Senate
28 April 1980

31st Parliament · 1st Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Condor Laucke) took the chair at 2.30 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1799

PETITIONS

National Women’s Advisory Council

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 67 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 representative without intervention and interference by an unrepresentative ‘Advisory Council’.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Social Security Benefits

Senator LAJOVIC:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 45 citizens of Australia:

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

That there is an urgent need to ensure that the living standard of pensioners will not decline, as indeed the present level of cash benefits in real terms requires upward adjustment beyond indexation related to the movement of the Consumer Price Index. By this and other means your petitioners urge that action be taken to:

Adjust all pensions and benefits quarterly to the consumer price index, including the ‘fixed ‘ 70 ‘s rate.

Raise all pensions and benefits to at least 30 per cent of the average weekly earnings.

Taxation relief for pensioners and others on low incomes by:

The present static threshold of $75 per week for taxation purposes be increased to $ 100 per week.

A substantial reduction in indirect taxation on consumer goods.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

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

Social Security Benefits

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

That there is an urgent need to ensure that the living standard of pensioners will not decline, as indeed the present level of cash benefits in real terms requires upward adjustment beyond indexation related to the movement of the Consumer Price Index. By this and other means your petitioners urge that action be taken to:

  1. Adjust all pensions and benefits quarterly to the Consumer Price Index, including the ‘ fixed ‘ 70 ‘s rate.
  2. Raise all pensions and benefits to at least 30 percent of the average weekly earnings.
  3. Taxation relief for pensioners and others on low incomes by:

    1. The present static threshold of $75 per week for taxation purposes be increased to $ 100 per week.
    2. A substantial reduction in indirect taxation on consumer goods.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Peter Baume, Carrick and Puplick.

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 Womenof 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 representative without intervention and interference by an unrepresentative ‘Advisory Council. ‘

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle.

Petition received.

Taxation of Child-Care Expenses

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

Taxpayers who incur child-care expenses in order to earn income should be able to have those expenses exempt from income taxation in the same way as other taxpayers can deduct business expenses from their assessable income.

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

Petition received.

National Women’s Advisory Council

To the honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament.

The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the National Women’s Advisory Council and request the Government to abolish the Council.

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

Petition received.

Metric System

To the honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.

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

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

Petition received.

page 1800

PUBLIC DUTY AND PRIVATE INTEREST

Notice of Motion

Senator EVANS:
Victoria

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

That the Senate:

1 ) Notes the finding of the Bowen Committee of Inquiry on Public Duty and Private Interest that:

It is now accepted that judges should not engage in business or in any way be associated. with business institutions, for example as director, trustee, or adviser;

Notes that the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, Sir Garfield Barwick, during his tenure as Chief Justice, appears from documents on public record to have engaged in or been associated with extensive business transactions, involving land and share dealings, in his capacity as Governing and Managing Director of the New South Wales registered company, Mundroola Pty Ltd;

Notes further that it appears from documents on public record that Mundroola Pty Ltd had shares in certain companies, namely Ampol, Brambles and CSR, at or about the time that such companies, or companies associated with them, were engaged in litigation before the High Court, and that the Chief Justice appears to have participated in the hearing and adjudication of such matters without either disqualifying himself or disclosing the nature of his interest in those companies;

Notes further that it appears from documents on public record that another director of Mundroola Pty Ltd., Mr L. J. Thompson, is or was at the time of the relevant litigation, a director of the companies, or companies associated with them, referred to in (3) above;

5 ) Expresses its concern that the Chief Justice ‘s involvement in the affairs of Mundroola Pty Ltd may in all the circumstances have been such as to involve a significant conflict between public duty and private interest and to have constituted behaviour tending to imperil public confidence in the administration of justice in this country; and

Accordingly, resolves-

1 ) that a Joint Select Committee of the Parliament be appointed to inquire into and report on:

the holding by the Chief Justice of a directorship in a private company, Mundroola Pty Ltd;

b ) the nature and extent of the involvement of the Chief Justice in the land, share and other business dealings of Mundroola Pty Ltd;

the hearing and adjudication by the Chief Justice of matters involving companies, or companies associated with them, in which Mundroola Pty Ltd held shares;

the hearing and adjudication by the Chief Justice of matters involving companies, or companies associated with them, a director of which was a fellow director of the Chief Justice ‘s in Mundroola Pty Ltd;

the extent to which the Chief Justice heard and adjudicated matters involving questions of law in taxation, real property, company law and other areas of relevance or potential relevance to the conduct of business activities by Mundroola Pty Ltd;

the extent to which the Chief Justice has engaged in business otherwise than in association with Mundroola Pty Ltd or been associated with other business institutions as a director, trustee or adviser;

whether in all the circumstances the actions of the Chief Justice have been such as to involve a conflict between public duty and private interest contrary to the high standards required of judicial office holders;

whether in all the circumstances public confidence in the administration of justice has been imperilled by the Chief Justice;

if so, what action should be taken by the Parliament by way of censure, proceedings pursuant to section 72 of the Constitution, or otherwise; and

whether the Parliament should legislate and, if so, in what terms, to prescribe standards of behaviour in relation to the public duty and private interests of the Australian judiciary;

) that the Committee consist of three members of the House of Representatives appointed by the Prime Minister, two members of the House of Representatives appointed by the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives, two Senators nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, one Senator nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and one Senator nominated by the Leader of the Australian Democrats;

that the method of appointment, powers and procedures of the Committee be as follows:

every appointment or nomination of a member of the Committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;

the Committee elect as Chairman one of the members appointed by the Prime Minister or nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate;

the Committee elect a Deputy-Chairman who shall perform the duties of the Chairman of the Committee at any time when the Chairman is not present at a meeting of the Committee and, at any time when the Chairman and Deputy-Chairman are not present at a meeting of the Committee, the members present shall elect another member to perform the duties of the Chairman at that meeting:

the Committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any such subcommittee any of the matters which the Committee is empowered to examine;

the Committee or any sub-committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to move from place to place and to sit during any adjournment of the Parliament; ( 0 four members of the Committee constitute a quorum of the Committee, and a majority of the members of a sub-committee constitute a quorum of that sub-committee;

in matters of procedure the Chairman or Deputy-Chairman when acting as Chairman have a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of voting, have a casting vote and, in other matters, the Chairman or Deputy-Chairman have a deliberative vote only;

the Committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources;

the Committee or a sub-committee have power to authorise publication of any evidence given before it and any document presented to it;

the Committee report by 30 June 1980 and any member of the Committee have power to add a protest or dissent to any report; and

the foregoing provisions of this Resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders; and

that a message be sent to the House of Representatives acquainting it of these Resolutions and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.

page 1801

HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION BILL 1979

Notice of Motion

Senator LEWIS:
Victoria

– I give notice that, contingent on the Senate proceeding to the calling on of the Order of the Day, Government Business, for the consideration in Committee of the Whole of Message No. 464 from the House of Representatives in respect of the Human Rights Commission Bill 1979, 1 shall move:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent me moving an amendment to insert a new clause in the Human Rights Commission Bill 1979 immediately upon Message No. 464 from the House of Representatives returning the Human Rights Commission Bill 1979 being read by the Chairman in Committee of the Whole and prior to consideration of the amendments insisted on by the House of Representatives.

page 1801

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Notice of Motion

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

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

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act to amend the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1 905.

page 1801

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Notice of Motion

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– I give notice that, contingent upon the Wireless Telegraphy Amendment Bill 1980 having been read a first time, I shall move:

That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Bill being passed through its remaining stages without delay.

page 1801

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1801

QUESTION

IRAN

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

-I ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister: In view of the current crisis involving Iran and the United States and the widespread apprehension in the Australian community at the current drift of events, does the Australian Government consider that it is in a position where, in conjunction with other governments, it can make any positive moves which would help to resolve the differences between Iran and the United States? Can the Minister assure the Senate, and indeed the Australian people, that the Government will use every possible avenue available to it to bring its influence to bear to avert a violent resolution of the current conflict, with all the incalculable consequences that failure to do so may have for the whole world?

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

– Taking the second part of Senator Wriedt ‘s question first, this Senate and the Australian people can have the full assurance of the Government that it will take every possible action it considers useful and effective to avert violence. The Government shares with Senator Wriedt a considerable apprehension with regard to the peril to the world in the course of existing events. The Government fully understands the need for restraint, the need for wise counsel. In consequence of this, the Government has been taking those diplomatic steps it has deemed desirable, not only in full and frequent discussion with its Western allies but also with countries that are non-aligned, countries that can play a useful part because they may have a more direct dialogue. Of course, Australia has been in direct dialogue with the Iranian Government.

The Australian people would want us to express to the American people our great sadness that the hostage situation has not been resolved, our tremendous understanding of their desire that there should be a resolution, and therefore our sympathy for their present plight. It is the plight of a great nation, a powerful nation, that has been rendered virtually impotent in its attempts to free the hostages because it must accept responsibility for ensuring that, by its actions, it does not bring the world to war, whether global or regional.

I say emphatically to Senator Wriedt that the Government is bending its mind to the use of every possible diplomatic avenue that might produce teamwork and bright ideas which could help to break the present deadlock and to cool the situation. Certainly there is at this moment a need for restraint throughout the world, a need for wise counsel and a massive need for sympathy for the American people.

page 1802

QUESTION

CLOTHING, TEXTILE AND FOOTWEAR INDUSTRIES

Senator SIM:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In view of the announcement by Bonds Coats Patons Ltd of a net operating profit representing a return of 16.02 per cent of its total shareholders’ funds, I ask: How does the recent profit performance of clothing, textile and footwear producers compare with the profits of the rest of the manufacturing industry?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I cannot answer specifically. It is a comparison that Senator Sim seeks. I will refer his question to the responsible Minister and seek the details that he requests.

page 1802

QUESTION

MINING PROJECTS: EMPLOYMENT

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

-I ask the Minister for National Development and Energy whether any estimate is made by his Department of the primary job creation effect of mining projects and the multiplier effect upon other areas of employment. If such estimates are not made by his Department, are they made by any other?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– A series of estimates on a number of mining projects is made by the Department of Employment and Youth Affairs. Similar estimates are made by my Department. For example, I have seen estimates of the foreshadowed Rundle project, both in the construction and development stages, in relation to employment, the employment of families, the creation of societies and neighbourhoods and the multiplier effect. It might be desirable if I were to get some examples of projected developments and let Senator Button have them.

Senator BUTTON:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question. With respect, my question was directed not to examples. It was trying to elicit whether there was in train a process of providing estimates of the multiplier effects across the industry. I ask the Minister: If figures are available, as he suggested in the early part of his answer, will he make them available to the Senate as soon as possible?

Senator CARRICK:

-I will certainly do so. I think I understand the honourable senator’s question. By ‘mining’ I do not mean only extraction industries. At the moment we are aiming to persuade other countries that it might be far more efficient for them in the saving of bunker fuels and freight to combine their energy component and minerals in Australia and to provide more industries in Australia. These, of course, will be much more labour intensive than will the extractive industries. Those additional industries can be added to the list. There has been a very sympathetic response by overseas corporations in that regard. I will seek the information.

page 1802

QUESTION

DROUGHT: TAX CONCESSIONS

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

-Has the Minister representing the Treasurer seen in today’s Courier-Mail a report that the Premier of Queensland, Mr Bjelke-Petersen, is calling for the Federal Government to give tax concessions to graziers in many parts of Australia affected by drought? Will the Minister consult the Treasurer to see whether it is possible to give some assistance to people affected in this way? Moreover, will the Minister consult the Premier of Queensland with a view to having him and his Government give freight concessions to graziers who have to move their cattle by rail for agistment?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have seen references to the statement by the Premier of Queensland. The Senate will be aware that the Prime Minister announced on 14 April taxation concessions for water conservation expenditure by primary producers. The Premier’s suggestion goes further than that, covering the idea of tax holidays for drought affected areas. That idea raises other matters of both policy and practicalities relating to demarcation and other matters. I shall draw the suggestion to the Treasurer’s notice. The Government already has co-operative arrangements with the States which provide for assistance in the case of major natural disasters. This assistance, unlike tax concessions, would still be available to those not receiving income and would also put funds in the hands of those eligible without the delay involved in tax concessions.

The arrangements, amongst other things, allow for assistance where stock have to be moved for agistment purposes. However, it is the responsibility of the States under these arrangements to decide when situations are severe and extensive enough to warrant particular forms of assistance. The arrangements incorporate limits above which disasters qualify for Commonwealth assistance. It is a matter for the States to advise the Commonwealth when a situation is believed to meet these criteria. The arrangements are intended to cover only disasters of a magnitude that could be beyond the State’s capacity. Unless a situation exceeding the limits set down has arisen, assistance is left, by these arrangements, to the States concerned.

page 1803

QUESTION

PUBLIC SERVICE STRIKE

Senator ROBERTSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I direct my question to you, Mr President. Is it a fact that a strike of members of the Australian Public Service Association and the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association has been called from 12.30 p.m. today? What is the stated cause of the strike? What effect will it have on the operation of the Senate and on the management of the Senate’s business?

The PRESIDENT:

– My attention has been drawn, since we gathered this afternoon, to the absence of attendants from this chamber. I am seeking information on this matter and shall advise honourable senators as quickly as I can.

page 1803

QUESTION

PERTH AIRPORT

Senator THOMAS:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. It is reported in today’s Australian that Qantas Airways Ltd is to spend $3m on cargo terminals in Perth. Extensions to the passenger terminal at the Perth Airport are of more general and immediate concern to most Western Australians. I have heard a rumour that plans are complete for substantial extensions to the Perth Airport passenger terminal. Can the Minister confirm this rumour? Can he give me some indication of when the urgently needed extensions will be completed? Is he in a position to say what portion of the cost of these extensions will be met by the airlines which use the terminal? -

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

– The Government is aware of the concern which has been expressed from various quarters about congestion at the Perth Airport. I think Mr Viner, representing Mr

Hunt, the Minister for Transport, conducted an inspection of the airport with the State Minister for Transport, Mr Rushton, some months ago. I was a little puzzled as to why that was necessary since many of us fly in and out of the airport twice a week and it is fairly easy to see that there are difficulties during peak periods with respect to the utilisation of that aerodrome. The present position is that the Government is moving to remedy the problems which exist and is aiming to carry out substantial extensions and renovations to the Perth Airport passenger terminal. This will involve both the international area and the domestic area which are, of course, contiguous. It will additionally cater for the planned introduction of domestic wide-bodied aircraft into Perth.

At the moment the immediate plans are for an extension of the Customs and health hall for international arrivals. Tenders for those extensions will be let before June of this year. Extension of the international departure area and of the airline and office areas is currently programmed for the 1980-81 financial year. The third area for expansion is the domestic departure, ticketing and baggage handling areas, which will include the construction of holding lounges to relieve pressure in the general areas. That is currently under consideration in connection with ground facility requirements for the introduction of domestic wide-bodied jets.

I think Senator Thomas would be aware that part of the problem at Perth Airport is the very high ratio of what are called .-I…….. ……….., Although very few of us who travel from here are met or greeted, large crowds of people are always waiting either to meet passengers or to see them off. That has made a difficult situation worse. The general position as far as costs are concerned is that under the Government’s policy of cost recovery, 100 per cent of costs should be recovered from the airlines using the facility. The costs are recovered not as an initial capital sum but through the charges which are levied for the use of the facility.

page 1803

MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE

Senator CHIPP:
VICTORIA

-I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate a question. I refer to the matter of public importance which has been listed by Senator Wriedt for discussion today and which calls on all political parties to use their good offices in reconciling current differences in the current grave world situation. Is it true that the Government will gag this debate after one senator has spoken? If so, is this not a scandalous abuse of Parliament and a shocking denial of the rights of the members of Parliament to discuss an issue which is deeply concerning all Australians? If we are to be prevented from debating and voting on such issues, will the Minister inform me what is the use of our coming to Parliament?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-The Senate is meeting today for a very good reason. This is an extra sitting day because the Senate, for many reasons including a proliferation of matters of public importance, has fallen severely behind in its legislative program. It has devoted a considerable amount of its time to other matters. It is the normal arrangement in the Senate to have a number of speakers on matters of public importance on Wednesdays, and on other days to reduce the number of speakers to one from each side. The fact of the matter is that there are ample opportunities for honourable senators to speak on matters of public importance. Senator Chipp need not comment on that matter because I note that in about the last four urgency debates he has been given opportunities to speak well out of proportion to the numbers that he and his colleague command in the Senate. So, generous concessions have been made in that respect. If honourable senators wished to speak on foreign affairs matters they had two full weeks of debate at the commencement of this session in which to do that. They have had ample time in which to debate such matters. Honourable senators have had the opportunity to speak during urgency debates and during first reading debates. They also have available, on any night they desire, the adjournment debate. No parliament chamber in the world offers to individual parliamentarians more opportunities for the presentation of facts than does this chamber.

Senator CHIPP:

- Mr President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. In view of the Minister’s answer in which he said that we had two weeks during which to debate foreign affairs issues, do I take it that it is his view that nothing happened over the weekend to warrant an urgent debate on this matter?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Do not debate the question.

Senator CARRICK:

-Mr President, that is not a supplementary question. The answer is no.

page 1804

QUESTION

CRUISE SHIP ‘RASA SAYANG

Senator LEWIS:

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, concerns the ban which the

Government imposed on Soviet cruise ships visiting Australian ports. Will the Government investigate the transactions involved in the ownership and charter of the now Greek registered 24-year-old ship Rasa Sayang, formerly the Golden Moon, formerly the Rasa Sayang, formerly the Degrasse, formerly the Bergensfjord, and the companies Sunlit Cruises Ltd and Sunlight Shipping Co. and the newly formed Rasa Saya Cruises of the same address as Charter Travel Services, a Soviet shipping agency, to ascertain how these transactions are and have been funded? Is the Government satisfied that the present owners of this vessel are not just a front for a Soviet agency and that the jiggerypokery apparently involved in registration, ownership and charter is not simply a means of circumventing the ban on Soviet cruise activities? Is the Government also aware that advertisements for cruises on the Rasa Sayang simply state European officers and Asian hospitality’ and give no indication of the nationality of the ship or of its crew members? Can the Minister tell us whether the profits from this venture will flow back to Moscow?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– The honourable senator asks a series of questions relating to a ship called the Rasa Sayang. I am not able to answer all the questions which he raised, but I am able to give him some information with respect to this matter. I think all honourable senators are aware that the Government decided to suspend the operation of Soviet cruise ships from 31 May 1980, which is the end of the current season. It was following that decision that the Australian agents, Charter Travel Services, which is a Russian owned company, sought clarification from the Government whether next year they could operate the Rasa Sayang in place of previously scheduled Soviet cruise vessels. Charter Travel Services was advised that the Government’s decision does not apply to cruise vessels other than Soviet vessels. Apparently the vessel to which the honourable senator referred is a Greek vessel. Any Government action against Greek vessels would have ramifications which would affect our relationship with Greece and, therefore, the ship is able to be operated. The honourable senator has raised a whole series of questions which go beyond the information which I have from the Department of Transport and the Minister. I will seek answers to those detailed questions and let him have those answers as soon as possible.

page 1804

QUESTION

TRADE COMMISSIONER IN MOSCOW

Senator SIBRAA:

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In view of the Government’s repeated assertion that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is the greatest threat to world peace since the Second World War, can he tell the Senate why Australia continues to maintain a trade commissioner in Moscow and yet has withdrawn its trade commissioner from Tehran? As the function of a trade commissioner is to promote trade, does the continued presence of the trade commissioner in Moscow mean that, despite claims to the contrary, the Government is actually promoting trade with the Soviet Union? Can he explain why the Embassy official responsible for liaising with the Soviet authorities on Olympic Games matters was transferred to other work while the trade commissioner has remained unaffected? Is this another illustration of the Government’s double standards?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– There are no double standards. The fact is that the trade with the Soviet Union has been conducted on the lines of the Co-ordinating Committee on Exports of Technology to Communist Countries agreement, which has been spelt out in this Parliament and which is an understanding by Western nations with regard to the limitation of war-type materials. That has been rigidly enforced. Equally, the Government has agreed to follow the American decision on the restriction of additional food shipments, and it has done exactly that. Throughout the world the convention has been that only in drastic circumstances does one touch the basic food trade.

Senator Grimes:

– Isn’t the possibility of World War III drastic?

Senator CARRICK:

– That interjection must suggest that the interjector supports the abolition of the food trade. It has been thought generally that it would be a serious matter to cut basic food supplies from the nations concerned. There is no double standard; there is no contradiction in terms at all. The terms of COCOM have been enforced and will continue to be enforced.

page 1805

QUESTION

CLOTHING, TEXTILE AND FOOTWEAR INDUSTRIES

Senator WATSON:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce. In relation to the recently reported profit of Bonds Coats Patons Ltd, is the Minister aware that in fact there was a percentage profit decline in relation to shareholders’ funds compared with the previous year? Further, does the Minister not agree that the profit related to net tangible assets would be a more reliable indicator of return? Is the Minister aware that a substantial part of that profit is due to the company’s compliance with successive Government requirements as to restructuring? Is the Minister aware also that such compliance necessarily leads to a situation of reduced employment with high-producing, world-efficient machinery? Does the Government now deny these textile firms the right to exist, as is implied in the recent Industries Assistance Commission draft report on the clothing, textile and footwear industries?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I will ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce to let me have an answer to that question.

page 1805

QUESTION

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT: WORK TEST

Senator GRIMES:

– Is the Minister for Social Security aware of the present campaign in Victoria by 35 welfare organisations, the churches and the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association against the harsh application of the work test on the unemployed? If so, is she aware that threats were made to union members in the Department of Social Security who had the conscience and the courage to take part in the campaign, as reported in the Press last week? What impediments were put in the way of the Department’s counter officers and social workers in their effort to bring this matter to the attention of the public in their own time? What action, if any, has been taken against them?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLEI am aware that there were some difficulties with regard to the work test for the unemployment benefit. I am not aware by whom threats were made to the Department of Social Security officers. If the threats were made by people in Victoria or in other States I would wish to know about that. The officers of the Department of Social Security and the officers of the Commonwealth Employment Service are aware of the requirements of the Act and of the determinations which need to be made for eligibility. I am aware that these matters were drawn to the attention of the officers of my Department. As to any other matters raised in the question, I will see whether there is any information which needs to be given to Senator Grimes in response.

Senator GRIMES:

– I ask a supplementary question. Would the Minister consider it proper that senior officers of her Department should take part in threats or put impediments in the way of junior officers of her Department taking part in such a campaign without first seeking her advice or at least advising her?

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLEIf we now have the information that the threats were made by senior officers of the Department -

Senator Grimes:

– They are not going to be made by junior officers. Now, fair go.

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLEI was not aware from the honourable senator’s question whether he meant that the threats were made by people outside the Department, people who were seeking benefits. As to the matter that has been raised with regard to senior officers, I am aware that the members of the Department who are engaged in these duties were reminded of the operation of the Act and of its requirements with regard to eligibility. I would think that senior officers of the Department would counsel junior officers about their responsibilities as members of the Public Service in. the administration of the Act. I am not aware of impediments that may have been introduced into these matters. 1 would seek further information from Senator Grimes on that matter.

page 1806

QUESTION

MARIHUANA

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs follows the statement by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs on 31 January 1980.I ask whether the Minister includes marihuana in the category of illicit drugs. In his statement he said:

Accordingly, in the absence of compelling circumstances, people who render themselves liable to deportation because of convictions for involvement in the production, importation, distribution or trafficking of illicit drugs have been and will continue to be deported.

Senator Dame MARGARET GUILFOYLEI understand that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs includes marihuana in those circumstances.

page 1806

QUESTION

LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS

Senator McAULIFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– Does the Minister for National Development and Energy consider the use of liquefied petroleum gas in cars is really a proposition? Would he agree that in the national interest Australia’s LPG should be dedicated to the petrochemical industry in an ethylene feedstock? Does he agree that such an energy policy decision presents an opportunity for national investment that is sure to produce benefits for all Australia? If so, what guarantees is the Minister prepared to give that LPG will be allocated in this way?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The Government has decided that the two priority uses for liquefied petroleum gas should be, firstly, automotive and, secondly, petrochemical. It acknowledges that the use for petrochemicals is very significant. The Government believes that in the years immediately ahead the use of LPG as automotive fuel will replace 14 per cent of gasolene use. That saving would be enormous. Today 80 per cent of our LPG is exported. We believe that in four or five years time all our LPG will be used at home, gaining energy for Australia equivalent to 14 per cent of the gasolene which is used now. We believe that that is of immense importance.

We have reason to believe that the petrochemical industry may well be supplied from places such as Bass Strait and the Cooper Basin and, in due course, significantly from the North West Shelf. We have asked the partners there to strip the natural gas of LPG, and this will be available. There is no doubt at all that LPG can form a nationally significant industrial base which will provide jobs and significant growth for Australia. In fact, the two work together. The need to turn wheels is so vital in this country, and the need to make sure that if there were a perilous situation in the Middle East which cut off our supplies we could turn them with our own energy is so vast that we would have to put automotive use of LPG ahead of petrochemical use.

page 1806

QUESTION

TAX EVASION

Senator ROCHER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister representing the Treasurer aware of recently published estimates that the informal, underground or irregular economy of the United States of America is of the order of one-third of the size of the official economy measured by government statistics; in other words, that about a quarter of all economic activity in the United States of America evades taxation measures generally? Do any estimates exist which indicate the size of any irregular economy in Australia?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– From time to time one hears of countries, such as America and France, where socking it away in the sock under the bed has always been a well exercised national pastime, where there are alleged to be illegal economies. I am not aware of the nature or extent of such an illegal economy in Australia. I am able to say that the Australian Statistician, in his preliminary statement No. 1 to the 1978-79 Australian national accounts released on 1 April, cautioned that there were reasons to expect understatement of the level of domestic production on both the income and expenditure sides of the production account. That is a signal, of course. On the income side, he stated that the major area of understatement is considered to be unincorporated enterprise income because of understatement of income as reported to the Commissioner of Taxation. Among the areas of possible understatement on the expenditure side, the Statistician indicated that no allowance is made for the purchase of illicit drugs or payments related to illicit gambling or prostitution. So there is, of course, some illegal economy in Australia.

page 1807

QUESTION

THE SENATE

The PRESIDENT:

– I ask honourable senators to take notes which they would normally hand to an attendant to the Hansard reporters at the table.

Senator Cavanagh:

– And scab on those on strike.

The PRESIDENT:

– I make the suggestion for the convenience of Hansard.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

-by leave -Mr President, you have now raised the matter and you have highlighted the difficulty which we face. Not only are we now being requested or invited to take our notes down to the Hansard reporters in breach- shall I term it- of the position that has been taken by the attendants in this place, but we have also been told that the second reading speeches cannot be circulated. We are rapidly getting to a position where the Senate cannot work without the service of the attendants in this place. I put it to you seriously, Mr President, that in these circumstances it may be necessary for you to adjourn the Senate. It is quite unfair to ask any person in this place to do the work of the attendants in breach of the efforts of those attendants.

Senator Walters:

– We have them -

Senator GEORGES:

– I say to Senator Walters that it is obvious that on the Government side of the House there are people who are prepared to do the work of the attendants who at present are engaged in a dispute about their conditions. If honourable senators opposite and the Government Whip want to circulate documents and do the work of the attendants, then by all means let them do so. The officers of this place- not the attendants- have taken the view that they will not do the attendants’ work. It is an affront for anyone to suggest that senators should do the attendants’ work. It is my view that, because of the situation which we are now facing, if there were to be a division there would be no one to lock the doors of the chamber as is required by the Standing Orders. A division will be called today. At that point the Senate will come to a standstill. I am suggesting that as the matter has been raised we ought to adjourn the Senate until such time as the attendants are back on duty.

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

– by leave- Whatever may be the rights or wrongs of an industrial dispute involving people who work in this chamber, there is an overwhelming responsibility on all parliamentarians. No parliament can claim that because of some industrial dispute it is incapable of carrying out its business. To do so would be the denigration of responsibility. Whatever the difficulties, whether from industrial dispute confrontation or not, or whatever the irritations may be, the work of the Parliament should go on. It is not for us to decide the rights and wrongs of an industrial dispute. In the end it is for you, Mr President, and Mr Speaker to do so. If it will help the proceedings of this Parliament for notes to be given to Hansard writers and for second reading speeches to be circulated, certainly honourable senators on the Government side will co-operate so that the Government at least discharges its duties, which is the proper duty of a parliament, whatever may be happening in the circumstances surrounding it.

