. I will, however, make sure that his attention is directed to it. I was interested in the concession to logic that was made by **Senator McLaren** in his remarks. He put his remarks on that basis, namely, that they were a concession to logic. He said that private enterprise could operate only if it were able to make a profit. I am heartened by the concessions to logic which are also contained in the letter which he has tendered to me. For example, it states: >We are fully aware that the railways must be made viable. The people concerned addressed their petition on the basis that they wished to discuss methods of decreasing costs and increasing freight revenue. The letter also states: >We do not oppose the reduction of train services. I pick out those points because these issues do frequently come before the Senate. They are often raised by Government and Opposition senators. I think those simple points have to be borne in mind. They underline the difficulty which is faced by the Australian National Railways and indeed by the governments concerned in dealing with these matters. As I said before, I will convey to **Mr Nixon** the suggestions which have been made and seek from him a response to the views which have been put this evening. At somewhat greater length **Senator Bonner** came to the defence of a member of my Department, a **Mr Kyle,** who had been talked about in the Queensland Parliament, I think, on 18 October. **Senator Bonner** made a number of remarks in defence of **Mr Kyle** who is known to me. I have met him on my visits to Queensland. He is known to me both as an employee in my Department and as the Queensland President of the Aboriginal Legal Aid Service which is financed by the Commonwealth. I would like to make two general comments before getting down to the matters which were raised in the Queensland Parliament against **Mr Kyle.** The first point is that it is always a matter of difficult judgment for any of us in Parliament as to when we should use the Parliament as a forum to discuss the affairs of an individual. It is a difficult judgment. **Senator Bonner** in his remarks referred to the question of privilege. I can only make the general comment that I hope that all politicians exercise very careful judgment before they use this forum to express views about people who do not have the opportunity to reply directly within the forum. Allied to that first point I want to make the general comment that I welcome the fact that the *North-West Star* in Mount Isa, which reported at some length the attack on the public servants who were mentioned by **Mr Bertoni,** also printed on the same page and with an equally prominent headline a reply from **Mr Kyle.** I commend the newspaper for that. I think that in such circumstances it is important that an individual is given that sort of opportunity to defend his honour and integrity. The second general point that I want to make in responding to the comments made by **Senator Bonner** is that it is self-evident that I must rely on the briefing which I am able to obtain from my Department. In this case I have received from my Regional Director in Queensland, **Mr Don** O 'Rourke, information on the allegations which have been made. I think it is worth pointing out therefore, before I respond in detail to the comments made by **Senator Bonner,** that, according to the draft of the Queensland *Hansard* which I have seen, **Mr Bertoni** also made some remarks about **Mr Don** O 'Rourke. They are worth repeating here because it is on **Mr O** 'Rourke 's information that I have to rely. **Mr Bertoni** said, according to this draft *Hansard:* >I have written to Don O'Rourke, the Director of DAA here in Brisbane. He has been very co-operative in this matter and I have no objections to him. I think that he is a tremendous person. Then **Mr Scott** apparently interjected. I think he is a member of the Australian Labor Party. He said: >A very fair-minded man. Perhaps **Mr Scott** is not a member of the Labor Party. I just do not know him. He may well be a member of the Labor Party or the Opposition in Queensland. **Mr Bertoni** went on to say: >Yes. From my dealings with him, I think that he is a tremendous person. I make that comment because that is **Mr Bertoni** 's view and apparently the view of at least one other member of the Queensland Parliament of my Regional Director. I welcome that view because I know he is a loyal, devoted public servant who works extremely hard. I share the high opinion of him which has been expressed in the Queensland Parliament. As was indicated by **Senator Bonner,** it is a fact that **Mr Bertoni** originally made some allegations about the officers who were mentioned in the newspaper report and in the Parliament to the Acting Director of my Department in June of this year. The advice I have is that the allegations were thoroughly investigated and could not be substantiated and that on 8 August 1979 the Regional Director, **Mr O'Rourke,** advised **Mr Bertoni** by telephone that he could go no further regarding his oral allegations without a letter from him and facts supporting his complaints. Subsequent to that- on 15 August 1979- **Mr Bertoni** wrote to the Regional Director seeking an investigation into two specific allegations against **Mr Kyle.** The matters were investigated and on 17 September 1 979 **Mr Bertoni** was written to and advised that neither complaint appeared sustainable but that **Mr O'Rourke** would be quite happy to discuss any such problems with him. Subsequently- at the beginning of October this year- **Mr Bertoni** called at the Regional Office of the Department and advised that he was not happy with the departmental investigation. In fact, therefore, the complaints were originally made to the Regional Director, they were examined, and **Mr Bertoni** was advised that the complaints could not be sustained on investigation. I turn now to the allegations which were made in Parliament. Firstly, some general criticisms were made of the Mount Isa area office of my Department. In particular, the allegation was made that the area officer, **Mr Omond,** was using his position as area officer to promote the Australian Labor Party cause. My advice is that **Mr Omond** is an executive member of the ALP at Mount Isa but that there is no evidence to support the claim that he has used his position in the manner alleged. **Mr Bertoni** referred in the Queensland Parliament to signed documents from people who claim that money is missing from the Department. Money is missing from funds that have been allocated to Aboriginal organisations. Three specific documents are referred to. Firstly, there is a reference to a letter to **Mr Bertoni** from a woman who it is claimed works for the Balyanna Community Advancement Cooperative Society Ltd. Extracts from this letter are to be found in the *Hansard,* but the particular document was not tabled in the Queensland Parliament and, as far as I know, no copy has been made available to my Department. Two specific allegations have been made: Firstly, with respect to a grant of $2,800 for intercommunity visits, Balyanna spent $448 but the balance remains unacquitted; secondly, that $974 was spent on a charter to Mornington Island together with further expenditure of $526. The suggestion is that this expenditure was unauthorised. An additional fact is that the project officer in my Department, **Mr Kyle,** who has been referred to, is the President of that organisation. There have been some difficulties in investigating this matter because the precise document has not been available. However, the following facts have been revealed in respect of the two allegations that I have mentioned: Firstly, that in 1976-77, $2,880-not $2,800, a very minor point- was allocated to Balyanna for inter-community visits. A condition of that grant was that the area officers prior approval be obtained for specific expenditure. Departmental records show that the first expenditure of this money was $425 in 1977-78. The area officer gave his approval for this expenditure for a community visit on 9 December 1977. The 1977-78 audited financial statement acquits this expenditure. The second allegation which relates to charters to Mornington Island does in fact concern Balyanna. This expenditure was part of the grant totalling $2,880 for inter-community visits. Apparently the author of the document suggests that it did not relate to Balyanna, but in fact it did. The expenditure of $974 on charters and $526 on other items relates to the intercommunity visit by the Mornington Island dance group to Mount Isa as part of Nadok- the National Aboriginal Day Celebrations- from 13 to 15 July 1978. The expenditure was approved by the area officer, and can be identified in the audited financial statement for 1978-79. The first document referred to therefore is wrong in its assertion that the rest of the money cannot be accounted for. The $2,880 grant has been acquitted by the Society. **Mr Bertoni** states that the document dated 8 February 1979 has been sent to my Department in Canberra. Extracts from this document are referred to in *Hansard.* A response to this document was provided on 26 February 1979 by the Queensland office of my Department. So the original document was sent to my Department and a response was sent by the Regional Director in Queensland. I think the simplest thing is if I seek leave to have that response incorporated in *Hansard.* Leave granted. *The letter read as follows-* >75/789 > >26 February, 1979 Mrs E. D. Ah Sam P.O.Box 170, CLONCURRY, QLD 4824. {:#subdebate-51-4} #### Dear Mrs Ah Sam, I refer to your letter of 8 February, 1 979 in respect of the Balyanna Community Advancement Society and advise that I have had the allegations made by you investigated. I have been assured that the petition attached to your letter had not previously been received in the Department's Mt Isa Area Office and that your advice regarding attempts to make contact with that Office and officers of the Balyanna Society conflicts with other advice provided. As you are not doubt aware, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs encourages self-management within Aboriginal organisations which it funds and the rules governing the provision of grants to such organisations subject to their Boards of Directors to a high degree of accountability and responsibility- to both the Department and their members. The Department thus closely monitors operations and the utilisation of funds provided to organisations, including Balyanna, and I suggest that should you wish to pursue this matter further, you should make formal enquiries with the Balyanna Directors. Yours sincerely, (W.T.Barclay) for Regional Director- Queensland {:#subdebate-51-5} #### Thursday, 8 November 1979 {: #subdebate-51-5-s0 .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator CHANEY:
LP -- The document that was complained of was written by a tenant of Balyanna and the specific allegations contained in it are, firstly, a complaint about **Mr Kyle's** alleged dictatorial style as President of Balyanna with particular references to increases in rent, evictions, and the holding of meetings; and, secondly, that no audit of Balyanna affairs exists. This document was the subject of extensive departmental investigation, and the allegations raised were found to be groundless. Nothing new has been raised now and it should be reiterated that departmental requirements include the necessity for the submission of quarterly financial statements and an annual audited statement. This has been forthcoming from Balyanna and gives the lie to the assertion that $3,000 could not be accounted for. The third allegation relates to a statement by a tenant of Balyanna complaining about action with respect to entry into her house and removal of a dishwasher. These allegations have been investigated and again the claims made could not be substantiated. In that case there was a response to the allegations by me, and I think the simplest way would be if I could have the leave of the Senate to have that response incorporated in *Hansard.* Leave granted. *The letter read as follows-* 9 July 1979 {:#subdebate-51-6} #### Dear Ms Blackman, I received a telegram from you on 12 June advising me of the resignation of the Board of Directors of the Balyanna Advancement Co-operative Society Ltd and the cessation of administrative duties by that Society. I view the matters raised in your correspondence with concern. I understand that this action was partly prompted by the investigation by my Departmental Officers of certain allegations made to them against the Society's **President, Mr Kyle,** who, as you know, is also a Departmental Officer. While such action must be unpleasant for all parties concerned you will appreciate that my Department has a responsibility to determine the truth, if any, in allegations against D.A.A. officers. I am pleased, however, that all such allegations against **Mr Kyle** that have been investigated to date, have been found to be baseless. With regard to the matters you raised concerning interference by Departmental officers in the Aboriginal community's management of its own affairs, you will be aware that, within the terms of self-management, communities are required to account for their actions in accordance with guidelines laid down by my Department. In this respect my Department's policy is that where funds have been provided for the purposes of housing, houses should be allocated to tenants who are in most need of accommodation. I have requested that my Departmental officers in Mount Isa liaise with the Society in an attempt to resolve any misunderstandings that may still exist. At this stage, I can only encourage the former Directors to reconsider their decision and resume management of the affairs of the Society. If the Directors uphold their decision to resign, I feel you would be neglecting your responsibilities to your Co-operative's members if you did not immediately take steps to initiate a special general meeting of members to elect a new Board. Yours sincerely, (F. M. CHANEY) {:#subdebate-51-7} #### Ms L. Blackman, P.O. Box 62, MOUNT ISA Queensland 4825 {: #subdebate-51-7-s0 .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator CHANEY:
LP -- In addition, in the Queensland Parliament **Mr Bertoni** asserted that my departmental officers engaged in a publicity stunt over the recent Camooweal situation which received quite a lot of publicity. I think there was an allegation by the Queensland Minister that there were refugees from the Northern Territory at Camooweal. I must say that I was somewhat concerned about that allegation and took some personal interest in it. I sought to ensure that adequate provision would be made for the itinerants who habitually pass through Camooweal as part of their normal movement between Queensland and the Northern Territory. I am advised that Press coverage relating to that situation was organised by **Mr R.