Senator Townley:

- Mr President, I take a point of order. Obviously Senator Georges does not know his Standing Orders. Standing Order 174 reads:

The doors shall be closed and locked as soon after the lapse of three minutes as the President shall think proper to direct;

Obviously, if the President does not think the doors can be locked in an efficient way, he does not need to so direct.

page 1807

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1807

QUESTION

HOSTAGES IN IRAN

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Defence: Was any use made of American intelligence gathering bases in Australia preparatory to, or during, the recent abortive attempt to rescue the United States hostages in Iran?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I am not aware of any such matter. I will refer the question to the Minister for Defence.

page 1807

QUESTION

PETROL CONSUMPTION

Senator WALTERS:

-Does the Minister for National Development and Energy agree with the statement made by spokesmen from the oil industry that the demand for petrol in Australia has slumped by as much as 6 per cent in the past few months, not only because of the increased use of four-cylinder cars which use less petrol but also because of the altered driving habits of large engine car owners since the price of petrol increased? Does the Minister agree with the view of the spokesmen that Australia now faces a glut of petrol?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Consumption figures show that happily there has been a decline in the trend of gasolene use. There are a number of reasons for that, the predominant one put forward by the automotive industry being that there is a demand by consumers for more fuel-efficient and smaller cars. That has had an effect. Conservation has occurred also because of the scarcity price operating in the market place. It is the second cheapest of the Western-type countries. Nevertheless, it is a significant reminder to people of the need to conserve. I do not know that there will be a glut of gasolene. I could put up with that luxury, in present circumstances. The fact of the matter is that the four elements of our oil policy are working. We are conserving; we are switching to alternative fuels; we are exploring; and we are stimulating the development of synthetic fuels. On each of those scores we are pacesetters in the world. We are making sure that in the years ahead Australia will have oil.

page 1808

QUESTION

PETROL GLUT

Senator GEORGES:

– Following the question from Senator Walters, I now ask the Minister for National Development and Energy: Is it not a fact that a glut of petrol exists in Brisbane, as in all other cities? Is it not a fact that, because of this glut, petrol companies are now heavily discounting petrol in Brisbane? Is it a fact that petrol in Brisbane can be purchased now at 29.5c a litre while it sells for as much as 40c a litre in country areas? How can the Minister justify the statement he has just made that the Government’s policy, of which he is master, has led to conservation of fuel when oil companies are busily discounting petrol to get rid of the glut?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have been asked how I can justify my statement. I justify it by reference to the quantities of fuel sold. In the years leading up to 1 979 there was an average growth of about 4 per cent a year in the consumption of petrol. Growth fell to under 2 per cent in 1 979- a very significant decrease. There are indications that it is falling again. The discounting of petrol, which is causing considerable worries to independent operators who do not have the benefit of this situation, has been with us for many years. One has to go only to States such as Victoria to see discounting at its full extent. Despite the discounting, conservation of petrol is occurring. In terms of the price of petrol in country districts, I am happy to say that the freight subsidy that has been introduced by the Commonwealth Government reduces to 2c the price margin between city and country users. Country people are gaining a benefit which will cost the taxpayers of Australia $123m a year- a massive subsidy to equalise prices between city and country.

page 1808

QUESTION

CONVENTION FOR THE CONSERVATION OF ANTARCTIC MAKINE LIVING RESOURCES

Senator PUPLICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. As Australia is shortly to host the next meeting of the consultative parties on the Antarctic Treaty, is it the intention of the Australian Government to support the adoption of the so-called Washington draft of the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources or will the Australian delegation be pressing for a strengthening of the draft? Is the Government aware of criticisms which have been made of the draft that it is more a charter for exploitation than a convention for conservation of Antarctic resources, especially in such sensitive areas as krill fishing and mineral exploration and exploitation? Finally, will the Government give careful consideration to the proposed amendments to the draft convention which have been submitted to it by various Australian and international conservation organisations?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I am advised that the present draft text of the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, sometimes referred to as the Washington draft, has been the subject of intensive negotiation and represents the latest stage reached after six rounds of informal consultations over the past two years among the Antarctic Treaty consultative parties. It necessarily reflects a careful balance between the interests of states fishing in the areas and those states that place primary emphasis on the conservation aspect of the Convention. The Australian delegation to the conference will be working towards the adoption of a draft convention, substantially along the lines of the current draft text, which meets the interests of all the parties whose participation is essential to the success of the conference.

The draft Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources is not concerned with mineral exploration and exploitation. That matter is a subject for separate negotiations. In regard to marine living resources, the draft text of the Antarctic Marine Living Resources Convention incorporates an ecosystem approach to the protection of related as well as harvested Antarctic marine species and establishes a clear conservation standard for the protection of those species.

It is therefore not accurate to state that the Convention is more a charter for exploitation than for conservation of Antarctic marine living resources. Indeed, a number of influential conservation groups have recently stated that the present text represents a new and desirable approach to management of ocean resources.

page 1809

QUESTION

IRANIAN CRISIS: BRIEFINGS FOR PARTY LEADERS

Senator BISHOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister and the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, follows upon the question asked by Senator Wriedt. If I might say so, the Senate would take the response of the Leader as indicating that the Australian Government is favourable to a policy of restraint and that in any discussions with the United States the Australian Government might well guard against taking a tougher policy with Iran. I ask the Minister: Firstly, is that presumption a correct interpretation of the Government’s position? Secondly, in view of the possibility of the worsening situation which was mentioned by Mr Peacock last week, is it the Government’s intention to brief fully leaders of the parties in the Parliament and, to the maximum extent possible, members of the Senate? I think he would agree that in respect of these matters members of the Parliament should have the fullest information possible, subject to some security arrangements.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-If I may take the second part of the question first, my understanding is that the Government intends to keep the leaders of the Opposition in both places fully briefed. My understanding is, subject to correction by Senator Wriedt, that within the last few days an extensive briefing has been made available. That is my belief at this moment. My understanding is that upon request Mr Hayden and Senator Wriedt will get full briefings by the Office of National Assessments and by the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Senator Georges:

– What you are saying is that you threaten ONA officers with the sack.

Senator CARRICK:

– The fact is that ONA has our full confidence and ONA will give impartial, accurate and objective advice to the leaders.

Senator Georges:

– Rubbish.

Senator CARRICK:

– The interjections are such that I take it, therefore, that because the

Whip of the Labor Party believes that would not be so, he would advise his Leader not to go to ONA and not to go to the Department because the information would not be effective.

Senator Grimes:

– What he is saying is that you prevent ONA from giving advice.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator Grimes:

– You know what he is saying.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order!

Senator CARRICK:

-Nevertheless, that information is available. It is objective and it is as accurate as human nature -

Senator Grimes:

– How can they be accurate when you threaten them?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Grimes, I warn you to cease interjecting. You are persistently so doing.

Senator Grimes:

– You gentlemen make it very difficult.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I shall not warn you again.

Senator CARRICK:

-Senator Bishop asked me what interpretation he could place upon my appeal for restraint. That was restraint against actions which could provoke in fact violence of action. It is not to be thought that the Australian Government might not countenance some widening of sanctions, some- in the honourable senator’s words- tougher action, if that were judged to be necessary and were judged to be moving towards effective circumstances.

We would need to judge circumstances on their merits as such. The appeal for restraint is an appeal against plunging the world into acts of violence which could lead to global war.

page 1809

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY STUDENTS: PAYMENT OF FEES

Senator KNIGHT:
ACT

– I am afraid that I must direct another question to the Minister for National Development and Energy, this time in his capacity as the Minister representing the Minister for Education. Is it a fact that the Assistant Vice-Chancellor of the Australian National University met on Wednesday, 16 April, with students who had withheld part of their fees to tell them that if the amount was not paid they would be expelled? Did this meeting take place between approximately 2.30 p.m. and 3.45 p.m.? Is it a fact that the anonymous payment of these students’ fees was made to the university several hours before that meeting? Why then was the threat of expulsion necessary? Why were the students involved not told at that time that the withheld amount had been paid? Was a receipt issued for the amount paid? To whom was it issued?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I sought some information on this matter because it had been raised a number of times in the Senate by honourable senators.

Senator Georges:

-Can we have a straight answer?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order, Senator Georges! Cease interjecting.

Senator CARRICK:

– My advice is that on 16 April the Assistant Vice-Chancellor of the Australian National University met with students who had withheld part of their fees. The purpose of the meeting was to advise the students that the University was considering action and to ascertain whether the students understood the possible result of such action. The Assistant Vice-Chancellor had given the Minister for Education an undertaking that he would talk to the students before the University decided on a course of action. I understand that the meeting took place during the afternoon. The anonymous payment of fees was made at some time on 16 April but, in accordance with usual procedures, the time of payment was not recorded. I understand that the Assistant ViceChancellor was not aware before meeting the students that the payment had been made. Receipts are normally issued in the names of the students for whom the fee is paid rather than in the name of the person making the payment. That practice was followed on this occasion.

Senator KNIGHT:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question, Mr President. I understood the Minister to say in his answer that the Assistant Vice-Chancellor had given an undertaking that a meeting with the students would be held before the University decided on a course of action. My understanding is that at that meeting those students were told that they would be expelled; in other words, the University had decided on a course of action which, from what the Minister just said, was quite contrary to the undertaking given to the Minister for Education.

Senator Georges:

– Is this a statement or a question?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order please, Senator!

Senator Georges:

– Well, I take a point of order.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order, Senator; be seated! When I rise, you sit down and cease interjecting. I have indicated that, under Standing Order 438, persistent interjections which indicate a disregard for the authority of the Chair must be dealt with.

Senator Georges:

- Mr President, I apologise. I now raise a point of order which I should have raised earlier. My point of order is that the question is not supplementary. Senator Knight is making a statement on the answer given by the Minister at the table. That is exactly the situation. I suggest that such so-called supplementary questions should be ruled out of order.

Senator Knight:

- Mr President, speaking to the point of order -

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! I shall rule on the point of order. The question being asked by Senator Knight is supplementary to his original question. He is seeking further elucidation. The supplementary question is in order.

Senator KNIGHT:

-Mr President, my supplementary question relates specifically to a statement made in the answer given to my original question. The second part of my supplementary question relates specifically to the Minister’s reference to receipts having been issued. If receipts were issued in the names of the students concerned, I ask: Can those students get copies of those receipts so that they can seek a refund of the amount paid when the University frames its statute defining appropriate services and amenities?

Senator CARRICK:

-I stated what I had been advised was the situation. I will draw the attention of the Minister for Education in another place to the suggestion made by Senator Knight, that is, that the students were advised otherwise. I will draw the attention of the Minister for Education to Senator Knight’s suggestion regarding the receipts and will invite him to respond to Senator Knight.

page 1810

QUESTION

ENERGY RESOURCES

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-My question is directed to the Minister for National Development and Energy and follows a question asked earlier of the Minister by Senator Walters. I draw the Minister’s attention to the document headed ‘Statement of Savings Expected in Annual Appropriations . . .’ which recently was published by the Department of Finance. I ask the Minister: Has it been declared over and over again that it is Government policy that everything should be done to encourage energy research and development in Australia and also that everything should be done to encourage energy conservation in Australia? If so, can the

Minister explain why the statement of the Department of Finance in respect of the Minister’s Department shows an under-expenditure of $4.1m on energy research and development in respect of a total appropriation of $9m, representing an under-expenditure of nearly 50 per cent, and a saving of $967,000 on a national energy conservation publicity campaign for which a total appropriation of just over $ lm was made? How does the Minister explain the statement of the Department of Finance in view of the Government’s stated policy?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Council which advises the Government on research projects has a rolling program. It receives requests and makes recommendations. It is not possible simply to look at the statement of the Department of Finance and say that because the money has not been spent at a particular time it will not be spent. I think the total amount which has been spent on research and development projects is just under $39m in the years that the program has been running. It is not to be thought that because the money has not been expended it will not, in the longer term, be expended. I have no doubt at all that when the bills for conservation advertising come in the money will be spent.

page 1811

QUESTION

DISALLOWED QUESTION

Senator Messner having addressed a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! The question is out of order. It involves a matter which is not completely within the jurisdiction of a Minister. That must be realised by all honourable senators in this place.

page 1811

QUESTION

LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS

Senator TATE:
TASMANIA

– I refer the Minister for National Development and Energy to my questions concerning the Government’s failure to ensure that subsidies and reductions in the price of liquefied petroleum gas actually operate in the market place. Is it a fact that within the Australian Capital Territory, which is under the sole control of the Federal Government, distributors of bottled gas are telling consumers that they have received no notification or directive from the Government which would enable them to reduce their prices in accordance with Press releases emanating from the Minister’s office over the past three months?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have no information that the distributors of bottled gas are so saying.

If Senator Tate has such information and will pass it on to me I will bring it to the attention of the responsible Minister and ensure that appropriate action is taken. My understanding is that there was some reduction in the price of liquefied petroleum gas in the Australian Capital Territory.

Senator TATE:

- Mr President, I ask a supplementary question to clarify the answer. Has Senator Carrick indicated that he is not the responsible Minister?

Senator CARRICK:

-I was referring to the Minister for the Capital Territory who has a responsibility with regard to the prices chargeable in the Australian Capital Territory. I was also referring, of course, to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs who has some responsibilities in this regard.

page 1811

QUESTION

AIR FARES

Senator TOWNLEY:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. I refer to air fares charged by Qantas Airways Ltd on the Darwin-Singapore route. Is the Minister aware that Qantas return air fares from Darwin to Singapore are listed as $1,149 for a first class ticket and $880 for an economy ticket and that those fares are about 80 per cent and 60 per cent, respectively, higher than they would be if they were based on our reputedly high domestic air fare tariff formula over the same distance? Is the Minister aware that if Qantas were asked to reduce its fares to those that domestic operators would be allowed to charge over the same distance, first class passengers would save $5 1 8 and economy passengers would save $303? Are Qantas fares held high on that sector purely as an offset to the low load factors that it gets in its exclusive jumbo fleet that it has to use on that route? Finally, will the Minister ask Qantas to re-examine its fare structure in that area?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I will refer that question to the Minister for Transport for examination and reply.

page 1811

QUESTION

HYDROCARBON PLANTS

Senator ELSTOB:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for National Development and Energy. It is likely that hydrocarbon plants will play a major role in providing fuel for the future. As South Australia has a suitable climate and semiarid lands which could be made productive with irrigation to grow such plants, I ask the Minister whether the Federal Government, in consultation with the States concerned, will consider the completion of the Chowilla Dam so that adequate water can be made available for a future vital industry.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– If there were a sound reason for any particular water conservation system in South Australia, that would come through the South Australian State Government to the Federal Government and be considered under our water resources program. I take it that Senator Elstob is referring to those agricultural products that can be used to produce, say, ethanol, which would be a fuel extender.

Senator Elstob:

– No, hydrocarbon plantsmainly straight hydrocarbon plants, such as milkweed plants.

Senator CARRICK:

– Well, any of those that may produce the hydrocarbons which would be extenders for fuel. Very considerable research is being done into those plants. The location for the growing of them is, of course, important and they will need water. But they will bear relationship also to whether there is sufficient fuel for their conversion and all sorts of other residual matters. I have not had expert advice whether South Australia would lend itself to such a prospect. However, I will seek information on that matter to see what the prospects are.

page 1812

QUESTION

SOVIET INVASION OF AFGHANISTAN

Senator TEAGUE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister and the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs: Is it true that the Soviet Minister, Gromyko, in his visit to France has deliberately and provocatively denied that there will be any- even smallwithdrawal of Soviet troops from their present aggressive positions in Afghanistan? What are the repercussions of this on the Australian Government’s call for a boycott of the Moscow Olympics? Further, in the spirit of bipartisanship shown in Senator Bishop’s question today, I ask: Does the Government welcome the change in direction taken by Opposition spokesmen over the weekend increasingly to recognise that there will be an effective Olympic boycott and that it is reasonable to adopt a bipartisan approach to strengthen the Government’s foreign policy in the same way as there are bipartisan approaches in New Zealand, Germany, Canada and the United States?

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Senator Teague, you will put your question more briefly. Questions are becoming far too long in their presentation. I must insist that they be put more briefly and relate more specifically to the information sought.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I have seen reports of such a statement coming out of France, but I have no sound and accurate knowledge whether the statement was made. If it was made, it gives to Afghanistan a greater importance than before in terms of its potential threat to world peace. The pressures of the world upon Russia were for her to withdraw her troops from Afghanistan. Quite clearly, the statement is a rejection of that call. Many countries saw the need for withdrawal as a basis for their lifting the boycott. So, that will simply enhance the strength of countries to proceed with the boycott.

I can only say that over the weekend a number of countries, including their Olympic federations, accepted, and accepted with significant majority, the need for a boycott. This indicates that there will be an effective boycott. Of course I invite the Labor Party to join with us in that regard.

page 1812

QUESTION

SHIPMENT OF HORSES TO JAPAN

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, refers to the ill-fated 49 horses shipped from Victoria and destined for a knackery in Japan. I ask the Minister, as a senator from a rural area and one who is aware of the role of the horse in transport in an earlier era, whether the Government could use some of the revenue derived from the fuel used by the motor transport of the present day to meet the cost of pasturing out those horses and thus at least emulate the cold-hearted colliery owners of earlier times who did the same for pit ponies. Secondly, will the Government consider devising some way of levying the Victorian exporters concerned so that the animals in question- and there are only 49- can spend their last days in peace instead of being sent to a knackery?

Senator SCOTT:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Resources · NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP/NP

-The suggestion of the honourable senator that there should be other ways of using horses than sending them to knackeries is certainly worth while and deserves the consideration of all Australians. I will take on board his proposal referable to the recent question of horses being destined for Japan and will refer it to the Minister for Primary Industry.

page 1812

QUESTION

POLITICAL ASYLUM

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-On 23 April 1980 Senator Evans asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the following questions without notice:

Is it the case that no one has been granted political asylum in Australia since the Petrovs in 19S4, and that during that time many hundreds of applications for political asylum have been rejected but at the same time thousands of people have been admitted to Australia with refugee status?

The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer:

According to official records which have been checked, Miss Giersch is the first person to have been granted asylum in Australia since the case of Mr and Mrs Petrov in 1954. 1 will inform the Senate if further research reveals other cases where asylum has been granted. A number of people who have applied for asylum have been allowed to remain in Australia on other grounds falling within the responsibility of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs.

page 1813

QUESTION

POLITICAL ASYLUM

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-On 23 April 1980 Senator Evans asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the following supplementary question:

In seeking further information from the Minister, will Senator Carrick also establish and advise us whether the decision to grant political asylum was one that was recommended by the departmental officers?

The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer:

Yes, it was one of the options recommended. Indeed the departmental submission stated that ‘the grounds on which Miss Giersch has based her application are amongst the strongest of any recent application for asylum ‘. Moreover, during the period of this Government, it was the first time that a positive recommendation was offered.

page 1813

QUESTION

POLITICAL ASYLUM

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-On 23 April 1980 Senator Wriedt asked me, as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs:

Why is it that Mr Aziz, about whom I asked the question earlier today, has not been treated according to exactly the same principles as Senator Carrick has just enunciated?

The Minister for Foreign Affairs has provided the following answer:

I am not aware of any application for asylum by Mr Aziz. I understand that he has lodged an application for refugee status which will be considered by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. However I can say that this application will be carefully considered on the same basis as all such applications.

Senator Mulvihill also asked me a question on this subject.

page 1813

PRIME MINISTER: COST OF OVERSEAS TRIPS

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Last Wednesday, 23 April, I sought leave to have incorporated in Hansard a document detailing expenditure on overseas visits by Ministers of the previous and present governments. I am advised that, due to a clerical error, two visits were inadvertently omitted from the tables and I have asked officials to make the necessary amendments to the weekly copy of Hansard.

page 1813

QUESTION

AIR LINK TO SOUTH AMERICA

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-On 22 April Senator Lajovic asked me a question about a reported interest by Aerolineas Argentinas in operating services to Australia. In the course of answering that question I undertook to seek clarification on whether Qantas had been directly involved in discussions on the matter. I am advised by the Minister for Transport that Aerolineas Argentinas has raised with Qantas the possibility of the Argentinian airline operating services through Sydney as part of a new trans-Antarctic route linking Argentina with east Asia. The discussions have not to date led to proposals which would call for government to government consideration of the matter. As previously mentioned, the Government accepts the need for migrants from South America to have access to their countries of origin. However, reasonably convenient services are available at present.

page 1813

QUESTION

IRANIAN CRISIS: BRIEFING FOR PARTY LEADERS

Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– by leave- I wish to clarify a matter. Senator Carrick, in answer to a question from Senator Bishop, referred to contact over the weekend between the Government, specifically the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock), and me. I acknowledge that it was not Senator Carrick ‘s intention to misrepresent the position in any way, but as I heard the answer it at least gave the impression to me that contact was made by the Government to offer briefing information on the current problems in Iran. I wish just for the record to make it clear that contact with the Minister for Foreign Affairs was made by me. I add that he indicated his readiness to make available to the Opposition whatever information he could.

page 1813

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

The PRESIDENT:

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

The need for the Australian Government and Opposition parties, recognising the grave world situation and its consequences for the peace and security of nations, to call on all governments to pursue policies which will assist in reconciling current differences between States.

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 WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania

– We are debating today a matter of public importance. Of course, that is the formal description it is given. It might be more appropriate to call it a matter of national importance, because it is certainly of national concern and of international concern. We in the Opposition have been stressing for more than three months the grave dangers inherent in the situation in Iran, not only the personal perils which the American hostages face there but also the wider regional and, indeed, global dangers which flow from that illegal and deplorable detention. I reminded this chamber of that warning. It was only on 23 January this year, three months ago, that I pointed specifically to the military implications of developments in Iran. I said in that statement that when the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) arrived in Washington he would find that the United States Government viewed the situation in Iran as a much more serious crisis than the Afghanistan issue. I went on to say that Afghanistan does not carry any implications of military action for the United States but that Iran does.

After the attempt to rescue the hostages by military actions has failed, we meet here today in an atmosphere of very real international tension, uncertainty and, indeed, foreboding. The United States is today moving two more aircraft carriers and their escorting vessels towards the Arabian Gulf. Already a large American naval force is in those waters. The reinforcements will make that fleet the largest United States fleet in any part of the world at present- in fact about one-third of its total operational naval strength. Already in that troubled area there is similarly a heavily armed Soviet naval force. We also meet within a few hours of the resignation of the United States Secretary of State, Mr Cyrus V Vance, whom many of us in this Parliament have met. He is a most distinguished diplomat known for his moderate and mature views, lt is reported that Mr Vance resigned because he had opposed the decision to attempt a rescue of the hostages. It seems clear that he has resigned as a consequence of that attempt and its tragic results.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Are you certain of that?

Senator WRIEDT:

– I understand that he has resigned. I can go only by the information available to me. That is the position as I understand it. I take this opportunity of recording the regret of the Opposition at the deaths of eight or possibly more American servicemen in this mission. We extend our sincere sympathy to the American Government, the American people and to the relatives of the dead servicemen. They are the first, and we hope the last, fatal casualties of the American ordeal in Tehran.

The Opposition has called for this debate today for four main reasons: Firstly, to call on the Iranian authorities, divided and diverse as they are, to release the American hostages who have been unlawfully detained since last November. Their detention has brought us to the brink of a crisis far wider than that being suffered internally in Iran, which is suffering the agonies of a national revolution that is by no means over. The Opposition repeats its condemnation of the seizure and detention of the hostages. Secondly, today the Opposition wishes to repeat and to strengthen its warnings to the Government to exercise the greatest caution in going along with policies and measures which it is clear do not by any means command universal international support; nor, as we have seen today, do they command full support at the very highest levels in the United States Administration. It is one thing to support an ally- in this case our American ally- but obviously it is another thing to support an ally without question and without counsel. It seems that the Australian Government has been doing that up to the present time.

The Opposition ‘s third purpose in raising this matter today is to repeat and to enlarge the counsel it is pressing on the Australian Government to state what it believes our Government should be saying to our American allies.

Senator Knight:

– Do you think we should have universal international support for anything we do?

Senator WRIEDT:

-I have limited time in which to speak. I have only 1 5 minutes available to me. If the Government were prepared to allow debate on this issue the points that Senator Knight is making could be debated. The fourth and final point I wish to make is that the Opposition has called on this debate in an attempt to get from the Government a full statement of its policies on Iran. The country knows little or perhaps nothing of the Government’s analysis, its attitude or its estimation concerning the Iranian position. If we are to judge the situation by the Government’s actions, it is making policy as it goes along. It tends to react to events but does not think about the implications of those reactions. Given the present and obvious dangers, it is clear that Australia would be better served and would be better placed to contribute to their solution if there were a bipartisan policy on this issue. I have risen today not to speak in partisan terms and to make political points. The Opposition certainly has not called for this debate simply so that it can say: ‘We told you so’. But the dangers mount and the urgency of the need for restraint increases.

In answer to a question today I was very pleased to note that the Minister for National Development and Energy (Senator Carrick) emphasised the need for restraint, wise counsel and cool heads. I commend him for those sentiments. The Opposition’s purpose certainly is not to exploit what some critics of the United States see as a moment of weakness and confusion in Washington. One does not kick someone when he is down. One certainly does not attack an ally in adversity. The United States and Australia have long been allies. They still are allies and I believe they will continue to be allies. There is no partisanship in the Opposition’s questioning of Government policy on Iran but that is not to say that there is a bipartisan policy. We believe there are serious faults in government policy- at least in that part of which we are aware- but, of course, we do not know much about the Government’s policy. We have been deluged in this chamber and elsewhere in Parliament, as well as in statements made outside by Government speakers, by words and warnings on Afghanistan and the need to support the Olympic boycott.

In regard to Iran, the problem is acute and the possibility of military pressure and response by the United States is much more likely- indeed, it has now occurred- but the Government has said very little. Step by step it has responded to American requests for diplomatic and economic support in sanctions against Iran. Presumably, the Government has explained to the United States its view of events in Tehran. Presumably, it has explained why it feels able to apply the requested sanctions. Presumably, it has asked what are America’s intentions. But none of this has been explained even in the broadest waywithout breaching security and confidentiality- to the Australian Parliament or the Australian people, nor did the Government seek the support of the Opposition as it set out on what may well be a collision course in the Arabian Gulf, the Middle East area generally, and possibly an area even wider than that; nor has the Government taken the lesser course of consulting the Opposition, or even of offering, until asked at the weekend, to give a security and intelligence briefing on the complex and turbulent chain of events that led inevitably, it now seems, to the tragedy in the Iranian desert last Thursday.

Last Friday, on Anzac Day- the one day of the year on which Australians share and celebrate their national remembrance of past wars and their hopes that there will be no more- the news from Iran burst on us. It is no exaggeration to say that, in that moment of remembering other wars, thoughts of new conflict would have been the first reaction of most Australians. I think also that it is no exaggeration to say that over the weekend, national anxiety, the anxiety of millions of men and women, reached heights, or depths, that fortunately we have not experienced for some years. I suggest that that anxiety would have been less if in recent weeks and months the Australian people had received from the Government information which reflected the true position as the Government understood it. That information should have been given in this Parliament. In bringing on this debate, members of the Opposition are responding to public anxiety, amongst other things. We are responding to a public need to know where the Government, and thus the nation, stand and where they are going. It is clear that there is come disarray in policy. There are differing views, differing voices, and apparently this situation also exists in the United States. The apparent resignation of Secretary of State Vance is a dramatic symbol of the tragic differences that exist there also.

Obviously there are no divisions in either the United States or Australia on the proposition that the American hostages must be released from their ordeal. The debate and division relate really to how this can be best done. As I said in this chamber last week, it is our view that what is at stake, what is the absolute priority, is the safety of the hostages. What is not at stake, on any proper analysis of the situation, is the political future of any political leader in any country. What is not at stake is the saving of anyone’s political face or foreign policy. I can only repeat what I said last week, that it would be cynical in the extreme if politics were allowed to take precedence over the safety of the hostages. We believe that this is a situation in which the greatest wisdom lies in the greatest patience. Looking back some 10 years to the case of the United States naval ship Pueblo, the American Government waited patiently for some 300 days to secure through diplomacy the release from North Korea of the crew of that ship. We all remember that that wait was successful. It was successful in two ways: The captives were released and the risk of hostilities was avoided. It was not a dramatic solution, but it was a safe one. There was indeed a triumph of caution. In advocating caution the Opposition ignored the thoughtless attitude that confuses patience with weakness. Last week we repeated our call and our view that the Government should urge on the United States at every stage the need for caution. I am pleased that today Senator Carrick indicated a much greater realisation on the part of the Government of the need to act in that manner.

The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) has made a quite serious error in accusing the Opposition’s policy on Iran of being a mirror of the policy of the Revolutionary Council in that country. I deeply regret that the Foreign Minister saw fit to make that statement. The last thing we need in a debate of this nature is polemics. I am afraid that the Foreign Minister is guilty of that. I am glad that the tragic and bloody events of the weekend have brought the Government to a much closer position to our own of calling for greater restraint by all parties. Both the Foreign Minister and the Government are now compelled, as a result of the tragedy of the weekend and the resignation of Mr Vance, to make some reappraisal of their approach to this great problem. We believe support can come just as effectively in the form of a question as it can in the form of an instant agreement. We believe support and sympathy for an ally can come just as effectively in the form of counsel and discussion as they can in the form of an immediate approval to every decision.