** Wing and the National Aboriginal Council member **Mr Tony** Assan who were concerned about the situation. But at no time did officers of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs institute or encourage any publicity. The question of **Mr Kyle** 's working for my Department and also being involved in a number of Aboriginal organisations does raise the possibility of conflict of interest. The fact is, I think, that many Aboriginal employees of my Department are people who are also actively engaged in working with their communities on a voluntary basis. Whilst it is clear that they must be careful to distinguish their duties as officers of my Department and as members of voluntary organisations, particularly at the current stage of Aboriginal development where Aboriginals of ability who are concerned about their people need to be involved in a voluntary capacity as well as in their full time work, I do not think that we should be seeking to put a stop to that. **Mr Kyle** is a member of the executive of a number of Aboriginal organisations. I have already mentioned perhaps the most important position. He is president of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Legal Service and president of the Balyanna Community Advancement Co-operative Society Ltd. He does not get any remuneration from these organisations. Certainly he has been advised on the importance of keeping his voluntary activities separate from his work activities and I think that no evidence has been put before me to show that he has allowed the two areas of activity to conflict. I would like to assure the Senate that all the allegations which have been raised over a period and which are now reflected in the speech made in the Queensland Parliament have been thoroughly investigated and, where appropriate, reinvestigated. None of the allegations made has been able to be substantiated by my Department. **Mr Bertoni** was made aware of that fact some time ago, as I indicated earlier in my remarks. I would not wish to underestimate the difficulties of some of my Department's officers in operating in areas where there is some conflict of policy between the Commonwealth and the State government. It puts those officers in a very difficult position and I think that in most cases they are fully aware of the difficulties involved and they conduct themselves with care to ensure that the line between carrying out their duties as officers of my Department, which includes implementing the policies of the Commonwealth Government with respect to Aboriginal affairs, and acting in a way which could be described as political with respect to the Queensland Government, is kept clearly drawn. It is a quite difficult area for them, I think, and if there are errors on any occasions, I think that is quite understandable. In making that remark I am in no way suggesting that in the present case that has occurred. But it has often occurred to me when I have been in Queensland and dealing with my officers that they must have quite a difficult row to hoe and it is perhaps to be understood that on occasions there are misunderstandings between them and those who are involved in the Queensland Government. But on this occasion I can only say that I regret that the attacks were made. It appears from the careful investigation which has been made through the highly regarded officer, **Mr O'Rourke,** that the allegations cannot be substantiated and therefore it is a great pity that the people involved have been put in the position where these public allegations have been made in the Queensland Parliament. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 12.8 a.m. (Thursday) {: .page-start } page 2033 {:#debate-52} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS The following answers to questions were circulated: {:#subdebate-52-0} #### Income Equalisation Deposits (Question No. 1793) {: #subdebate-52-0-s0 .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator Wriedt: asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 22 August 1979: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What was the total sum received in income equalisation deposits in each State for each month since, and including, December 1978. 1. What were the total sums withdrawn from income equalisation deposits in each month in each State since, and including, December 1978. 2. What was the total sum lent from income equalisation deposits to the Primary Industry Bank for each month since December 1978. {: #subdebate-52-0-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Amounts of income equalisation deposits as recorded in the Department of Finance Central Ledger are set out in Table 1 below: {: type="1" start="3"} 0. The Department of Finance has advised that the Income Equalisation Deposits Trust Account has had an investment of $30,000,000 with the Primary Industry Bank of Australia since 7 February 1979. A further investment of $45,000,000 was made on 21 September 1979 bringing the total level of investments of the Income Equalisation Deposits Trust Account with the Primary Industry Bank of Australia to $75,000,000. These are the only investments of the Income Equalisation Deposits Trust Account at present. {:#subdebate-52-1} #### Tax Avoidance (Question No. 1970) {: #subdebate-52-1-s0 .speaker-NG4} ##### Senator Lewis: asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 September 1979: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What has been the estimated number of taxpayers who have avoided payment of taxes, in part or as a whole, by the use of one or more of the following schemes of tax avoidance: (a) Curran schemes; (b) disposal of trading stock; (c) dividend stripping operations; (d) schemes designed to postpone tax liability; (e) deductions in certain pre-paid outgoings; and (f) other similar schemes, for each year from 1976-77 to 1978-79. 