We are not saying that this Government approved or was even asked to approve the American action at the weekend. Because of the needs of military secrecy, information about that decision no doubt had to be restricted to a very small circle of American leaders. In approving step by step every preceding action that may have been taken, we may well have given the United States the impression that we were willing to go along with any decision that it may make and that we always trust its judgment. I do not wish to presume or to analyse, on the basis of imperfect information, the military details of the failure of that mission which, to our deepest regret, cost those lives. In urging the Government to consider more carefully in future the implications of its uncritical eagerness to accept certain policy judgments, we would again urge the greatest caution.

The following question is being widely asked: What can be done? Is it possible at this stage of development for the Iranians and the Americans to find a way out of what is now a dangerous dilemma for both countries? It would be presumptuous of anyone to come up with a ready-made solution. The matter is now far too complicated for that. It would seem that even if a breathing space, what may be called a holding position, can be achieved- I am speaking politically- that would give both parties time to reflect on the horrendous possibilities that are now unfolding. It can be a starting point for all of us to recognise the enormous emotions which now exist in both countries. Emotions have been building up in Iran over an extended period in which the people believe that they have been aggrieved. Similar emotions have developed in the United States because its people also believe that they have most certainly been aggrieved by the taking of hostages. If those emotions can be dampened and if governments of goodwill throughout the world- most if not all of which must recognise the possibility of themselves becoming involved- then perhaps we will have a chance of achieving that breathing space.

The great majority of people feel a sense of bewilderment and helplessness in times such as these. They can only look to their leaders, elected or otherwise, to find some sensible, reasoned way out. I believe it is not beyond the wit of world leaders to find that way out. It is very difficult in these circumstances to continue expecting forever restraint and a more conciliatory attitude. How much Australia as a nation can contribute is doubtful, but whatever we can do we must do. We owe it to our country and to the world at large.

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for National Development and Energy · LP

– The Government welcomes the terms of the matter of public importance. The principles contained in it, of course, are completely acceptable to the Government. The Government agrees that the international situation is grave and that the trends of events are very dangerous indeed. It recognises that the interests of international security would be well served if nations facing this situation were to show restraint and respect for international law. The Government would welcome a coming together and a narrowing of the differences between the views of the Government and the Opposition. In order to accept that- I do so with goodwill- may I say that I see a fundamental difference in the analysis of the situation by the Opposition from that of the Government.

Senator Wriedt keeps insisting that the events of Afghanistan and Iran are two separate, totally isolated and different events- that there is no link between one and the other. I think he said that Afghanistan does not carry any implications of any military action by the United States of

America, but Iran does. I think he repeated that from a statement of the past. The tragedy of the two countries is that the majority of the nations of the world in their analyses see the two as irrevocably linked. The majority of the countries of the world- particularly the countries of the Middle East- see the Russian move into Afghanistan as a threat to the very stability of the countries of the Middle East, a threat to the Middle East oilfields and a destabilisation of the whole area. The majority of the countries sees the events in Iran as symptomatic of the events in Afghanistan. They also see amongst the revolutionary tending and contending in Iran, the Marxist influence which is, of course, leading towards the destabilisation of the nation. As so many fear- indeed, countries such as Egypt have enunciated in their fear- that the revolutionaries and the Marxists want instability in Iran as a pretext to invite the Russians to come in, as it was suggested was the reason for the invasion of Afghanistan.

Time and again the countries of the world have seen the two situations as holding the same grave threat to the world. To see Afghanistan as simply an entry by the Russians to contain some rebel forces is to misunderstand the whole situation of Afghanistan. Why do the Russian forces need sophisticated surface-to-air missiles to fight the hill tribesmen of Afghanistan? Why do they need 80,000 soldiers and 1,000 tanks? Why do they need to move to the borders and the perimeters of Afghanistan? Why do they need 40,000 reinforcements on the border of Afghanistan if this is to contain the hill tribesmen? It is not Australia speaking about this. The fact of the matter is that the countries of the world have said that they see the Russian intrusion into Afghanistan as an inevitable threat towards movement to the Middle East and the shattering of the national content and stability of the countries of the Middle East- a threat to the oilfields of the Middle East itself. Because of that, from the very beginning of the Afghanistan incursion, the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) saw the real peril, not only to Iran but also to other countries such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the whole of the Middle East. In conjunction with the American President he sought to alert the world- including the nonaligned world- to the real meaning of Afghanistan and to its implied threat to Iran and other countries. Indeed, looking back on this we see that the major contribution that was made by the Prime Minister and by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Peacock) in their journeys throughout the world- the Prime Minister through the Western world, talking with its leaders, and the Foreign Minister into the Asian countries, to India and the developing countries- must now be viewed as being perceptive analyses of what is likely to happen in the future.

Let me remind the Senate that a very great Foreign Minister in England, Lord Carrington, fully realised this and made a memorable journey throughout the Islamic world. The Islamic world has united in its fear of the threat of international communism, not international communism attacking the hill tribesmen of Afghanistan, but international communism moving down as a threat of invasion to the Middle East, and not just by military invasion but by subversion and incursion so as to destroy the basis of the Middle East and to cut off the world ‘s supply of oil. That is the basic analysis. To suggest that there has been any departure by this Government from its policies is to pervert the course of history. This Government’s policies have been proven right.

Senator Bishop:

– What about Iran and the Islamic movement in Iran?

Senator CARRICK:

– The Government has been joined by the people of the world in acknowledging that the Afghanistan situation is a threat to the shattering of the Middle East. The Islamic world has united in pointing towards the threat of communism. President Sadat in Egypt, a courageous man in identifying these things, has never ceased to point out the true meaning of the Afghanistan incursion in relation to Iran and other countries. So to say that the one is isolated from the other is to misread the events of history.

Senator Bishop:

– You have not been asked to take a military position in Afghanistan but you have been asked to take a military position in Iran.

Senator CARRICK:

– I respect the views of Senator Bishop. He is a thoughtful member of the Opposition. The world could very well be asked to take military positions because of the Afghanistan destabilisation of the Middle East. The one is part of the other. Of course, we want to proceed towards a comity of views in the world. On Anzac Day I was reminded of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation constitution which says things better than I could say them. It says: ‘Since wars begin in the minds of men it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed ‘. It is abundantly true that we must construct the defences of peace in the minds of men and, therefore, get a dialogue with nations. Of course we want to talk. The basis of the reason that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister travelled the world was to try to get a dialogue of understanding. Indeed they got that dialogue. It was for this reason that we wanted to get a message to the Russian people to try to get- if we could- some steadying of the Russian movement outwards from Afghanistan. We wanted to avoid the destabilisation of the world; we wanted to avoid war. We saw these events as coming together. The agony of this situationparticularly the agony for the American people- is that it takes two to want goodwill, to come together, and to want to discuss. How many discussions have there been with the Russian people?

Let us look at the deterioration of the world in recent years because of Russian incursion. We know of the relentless military expansion of the Russian people and notably their incursion into Angola, the Horn of Africa, Yemen, IndoChina this was done in support of Vietnamese aggression- and, ultimately, Afghanistan. The whole picture paints an attempt to bring communism into world domination. The whole situation shows a massive growth of tension and a complete lack of goodwill.

The fact of the matter is that the whole of the Russian movements of rearmanent internally is a threat to the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks and an indication that Russia itself is not simply arming for defence parity but for military domination. Australia and America do not constitute an aggressive threat to the world. America, other parts of the Western world and the developing nations will not attack. They will not be the aggressors. One must ask: Why, then, is Russia rearming?

I come now to the agony of the Iran situation. We have been endued today to have patience. The American Government and its people have pursued, for six long months, policies of infinite patience and infinite discussions throughout the world. America has used every kind of diplomatic device to try to get its message to the people involved and to seek the good neighbour help of others, as Australia has done in a dozen or more different ways. America has tried to get good sense into the Iranian people who are in charge so that they will release the hostages. The dilemma is to know who is in charge. The dilemma is to recognise that the various groups of revolutionary people are quite uncontrollable and quite unwilling to provide dialogue.

It is not the Australian Government that has lost patience. On the contrary, its policy has’been uniformly consistent the whole time. It has said: Let us marshal, if we can, the goodwill, the strength and the diplomatic pressures of the world. Let us get the developing world and the Western world moving together to get a message to the Iranian people and to the Russian people against the horrors of what may happen should there be a military context’. There has been the gentlest, really, of actions against Iran. The sanctions in themselves have been very limited. They are simply appeals to the good sense of the people in Iran to release the hostages. But none of that has worked.

In the decades and centuries ahead, the world will debate the pros and cons of the military action of the American Government on 25 April. There will be those who will argue that it should not have happened and those who will argue that it should have happened. None can really be proven right or wrong. America was in agony. Its 50 hostages were held in Iran and were liable to be destroyed at the whim of any fanatic as such. The American Government has a duty to its people to free the hostages if it can. Whatever may be our private thoughts or criticisms, let us acknowledge that we have the most massive sympathy for the American people and the American Government. The American Government tried to carry out a very limited sortie which might well have succeeded and which could have been done without the conflict of war. What a tremendous sympathy we ought to have for them; that it failed does not lessen the value of the idea. The value of an idea itself is one that we should understand and recognise. The American people face the very dilemma that those who oppose them want them to face. One must understand that there is a deliberate attempt to exhaust the patience of the American people, a deliberate attempt to exhaust the patience of the Western world and a deliberate attempt to provoke so that an excuse can be made to bring about a military situation, to bring about an invitation to the communist world to come in on the same hypocritical pretext that was used in terms of Afghanistan.

Of course one wants peace, but this is the eternal problem of mankind. What are the ingredients of peace? Shall we have peace with dignity, or peace at any price? Is tyranny preferable to any kind of reaction and this, I suppose, was the message to Australians last Friday? There comes a time when nations such as America must get to the point of exhaustion of their patience; they must get to the point of understanding that they are being provoked. Of course the Australian Government is emphasising to the American people our total understanding and our total sympathy and that our hearts are bleeding in the situation. We are eagerly seeking with our friends and allies ways and means of bringing about a successful outcome, but the fact of the matter is that it takes two in this regard.

I make one comment regarding Senator Wriedt ‘s speech. The honourable senator suggested that there was no offering of briefings by the Government to the Opposition. 1 must make it abundantly clear that there is a standing and continuous offer to Leaders of the Opposition of briefings at any time upon request. Let me make that absolutely and abundantly clear. There was no question of comparing this situation with the North Korean incident involving the Pueblo. The situation in Iran is one in which we cannot tell from moment to moment when the whole area may explode. The Australian Government’s policies as they have been pursued throughout the world, in the giving to the world of a message of teamwork and understanding, in attempting a unity of the world, are directly within the terms of this policy. Our understanding of the unity of the issue on Afghanistan and Iran is that they form the same issue; it is the reason that we have taken the Afghanistan issue as the vivid indication to the world of the dangers. I move:

Question put.

The bells having been rung-

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! Lock the doors. The question is–

Senator Cavanagh:

– I raise a point of order, Mr President. The doors have not been locked as you ordered and as the Standing Orders demand.

The PRESIDENT:

– Lock the doors.

The doors having been locked-

The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Sir Condor Laucke)

AYES: 30

NOES: 19

Majority……. 11

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

page 1819

DAY AND HOUR OF MEETING

Motion (by Senator Carrick) agreed to:

That, unless otherwise ordered, the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until tomorrow at 3 p.m. or such time later as the President may take the chair.

page 1819

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Motion (by Senator Wriedt)- by leaveagreed to:

That leave of absence be granted to Senator Coleman for one month on account of ill health.

page 1819

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Assent reported.

page 1819

DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Bill received from the House of Representatives.

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

Motion (by Senator Carrick) proposed:

That the Bill be now read a first time.

No second reading speeches have been circulated. As Government senators have now taken on the duties of the attendants in this place perhaps they should circulate the Bills to come before the Senate so that we can be aware of their nature and so that the Opposition can take the action it deems necessary.

The PRESIDENT:

– There is no point of order.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a first time.

Second Reading

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for National Development and Energy · LP

– I move:

The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act 1967 so as to provide for the granting to a permanent mission of a particular type of regional international organisation which might be established in Canberra, the same privileges and immunities as are accorded to a diplomatic mission of a foreign country. Honourable senators will recall that the 1967 Act gives effect in Australian law to the provisions of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the text of which is set out in the Schedule to that Act. The particular type of regional international organisation contemplated in the Bill would be one whose overseas missions perform functions substantially corresponding to functions exercised by diplomatic missions. These functions are set out in Article 3 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

The amended 1 967 Act will be applied to each appropriate regional international organisation and its mission, by regulation. Although the Bill is in general terms, its immediate purpose is to enable the granting of privileges and immunities to the proposed permanent mission in Canberra of the Commission of the European Communities. It might be helpful if, at this point, I were to bring specifically to the attention of honourable senators the distinction between international organisations which it is proposed should be covered by the present Bill, and those covered by existing legislation, that is the International Organization (Privileges and Immunities) Act 1963. The organisations contemplated in the present Bill are organisations comprising overseas countries in a particular geographical region which have empowered the central organisation to perform certain functions on their behalf. An overseas mission of such an organisation would perform a diplomatic representational role in respect of those functions which substantially corresponds to that of a diplomatic mission. The privileges and immunities of this type of international organisation have not so far been the subject of a specific multilateral convention.

The 1 963 Act, on the other hand, covers those organisations of which Australia is a member and which are rarely confined to a specific geographical region. The office of such an organisation, if established in Australia, would not perform a diplomatic representational role, but would act as the regional office or headquarters, as the case may be, of that organisation. In short, it would not perform functions substantially corresponding to those performed by a diplomatic mission. Accordingly, the 1 963 Act provides for the granting of privileges and immunities to the organisation, its officials, and persons serving on committees or participating in the work of, or performing a mission on behalf of, the organisation, which are of a level less than that applicable to a diplomatic mission. This is in accordance with the provisions of the many international agreements on the privileges and immunities of those organisations established since the formation of the United Nations.

I have referred to the immediate purpose of the present Bill as being to enable the granting of diplomatic privileges and immunities to the proposed permanent mission in Canberra of the European Communities, which I shall refer to as the EC. The EC comprises the regional association of the European Coal and Steel Community, the European Economic CommunityEEC and the European Atomic Energy Community-EURATOM. Prior to 1965, each of the three Communities had its own separate organisation. In that year, however, a Merger Treaty established a single Council and a single Commission for the three Communities. The Commission in Brussels is, in effect, the secretariat to the Communities and it is expected, on the basis of precedents in other non-EC countries, that the mission in Canberra will be formally known as the Delegation of the Commission of the European Communities in Australia.

The EC encompasses over 260 million people and is a major world aggregate in political, trading and general economic terms. As such, it is of very substantial importance to Australia. The Government welcomes the proposed establishment of the mission in Canberra, both as indicating the importance of EC-Australian relations and as facilitating the conduct of those relations.

The EC is in the nature of a supra-national body to the extent that its members have divested themselves of a not inconsiderable part of their sovereignty in its favour. It has the power to take action against its members for breaches of its internal rules and there have been cases where community law has overridden the national laws of its members. It has a directly elected parliament of power and significance. Honourable members will recall that it recently rejected the 1980 EC Budget. The EC has a substantial external relations function and has developed a network of overseas missions in a number of countries. These have been established in Washington; New York, to the United Nations; Ottawa; Tokyo; Bangkok; Geneva; Vienna; Paris, to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; Caracas; and Santiago.

It is necessary, in advance of the establishment of the EC mission in Canberra, to make arrangements to accord privileges and immunities to the mission and its personnel. Given the nature of the EC and the diplomatic character of its overseas missions, it is considered appropriate that the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act 1967 be amended to enable its provisions to be applied to the EC and its overseas missions, as well as to any similar regional organisations and their missions in the future.

Clause 3 of the Bill provides that a regional international organisation of the particular type contemplated in the Bill may be declared by regulation to be an international organisation for the purposes of the section. Should an international organisation be so declared, the 1967 Act would apply to it as if each reference in the Act- other than in section 12- to an overseas country, and each reference in the Vienna Convention to a sending state, or to the Government of a sending state, were a reference to the international organisation or to an organ of the international organisation if that organ is specified by the regulations. Furthermore, the Act would apply to the organisation as if any mission of the organisation which exercises functions substantially corresponding to functions exercised by a diplomatic mission were in fact a diplomatic mission. A mission of Australia to a declared international organisation, if it exercises functions substantially corresponding to functions exercised by a diplomatic mission, would be regarded, in applying sub-section 12 (1) of the 1967 Act, as ‘a mission of Australia in an overseas country’. In applying the same sub-section the mission in Australia of a declared international organisation would be regarded as ‘the mission of that country’.

The Schedule to the Bill sets out formal amendments of a drafting nature to the principal Act. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

Debate (on motion by Senator Button) adjourned.

page 1821

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (PERSONAL INCOME TAX SHARING) AMENDMENT BILL 1980

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 26 March, on motion by Senator Scott:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

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

– May I suggest, with the leave of the Senate, that this Bill and the States (Personal Income Tax

Sharing) Amendment Bill 1980 be debated cognately.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-The Opposition believes it to be important that these Bills be proceeded with as soon as possible.

The PRESIDENT:

– There being no objection, that course will be followed.

Senator COLSTON:
Queensland

-The Senate is debating two Bills- the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill 1980 and the States (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill 1980. Most of my remarks will be confined to the former Bill, the local government Bill. Subsequent speakers will be mentioning the second Bill, the States (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill 1980. At the end of my comments, I will be outlining an amendment which the Opposition wishes to move to the motion that the second of these Bills, the States (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill, be read a second time. In the meantime I wish to make some comments about the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill 1980.

The purpose of the first of the two Bills we are discussing this afternoon is to amend the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976 to increase the annual percentage of net personal income tax collections allocated to local government from 1.75 per cent to 2 per cent as from 1 980-8 1 . In some respects this is a remarkable Bill. It is remarkable because it actually puts into legislative form one of the Fraser Government’s promises. Mr Fraser, in his 1977 election policy speech, said that local government’s share of income tax collections would be raised to 2 per cent by 1980-81. The Opposition does not oppose this Bill but it has some criticisms of this Government’s funding of local authorities.

Firstly, however, I shall mention something of the history of this legislation. Ten years ago such a Bill as the one we have before us this afternoon would not have been presented to this Parliament. A decade ago the Commonwealth did not make general purpose grants 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 this afternoon, we should remember that it was during the time of the Whitlam Government that changes were made which allowed the Commonwealth to become directly involved in assisting the third tier of government- local authorities- throughout Australia.

Sometimes we probably take it for granted that untied Commonwealth funds are made available to local authorities, but this procedure really commenced only after the election of 1972. During the period from 1973 to 1975 the principle of the central Government’s helping to fund local government bodies throughout Australia was established. In those days the funds were passed through the States, as they still have to be. Due to constitutional constraints, the Commonwealth Government does not have the power to make funds directly available to local authorities. Those honourable senators who are interested in local government funding would be aware that there are some minor exceptions, as some Acts allow certain moneys to be allocated to the local authorities. This occurs because local authorities are carrying out certain functions such as the provision of welfare programs.

After 1975 the system changed. When the Fraser Government came to power it continued to provide untied funds although the format by which it provided them was different. The principal difference was that a fixed percentage of personal income tax was made available to local authorities. Basically the funds were used to provide two types of grants, namely, a per capita grant and an equalisation grant. After the Fraser Government came to power the funds were no longer distributed by the Commonwealth Grants Commission but were distributed by individual State Grants Commissions. For 1976-77, 1977-78 and 1978-79 the share of personal income tax which was made available to local government was 1.52 per cent. In November last year the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Act 1979 raised the share to 1.75 per cent for 1979-80. This Bill increases that 1.75 per cent to 2 per cent. The Minister for Special Trade Representations (Senator Scott), in his second reading speech, painted a rosy picture of Federal Government funding to local government throughout Australia. For example, he spoke of the remarkable growth in untied funds. He spoke of local authorities being far better off than previously. It is regrettable but necessary to take the Minister to task over some of the amounts and percentages which he quoted in his second reading speech. The Minister has been deliberately selective in a definite effort to make the local government position look better than it is. In his speech, the Minister said:

Since this Government took office at the end of 1975, the total level of all Commonwealth funds flowing to local government in the States has increased considerably- from S235m in 1975-76 to $333m in 1978-79, the last year for which comprehensive figures are available. This represents an annual average increase of over 1 2 per cent.

At first blush this seems to indicate a splendid government record but there are certain factors left out of the statement which, if taken into consideration, indicate that the Government’s record was, at best, mediocre. Its performance is quite pedestrian. I shall list the factors to which I refer. Firstly, the amounts of $235m and $333m to which the Minister referred were not in constant dollar terms. They were in 1 975-76 dollars and 1978-79 dollars respectively. If the former is equated to 1978-79 dollars it represents $308m. This represents a real annual average increase of 2.7 per cent, not the 12 per cent quoted by the Minister. Would it not have been more honest of the Minister to say this rather than ignore the rate of inflation so that he could quote a spurious percentage increase in Commonwealth funds flowing to local authorities? Secondly, the Minister’s statement is misleading when it claims that $235m represents the total amount of all government funding flowing to local government for 1975-76. In his second reading speech the Minister admits this. He stated: 1 might add, for the information of honourable senators, that the figures I have quoted exclude funds provided under the Regional Employment Development Scheme and employment grants passed on to local authorities by the States. Under those schemes which were terminated by the previous Government in 1975-76, local authorities were merely used as a channel for the disbursement of funds to assist employment.

This is a misleading statement by the Minister. Regional Employment Development Scheme funds, in particular, were welcomed by local authorities throughout Australia. They gave local authorities the opportunity to carry out many worthwhile projects which otherwise would have been left undone. To exclude these funds from an historical comparison of Commonwealth funds flowing to local government is bordering on dishonesty.

As an example of how Regional Employment Development Scheme funding assisted local authorities I refer to a Press release of 18 April 1975 by the then Minister for Labour and Immigration, Mr Clyde Cameron, in which he listed four Queensland projects approved after a meeting of regional employment development Ministers on that day. I refer to those four projects. The first two projects concern the Mulgrave Shire Council, which has its headquarters at Cairns in north Queensland. The first of these projects was designed to construct 64 precast, prestressed. deck planking bridges to replace old timber bridges which were expensive to maintain and were unsuited for present day traffic conditions. It was to cost $103,000, of which the RED Scheme would contribute $ 100,000, and it would employ 20 unemployed people for 16 weeks. In the same Press statement in relation to the Mulgrave Shire Council it was stated:

Water reticulation and tree planting at 7 beach resorts near Cairns to improve picnic facilities for residents and tourists, to cost $103,000 (REDS $100,000) and to employ 24 unemployed people for 16 weeks.

The same Press statement outlined that the Johnstone Shire Council, which has its headquarters in Innisfail in north Queensland, would receive the following assistance:

Kerbing, channelling and stormwater drainage construction in 32 streets in Innisfail town, to cost $262,953 (REDS $237,908) and to employ 42 unemployed people for up to 20 weeks.

Finally, the Press statement outlined that the Moreton Shire Council, which has its headquarters in Ipswich, Queensland, would receive:

Construction of 5,500 metres of kerbing and channelling and 500 metres of footpaths in the town of Rosewood, to cost $143,538 (REDS $142,568) and to employ 24 unemployed for 24 weeks.

I mention these to outline how local authorities throughout Australia welcomed this assistance. To exclude such projects from statistics for total Commonwealth funding to local government would be quite misleading. The Minister is totally disregarding $94m which went directly to local authorities in 1975-76. In a similar way, about $15m in Commonwealth employment grants was passed on to local authorities in 1975-76. To say, as the Minister did in relation to these grants to local authorities, that they were merely used as a channel for the disbursement of funds to assist employment’, again is not being totally honest. What was the real position in 1975-76? If the Regional Employment Development Scheme and employment grants are included, the value of Commonwealth projects to local government in 1975-76 was of the order of $343m, not the $235m which the Minister mentioned. In money terms, this amount of $343m is higher than the $333m which the Government allocated in 1978-79. In real terms, the $343m would be equivalent to $450m at 1 978-79 values. Thus, there has been a decrease since 1975-76, not an increase as claimed by the Minister.

The third paragraph of the second reading speech of the Minister for Special Trade Representations should have read: ‘Since the Government took office at the end of 1975, the total level of all Commonwealth funds flowing to local government in the States expressed in terms of 1978-79 values has decreased considerably, from $450m in 1975-76 to $333m in 1978-79, the last year for which comprehensive figures are available. These figures represent an average annual decrease of 8.6 per cent’. That type of statement would be more helpful to local government administrators. They are concerned with the real level of funding which they have at their disposal. At one stage in his second reading speech the Minister stated:

All in all, local authorities are far better off since the introduction of tax sharing arrangements than before.

When one carefully analyses the figures, one sees that that statement is absolutely false. For the Minister to slant figures to bolster his argument is one thing; to make false statements is another. It is quite clear that as far as Commonwealth funds are concerned local authorities are not better off than they were in 1975-76. Local government authorities are likely to have a minor windfall in 1980-81 due to the Government’s income tax policy. Income tax will not be fully indexed and even the Government’s half indexation will be discounted for a number of items. The end result of this policy will be that local authorities will receive 2 per cent of the Government’s additional tax take.

However, I see a cloud on the horizon for local authorities. The Fraser Government is taking millions of dollars in tax from motorists throughout Australia and local authorities will not receive one cent of that revenue. In fact many local authorities will be contributing to the Government’s petrol tax take. Next year the Government is likely to receive at least $3,000m from its petrol tax. If local authorities were to receive 2 per cent of this amount they would receive an extra $60m a year. This is not an inconsiderable sum. It would represent about a 15 per cent increase in the revenue which local authorities would receive from the Commonwealth Government. Such an increase would make a marked difference to the services which local authorities throughout Australia could provide. What local authorities must carefully monitor is the way in which the Government receives taxes. If there is a major shift away from raising revenue through income tax or if income tax becomes a less significant part of the total revenue, local authorities will have to consider their position carefully. It may be necessary for them to lobby for an increased share of income tax or a share of taxes which are at present closed to them, such as the massive petrol tax which Australians now pay.

To return to the point I made earlier, the Opposition has some criticisms of the Fraser

Government’s funding of local authorities. I have definite criticisms of the misleading way in which the Minister presented his figures in his second reading speech. However, in view of-the extreme financial need of many local authorities in Australia, the Opposition does not oppose the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill 1980. 1 mentioned in my outline that I would be speaking principally to that Bill because later speakers for the Opposition will speak principally to the States (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill. I believe that Senator Wriedt in particular will be speaking mainly to that Bill. However, on behalf of the Opposition I foreshadow an amendment to the motion that the States (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill 1980 be read a second time. This amendment reads:

At end of motion, add ,’but the Senate is of the opinion that the Bill is grossly deficient in that it-

only guarantees the States a minimum entitlement to general financial assistance in 1 980-8 1 which is lower real value per capita than the level of such payments in 1979-80;

provides this inadequate guarantee for only 1 year, after which the only guarantee for the States is that the total money amount of such payments will not be reduced in future years, a guarantee which would allow continuing reductions in the value of such payments in future years;

in combination with the severe reductions in the real value of specific purpose payments to the States, will place the States in acute financial difficulty; and

will accordingly place great pressure on the States to introduce a second income tax as provided for by the Fraser Government ‘s new federalism ‘.

Senates MESSNER (South Australia) (5. 10)- I would like to confine my remarks today to the area of local government financing as provided for by the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill 1980 because I believe it is in that area where the Fraser Government is demonstrating most clearly its commitment to the new federalism policy. That policy, as we all recall, was enunciated prior to the 1975 Federal election and was overwhelmingly endorsed by the people at that election. Clearly this policy, which entails the distribution of funds not only to the local government bodies but also to State governments, is a major boon to those bodies. More importantly, the policy carries with it another factor which is most important in our democracy; that is, it clearly diffuses power as expressed through the bank, if you like, throughout the various interest groups in our community.

It seems to me that the payment of a share of income tax by the Federal Government direct to local government allows local pressures to apply in respect of the distribution of those funds in local communities. That is, I think, one of the key elements in trying to establish the relationship between a taxpayer and the way in which taxes are distributed in the community, by ensuring that the local person who exercises his vote through the ballot box at local government elections elects councillors to local councils who have a decision in distributing funds which were first collected by the Federal Government. That is a vital element in this policy and I think it was well recognised by the people back in 1975. It is a matter of pure philosophy, and Liberal philosophy, which we are all committed to. Not only is this a philosophical matter, it is also a very practical one. Clearly the commitment to the distribution of funds via local government bodies means that local needs are best served. Local government organisations, subject to local pressures, are best able to judge the way in which money is spent for the benefit of taxpayers in local areas. Therefore the policy ensures that it is spent most wisely and where the need is greatest.

That is a clear, positive gain for the taxpayers and the citizens of Australia. It has a side benefit also of ensuring that centralism in decision making is reduced. This consequently brings the added benefit of reduced administrative costs in distributing those funds. In other words this very far-sighted measure, which was implemented by the Fraser Government in 1976 with a distribution of 1.52 per cent of personal income tax collections, is a policy aimed deliberately at diffusing power in the community and ensuring the best distribution of funds to meet local needs. It clearly provides the sinews for local government to get into areas of concern and to demonstrate positively the policy which in previous times was only set out in writing. This policy, by distributing money in such a way, gives local government the means to meet its commitments and thereby demonstrates the real earnest of the Fraser Government’s interest in real Liberal principles and philosophy of diffusing power through the three-tiered governmental structure which we have in this country.

I would like to refer to some of the distributions which have been made in the last couple of years in my State and, in particular, the western suburban areas of Adelaide. I do this because in some ways- as has often been stated by organisations interested in social security matters- the western suburbs of Adelaide tend to be regarded as somewhat disadvantaged. Since 1978-79 the total amount of money that has gone into the region defined in the South Australian Local Government Grants Commission report of 1979 has been $2,039,000. In 1979-80 that figure rose to $2,446,000, which represents a rise of just a shade under 20 per cent in one year. That figure does not take into account the provision in this Bill which raises the total amount of money that will be distributed by the Federal Government to local government bodies from 1.75 per cent of total collections to the promised 2 per cent which was first enunciated by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) in his election policy speech in 1977. Clearly, the Prime Minister is honouring his promise in respect of the citizens of the western areas of Adelaide.

Senator Button:

– That is the exception which proves the rule.

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I say to Senator Button that those disadvantaged citizens are very proud to support the Government in this matter and, as he would well know, were responsible for electing the third senator in South Australia in 1 977. When we look at individual councils in this region we see that last year the Glenelg City Council received an additional $2 1 ,000 for its own distribution. The Henley and Grange City Council funds have been increased from $160,000 to $195,000. The Hindmarsh Town Council, which administers a very depressed area in metropolitan Adelaide, has had its funds increased from $1 15,000 to $142,000. The Port Adelaide City Council- an area of which I have an intimate knowledge and which is very concerned with the future of its senior citizens who make up a very high proportion of people in that area- has had its proportion of funds increased from $540,000 to $648,000 in this current financial year. The Thebarton Town Council, a smaller council, has had its funds increased from $134,000 to $161,000. West Torrens City Council, one of the larger councils in metropolitan Adelaide, has had its funds increased from $346,000 to $395,000. Woodville City Council, perhaps one of the largest of the councils in metropolitan Adelaide and certainly one with a very big commitment in the area of new housing developments, has had its funds increased from $593,000 to $733,000.

Not only do these distributions of funds represent the sinews for the working of local government bodies in those areas, but also they provide a very real benefit to the individual citizens of Adelaide who live in those areas. Clearly, that is a very beneficial means of ensuring that not only do they obtain greater benefits which reflect themselves in new services being provided by local government bodies, but also it ensures the maintenance of administration at the lowest possible cost and it ensures that rates and other taxes that are imposed by local government bodies are not rising by inordinate degrees. This is a very significant factor and represents particular personal family benefits for every person who lives in that area. That is a very real contribution from the Federal Government on behalf of the individual citizens who live in those parts. Of course, it is also an expression of the Fraser Government’s earnest and definite policy in this regard.

I conclude by drawing the attention of the Senate again to this very worthwhile means of ensuring that funds are distributed through the power structure in our community. It ensures that benefits are made available at the most local level where they can do the most good and it ensures that people have a very real say in the needs of their local community. I know that these measures are popular at a local government level. Certainly they are popular among the citizenry of the western districts of Adelaide. Consequently, I support the Bill.

Senator McLAREN:
South Australia

– The Senate is debating cognately the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill 1980 and the States (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill 1980. It will be recalled that last Wednesday I endeavoured to raise a matter in the Senate, on a motion concerning the first reading of the excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3), on behalf of many local government bodies in South Australia. As honourable senators know, certain events overtook me and I was unable to do so. I will continue my representations today on behalf of those bodies while speaking to these Bills. Senator Messner quoted extensively from the South Australian Local Government Grants Commission’s annual report of 1979, and he went on to say how well local government in the metropolitan area of South Australia had fared under the Grants Commission. I remind Senator Messner that the report was compiled during the reign of the South Australian Labor Government. It was very pleasing to hear him give due credit to the previous Labor Government in South Australia because so often honourable senators opposite criticise that Government and say that it did not give a fair go to all councils.

Some time ago I received a letter from my own council, which was critical of the State Government because it was not carrying out the terms of the legislation as it ought to. I want to quote from that short letter to me, which enclosed a copy of a letter to the Prime Minister, Mr Fraser. Under the date of 30 January 1980, the letter to me reads:

Dear Sir,

Please find enclosed a copy of a letter submitted to the Hon. Prime Minister, Mr Fraser regarding Road Grant Funds for rural local governing authorities.

Your support in this matter would be appreciated.

The Council, in writing to the Prime Minister, pointed out that it had been concerned for some time at the apparent reduction in road grants to local government bodies in South Australia. It went on to say that it could not speak for the situation in other States as that was unknown. The letter continued:

The Local Government Act in South Australia provides that a division of funds made available through the Highways Fund is to be divided among Council ‘s allowing 75 per cent of the monies allocated to other than Metropolitan Councils and 25 per cent among Metropolitan Councils. This Council questions whether these requirements have been met in recent years and strongly believes that this Section of the Local Government Act is not being adhered to.

I had occasion to write to the Clerk of the Council on 15 February, in reply to the Council’s letter. I acknowledged the copy of the correspondence to the Prime Minister and said:

I would be very grateful if you would provide me with full details of why your Council believes that the Local Government Act has not been adhered in recent years, to enable me to make inquiries of the responsible Departments.

I repeat that that letter was written on 15 February. As I had not received acknowledgement from the Council of that letter, I wrote again to Mr Coventry, the Clerk, on 10 April, that is, two months after I received the correspondence. I referred him to his correspondence of 30 January, which enclosed a copy of a letter to the Prime Minister, regarding the road grants about which I have spoken, and said:

In my reply of 15 February 1980 1 sought from you the full details which led your Council to believe that the 75 per cent-25 per cent allocation of funds under the Local Government Act in South Australia has not been adhered to.

As nearly two months have now elapsed, I would be grateful if you would make the information available to enable me to follow up your request of 30 January.

As of today, I have not received any communication from the District Council of Murray Bridge setting out the areas in which it thinks that the South Australian Local Government Act was not adhered to during the reign of the South Australian Labor Government. I am disturbed that statements can be made, and no doubt they have been made in council, that the State Government had not dispersed funds it received from the Commonwealth under this legislation in conformity with the State Local Government Act. Of course, I will be unable to take up the matter with the Prime Minister, the Minister for Transport (Mr Hunt), or whoever is responsible, until the Murray Bridge District Council acquaints me with the facts as to which aspects of the State Government Act have not been adhered to. I am left in somewhat of a dilemma because I am unable to do that. Yet other councils have written in and bitterly complained that the Federal Government is responsible for the fact that funds for councils to carry out their local government’s road works have run out in South Australia. I want to quote from a telegram dated 19 March that I received from Mr Jim Hullick, the Secretary-General of the Local Government Association of South Australia Incorporated. The telegram is addressed to me and the address is 6 Third Street, Murray Bridge. The telegram states:

Local Government Association South Australia extremely concerned about deterioration of Australian road system. Local government and State government cannot continue to shoulder the burden of decreases in federal road funds. Fuel economy safety and roads investment are at stake through refusal of Federal Government to meet its full responsibilities in tripartite road funds system. LGA of SA calls on Federal Government to recognise road needs as high priority and to increase road grants to $900m in 1 980-81. Australian motorists must receive a fair share from estimated $3,000m fuel taxes and oil levy. SA share of federal road grants declining dramatically and LGA seeks increase of 10 per cent of total federal roads funds in 1 980-8 1 to meet SA transport needs.

Local government in South Australia seeks your support in the Parliament for increased road grants in 1 980-8 1 and an increase to a fair share for SA. Letter following.

I received a letter dated 19 March setting out all the reasons why the Local Government Association of South Australia had contacted me to seek my support for the allocation of extra grant funds to the South Australian Government to enable local government to carry out its road works. I am doing that here in the Parliament today. I endeavoured to do it last Wednesday, but as I said I was unable to raise this matter then.

One would have thought, from listening to Senator Messner, that the State Government of South Australia has any amount of finance available to it from this Federal Government. The honourable senator quoted in detail from the Grants Commission report. He listed all the metropolitan councils that had received much more money under this Government than apparently they had received under the Whitlam Government. Yet the Local Government Association of South Australia has written to South Australian members of parliament complaining that local government is not receiving enough. No doubt you, Mr President, along with other South Australian senators have received similar type of correspondence in which all the local government bodies set out their complaints.

As I said earlier, I am in a dilemma over the correspondence that I received from the Murray Bridge District Council. I find myself in a further dilemma now, having listened to Senator Messner who said that in fact this Government is providing adequate funds for the South Australian Government to disperse.

Senator Bishop:

– That is in his opinion.

Senator McLAREN:

– That is in his opinion. He is saying that this Government is providing adequate funds for the South Australian Government to disperse to local government bodies in South Australia. It is quite obvious that if Senator Messner has received the same correspondence that my Labor Party colleagues Senator Bishop, Senator Elstob and Senator Cavanagh have received, he has not bothered to read it. If he had done so he would not have stood up in Parliament today and said that his Government, the Fraser Government, is making any amount of money available to the authorities in South Australia to enable them to carry out the road works that are necessary. Of course, as my colleague Senator Colston pointed out, it was the Whitlam Labor Government that first introduced legislation to give local government bodies a share in federal revenue. Until the Whitlam Government brought that legislation into the Parliament local government bodies had no direct access to grants from the federal sphere whatever. Yet we find that on many occasions the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Carrick) gets up in this place and criticises the Whitlam Government. He always refers- he does this particularly during Question Time- to the terrible things that were done from 1972 to 1975 under the jurisdiction of the Whitlam Government. Yet we know full well that the Whitlam Government instigated and put on the statute books legislation which in fact was of great benefit to local government bodies.

I have had occasion to reply to quite a few of the letters that I have received from local government. I will quote from only one of my replies because I have written the same letter to all of the local government bodies which have written and asked me to support their plea for extra grants and funding for roads in South Australia. I will quote only one section of my letter, which is typical of the type of letter I have written on other occasions. I said:

Whilst I will do everything I can to support your case, I must point out the difficulty I face due to the repeated statements by Mr Tonkin -

That is the present Liberal Premier of South Australia- during the last State election campaign that he Tully supported the policies of the Fraser Government.

During that State election campaign last year, in every advertisement we saw in the Press and heard on radio and television we witnessed Mr Tonkin and his fellow candidates, who are now the Ministers in the State Government, stating that they fully supported the policies of the Fraser Government. Now we find that local government bodies are in financial difficulty due to the funding arrangements and are asking members of the Federal Parliament to support their plea for extra funding. As I have pointed out to them, I am sure that we will get the answer: ‘Mr Tonkin is quite happy with the situation. Why should we alter the format of funding for local government in South Australia when Mr Tonkin is on record as having said time and again last September that he fully supported the policies of the Government?’ I would say that Mr Tonkin will have a very hard row to hoe when next he comes to Canberra seeking extra grants for local government bodies in South Australia. If Mr Fraser is any sort of a politician he will trot out all those advertisements and Press statements. He will say to Mr Tonkin: ‘Why did you support me during the State election campaign and say that you were quite satisfied with what I was doing for South Australia?’ Mr Tonkin will not be able to have it both ways. He probably will return to South Australia a very crestfallen man because of the utterances he made during the previous State election campaign.

Now I come to the other problem we face, particularly in country areas. I think this problem was emphasised here today. I refer to the high price of petrol in country areas in all States. The local government bodies have emphasised the problems created by increases in the price of petrol and the high level of taxes, through the petrol pump, being levied on every taxpayer. As the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Hayden, has said repeatedly, Mr Fraser has used every petrol pump as a tax office. Local government is now saying that it is entitled to receive a greater share of that tax revenue to help it to carry out its functions in constructing roads. We were told in the Senate today that a petrol war is now going on in metropolitan areas. I think that Senator Georges said that today petrol can be purchased in the Brisbane area for about 28c a litre, yet in some of the country areas of Queensland people have to pay over 40c a litre for petrol. For the people who live in the country there is no equality with the people who live in the city.

Yet the Government uses the ploy, as did the Minister for National Development and Energy,

Senator Carrick, today, of stating that it has granted an extra freight subsidy so that petrol will not cost any more than about 2c a litre in the country than it is in the city. That is a complete myth; it does not happen. Even in Murray Bridge, where I live, petrol is anything up to 6c a litre dearer than it is in Adelaide, just 50 miles away. The local retailers of petrol are finding it very difficult to maintain viable enterprises because they have to pay more for the petrol they buy from the petrol companies to fill their bowsers than they would have to pay if they were to go to Adelaide and buy it retail from some of the pumps run by the petrol companies.

What Senator Georges said when he asked a question here today is quite right: There is no equality in Australia today as far as the price of petrol is concerned. Local government realises that and is asking this Government to make more funds available. Mr Hullick, the SecretaryGeneral of the Local Government Association of South Australia Inc., wants another $900m in grants so that the local councils can do their bit in constructing local roads. What we have to realise is that not only the people who live in the country towns and shires use those local roads. Where I live in Murray Bridge massive juggernautsthese massive road transports- are significant users of the roads. I have referred to them before. They are the ones which do all the damage to the roads. Yet many times in the Parliament we hear people criticise our railway system because it is heavily subsidised. It is subsidised because it is giving a service to the people. Nothing is ever said about the amount of money expended on constructing roads throughout the length and breadth of this country so that massive transports can run on them. They do untold damage, much more than the private car. This is one of the problems which local government faces.

As I have said before in speaking on matters pertaining to the closure of country rail services, local government bodies will have to get more and more money to construct roads. For every country railway service that is closed down country roads will have to be used more and more by road transport to service the farmers and people who live in country towns. If this Government is not prepared to make more funds available to local government bodies to construct roads we will find in the not too distant future that roads in the country areas of Australia- not only South Australia but also in other areas- will be unusable. Where will we go then? We have to get the produce which is grown by the farmers to market. If we cannot do that what will the Government do? Will it start building railways again which it is now foolishly closing down? That is something about which the Government ought to be thinking. Instead of closing down railways and forcing local government bodies to seek more funds to construct roads in their areas, we ought to be upgrading the railways so that this will not happen.

I have put the case on behalf of the local government bodies which have approached me. I repeat that I am very disappointed that Senator Messner obviously did not read the correspondence which he received from those local government bodies imploring this Government to make more funds available. He took the opposite view and stated that South Australia in particular, the State from which both he and I are elected, is doing well from the funding arrangements of this Government. We say that it is not. We agree with the local government bodies that more funds are required. It is no good the Government’s crying poor and saying that it does not have the wherewithal to provide funds. We know that with the massive tax rake off which the Government is now getting from every petrol pump in the country it is well able to afford increased funding for local councils, local roads and many other things that are required in the country areas of South Australia. As Senator Colston pointed out, we support one of the Bills. He has foreshadowed an amendment to the other Bill. It depends on what the Minister says in reply to some of the problems which I have raised about funding for local governments as to whether it will be necessary to pursue this matter further in the Committee stage of the Bill.

Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales

– The Bill before the Senate is designed to increase the annual percentage of net personal income tax allocated to local government authorities in the States from 1.75 per cent to 2 per cent, an increase of 14 per cent. The general inflation rate over the past year means, in effect, that local government will receive not an increased share but rather just sufficient actual income. Whilst supporting such a move, as it is Labor Party policy to do, we say that the Bill is far from satisfactory. The Labor Party has always regarded local government as a key level of administration. It is here that the Australian people can become most directly involved in making and influencing decisions in their local communities in accordance with their own wishes and aspirations. It is at the local government level that people feel closest to the whole decision-making process. They can see the impact of moneys spent with proper organisation and a proper allocation of funds. They can develop a decent sense of community.

Having regard to the problems besetting local government, one would have thought that the Government would have had some regard to the need to look at the funding of local government in the way in which the Whitlam Government did in the years 1972 to 1975. 1 contest the view that this Government has- that is, its ideological position- that what is required in Australia is access to more consumer goods and more services provided by the private sector whereas, in fact, experience shows that it is the area of community facilities, public facilities, that the Australian people feel most strongly about. Having served for a long period in local government and having noticed the demands of local government to which my colleague Senator McLaren has just referred, I can speak with a degree of confidence when I say that, contrary to what this Government believes, there is a rising demand for more funds, not in the form of direct taxation through rates, but in the form of additional funds from the central government. Such funds would enable local government to provide the range of services which local government and the people believe are their just right.

There is no question that no matter what local government area we examine, no matter what State we examine, we will find that people want better roads. In that sense, I am talking of roads that are the responsibility of local government. They want better community facilities, more recreational facilities and better libraries. In fact, they want a whole range of community facilities that accord with the needs of a modern community. That is why the Whitlam Administration had as the corner-stone of its philosophy on local government the need to use local government in a most active way. As the years since 1 975 pass, it is becoming more and more obvious when we look at local government, which is a labourintensive section of the Australian community, that this is one area where properly directed resource fund allocations can provide a wide range of job opportunities that would take into account the needs of the Australian people. After all, it is in this area that we can envisage the improvement of the physical environment in which all people live. The planning of areas, the provision of proper transport facilities, rehabilitation, the provision of land for recreational purposes, the planting of trees, and the provision of child care centres, kindergartens and library facilities are just a few ways in which local government can be used by a government that has a correct philosophical position.

We find unacceptable the Government’s propositions that we should be spending less on community services and that we should be spending more on the private sector to get the economy going. Only in the last few days have we heard the words of the Minister for Finance, Mr Eric Robinson, in this regard. In one of his addresses to an organisation, he said that not only should the Federal Government be cutting back on Commonwealth revenue, Commonwealth spending, but so should the States and so should local government. That is quite contrary to all experience in Australia, which indicates that people are demanding better community facilities in all the ways in which State and local government can operate. At this very moment we see motorist organisations such as the National Roads and Motorists Association in my own State and sister organisations, to a lesser extent in other States, campaigning for more national funds, more Federal funds, for the purpose of improving our main road system as distinct from what is required in the local government system.

The Fraser Government has an entirely different attitude. It hands out as little as possible at the local government level. It has a highly conservative attitude to the potentials that exist at the local government level and consequently provides no room for experimentation or expansion. I would have thought that, if this Government were interested in solving the problem of unemployment, if it were interested in the rights, the needs and the aspirations of people, it would be looking to local government as one of those areas which could provide an ever widening range of activities and which could provide employment opportunities for the increasing numbers of people who cannot find employment in the private sector of our economy.

I invite honourable members to recall some of the innovative local activity schemes for which the Whitlam Government was responsible. I refer to the air improvement programs and to the Australian Assistance Plan. They were highly innovative, labour intensive and successful in that they did provide local government with an opportunity to stimulate community involvement and provided local, State and Federal governments with plans under which communities could improve their environment. Although I am not suggesting that all of the programs were necessarily successful they did show the way by ensuring devolution of power and decentralisation, by enabling local people to make suggestions and to involve themselves in the needs of their community.

If we had a national government that really understood local government and its potential it would be a different matter. If we had a national government that really wanted to help local government in a full-hearted way, that government would be examining the important experiments of 1973-75. It would be concerned to communicate with local government about its needs, about how to expand, progress and provide the resources to take up the slack in employment. It would involve communities in planning for a better environment. The Fraser Government has done none of these things.

I remind the Senate of the tables that were incorporated in the House of Representatives Hansard of 25 March by my colleague Mr Uren. They indicate clearly how this Government’s philosophy affects local government adversely. They show that specific purpose payments to local government have been either withdrawn or cut drastically-from $180m in 1975-76 to $27m in 1979-80. Such payments facilitated programs which allowed for the sharing of ideas and for greater contact between those involved in the three levels of government. We were given an opportunity to see co-operative federalism really functioning. We saw Commonwealth funding and initiative, State government co-operation and local government providing the framework for community activity. This Government shows little concern for such ideas and, consequently, little concern for the unemployed. It runs away from providing the necessary funds to aid a growing pool of desperate people. It does that because it believes, one might say sincerely but certainly wholeheartedly, in the principle that only in the private sector should capital funds be applied by those who possess them for the purpose of generating activity. Thus, return upon or profit from investment is seen as the only criteria upon which the private sector should operate. The private sector will not provide the necessary stimulus to get the economy on the go again. Time and time again we have seen that the Government has based the whole of its approach to regenerating the Australian economy on the actions of an unspecified private sector, in the hands of groups of people whose interests are distinctly different from those of a national government.

The basic question that we must ask ourselves in respect of this legislation is: Why does local government funding possess a particular importance? The answer is that it is the one key area in which the inherent injustices of the taxation system, which benefit the middle and upper income earners, can be counterbalanced by Federal funding. My colleague Senator McLaren has referred to the fact that Federal Government revenue from income taxation is declining in significance relative to other forms of taxation. Therefore we have, in a period of inflation, a depreciating share of income tax revenue for local government coupled with an increasing emphasis on such other taxes as, for example, the petrol tax, from which local government receives no revenue whatever.

Let me deal with this in more detail. For example, only about 1 7 per cent of Government receipts comes from company taxation, whereas approximately 5.6 per cent comes from Customs, 14 per cent from excise, 8 per cent from sales tax and 45 per cent from income tax. Companies come off very lightly indeed; and it is this sector which is expected to expand in the present economic circumstances, according to the philosophy of this Government.

Local government financing provides an important means of creating regional balance in resource utilisation. No one could argue that such a balance exists today. For example- I am talking now in the context of New South Wales- does this Government really believe that we can compare Mount Druitt with the suburb of Killara? Do children of the western suburbs of Sydney have the same opportunities as those on the North Shore? Surely a society which is concerned with the needs of people should attempt to weigh social, geographical, demographic and density features in its financial decision making. But this legislation provides no means of reaching that equilibrium or even that objective. At June 1975 local government in Australia employed 1 4 1 ,000 people. Solely as a result of the cutback in local government funding by the Federal Government- that is, the Federal funds which have been deliberately cut despite the objectives stated in this piece of legislation- the local government work force in Australia at June 1979 stood at 127,500, which was 13,500 less than the number employed when the last Hayden Budget was presented in 1975.

A drastic drop in employment has taken place in the manufacturing sector of our economy over the last decade or so- a drop approximating 20 to 30 per cent. In local government employment, one of” the areas which is labour intensive, there has been a drop, albeit a small drop. The movements in these areas indicate the reasons why this Government finds itself unable to overcome the problems of permanent unemployment, which is a feature of the policies of the Australian Government. This Federal Government is using inflation as an excuse for making cutbacks in key areas of social need. At the same time it is generous to the rich and powerful corporations which are given all sorts of incentives to increase their exports, their investments and their introduction of technology, all of which are designed to make big companies bigger in terms of profitability and to reach certain social objectives which, after this Government has been in office for almost five years, clearly are not being achieved. Yet this Government persists with that ideological position.

This Government has no regard for the impact that these cutbacks are having on average citizens, in particular those who are most heavily affected. The 950-odd local government bodies in this country are decentralised throughout the country in areas which can provide a range of opportunities for employment and which can realise the aspirations and expectations of local communities. Of course, in rural areas, where we are witnessing a slow but perceptible decline in employment opportunities for a whole variety of reasons which are associated with a world-wide trend, local government provides one of the few opportunities of extending the range of job opportunities.

Despite difficulties and despite the beginning of the decline of all the economies throughout the Western world the Labor Government set out consciously and in a planned way to try to provide additional funds in local government areas. Schemes were established for employment and to mobilise people. Schemes were created to meet local needs and to provide opportunities for work. It is an absurd argument to say that not enough funds are available. We challenge the theories of this Government because we believe that the direction of the economic policies pursued by this Government has to be changed; the direction in which Federal funds are being allocated has to be challenged. We are challenging the direction in which this Government is taking this country by pursuing the false belief that if we provide sufficient incentive for the private sector it will respond in some nebulous, unplanned, altruistic way to provide the sorts of work opportunities that will give every person in this country the right to a job.

The absurd argument that insufficient funds are available is used constantly by all government spokesmen. We have only to examine the balance sheets of all the major companies to see the tremendous increase in capital funds accumulation and in profitability of the major sectors of the Australian economy. It is an absurd proposition that we should leave it to those who have the right to make decisions about how those funds should be allocated. It is absurd that those people should be left free of any community influence or any national government influence about how these important capital funds should be applied for the purpose of providing jobs. This is so particularly when we have a government which takes the view that there ought to be cutbacks in funding to local and State governments in the same way that there are cutbacks in the Federal sphere. It is a question of social priorities. It is a question of understanding social needs and it is a question of concerning ourselves with the attitude that this Government takes on these important questions of social priorities.

More than at any other time in our post-war history there is a growing urgency for conteracting the discernable, growing trend for some regions in our country to become richer and better equipped at the expense of other regions which are struggling to reach a satisfactory level of spending. Of course, I am referring to local government. In all Western countries there is a growing polarisation of wealth on the one hand and poverty on the other. I defy any Government spokesman to deny that that is the statistical trend- it is an alarming one- that is taking place. Economists who think about it and who have a social conscience are concerned about this trend. They argue that regional income redistribution is a useful method of relieving this trend.

The Australian Labor Party makes no apologies for the period it was in government. It had a policy of recognising need in relation to how local government funding should be organised. In other words, when the Labor Government looked at the new suburbs that were developing around most of our capital cities it attempted to make more funds available to those regions because their need was greatest. The Labor Government also recognised the need to spend money based on need in respect of education. That is another area which this Government has transgressed. It has changed the priorities and has made allocations based not on need but on a plan which in fact assists the greedy and the well provided for rather than the needy and those who badly require federal funds to equalise education opportunities. This applies also in the local government area to the needs of local communities. In the post-war period conservative governments in Canberra have resisted consistently the pleadings of local government. I refer particularly to the 1950s and the 1960s when local government was pressing for 5 per cent of national revenue to be made available to local government. Deputations to the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, sometimes through the agencies of

State Premiers were rejected out of hand by all the conservative governments.

Sitting suspended from 6 to 8 p.m. (Quorum formed).

Senator GIETZELT:

– It must be remembered that during the whole of the post-war period conservative governments in Canberra- that is, from 1949 right through until 1974- have resisted the pleadings of local government for proper recognition in the trinity of government that exists in this country. It is only in more recent times that there has been an acceptance that local government has an integral part to play in the whole structure of government in Australia. Throughout the post-war period, massive development took place, the needs of migrants became apparent, and the suburbanisation process occurred. There was tremendous post-war growth, when hundreds of new communities were developed, principally at the local level and under the responsibility of local government. During this time the national government, at the behest of Liberal-Country Party philosophy, resisted the provision of the necessary funds to plan those new communities properly. It was left entirely to local government to find funds from local sources, without any assistance from the States, to provide for the proper and orderly development of those new suburbs. The consequence of this was that community facilities lagged far behind the needs of those new and local communities.

The Gorton Government was no more sympathetic than the Menzies Government, and the McMahon Government was no more sympathetic than either the Gorton or Menzies governments before it. They would not listen to the pleas of local government. In fact, in 1 970 the Liberal-Country Party Government refused to meet a deputation from the Australian Council of Local Government Associations, which was then pressing very strongly for the recognition of local government as an integral part of the trinity of government organisations in Australia. It was left to the Whitlam Government to change this process and to recognise the vital role that local government played in grass roots democracy in this country. In 1973 the Commonwealth Government, accepted for the first time since Federation, responsibility for some areas of funding for local government, not only in the form of direct grants but also in the form of ancillary or additional funds based on need, community involvement, and the Australian Assistance Plan, and the area improvement programs, which were a very important addition to the needs and expectations of local communities throughout the length and breadth of our country.

The Fraser Government has decided as part of its policy to continue somewhat the principles which were established during the Whitlam period. However, it has managed to take the essential driving force out of the Whitlam philosophy. It has sought only to establish a technical and mechanical arrangement which does not recognise need and the right of local communities to make representations through the States to the Commonwealth Government and which therefore falls far short of the essential requirements that are inherent in most other countries in the relationship between local authorities and a national government. Nevertheless, this legislation certainly represents an improvement on the past neglect by conservative governments in Canberra. It is certainly an improvement on the 1.75 per cent assistance which was provided in the last Budget. However, we believe cutbacks have flowed from this Government’s approach in the 1979 Budget. Whilst direct grants have been made, this Government has failed to take into consideration the extensive additional funds which were made available to local government authorities through the special grants arrangements and has failed to recognise the needs concept. Nevertheless, it is better to have half the cake if we cannot have the cake itself.