1. What has been the estimated loss of revenue from these tax avoidance schemes for those years. {: #subdebate-52-1-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) The information sought by the honourable senator is not available, but some information has been compiled relating to the number of taxpayers who have sought to avoid tax by participation in various schemes during the 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1977-78 income years. This is set out below: The number of participants in 1977-78 income year schemes was obtained from an examination of returns lodged by individuals and companies during 1978-79 in respect of the 1977-78 income year. Some less complete information on the earlier income years was compiled in association with this survey of 1 977-78 returns. Estimates of revenue lost during 1976-77 and 1977-78 financial years are not available. The revenue lost during 1978-79 as a result of schemes of this kind was estimated at $2 30m. A review of taxpayers' accounts at 30 June 1979 indicated that tax unpaid by 1 1,253 identified scheme participants amounted to $424m. Following later identification of more scheme participants the amount of unpaid tax is now known to have been $433m at 30 June 1 979. {:#subdebate-52-2} #### National Materials Handling Bureau (Question No. 2009) {: #subdebate-52-2-s0 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP asked the Minister representing the Minister for Productivity, upon notice, on 27 September 1979: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What was the cost of setting up the National Materials Handling Bureau in North Ryde. 1. How many staff are employed by the Bureau, and what is the Bureau 's annual operating cost. 2. What percentage of the Bureau's time is spent on advising private industry. 3. How many substantial reports, of 20 pages or more, have been issued since 1966 and made available to the general public as well as to industry. 4. Are a total of four reports from the operation of the Bureau since 1975 available to the public for a total cost of $ 1 5, as at 27 September 1979. 5. What real contribution has the Bureau made to increased productivity within industry. {: #subdebate-52-2-s1 .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator Chaney:
LP -The Minister for Productivity has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. $283,000. 1. As at 1 October 1979, forty-five full-time and two parttime staff were employed by the Bureau. The operating cost of the Bureau during the financial year 1978-79 was $814,400. 2. Approximately 50 per cent of the Bureau's time is spent directly in its industry advisory role. 3. Sixty-four. 4. Twenty-nine substantial reports arising from the Bureau's operations since 1975 have been made available to the public at prices between $5 and $20 each. 5. The Bureau is part of the Productivity Development Division of my Department and makes a significant contribution to the Productivity Improvement Programs conducted by that Division, particularly in relation to standards and educational matters in the materials handling field. Tax Rebate on Hearing Aids (Question No. 2052) {: #subdebate-52-2-s2 .speaker-EJ4} ##### Senator Sibraa: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1979: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What action is proposed to rectify the situation whereby there is no tax rebate for the purchase of hearing aids while there is a system of rebate for the purchase of eyeglasses. 1. Can the situation be alleviated by providing rebates for the purchase of hearing aids, or by providing any other form of direct assistance to deaf persons requiring these devices. {: #subdebate-52-2-s3 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. and (2) The costs of both hearing aids and spectacles can qualify as rebatable medical expenses and be taken into account in determining any concessional rebate to which a taxpayer may be entitled for these and various other private expenditures. In respect of spectacles the rebate is subject to the condition that they are supplied in accordance with a prescription made by a person legally qualified to test eyes or prescribe spectacles. For hearing aids there is no comparable condition. Projects Funded under Handicapped Persons Assistance Act (Question No. 2075) {: #subdebate-52-2-s4 .speaker-9V4} ##### Senator Grimes: asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 16 October 1979: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many projects are currently lodged for funding under the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act 1974. 1. How many of them are new projects, and what are the values of the projects. {: #subdebate-52-2-s5 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 469. 1. (a) 254 (excluding applications for extensions to existing approved services and applications for rental or premises). {: type="a" start="b"} 0. $39,367,201 (estimated capital cost, excluding equipment and recurrent subsidies). {:#subdebate-52-3} #### Iwasaki Sangyo Co. (Question No. 2082) {: #subdebate-52-3-s0 .speaker-L8O} ##### Senator Mason:
NEW SOUTH WALES asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 17 October 1979: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What is the text of the agreement between the Federal Government and the Iwasaki Sangyo Company. 1. Does the agreement: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. state that the Iwasaki Sangyo Company needs Federal Government approval even to negotiate more land deals; and 1. specifically forbid any expansion north of the franchise, as stated in the Melbourne *Age,* 1 1 October 1979. 2. Has the Iwasaki Sangyo Company been granted Federal Government permission to acquire land other than its persent holdings at Yeppoon, Queensland; if not, why has the company reportedly been negotiating for more land. {: #subdebate-52-3-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. The terms of the Government's foreign investment policy approval was the subject of a press release by the Treasurer on 30 July 1978. 1. (a) Yes. {: type="a" start="b"} 0. The extension of the boundaries of the tourist complex north of Corio Bay is prohibited. 2. Iwasaki Sangyo Co. (Aust.) Pty Ltd has sought the Government's approval to acquire land and in certain cases to complete contracts entered into subject to Government approval in respect of land in the Yeppoon area additional to that set out in the Franchise Agreement between the company and the Queensland Government The company has been reminded that the Government's approval has to be obtained before the company acquires, makes any arrangements, signs any contracts, or negotiates to acquire any additional land in any part of Australia. The company has also been informed that the Government does not propose to consider any proposals to acquire land additional to that set out in the Franchise Agreement until a detailed submission concerning its overall plans for any additional land acquisitions, and the reasons for any such proposals has been received by the Foreign Investment Review Board. In accordance with this advice to the company, interim orders under the Foreign Takeovers Act 1975 were issued on 25 October 1 979. The orders prohibit for a period of ninety days land acquisitions proposed by the company. {:#subdebate-52-4} #### Iwasaki Sangyo Co. (Question No. 2083) {: #subdebate-52-4-s0 .speaker-L8O} ##### Senator Mason: asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 17 October 1979: >Has a land owner in the Yeppoon area of Queensland admitted that the Isawaki Sangyo Company had put a deposit on a piece of land there with intentions of purchase; if so, what are the details. {: #subdebate-52-4-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >I refer the honourable senator to my answer to Question No. 2082 in today's *Hansard.* {:#subdebate-52-5} #### Berylium Oxide Packaging (Question No. 2095) {: #subdebate-52-5-s0 .speaker-L8O} ##### Senator Mason: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 1 7 October 1979: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Did an article in *Electronics Today International,* October 1979, claim that paste compounds containing Berylium Oxide were readily available in both professional and hobby electronics industries without packaging markings to indicate the compound is highly toxic. 1. Is it intended to inquire into this matter with a view to determining some action to be prescribed. {: #subdebate-52-5-s1 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle:
LP -- The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. I am aware that an article 'Berylium- how dangerous?' appeared in *Electronics Today International,* October 1979 and that it claims that this toxic substance may have no warning notices or labels attached to it. 1. The labelling of Berylium, including every salt, active principle and derivative of Berylium, has already been considered by the National Health and Medical Research Council. Council's Uniform Poisons Standards recommends that these substances be classified in Schedule 6 and thereby be subject to the following labelling requirement: Caution {: .page-start } page 2035 {:#debate-53} ### KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN READ SAFETY DIRECTIONS BEFORE OPENING The labelling of poisons or hazardous substances is a matter for the States or Territories and this recommendation has been forwarded to them for appropriate action. {:#subdebate-53-0} #### Shortage of Income Tax Forms (Question No. 2096) {: #subdebate-53-0-s0 .speaker-3V4} ##### Senator Chipp: asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 17 October 1979: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Has the Treasurer received complaints that income tax forms, especially Form A, are in short supply in Melbourne. 