To that extent the Labor Party will not oppose the Bills which are now before the Senate. It regrets that the Government has not seen fit to make the essential step to place local government finances on a firm basis to meet its requirements and demands, some of which were so ably represented by my colleague Senator McLaren in respect of South Australia. The views of local government bodies throughout Australia can be adequately summed up as follows: There is still insufficient and adequate recognition at the national level of the needs of local government funding.

Senator WATSON:
Tasmania

– Tonight we are debating cognately the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill and the States (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill. Each of these Bills recognises the important concept of federalism, namely that in addition to the Federal tier of government there are two other levels- the State level and the local government level. Now the Federal Government has sought to share responsibility with these other two levels of government. The Federal Government recognises the important part that both local and State governments play by being very close to the Australian people. All too often we hear criticism that government is remote from the people. These Bills seek to bring government closer to the people. For that reason they have my wholehearted support.

The States (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill provides amendments to the 1 976 Act to the effect that each of the States ‘ tax sharing entitlements for 1980-81 will be equal in real terms to the 1979-80 entitlements. This Bill is the result of agreements which were made at the December 1 979 Premiers Conference on the subject of minimum tax sharing entitlements. Under this Bill the States will receive 39.87 per cent of their personal income tax collections for the previous year. Under this Bill we also find that the revenue from land used for mining purposes will now be added to the States entitlements. The consumer price index is to be used as a yardstick for ensuring that real tax equivalents are guaranteed. It is expected under this Bill that the States’ entitlement will be 1 1.3 per cent higher in 1980-81 than in 1979-80. Of course, the rights of the States will be protected as the tax sharing arrangements are to be reviewed by the end of 1 980-8 1 .

I think that it is important to give some examples of the Federal Government’s responsible attitude towards the States. In a Treasury summary which was issued in February this year it is stated that in the six months to December 1979 the States have accumulated a surplus of $ 159.2m. We also note that the State public services have actually increased their work force by 30 per cent while at the same time the Commonwealth Public Service has increased its work force by only 1 7 per cent. Thus, as a result of the Commonwealth ‘s generosity towards the States, the States have been able to substantially increase their range of services and employment opportunities. The Fraser Government has increased the amount of general purpose grants as opposed to specific purpose grants because it believes that general purpose grants can be best used and are best used at the discretion of the States.

I believe that this is one main difference between our Government and the Whitlam Government. Whereas the Whitlam Government chose specific purpose grants, this Government favours giving discretion to the States and we have increased the amount for general purpose grants. In fact, the States will receive 20 per cent more from the Commonwealth Government this year due, of course, to a 20 per cent increase in personal income tax. This is based on tax collections to March 1979 as compared with March 1978, which is the yardstick. Since 1974-75, Commonwealth contributions have risen by 69 per cent in 1977-78 and by 88 per cent in 1978-79. From 1974-75 to 1978-79 Commonwealth contributions have risen by a staggering 88 per cent. At the same time the States own revenues have risen by a lesser amount. They rose by 54 per cent in 1977- 78- that is 15 per cent less than the Commonwealth contributions- and by 65 per cent in 1978- 79-23 per cent less than the Commonwealth contributions.

The agreement that we are discussing tonight in the cognate debate will entitle the States to apply an additional surcharge or alternatively grant a rebate if they wish. I have mentioned that in the six month period to December 1979, the States have accumulated a surplus of $ 159.2m. Therefore, if the States wish to grant tax relief, here is a medium for them to grant that relief. It is true that the Federal Government is in favour of giving as much tax relief as possible. Here is a vehicle in this Bill that provides the opportunity for each State Premier to provide tax relief.

I now wish to issue a challenge to each of the State Premiers to recognise some of the iniquitous taxes that they raise. The first and only one that I believe is relevant tonight concerns payroll tax. Therefore, I issue a challenge to each State

Premier to abolish payroll tax and to take advantage of the measures in the States (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill to provide the necessary revenue to offset this iniquitous form of tax which effectively means that there are fewer job opportunities in the community. At five per cent on wage costs, payroll tax virtually represents the twenty-first employee on any workforce.

It is significant that over the years Commonwealth contributions to State revenues have increased quite dramatically. I have asked the statistics group of the Legislative Research Service of the Parliamentary Library to provide me with certain figures which it has collated based on a publication of the Bureau of Statistics called State and Local Government Finance’. These statistics compare the funds available to the States provided by the Commonwealth as distinct from the States’ own services. In examining these figures we should define our terms. State revenues include not only taxes, fees and fines, but also income from property and public enterprises, loan raising and other financing items. The statistics I have are for 1962-63, 1967-68 and for each year from 1974 to 1977-78. I seek leave to incorporate these tables in Hansard.

Leave granted.

* Includes taxes. Tees, fines, etc., income from property and public enterprises, loan raisings and other finance items. Compiled at request by the Statistics Group of the Legislative Research Service from 'State and Local Government Finance' 1972-73 and 1976-77 published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. {: .speaker-VJ4} ##### Senator WATSON: -- In examining these figures it is significant to note that, for example, in my State of Tasmania in 1962-63 Commonwealth grants represented 43 per cent of the total funds available. This meant that in 1962-63 the State provided 57 per cent, while the Commonwealth provided 43 per cent. However, when we examine the figures for 1977-78 we note a complete change about in that Commonwealth grants to Tasmania represented 56 per cent of the total funds available, whereas the State raised 43 per cent. I have used Tasmania as an example, but these trends are similar in each of the other States. For example, in New South Wales in 1962-63 Commonwealth grants represented 37 per cent, whereas in 1 977-78 the figure was 50 per cent to the nearest percentage point. An interesting feature to be noted from these tables is the high degree of dependence of each of the States upon Commonwealth revenue. The only State that raises more revenue than it receives from the Commonwealth is Victoria. In 1977- 78 we note that Commonwealth grants represented 45 per cent, yet the net funds available to that State from its own sources were 55 per cent. All the other States depend very heavily upon the Federal Government. The percentage of Commonwealth funds for South Australia is 54 per cent, Western Australia 57 per cent and, as I mentioned earlier, New South Wales 50 per cent. One problem with these statistics that concerns me is my inability to derive figures for the year 1978- 79. I believe that, if statistics are to be of importance to this Parliament and to the people of Australia, they must be made available as soon as practicable after the close of the financial year. The reason why the Australian Statistician was unable to provide figures for 1 978-79 was that he had an agreement with each of the State governments not to release figures on revenue collection until approved by the State governments. I have been told that these figures will not be available until approximately August 1980. Why is there this unnecessarily long delay? Why do we have to wait for approval from the State governments for the Statistician to produce these figures? One reason may be that the States are becoming increasingly embarrassed at the generosity of the Federal Government towards them. In speaking to the States (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill 1980, I draw attention to the generosity of the Federal Government in recognising the special needs of my own State of Tasmania. Honourable senators may recall that, in 1 977, **Sir Bede** Callaghan released a report on the structure of industry and employment in Tasmania. As a result, 10 significant features were developed. Since 1977 to the present, substantial progress has been made. One of these major achievements has been the introduction of freight equalisation. Freight equalisation has essentially meant to our State - {: .speaker-9V4} ##### Senator Grimes: -- What has that to do with the Callaghan report? Nothing! {: .speaker-VJ4} ##### Senator WATSON: -- Freight equalisation is one of the features of assistance that the Federal Government has provided to Tasmania. As a Tasmanian, **Senator Grimes** should be proud of, and working with, the Federal Government to achieve - {: .speaker-9V4} ##### Senator Grimes: -- That has nothing to do with Callaghan. {: .speaker-VJ4} ##### Senator WATSON: -- If **Senator Grimes** wishes I will examine some of the proposals that have come from Callaghan after I have finished a short dissertation on the advantages of freight equalisation. The freight equalisation scheme has actually meant that industries that would otherwise have closed down or moved to the mainland have been able to stay in Tasmania. The vegetable industry is an example of a growth industry that would not have developed but for freight equalisation. To the year under review the total payments from the Commonwealth in respect of freight equalisation will approximate $100m. Freight equalisation effectively means that producers in Tasmania are not at a disadvantage in their transportation costs when compared with their mainland counterparts. Let me give a few examples of Government initiatives as a result of the Callaghan developments. Some have related to the regional development program. I refer to the loan of $322,000 to Stewarts Bay Developments Pty Ltd for a holiday resort at Port Arthur. A grant of $250,000 has been made to the Launceston City Council for the development of the Albert Hall complex. Another loan of $80,000 has been made available for the development of a sea life centre at Bicheno. In the tourism area there has been a grant of $400,000 in 1979-80 through the Australian Heritage Commission, and commitments exist for further funding in 1980-81. We must consider also the transfer of the Antarctic Division of the Department of Science and the Environment which will begin later this year. I refer also to the National Marine Science Centre which will cost about $25m and the research vessel which will cost approximately $9m. {: .speaker-NJ4} ##### Senator Tate: -- Is this an election year, Senator? {: .speaker-VJ4} ##### Senator WATSON: -Whether it is an election year or not, there is a continuing commitment by the Federal Government in various forms not only under the Callaghan provisions but also under States' personal tax sharing provisions, under the Heritage Commission and under a number of other areas where the Federal Government provides direct assistance to our State of Tasmania. We will shortly be debating in this House the provision for a loan of $343,000 to assist the precision tool annex which is a section of the Tasmanian Transport Commission. This complex was set up during the war as a defence mechanism and it has provided a high level of skilled engineering facilities. The annexe is growing from strength to strength and I trust that in the near future it will provide services to the Australian defence forces. We allocated $9m to the Australian Maritime College at Launceston in 1 979-80. We have also allocated $6m for capital programs and over $3m for running expenses. There are also loans of $ 1 36,000 in real terms over each of five years for native forestry. Our State Government has put forward requests for additional loans of up to $100,000 for the next four years. These requests were approved in the 1979-80 Budget. That gives honourable senators some idea of the range of Commonwealth assistance to our State of Tasmania. I believe that the legislation we are debating tonight provides an excellent opportunity for further Commonwealth-State sharing or participation that will enable Australia to advance satisfactorily into the next decade. {: #subdebate-46-0-s8 .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -The Senate is debating cognately two financial Bills- the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill 1980 and the States (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill 1980. As has already been said, the Opposition supports the passage of both pieces of legislation. My remarks on these two measures will be comparatively short, but I particularly wish to make some observations on the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill which I note seeks to carry out an undertaking which was given by the Prime Minister **(Mr Malcolm Fraser)** in 1977 to increase the share of local government revenue from the Commonwealth from 1 .7 per cent to 2 per cent of personal income tax collections. The increase that is proposed in the Bill is to apply as from next financial year. The legislation fulfils the undertaking given by the Federal Government that the share would be increased to 2 per cent by 1980-81. One would think on reading the second reading speech of the Minister for Special Trade Representations **(Senator Scott)** that members of the Liberal Party and members of the Australian National Country Party have always been great supporters of the Commonwealth 's giving local government a fair share of the personal income tax it has collected. I speak on this legislation merely to put the record straight because, as I have said, one would think not only from the Minister's second reading speech but also from the remarks that have been made by members of the Liberal Party in particular in this debate that Government members were always supporters of the proposal for the Federal Parliament to provide funds for local government. The fact is- and this is patently clear from the recordthat that is not so. They were not always supporters of the Federal Parliament's providing funds for local government. At the outset I want to remind the Senate that it was the Labor Government- the Whitlam Government of 1 972-1975- that first acknowledged the role of local government in the tripartite system of government that we have in Australia- the Federal government, the State governments and local government. Indeed, it was not until after the Labor Government was elected in December 1972 that an examination of the needs of local government was made by the Commonwealth in 1973. We not only examined the needs of local government but also made grants, direct and indirect, to local government. We acknowledged the role of local government, both in the statute books and in the Budget. We tried to have local government recognised in the Constitution. It was the Labor Government that opened up to local government the facilities and expertise of the Commonwealth Grants Commission to enable local government organisations to make their own approach and to state their own case directly to that independent Commission which, over a period of years previously, had made recommendations to the Commonwealth on the needs of the various States. It was then required by legislation introduced and enacted by a Labor government to inquire into the needs of local government on a completely national basis. Over many years- I think it was a period of 30 to 40 years- the recommendations of the Grants Commission, a highly respected independent body, had never been rejected by any government of any political persuasion. As I was the Special Minister of State in the last six months of the Labor Government and had the responsibility of answering to Parliament for the activities and role of the Commonwealth Grants Commission, I now place on record my personal tribute to the work of His Honour **Mr Justice** Else-Mitchell, the Chairman of the Grants Commission, and of the then members and staff of the Grants Commission for their dedication and tireless and ceaseless efforts to ensure that local government throughout the length and breadth of Australia was given a fair go by the Commonwealth. If one were to read the records of the debates which took place on that legislation which, from recollection, was introduced in April or May 1973, one would see that, whilst the then Opposition- the members of the Liberal and Country parties- did not directly oppose the introduction of that legislation, they did express their concern at the unworkability of the arrangements outlined in it. Let me illustrate how members of the Liberal Party and the National Country Party say one thing in government and act differently in opposition. The Labor Party, in its policy speech in 1972, the year in which we were elected to government, stated unequivocally that as a Federal government it would adopt the attitude that participation in the Constitutional Convention which was proposed to be held in September 1 973 would be extended to local government. In March 1973, within three months of having been elected to office the then Prime Minister, **Mr Whitlam,** wrote to all the State Premiers in the following terms: >The conclusion to which my Government has come (in relation to local government participation in the Constitutional Convention) is that local government should be afforded direct representation of up to three delegates from each State and that the delegates should not be nominated by State Governments but by local government itself. **Mr Whitlam** went on to say: >It is also my Government's view that the delegates nominated by local government should have full status as delegates, but should have that status only in relation to those areas of direct interest to local government, which of course would be mainly financial aspects. That letter was written in March 1973 to all the State Premiers following our policy speech of 1972 in which we said that we would open the door to local government representation at Loan Council meetings. Because the financial agreement could be amended by a unanimous decision of the Prime Minister and the six Premiers, it was agreed at the first meeting of the Constitutional Convention in September 1973, about nine months after we came into government, that there should be a special Premiers Conference to ascertain whether agreement could be reached between the Commonwealth and the six States to provide for direct local government representation on the Loan Council. The Premiers Conference took place in October 1973 after the Constitutional Convention. The Prime Minister, **Mr Whitlam,** the then Premier of South Australia and the then Premier of Tasmania were members of the Labor Party. There were three Liberal Party Premiers and one National Party Premier, all of whom opposed the change of membership of the Loan Council. By their vote they refused direct admission of local government representatives to Loan Council meetings. When the proposed change of membership was rejected by the three Liberal Premiers and the National Party Premier the Labor Government decided to take the matter to the people. A Bill was introduced into the Parliament in November 1973. It was called the Constitutional Alteration (Local Government Bodies) Bill. It gave approval to conduct a referendum to invite the people to give admission to local government representatives at meetings of the Loan Council. The Bill was introduced into the House of Representatives. It passed through the House of Representatives and came into the Senate. From recollection, I think I was the Minister who gave the second reading speech on the Bill in the Senate. The motion for the second reading of the Bill was rejected by Liberal and Country Party senators and members of the Democratic Labor Party on 4 December 1973. We reintroduced the Bill in March 1 974, four months after it was rejected by the Senate initially. It was again defeated by present Government supporters, members of the Liberal Party and the National Country Party, on 13 March 1974. {: .speaker-BJ4} ##### Senator Sheil: -- I was not here then. {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -My good friend from Queensland, **Senator Sheil,** a member of the National Country Party, said that he was not in the Senate then. I will bet my bottom dollar that if he had been in the Senate then he would have voted as members of the Liberal and Country parties voted then. I will bet my bottom dollar that if we were able to introduce a Bill of that nature again in the Senate my friend, **Senator Sheil,** would vote as his colleagues voted at that time. Accordingly, the Bill was submitted to the electors by way of referendum. The Federal leaders of the Liberal Party and the Country Party as well as the Liberal Premiers and the National Party Premier of Queensland campaigned throughout Australia against it. Despite their opposition and the overwhelming support that they received for their case from the media at the time, 47 per cent of Australians supported the proposal. I am proud to say that the people of New South Wales, the State that I, together with some other honourable senators have the honour to represent, overwhelmingly supported the suggestion that local government should have direct representation on the Loan Council. In the 1973 Budget the Labor Government made initial specific purpose grants to local government. Other grants, such as those made under the Australian Assistance Plan to which my colleague **Senator Gietzelt** alluded this afternoon, were made on a regional basis. In 1 974 we received the first local government funding recommendation from the Commonwealth Grants Commission following its inquiries. From recollection, the amount which it was recommended should be made available to local government on an untied basis was about $54m. The Labor Government automatically accepted the recommendation. On the Labor Government's initiative, for the first time, local government authorities received directly from the Commonwealth substantial untied amounts to assist them with the difficulties that they were experiencing after 23 years of Liberal-Country Party Government in Canberra. At the same time, our Budget appropriated nearly $6m for the Australian Assistance Plan. That appropriation was challenged, albeit unsuccessfully, by the then Liberal governments of Victoria, New South Wales and Western Australia. I venture to suggest that one of the reasons for the Willis Government being defeated in New South Wales in 1 976 was that it supported the Victorian Government in its High Court action objecting to the appropriation by the Labor Government of millions of dollars for the Australian Assistance Plan. I could go on, time permitting, but I merely say that the record of the members of the present Government indicates that practically every initiative that we as a government took they opposed, and strenuously opposed, not only in this place but also in the High Court of Australia. **Mr President,** for the sake of the record I seek leave to incorporate in *Hansard* a table that I have had prepared by the Statistical Service of the Parliamentary Library. It sets out the amount of Commonwealth payments to or for local government authorities from 1972-73 to 1979-80.I have shown the table to the Minister and I understand that there is no objection to its incorporation. Leave granted. *The table read as follows-* {: .speaker-KTA} ##### Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP -- In short, the table shows that funds provided by the Commonwealth and the States for local government purposes in 1975-76, the year of the last Labor Budget, amounted to $343. 4m. In 1 978-79, the last year for which figures are available, the amount dropped to $332. 5m, despite inflation. So far as actual payments as a proportion of income tax collections are concerned, in 1975-76 local government was receiving in general purpose assistance 2.44 per cent. By 1978-79 that proportion had dropped to 1.56 per cent. Local government in New South Wales- I speak of my own State only- received in 1 975-76 the sum of $60. 3m, or $12.11 per head. In 1978-79 it received $65. 5m, which amounted to $ 1 2.98 per head over a period of a year or a mere 87c per capita increase- less than it would take to buy a packet of cigarettes. It is not just a question of the amount that is collected by the Commonwealth and returned to the States and to local government. Also involved, as was emphasised by my colleague **Senator McLaren** this afternoon, is the great question of the costs and charges that local government organisations have to meet as a result of other charges that are imposed by the Commonwealth- for instance, the heavy charge on petrol and fuel. Although, in the limited time available, I have not been able to have figures taken out which would give a comparison between the amount that is going to local government on the one hand and the increasing costs that are being incurred by local government on the other, it would be an interesting exercise and one that I intend to pursue during the next parliamentary recess. Having said that, I emphasise that what Government supporters claim on behalf of this legislation is quite the opposite to the way in which they acted between 1972 and 1975 when the Labor Government was in office. I wish to make only one or two observations about the States (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill 1980, which provides that each State's tax sharing entitlement for 1980-81 will be at least as much in real terms as was its entitlement for 1979-80. The Minister for Social Security **(Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle)** said in her second reading speech that two guarantees are involved- a permanent guarantee and a short term formula guarantee. The short term formula guarantee ensures that in the years 1976-77 to 1979-80 each State's entitlement shall be not less in a year than the amount that would have been yielded in that year by the previous financial assistance grants formula. The Minister went on to say: >The short term formula guarantee was extremely generous in that it ensured over the years annual increases of about 3 per cent in real terms in the States' per capita tax sharing entitlements. Because of its generosity - I emphasise those words- continuation of the short term guarantee formula beyond 1979-80 would have been inconsistent with the Government's policy of public expenditure restraint. I remind honourable senators that the generous formula spoken about in that speech was agreed with the States by the Whitlam Labor Government. We were accused of being a great centralist authority and of taking power and control from the States and from local government. Yet the Minister in his second reading speech said that it was a most generous formula and that, because of its generosity, continuation of the shortterm guarantee formula beyond 1979-80- this financial year- would be inconsistent with the Government's policy of public expenditure restraint. Having observed that the Labor Government treated the States most generously, and that has been acknowledged by **Senator Carrick** on behalf of the Treasurer **(Mr Howard),** 1 come now to the situation of my State of New South Wales. I point out that 24.2 per cent of all mining carried out in Australia is carried out in New South Wales, 28.9 per cent of all agriculture carried out in Australia is carried out in New South Wales, and 38.3 per cent of all manufacturing carried out in Australia is carried out in New South Wales. So New South Wales is a great manufacturing State, a great agricultural State, and a great mineral-producing State. It is the premier State, as it is known literally. Further, 36.8 per cent of individual income tax collected in Australia is collected from New South Wales; and 36.4 per cent of company tax collected in Australia is collected in New South Wales. The total amount New South Wales receives under the tax sharing arrangements is a mere 30.8 per cent. I place on record that I and my colleagues from New South Wales on this side of the chamber- **Senator Gietzelt, Senator Mulvihill** and **Senator Sibraa-** will be leaving no stone unturned to ensure that the people of New South Wales get a fairer share of the revenue which is collected in our State. We acknowledge that we as Australians have to contribute; we accept that there is a responsibility on our part to make a substantial contribution to the development of Australia as a nation. However, there are matters in which the Commonwealth also can play its part. For instance, the New South Wales Premier has complained about New South Wales industry not getting a fair share of defence production, and the New South Wales Government has established an inquiry into the matter. On 4 March this year I raised the matter in the Senate. **Senator Durack** 's answer is recorded at page 488 of the Senate *Hansard,* but because of the shortage of time I will not read what he said. However, **Mr Wran** has written to me and said: >You will note that my concern is twofold: firstly, that the Commonwealth Government is not enforcing the terms stipulated in contracts with overseas suppliers and secondly, that some overseas suppliers are taking advantage of this fact. > >The study by my Department has already revealed a poor level of communication between the Department of Defence and New South Wales industry, and when involved, overseas suppliers. I appeal to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs **(Senator Chaney),** who is at the table, to ensure that a lot of the work which is now being channelled outside Australia by the Department of Defence and other bodies, including the Purchasing Division of the Department of Administrative Services, is reviewed and reconsidered by the Commonwealth Government with a view to industry in the State I represent getting a fairer share of Commonwealth work. The Opposition supports the passage of these Bills. I trust that the Government will ensure that in the future it is not as hypocritical as it has been in the past, particularly in relation to local government. {: #subdebate-46-0-s9 .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania -- I do not wish to delay the Senate for much longer because most of the issues have been canvassed. I want to deal particularly with matters to which **Senator Douglas** McClelland has referred with respect to the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill 1980. **Senator McClelland** spent some time in his speech exposing the falsity of the argument that local government, for example, has in fact been receiving a better deal under the present Government than it did under the Labor Government. This claim is made because of the alleged increase in the percentage of income tax collections which are being paid to local government. As **Senator McClelland** so rightly pointed out, the total figures involved- that is, the real position that we should be looking at; we should not be looking at any sections of the total payments either to local government or State governments but to the total payments they receive from the Commonwealth- show that those amounts not only in real terms but also in money terms have declined since the 1975 Budget. The decline in money terms means a much more dramatical decline in real terms. I want to direct my remarks to the States (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill 1980. It has been a fiction advanced by this Government ever since it has been in office that under this tax sharing arrangement the States are doing better than they would have done under the previous arrangement of the Labor Government- the so-called Whitlam formula to which **Senator McClelland** also referred. In 1977 a Bill called the Income Tax (Arrangements with the States) Bill 1977 was introduced in the House of Representatives. That Bill stayed on the Notice Paper for about six months. It was introduced about mid-year, but it was not dealt with by the Government. The reason it was not dealt with, of course, was that 1 977 was an election year. Despite the efforts of many of us to interest the media in the significance of that legislation the media did not understand its importance. Essentially what that Bill sought to do was to implement the second pan of the new federalism of **Mr Fraser-** a policy which is absolutely central to all government financing in Australia today and has been in the last four years. If we have the misfortune of a re-election of the Fraser Government this year that policy will continue, of course, in the future. Honourable senators on this side of the chamber are confident that the Australian people will see the significance of what all this means, quite apart from the other reasons why they will vote out the Fraser Government at the end of this year. It is true that under this program the Prime Minister **(Mr Malcolm Fraser)** has claimed repeatedly that the Labor Government was too generous. I do not see any reason why we should be ashamed of the fact that the Labor Government was generous to the State Governments because under the Labor Government's programs of payments the State governments would have been able to construct schools, hospitals, roads and all those other things which it is necessary for State governments to do- programs which the people of those States want the State governments to undertake. In a letter to the Premier of Tasmania, **Mr Lowe,** on 12 July last year, the Prime Minister stated: >I must reiterate that the Commonwealth considers that the current guarantee formula - They are the matters with which we are dealing in this Bill- is too generous and make the obvious point that any proposal for continuation in its present form would not be acceptable. The Prime Minister has said on several other occasions that the whole arrangement has been too generous. He is not talking about total payments to the States; he is only talking about roughly half- maybe 45 to 50 per cent- of the total payments. In the four years since the Fraser Government came to office those payments have been maintained at the same rate under its federalism policy as they were under the previous Government. That fact must be acknowledged because that is the true position. But in the other half of those total payments- what we call specific purpose payments or Loan Council funds- there has been a dramatic decline, particularly in the area of capital payments. I will come to that matter in a moment to illustrate the truth of my statement. When the Government commenced this policy in early 1 976 it was so confident in its ignorance and in its incapacity to assess the drift of the economy in the ensuing three or four years, that the then Leader of the Government in the Senate, **Senator Carrick,** who was the Minister assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairsthat is matters relating to the implementation of this new federalism policy- was asked by **Senator Walsh** whether he asserted that the federalism policy meant a more generous financial deal for the States than that which applied under the previous Labor Government. **Senator Carrick** was also asked, given the fact that total Federal payments to the States increased by more than 58 per cent in constant value dollars in the three years that the previous Labor Government was in office- that is 1972 to 1975- whether he could guarantee that the total payments to the States in the next three years would increase also in constant value dollars by more than 58 per cent. In other words, he was asking **Senator Carrick:** Could he ensure that in real terms, allowing for inflation, the States would receive as good a deal as they had in the previous three years. In reply **Senator Carrick** said: >My answer is an unqualified yes. The arrangements under federalism will be more generous for the States. I do not doubt that when he said that, he believed it. I repeat that it was said in ignorance, not only of the new federalism policy itself, but also in ignorance of the way the economy was going to develop in the ensuing three or four years. To put it again on the record, we will see how generous this policy has been since it has been in operation. To make the comparison clear, we must compare what happened during the three years the Labor Government was in office with what has happened since. In its first Budget, the Labor Government increased total payments to the States and local government authorities by 2 1 per cent. In its second year it increased those total payments by 53 per cent. In the third year it increased them by 32 per cent. Those increases account for an average annual increase of 34 per cent. {: .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator Chaney: -- Does that include the Regional Employment Development Scheme or does it exclude it? {: .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator WRIEDT: -No, the RED Scheme would come under the specific purpose payments. {: .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator Chaney: -- But does it? {: .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator WRIEDT: -It does, yes. In the first year that the Fraser Government was in office we saw the first dramatic decline take place. In that year the total payments to the States increased by only 6 per cent. That increase did not even cover the rate of inflation. In the following year it increased by 12 per cent, barely matching the rate of inflation. In the third year, 1978-79, it increased by 4.8 per cent. In 1979-80, the current year, it has increased by 6.6 per cent. With the possible exception of one year, namely 1977-78-1 am reading these figures, of course, from the Budget Papers of **Mr Howard,** the Treasurer- there is not one year where total payments for the States have maintained the rate of inflation. So in the last four years there has been, in real terms, a decline in payments to the States of the total payments. What does that say now for the undertaking given by **Senator Carrick** in 1976 when he said that there would be an increase of 58 per cent? He guaranteed that he could give an unqualified yes that there would be a 58 per cent increase in constant value dollars. What have we seen in the four years since the new federalism policy has operated? We have seen, in real terms, a decline of about one per cent in total payments to the States so that every State government, Labor and Liberal, now finds itself just that little bit worse off after four years of the federalism policy. So it is important that it be clearly understood just what the significance of all this means. That part of the tax sharing arrangement, which is part of the Commonwealth's federalism policy, is known as stage 1. The Bill that I referred to earlier was the Income Tax (Arrangements with the States) Bill 1977. It represented stage 2. The purpose of that Bill was to permit the States to introduce State income tax. In 1978 the Government, after its reelection, introduced a new Bill, which was basically the same as the previous one. Let there be no misunderstanding as to what that Bill meant. Of course it is now an Act. Section 10, for example, of that Act states: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The State income tax law shall provide that, where income tax is imposed by that law in respect of a year of income- {: type="a" start="a"} 0. every employer- 1. that is a company incorporated in the State; or {: type="i" start="ii"} 0. who is a natural person and a resident of the State, and pays in that year of income salary or wages in respect of a week or a part of a week to an employee who is a resident of the State on the day when the salary or wages is or are paid . . . I can quote several sections of the Act but I quote that section to make people aware of just what that legislation means. It meant then and it means now that State income taxes are the objective of the Fraser Government. **Mr Fraser** came into office in 1975 promising income tax reductions. There have been income tax changes, that is true. He has shifted the income tax burden from the higher incomes to the middle and lower incomes. We all know that. But at the same time what he is aiming to do is not to reduce overall taxation in this country. He has increased taxation by a total of S 1 1 ,000m since he has been in office; that is just the increase. His aim is to transfer income tax responsibility from the Commonwealth to the States. That is to say that if a person were paying $100 tax when the Fraser Government came into office that Government would reduce that tax by $ 10. **Mr Fraser,** to make a big fellow of himself in the electorate said: 'Look at us, we are a tax reducing party'. But the objective of the legislation, of course, is to force the States into a position where they are compelled to introduce a State income tax and tax people the other $10. So the taxpayer is still paying $100 tax but instead of paying it to the Federal Government he is only paying $90 to the Federal Government and $10 to his State government. It has not happened yet, but that is the objective. This is the charade that **Mr Fraser** has been pursuing for the last three or four years. To make it appear that he is a great fellow he is going to reduce our taxes but, as I have just indicated, he has increased them and, as yet, the State income tax has not come about. If **Senator Carrick** were here he would say: 'I am sick of hearing **Senator Wriedt** talking about State income taxes. We have been hearing about them for the last three or four years'. That is a fair comment to make. I have spoken about that and I will continue to talk about it because it will happen; there is no question of that. If we examine this Bill, we will see why this will happen. I have indicated the manner in which the States are being continuously squeezed by the way in which these total payments are being made. Let us examine the Bill because in it we see the key to this matter. I will restate briefly the point **Senator Douglas** McClelland made. He pointed out that, when the Premiers met in 1976 and **Mr Fraser** put this proposition of new federalism to them- that is, he said that the Commonwealth would give the States a certain percentage of income tax collections- they said: 'Well, that is great'. But Don Dunstan fortunately woke up to the catch. He said: 'Well, that is all right but what will happen if income tax collections happen to fall? Our payments will reduce accordingly. ' The Premiers said: 'Give us a guarantee and we will go along with this proposal'. They were unwise to do so but it is done now. They said that they would go along with this scheme providing they received a guarantee that the payments under this tax sharing system would not fall below the formula that was worked out by the previous Labor Government. So, being in a very generous mood, the Prime Minister said that the Commonwealth would go along with that idea. He said that the Commonwealth would give the Premiers that guarantee up to June 1 980. The interesting point and the reason why I come back to that accusation of ignorance is that when that undertaking to keep the guarantee going was given, nobody on the Government side, including **Mr Fraser,** ever believed that he would need to use that formula through to June 1 980. That is why he gave that undertaking. He never believed that it would be necessary to continue using it. He thought that in a year or two he would have the economy all fixed up and that everything would be jake. He thought that there would be plenty of income around and that everybody would be back at work, et cetera. Of course, it did not work out that way. Now June 1 980 is almost upon us. Last year the Premiers met again and they said: 'Well, what about our guarantee? It will run out next June'. **Mr Fraser** said: 'That is just too bad. You only had it for four years'. After some haggling he said: 'All right: I will give you a guarantee- it will not be the same guaranteethat after 1980 I will promise you that we will pay you at least as much as we had given you the previous year'. In other words, he said that there would be no growth factor and that the Commonwealth would pay just as much in money terms. The States, realising that that was not good enough, came back again. This time the Prime Minister no doubt reflected that 1980 would be an election year. He thought that he had better square off with the States then. He said that he would change the formula to an increase in real terms. In other words, he said that the Commonwealth would give the same amount in real terms- that is, allowing for inflation- in the financial year 1980-81 but that that would be all. It is spelt out quite clearly in the second reading speech where it is stated: >It was decided that, in that year, each State will receive no less in real terms than the amount it received in 1979-80 as measured by the consumer price index . . . The position currently is this: The States have been given an undertaking until June 1 98 1 that they will receive as much in real terms this financial year as they received last financial year and that after that time, that will be the end of it. Of course, **Mr Fraser** believes that he will be reelected. Once he is re-elected there will be no need to maintain that guarantee. It is then that the pressures will really be applied to the States. **Mr Eric** Robinson, the Minister for Finance, only a fortnight ago at a Liberal Party meeting told the States that they must reduce their expenditure. It is after the forthcoming election that the pressures will come on to the States and it is then that State income tax will be introduced in this country. If the Fraser Government is re-elected this year, by 1983 State income taxes will be paid in every State of this Commonwealth. I do not care whether Labor or Liberal Premiers have said that they will not do it. They will do it because they will have no option but to do it. What was **Mr Robinson** saying the other day about reducing State expenditure? Was he saying that the State governments should build fewer schools, fewer hospitals or fewer roads? He does not give us an answer to that because he certainly will not continue to pay even this level of payments to the States to enable them to maintain the services. So that is the essence of the position that faces us this year as we deal with this annual Bill. It is important that every Australian realises the significance of this legislation, the significance of what it will mean to them as taxpayers and for them to realise that the whole objective of what we are dealing with tonight is that every State government, either next year or the year following, will impose State income taxes on the Australian taxpayer. If the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs **(Senator Chaney),** in reply, cares to refute that proposition, I suggest that he explain to us why the income tax sharing legislation has been passed through this Parliament and that parallel legislation will be passed through State parliaments when the State governments make their decisions. The only sensible thing for the Federal Government to do is to come clean and come out in the open and tell the Australian taxpayer what its objectives arefederal income tax, such as we have now, plus . State income tax because that is precisely the objective of the Fraser Government. {: #subdebate-46-0-s10 .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP -- I thank honourable senators who unanimously support the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill 1980 and the States (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill 1 980. I note the very wide ranging debate that has gone on and the support which has been offered. **Senator Wriedt** concluded his speech with an invitation that I expand on matters which have been debated at great length in this chamber between him and **Senator Carrick** in the main. I have no intention of doing that. He did offer some version of what **Senator Carrick** might have said were he participating in the debate. In any event I think that can wait for another day. The Government does not propose to accept the amendment which was moved by the Opposition with respect to the States (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill 1 980. The Government commends both Bills to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. In Committee The Bill. {: #subdebate-46-0-s11 .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania -- I will not delay the Senate but I am concerned at the response of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs **(Senator Chaney)** at the second reading stage. I appreciate the fact that it is not **Senator Chaney** 's responsibility to represent the Treasurer **(Mr Howard)** in this chamber and it is not for me to explain why the Minister who is responsible for these matters is not present to debate the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill 1980 and the States (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill 1 980- both very important Bills. I want to place on record and draw to the attention of the Senate the fact that legislation of this nature, which is fundamental to Commonwealth and State financial relations, will go through the chamber without any proper contribution from the Minister responsible for it in this chamber. I can only assume that there may be good reasons why he is not able to be here but I would have thought that the Government would take the trouble to ensure that the matters that have been raised here in the course of debate could, in fact, be properly dealt with. I do not think it is a very impressive performance on the part of the Government. {: #subdebate-46-0-s12 .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP -- The Senate in Committee, is dealing, with the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill 1 980, a Bill which puts in place the third step of a promise to increase from 1.5 to 2 per cent the percentage of income tax going to local government authorities. There has been a staging of the increases and this legislation provides for the final increase to two per cent which was promised by the Government to be introduced before the next elections. It is therefore meeting a clearly understood and clearly stated election commitment. The Bill in question does not raise any new issue of policy. It has been criticised only on the basis that under the Labor Party local government received larger sums. **Senator Douglas** McClelland supplied figures that were relevant to that in the second reading debate. While **Senator Wriedt** was on his feet I interjected to ask him to clarify whether the figures mentioned with respect to local government included those for the Regional Employment Development Scheme, the inclusion of which I suggest- whilst they do not invalidate the payment figures put into the *Hansard* record by **Senator McClelland** -would throw perhaps a slightly different light upon the figures. In any event, with respect to the Bill which is before the Committee, I would have thought that the comments of **Senator Wriedt** about the Government defending the position and so on were rather inappropriate. It appears to me that this is a comparatively straightforward measure which has the unanimous support of this chamber and about which the only serious criticism of the Labor Party is that were it in government it would be even more generous. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. {:#subdebate-46-1} #### Third Reading Bill (on motion by **Senator Chaney)** read a third time. {: .page-start } page 1845 {:#debate-47} ### STATES (PERSONAL INCOME TAX SHARING) AMENDMENT BILL 1980 {:#subdebate-47-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 16 April, on motion by **Senator Dame** Margaret Guilfoyle: >That the Bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-47-0-s0 .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator WRIEDT:
Tasmania -On behalf of the Opposition, I move the following amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bill: >At end of motion, add ', but the Senate is of the opinion that the Bill is grossly deficient in that it- > >only guarantees the States a minimum entitlement to general financial assistance in 1980-81 which is lower real value per capita than the level of such payments in 1979-80; > >provides this inadequate guarantee for only 1 year, after which the only guarantee for the States is that the total money amount of such payments will not be reduced in future years, a guarantee which would allow continuing reductions in the value of such payments in future years; > >in combination with the severe reductions in the real value of specific purpose payments to the States, will place the States in acute financial difficulty; and > >will accordingly place great pressure on the States to introduce a second income tax as provided for by the Fraser Government 's new federalism '. Having moved that amendment, I quickly respond to a statement made earlier by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs **(Senator Chaney)** in referring to the Regional Employment Development Scheme. This is an old furphy that has been carted around by this Government for the last four years. It tries to tell us that because the payments to the States by the Labor Governmentwhich obviously were more generous and which were a genuine attempt to meet the needs of people living in the various States of the Commonwealth- included figures for the Regional Employment Development Scheme, the RED Scheme as it was called, therefore the figures were grossly inflated and had those payments not been made the picture would not look so rosy. A Minister ought to look at these things before he offers such comments. In the 1977-78 Budget, under specific purpose payments to the States for recurrent purposes- that is the item under which the appropriation for the Regional Employment Development Scheme appearsone finds that in the financial year 1974-75 an amount of $8. 4m was provided and in 1975-76 an amount of just over $ 1 5m was also provided. Of the total amounts provided in those two years by the then Government- $ 1,221m in 1974-75- {: .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator Chaney: -- Is that local government? {: .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator WRIEDT: -- I am talking of payments to the States. Of the $ 1,221m provided in 1974- 75 and of the $2,3 16m provided in 1975- 76 as payments to the States, total expenditure on the RED Scheme represented only a comparatively small amount, a very miniscule amount. Even though the present Government tries to brush this aside, would not the States and the local governments love to have a Regional Employment Development Scheme available to them today to soak up some of the unemployment that has been created by the Fraser Government? {: #subdebate-47-0-s1 .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP -- I was careful in my remarks on the previous Bill, the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill, to point out that I was directing my comments to the payments which were directed to local government. I understood the figures put in by **Senator Douglas** McClelland similarly to isolate local government as an area to which payments had been directed, and his speech related to the amounts paid to that arm of government- not to the States, including local government. The comparison which has been drawn by **Senator Wriedt** does not relate directly to the point that I made. My comments were related to the speech which had been made by his colleague, **Senator McClelland,** on that Bill which related specifically to the 2 per cent direct payment to local government. I offer that remark in response to the comments made by **Senator Wriedt.** As I indicated previously in my remarks on the other Bill- I responded to what I understood to be a cognate debate, although the amendment now before the Senate had not been moved- the Government does not accept the amendment which has been moved by the Opposition. Question put- >That the words proposed to be added **(Senator Wriedt's amendment)** be added. The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Sir Condor Laucke) AYES: 21 NOES: 31 Majority....... 10 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. In Committee The Bill. {: #debate-47-s0 .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLAREN:
South Australia -- I should like to pose a question to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs **(Senator Chaney).** The Minister for Social Security **(Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle)** stated in her second reading speech that the Bill guarantees that a certain percentage of money will be provided to the States from personal income tax collections. Unemployment is rising and therefore income tax collections are not as great as they would be under normal circumstances. The Government claims that it is reducing income tax, but there are some doubts about that. It is using other avenues for raising revenue, such as using every petrol pump as a branch of the Australian Taxation Office. What guarantee is there that the States will receive a fair share of the income in view of the fact that much of the revenue to be raised by the Government will be raised not from personal income tax but from a tax on every gallon of petrol that people buy through the petrol pumps? {: #debate-47-s1 .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP -- I think the question raised by the honourable senator in the Committee stage of the debate is based on, for one thing, a rather odd misunderstanding of the facts. My understanding of the facts is that the unemployment figures which were announced recently show that unemployment is falling. I would hope, of course, that that state of affairs will continue. Therefore, the question asked by the honourable senator really does not apply. The Bill gives a guarantee for 1980-81 in the terms set out in the second reading speech of the Minister for Social Security **(Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle).** I am advised that in paragraph (9) (b) of the Points of Understanding between the Commonwealth and State governments in relation to tax sharing the Commonwealth Government has given a firm assurance to the States. Paragraph (9) ( b) states: it will participate in a review of the arrangements when there are changes in Commonwealth tax legislation which have effects on the States' entitlements of such significance as to warrant such a review; So we have a situation in which, in the words of the Labor Opposition, an increasing amount of tax is being collected and in which, on current indications, unemployment is not rising but is falling. We also have a situation in which, should there be a substantial change to the tax base because of changes in legislation, the Commonwealth will review the situation with the States. {: #debate-47-s2 .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania -- I wish to follow up what the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs **(Senator** Chaney) said. Is the Minister giving a commitment that, should there be the changes which are referred to in paragraph (9) (b) of the Points of Understanding which appear in Budget Paper No. 7 for this year, the Commonwealth will ensure that the States will not be disadvantaged in respect of the income tax collections? We could not say that a guarantee has been operating this financial year. Let us presume that the agreement reached to pay the same amount in real terms at the end of June 1981 will be abided by. Is the Minister saying that this clause will commit the Government to ensuring that, whatever arrangements are entered into, the States will not be disadvantaged in their entitlements if the changes are sufficient to warrant a review by the Commonwealth? {: #debate-47-s3 .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP -- As I listened to the Leader of the Opposition **(Senator Wriedt)** putting that question to the Committee, I had a vision of a small boy with a box held up with a stick, waiting anxiously to pull out the stick when the bird he hopes is going to peck the wheat pops under the box. I do not know whether **Senator Wriedt** had that vision in his mind as he put the question to me. In any event, I simply say to him what I think he would expect me to say, that is, that the understanding between the Commonwealth and the States is as set out in Budget Paper No. 7, to which he referred. At page 12 honourable senators will find reference to stage 1, and also paragraph (9) from which I quoted. The Commonwealth's undertaking is that it will participate in a review of the arrangements when there are changes in Commonwealth tax legislation which have effects on the States' entitlements of such significance as to warrant such a review. I think **Senator Wriedt** would know that for me to give some sort of undertaking in advance of any review which might be undertaken between the Commonwealth and the States would not be possible or in order. {: #debate-47-s4 .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania -- I will not pursue the matter much further, but I ask the Minister: Would he not agree that a decision on changes which have effects 'of such significance as to warrant such a review' is purely at the discretion of the Commonwealth? It is the Commonwealth that will determine whether the changes do warrant such a review. The States will have virtually no decision-making power. They can argue as much as they like at Premiers conferences, but the Commonwealth will determine whether such a review is warranted. {: #debate-47-s5 .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP -That will be a matter for discussion and political determination by the Prime Minister and the Premiers. It has exactly the same status as any other understanding between the Commonwealth and the States. To suggest that only the Commonwealth will be involved in the matter is, it seems to me, to ignore the fact that there is a process of consultation between the Commonwealth and the States, at which no doubt the States, probably with one accord, will argue their view of the situation. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. {:#subdebate-47-1} #### Third Reading Bill (on motion by **Senator Chaney)** read a third time. {: .page-start } page 1847 {:#debate-48} ### AIR NAVIGATION AMENDMENT BILL 1980 {:#subdebate-48-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 3 1 March, on motion by **Senator Durack:** >That the Bill be now read a second time. *( Quorum formed).* {: #subdebate-48-0-s0 .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP -- I suggest, with the leave of the Senate, that the Air Navigation Amendment Bill 1980 and the Australian National Airlines Amendment Bill 1980 be debated cognately. {: #subdebate-48-0-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- There being no objection, that course will be followed. {: #subdebate-48-0-s2 .speaker-RG4} ##### Senator GIETZELT:
New South Wales -- The Air Navigation Amendment Bill 1980 and the Australian National Airlines Amendment Bill 1980 are a natural and later development of Parliament's decision some years ago to transfer to the Northern Territory Government powers to control Executive functions similar to powers available to the State governments. The Air Navigation Amendment Bill 1980 is consequent upon the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978. The Bill gives effect to the transfer of powers in relation to civil aviation. It is intended that the Northern Territory Government will have power to issue licences on economic and public interest grounds for intra-Territory air services. To that extent the Opposition will not oppose these two Bills. However, it needs to be pointed out that the Commonwealth will retain control of matters relating to safety and operational issues. Both a Commonwealth and a Territory licence will be required before intra-Territory services can be provided. We should note that the subsidy previously payable to Connair Pty Ltd will be payable to the new proprietor, East- West Airlines Ltd, until the end of the contract period that is 30 September this year, provided that services previously operated by Connair are maintained at that time. It should be noted also that the actual transfer of powers will be made by an amendment to the regulations under the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978. The Minister for Transport **(Mr Hunt),** in his second reading speech, said that this amendment to the regulations will be tabled in the near future. We will be looking forward to the tabling of those regulations. I would appreciate receiving a copy of those regulations from the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs **(Senator Chaney)** when he tables them in this chamber so that we will have a chance to peruse them within the available period. The Australian National Airlines Amendment Bill 1980 is consequential upon the Air Navigation Amendment Bill 1980; that is why we are dealing with these matters together. The Australian National Airlines Amendment Bill places Trans-Australia Airlines in the same position as Ansett Airlines of Australia in respect to intraTerritory services licensing by the Northern Territory Government. I want to make it clear that under the proposed legislation Territory to State, State to Territory, and interstate operations are not affected. The transfer of civil aviation powers and the exclusion from intra-Northern Territory operations of TAA and Ansett which have long serviced this important region in Australia, mark an end to an era. To that extent it is worth reminding ourselves that following the purchase of Connair the pioneer airline in the Territory will disapper from the scene. ConnairConnellan Airways as it was originally calledhas been taken over by East- West Airlines. Unfortunately, that is another example of the concentration of power and economic strength in this country. It is a matter of regret that many pioneering companies are disappearing from the scene. That does not mean that we have any criticism of East- West Airlines. It has an excellent record of service to the community in eastern Australia and, to a more limited extent, in central Australia. The new venture that it has undertaken in taking over Connair and all the responsibilities that flow from it is a major one. It carries with it the prospect of development of East- West's own airline and its network of services. I have no doubt that the same high standard of service will be maintained in the Northern Territory as we have seen on the eastern coast of Australia. The type of services in the region in which the airline has to operate are not of the same nature nor are they as easy as those that might be found on the eastern seaboard of our continent. The new Northern Territory airline, whatever name is finally given to it, has before it a major task. I believe that the task is not without its risks. EastWest Airlines, which will be, principal airline in this case following the passage of this legislation and the completion of formalities at a later date, will have the responsibilities to meet the special needs of territorians in the provision of transport services. Trans-Australia Airlines currently operates into the ports of Alice Springs, Tennant Creek and Katherine. As I have said, the intra-Territory services operated by TAA will end. Ansett Airlines of Australia and its subsidiary MacRobertson Miller Airlines Services operate into the ports of Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine, Groote Eylandt and Gove. As I understand the situation, the ports serviced by MacRobertson Miller Airlines will continue to be serviced by that airline pending the completion of arrangements and the equipment of the new airline. I understand also that the termination of intraTerritory services by the two major airlines, TAA and Ansett, is an unwilling one. They would have much preferred to continue the service. As I have indicated earlier we will have to wait and see whether the decision that has been taken in that respect is the right one or the wrong one. There is a daunting responsibility in the concept that has been developed in the Northern Territory to try to link all of the services to the outlying areas, to the outstations and to the population centres and at the same time to cope with what it is hoped will be an expansion of the tourism industry in the Northern Territory. Undoubtedly, the Northern Territory Government as well as the Australian Government will want to see these important objectives developed. The part that the airlines will play to that extent is important. It is a task that the management of EastWest Airlines has undertaken. I think we all want that task to be successful for the company and the Territory. I am told that the complementary legislation to the Bills before the Senate is now before the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. I again stress that the services to be provided in the Territory are critical to the well-being of the region. They are critical to the health, the education and the employment of people who live in the Territory. They are critical to the Territory and its development. Added to that is the issue of the level of air fares which will be applicable. A recent study undertaken by the Bureau of Transport Economics in respect of commuter services shows that a 10 per cent increase in air fares is likely to produce a 25 per cent reduction in patronage. To my Party, that projection of the degree of movement seems quite large. I repeat that we are using only the figures produced by that survey. If the survey is correct, the airlines will be in for some trouble in maintaining services. Over the last two and a half years the Labor Party spokesman on transport matters, **Mr Peter** Morris, and I to some extent in this place have conducted a campaign for a full scale investigation of the aviation industry. One of the principal objectives has been a justification by the Government and by the airlines operators of the fare scales which are operating in this country. I think it must be conceded that the Australian community is concerned about the level of air fares and their continual increases. It is worth noting that last month the Government capitulated on this matter and the Minister for Transport, **Mr Hunt,** revealed during Question Time in the House of Representatives that a public inquiry would be held into air fares. We are not going to pass judgment upon that. However, it is clear, having regard to public concern and apprehension about rising air fares, that that inquiry is long overdue. But a month has passed since that inquiry has been announced and we are entitled to ask some questions. For instance, by whom is the inquiry to be conducted? The answer is unknown. When is the inquiry to be conducted? The answer is unknown. We ask: What will be the terms of reference. The answer is unknown. The Minister for Transport has said that there will be a public inquiry into some segment of the air fare structure in Australia. We are entitled to ask: 'Why the qualification?' I wish to impress upon the Senate and the community the importance of the inquiry. It cannot be, and it should not be, a selective inquiry. It cannot be a whitewash inquiry because that will not be accepted by the community. If it is to be effective it must be all-embracing, it must be public and it must examine all of the factors relating to the airline industry. It must look at ways and means of making air travel more accessible to those Australians in the community who presently do not have access to air travel or who simply cannot afford it. It is a question not only of making services available but also of providing the community with the means to use the services. That, of course, poses a major challenge to the Government and to those associated with the industry. The simple fact is that air travel, because of the very nature of this country, is just part of the public transport system. It happens to be one of the profitable areas of the public transport system. There is nothing special about it; there is nothing magical about it. If we spend $2 on airline services we look for $2 plus in revenue. The same mathematics, the same financial arrangements apply. So if the inquiry is to be effective we want to know the terms of reference. We are aware of the changes in the management of Ansett, the privately owned major airline in Australia, of the degree of trading that took place on the stock exchange, of the squeezing out of the small investor in that organisation and of the takeover of that organisation by some of the largest monopoly groups in our country. Of course, we know the degree to which that organisation is now exerting pressure upon this Government. We would want an assurance that increased productivity of the airlines will be taken into consideration by the inquiry. We would want an assurance that the total fare structure currently in operation in this country which has not been looked at or examined in any depth for many years will be looked at publicly by this inquiry. We would want an assurance that in fact there will be a fundamental appraisal of the way in which the industry is operating and whether it is in our interests to have the present arrangements continued. We would want an assurance from the Government that the airlines, as privileged and protected operators in the public transport system, would not be able to plead confidentiality. That has been a feature, of course, of some public inquiries in respect of the media industry in recent times. Companies which want a degree of support from the public in respect of their applications for renewal of television licences nevertheless treat the public in such a way as to suggest that their submissions to an inquiry or tribunal should be made on the basis of confidentiality. As I have said, the major airlines occupy a protected and privileged position in one of the few profitable areas of our public transport system. I do not think it is without some significance that Ansett Airlines has been the subject of a takeover in recent times. It is clearly an area which the new management sees as a means of extending the profitability and receiving a return on the capital funds invested. So I stress that protection and privilege, which is part of the airline industry in this country, must carry with it a responsibility on the part of the airlines for full public accountability for the financial performance, the efficiency of their operation and the justification for government assistance which is inherent in the whole survival of the airline industry. I return to a consideration of what will happen in the Northern Territory. We have to emphasise that, because of the location of the Territory in our continent and because of the population settlement pattern in the Territory, it is critical that not only the level of services provided to the Northern Territory are adequate to meet the basic and essential needs of the Territory and its development of needs but also the fare levels are such that people can afford to use the airlines. Let us consider the fare structure- it is not a fair structure; it is an unfair structure. Increasingly, the ability of members of our community to use the airlines has been reduced by the constant increase in all fares. I move now to consider the actual decisionmaking procedures of the industry. We have to move away from the established procedures and established wisdom of the airlines. We have to move away from that cosy little club atmosphere in which two or three fellows from the Department of Transport get together and quickly run through the information provided by the airlines when they want an air fare increase, so often providing no justification for the processes and procedures which operate in that area and which are so glibly accepted. We have to get away from the procedure whereby the Minister for Transport very obligingly announces fare increases late on a Sunday night when all members of the Press are away, attributing the announcement to an anonymous spokesman for the Department of Transport. That is not good enough. One hopes that that sort of procedure will become a part of the past. As I said, the airlines are part of the public transport system. They have privilege; they have protection; they have government backing. They must account for their performance and the fares that they charge. If they are able to do that, they have nothing to fear. But they should be publicly accountable. That should be done in an honourable way so that when changes are sought the matter can be debated in the Parliament. If there is open participation and information is supplied, either in this Parliament or outside it we can discuss the issues based on fact and not fiction; based not on speculation, not on leaks and not on exaggeration, but on the basis of the factual situation facing the airline or service concerned. The way in which existing processes operate is not the way in which to develop a policy, nor is the public bickering which takes place between airline executives a subject which should not be debated; it is a subject which should be debated. That public bickering is not a substitute for the responsible development of an appropriate aviation policy to assist in the growth of this nation. We recognise that in a country such as Australia, which is sparsely settled and in which decentralisation is an important feature of the whole process of development and of government, there needs to be an effective and efficient airline system. Can we go one step further? Can we really step into the twentieth century and give the people who foot the bill, the airline passengers, an opportunity to have a voice in the decision-making processes and procedures? That is normal practice in most other countries, including the United States of America, a nation which is portrayed as a great free enterprise country. What is wrong with providing a means by which the consuming public can be represented in the determination of these matters, that is, in the day-to-day determination of services, fares and the way in which the airline industry operates. There should be no difficulty in supplying information. In many countries when changes in route licensing are being discussed it is normal practice for those discussions to be held in public. It should be normal practice in this country. We have to develop a system under which the people who use the service, who foot the bill, have a say in the price, availability and quality of the services which are provided for them. **Mr Deputy President,** as you would understand, there is a degree of government subsidisation insofar as we protect the two airline system. Not only the travelling public but also the taxpayers have an interest in these matters. There is a simple way to ensure public participation which we on this side of the chamber espouse. We will continue to push this process as an appropriate way of giving the community a say in the decision making procedures of the aviation industry. The way to do this is to establish an airline users 'committee. If honourable senators want an example, outside the realm of fare levels and the range and quality of service, of the possible influence or contribution of an airline users ' committee I remind the chamber that last year the Airline Passengers' Committee took the early action for a judicial decision that resulted in the grounding of DC 10 aircraft following the disaster at the Chicago airport. An appropriate committee on which members of the public were represented was able to make such a decision. Leaving aside the rights or wrongs of that decision, we believe that the process bears some examination in the application of the principles of which I have spoken. The decision was criticised and ridiculed at the time. People said that is was a shocking thing to do in response to a tragedy overseas. Some people described it as an emotional response. Later investigations and ultimate developments showed that if the Airline Passengers' Committee had not initiated the action and if that decision had not been made, tens, maybe thousands and certainly hundreds of people would have continued to travel in aircraft that were subsequently found upon examination to have serious defects. I believe there is a role for an airline passengers' committee. There is reason for a consumer movement to be represented in an advisory capacity to the Minister of the day in the day to day functioning of the airline system. It would be an effective way in which the views of the public could be expressed. From time to time honourable senators on both sides of this chamber have criticised the defects in the way in which the aviation industry operates on occasions, the parallel departure times and the lack of competition between the two major airlines in the public and private sectors. If the Government is concerned about that criticism and takes it on board it must surely appreciate the need for some innovation in this area. In our modern society people desire to become more involved in the way in which organisations function and governments function and not to leave it to some bureaucratic decision making process. People wish to be involved in matters affecting their general welfare. I submit that the establishment of an airline users' committee would be an important step in the further democratising of our society. We on this side of the chamber, whilst not opposing these Bills, will continue to press for a voice for consumers in the whole decision making procedures of the aviation industry, a process which we believe will be in the interests of the industry. {: #subdebate-48-0-s3 .speaker-KPO} ##### Senator KILGARIFF:
Northern Territory -- It gives me pleasure to speak on the Air Navigation Amendment Bill 1980 and the Australian National Airlines Amendment Bill 1 980. As we know, the Australian National Airlines Amendment Bill relates to the amending of the Air Navigation Act 1920. *(Quorum formed).* The purpose of this legislation is the transferring to the Northern Territory of State-like powers in respect of civil aviation. The Australian National Airlines Amendment Bill provides that the operations of Trans-Australia Airlines will be subject to licence by the appropriate Northern Territory authorities. These two Bills are being debated cognately. The purpose of the Air Navigation Amendment Bill is the conferring on the Northern Territory Government of powers in relation to civil aviation. This is in keeping with the trend that has developed over the last 18 months. The Northern Territory, which presently is still a Territory, through various Federal Acts has been granted responsible self-government. It is participating in running the Territory's affairs. The transfer of powers to the Northern Territory Government will probably be one of the Federal Government's last acts in relation to the Territory. I hope that within this decade the Northern Territory will take a further step and the Territory will not only have responsible self-government but also will become a State in its own right. Many factors in this legislation have been discussed and are at issue. **Senator Gietzelt,** from the Opposition, talked at length on various aspects. I suggest that his speech followed the same trend as that of the Opposition shadow Minister for Transport in the other place, Peter Morris. Both **Mr Morris** and **Senator Gietzelt** have suggested various things that should happen, but really there is very little meat in their suggestions. They have suggested that there should be an airline users' committee. But surely within government in Australia there are sufficient committees to do this and that. After all, government- the Parliament- is elected by the people. Surely the onus is on the elected members of parliament to bring these issues and the various thoughts that have been put forward by the people of Australia to the executive government. To my mind, the development of committees in the Federal sphere, or for that matter within the State sphere, is whittling away the authority and the power of government. It is of interest to note that the Air Navigation Amendment Bill 1 980 provides for the continuance, to a date in 1980, of subsidies for the operation of Connair Pty Ltd. Then the situation in the Northern Territory will change and a Northern Territory airline will be set up. *(Quorum formed).* It does not worry me particularly that these odd quorums should be called by the members of the Opposition. I make the point very sincerely that in the last few months, during discussion on the transference of powers from the Federal Government to the Northern Territory Government, the names Connair and E. J. Connellan have often come to the fore. I would be remiss tonight, when this most important legislation was before the Senate, if I did not mention a most unusual person, **Mr E.** J. Connellan, who was the founder of Connellan Airways, which today is known as Connair. In common with the honourable member for the Northern Territory **(Mr Calder),** I can speak with some knowledge of what **Mr Connellan** has done. Sam Calder, D.F.C. and I were both, in 1939, members of the staff of Connair, or Connellan Airways as it was known in those days. In fact, it was my first job. Despite that, I take this opportunity to bring to the notice of not only the members of the Senate but also the Government and the people of Australia what **Mr Connellan** has actually done. After 40 years Connellan Airways, or Connair, is to exist no longer. A consortium, consisting mainly of EastWest Airlines Ltd, will take over the airline. {: .speaker-EJ4} ##### Senator Sibraa: -- A good airline. {: .speaker-KPO} ##### Senator KILGARIFF: -- Yes, it is a good airline. In 1939 **Mr E.** J. Connellan was a young man. He was requested by **Sir John** McEwen, as he is now, to go to the Northern Territory, to survey the situation and to bring to the outback of Australia air services which would give people of the outback the many things for which they had been longing and which they had done without. I believe that E. J. Connellan put into effect the concept that Flynn of the Inland had often talked about and people still discuss- the umbrella of safety. He introduced air services for the Northern Territory, the north of South Australia, the north of Western Australia and inland Queensland. In those very busy days he serviced about 128 stations and small settlements in the outback of Australia. I suggest that never before was there an airline which brought such service to the people of the outback and that never again will there be such an airline. His service brought many things to people who lived in isolation separated by hundreds of miles. In those days radio communication was very poor, as it still is in many respects. Tracks were poor and vehicles had difficulty in getting through to their destination. The sight of an aircraft was almost unknown. E. J. Connellan brought to the young family, to the husband and wife, to the people who were battling in the outback, mail and the necessities of life- such things as they had never experienced. It is true that he has been honoured to some degree, but I think that recognition of his efforts falls a long way short of the debt that the people of Australia, particularly those of the outback, owe him. During the war he, with his small fleet of aircraft, assisted the defence and security effort in the north by carrying out surveillance. He made many intelligence reports on what was happening in the outback. I recall being a young member of his staff. One day an aircraft approached the north west coast of Australia. Incidentally, it was a Percival Gull aircraft in which in 1936 Jimmy Broadbent broke the record for a solo flight from England to Australia. It had sighted a number of other aircraft, supposedly Japanese, but still delivered the mail and returned. This legislation is indicative of an era. I would like to see the Government and the people of Australia give greater recognition to the services that Connellan Airways has given to the outback. Connellan Airways changed its name to Connair Pty Ltd. Over the last few years its 128 ports of call and the numerous services which it has given to the outback have diminished. I think this has been most unfortunate. It is unfortunate that the Government has seen fit not to support it in so many ways. There have been criticisms of the subsidies that have been paid to this small airline. It was responsible for assisting the Royal Flying Doctor Service. On very many occasions Connair pilots flew in dangerous conditions, without the aid of weather reports and without knowing the condition of the airstrip on which they were to land, to bring succour to people. Nevertheless, the area of responsibility and the services of the airline have been restricted. They have been restricted for two reasons- firstly, because of the lack of subsidy and, secondly, because the airline has not had the right to be able to purchase the aircraft necessary to operate in such a difficult area. I regret that. Other areas of Australia have received financial assistance in many ways in respect of transport. For example, rail subsidies are enjoyed by people on the eastern seaboard. It has cost millions of dollars and will continue to cost millions of dollars a year to provide services for people on the eastern seaboard. I have no qualms about Tasmania, for example, receiving transport subsidies. The only thing I regret is that the people of the outback still do not get this service, despite the expanse of land between the eastern seaboard and the outback areas. In passing this legislation we should not overlook the fact that all is not well for the people of the outback for the very good reason that communications and services in the outback have not improved very much over the last two or three decades. I suggest that the stage which Connellan Airways had reached two decades ago was more advanced than the stage it is at today. But enough of that. I hope that Australia, the Government and the people, will recognise the efforts of this fine person, **Mr Connellan.** People will recall the sad occasion some two years ago when he lost his son. That is yet another cross that he has had to bear. He gave his working life to the people of the outback but, as I said, enough of that. I should like to refer briefly to what I see as the future of airlines in the Northern Territory. I am a strong believer in the need for the establishment of a third level airline in the outback. I believe that East- West Airlines Ltd is a suitable body to accept responsibility for the new airline, Northern Airlines, which is being formed. I believe that East- West Airlines will hold the majority of shares in Northern Airlines and that the rest of the shares will be made available to the public and interested bodies. I am not sure whether the Northern Territory Government will have a share in the new airline. I think the fact that a number of people will have shares in this new airline will be of benefit. Although it has not been suggested, I would have liked the staff of Northern Airlines to hold a quota of the shares in that organisation. The dedicated employees of Connair Pty Ltd, formerly Connellan Airways, are transferring to the new airline. I believe that it would be beneficial if those employees had a financial interest in this new organisation. Northern Airlines has a bright future. It has been indicated that it will be the airline of the outback. Press reports which I have read indicate that the new airline will pick up certain contracts, such as the Royal Flying Doctor Service's contract. It will also pick up contracts for surveillance of the north coast. That is very good because it will assist the new company to become economically viable. Overall, it will bring about a situation where not only will the company service the settlements and towns of the outback, but also, through the Flying Doctor service and other facilities, it will be able to extend its area of operations and so become more economically viable. I look forward to the new company taking over. The Northern Territory is growing up rapidly. I believe that perhaps over the last year or two the national airlines have treated the Northern Territory a little casually. I say that because I believe that they could have improved their services in the Northern Territory. At the same time, I admit that over the years they have given a good service, but they have not developed it to meet the growing demands of the Northern Territory. I would like to have seen air services improved, perhaps to places such as Tennant Creek, Katherine, Nhulunbuy, Groote Eylandt, which are developing very rapidly, despite their isolation as mining towns, and so on. When one looks at the situation in the Northern Territory now, it is to be regretted- perhaps I am oversensitive, but I do not apologise for that- that the airlines of Australia treat the people and the services in the Territory so casually. I deplore the fact that during school holidays and on long weekends most of the scheduled jet services are cancelled or rescheduled. The jets arrive in Alice Springs at 1 1 or 12 o'clock at night and continue to Darwin, arriving at about 2 o'clock in the morning, where they reload and then fly south just in time for the curfew to be lifted so that they can operate through the eastern States from 6 o 'clock in the morning. What about the people in the Northern Territory? They may be few in number but because of the distances to be travelled in the Northern Territory, which covers some 520,000 or 540,000 square miles, they are more reliant on air services than the people in the eastern States. In these holiday periods everybody- women and children too- is disrupted. They have to travel through the night hours, mainly from midnight onwards for the convenience of the airline, which wishes to bring back a hot aircraft so that it can service the eastern States from 6 o'clock in the morning. I deplore this and I regret it. The people of the Northern Territory feel extreme hostility at being treated, I would suggest, as second class citizens. Although power has been transferred from the Federal Government to the Northern Territory Government, there has to be a joint agreement between the two parties for the extension of intra-Territory services. At last the people of the Northern Territory can have some say in the development of air services in the Northern Territory. I suggest that that time has come; if anything, it is a little late. The people of the Northern Territory use aircraft as people in the southern States use cars. The Northern Territory has a very large area. It has an area of 520,000 to 540,000 square miles and has a population of about 1 10,000 people. That is about one person to every five square miles. It is a large country, but there are few people. People have to be encouraged to come to this area. The only way to encourage them to come is by providing the services. We should encourage the young people of Australia to come to the Northern Territory. They are coming. Even so, these days people expect some facilities and some services. I suggest that this can be done only- despite the fact that roads are being upgraded- by providing air services, air charters and a third airline- an outback airline of the Northern Territory. {: .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLaren: -- They won't be able to fly past Alice Springs, so it will not make any difference to the services you are complaining about. {: .speaker-KPO} ##### Senator KILGARIFF: -The interjection is not quite accurate. {: .speaker-CJO} ##### Senator Wheeldon: -- I cannot imagine that **Senator McLaren** would be inaccurate. {: .speaker-KPO} ##### Senator KILGARIFF: -- No, nor can I. If he would only remain on the banks of the River Murray he might be accurate. There is one more matter that I wish to raise. {: .speaker-K2U} ##### Senator Robertson: -- You are changing the subject. {: .speaker-KPO} ##### Senator KILGARIFF: -- No, I am not changing the subject. This is a matter that is related to the situation. I suggest that the authorities are only now beginning to recognise the fact that Darwin is the front door to Australia. {: .speaker-K2U} ##### Senator Robertson: -- Hear, hear! {: .speaker-KPO} ##### Senator KILGARIFF: **- Senator Robertson,** who lives in Darwin, would agree with me in that respect. The situation is that Darwin, being the front door of Australia - > *Opposition senators interjecting-* {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! {: .speaker-KPO} ##### Senator KILGARIFF: **- Mr President,** I would not worry about the background noise. We on this side of the chamber are used to continual yells from the rabble on that side of the chamber. Very little comes out of that noise. The fact is that I am very pleased that, at last, the terminal building at Darwin airport is to be replaced. It, together with some other facilities associated with it, will be replaced at a cost of about $40m. Most senators would have visited this building. They would know that the building dates back to the days of the Second World War. One can still see the scars in the roof of this building from the strafing by the Japanese fighters and bombers. Few areas of Australia felt or had a taste of war in those days. Darwin had more than others. Of course, later it was damaged extensively by Cyclone Tracy. Now the authorities have seen fit to replace the terminal building. The replacement of the terminal building will be carried out at considerable cost to the taxpayers of Australia. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. {: #subdebate-48-0-s4 .speaker-K2U} ##### Senator ROBERTSON:
Northern Territory -- The Senate is debating the Air Navigation Amendment Bill 1980 cognately with the Australian National Airlines Amendment Bill 1980. We must remind ourselves that both of these Bills are constitutional Bills because they concern the further transfer of powers to the Northern Territory. They are continuing that movement started by the Australian Labor Party Government between 1972 and 1975. This Bill will bring the Northern Territory more into line with the States. As such, this move is welcomed. It is one further step in our development. Also it is welcomed because it is a further step towards providing an efficient and effective intraTerritory air service. I will not comment on the work done by Connellan Airways, lately known as Connair Pty Ltd. I feel that that work has been covered adequately by the honourable member for the Northern Territory in the other place and by my colleague, **Senator Kilgariff.** Let us look at the Air Navigation Amendment Bill. This Bill gives the power given to the Northern Territory Government to issue licences for intra-Territory services. The criterion being set here is one on economic and public interest grounds. I will come back to that point a little later. Let us keep in mind that that is the criterion set up in the Bill. As we all know, the Commonwealth is to retain control of safety and operational issues. The job of the Northern Territory Government under this constitutional Bill, within the public interest and on economic grounds, is to grant licences to air operators to work within the Northern Territory. Looking at this Bill, we observe that those air services that operate both in the Territory and between the States and the Territory will need two licences. Two licences will be needed to operate what we might call interstate services, if the Territory were a State. I think we can use the word 'interstate' in this case. We noted during the course of the second reading speech of the Attorney-General **(Senator Durack)** and the comments that have been made in debate that the subsidy which was previously paid to Connair Pty Ltd will be paid up to 30 September to the airline which is taking over operations provided that the services for which the subsidy was originally paid continue to be provided. The second Bill we are debating cognately tonight is the Australian National Airlines Amendment Bill. This Bill is obviously consequential upon the first Bill. Its effect is to place TransAustralia Airlines in the same position as Ansett Airlines of Australia in respect of intra-Territory services- that is, in respect of licensing by the Northern Territory Government. In the other place members addressing themselves to this Bill spoke of the end of an era. I think that is a fair comment to make because organisations other than Connair were involved in the development of the Northern Territory. This will mean the cessation of services supplied by TAA, Ansett and the subsidiary of Ansett, MacRobertson Miller Airline Services. Honourable senators will know of the proud record of MacRobertson Miller Airline Services, as it used to be known in the early days, when it serviced the top end of Western Australia and into the Northern Territory. It extended itself to do what we called in those days the station run. This wonderful service provided by MMA later diminished with the work that was done by Connellan. I have many happy memories, as no doubt other honourable senators do, of the work done by MMA and later by Ansett. TAA and Ansett have both covered the milk run as it has come to be known. The milk run is the service from Alice Springs to Tennant Creek to Katherine to Darwin and back down the Track. I understand that both of these organisations are reluctant to discontinue the service. They would prefer to keep that line operating. They would prefer to fly their larger jets into Alice Springs and to use the F27s to service the interior of the Northern Territory. I feel it is necessary that they discontinue their service if the airline to be introduced is to be effective. The problem faced by any operator- I will not mention any names at the moment- trying to work in the Northern Territory is the number of unprofitable routes. We know that many Aboriginal communities are scattered throughout the Northern Territory. There are a number of pastoral properties. Of course, many of them have their own aircraft. However, many of them look to a commercial airline to service them. As well as these areas, there are some isolated townships. The sorts of services that these people quite clearly need are deliveries of fresh food or frozen foods on a regular basis. They need their mail brought out. I do not have to stress to honourable senators the value of mail to people living in isolated and remote areas. Of course, there is a need for passenger services to be provided on a reasonably regular basis to these pastoral properties, Aboriginal communities and isolated areas. With the new roads that we have in the Northern Territory, many communities that used to rely on the service no longer have to do so. But many are still isolated and need to call upon the services of a commercial airline. I suppose it is only fair to say that many of those communities that are serviced by roads would also have occasions to call upon the services of a commerical airline. It is not possible to collect ones mail frequently if one lives 500 or 600 miles from the nearest mail centre and so one looks to the service to bring the mail out. One looks to the service to bring out passengers and those items of freight that are needed urgently such as spare parts for machinery and things that are needed within the home. The point was made by an honourable senator that the geography of the Northern Territory makes it quite clear that we need a good schedule service operating in the Northern Territory. To be able to service all of these areas effectively, the operator must have either all the routes- that is, the cream routes up through the Centre and the Gove group routes- or massive subsidies. It seems to me that that is what will happen. I do not think there will be too many supporters on either side of this chamber who will support a concept of massive subsidy for the two major airlines, because that is what it amounts to. If we provide a large subsidy for a smaller airline to operate the less profitable or the non-profitable routes in the Northern Territory and allow the major airlines to carry on those milk runs and the trip around Gove and Groote Eylandt, then we are subsidising their activities, because we are allowing them to take the cream off the service. So I put the point quite strongly that the operator, who is to work in the Northern Territory, must have the Alice Springs, Tenant Creek, Katherine, Darwin route and the Gove-Groote Eylandt route. He must also have clear in his mind the possibility of development later of those other areas that will be opened up. We think here in terms of mining areas, new pastoral areas and perhaps areas operating out from the Ord River dam when the development flows back into the Northern Territory where it belongs. The operator must also have protection from the illegal charter operators or the illegal operators. I do not think I have to spend much time on this point. People will know the problem faced by any service that has to compete with the illegal operator who once again can whip in quickly and take out the cream. The point I am coming to is that the Northern Territory Government has a great responsibility in this area to put a lot of thought into the conditions of granting a licence. I come back to the phrases 'in the public interest' and 'on economic grounds'. At this stage I call on the Northern Territory Government to investigate very carefully and fully before it makes any decisions. I make the point here that the investigation that I am calling for is in addition to the investigation into the aviation industry which has been called for by my colleague in the other place, the shadow Minister for Transport, **Mr Peter** Morris. **Mr Morris** and others have drawn attention to the need for an investigation into the aviation industry. As a result of this inquiry, and as a result of setting up these new licences, the Northern Territory Government has the opportunity once again to be innovative. The Government has resisted the calls which I made from 1976, when we started talking about self-government, to be innovative. I call again on the Government in this exercise to let us study the needs, but let us be innovative. I was very heartened to read in *Hansard* of the debate in the other place, where the honourable member for Tangney, **Mr Shack,** on 27 March said: >I hope that in the months ahead when the Northern Territory determines the State airline situation it will provide a shining example to the other States and, in fact, the Commonwealth. Certainly, at the very least, I hope it does not repeat the mistakes that have already been made by some of the other States and, I am sad to say, by the Commonwealth. If the Government of the Northern Territory is not prepared to listen to me in this matter, then I ask that it listen to the honourable member from Western Australia. What needs to be looked at in this inquiry? Obviously, the first thing that needs to be looked at is the routes to be covered. While I say that this is obvious, we must remember that the routes must be looked at where they will be economical, and where they will not be economical. In other words, we must look to providing a service which will meet the needs of the Northern Territory people, not simply those routes which would appear on the surface to provide a return to the company. Tied to this obviously is the matter of frequency of services. Some areas will need to be serviced more frequently than others. It is quite clear that once a fortnight would be an adequate service in some areas. In others, once a week would be necessary. In yet others, two or three times a week would be necessary to meet the needs. The Northern Territory Government must look at the balance of charters that it will allow in the Northern Territory. It may be possible for some of the larger charter operators perhaps to establish regular services. This is done at present. I am not sure how legal this is, but certainly some of the charter operators are operating clear, regular services. The new service must be viable, but, by the same token, charter operators have rights themselves. The chaner operators in the Northern Territory have provided a service over the years and they cannot just be discarded. Their situation needs examination in this inquiry that I have asked for. The fare structure of the new service needs study. Once again, this is not part of the study that **Mr Morris** has called for, but a special Northern Territory study. No doubt part of what is done in the Northern Territory will apply in the rest of Australia, but we have a responsibility to make sure that the people in the Northern Territory who need to fly- the point has been made that most who want to move within the Territory or travel to it from outside need to fly because of the distances involved and also need to be able to afford to fly. We must make sure that the fare structure is such that they will be able to do so. For many years it has been a practice in the Northern Territory to provide a subsidy for people who are living in remote areas, particularly government servants, teachers, health workers and others. This must be a part of the inquiry also. Is this to continue? I realise that this is a decision which the individual departments must make but, nevertheless, would have to be looked at as part of the totality. The fate of the agents in the Northern Territory who, over the years, have serviced the two major airlines also needs to be examined. What is going to happen to them? They have provided the service. They must, in some way, be built into the new structure. I feel that the Government has some responsibility in this area also since it insisted on the two-airline system that has operated over the years. The problem does not arise in Aboriginal communities where obviously only one service has applied. I trust that the new airlines would look at the use of Aboriginal people as their agents on those communities and not do what was so often done in the past by Connair, that is, use the local Europeans. The Opposition welcomes these Bills as a further step in the growth of the Northern Territory. While basically constitutional they have some immediate ramifications. I call on the Northern Territory to accept its responsibilities responsibly, to investigate before making decisions, to be innovative and to provide a structure which will enable the service which is established to show the way to the rest of Australia. I add to what my colleagues in the other place have done and call for a nationwide study of the aviation industry. I know that this call has the support of both sides of the chamber and of the House. I comment on two points made by **Senator Kilgariff,** not in any sense of criticism, but to reinforce what he has said. I support with him the concept of ownership of this new airline by the people of the Northern Territory. My preference would be that the whole organisation should be Territory-owned. If we cannot have this for some reason certainly the next best step will be the recommendation which he made, that is, that the Northern Territory people have a share, the staff of the old airline, Connair, have a share, and that some others in the Northern Territory pick up the rest of the shares. I also support his criticism of the major airlines' servicing of the Northern Territory late at night to suit southern travellers. I will not go through the details that he gave to the House, but I deplore the situation, as he does, in which the Northern Territory people are being treated as second class citizens in this area, as I have criticised his Government for making them second class citizens in a number of other areas. One last point that I make is related to the whole matter of the two Bills which we are discussing. During the discussions of a Senate Estimates committee I raised the question of coastal surveillance and I put a number of questions for which I am still waiting answers. When the tenders were first called for coastal surveillance a number of people put in quotes. I believe the figure was five, but certainly it was in excess of four. Connair was the successful tenderer. The contract appears now to have been renegotiated. I have asked whether this has been done, whether the contract has been awarded to East- West, the new owners of Connair, and as they will probably be known, Northern Airlines. The first answer I want concerns whether the contract has been re-negotiated. If so, on what terms? Secondly, who now has the contract? Thirdly, is the figure for this contract identical to the previous contract? Fourthly, if not, is it higher or lower? If higher, were the former unsuccessful tenderers given the opportunity to tender? I am implying no impropriety in this matter; I am simply asking for information. I trust that I am going to get some information and not the sort of comment one usually gets from the Department of Transport that the matter is confidential and cannot be brought before the House. Clearly the questions that I have raised are not confidential. The answers to those questions are not confidential. Not one question which I have raised breaches confidence. This is taxpayers' money that we are talking about and we are entitled to an answer. I trust that the Minister will either give me an answer or arrange for me to be given an answer at a later stage. Obviously the matter is still a Federal one because it deals with coastal surveillance, and I ask the Minister to look at it. We of the Opposition support the two Bills. {: #subdebate-48-0-s5 .speaker-K7H} ##### Senator COLLARD:
Queensland -- I would like to add my contribution to the debate on these two Bills. As has been outlined in the second reading speeches by the senators who have spoken, they deal with the basic retraction of the services of Trans-Australia Airlines and Ansett Airlines of Australia, and the taking over of Connellan Airways or Connair Pty Ltd, as it is known, in the formation of a new airline, Northern Airlines. How that formation will be implemented we are not quite sure yet, .with East- West Airlines Ltd and the Northern Territory Government having a shareholding in it', and even the people of the Northern Territory themselves may be allowed to join in. Most of the speakers have confined their remarks to the Bill, although **Senator Gietzelt** 's contribution was a little bit more wide-ranging. He commented on what appears to be the philosophyparticularly as the Opposition spokesman on transport raised the same question- of the setting up of an airline users committee and of how much use that would be. Unfortunately, the airline business is a rather complicated one; every time a decision is taken, or every time something goes wrong, there are about 100,000 experts. He instanced the role that the airline users committees played in the United States after the crash of a DC 10 in Chicago. I put the contrary view that it was the fact that the airline users committee bought in and took legal action which kept what is basically a good, sound aircraft on the ground for a lot longer than it needed to be kept on the ground. There is nothing basically wrong with the structure and integrity of a DC 10 aircraft. The problem which, of course, has appeared to come to light since then, was in a maintenance procedure. This raises other questions. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- There was structural weakness. {: .speaker-K7H} ##### Senator COLLARD: -- I am sorry, it was to do with maintenance. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- There was a structural weakness in the engine mountings. They reinforced them all after. {: .speaker-K7H} ##### Senator COLLARD: -- It was to do with the replacement of the engine, not in accordance with the manufacturer's specification, which led to a weakness in the bulkhead of the aft attachment of the engine pylon and the fact that the pylon was not put on first but was put on with the engine by use of a forklift. It was left standing, and this put a lot more pressure than was originally meant to be put on the bulkhead, which buckled it, and that caused it to come loose on take-off. As I said, it has nothing to do with the basic structure or integrity of the aircraft. {: .page-start } page 1858 {:#debate-49} ### ADJOURNMENT Public Service Strike: Effect on Parliament- Industrial Relations {: #debate-49-s0 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! It being 1 1 p.m., in conformity with the sessional order relating to the adjournment of the Senate, I put the question: >That the Senate do now adjourn. {: #debate-49-s1 .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator KEEFFE:
Queensland -- Honourable senators will have realised that Parliament House attendants are involved in a small industrial dispute. When there was a division today I was disturbed to note that Government senators rushed to carry out the process of locking the doors. In trade union circles there is a four-letter word used to describe people who do those sorts of things. I will not nominate that word because everyone is familiar with it. {: .speaker-KUU} ##### Senator Missen: -- Should we close up the Parliament? {: .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator KEEFFE: -- The action in this industrial dispute was taken as a result of a democratic decision. **Senator Missen,** with his left wing Liberal views, is the last person I would expect to interject in regard to an industrial dispute. If people have a legitimate industrial dispute they ought to have the opportunity of deciding democratically to go on strike. The attendants have decided to take that action in an effort to win industrial justice. I was disturbed when Government senators carried out the jobs that are normally performed by attendants. I respectfully suggest that if a stranger had walked in to take part in a division, he or she would have been recognised immediately as a stranger and objections would have been taken with you, **Mr President.** I do not ask you to reply on this matter tonight but perhaps you will consider it and tell honourable senators what is the situation so that when attendants leave their jobs under these conditions we will have a firm ruling as to what shall happen. I am not asking that the Parliament be closed down, but I am suggesting that members who sit in this chamber as representatives of the people ought not to perform the job that is normally carried out by attendants who are paid to do that job. {: #debate-49-s2 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia -- I have a few words to say on this matter. It has been accepted that I tried to show some discourtesy to you, **Mr President,** when I walked out of the chamber tonight after you had asked that the doors be locked. {: .speaker-ME4} ##### Senator Peter Baume: -- In fact, you were paired. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH: -Yes. I will explain that. It was not an action of defiance; it was as a result of a mix-up between the Opposition Whip and acting Whip, who counted up and found that there were two Opposition senators too many in the chamber. **Senator Melzer** was asked to leave and as there was not time for anyone else to be asked I said that I would leave. I was told later that as I was going out the door you called me back. I did not hear that call, so I was not acting in defiance. Today I protested when someone shut the doors, doing work normally performed by men who are now on strike, but I intended to take the matter no further. It was just to suit the arrangement of the Whips that I left the chamber. Although honourable senators take for granted the humble servants who attend to us in this chamber and do not recognise their value, today we have recognised their value and the difficulty of Parliament meeting without them. This has demonstrated the great job that they do for the Parliament. Today honourable senators received no correspondence- no letters were delivered- and we had no newspapers this afternoon. I wanted to raise in the Committee stage some matters in regard to the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill but a copy of that Bill was not in my file. I had no one to peruse the list outside. An honourable senator came to the table for a drink this afternoon and the jug was empty. We cannot even get a drink of water in here. It shows the difficulty that we face when even the attendants are not looking after the members of parliament. It is a sorry state of affairs when such men have to go to the extreme of striking to improve their conditions. I think we ought to be more guarded to ensure that the stage is not reached where strike is essential. I pay a tribute also to the officers of the Senate who were not prepared to do the work which is normally done by those who today are fighting for better conditions for themselves, their wives and their children. I hope the occasion will never arise again when those who dispense justice and dictate wages are so neglectful of their duty that a strike is necessary on the part of those on whom we rely so much to carry on our services. {: #debate-49-s3 .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLAREN:
South Australia -Now that this matter has been raised in the Senate tonight I have a few words to say also. I join with both **Senator Keeffe** and **Senator Cavanagh** in giving full support to those attendants who today had the courage to go on strike for a principle. I give no support at all to those honourable senators who rushed to lock the doors of the chamber when **Senator Cavanagh** drew your attention, **Mr President,** to the fact that they were not locked. On the internal broadcast system in my office I heard **Senator Keeffe** referring tonight to some people as being scabs. For some years I have had in my office a little poem which was given to me during my days in the shearing sheds. I shall read it to the Senate tonight in order to Jet some people realise how scabs are despised in the Australian community. It reads: >THE SCAB REFUSED IN HEAVEN AND HELL > >Well, I ought to get a large reward For never owning a Union card. I 've never grumbled, I 've never struck, I 've never belonged to the Union truck; But I must be going my way to win, So open, St Peter, and let me in. > >St Peter sat and stroked his staffDespite his high office, he had to laugh. Said he, with prey gleam in his eyeWho tends this gate, **Sir, you** or I? I 've heard of you and your gift of gab; You are what is called on Earth a SCAB. > >Thereon he rose in his stature tall, And pressed a button upon the wall. Said he to the Imp who answered the bell, Escort this fellow around to Hell. Tell Satan to give him a seat alone, On a red hot griddle up near the throne. > >But stay, c 'en the Devil can 't stand the smell, Of a cooking SCAB on a griddle in Hell; lt would cause a revolt, a strike I know, If I send you down to the Imps below. Go back to your masters on Earth and tell That they don't want SCABS in Heaven or Hell. I think there is a lesson to be learned from that poem by many people. When good working men go on strike, people rush to do their jobs. We are told on many occasions when trade unions go on strike- whether it be on the wharves or in the shearing sheds- that the Government will get people to do the unionists' work. Perhaps we will see the day when the same people who volunteered to lock the doors of this chamber today are prepared to rush into the coal mines, into the shearing sheds or on to the wharves and do the heavy work which is carried out by the labourers of this nation. I venture to say that none of them would be able to carry out that work with the alacrity and the skill with which they ran to shoot the bolts on the chamber doors today. I hope that the work force has learned a lesson, namely, that there are people in our community who have no thought at all for the welfare of the working class. We know how the Government, of which all honourable senators opposite are members, repeatedly goes into the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission every time there is a wage hearing and put strongly the case that the wage earners of this country should not be given an increase in their wages and should not be given better living standards. This is the situation that we faced in this chamber today. We saw it in reality. We have read and heard about it in the past but today we saw those very people in action. The work force of this nation ought to be warned of what will happen if those people ever have complete control. If they are able to abolish the arbitration system, the members of the work force will not have a leg to stand on. They will see a return to the slave days. I conclude by saying that I give great credit to all of those attendants who acted as one and left this place when their union, after taking a democratic vote, decided that in the cause of their case they would not engage in further duties today. Those people deserve credit. I hope that they will be given justice when their claims are heard in the Arbitration Commission. {: #debate-49-s4 .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator RAE:
Tasmania -- I am always intrigued to listen to our friend and colleague **Senator McLaren,** who gives us the benefit of spending so much of our time in this chamber, elucidate many of the problems which face the nation and this chamber. I was intrigued when our colleague **Senator McLaren** made one assumption. Apparently in all matters he bases his judgments on assumptions. Tonight, with the natural arrogance which we hear from him with monotonous regularity, he stated his assumption that no one on the Government side of the chamber has ever worked on a wharf or in a shearing gang or engaged in constructive labour. May I say that, as a presser in a large shearing shed for quite some time, I had time to run what everybody said was the best organised Melbourne Cup sweep that they had been in. The fellow who drew the names got the horse that ran first; the fellow who held the hat got the horse which ran second; and the fellow who organised the sweep, myself, got the horse that ran third. I thought that was rather fair. Let me say that I was also able to keep up with my pressing. {: .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLaren: -- How many shearers were you pressing for? {: .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator RAE: -- We had a fair squad. {: .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLaren: -- How many? {: .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator RAE: -- We had eight. {: .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLaren: -- And you were doing it on your own? {: .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator RAE: -- I was doing it in my own and I still had time to organise the Melbourne Cup sweep. Let me say that I enjoyed doing that. I enjoyed working on a construction gang, driving a bulldozer and doing many other jobs. {: .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLaren: -- How did you finish up on that side of the House? {: .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator RAE: -- I am delighted by the interjection. During the varied experiences I found that those who did not think too often came to the conclusion that big brother should do it all for them, but the good thinkers who were employed in the shearing gangs or whatever else thought that there was some advantage to them in working. When **Senator McLaren** quoted his little piece of poetry, it brought to my mind something which I remember learning when I was very young. Without having to read, I will recite something of meaning to me. I think it is relevant to what **Senator McLaren** was talking about. It goes like this: >I hates the guys who criticise and minimise the other guys whose enterprise has made them rise above the guys who criticise and minimise. I hope that some of the people who have been on strike today give some thought to the sentiment in that little verse. {: #debate-49-s5 .speaker-KUU} ##### Senator MISSEN:
Victoria -I take a slightly different line from **Senator Rae.** I do not have his great memory and gift for poetry. I concede that unquestionably he has won the title of poet laureate in this place. **Senator McLaren,** who approaches every subject with an open mouth but no subject with an open mind, is of course less adept in his poetry. As one of the scabs, as he would call me, who locked the doors in the chamber today for divisions, let me speak in rebuttal of the miserable remarks which were made tonight by three honourable senators. From their point of view we are taking the bread out of the mouths of the chamber attendants. We on the Government side appreciate the attendants and what they do for us. We were prepared to go along readily today, putting up with the fact that some things were missing. We did not complain but **Senator Cavanagh** was worried about a Bill being unavailable. We used our initiative. If we wanted something we went and got it. {: .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLaren: -- Your Whip distributed all the Bills. {: .speaker-KUU} ##### Senator MISSEN: -- I will not worry about what **Senator McLaren** has to say. We went downstairs and obtained what we wanted. We know where the Records Office is and we know where to go to get things. That is just a small example of the initiative that we show. We did not moan about the fact that we did not have a document. Immediately attention was drawn to this matter this morning a Labor senator said: Let us close up for the day. Let us go home. We cannot possibly go on'. The great workers opposite who have been sent to this chamber to represent the people of Australia wanted to go home straight away. That was their way of showing sympathy for the people who are on strike. I will not enter into the merits of the strike. If there are good causes and good justification for the strike, I hope that the workers will get good results. Honourable senators have had to put up with a lot today. A situation arose in which a division could not be properly held. **Mr President,** you gave directions for the doors to be closed. We obeyed the Chair and did that. I am sure that that action was not such as to take any job from anybody. We will not do it regularly. We are not very good at doing it. After I had closed the doors, other honourable senators had some difficulty in unlocking them. Perhaps I was a little rough with the doors. I am sure that the attendants are better at locking the doors. Today I was glad to see that no Labor senators tried to lock the doors. Heaven alone knows what would have happened to the locks if they had tried to do that. What a miserable exhibition we have had tonight! This is not support for the workers; this is an indication of the miserable attitude of honourable senators opposite on this subject. We on this side of the chamber accepted with good grace that there was a strike and kept this place going. That is how honourable senators on this side of the chamber keep this country going. Honourable senators opposite always rise with an open mouth to complain about things from which they have suffered. {: #debate-49-s6 .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES:
Queensland -- Obviously **Senator Missen** does not understand the very clear principle involved, that is, that when a person withdraws his labour no other person should move in to perform his tasks. Apparently it is a principle that he and other honourable senators opposite will never understand. That is the principle involved. **Mr President,** you raised the matter today and we responded when you suggested that we should move around and do those things which are normally done by the attendants. At that stage we brought before the chamber a principle of longstanding, that is, that one does not in any way do the work of a person who has decided, whether rightly or wrongly, to withdraw his labour. He has a purpose in mind. No one would accept that his work should be done for him. The difficulty was that the Parliament of Australia should not close down because of the problems before it. We should have adjourned until such time as discussions had taken place to try to resolve the matter relating to the attendants. No one knew whether the stoppage would be for a short or long period. I would have thought that there would be some investigation of the matter. It is pleasing to note that the executive officers of the Senate took the position that they would not do the work of the attendants. Government senators moved hurriedly to prove that they did not understand the principle involved. As **Senator McLaren** said, they revealed their basic position on these matters, that is, that if unionists withdraw their labour it is acceptable for others to move in to do that work. There is a description for people who do that. It is an unhappy and rather ugly description, but it describes an ugly act. I do not know what the position will be tomorrow. It would have been far better if we had ignored the situation. {: .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator Rae: -- Organise a demo, George; go on. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -The right of people to demonstrate is a right which **Senator Rae** supports as strongly as I do. For that reason he should support the right of attendants to withdraw their labour. That is a form of demonstration. If they withdraw their labour and demonstrate in this way, no one should take any action which diminishes that act. That is what honourable senators opposite did today. {: .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator Rae: -- This is where we part company. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -- I am sorry. We have to establish a balance between the Parliament and those attendants who are a part of the Parliament. We have come to some sort of conclusion, without debate or division, that the Parliament must proceed. There were some murmurs of discontent at the expression of opinion I put in such a definite way earlier today. Rather than having the unseemly performance of Government senators racing across the chamber to lock doors, it might be better if the matter were ignored and we adopted the view we should proceed with divisions with the doors unlocked. Government senators who act in such a way expose their basic prejudices on these matters, and that is what they did today. {: #debate-49-s7 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for National Development and Energy · LP -- I should like to say a few concluding words. Some considerable stress has been - {: .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator Keeffe: -- I take a point of order, **Mr President.** I raised this debate originally to obtain a ruling from you at your convenience. Unless the Minister wishes to participate in the debate, I suggest that he has no right to reply to the question. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Any honourable senator can speak in the adjournment debate. {: .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK: -I am following the precedent that is followed every night in this chamber. The Minister who is on duty responds to what has been said in the adjournment debate. There has been evoked tonight a principle for certain action. Let me cite the highest principle and duty of every member of parliament. I refer to his responsibility to keep the Parliament functioning so that he can discharge his duties. Let me test a principle now. {: .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator Keeffe: **- Mr President,** I want to pursue my point of order. I asked for a ruling from you as President of the chamber and custodian of the Standing Orders. I did not ask the Minister for National Development and Energy, who is at the table, for a ruling. It is quite out of order for him to proceed to do so. I suggest, **Mr President,** that you and you alone, and not the Minister, can give a ruling on this matter. If the Minister wants to debate the matter he may do so, but then he must take sides. I asked originally for a ruling from you, **Mr President,** at your convenience. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! There is no point of order, for the reason that any honourable senator my speak in the adjournment debate. The Minister is exercising that right as a member of the Senate. {: .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK: -- I put a simple test. If it is true that when attendants in this chamber withdraw their labour for industrial purposes this chamber should not sit, Parliament can be denied its right to sit by the withdrawal of labour by attendants. To state that is to show the ridiculous situation that is being argued today. If there is one body which must carry out its duties permanently in the face of industrial dissent, in the face of any kind of disruption, it is the Parliament. That is its fundamental duty. {: .speaker-CAK} ##### Senator Rae: -- It may be that to solve the industrial dispute it is necessary for the Parliament to sit. {: .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK: -That is precisely so. It may well be that that is so. Fundamentally what the Labor Party is saying today is laying down a device whereby this Parliament could be forced into disuse simply by an industrial condition. To say that is to state how ridiculous that principle is. **Mr President,** I said today that the principle on which the attendants denied their labour was not for us to judge. It was for **Mr Speaker** and you to resolve that situation. It is for us to ensure that the work of this Parliament shall go on. The Standing Orders ensure that certain procedures take place. **Senator Georges** suggested that we should have ignored the locking of the doors. We tried so to do. It was the Labor Party which insisted that we should proceed with that device. Had the Opposition desired not to enforce that matter, we would have been quite willing so to do and we would have proceeded. Because the Opposition insisted, it was necessary to carry out the Standing Orders. The Standing Order does not indicate that attendants shall close the doors; it indicates that the doors shall be closed. That is precisely what happened today. I only hope that never again would it be suggested in this place that a parliament should close because of an industrial dispute. That would be a principle that would be abhorrent to the whole of democracy. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I have noted the comments of honourable senators this evening. I now put the question that the Senate do now adjourn. Question resolved in the affirmative. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- The Senate stands adjourned until tomorrow at 3 p.m., or such later time as I take the chair, in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day. {: .page-start } page 1862 {:#debate-50} ### PAPERS The following papers were presented, pursuant to statute: >Bounty (Commercial Motor Vehicles) Act- RegulationsStatutory Rules 1980 No. 77. > >Customs Act- Regulations-Statutory Rules 1980 Nos 78, 82. > >Defence Act, Naval Defence Act and Air Force ActRegulationsStatutory Rules No. 83. > >Defence Amendment Act- Interim DeterminationStatutory Rules 1980 No. 81. > >Federal Court of Australia Act- Rules of Court- Statutory Rules 1980 No. 87. > >Income Tax Assessment Act- Regulations- Statutory Rules 1980 No. 86. > >National Health Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1980 No. 84. > >Navigation Act- Regulations- Statutory Rules 1980 Nos 79, 80. > >Nursing Home Assistance Act- Regulations- Statutory Rules 1980 No. 85. > >Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Regulations 1980-No. 6-(Motor Traffic Ordinance). Senate adjourned at 11.27 p.m. {: .page-start } page 1863 {:#debate-51} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS The following answers to questions were circulated: {:#subdebate-51-0} #### Office of Child Care: Projects (Question No. 2563) {: #subdebate-51-0-s0 .speaker-9V4} ##### Senator Grimes: asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 18 March 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What information is kept by the Office of Child Care on projects approved in each Commonwealth electorate. 1. Does the information include the amounts of money approved in each electorate during a financial year, and the amount actually spent during the financial year of that approval. 2. Will the Minister give that information as a reply to this question; if not, can the Minister estimate the extent of the staff resources which would be required to be diverted from more essential duties', which is the reason for refusing to answer **Senator Grimes'** Question No. 2045 (see *Hansard,* 6 November 1979, page 1948). {: #subdebate-51-0-s1 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle:
Minister for Social Security · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) My Department maintains detailed information on individual projects approved for direct funding under all its subsidy programs, including projects administered by the Office of Child Care. Such information includes details of the project, the organisation receiving funding, the levels of funding, the terms and conditions of the Grant, expenditure details, et cetera. In regard to projects funded through the States such details are not readily available. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. Yes, but only in regard to projects funded direct. 1. As I indicated to the honourable senator in my answer to Question No. 2045 (Senate *Hansard,* 6 November 1979, page 1 948 ) the information sought is not in a form that could be extracted without enormous effort. There are approximately 1 , 240 projects currently approved in the Child Care area. Each of these would need to be examined to extract the level of capital and recurrent expenditure to date. Then each project would need to be categorised by the 124 Federal Electorates in Australia. Such an exercise is made more complicated by the fact that a large proportion of the projects are funded via-the-States and actual expenditure figures are not provided on an individual project basis nor are overall via-the-State program expenditure figures readily available on an up-to-date basis. {:#subdebate-51-1} #### Iwasaki Sangyo Co. Australia Pty Ltd (Question No. 2601) {: #subdebate-51-1-s0 .speaker-L8O} ##### Senator Mason:
NEW SOUTH WALES asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 20 March 1980: >Has the Government or the Foreign Investment Review Board received a detailed submission concerning the overall plans for land acquisition outside their franchise area by the Iwasaki Sangyo Company Australia Pty Ltd as the Treasurer indicated in response to **Senator Mason's** Question on Notice No. 2 1 83 (see Senate *Hansard,* page 2868). {: #subdebate-51-1-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The Acting Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >Yes. The contents of this submission were taken into account by the Government in its decision announced by the Treasurer on 23 January 1980 not to approve, at this time, any land purchases by Iwasaki outside the boundaries of the proposed resort as set out in the Franchise Agreement between the company and the Queensland Government. {:#subdebate-51-2} #### Commonwealth Bonds: Advertising Campaign (Question No. 2603) {: #subdebate-51-2-s0 .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLaren: asked the Minister representing the Treasurer, upon notice, on 26 March 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Which advertising agency is conducting the advertising campaign for the sale of Series 16 Commonwealth Bonds; how was the agency chosen; and how many agencies applied for the contract. 1. ) What is the estimated total cost of the campaign. 2. Which sections of the media have been used in the campaign and to what extent was the provincial press used. 3. Which: (a) newspapers; (b) journals; (c) television stations; (d) radio stations; and (e) individuals, shared in the amount spent on advertising in each State and Territory, and what amount was paid to each. 4. What were the dates of commencement and completion of the campaign. 5. 6 ) Did the campaign extend for a longer or shorter period than previous similar campaigns. {: #subdebate-51-2-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The Acting Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) The advertising agency currently planning and creating advertising for Australian Savings Bonds Series 16 is Ogilvy & Mather (Australia) Pty Ltd, one of four advertising agencies invited by the Australian Government Advertising Service to submit competitive proposals for advertising Commonwealth securities. A panel of officers from the Treasury and from the Australian Government Advertising Service jointly decided to accept the proposals put forward by Ogilvy & Mather (Australia) Pty Ltd as most closely meeting the specifications and needs of the advertising campaigns. 1. It is intended to continue the advertising campaign for Australian Savings Bonds Series 16 at the present level for the period that the Series is on sale. Since it is not known when the Series will be withdrawn, it is not possible to determine a total estimated cost for the campaign. However, as a guide, the estimated cost of the campaign, including media expenditure, production costs and allowance for relevant service fees, for the period from 3 March to 3 1 March 1980 is $267,000. 2. Media sections used have been national, metropolitan, provincial and rural weekly press, metropolitan and provincial radio and television, outdoor (public transport) displays, as well as counter displays in banks and in Queensland post offices. Expenditure related to provincial press during the period 3-3 1 March 1 980 was about $50,000. 3. The following are gross charges expected to be received from media for Australian Savings Bonds Series 16 advertising in March 1980: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. Newspapers: {: type="a" start="e"} 0. Individuals: A fee of $13,000 was paid to **Mr Leonard** Teale for his services for the twelve months commencing I November 1979 associated with advertising of Austraiian Savings Bonds Series 15, Series 16 and any other Series of Australian Savings Bonds during that period. {: type="1" start="5"} 0. Advertising for Australian Savings Bonds Series 16 commenced on 3 March 1980, following the announcement that the new Series was to replace Series 1 5. There is no indication yet as to when Series 16 will be withdrawn from sale. 1. The level of advertising for Australian Savings Bonds Series 16 is consistent with the schedule and the overall budget for advertising for Commonwealth securities approved for the period 1 May 1 979 to 30 April 1 980. {:#subdebate-51-3} #### Commemorative Stamps: 1980 Olympic Games (Question No. 2610) {: #subdebate-51-3-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice, on 26 March 1 980: >Were there any formal or informal discussions between Australia Post and any member of the Government, or any public servant briefed by the Government, or any other person so briefed, in relation to the possible cancellation of the issue of stamps to commemorate the 1980 Olympic Games; if so, what are the details of such discussions. {: #subdebate-51-3-s1 .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator Chaney:
LP -- The Minister for Post and Telecommunications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >Yes. I informed the Chairman of the Australian Postal Commission of the Government's view of the possible issue of stamps in relation to the Moscow Olympic Games. The Chairman of the Australian Postal Commission informed me that the Commission considered that advice at its meeting on 1 1 March 1980 and had decided to abandon its proposed stamp issue for the Moscow Olympic Games. {:#subdebate-51-4} #### Motor Spirit and Avgas (Question No. 2626) {: #subdebate-51-4-s0 .speaker-L8O} ##### Senator Mason: asked the Minister for National Development and Energy, upon notice, on 27 March 1980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) What is the total daily demand for motor spirit and avgas: (a) in Australia; and (b) in each capital city. 1. What is the total storage capacity for motor spirit and avgas in Australia at present. 2. What is the total daily production capacity from Sydney refineries for motor spirit and avgas. 3. What are the growth rates in each of questions ( 1) to (3). {: #subdebate-51-4-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. (a) Australian consumption per day during 1979 of motor spirit was 40,789 kilolitres and of aviation gasoline was 339 kilolitres. {: type="a" start="1"} 0. b) Capital city details are not available. 1. Australian storage capacity at refineries and seaboard bulk terminals, as at 30 June 1979 of motor spirit was 1,982,749 kilolitres and of aviation gasoline was 80,458 kilolitres. 2. Details of refinery production capacity for individual products are not available. Capacity varies according to type of feedstock used and product mix required. However, Sydney refinery capacity of primary processing units as at December 1979 was 35,278 to 40,363 kilolitres of crude oil per stream day. 3. Annual growth rates: Consumption 1974 to 1979- motor spirit, 3.6 per cent. Aviation gasoline 3. 1 percent. Storage capacity 30 June 1974 to 30 June 1979- Motor spirit, 1.3 per cent. Aviation gasoline 1.2 percent. Sydney refinery capacity December 1974 to December 1 979- Primary processing units, 1 .6 per cent. {:#subdebate-51-5} #### Marginal Farming Land Converted to Forests (Question No. 2633) {: #subdebate-51-5-s0 .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator Mulvihill: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice on 3 1 March 1 980: >Has the Minister for Primary Industry received any reports from the Australian Forestry Council which disclose the acreages of marginal farming land in each State that have been convened to forests in the last five years. {: #subdebate-51-5-s1 .speaker-K5H} ##### Senator Scott:
NCP/NP -- The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >No. The matter has been considered from time to time in the past but no agreement was reached on what constitutes marginal farmland. Private land purchased by the State Forest Services and converted to plantations has included fully cleared land, land which although once clear-felled has reverted to varying degrees of forest cover, partly cleared land and land which has never been cleared. {:#subdebate-51-6} #### Aboriginal Affairs: Unspent Budget Allocation (Question No. 2640) {: #subdebate-51-6-s0 .speaker-KPG} ##### Senator Keeffe: asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 2 April 1 980: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. What amount of the finance for Aboriginal Affairs allocated in the 1979-80 Budget remained unspent as at 31 March 1980. 1. How much of this allocation does the Minister anticipate will remain unspent by 30 June 1 980. 2. Has the Minister had indication from the Queensland Government of the amount of Commonwealth funds allocated to that State for Aboriginal Affairs, under all headings, that will remain unspent by 30 June 1 980. {: #subdebate-51-6-s1 .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator Chaney:
LP -- The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) Of the amount of $125.072m allocated in 1979-80 for my Department's programs (excluding departmental salaries and administrative expenses) $33. 9m or 27.1 per cent remained unspent as at 3 1 M arch 1 980. 1. It is not possible at this stage to estimate with accuracy how much of the allocation, if any, will remain unspent at 30 June 1980. Under-expenditure on some items is likely to be offset at least to some extent by unforeseen requirements for additional expenditure on others. Explanations of reallocations of this kind were provided in papers relating to the Additional Estimates at the Senate Estimates Committee 's hearing on 1 7 April. 2. I have not had any formal indication from the Queensland Government that any funds allocated to that State for Aboriginal advancement programs this year will remain unspent at 30 June 1980. Releases to the Queensland and other State Governments are made at two-monthly intervals throughout the year. As at 31 March 1980 a total of $5. 235m or 83.1 per cent of the $6. 302m allocated to the Queensland Government had been released. On the basis of the latest request from the Queensland Government for a release of cash, the indication is that some $417,000 may not be required for expenditure by 30 June. {:#subdebate-51-7} #### Animal Welfare (Question No. 2648) {: #subdebate-51-7-s0 .speaker-3V4} ##### Senator Chipp: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 15 April 1980: >Will the Government consider instituting an inquiry into all aspects of animal welfare, along the lines of the Brambell Inquiry in Britain, in the light of the recent disaster in which 40,605 sheep were burnt to death in the ship'Farid Fares'. {: #subdebate-51-7-s1 .speaker-K5H} ##### Senator Scott:
NCP/NP -- The Minister for Primary Industry has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >The welfare of animals is mainly under the jurisdiction of the States through their respective animal welfare legislation. However, it has become obvious that the Australian Government must interest itself in these matters. In my capacity as Minister for Primary Industry, I have had requests to institute an inquiry into aspects of animal welfare and have advised that my support would be conditional on support from the States and the welfare organisations on a national basis. > >I do not agree that the call for such an inquiry should be associated with the unfortunate accident to the ' Farid Fares '. Accidents such as fires at sea will happen from time to time in similar manner to bushfires, floods and other natural disasters which cause great loss of life on land. Solar Research {: #subdebate-51-7-s2 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- In answering a question without notice from **Senator Missen** on 6 March 1980 *(Hansard,* page 616) I said I would seek leave to have details of research being undertaken into solar energy incorporated in *Hansard.* Details of the National Energy Research, Development and Demonstration Program projects are provided below. CSIRO solar projects are listed in their publication 'CSIRO Research Programs 1979-80' and for the latest consolidated information on solar energy research in universities see 'A Directory of Australian Solar Energy Research and Development'- 1978, Department of National Development. Parliamentary Library {: #subdebate-51-7-s3 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -On 6 March 1980 *(Hansard,* page 615), on 15 April *(Hansard,* page 1437) and again on 22 April *(Hansard,* page 1626), **Senator Bishop** asked me questions without notice concerning the Parliamentary Library legislative research service. He particularly sought clarification of any limitations on the services the library is able to provide in respect of requests for information by members of Parliament. The answer is as follows: >The general question of any limitations on the services the Parliamentary Library is able to provide to members is, of course, a matter for the President to advise on. I have, however, raised the matter with the Prime Minister as I promised to do and the Prime Minister has provided the following advice in relation to the basis on which public servants make available information to the Parliamentary Library to assist in responding to member's requests. > >On 19 September 1978 (House of Representatives *Hansard,* page 1110) the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister had incorporated in *Hansard* guidelines relating to access by members of Parliament to public servants and officers of statutory authorities. Those guidelines, which were considered acceptable by the Leader of the Opposition, were also tabled in the Senate on the same day. Those guidelines have since been incorporated in the guidelines on official conduct of Commonwealth Public Servants issued by the Public Service Board in October 1 979- a copy of which is available in the Parliamentary Library. The government regards the guidelines relating to provision of information directly to members of Parliament to be equally applicable to the provision of information to the Parliamentary Library to be made available to members. > >The guidelines make it clear that officials should provide on request any readily available factual information and that this may extend to details of administrative arrangements and procedures involved in implementation of approved policies for legislation. On the other hand, officials are not authorised to express opinions on government policies or related matters. Members are expected to pursue with the responsible Minister any question of government policy or other issue of a sensitive nature. Classified information is not to be disclosed without proper authority. > >The issue of the guidelines has served to clarify the situation for all concerned. There has been no reduction of access to information by members of Parliament. Cigarettes {: #subdebate-51-7-s4 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -On 20 March 1980 *(Hansard,* page 868) **Senator Melzer** asked the Minister representing the Minister for Trade and Resources the following question, without notice: >The World Health Organisation has reported that cigarettes being exported to Third World countries contain nicotine tars two to four times more dangerous than those sold in the West. Can the Minister advise the Senate whether the multinational cigarette manufacturers in Australia are manufacturing and exporting such cigarettes? The Minister for Trade and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >Cigarette manufacturers in Australia are manufacturing and exporting cigarettes to a number of countries including Third World countries. The relevant statistics do not disclose the type of cigarettes exported from Australia or the source of leaf used in exported cigarettes. > >At present there are no legal restrictions on the permissible tar and nicotine contents of cigarettes manufactured in Australia either for local consumption or for export. > >Honourable Senators will be aware of the Ministerial statement which was tabled in the Senate on 1 9 March, on Government responses to the recommendations in the Report of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare on Drug Problems in Australia. Those responses embraced the question of tar and nicotine contents of cigarettes. Olympic Games {: #subdebate-51-7-s5 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -On 26 March 1980 *(Hansard,* page 1014) **Senator Bonner** asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, a question without notice concerning possible taxation write-offs for the loss of deposits paid by American citizens wishing to support the boycott of the Moscow Olympic Games. The Acting Treasurer has provided the following information in answer to the honourable senator's question: >Inquiries that have been made suggest there is no substance in the report referred to by the honourable senator. In any case, it may be premature to assume that, in this particular case, ticket cancellations will necessarily involve losses in respect of the deposits paid. > >More generally, Governments not infrequently require or suggest that certain things be done or not done on general policy grounds. Taxation incentives or offsets are not normally attached to such requirements or suggestions.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 28 April 1980, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1980/19800428_senate_31_s85/>.