1. Has a shortage of income tax forms caused delays in submission of returns by taxation accountants and consequent delays in the receipt of tax rebates. 2. Does the Treasurer intend to have the situation investigated. {: #subdebate-53-0-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) No. Adequate supplies of return forms have been and are still available in Melbourne. Supplies of these forms were also made available to tax agents. 1. No. 2. 3 ) No. In view of the answers to ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) no investigation is considered necessary. {:#subdebate-53-1} #### Investigation of Tax Liabilities (Question No. 2103) {: #subdebate-53-1-s0 .speaker-L8O} ##### Senator Mason: asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 18 October 1979: >Has the Commissioner of Taxation instituted any inquiries into the tax liabilities of any individual mentioned in evidence at the New South Wales Royal Commission into Drugs, chaired by **Mr Justice** Woodward, or mentioned in comments by Counsel assisting the Commissioner, **Mr Fisher,** Q.C.: if not, when will such inquiries be instituted. {: #subdebate-53-1-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >The Commissioner of Taxation has advised that it is standard practice for his officers to follow closely the proceedings at public enquiries of this kind for the purpose of detecting possible tax evasion. Because of the secrecy provisions of the income tax law he is not able to furnish the information requested. I have no doubt, however, that his officers would be taking appropriate action to ensure that the requirements of the income tax law are met. {:#subdebate-53-2} #### Japanese Long Line Fishing (Question No. 2117) {: #subdebate-53-2-s0 .speaker-TJ4} ##### Senator Walsh: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 23 October 1979: >Will details of catches by Japanese long line tuna fishermen licensed under the Agreement on Fisheries between the Government of Australia and the Government of Japan, reported under Article VI 1. (b) of the Subsidiary Agreement, be made public? {: #subdebate-53-2-s1 .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster:
NCP/NP -- The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Yes. {:#subdebate-53-3} #### Taxation Appeals (Question No. 2118) {: #subdebate-53-3-s0 .speaker-3E4} ##### Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 October 1979: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) How many applications were lodged in each State and Territory of Australia with the Taxation Appeals Board for each financial year from 1975-76 to 1977-78. 1. How many of these appeals in each State and Territory were: (a) upheld; (b) rejected; and (c) settled before being considered by the Board. {: #subdebate-53-3-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The numbers of requests for reference to a Board of Review received in each State and Territory of Australia, the numbers of requests withdrawn by taxpayers, the numbers of requests allowed by the Commissioner or settled and the numbers of requests forwarded to the Commissioner of Taxation in Canberra for transmission to Boards of Review were as follows:- Industrial Accidents {: #subdebate-53-3-s2 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -On 18 September 1979 *(Hansard,* page 752) **Senator Mcintosh** asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer a question without notice concerning industrial accidents. The Treasurer has provided the following information in answer to the honourable senator's question: >In part 10 of my reply to Senate Question No. 1675 *(Hansard,* 21 August 1979, page 75) I outlined a number of factors which have delayed implementation of the Statistician's program for the development of uniform and comprehensive statistics of industrial accidents. > >The Statistician has assured me that he recognises the importance of this project and that at no time has it been shelved. He has indicated that some progress is being made, despite the many problems being encountered. During the past year resources have been allocated to the introduction of a collection of industrial accident statistics in the Northern Territory, and steps are being taken at present to fill other gaps in the coverage of the statistics. The Statistician will be allocating some further resources to the project as from 1980-81. > >Any further allocation of additional resources would have to be considered in the context of the overall work program of the ABS. Nevertheless the Statistician expects that a number of aims of the standardisation program will be achieved within a reasonably short period.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 7 November 1979, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1979/19791107_senate_31_s83/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant